![]() | 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 100 | ← | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 |
why is there a boxy thingy around the whole life story bit of jesus? I'd fix it myself, but i'm not very experienced in the ways of the wiki. 69.151.232.211 ( talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? They were so much better, and generally in keeping with the dominant (mannerist) theme. the roof of this court is too high to be yours ( talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
ummmmm sorry to jump in you guys argument but those pictures of jesus are not valid......the most renound pic of jesus is a pic of julius caesar's uncle because he painted his aunt unle and nephew for some paintings of jesus a long long time ago and those pics we still use today.....jesus prob looked like an arab of some sort look at where he came from not america lol if you dont think so listen to RAS KASS, Nature Of the Threat he will let you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ummmmm sorry to jump in you guys argument but those pictures of jesus are not valid......the most renound pic of jesus is a pic of julius caesar's uncle because he painted his aunt unle and nephew for some paintings of jesus a long long time ago and those pics we still use today.....jesus prob looked like an arab of some sort look at where he came from not america lol
Guys, I propose ending this thread. Kalindoscopy has stated that "I'm not interested in arguments, debates or challenges" and also does not care for our policies either. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this discussion is not about improving the article. Please take it to your talk pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the original opening image. While the new one was perhaps more appealing to the eye, the original one has a greater historic value, which I believe trumps the value of the image used to replace it. Some of the others do appear to be nicer, and just as useful, but there were multiple images that were sandwiched, that is violation of MOS. If you want to change the images lets just take the one at a time. Which one do you want to change first, and why would changing it add value to the article, besides "visual appearance". Please do not continue to be antagonistic, and stick to the topic and hand. Charles Edward 11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Christian fanatics censoring offending images. Does it remind you of other fanatics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.238.46 ( talk) 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You guys are killing me. I say leave the pics as they are, or simply have no pics...Hey, I'm a Southern Baptist from Mississippi, and I've seen plenty of "ugly" pics of Jesus...One of my Bibles has pictures that are pure American cheese.... Mikepope ( talk) 06:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
actually they are pretty imaginary......those are not the real pics of jesus thOse are what julius caesar {the painter} was paid to paint he painted his aunt uncle and nephew and ever since they have used that pic for tha face of jesus but may i remind you that jesus is not from america so how would he look lik that?????how could his skin be so pale living were he did?????it's impossible guys im sorry it just is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT JESUS LOOKS LIKE THOSE PICS ARE IMAGINARY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
huh, well, does it not seem disrespectful to call the pictures imaginary? ..where did you get that from? julius caeser was painting his aunt, uncles and nephews?! and jesus is in fact not from america..so..? it's like saying (if) you had a relative living in another country, it doesnt mean that you dont know how they look like..and the pictures dont have to look exactly like jesus..they may have run out of dark peach when they were painting the pictures for all we know. and seriously, this convo is starting to turn to: all pictures of jesus are imaginary Pictures of jesus could have been drawn by the people who were living with him, the ones who he talked with, and most likely, there should be many of these. Randomlife7 ( talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
IT STATES THAT JEWS BELIVE JESUS IT PART OF THE HOLY TRINITY. THIS IS INCORRECT AS ALL SECTS OF JUDAISM STATE JESUS IS NOT OUR SAVIOR, MESSIAH, OR GOD. WE DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HIM A PROPHET, AS THE ARTICLE EVEN STATES PLEASE CHANGE THE INCORRECT FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.3.246 ( talk) 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The letter J was not even in the alphabet back then it is one of the last letters to be added yoshua be yosef was his name..........and how did he {jesus} be killed and rise from the grace if pontius had him killed before that for sedition against rome..........and if you have ever heard the stories of gilgimish you would know something was wrong....thw whole book of genesis was stolen from the book of gilgimish including the serpant,the tree,the forbidden fruit, all of it stolen from a story written over 1000 years before the bible was —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.149.205.146 (
talk)
15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD!!!!!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.58.17.243 (
talk)
18:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In Albanian language: TI IE=IE(you are)+ZEUS(greek god) = IEZEUS (you are god)
I have often come across hostile members to a thread, that appear to have a conflict.
My post on this talk page was not only quesitoned, whichis acceptable but it was deleted.
Preaching? To other religions ?
This is a site about Jesus Christ a preacher, and I was pointing out how a most important concept to this topic was missing....and still is...wonder why ?
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a section, that I believe very important, a direct challenge to Christians...
I believe this section should be added somewhere...
Thanks...
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, if something is being proposed to add to the article, it should have a reputable source that supports the position. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes or a series of opinions. Nothing that has been proposed is something that meets the policy.-- Storm Rider 23:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source...? Mathew....etc. is not reliable. Its an important statement that creates a very unique paradox, that is biblical.
As to preaching...if i were to suggest my research into the discovery of a dark side to truth that confirms the original sin, and how the message of Jesus Christ links to that, then I would have been preaching. ;)
I can't believe the amount of 'protectionism' against truths in this world...even quotable ones.
--
Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti
(talk)
14:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
We should allow open discussion of the topic, even the 'most politicvally unaceptable' because we may never know the whole truth...about most all things...so that does leave a door open to.
My post was to emphasize a critical point, that most of us Christains fall to connect to and this appears to be politically incorrect. A direct reference to God on earth; the "Christs" on earth...
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
does it really matter whether you're a christian or not? its not "inappropriate" to include that quote in there. its just that noone really bothered. and why can't it be included..its not like its offending anyone, and even if you did add that in, it doesnt mean you're preaching, you're just adding a fact to the page, something that was written down and was said by Jesus when he lived. Randomlife7 ( talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
sure Randomlife7 ( talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It contains a self-contradiction
Reference 9 [ Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, p.370] is not available to me, so perhaps someone could check. Could one page in a dictionary be a good source for all that? Searching [ "Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World" levine ] brings back only mirrors of this article -- JimWae ( talk) 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed 2 of the logical problems with that paragraph. Now, we need to deal wth the fact that her curricula vitae does not list that work - and it is listed as a ref TWICE in the lede -- JimWae ( talk) 04:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As suspected, it was not a dictionary that dealt with this - the correct title of the work is Oxford History of the Biblical World. We still need quotes to support this sentence -- JimWae ( talk) 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate.[6][7] Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. It is also generally accepted that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[8][9]"
The sources do not support the claim that "most" scholars agree on the assertions in this paragraph; in fact [7] refutes it by citing scholars which disagree with the claims. [8] cites several names, but no evidence of a consensus or majority opinion of any kind, while [9] simply quotes a single author. — Memotype:: T 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this rubbish is still there! What does "partially accurate" mean? Is that like 'a little pregnant', or 'slightly dead'? The phrase is meaningless... actually it is misleading. It is implying accuracy that it fails to substantiate. Which smells like POV to me. To paraphrase the actuality of what is being said: 'The Gospels are mostly not accurate about his life.' No? Would 'Some scholars believe that there was a man called Jesus who lived in that area at that time that sort of fits the bill', be a bit closer to the mark? Isn't the choice of the word "accurate" completely inappropriate for something so woolly and lacking in hard facts and clear archaeology? As it stands it read like 'Scientists think Jesus really existed and by extension the Bible is a really reliable source of data'
212.139.72.88 (
talk)
15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The Intro states : The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels though some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus. This sentence is kinda chunky. While other texts may in fact be as relevant, this does not make them principal sources of information regarding Jesus. 64.122.70.121 ( talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Should be cut, but I can't Jzeise ( talk) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know original research is not allowed to be cited, but can we add citations for the arrest trial and death section that aren't from the bible, but other original documents? Soxwon ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change [[Category:Jesus|Jesus]] to [[Category:Jesus|*]]. Jesus is the topic article of the category and thus should be sorted specially, not simply as if it was just another article in the category. Also, because Jesus is the topic article, it should be in almost all the same categories that Category:Jesus is in, such as Category:Founders of religions. Please add the appropriate category tag, [[:Category:Founders of religions]]. -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of categorization errors, for some reason this article is in the non-existent and mis-spelled "A-Class Chrsitianity articles" category (see below). I don't know where it comes from, but it should be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I consider myself a Gnostic. Here is my question: Why is Jesus dying on the cross consider to have washed away our sins? I've always been confused as to why it was necessary for Jesus to die to rid us of our sins, or to have our sins forever forgiven. I believe He died trying to deliver the truth us, is that what is meant by died for our sins. I believe he came to teach us, because we were getting it all wrong. Does that mean before Jesus came everyone went to "hell" even if they asked forgiveness and changed their ways. I guess my question in a nut shell: Jesus died for our sins, how so?-- Cinshif ( talk) 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Christians seem to me to have so many ideas about jesus I think they merit their own article. I propose calling it ... Christianity. Actually., Christians just seem so full of ideas, I suggest we create a new article just on what they think about the crucifixion ... how about calling it Christology? Leadwind refers to some different kinds of questions, Leadwind do you think you could work up a stub on Roman Catholicism and another on Protestants? It just see these Protestants or whatever have so many thoughts they could use their own article. Just an idea. Mull it over. (by the way, I do not knock any of this, I think having ideas is cool!) Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Im an agnostic and i wanna believe but it's just to many flaws so plz help me..............1st question i was told that the cross wasnt invented when jesus was crucified how can this be.......#2 how could he have set the egyptians free if he was killed by pontius????? #3how can ppl pray to a vision of a man that is not even jesus that is a pic of juluis caesar's uncle or nephew he was paid to paint that after jesus's death and he used his aunt uncle and nephew for inspiration and millions of ppl use that as face of jesus proposterious.......#4 last but not least THE WHOLE BOOK OF GENESIS IS STOLEN...from the book of gilgimish it's the exact same story written over 1000 years before the bible was so how could it be true....i fell the bible was used for entertainment a long time ago and we use it as a religion once again proposterious....someone plz help me wit my dilemma.............I feel jesus was a good man and had a good reason to be here but believing he walked onw ter and made earth wit a snap of the finger and all the other magical stuff i have to say i dont believe it one bit listen to the song Nature of the Threat, by Ras Kass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 15:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
well sir i have been lookin 4 answers all over ive even tok cross country trips to religious sites n still have came up empty handed so if u could step out of your comfort zone just this once and answer my questions i would greatly appreciate it........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of comfort zones. This is just an place to discuss the article itself, not questions like that. Some editors here have shown interest in answering these questions. Check above, email them. 157.182.29.91 ( talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Isus redirects here to Jesus, but nothing further is mentioned about the name Isus. Perhaps someone "in the know" could add something to the article explaining how Isus fits into this? Thanks. -- Rob ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
In Albanian language: TI IE=IE(you are)+ZEUS(greek god) = IEZEUS (you are god)
I've added the disputed tag because I feel this article meets the guidelines for it. Before removing the tag, please provide clear evidence to support that the factual accuracy of this man's existence and the actions attributed to him in the article really happened. Thanks. Retoru ( talk) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, then. There is absolutely no verifiable factual evidence cited anywhere in the article that lends any credence to the events depicted in the article. The only real citation from the period in question is the bible, which is not an accepted book of history by either the historical or scientific communities. All other sources in the article cite the bible in their own bibliographies, which as I've already established is a questionable piece of literature.
I don't mind articles on fiction being on Wikipedia, it's a repository for all human knowledge, real or fictional, but putting up articles that cannot be proven as nonfiction as such is misleading and a warning is needed to show that the content of the article has not been proven to be accurate by respected historical or scientific sources. Retoru ( talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited the lead to qualify the sentence that included mention of the Gospel of Thomas. I then saw the message asking editors to come to the talk page before making any changes. Sorry, I missed that before my edit which can be reverted since it is unreferenced. My point in making it though is to raise the issue that mention of that Gospel is not followed by the fact that it has been roundly rejected as a viable source by a substantial majority of the world's Christians and Muslims, not just in our own time but for centuries (millenia!) I think the sentence, unamended is misleading Reader. NancyHeise talk 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
shouldnt this be listed? all comic-book characters have this listed, can we get a heading of all his superpowers. i know he isnt a comic-book character but, he did have superpowers right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 ( talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
what a condescending attitude! i am no "boy" nor am i "stupid" i may not be a snob but i felt my question was valid, perhaps could have been posed "heey make a section that stated a listing of his miracle abilites or whatever that should be a significvant point in an article of jesus, no? . perhaps you need tact, actually please just disregard and delete this then if it is so stupid and ridiculous. i never should have said comic book right? i just have to defer to your wisdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 ( talk) 01:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
i know this convo was posted some time ago, but 67.70.0.172, your question woulda been valid, if you had asked it another way. comparing a comic strip to Jesus offends many, and in many ways offends Jesus himself. since like Gabr-el#top said, Jesus's powers is infinite, so don't refer it as though he has a limited amount of it, and do not treat him and everything about him (including his powers) without any respect, even in speech and in typing. if i were you, i would have asked instead for a list of miracles Jesus preformed that were recorded down to be put on the page, that, i think is more 'relevant' and appropriate than referring Jesus as a character in a comic strip or anything else you may refer to him as with lack of respect. Randomlife7 ( talk) 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I am adding scholarly references to the gospel accounts section, a section that otherwise violates verifiability standards (it's all referenced to primary sources). Leadwind ( talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Leadwind is mixing up two very different questions. The first is, "What do the Gospels day" and the Gospels themselves are fine sources for just (and just) that. The second question is, what "really" happened and here NPOV becomes a major concern because different people have different beliefs. What historians think and what Christians think for example are often different. Here we definitely need secondary sources, but these views belong in other sections (where indeed they are already found). It is very dangerous to mix up "what the Gospels say" with "what actually happened" as Leadwind is doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I think debates over what the individual Gospels mean, as well as debates over manuscripts and the history of the texts themselves, is legitimately covered by ood secondary sources, and does merit its own article - ideally one article each for each o the Gospels, going over the history of the scrolls or folios, and diferent interpretions, and a fifth article on "the Gospels" as a section of the NT. I do not oppose dawing on this research, i just think it belongs in other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The section is "according to the Gospels" Not according to the Catholic Church, not according to Bart Ehrman. What policy says we cannot use Mak in a section that tells us what Mark says? We use secondary sources for forwarding arguments, interpretations, and explanations. My point is that arguments over explanations and interpretations, including arguments over the validity or use of the sources, belongs in other sections of the article. My point is about the organization of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, dude, the burden is on you. You want to alter something that has been in the article for at least a couple of years. The burden is on you to show that it is in violation of policy. What policy says this is not allowed? Quote, please. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I repeat, please provide me with a policy that supports your view. V does not. Ve demands that the article be based on reliable secondary sources and this article meets that standard and then some. Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia, thsy just cannot be used to further an argument. This section uses primary sources only to summarize what the Gospels say; not to make any argument.
You, Leadwind, are injecting your own POV into this article by taking one section of the article - and it is only one section of a MUCh longer article - that does not make any argument, and you are rewriting it to further an argument. As i said, this article is not the place for discussions of arguments over the interpretation of the Gospels - that belongs in an article on the Gospels. And your selective use of sources does dot do a fair jo of illustrating the wide range of interpretation and argument over the interprettion of the Gospels. Do it, but do it right, and in articles on the Gospels. This article states that most historians rely on the Gospels as the main source on Jesus' life; it is reasonable to have one section of the article summarize what the Gospels say. And if ll we are doing is using Mark as a source for what mark says, well, that is fully compliant with our policies. it is clearly verifiable as anyone can get a copy of mark and see that mark says what we claim he says. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I repeat, provide a policy that supports your position. As i explained, WP:V does not support your position. there is no Wikipedia policy that flatly prohibits the use of primary sources. Mark is a reliable source, as I explained. If English is not your primay language I should explain that "reliable" and "secondary" do not mean the same thing. Primary and secondary sources refer to whether the sources provide information or interpretations or arguments about that information; reliability has to do with the confidence we have that the source is the appropriate one for the information it claims to provide. There is no more reliable source for what the book of Mark says than the Book of Mark.
This is not a debate about sources. This is a debate about information versus argument. The section on the Gospel account does not provide any interpretation or explanation of the Gospels it simply describes what the Gospels say. Now please provide a policy explaining that this is omehow forbidden. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Once the section becomes a section that is about interpretations rather than a straightforward description of the sources, then we are obliged to include every notable interpretation. I hope you have the Anchor Bible by your side. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is about policy, and I agree that primary sources cannot be used to forward any editor's interpretation or argument. This article uses plenty of secondary sources - I know, i have added many - and i am glad it does, and these secondary sources are a huge part of what makes this a great articles. But th policy does not forbid primary sources. As long as we use the Gospel as sources only for an account of what the Gospels themselves say, without using them to make any of our own interpretive claims about what the Gospels "mean," then we are not violating policy.I respect your concern about people combining quotes from different Gospels to create a synthesis that is not in any one Gospel. I do not think that this requires us to abandon using primary sources, but if your point is that we must use them carefully I am glad to say we are in full agreement. I see a value in a section on "according to the Gospels" under one condition and one condition only: that it provides only straightforward an account of what the Gospels say, without using them to forward any argument. I see value in this and would not want to sacrifice it, but I would agree that the citations cannot be combined to say something not in any one Gospel. What I propose is this: instead of looking for secondary sources to ass to the "according to the Gospels" section's argumentative claims, we should delete anything that is not pure description of what the Gospels say. In other sections I think you and I already agree: any interpretive or explanatory argument needs a secondary source. I realize you may still not agree but i hope at least i am presenting my view clearly. I hope you will consider that it is forwarded in good faith and is meant to comply with our NOR policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think these are all very reasonable issues to discuss. Just to share some history: I was not the person who created this section. When it was created, I had the same concerns. there was real discussion involving many editors here and there seemed to be a consensus to keep it, as long as descriptive claims (this is found only in mark vs. this is found in the three synoptic gospels vs. this is in both Luke and Matthew, but in different versions) were as straightforward as possible. Now, Rbreen, if you and Leadwind want to reopen this discussion, I have no objection, but I would suggest you take ten or fifteen minutes to see when the section was added and by whom, look at the discussion from that time to see who supported it, and try to get their attention and bring them back to the discussion. For the moment, my opinion is this: the concerns Rbreen raises are the critical ones worth discussion. I know Leadwind's efforts and comments were all in good faith, I just think they missed the mark. We either have a section "According to the Gospels" which stickes solely to primary sources but only to provide the most limited and direct account i.e. NO interpretive claims at all, OR we delete the section in its entirety. And just to repeat a comment I made earlier because it is apropos, I would encourage Leadwind's work of looking for the significant views in secondary sources concerning analysis, interpretation, explanation, of each of the canonical Gospels as well as the process by which the four were made canonical but put all of that in the specific articles on Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. i say this because i acknowledge the great value of the work Leadwind started, but I do not think it (meaning an account of all significant interpretations of each Gospel etc.) can be accommodated in this article. To comply with NPOV, once we start providing interpretations and textual or literary analysis, we have to include all significant views, and this is more appropriate to the articles on each specific book. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Rbreen, I beg you to reconsider AndrewC's post in light of a couple of points I want to make. You write "Firstly, Leadwind is correct to point out that Wikipedia policy strongly favours third party sources rather than primary sources." With all due respect, this is a non-issue. This article IS largely based on reliable secondary sources. But it is a profound distortion of NOR and V to suggest simply that Wikipedia "favors" secondary over primary sources. It demands secondary sources for analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory claims. It allows primary sources for purely descriptive claims. Obviously since this is an encyclopedia Wikipedia "favors" secondary sources, because we want to provide good accounts of interpretations, analysis, etc. But this article and linked articles do that, and it is not the point. The point is that primary sources are allowed for descriptive claims. Leadwind has been adding secondary sources and thus interpretations to this section and it is adding the interpretations that is the violation of NOR, not the lack of secondary sources. You write "I cannot see why an article about a historical personage should begin with a summary of primary sources, fenced off from the historical analysis. No other article takes this approach as far as I am aware" and you may be true but I think particular circumstances apply here: the canonical gospels constitute the overwhelming bulk of the source material historians use, and they are not very long. So it is easy for us to summarize each Gospel, and it does a major service because it shows readers what raw material historians are asking questions about. Historians have written many books about Jesus, but they all take the Gospels as their starting point. Now, some people may think that including the Gospels somehow means we think they are "true." That is a mistake but the solution is not to cut the accounts of the Gospels, the solution is to make sure that readers know that the accounts are of primary source material that historians examine and interpret critically, that for historians the question of who and when these gospels were written are open questions; the question of the extent to which they draw on earlier texts that no longer exist (oral or written) is an open question; the question of how much they tell us about the life of a man named Jesus who may have lived, versus how much they tell us of the beliefs of the authors, is debated - these are the things we need to be clear about so that readers of this article will learn something about how real historians work. Of course, these are also the principal sources for Christian theologians and it is fair to do the same thing for theology. In any event, our policies definitely allow us to provide descriptive accounts that are not used to promote any one argument, and in the case of Jesus a descriptive account of each of the gospels gives readers a clear point of references for articles on both Christology AND the "historical" Jesus which is indeed a very valuable service. But to remain compliant with policy we cannot be adding secondary sources - to do so would be to change this from an simple description of what the Gospels say to an argument about their meaning and suddenly, we are violating NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that he is not dismissing 'elitist university types', but making the point that their views are disproportional and small compared to the views of none elitist types. If you want to make an article about what 'elitists university types' think, then make one under that title, but I believe this page should cover the general spectrum of what most people understand about Jesus, If I do not know anything about Jesus and what others think about Him, this is the place I would expect to find some of those answers, we should then point to other pages for those that want more specific information. Hardyplants ( talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's my compromise offer: We keep the section, even though, as Rbreen says, its very constitution is suspect. And the only scholarship is about the content of the gospels' descriptions of Jesus, not interpretation. For example, nothing about historians favoring the idea that Jesus really was baptized, betrayed, and executed. I agree with Rbreen that this section is effectively the history section. It's also POV for this section to summarize the four canonical gospels. From whose perspective does that make sense? It makes sense to a theologian, not to a historian. In a spirit of compromise, I'm OK with leaving a "four Christian gospels" section in an NPOV article, but then it really needs to be scholarly to prevent the inherent bias from distorting the NPOV. I agree with Andrew that the beliefs of Christians are more important to this page than findings of historians. No historians would give a hoot about Jesus if it weren't for the Christians. If this section is to be "what Christians get from the Gospels" section, that's fine, slip it under Christian views. Even so, we'll want to use scholarship to write the section. I lean heavily on the Jesus Seminar because they are comprehensive, and they represent not one scholar's view but the general view of Funk, Harris, Crossan, Borg, and other notable scholars. If someone can suggest a different, more mainstream comprehensive guide to the gospels and historical Jesus, suggest it. At this point, I could switch to using the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. It leans friendly to Christian faith, so it ought not be controversial. Or maybe I'll just lay off for a while, so as not to try your patience. Leadwind ( talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I don't like disagreeing with you, or with Rubenstein. Let's see if we can reach some understanding. You say "trying to spin together what ALL SCHOLARS say about Jesus is pure pandemonium." I haven't heard anyone suggest that we attempt such a work. I surely haven't. All I want to summarize is what the scholars say the gospels say about Jesus (as opposed to what the WP editors say the gospels say about Jesus). For example, William Wrede established the messianic secret c 1901, the theme in Mark that Jesus hides his divine identity. Wrede further concluded that Mark treats Jesus' identity as a secret to accommodate the fact that Jesus never claimed to be divine in the first place. The gospel section on this page should include half this information, the raw fact of the messianic secret. The second half, that Wrede and scholars in his tradition have an unflattering explanation for why there is a messianic secret, is a second order of interpretation and doesn't belong here. What the last supper is, sure. How it's similar to pagan memorial meals and unappealing to Jewish sensibilities, no. That Luke and Matthew have very different birth stories? Sure. That fictitious miraculous birth stories were frequently appended to the lives of saints? No. We don't have to say everything. But when we summarize what the gospels say about Jesus, we should (as we do everywhere) let the scholars guide us and cite them. I could go further and say that this whole section is out of place. Are we talking about historical Jesus and Christian Jesus? If historical Jesus, then the gospel section would be very different. If the Christian Jesus, then move the section under Christian view. Rbreen is right that this section implicitly carries the weight of a "history" or "biography" section, but its actual identity is ambivalent. Which "Jesus" are we talking about? That said, as long as this section has scholarship behind it, I won't make a fuss about scripture standing in place of biography. Leadwind ( talk) 06:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there isn't enough of Jesus's Jewish life in here. Maybe an expansion is in order? Dr.House ( The Man) ( talk) 14:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this, to talk, for discussion:
This is new to me; Leadwind did some other edits for criteria that are all familiar to me but I do not know where this comes from. Considered more authentic by whom? Christians? Theologians? Historians? In fact, I would think any text from a long time ago and considered sacred would be filled with arresting images or strange events; this attests to the power of literature and not to its antiquity. I will never forget the spaceship scene in The Life of Brian and that scene may be one of the reasons people keep watching the film but it has no bearing on its age or authenticity. Can we source it to a major historian (Meier or Sanders would more than satisfy me)? Also, the meaning of "arresting" and "confounding" may be obvious to some but not to me, it seems subjective compared to the other criteria, what exactly do historians mean? Slrubenstein | Talk
The lede contains the following words, "...and he is considered an incarnation of God by the Rastafari movement." I suggest that this be removed from the article, as there are numerous problems with this passage. Following from a mention of Islam, it seems to imply that Islam and the Rastafari movement are equally important, which is certainly not true. It also seems to imply that the Rastafari movement is not Christian, something which many or most Rastas would disagree with (if Rastas are Christians, there is no more reason for a separate mention of them here than there would be a need for a separate mention of Catholics, or any other denomination). One must also ask, why mention the Rastas in the lede but not a hundred other cults or groups that also happen to accept Jesus? Finally, it is unsourced.
This article says that the resting place of Jesus is "A garden tomb, traditionally located in what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." However, Christians believe that Jesus is no longer on this earth in physical form, for He sits at the right hand of God the Father. There is absolutely no evidence that the body of Christ is still on this earth, and since Jesus is primarily a Christian figure, shouldn't the article reflect the beliefs of Christians? I will not change the article right now, but perhaps someone else would like to chime in? -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Muslims and Christians dispute the existence of Jesus' physical body on earth right now, and they make up a slight majority of 55% of the worlds population. Gabr- el 04:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Paul makes a good point. I do not like the euphemism, "resting place," but be that as it may, resting place is not a final resting place. There are many "resting places" that were once occupied but are no longer occupied. Since the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is a pilgramage site for many Christians, apparently they too believe that it was Jesus's resting place. Or do they mean something else by the word "sepulcher?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyone who actually believes the Holy Sepulchre was the last resting place of Jesus? It seems to me that the only people who believe Jesus was buried in the tomb are Christians - the same ones who believe he then rose from the dead and his body is no longer on earth. On the other hand, those who do not believe Jesus rose from the dead tend to discount the tomb story entirely as a Christian fiction and assume he was buried somewhere else, probably in a common grave (though I have a friend who assures me he saw the tomb of Jesus in India). A small minority argue that the body was stolen or moved elsewhere. What everybody agrees is that the body of Jesus is not there now. So therefore it is only Christians who believe the tomb was ever the resting place of Jesus, and everyone agrees it was not the final resting place. What we have in the article seems to be the one thing nobody believes. -- Rbreen ( talk) 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
After reading Michael Grant's bio i am even more confused. But in a good way. Given Jesus' immediate message of entering the kingdom of heaven, as a Jew was he speaking directly for Jews only? Mainly? Or was his message meant for Jews and gentiles alike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.140.22 ( talk) 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets make it amply clear for you all. If Jesus' message were only for Jews, then why are there so many non-Jewish Christians? A contradiction, don't you think?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gabr- el 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a brief subsection to the "what to do the gospels say about Jesus" section. It seems relevant to the topic, and I'm not sure why it's not covered. This isn't the history section, it's the gospel section, and this is a noteworthy feature of John's gospel. If someone feels like reverting me, go ahead, but then explain why here. For the ease of your review, allow me to quote my text: "The Gospel of John opens with a hymn identifying Jesus as the divine Logos, or Word, that formed the universe (John 1:1-5;9-14).[26] Jesus' earthly life was the Logos incarnate (John 1:14).[26]" Footnotes are to Harris, a university textbook.
First, the genealogy section is too picky, with reference to Levi, etc. This is a summary, and the genealogies aren't that big a deal compared to Jesus' resurrection, teachings, etc. Second, there are two different nativity stories, and they sort of get mushed together. It sort of sounds like the wise men showed up at the manger. But Luke and Matthew have different nativity stories, one homey and sweet, where a little drummer boy might show up. But in Matthew, it's Magi and the King who take note, not shepherds and farm animals. So let's reorg this so that each nativity sequence gets its due.
The genealogy and nativity sections are too long, longer than the more important baptism and temptation section. Read the sections for yourself and see. I propose a shorter treatment that also distinguishes Luke's and Matthew's different accounts, thus:
Matthew and Luke each provide a genealogy of Jesus and a story of his birth. In both gospels, Jesus is descended from King David and born of a virgin in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of prophecy. His mother is Mary and her husband is Joseph. In Matthew, wise men from the East come with gifts for the one born King of the Jews, and Herod tries to kill Jesus by slaughtering the infant boys of Bethlehem. To escape, the family flees to Egypt. In Luke, John the Baptist has his own miraculous conception. He is Jesus' cousin, and he recognizes Jesus while both are in the womb. During a census, Mary is forced to give birth in a stable, and angels lead shepherds to the newborn child. Matthew's and Luke's respective genealogies cannot be readily reconciled.
Maybe this is too short, but it's a good start. Comments? Leadwind ( talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Could the opening line give the years of Jesus' life span as (c 0 to c 30)? Then deal with the details and the ranges in the body of the article? Leadwind ( talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Jesus lived to be 33 not 30-- 71.227.87.59 ( talk) 08:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
About 30 means maybe 27-33 to me. It may mean something more exact to you, but it does not mean exactly 30. Luke tries to be quite clear on the year JB started, but did not try to do so for Jesus> I think John is regarded as the least chronological of the gospels, no? -- JimWae ( talk) 05:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I split it into subsections with headers. Previously, it was a number of paragraphs with not much for transitions and not much for sequence. Each subsection needs a look to make it cohere to the header. I'd do the work on the subsections myself, but I thought I should let the community comment before I invested more time into it. I hope it is clear that in this case at least I'm merely trying to improve comprehension, not push a POV in one direction or another. Headers help readers and editors orient themselves. Leadwind ( talk) 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the headers. I think each subsection is still going to need a look over. Leadwind ( talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone provide on example, rom a reliable and notable source, of a significant Bible scholar who rejects the existence of Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
By "Bible scholar" I meant anyone with expertise in Biblical languages and the analysis of Biblical texts. Such scholars generally divide into people studying the Bible as literature, or Biblical history (which I mean broadly, to include people who study the historical period described in the Bible, as well as the historical period in which the Bible was written and edited). So I consider this an inclusive term. Obviously the opinions of a US Civil War historian or an economic historian focusing on 20th century France are irrelevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There must be some, perhaps Marginal Jew has a compilation of the arguments. 68.123.64.168 ( talk) 17:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You all might be interested in looking at Jesus myth hypothesis, which covers the idea that there was no historical Jesus. If you find this idea interesting, you may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis, which badly needs additional input.
To answer the question asked at the beginning of this section, Robert M. Price, a biblical scholar (under Slrubenstein's definition), is sympathetic to the notion that Jesus didn't exist, but in what I've read he says that this is likely the case, rather than saying that Jesus definitely didn't exist. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there were a number of authors, some fairly influential, who argued that Jesus didn't exist--to name two, Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews. Bauer might qualify as a biblical scholar, but is probably best thought of as a philosopher; Arthur Drews was a philsopher. More recently, George Albert Wells wrote a number of books arguing that Jesus didn't exist; he is a professor of German rather than a biblical scholar, but seems fairly well-informed about 18th/19th century German theology and biblical scholarship. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those really general sentences that doesn't really tell you much, and it's really long. It looks like a sentence that had stuff tacked on, making it too long. A trick I learned is to test text is to read it aloud. Try this sentence. "Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents in Israel, including differences between Galilee and Judea, and between different sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75] and in terms of conflicts among Jews in the context of Roman occupation." Anyone want to work on it? Leadwind ( talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious conditions in Israel at that time, taking into account the separate political districts of Galilee and Judea, the different religious sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75]), and the power struggles among Jews within the context of the Roman occupation." --
JimWae (
talk)
22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No that is not correct - the research is very much concerned with differences between Judea and the Galil, Vermes, Sanders, many others pay attention to these differences. By the way, the word "currents" does not mean current with your life, it means current with Jesus's life. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
"Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious conditions in Israel at that time, taking into account the separate political districts of Galilee and Judea, the different religious sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75]), and the power struggles among Jews within the context of the Roman occupation." - this was JimWae's original before deleting the Galilee section.
Gabr-
el
00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So? Anyway, the source of your (Gabr-el) confusion I think is the anachronistic and inappropriate use of the word Israel in the sentence. I tried fixing it, directly in the article. Let me know if you (all of you) do not think it is an improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if we split the sentence up (which we must), it doesn't convey much information. It's like a sentence in a high school essay in which the author mentions topics without telling the reader much of anything. What are these "contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents"? What do the "Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots" have to do with anything? Here's an alternative: "Scholars reconstruct Jesus' life based on the historical context of Roman occupation, political unrest, and apocalyptic expectations. Some investigate the differences between Galilee (Jesus' home) and Judea (location of the Temple and the center of Jewish life). They also examine how Jesus' ministry may have been influenced by the apocalyptic Essenes, opposed by the rabbinic Pharisees and by the Sadduccees of the Temple, or connected to the armed Zealots." Leadwind ( talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
SLR's recent edit is a step in the right direction. Leadwind ( talk) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The lede lays out some undisputed findings, e.g., crucifixion under Pilate. Excellent. But it also specifies that the charge was sedition. Scholars agree that he was crucified as a threat to political authority, but the sedition charge, and lots of the trial in general, could well be apostolic elaboration. Here's the sentence. "They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." I'd like to change that from "on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" to "as a threat to the social order." That's pretty much universal. The sentence cites Crossan. Anyone know what he thinks about the charges against Jesus? It looks like the Sadducees got him after the money-changer incident, and he doesn't seem to have been killed for his teachings, but was he executed as a trouble maker or for sedition? I think it's an open question. Anybody? Leadwind ( talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A threat to social order is vague and not a capital offence. Most historians believe there was practically no religious order, and threats to that were not capital crimes. Be that as it may, the sentence is only about what most historians agree on, and the majority agree that he was executed on charges of sedition. That is one POV. feel free to include other POVs but do not distort this accurate statement of one notable POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe people don't understand the word sedition? Perhaps a link to Wiktionary:sedition? 68.123.64.168 ( talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if you want Crossan's views on the topic, read his Who Killed Jesus?. 68.123.64.168 ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue I have with the sentence is that it covers the two top rock-solid touchstones of historical investigation (baptism and crucifixion) and then throws in a third issue that's not rock-solid (sedition charge). "They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." If we're going to include two rock-solid facts, maybe the third fact should be the third most solid fact: that Jesus was betrayed. Also, Jesus was arrested by the temple police, apparently on the Sadducees' initiative. Why does "sedition" get such prominent placement when betrayal and the Sadducees don't? Leadwind ( talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Leadwind wrote: "The thing that puzzles me about the "charge" of sedition is that it presumes there was a trial. I'm not sure there was a trial, let alone a charge."
Trials were only for Roman citizens. The charge was INRI, placed on the cross, decreed by Pilate. Not denying the claim of being King of the Jews, at a time when Rome alone held the right to proclaim a King of the Jews if any at all (at the time there was no official King of the Jews though there were some Herodians in charge of other territories), was an act of sedition, punishable by crucifixion for non-Roman citizens. 68.123.65.174 ( talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We can have media/cultural references on Mike Tyson Howard Hughes Nostradamus and so on. But none on JESUS??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.223.37 ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
To quote the article "Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a deist, created the Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the other supernatural aspects of the Bible."
What is the source for Jefferson being a deist? I find different facts & opinions of Jefferson's "religion" with each site I visit.
Would it make the article more complete to mention the disagreement over Jefferson or delete "and a deist" from the sentence?
Sparkal2526 ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Australian astronomer Dave Reneke puts the date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth at June 17, 2 BCE. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence in this paragraph is hard to believe. It portrays everything about Jesus except the few facts lists as inconclusive. Really? "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate,[5][6] agreeing that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[7][8] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation.[9]" Is it true that scholars are more sure that Pilate personally ordered Jesus' crucifixion than that Jesus told parables about the Kingdom of God? Anyway, here's my take on this couple of sentences: "Critical scholars discern historical elements in the gospels, based on which they portray Jesus as a Galilean Jew, regarded as a teacher and healer. Historical Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, told parables about the Kingdom of God, violated social norms. In Jerusalem at a time of high tensions, he caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified for sedition. Scholars propose various conclusions about Jesus' message, chronology, authentic sayings, political background, and social class." Leadwind ( talk) 02:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Starting over. Here are the three sentences in the intro about historical Jesus. The first two are pretty good but could be better. The real problem is the last sentence, which says that only those facts already cited in these two WP sentences are solid, everything else is inconclusive. It's simply not believable that a scholar cites these particular facts and none others that are historically reliable. This sentence takes open questions (did Pilate order the crucifixion?) and calls them conclusive while implying that basic facts, such as that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, don't even get a mention. Read the sentences yourself. "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate,[6][7] agreeing that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[8][9] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation." Finally, this last sentence is one of those "non-sentences" that plague college freshman theme writing. This sentence leaves us wondering what the heck it means. Jesus' religious orientation? I don't even know what the question is. He's already been identified as Jewish. Do some people think he's Buddhist? So, leaving aside my issues with the first two sentences, let me suggest an alternative third sentence. The point here is to inform the reader and make the topic interesting: "Scholars offer competing descriptions Jesus as a self-described Messiah, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, an itinerant sage, a charismatic healer, and the founder of an independent religious movement." The point here is to inform the reader about Jesus, not about scholarship. The reader wants to know who Jesus was, not the answer to the question: Which aspects of Jesus' life are inconclusive among academics? Leadwind ( talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The section on Jesus' genealogy states the following: "The genealogies cannot be harmonized..." referring to the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke. However, the link at the start of this section called "Genealogy of Jesus" clearly provides historical material outside of the Bible that does harmonize the two differing accounts. More specifically, the ancient historian Eusebius has documented that while Joeseph had two fathers - one called Eli and the other called Jacob - one was his biological father (Jacob) but the other (Eli) was his legal father who died childless. According to levitical laws, Jacob was required to produce offspring for Eli. You need to modify the section that states that "the genealogies cannot be harmonized" and indicate that "while the gospel accounts cannot be harmonized from the biblical context, historical sources outside of the Bible do provide accounts that may be used to harmonize this genealogy" (or something to that affect).
You ask "Is Eusibius a reliable source"? Euesbius is one of the earliest writers of church history. He had access to a vast libary and made numerous quotations to works that no longer exist. Eusibius has proven to be one of the most reliable sources of information concerning the early church as supported by scholars such as Dr. Paul Maier, who has written extensively (and critically may I add) about Eusebius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris431 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
To make the statement that "the genealogies cannot be harmonized..." is a very biased statement without a shred of evidence presented in that paragraph to support it. You either need to include a quotation on evidence to back it up, add the reference I mentioned about Eusebius, or remove that statement altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris431 ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Article states: "Mark starts his narration with Jesus' baptism, specifying that it is a token of repentance and for forgiveness of sins.[24] Why Jesus would need forgiveness of sins has long been a puzzle to the Church, and Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus' superiority to John." Could someone please tell me the exact bible verse that states this, I have searched for a while now and I can not find the verse that states this. Thank you. Ace Cronof ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Some have used this, and Mark 1:14, to suggest that Jesus was John's successor; In Matthew he is not presented as John's successor but as greater than John. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Archive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
98.217.155.45 ( talk) 11:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
98 writes, "the fact is that one system can be used for an artcile." Bullshit. That is not a fact. This is Wikipedia. We can do whatever we want to do. There is a long standing tradition among editors working on this page that this is what we do here. What business is it of yours? Shouldn't you be editing some article, doing research, you know, building an encyclopedia? Do you know how hard we have worked on this article? Go off and do some real work, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Use of BC amounts to a religious claim: that a "Christ," or savior, is a plausible concept -- and that the historicity of this character has been established. BCE is a neutral term. (And thus we should use CE versus AD.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
1. Yes, that edit was done under my IP address. No, it was not me who did it. I'm on an IP address shared with many people, its coincidence 2. According to Wikipedia policy: "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Some of you say CE/BCE? That vioaltes NPOV just as much as AD/BC does, considering that it is an example of censorship. Considering the nature of the artcile, and the wider use of BC/AD among people in general, that supports use of BC/AD only in this article. And if you support using BCE/CE, then we must remove all references to God, Mary, the Apostles, the crucifixition/resurrection or Jesus himself, after all, they are just as religious terms as BC/AD. 98.217.155.45 ( talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC) It has come to my attention that this article violates NPOV. Wikipedia policy states that only one system of dates (BC/AD or BCE/CE) should be used in an article. Now, whether or not one system is more neutral in the other is disputed, and Wikipedia states that either is appropriate, so long as one or the other is used in an article. I noticed that this article, as evidence from its creation and earliest edits, utilized solely BC/AD dates, so based on policy and precedence, I believe that all BCE/CE dates be removed for this article, with BC/AD being the dating system used. WhenYou'reAJet ( talk) 23:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) |
can any one out there tell where jesus was between the ages of16-31, nothing in the bible. regards tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.220.149 ( talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, never edited a Wiki page or posted on one of these "talk" pages so excuse me if I'm in the wrong place. I might be wrong but I was just reading the article and I think I noticed a typo. In the "Resurrection and Ascension" section of the article there is a line that reads "Jewish elders bribe the soldiers who hard guarded the tomb to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciples took his body", I believe that instead of reading "hard" it should be "had". I know it's a tiny typo but just thought I say something, thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.45.25 ( talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, fixed it, thanks for the info.
A new name 2008 (
talk)
03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"An A-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured article candidate. Also a good article." How can this article be both?-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Jesus'. JW ( talk) 09:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The article presently reads, "Matthew says he was a carpenter." This is factually incorrect. In the gospel of Matthew, Matthew recounts the accusation of those who rejected Jesus as a prophet and writes that they questioned, "Is not this the carpenter?" There is scant evidence to show that Jesus was a carpenter. This passage and the one in Mark suggest more that Joseph was a carpenter, but the accusations of those who rejected Jesus are a dangerous place from which to take facts. Regardless, it is false to write that Matthew said he was a carpenter. Even the skeptics which Matthew quotes did not say he was a carpenter, but asked a probably rhetorical question to cast doubt on his prophethood. The sidebar that lists his occupation as a carpenter is also without substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.42.83 ( talk) 18:16, 26 December 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 100 | ← | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 |
why is there a boxy thingy around the whole life story bit of jesus? I'd fix it myself, but i'm not very experienced in the ways of the wiki. 69.151.232.211 ( talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? They were so much better, and generally in keeping with the dominant (mannerist) theme. the roof of this court is too high to be yours ( talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
ummmmm sorry to jump in you guys argument but those pictures of jesus are not valid......the most renound pic of jesus is a pic of julius caesar's uncle because he painted his aunt unle and nephew for some paintings of jesus a long long time ago and those pics we still use today.....jesus prob looked like an arab of some sort look at where he came from not america lol if you dont think so listen to RAS KASS, Nature Of the Threat he will let you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ummmmm sorry to jump in you guys argument but those pictures of jesus are not valid......the most renound pic of jesus is a pic of julius caesar's uncle because he painted his aunt unle and nephew for some paintings of jesus a long long time ago and those pics we still use today.....jesus prob looked like an arab of some sort look at where he came from not america lol
Guys, I propose ending this thread. Kalindoscopy has stated that "I'm not interested in arguments, debates or challenges" and also does not care for our policies either. WP:DNFTT. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this discussion is not about improving the article. Please take it to your talk pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the original opening image. While the new one was perhaps more appealing to the eye, the original one has a greater historic value, which I believe trumps the value of the image used to replace it. Some of the others do appear to be nicer, and just as useful, but there were multiple images that were sandwiched, that is violation of MOS. If you want to change the images lets just take the one at a time. Which one do you want to change first, and why would changing it add value to the article, besides "visual appearance". Please do not continue to be antagonistic, and stick to the topic and hand. Charles Edward 11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Christian fanatics censoring offending images. Does it remind you of other fanatics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.238.46 ( talk) 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You guys are killing me. I say leave the pics as they are, or simply have no pics...Hey, I'm a Southern Baptist from Mississippi, and I've seen plenty of "ugly" pics of Jesus...One of my Bibles has pictures that are pure American cheese.... Mikepope ( talk) 06:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
actually they are pretty imaginary......those are not the real pics of jesus thOse are what julius caesar {the painter} was paid to paint he painted his aunt uncle and nephew and ever since they have used that pic for tha face of jesus but may i remind you that jesus is not from america so how would he look lik that?????how could his skin be so pale living were he did?????it's impossible guys im sorry it just is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT JESUS LOOKS LIKE THOSE PICS ARE IMAGINARY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
huh, well, does it not seem disrespectful to call the pictures imaginary? ..where did you get that from? julius caeser was painting his aunt, uncles and nephews?! and jesus is in fact not from america..so..? it's like saying (if) you had a relative living in another country, it doesnt mean that you dont know how they look like..and the pictures dont have to look exactly like jesus..they may have run out of dark peach when they were painting the pictures for all we know. and seriously, this convo is starting to turn to: all pictures of jesus are imaginary Pictures of jesus could have been drawn by the people who were living with him, the ones who he talked with, and most likely, there should be many of these. Randomlife7 ( talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
IT STATES THAT JEWS BELIVE JESUS IT PART OF THE HOLY TRINITY. THIS IS INCORRECT AS ALL SECTS OF JUDAISM STATE JESUS IS NOT OUR SAVIOR, MESSIAH, OR GOD. WE DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HIM A PROPHET, AS THE ARTICLE EVEN STATES PLEASE CHANGE THE INCORRECT FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.3.246 ( talk) 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The letter J was not even in the alphabet back then it is one of the last letters to be added yoshua be yosef was his name..........and how did he {jesus} be killed and rise from the grace if pontius had him killed before that for sedition against rome..........and if you have ever heard the stories of gilgimish you would know something was wrong....thw whole book of genesis was stolen from the book of gilgimish including the serpant,the tree,the forbidden fruit, all of it stolen from a story written over 1000 years before the bible was —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.149.205.146 (
talk)
15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD!!!!!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.58.17.243 (
talk)
18:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In Albanian language: TI IE=IE(you are)+ZEUS(greek god) = IEZEUS (you are god)
I have often come across hostile members to a thread, that appear to have a conflict.
My post on this talk page was not only quesitoned, whichis acceptable but it was deleted.
Preaching? To other religions ?
This is a site about Jesus Christ a preacher, and I was pointing out how a most important concept to this topic was missing....and still is...wonder why ?
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a section, that I believe very important, a direct challenge to Christians...
I believe this section should be added somewhere...
Thanks...
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, if something is being proposed to add to the article, it should have a reputable source that supports the position. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes or a series of opinions. Nothing that has been proposed is something that meets the policy.-- Storm Rider 23:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source...? Mathew....etc. is not reliable. Its an important statement that creates a very unique paradox, that is biblical.
As to preaching...if i were to suggest my research into the discovery of a dark side to truth that confirms the original sin, and how the message of Jesus Christ links to that, then I would have been preaching. ;)
I can't believe the amount of 'protectionism' against truths in this world...even quotable ones.
--
Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti
(talk)
14:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
We should allow open discussion of the topic, even the 'most politicvally unaceptable' because we may never know the whole truth...about most all things...so that does leave a door open to.
My post was to emphasize a critical point, that most of us Christains fall to connect to and this appears to be politically incorrect. A direct reference to God on earth; the "Christs" on earth...
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
does it really matter whether you're a christian or not? its not "inappropriate" to include that quote in there. its just that noone really bothered. and why can't it be included..its not like its offending anyone, and even if you did add that in, it doesnt mean you're preaching, you're just adding a fact to the page, something that was written down and was said by Jesus when he lived. Randomlife7 ( talk) 01:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
sure Randomlife7 ( talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It contains a self-contradiction
Reference 9 [ Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, p.370] is not available to me, so perhaps someone could check. Could one page in a dictionary be a good source for all that? Searching [ "Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World" levine ] brings back only mirrors of this article -- JimWae ( talk) 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed 2 of the logical problems with that paragraph. Now, we need to deal wth the fact that her curricula vitae does not list that work - and it is listed as a ref TWICE in the lede -- JimWae ( talk) 04:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As suspected, it was not a dictionary that dealt with this - the correct title of the work is Oxford History of the Biblical World. We still need quotes to support this sentence -- JimWae ( talk) 01:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate.[6][7] Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. It is also generally accepted that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[8][9]"
The sources do not support the claim that "most" scholars agree on the assertions in this paragraph; in fact [7] refutes it by citing scholars which disagree with the claims. [8] cites several names, but no evidence of a consensus or majority opinion of any kind, while [9] simply quotes a single author. — Memotype:: T 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this rubbish is still there! What does "partially accurate" mean? Is that like 'a little pregnant', or 'slightly dead'? The phrase is meaningless... actually it is misleading. It is implying accuracy that it fails to substantiate. Which smells like POV to me. To paraphrase the actuality of what is being said: 'The Gospels are mostly not accurate about his life.' No? Would 'Some scholars believe that there was a man called Jesus who lived in that area at that time that sort of fits the bill', be a bit closer to the mark? Isn't the choice of the word "accurate" completely inappropriate for something so woolly and lacking in hard facts and clear archaeology? As it stands it read like 'Scientists think Jesus really existed and by extension the Bible is a really reliable source of data'
212.139.72.88 (
talk)
15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The Intro states : The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels though some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus. This sentence is kinda chunky. While other texts may in fact be as relevant, this does not make them principal sources of information regarding Jesus. 64.122.70.121 ( talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Should be cut, but I can't Jzeise ( talk) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know original research is not allowed to be cited, but can we add citations for the arrest trial and death section that aren't from the bible, but other original documents? Soxwon ( talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change [[Category:Jesus|Jesus]] to [[Category:Jesus|*]]. Jesus is the topic article of the category and thus should be sorted specially, not simply as if it was just another article in the category. Also, because Jesus is the topic article, it should be in almost all the same categories that Category:Jesus is in, such as Category:Founders of religions. Please add the appropriate category tag, [[:Category:Founders of religions]]. -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of categorization errors, for some reason this article is in the non-existent and mis-spelled "A-Class Chrsitianity articles" category (see below). I don't know where it comes from, but it should be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I consider myself a Gnostic. Here is my question: Why is Jesus dying on the cross consider to have washed away our sins? I've always been confused as to why it was necessary for Jesus to die to rid us of our sins, or to have our sins forever forgiven. I believe He died trying to deliver the truth us, is that what is meant by died for our sins. I believe he came to teach us, because we were getting it all wrong. Does that mean before Jesus came everyone went to "hell" even if they asked forgiveness and changed their ways. I guess my question in a nut shell: Jesus died for our sins, how so?-- Cinshif ( talk) 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Christians seem to me to have so many ideas about jesus I think they merit their own article. I propose calling it ... Christianity. Actually., Christians just seem so full of ideas, I suggest we create a new article just on what they think about the crucifixion ... how about calling it Christology? Leadwind refers to some different kinds of questions, Leadwind do you think you could work up a stub on Roman Catholicism and another on Protestants? It just see these Protestants or whatever have so many thoughts they could use their own article. Just an idea. Mull it over. (by the way, I do not knock any of this, I think having ideas is cool!) Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Im an agnostic and i wanna believe but it's just to many flaws so plz help me..............1st question i was told that the cross wasnt invented when jesus was crucified how can this be.......#2 how could he have set the egyptians free if he was killed by pontius????? #3how can ppl pray to a vision of a man that is not even jesus that is a pic of juluis caesar's uncle or nephew he was paid to paint that after jesus's death and he used his aunt uncle and nephew for inspiration and millions of ppl use that as face of jesus proposterious.......#4 last but not least THE WHOLE BOOK OF GENESIS IS STOLEN...from the book of gilgimish it's the exact same story written over 1000 years before the bible was so how could it be true....i fell the bible was used for entertainment a long time ago and we use it as a religion once again proposterious....someone plz help me wit my dilemma.............I feel jesus was a good man and had a good reason to be here but believing he walked onw ter and made earth wit a snap of the finger and all the other magical stuff i have to say i dont believe it one bit listen to the song Nature of the Threat, by Ras Kass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 15:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
well sir i have been lookin 4 answers all over ive even tok cross country trips to religious sites n still have came up empty handed so if u could step out of your comfort zone just this once and answer my questions i would greatly appreciate it........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.146 ( talk) 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of comfort zones. This is just an place to discuss the article itself, not questions like that. Some editors here have shown interest in answering these questions. Check above, email them. 157.182.29.91 ( talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Isus redirects here to Jesus, but nothing further is mentioned about the name Isus. Perhaps someone "in the know" could add something to the article explaining how Isus fits into this? Thanks. -- Rob ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
In Albanian language: TI IE=IE(you are)+ZEUS(greek god) = IEZEUS (you are god)
I've added the disputed tag because I feel this article meets the guidelines for it. Before removing the tag, please provide clear evidence to support that the factual accuracy of this man's existence and the actions attributed to him in the article really happened. Thanks. Retoru ( talk) 08:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, then. There is absolutely no verifiable factual evidence cited anywhere in the article that lends any credence to the events depicted in the article. The only real citation from the period in question is the bible, which is not an accepted book of history by either the historical or scientific communities. All other sources in the article cite the bible in their own bibliographies, which as I've already established is a questionable piece of literature.
I don't mind articles on fiction being on Wikipedia, it's a repository for all human knowledge, real or fictional, but putting up articles that cannot be proven as nonfiction as such is misleading and a warning is needed to show that the content of the article has not been proven to be accurate by respected historical or scientific sources. Retoru ( talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited the lead to qualify the sentence that included mention of the Gospel of Thomas. I then saw the message asking editors to come to the talk page before making any changes. Sorry, I missed that before my edit which can be reverted since it is unreferenced. My point in making it though is to raise the issue that mention of that Gospel is not followed by the fact that it has been roundly rejected as a viable source by a substantial majority of the world's Christians and Muslims, not just in our own time but for centuries (millenia!) I think the sentence, unamended is misleading Reader. NancyHeise talk 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
shouldnt this be listed? all comic-book characters have this listed, can we get a heading of all his superpowers. i know he isnt a comic-book character but, he did have superpowers right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 ( talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
what a condescending attitude! i am no "boy" nor am i "stupid" i may not be a snob but i felt my question was valid, perhaps could have been posed "heey make a section that stated a listing of his miracle abilites or whatever that should be a significvant point in an article of jesus, no? . perhaps you need tact, actually please just disregard and delete this then if it is so stupid and ridiculous. i never should have said comic book right? i just have to defer to your wisdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.172 ( talk) 01:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
i know this convo was posted some time ago, but 67.70.0.172, your question woulda been valid, if you had asked it another way. comparing a comic strip to Jesus offends many, and in many ways offends Jesus himself. since like Gabr-el#top said, Jesus's powers is infinite, so don't refer it as though he has a limited amount of it, and do not treat him and everything about him (including his powers) without any respect, even in speech and in typing. if i were you, i would have asked instead for a list of miracles Jesus preformed that were recorded down to be put on the page, that, i think is more 'relevant' and appropriate than referring Jesus as a character in a comic strip or anything else you may refer to him as with lack of respect. Randomlife7 ( talk) 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I am adding scholarly references to the gospel accounts section, a section that otherwise violates verifiability standards (it's all referenced to primary sources). Leadwind ( talk) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Leadwind is mixing up two very different questions. The first is, "What do the Gospels day" and the Gospels themselves are fine sources for just (and just) that. The second question is, what "really" happened and here NPOV becomes a major concern because different people have different beliefs. What historians think and what Christians think for example are often different. Here we definitely need secondary sources, but these views belong in other sections (where indeed they are already found). It is very dangerous to mix up "what the Gospels say" with "what actually happened" as Leadwind is doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I think debates over what the individual Gospels mean, as well as debates over manuscripts and the history of the texts themselves, is legitimately covered by ood secondary sources, and does merit its own article - ideally one article each for each o the Gospels, going over the history of the scrolls or folios, and diferent interpretions, and a fifth article on "the Gospels" as a section of the NT. I do not oppose dawing on this research, i just think it belongs in other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The section is "according to the Gospels" Not according to the Catholic Church, not according to Bart Ehrman. What policy says we cannot use Mak in a section that tells us what Mark says? We use secondary sources for forwarding arguments, interpretations, and explanations. My point is that arguments over explanations and interpretations, including arguments over the validity or use of the sources, belongs in other sections of the article. My point is about the organization of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, dude, the burden is on you. You want to alter something that has been in the article for at least a couple of years. The burden is on you to show that it is in violation of policy. What policy says this is not allowed? Quote, please. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I repeat, please provide me with a policy that supports your view. V does not. Ve demands that the article be based on reliable secondary sources and this article meets that standard and then some. Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia, thsy just cannot be used to further an argument. This section uses primary sources only to summarize what the Gospels say; not to make any argument.
You, Leadwind, are injecting your own POV into this article by taking one section of the article - and it is only one section of a MUCh longer article - that does not make any argument, and you are rewriting it to further an argument. As i said, this article is not the place for discussions of arguments over the interpretation of the Gospels - that belongs in an article on the Gospels. And your selective use of sources does dot do a fair jo of illustrating the wide range of interpretation and argument over the interprettion of the Gospels. Do it, but do it right, and in articles on the Gospels. This article states that most historians rely on the Gospels as the main source on Jesus' life; it is reasonable to have one section of the article summarize what the Gospels say. And if ll we are doing is using Mark as a source for what mark says, well, that is fully compliant with our policies. it is clearly verifiable as anyone can get a copy of mark and see that mark says what we claim he says. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I repeat, provide a policy that supports your position. As i explained, WP:V does not support your position. there is no Wikipedia policy that flatly prohibits the use of primary sources. Mark is a reliable source, as I explained. If English is not your primay language I should explain that "reliable" and "secondary" do not mean the same thing. Primary and secondary sources refer to whether the sources provide information or interpretations or arguments about that information; reliability has to do with the confidence we have that the source is the appropriate one for the information it claims to provide. There is no more reliable source for what the book of Mark says than the Book of Mark.
This is not a debate about sources. This is a debate about information versus argument. The section on the Gospel account does not provide any interpretation or explanation of the Gospels it simply describes what the Gospels say. Now please provide a policy explaining that this is omehow forbidden. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Once the section becomes a section that is about interpretations rather than a straightforward description of the sources, then we are obliged to include every notable interpretation. I hope you have the Anchor Bible by your side. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is about policy, and I agree that primary sources cannot be used to forward any editor's interpretation or argument. This article uses plenty of secondary sources - I know, i have added many - and i am glad it does, and these secondary sources are a huge part of what makes this a great articles. But th policy does not forbid primary sources. As long as we use the Gospel as sources only for an account of what the Gospels themselves say, without using them to make any of our own interpretive claims about what the Gospels "mean," then we are not violating policy.I respect your concern about people combining quotes from different Gospels to create a synthesis that is not in any one Gospel. I do not think that this requires us to abandon using primary sources, but if your point is that we must use them carefully I am glad to say we are in full agreement. I see a value in a section on "according to the Gospels" under one condition and one condition only: that it provides only straightforward an account of what the Gospels say, without using them to forward any argument. I see value in this and would not want to sacrifice it, but I would agree that the citations cannot be combined to say something not in any one Gospel. What I propose is this: instead of looking for secondary sources to ass to the "according to the Gospels" section's argumentative claims, we should delete anything that is not pure description of what the Gospels say. In other sections I think you and I already agree: any interpretive or explanatory argument needs a secondary source. I realize you may still not agree but i hope at least i am presenting my view clearly. I hope you will consider that it is forwarded in good faith and is meant to comply with our NOR policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think these are all very reasonable issues to discuss. Just to share some history: I was not the person who created this section. When it was created, I had the same concerns. there was real discussion involving many editors here and there seemed to be a consensus to keep it, as long as descriptive claims (this is found only in mark vs. this is found in the three synoptic gospels vs. this is in both Luke and Matthew, but in different versions) were as straightforward as possible. Now, Rbreen, if you and Leadwind want to reopen this discussion, I have no objection, but I would suggest you take ten or fifteen minutes to see when the section was added and by whom, look at the discussion from that time to see who supported it, and try to get their attention and bring them back to the discussion. For the moment, my opinion is this: the concerns Rbreen raises are the critical ones worth discussion. I know Leadwind's efforts and comments were all in good faith, I just think they missed the mark. We either have a section "According to the Gospels" which stickes solely to primary sources but only to provide the most limited and direct account i.e. NO interpretive claims at all, OR we delete the section in its entirety. And just to repeat a comment I made earlier because it is apropos, I would encourage Leadwind's work of looking for the significant views in secondary sources concerning analysis, interpretation, explanation, of each of the canonical Gospels as well as the process by which the four were made canonical but put all of that in the specific articles on Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. i say this because i acknowledge the great value of the work Leadwind started, but I do not think it (meaning an account of all significant interpretations of each Gospel etc.) can be accommodated in this article. To comply with NPOV, once we start providing interpretations and textual or literary analysis, we have to include all significant views, and this is more appropriate to the articles on each specific book. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Rbreen, I beg you to reconsider AndrewC's post in light of a couple of points I want to make. You write "Firstly, Leadwind is correct to point out that Wikipedia policy strongly favours third party sources rather than primary sources." With all due respect, this is a non-issue. This article IS largely based on reliable secondary sources. But it is a profound distortion of NOR and V to suggest simply that Wikipedia "favors" secondary over primary sources. It demands secondary sources for analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory claims. It allows primary sources for purely descriptive claims. Obviously since this is an encyclopedia Wikipedia "favors" secondary sources, because we want to provide good accounts of interpretations, analysis, etc. But this article and linked articles do that, and it is not the point. The point is that primary sources are allowed for descriptive claims. Leadwind has been adding secondary sources and thus interpretations to this section and it is adding the interpretations that is the violation of NOR, not the lack of secondary sources. You write "I cannot see why an article about a historical personage should begin with a summary of primary sources, fenced off from the historical analysis. No other article takes this approach as far as I am aware" and you may be true but I think particular circumstances apply here: the canonical gospels constitute the overwhelming bulk of the source material historians use, and they are not very long. So it is easy for us to summarize each Gospel, and it does a major service because it shows readers what raw material historians are asking questions about. Historians have written many books about Jesus, but they all take the Gospels as their starting point. Now, some people may think that including the Gospels somehow means we think they are "true." That is a mistake but the solution is not to cut the accounts of the Gospels, the solution is to make sure that readers know that the accounts are of primary source material that historians examine and interpret critically, that for historians the question of who and when these gospels were written are open questions; the question of the extent to which they draw on earlier texts that no longer exist (oral or written) is an open question; the question of how much they tell us about the life of a man named Jesus who may have lived, versus how much they tell us of the beliefs of the authors, is debated - these are the things we need to be clear about so that readers of this article will learn something about how real historians work. Of course, these are also the principal sources for Christian theologians and it is fair to do the same thing for theology. In any event, our policies definitely allow us to provide descriptive accounts that are not used to promote any one argument, and in the case of Jesus a descriptive account of each of the gospels gives readers a clear point of references for articles on both Christology AND the "historical" Jesus which is indeed a very valuable service. But to remain compliant with policy we cannot be adding secondary sources - to do so would be to change this from an simple description of what the Gospels say to an argument about their meaning and suddenly, we are violating NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that he is not dismissing 'elitist university types', but making the point that their views are disproportional and small compared to the views of none elitist types. If you want to make an article about what 'elitists university types' think, then make one under that title, but I believe this page should cover the general spectrum of what most people understand about Jesus, If I do not know anything about Jesus and what others think about Him, this is the place I would expect to find some of those answers, we should then point to other pages for those that want more specific information. Hardyplants ( talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's my compromise offer: We keep the section, even though, as Rbreen says, its very constitution is suspect. And the only scholarship is about the content of the gospels' descriptions of Jesus, not interpretation. For example, nothing about historians favoring the idea that Jesus really was baptized, betrayed, and executed. I agree with Rbreen that this section is effectively the history section. It's also POV for this section to summarize the four canonical gospels. From whose perspective does that make sense? It makes sense to a theologian, not to a historian. In a spirit of compromise, I'm OK with leaving a "four Christian gospels" section in an NPOV article, but then it really needs to be scholarly to prevent the inherent bias from distorting the NPOV. I agree with Andrew that the beliefs of Christians are more important to this page than findings of historians. No historians would give a hoot about Jesus if it weren't for the Christians. If this section is to be "what Christians get from the Gospels" section, that's fine, slip it under Christian views. Even so, we'll want to use scholarship to write the section. I lean heavily on the Jesus Seminar because they are comprehensive, and they represent not one scholar's view but the general view of Funk, Harris, Crossan, Borg, and other notable scholars. If someone can suggest a different, more mainstream comprehensive guide to the gospels and historical Jesus, suggest it. At this point, I could switch to using the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. It leans friendly to Christian faith, so it ought not be controversial. Or maybe I'll just lay off for a while, so as not to try your patience. Leadwind ( talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I don't like disagreeing with you, or with Rubenstein. Let's see if we can reach some understanding. You say "trying to spin together what ALL SCHOLARS say about Jesus is pure pandemonium." I haven't heard anyone suggest that we attempt such a work. I surely haven't. All I want to summarize is what the scholars say the gospels say about Jesus (as opposed to what the WP editors say the gospels say about Jesus). For example, William Wrede established the messianic secret c 1901, the theme in Mark that Jesus hides his divine identity. Wrede further concluded that Mark treats Jesus' identity as a secret to accommodate the fact that Jesus never claimed to be divine in the first place. The gospel section on this page should include half this information, the raw fact of the messianic secret. The second half, that Wrede and scholars in his tradition have an unflattering explanation for why there is a messianic secret, is a second order of interpretation and doesn't belong here. What the last supper is, sure. How it's similar to pagan memorial meals and unappealing to Jewish sensibilities, no. That Luke and Matthew have very different birth stories? Sure. That fictitious miraculous birth stories were frequently appended to the lives of saints? No. We don't have to say everything. But when we summarize what the gospels say about Jesus, we should (as we do everywhere) let the scholars guide us and cite them. I could go further and say that this whole section is out of place. Are we talking about historical Jesus and Christian Jesus? If historical Jesus, then the gospel section would be very different. If the Christian Jesus, then move the section under Christian view. Rbreen is right that this section implicitly carries the weight of a "history" or "biography" section, but its actual identity is ambivalent. Which "Jesus" are we talking about? That said, as long as this section has scholarship behind it, I won't make a fuss about scripture standing in place of biography. Leadwind ( talk) 06:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there isn't enough of Jesus's Jewish life in here. Maybe an expansion is in order? Dr.House ( The Man) ( talk) 14:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this, to talk, for discussion:
This is new to me; Leadwind did some other edits for criteria that are all familiar to me but I do not know where this comes from. Considered more authentic by whom? Christians? Theologians? Historians? In fact, I would think any text from a long time ago and considered sacred would be filled with arresting images or strange events; this attests to the power of literature and not to its antiquity. I will never forget the spaceship scene in The Life of Brian and that scene may be one of the reasons people keep watching the film but it has no bearing on its age or authenticity. Can we source it to a major historian (Meier or Sanders would more than satisfy me)? Also, the meaning of "arresting" and "confounding" may be obvious to some but not to me, it seems subjective compared to the other criteria, what exactly do historians mean? Slrubenstein | Talk
The lede contains the following words, "...and he is considered an incarnation of God by the Rastafari movement." I suggest that this be removed from the article, as there are numerous problems with this passage. Following from a mention of Islam, it seems to imply that Islam and the Rastafari movement are equally important, which is certainly not true. It also seems to imply that the Rastafari movement is not Christian, something which many or most Rastas would disagree with (if Rastas are Christians, there is no more reason for a separate mention of them here than there would be a need for a separate mention of Catholics, or any other denomination). One must also ask, why mention the Rastas in the lede but not a hundred other cults or groups that also happen to accept Jesus? Finally, it is unsourced.
This article says that the resting place of Jesus is "A garden tomb, traditionally located in what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." However, Christians believe that Jesus is no longer on this earth in physical form, for He sits at the right hand of God the Father. There is absolutely no evidence that the body of Christ is still on this earth, and since Jesus is primarily a Christian figure, shouldn't the article reflect the beliefs of Christians? I will not change the article right now, but perhaps someone else would like to chime in? -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Muslims and Christians dispute the existence of Jesus' physical body on earth right now, and they make up a slight majority of 55% of the worlds population. Gabr- el 04:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Paul makes a good point. I do not like the euphemism, "resting place," but be that as it may, resting place is not a final resting place. There are many "resting places" that were once occupied but are no longer occupied. Since the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is a pilgramage site for many Christians, apparently they too believe that it was Jesus's resting place. Or do they mean something else by the word "sepulcher?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyone who actually believes the Holy Sepulchre was the last resting place of Jesus? It seems to me that the only people who believe Jesus was buried in the tomb are Christians - the same ones who believe he then rose from the dead and his body is no longer on earth. On the other hand, those who do not believe Jesus rose from the dead tend to discount the tomb story entirely as a Christian fiction and assume he was buried somewhere else, probably in a common grave (though I have a friend who assures me he saw the tomb of Jesus in India). A small minority argue that the body was stolen or moved elsewhere. What everybody agrees is that the body of Jesus is not there now. So therefore it is only Christians who believe the tomb was ever the resting place of Jesus, and everyone agrees it was not the final resting place. What we have in the article seems to be the one thing nobody believes. -- Rbreen ( talk) 23:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
After reading Michael Grant's bio i am even more confused. But in a good way. Given Jesus' immediate message of entering the kingdom of heaven, as a Jew was he speaking directly for Jews only? Mainly? Or was his message meant for Jews and gentiles alike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.140.22 ( talk) 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets make it amply clear for you all. If Jesus' message were only for Jews, then why are there so many non-Jewish Christians? A contradiction, don't you think?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gabr- el 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a brief subsection to the "what to do the gospels say about Jesus" section. It seems relevant to the topic, and I'm not sure why it's not covered. This isn't the history section, it's the gospel section, and this is a noteworthy feature of John's gospel. If someone feels like reverting me, go ahead, but then explain why here. For the ease of your review, allow me to quote my text: "The Gospel of John opens with a hymn identifying Jesus as the divine Logos, or Word, that formed the universe (John 1:1-5;9-14).[26] Jesus' earthly life was the Logos incarnate (John 1:14).[26]" Footnotes are to Harris, a university textbook.
First, the genealogy section is too picky, with reference to Levi, etc. This is a summary, and the genealogies aren't that big a deal compared to Jesus' resurrection, teachings, etc. Second, there are two different nativity stories, and they sort of get mushed together. It sort of sounds like the wise men showed up at the manger. But Luke and Matthew have different nativity stories, one homey and sweet, where a little drummer boy might show up. But in Matthew, it's Magi and the King who take note, not shepherds and farm animals. So let's reorg this so that each nativity sequence gets its due.
The genealogy and nativity sections are too long, longer than the more important baptism and temptation section. Read the sections for yourself and see. I propose a shorter treatment that also distinguishes Luke's and Matthew's different accounts, thus:
Matthew and Luke each provide a genealogy of Jesus and a story of his birth. In both gospels, Jesus is descended from King David and born of a virgin in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of prophecy. His mother is Mary and her husband is Joseph. In Matthew, wise men from the East come with gifts for the one born King of the Jews, and Herod tries to kill Jesus by slaughtering the infant boys of Bethlehem. To escape, the family flees to Egypt. In Luke, John the Baptist has his own miraculous conception. He is Jesus' cousin, and he recognizes Jesus while both are in the womb. During a census, Mary is forced to give birth in a stable, and angels lead shepherds to the newborn child. Matthew's and Luke's respective genealogies cannot be readily reconciled.
Maybe this is too short, but it's a good start. Comments? Leadwind ( talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Could the opening line give the years of Jesus' life span as (c 0 to c 30)? Then deal with the details and the ranges in the body of the article? Leadwind ( talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Jesus lived to be 33 not 30-- 71.227.87.59 ( talk) 08:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
About 30 means maybe 27-33 to me. It may mean something more exact to you, but it does not mean exactly 30. Luke tries to be quite clear on the year JB started, but did not try to do so for Jesus> I think John is regarded as the least chronological of the gospels, no? -- JimWae ( talk) 05:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I split it into subsections with headers. Previously, it was a number of paragraphs with not much for transitions and not much for sequence. Each subsection needs a look to make it cohere to the header. I'd do the work on the subsections myself, but I thought I should let the community comment before I invested more time into it. I hope it is clear that in this case at least I'm merely trying to improve comprehension, not push a POV in one direction or another. Headers help readers and editors orient themselves. Leadwind ( talk) 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the headers. I think each subsection is still going to need a look over. Leadwind ( talk) 18:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone provide on example, rom a reliable and notable source, of a significant Bible scholar who rejects the existence of Jesus? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
By "Bible scholar" I meant anyone with expertise in Biblical languages and the analysis of Biblical texts. Such scholars generally divide into people studying the Bible as literature, or Biblical history (which I mean broadly, to include people who study the historical period described in the Bible, as well as the historical period in which the Bible was written and edited). So I consider this an inclusive term. Obviously the opinions of a US Civil War historian or an economic historian focusing on 20th century France are irrelevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There must be some, perhaps Marginal Jew has a compilation of the arguments. 68.123.64.168 ( talk) 17:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You all might be interested in looking at Jesus myth hypothesis, which covers the idea that there was no historical Jesus. If you find this idea interesting, you may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis, which badly needs additional input.
To answer the question asked at the beginning of this section, Robert M. Price, a biblical scholar (under Slrubenstein's definition), is sympathetic to the notion that Jesus didn't exist, but in what I've read he says that this is likely the case, rather than saying that Jesus definitely didn't exist. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there were a number of authors, some fairly influential, who argued that Jesus didn't exist--to name two, Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews. Bauer might qualify as a biblical scholar, but is probably best thought of as a philosopher; Arthur Drews was a philsopher. More recently, George Albert Wells wrote a number of books arguing that Jesus didn't exist; he is a professor of German rather than a biblical scholar, but seems fairly well-informed about 18th/19th century German theology and biblical scholarship. --Akhilleus ( talk) 05:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those really general sentences that doesn't really tell you much, and it's really long. It looks like a sentence that had stuff tacked on, making it too long. A trick I learned is to test text is to read it aloud. Try this sentence. "Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents in Israel, including differences between Galilee and Judea, and between different sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75] and in terms of conflicts among Jews in the context of Roman occupation." Anyone want to work on it? Leadwind ( talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious conditions in Israel at that time, taking into account the separate political districts of Galilee and Judea, the different religious sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75]), and the power struggles among Jews within the context of the Roman occupation." --
JimWae (
talk)
22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No that is not correct - the research is very much concerned with differences between Judea and the Galil, Vermes, Sanders, many others pay attention to these differences. By the way, the word "currents" does not mean current with your life, it means current with Jesus's life. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
"Many scholars have sought to reconstruct Jesus' life in terms of the political, cultural, and religious conditions in Israel at that time, taking into account the separate political districts of Galilee and Judea, the different religious sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots,[74][75]), and the power struggles among Jews within the context of the Roman occupation." - this was JimWae's original before deleting the Galilee section.
Gabr-
el
00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So? Anyway, the source of your (Gabr-el) confusion I think is the anachronistic and inappropriate use of the word Israel in the sentence. I tried fixing it, directly in the article. Let me know if you (all of you) do not think it is an improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if we split the sentence up (which we must), it doesn't convey much information. It's like a sentence in a high school essay in which the author mentions topics without telling the reader much of anything. What are these "contemporaneous political, cultural, and religious currents"? What do the "Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots" have to do with anything? Here's an alternative: "Scholars reconstruct Jesus' life based on the historical context of Roman occupation, political unrest, and apocalyptic expectations. Some investigate the differences between Galilee (Jesus' home) and Judea (location of the Temple and the center of Jewish life). They also examine how Jesus' ministry may have been influenced by the apocalyptic Essenes, opposed by the rabbinic Pharisees and by the Sadduccees of the Temple, or connected to the armed Zealots." Leadwind ( talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
SLR's recent edit is a step in the right direction. Leadwind ( talk) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The lede lays out some undisputed findings, e.g., crucifixion under Pilate. Excellent. But it also specifies that the charge was sedition. Scholars agree that he was crucified as a threat to political authority, but the sedition charge, and lots of the trial in general, could well be apostolic elaboration. Here's the sentence. "They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." I'd like to change that from "on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" to "as a threat to the social order." That's pretty much universal. The sentence cites Crossan. Anyone know what he thinks about the charges against Jesus? It looks like the Sadducees got him after the money-changer incident, and he doesn't seem to have been killed for his teachings, but was he executed as a trouble maker or for sedition? I think it's an open question. Anybody? Leadwind ( talk) 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A threat to social order is vague and not a capital offence. Most historians believe there was practically no religious order, and threats to that were not capital crimes. Be that as it may, the sentence is only about what most historians agree on, and the majority agree that he was executed on charges of sedition. That is one POV. feel free to include other POVs but do not distort this accurate statement of one notable POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe people don't understand the word sedition? Perhaps a link to Wiktionary:sedition? 68.123.64.168 ( talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, if you want Crossan's views on the topic, read his Who Killed Jesus?. 68.123.64.168 ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue I have with the sentence is that it covers the two top rock-solid touchstones of historical investigation (baptism and crucifixion) and then throws in a third issue that's not rock-solid (sedition charge). "They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." If we're going to include two rock-solid facts, maybe the third fact should be the third most solid fact: that Jesus was betrayed. Also, Jesus was arrested by the temple police, apparently on the Sadducees' initiative. Why does "sedition" get such prominent placement when betrayal and the Sadducees don't? Leadwind ( talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Leadwind wrote: "The thing that puzzles me about the "charge" of sedition is that it presumes there was a trial. I'm not sure there was a trial, let alone a charge."
Trials were only for Roman citizens. The charge was INRI, placed on the cross, decreed by Pilate. Not denying the claim of being King of the Jews, at a time when Rome alone held the right to proclaim a King of the Jews if any at all (at the time there was no official King of the Jews though there were some Herodians in charge of other territories), was an act of sedition, punishable by crucifixion for non-Roman citizens. 68.123.65.174 ( talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We can have media/cultural references on Mike Tyson Howard Hughes Nostradamus and so on. But none on JESUS??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.223.37 ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
To quote the article "Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a deist, created the Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the other supernatural aspects of the Bible."
What is the source for Jefferson being a deist? I find different facts & opinions of Jefferson's "religion" with each site I visit.
Would it make the article more complete to mention the disagreement over Jefferson or delete "and a deist" from the sentence?
Sparkal2526 ( talk) 17:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Australian astronomer Dave Reneke puts the date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth at June 17, 2 BCE. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence in this paragraph is hard to believe. It portrays everything about Jesus except the few facts lists as inconclusive. Really? "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate,[5][6] agreeing that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[7][8] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation.[9]" Is it true that scholars are more sure that Pilate personally ordered Jesus' crucifixion than that Jesus told parables about the Kingdom of God? Anyway, here's my take on this couple of sentences: "Critical scholars discern historical elements in the gospels, based on which they portray Jesus as a Galilean Jew, regarded as a teacher and healer. Historical Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, told parables about the Kingdom of God, violated social norms. In Jerusalem at a time of high tensions, he caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified for sedition. Scholars propose various conclusions about Jesus' message, chronology, authentic sayings, political background, and social class." Leadwind ( talk) 02:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Starting over. Here are the three sentences in the intro about historical Jesus. The first two are pretty good but could be better. The real problem is the last sentence, which says that only those facts already cited in these two WP sentences are solid, everything else is inconclusive. It's simply not believable that a scholar cites these particular facts and none others that are historically reliable. This sentence takes open questions (did Pilate order the crucifixion?) and calls them conclusive while implying that basic facts, such as that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, don't even get a mention. Read the sentences yourself. "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate,[6][7] agreeing that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They also generally accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[8][9] Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation." Finally, this last sentence is one of those "non-sentences" that plague college freshman theme writing. This sentence leaves us wondering what the heck it means. Jesus' religious orientation? I don't even know what the question is. He's already been identified as Jewish. Do some people think he's Buddhist? So, leaving aside my issues with the first two sentences, let me suggest an alternative third sentence. The point here is to inform the reader and make the topic interesting: "Scholars offer competing descriptions Jesus as a self-described Messiah, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, an itinerant sage, a charismatic healer, and the founder of an independent religious movement." The point here is to inform the reader about Jesus, not about scholarship. The reader wants to know who Jesus was, not the answer to the question: Which aspects of Jesus' life are inconclusive among academics? Leadwind ( talk) 20:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The section on Jesus' genealogy states the following: "The genealogies cannot be harmonized..." referring to the differing accounts in Matthew and Luke. However, the link at the start of this section called "Genealogy of Jesus" clearly provides historical material outside of the Bible that does harmonize the two differing accounts. More specifically, the ancient historian Eusebius has documented that while Joeseph had two fathers - one called Eli and the other called Jacob - one was his biological father (Jacob) but the other (Eli) was his legal father who died childless. According to levitical laws, Jacob was required to produce offspring for Eli. You need to modify the section that states that "the genealogies cannot be harmonized" and indicate that "while the gospel accounts cannot be harmonized from the biblical context, historical sources outside of the Bible do provide accounts that may be used to harmonize this genealogy" (or something to that affect).
You ask "Is Eusibius a reliable source"? Euesbius is one of the earliest writers of church history. He had access to a vast libary and made numerous quotations to works that no longer exist. Eusibius has proven to be one of the most reliable sources of information concerning the early church as supported by scholars such as Dr. Paul Maier, who has written extensively (and critically may I add) about Eusebius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris431 ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
To make the statement that "the genealogies cannot be harmonized..." is a very biased statement without a shred of evidence presented in that paragraph to support it. You either need to include a quotation on evidence to back it up, add the reference I mentioned about Eusebius, or remove that statement altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris431 ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Article states: "Mark starts his narration with Jesus' baptism, specifying that it is a token of repentance and for forgiveness of sins.[24] Why Jesus would need forgiveness of sins has long been a puzzle to the Church, and Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus' superiority to John." Could someone please tell me the exact bible verse that states this, I have searched for a while now and I can not find the verse that states this. Thank you. Ace Cronof ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Some have used this, and Mark 1:14, to suggest that Jesus was John's successor; In Matthew he is not presented as John's successor but as greater than John. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Archive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
98.217.155.45 ( talk) 11:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
98 writes, "the fact is that one system can be used for an artcile." Bullshit. That is not a fact. This is Wikipedia. We can do whatever we want to do. There is a long standing tradition among editors working on this page that this is what we do here. What business is it of yours? Shouldn't you be editing some article, doing research, you know, building an encyclopedia? Do you know how hard we have worked on this article? Go off and do some real work, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Use of BC amounts to a religious claim: that a "Christ," or savior, is a plausible concept -- and that the historicity of this character has been established. BCE is a neutral term. (And thus we should use CE versus AD.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
1. Yes, that edit was done under my IP address. No, it was not me who did it. I'm on an IP address shared with many people, its coincidence 2. According to Wikipedia policy: "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Some of you say CE/BCE? That vioaltes NPOV just as much as AD/BC does, considering that it is an example of censorship. Considering the nature of the artcile, and the wider use of BC/AD among people in general, that supports use of BC/AD only in this article. And if you support using BCE/CE, then we must remove all references to God, Mary, the Apostles, the crucifixition/resurrection or Jesus himself, after all, they are just as religious terms as BC/AD. 98.217.155.45 ( talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC) It has come to my attention that this article violates NPOV. Wikipedia policy states that only one system of dates (BC/AD or BCE/CE) should be used in an article. Now, whether or not one system is more neutral in the other is disputed, and Wikipedia states that either is appropriate, so long as one or the other is used in an article. I noticed that this article, as evidence from its creation and earliest edits, utilized solely BC/AD dates, so based on policy and precedence, I believe that all BCE/CE dates be removed for this article, with BC/AD being the dating system used. WhenYou'reAJet ( talk) 23:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) |
can any one out there tell where jesus was between the ages of16-31, nothing in the bible. regards tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.220.149 ( talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, never edited a Wiki page or posted on one of these "talk" pages so excuse me if I'm in the wrong place. I might be wrong but I was just reading the article and I think I noticed a typo. In the "Resurrection and Ascension" section of the article there is a line that reads "Jewish elders bribe the soldiers who hard guarded the tomb to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciples took his body", I believe that instead of reading "hard" it should be "had". I know it's a tiny typo but just thought I say something, thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.45.25 ( talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, fixed it, thanks for the info.
A new name 2008 (
talk)
03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"An A-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured article candidate. Also a good article." How can this article be both?-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Jesus'. JW ( talk) 09:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The article presently reads, "Matthew says he was a carpenter." This is factually incorrect. In the gospel of Matthew, Matthew recounts the accusation of those who rejected Jesus as a prophet and writes that they questioned, "Is not this the carpenter?" There is scant evidence to show that Jesus was a carpenter. This passage and the one in Mark suggest more that Joseph was a carpenter, but the accusations of those who rejected Jesus are a dangerous place from which to take facts. Regardless, it is false to write that Matthew said he was a carpenter. Even the skeptics which Matthew quotes did not say he was a carpenter, but asked a probably rhetorical question to cast doubt on his prophethood. The sidebar that lists his occupation as a carpenter is also without substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.42.83 ( talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)