![]() | 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 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 115 |
The second paragraph says "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels..." I don't think that this clause is true, and I'd like to see a citation for it. I'd put a fact tag on it, but I figure I'll give people a heads-up first. For a critical scholar, the synoptics are the principal sources of information, filled with historically reliable words and deeds of Jesus. Of them, only Matthew and Luke have substantial teachings of Jesus. John is too different from the synoptics to be used as a parallel source, at least without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics, the Church is the principal source of information, as only the Church has the divinely inspired role of interpreting Scripture. The idea that individuals should turn to the original texts in order to derive Jesus' biography is a humanistic idea championed during the Reformation, not traditional practice. A citation would solve this issue by letting the reader know who thinks that the four canonical Gospels are the principal source of information on Jesus' life. Leadwind ( talk) 16:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No citation has been forthcoming. I've supplied one of my own, although mostly for the Synoptics, because that's what my sources support. Leadwind ( talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
They notate the dates with BC/AD [1]. Does this matter at all? I'm new to the discussion, but it would seem to raise the prestige of the article if it looked less like a battleground -- which BC/BCE makes it look like -- and more professional. If how Brittanica notates it matters not at all, then feel free to simply archive box this, and I'll move along. [Full disclosure: I'm something of a lapsed Protestant, so I truly have no ideological dog in this hunt.] SD J 03:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeshu'a, in Hebrew, means simply "salvation". Yehosu'a means something quite similar to "God will rescue". Immanu-El is a Hebrew phrase and name, not Aramic. See the prophecy in the Book of Isaiah (Yesha'ayahu, in Hebrew), 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.33.119 ( talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeshua doesnt "simply" mean salvation. The derivation is more complex. Literally, it means "God (Yahu) is a saving-shout (shua)": in other words, if you call out for God, God will rescue you. (Just like if you call out the name "police", the police will rescue you.) But even in ancient times, it was interpreted more loosely to mean "God is salvation". Indeed, Immanu-El is Hebrew, the article was corrected and relocated to the Names and Titles section. Haldrik ( talk) 08:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Benedict says that Jesus "explodes" historical concepts. Catholic author G. K. Chesterton said much the same thing in The Everlasting Man (1925). C. S. Lewis mocked using the historical approach for scripture. Benedict doesn't say that Jesus is a historical figure in the general sense that he was a creature of history, someone shaped by historical forces the way any mortal is. He says that Jesus Christ of the the Church is real, but that's different from "historical" just like it's different from "scientific." If he said that the historical Jesus project is a valid one that should end up with the Jesus Christ of faith as its finding, a page number would help. Leadwind ( talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And I'm open to rewording it. The point is that the pope rejects the historical-critical project of describing Jesus Christ as if He were a mortal. That's basically where Chesterton and Lewis were at. I don't want a separate "criticism of historical Jesus efforts" section, but I don't mind summarizing the apologist viewpoint. Leadwind ( talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A link for those following along. Here's what the pope said on the historical-critical method, historical Jesus, etc. Leadwind ( talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
75.209.244.15 (
talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote this text because it was wordy and vague: "Other scholars hold that the real Jesus, the "historical Jesus" in the proper sense of the term is the Jesus of the Gospels, that from the historical point of view this presentation of him is more understandable than the reconstructions that have been offered in recent decades." Quite specifically, the pope and Chesterton reject the so-called historical Jesus project, and we should tell our reader so. I respect another editor's desire to have the pope's criticism portrayed favorably, so I'm willing to work on a more favorable version of my sentence. It just has to be more informative that the one I replaced. Leadwind ( talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The latest version is well-written and OK. I wish the text said clearly that the pope rejects the Historical Jesus project because our readers deserve clear information, but the current version is so much better than what we started with that I'm inclined to go with it. Leadwind ( talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've included two rather well known and easily found elements from the Gospel stories, otherwise omitted in the article. With so many of you swarming, that's a sorry oversight.
I removed the section in the intro because it provides a distorted and overly simplistic account of the Jewish view. Another encyclopedia is not a good source in this case, aside from being another tertiary source it is out-dated and limited in its scope.
I have no objection to summarizing the Jewish view in the introduction, but let's do it right. The introduction should summarize the article. We have a decent article on Jewish views of Jesus, which is itself summarized in this article; these are based on far better research than a line from another encyclopedia. If we want to summarize the Jewish view, let's summarize what this article goes on to say, which should be a summary of what the linked Wikipedia article already says. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
IIII am fine with your edit - I think the key issue is that Jesus and his first followers were Jews, and some part of "the Jewish view" is important for understanding how Christianity became a separate religion, an event that had a huge impact on what we know of Jesus, and arguments about the historical Jesus versus religious views of Jesus. I think you pinpointed the critical issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus." Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford History of the Biblical World, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 371, Chapter 10: Visions of Kingdoms: From Pompey to the First Jewish Revolt (63 BCE-70 CE), M. Coogan et al. (eds.)
This statement can't be right. Thomas doesn't have any narrative. How can it compare to a gospel like Luke? Thomas might be better than John, but it's not on par with the synoptics. Leadwind ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that the Jesus Seminar ranked primary sources, but perhaps they did, and if they did, based on number of red sayings the order would be: Matthew 13, Luke 12, Thomas 5, Mark 2, Egerton Gospel 1, Didache 1. See also [2]. 75.15.199.153 ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably, but they don't say much about Jesus, not surprising given Paul never met Jesus in person. 75.15.199.153 ( talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, "Jesus' biography" is the "Acts of Jesus", which the Jesus Seminar rated as follows: Mark, Mathew and Luke: 5 red each; Gospel of the Ebionites 1 red; Oxyrhynchus Gospels 1 red; 1 Corinthians 1 red. 75.15.199.153 ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Often overlooked is the "Jesus Christ's great Paradox", "that which you do unto the least of mine, you do unto mine." ....something about when i was sick you visited me, when i was in prison you visited me...
Seems this is very, very critical to the 'balance' of Gods word through Christ and how to deal with 'the least of'...
The Works of Saint Augustine -- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Corrected title ?
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We pay so much attention to details except the important ones...
(Changed Christs to Christ's )
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one removes this important and timely addition, however, if they so choose, I have included a copy here for discussion for inclusion...
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, you put it as the second paragraph of the "Teachings and preachings" section, between kingdom of heaven/prayer and attracting large crowds. This gives the illusion of priority, that Jesus' opinion on marriage is one of the most important, defining aspects of his ministry. I'd challenge you to find enough scholars that suggest that this was on the top of their lists when summarizing Jesus' ministry to demonstrate the weight you have given this information. In fact, I'm not even sure the interpretation you presented is universally accepted (among historians or theologians). In fact, what I believe this edit has done is make a minor, disputed point seems like a Very Important Fact! On top of that, there are spelling mistakes, grammar errors, and so on. Keep in mind that this is a professional, live encyclopedia and we should strive for professionalism and quality (and therefore I would encourage you to copy edit your contributions better in the future). I believe your source is not prominent, nor is it discussing Jesus' ministry. The text may be better suited in the Christian views section, but it would also probably need to be balanced by other views. I think Christian views of marriage or even Traditional marriage movement could be better places to try to incorporate that info. I could be wrong though, I might have missed the prevalence historians and theologians give to Jesus' take on marriage, so perhaps you could supply additional sources so we can better contextualize the weight we should give this content. Thanks for bringing your concerns here to the talk page, and I urge you not to edit war any further, but instead continue this discussion and wait to see if a compromise or consensus can be reached.- Andrew c [talk] 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The observation is made that the deletion was made without any valid cause.
It appears that Christianity has come under attack by 'hostile elements' that have no real interest in the true message of Jesus Christ...
For years we have struggled with the definition of marriage and even today we find some 'sabotors' within the church who have their own personal agenda to corrupt it.
Well let us see what Mathew 19, 4-6 says.
Seems an important issue concerning the corruption within the church by some.-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Caesar, it would be helpful if you reviewed editing policies. You can write almost anything on Wikipedia if you have a reliable reference to support it. What you cannot do is say anything you want. For example, we do not quote scripture, a primary text, unless the meaning is absolutely clear and directly connected to what you are trying to say. What is needed is a reliable secondary source that interprets the scripture to say what you want. More importantly, in this current context your secondary source must state that it is of vital importance to Jesus. Do you understand? -- Storm Rider 08:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will try to input this important information in the appropriate section.
I don't make mistakes,....Once I thought i was wrong, but i was mistaken....
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sunni Islam is the majority and it’s not mentioned. I am wondering to merge all the sub Islamic views to one, “Jesus in Islam” section — Wiikkiiwriter ( talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I kind of understandLeadwind's problems with how this sentence had been phrased. But I have a problem with the replacement, "believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are partially historical." The problem is, all of them are "historical" if we mean they are useful sources for historians. Those parts that historians reconstructing Jesus' life ignore as useless, are useful to historians of the early Church who are trying to document changing views of Jesus by early Christians. How about something like "Believe that some parts of the ancient texts on Jesus are useful for reconstructing his life" or something like this? I would rather let some others weigh in before making any change, and invite Leadwind to make the change as long as we all come up with something that reads well and is accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Slrub removed Yeshua from the lede. I pointed out that it is standard convention to include the original name in their native language in the lede, just after the English-Roman tranlsliteration. Thanks - Ste vertigo 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted this twice - i hope he will assume i did so in good faith. there is a reason why this article does not provide Jesus's "original" name in the lead. The fact is, this was discussed at great length. I will summarize a discussion that went on for many many days. First, Hebrew and Aramaic are two different languages, and it is at least as likely Jesus spoke Aramaic as Hebrew as his childhood language. Second, the sources we have on Jesus' life are all in Greek. Is it plausible that the Greek name is a transcription of an Aramaic name? I think so! But my analysis cannot go into an article, that violates NOR. Look at the article on Yeshu and you will see just how controversial Jesus' name in Aramaic is! These are all good reasons for keeping it out of the lead, we discussed them at length, and the article reflects the consensus. Please do not impose your own POV against consensus without first investigating why we reached that consensus that has been stable for so long. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo's understanding of the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic is just plain wrong. As to the rest of his post, all I can make out is that he finds all points of view nonsensical so just prefers his own original research? Sorry, the web is full of places where people can spew their own BS ad nauseum. Wikipedia is not one of them. Whatever Stevertigo thinks was "probably" the case is just not Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, because I have Alkalai's dictionary, read Chomsky's book, and took Biblical Hebrew in college as well as courses in Biblical and Second Temple History, so I have read a lot of scholarship on the topic. Yeshu in the Midrash and Talmud is not a serious indication of the etymology, only an indication of how complex and controversial the question of etymology is if you have studied 9as I have) the divergent understandings contemporary Rabbinic Literature scholars have of the Yeshu texts.
And while the Catholic Encyclopedia, like Wikipedia and other on-line encyclopedias, is a good starting point for research, it is not a substitution for rigorous research and not reliable on this point. The article itself equivocates on the "original" name, and provides no evidence or reasoning. Since it does not explain its evidence, I find it an unreliable source. It's only advantage is that being on line it is easy for any of us to access. But that is no substitute for walking to a library and reading real scholarship ... and guess what, editors of this article have done that!! Yup, and AndrewC kindly provided all the archives where we had extensive discussions. Those were serious discussions by people who knew the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic and did serious research. Let's not change consensus unless we have another serious conversation based on serious research.
As to your comment about my dismissing the historical Jesus, well all I can say is well-informed Wikipedians already know enough that I don't even need to respond to that.
Now, Steve, instead of bickering with me, why don't you just accept the fact tht your edit, while made in good faith, was ill-advised and when i reverted you it was based on my long experience working on this article and not a personal attack against you. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I see, so you own a Hebrew dictionary, have read a Modern Hebrew morphophonemic treatise, and took semi-historically reconstructed Hebrew in college. And from these you say there was such a difference between Hebrew and Aramaic that any related transcription or reconstructions thereof are invalid. And certainly, you have the authority of knowledge to dismiss even the encyclopedia administered by a two thousand year old institution, which has its own serious concepts of scholarship! Indeed it seems to be a battle between the rabbis and the priests as to what Jesus was all about, let alone whether or not he had a Hebrew and/or Aramaic name. - Ste vertigo 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If SLR really had an issue with this transliteration (or reconstruction if you like) then he would certainly want to object to the etymology section, and deal with it there. He does not, for some reason, instead choosing to keep the same derivation out of the lede. The reason for this, one might infer is due to his giving excess weight and authority to Jewish sources on the matter of Hebrew language, disregarding certain facts about how Jews have traditionally regarded the most beloved Jew in the history of the planet.- Ste vertigo 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You refer to "Jewish sources" that "deprecate the concept of Jesus." What Jewish sources are you referring to? And how and why are they relevant to this specific discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You suggested a Hebrew version of Jesus' name, and then made false claims about Hebrew and Aramaic. I told you your claims were mistaken and you asked me what I knew on the topic, and I told you how I came to know about Hebrew. I truly do not understand how you think. You make an edit concerning the Hebrew language, ask me what i know about the Hebrew language, and I answer, and suddenly you think this is about being Jewish rather than the Hebre3w language? It was you who brought up Hebrew! It was you who asked me what I knew about language! Now, as to the race-card being a tar baby, I know you can deal with it, since it was you who introduced it to the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(Copied from User talk:Orangemarlin, who for some reason immediately deleted my comment from his talk) Could you please actually explain why you made the revert to the article, and not just rely on a terse and useless concept like NPOV. My edit was accurate and NPOV, and was a substantial improvement over the previous version. If you disagree, you can 1) actually read the edit and 2) comment on its specific points on the talk page. Thanks -Stevertigo 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The etymology is fine, but "The name “Jesus” is an Anglicisation of the Greek" is not fully accurate as the form "Jesus" occurs in a number of languages (in some cases with the e or u accented), to wit: it occurs in Afrikaans, Catalan, Spanish, Cebuano (borrowed), Danish, German, Basque, French, Icelandic, Norwegian, etc. Sop "Anglicisation" is not correct: "variation" or "variant" or "transliteration" might be better and would certainly be more accurate. •Jim62sch• dissera! 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why no one has added first century historian Flavius Josephus' account("Antiquities Of The Jews", Book 18, Chapt.3, Sec.3) of Jesus in this article? It would be a nice addition to the historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.62.212 ( talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made one change to the etymology, and propose another to names and titles. The change I made: I removed the link to Yshu which is an article about a character in Rabbinic literature. The majority view is that this character is unrelated to Jesus, and the article is not on the etymology of Jesus' name (we may as well provide a link to the Biblical book of Joshuah!).
My proposal: Stevertigo rightly pointed out that some of my criticisms of his edit to the lead applied to this section. I know that others have been working on the transliteration problem, I am just concerned with V and NPOV.
I propose the following (my changes bolded):
My intention is just to modify the language a bit to make it clear that a POV is a POV. Any objections? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I am sure we can come up with something beter. But the original is just as weasily, and also backwards. We can state that the Septuagint translaterates the Hebrew Yehoshua as Jesus. But this: "based on an examination of the Septuagint some have suggested that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע) (Yeshua — he will save) a contraction of Hebrew name Yehoshua (יהושוע Yeho — Yahweh [is] shua` — deliverance/rescue, usually Romanized as Joshua)" is weasily and overwrought. There is also still the problem that Hebrew and Aramaic are not the same. The Septuagint purports to be a translation of the Hebrew, so that is all we can say. As to whether Jesus' given name was in Hebrew or Aramaic or what it was, that remains a POV claim and we can present it as long as it is peggd 9as it is) to verifiable sources, and identified as a POV. But there is still something wrong in the Septuagint sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced some material that was vague with specific information on the same topics. I hope you'll agree that more-informative writing is better than less-informative writing, but I'll be surprised if I haven't, in the process of adding information, offended someone's take on Jesus. Please criticize me as you would like to be criticized. Leadwind ( talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to know who started BCE/CE and why? And what does BCE stand for, Before Christ's Execution? Why not use BC like scholars have for a thousand years. What happened in the year 1 that was so important that it is a timemark for all the rest of history, could it have been Jesus Christ's birth? It is stupid to use BCE/CE in an article such as this as it conveys the thought that Jesus Christ's birth was not an important historical event in time. Yet BCE/CE is based on this exact same time marker. Please drop BCE/CE from this article now. Thank you. 76.180.230.218 ( talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I prefer BC/AD; however, these are abbreviations. BCE/CE could be considered "before Christian Era/Christian Era" However, they are commonly understood as "before common era/common era. Remember too that Dionysius Exiguus was a little off on the exact year of Christ's birth.-- drb ( talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
1) According to the traditional Christian understanding of the "Nicene Creed", Jesus is one of several incarnations of God, but the incarnation of God. 2) The Trinity as "members" not "manifestations". 3) The Nicene Creed, despite its label, was given current form only in c. 380 CE. If someone wants to make the phrase "of the current era" conform to the dating conventions of this article, please feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnite Critic ( talk • contribs)
I just made some edits to the paragraphs on Jesus and on Christ. I felt that the references to the Septuagint were either unclear, weasily, or OR. All I did, in both paragraphs, was this: (1) the names in the NT, (2) where these Greek names appear in the Septuagint (to comply with NOR, making purely descriptive claims), and (3) how some people have used the Septuagint data to propose a translation of NT names (in Greek) to Hebrew. I do not believe I made any substantive change. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to history, we accept what the Pilgrims and Puritans had to say about themselves- both of which were religious groups. We publish every who, what, where, when and why as historical fact. We do as much when it comes to the history of the Mormon church. Yet, when we discuss Jesus and the early Christian church nothing is admissible by anyone who was remotely involved with Christianity in anyway. Not Eusebius. Not Josephus. I'm sorry, but history is not science and it never has been. At best, history is pure gossip. There are no facts in gossip. It's all information and let the reader or hearer decide and make up their own mind. When you intentionally withhold or misrepresent that information you become worse than the "copyist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.139.120 ( talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is bias, Most of the references come from books published by Christen publishers, only PROVEN Scientific, and Non-religious sources should be included as FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.3.159 ( talk) 10:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jesus out of hand.
Stevertigo, you have some interesting points but need citations to back up your work. I'm reverting your recent edits, including your expansion of the first paragraph. Let's work together more. Leadwind ( talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Yeshua transliteration is controversial, and certain Hebrew scholars have disputed its etymological derivation as an inaccurate reconstruction. citation needed Hebrew Midrash appears to support the use of Yeshua —the name Yeshu ha- Notzri directly translates as "Jesus the Nazarene." But the term Yeshu has certain anti-Christian meaning, and this fact complicates using these texts as the basis for the name's Hebrew etymology. citation needed
Stevertigo, please play nicely with the other editors. Leadwind ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to compliment Stevertigo on a magnificent use of the "Chinaman" phrase. Top quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.79.173 ( talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I once again stepped in and changed the sentence on the Nicene Creed to further clarify what the Nicene Creed is and says. "Confession" may not be as clear as I thought it might be. In modifying the newly added sentence my concern was in making it accurate and NPOV.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What is important is that the lead provide a concise (no more than two sentence) and accurate description of what Christians believe about Jesus. My understanding (could be wrong) is that Stevertigo felt that the previous version represented the views of some but not all Christians and somehow his edit restopred NPOV/accuracy, maybe his claim is that not all Christians accept the Nicene Creed. My suggestion is to compare Stevertigo's original edit with the previous version and ask: which is more accurate and more clear? and then Can this be phrased any more concisely? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo, "Its a matter of being clear - something Leadwind appears to support, but also in a certain way contradict, by removing information that clarifies the issue." For me, being clear is more a matter of information density, how much information there is per line of text. I don't support including most tangential topics, such as the Nicene Creed. That said, if we are going to mention the NC, then I want a concise, informative description of it, so that the lede is packed with information. I oppose vague sentences, often constructed so as not to accommodate minority opinions. I'd rather be clear about what's mostly true than be vague about what's totally true. I'd rather say "Most Christians believe Jesus to be fully God and full man" than say something like "Historically and across the globe, Christians espouse various doctrines about Jesus' divinity and humans identity." I'd rather leave out the Nicene Creed because reference to it doesn't much help one understand what most Christians believe about Jesus. Leadwind ( talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In the New Testament you have Matthew 28:19: "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"; Jesus Christ is also called "God" (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13; and 1st John 5:20-21). The New Testament gives all of the dots that are then connected by the Nicene bishops. The revisionism that has begun in the latter part of the last century takes issue with this and considers even Gnosticism a legitimate claimant to "authentic Christianity." The only one that was indeed considered a heretic by the Second Council of Constantinople (553) was ORIGEN.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is, how detailed do we have to get to do justice to the mainstream Christian view? I agree that whatever we say must be (1) accurate) and (2) apply to the vast majority of Christians i.e. all major sects, denominations, congregations or Churches. But with these two criteria in mind, it should also be be (3) as simple and concise and accessible (meaning, it will make some sense to non-Christians or have links taking them to where they need to go for more detail) as possible. If we can all agree in princple at least on these criteria, how about this:
This matches the third criteria I set forth. If you feel it does not match the other two please propose something but also, please conform to the third criteria. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a few active editors who have not yet weighed in, but if all you guys agree I'd say we have a consensus or awfully close. I do not mind if one of you makes the change; alternatively we can wait and see if Andrew, Jim or Hardy have any complaints and then make the change. But I wish we could all put this to rest! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will be bold and make the change, if Andrew or Jim have a problem we can discuss it, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Would auto archiving be useful here? - Ste vertigo 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No mention in this article of Jesus referring to himself as "the son of man". He refers to himself by that title at least 30 times in the gospels! The number of times it appears and the context in which it appears should have been reason enough to include somewhere in this article. What significance does it have with regard to his claim of Messiahship and being the Son of God? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.19.135.200 (
talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
He certainly does refer to himself as The Son of Man in the gospels, and he uses it to show his authority over the preciding legal views of the Rabbinic culture, not to mention the Decalogue itself. Reference: Matt 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 12:40, etc. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Refers to himself, by my count, at least 80 times in the gospels. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Son of Man (a Biblical figure) has authority over the Decalogue? Interesting theory. Presumably part of Antinomianism. 68.123.73.253 ( talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of Vermes' argument is that it goes back to the Aramaic of Jesus, which then got altered when it went into the Greek of the NT, or parallels were made by Early Christians between the Greek of the NT and the Greek of the Septuagint. 68.123.73.253 ( talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible there could be a view on philosophical view as Jesus is one of the most important characters to study in modern Philosophy. Thank you. 6 February 2009. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Objective33 (
talk •
contribs) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not "my theory" when I said he uses the title "son of man" to state his authority over the Decalogue itself. One example:The statement, "For the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day"(Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5) is pretty emphatic, and is one of the reasons, as it is recorded in the gospels, why the preciding religious community was apparently shocked and appalled. They viewed him as a "blasphemer" and a threat to the norm. It's certainly not implied in any sense in the gospels. How does that title relate to the view in the Book of Enoch(1 Enoch, Ethiopic Enoch)? Whether you buy into those particular chapters in Enoch predating or postdating the gospels, it's still there, in your face. Son of Man in Enoch is simply not used as a rhetorical device or a figure of politeness. Rather, it is used as a title of a messianic figure. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
70.19.135.200 may want to check out Biblical law in Christianity. It's only a minority of Christians who believe the Ten Commandments have been superseded. 75.15.197.128 ( talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the point I was trying to make was sidetracked or I did not explain it sufficiently. Originally, I had said that the title "Son of Man" did not receive any mention in this article. I was wrong, sort of. It receives one sentence. That being the case, consider that the word "Christ" appears 60 times within the four gospels, and the phrase or title "Son of Man" appears more than 80 times. I strongly feel that "Son of Man" deserves much more of an explanation than the single line given to it. At a minimum, a paragraph would be sufficient in the context of this article. No? 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me add something here. The Aramaic phrase: "Bar Nasha" is a very common everyday term which literally means "human nature". Gabr- el 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You guys think I'm talking out of my ass. Here's one source, one scholar for you...R.H.Charles, British Biblical scholar:
-The Son Of Man And Its Meaning In Jewish Apocalyptic And In The New Testament -Book Of Enoch:Together With Reprint Of Greek Fragments p.307 "Its (Son of Man) import in the New Testament, this title(emphasis mine), with its supernatural attributes of superhuman glory, of universal dominion and supreme judicial powers, was adopted by (Jesus). The Son of Man has come down from heaven, John 3:13(cf 1 Enoch 48:2); he is the Lord of the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; can forgive sins, Matt 9:6; and all judgement is commited unto him, John 5:22,27(cf 1 En9:27). But while retaining its supernatural associations, this title(emphasis mine) underwent transformation that all Pharasaic ideas, so far as he adopted them, likewise underwent. And just as his kingdom in general formed a standing protest against the prevailing Messianic ideas of temporal glory and dominion, so the title(emphasis mine)"Son of Man" assumed a deeper spiritual significance..." You want more? 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Richard ( talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Outside input is requested at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a section, The narratives compared, which is a table showing the differences in detail between the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Questions have been raised as to whether it should be included. Concerns include original research, novel synthesis, and dependence upon primary sources. The table can be seen at this version of the page: [11]. Opinions concerning whether it should be included at all (given its current state, as well as the "Nativity as myth" section, which addresses discrepancies in the narratives), and if so, then in its current state, or beefed up with references, or converted to prose, are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who respond at the talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Two editors do not want our "gospels" section to tell the reader what all four gospels say abut Jesus' baptism and temptation. They want the article to relate only what the synoptics say and delete reference to what John says (or doesn't say), even when the information is cited. We have a section called "baptism and temptation." Naturally this section should tell the reader what the gospels, all of them, say on this topic. I can understand why a Christian might not want this article to point out differences between John and the synoptics, but I can't think of a good WP reason to exclude this information. Anyone? Leadwind ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ross,
Actually, it is widely considered by Biblical scholars that each of the four gospels has a different "take" on the subject of Jesus' ministry. Another way of putting this is that each has a different message targeted to a different audience. The following text is taken from the "Character of Jesus" section of the Jesus article:
Each assertion in the article text is cited to one or more reliable sources. I didn't include them here but they are in the article text.
The argument then is that similarities and differences between the gospels are not accidental but are the product of each evangelist having a different "take" on the subject; that is, a different message for a different audience. This is explained more fully in the Gospel article under the section "Content of the Gospels"
Once again, this text is heavily cited. I have omitted the citations because they wouldn't show up in the right way on a Talk Page.
I understand that your reversion of the text in question was in good faith but I think that, in this particular instance, you are letting general principles about Wikipedia articles override the current consensus of Biblical scholars.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ross on principle. But I believe principles must be applied relative to the context. In this situation, I think Richard has provided a fine analysis and I agree with him in practice. What is the purpose of the section on the Gospel accounts? It cannot be because the Gospel accounts "speak for themselves" about jesus' life, if only because this view, like any view, is a view and Wikipedia is all about presenting all significant views as views, which are "verifiable" but not "true." This is a fundamental principle at Wikipedia and there is no point in debating or even discussing it. Moreover, there are in fact many different views about how the Gospels should be interpreted or drawn on to learn anything about Jesus's life and teachings. In my view, this section ought to provide a newtral accout of the "raw material" for all those other significant views. The significant views are summarized in this article and presented at greater langth in other articles (e.g. Christology, Historical Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Our principle shoud be: provide a straightforward account of all elements of the Gospels that these significant views consider salient. For several significant views, that John does not mention Jesus' baptism, and that Mark does not mention his birth, are salient. Therefore these facts should be mentioned - briefly, and with no commentary or interpretation (that, I believe, belongs in other articles). The result will be a summary of the Gospels that readers of any of the linked articles I mentioned could refer back to ... or put it this way, an account of the Gospels that anyone could read, and then go on to read and fully follow any of the linked articles. I am sure that Christian theologians have explanations for why Mark does not mention the birth, or John does not mention the baptism. Those explanations belong in the articles Christology, Mark and John. The basic (descriptive) facts that theologians (and historians) explain should be in this section in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Why I include John's omission of the baptism: This section is "what the gospels say about Jesus." This subsection is "what the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation." When I consult my sources about what John, in particular, says about Jesus' baptism and temptation, I see that the gospel omits the baptism, so that information goes in here. The topic is "what do the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation," and this information tells the reader just that. I can't see anything more straightforward than that. On the other hand, a few editors don't want the article to say what John says about Jesus' baptism. Why not? For about 1900 years (since the Diatesseron), Christians have been trying to harmonize the four, different gospels into one, coherent story. Glossing over differences among the gospels is one tactic in this effort. Our gospel section used to be a lot like that, trying to meld the four gospels accounts into one account of what "the gospels" say. And that's a big difference between the traditional Christian POV and the scholarly view: whether there is one account of what "the gospels" say or four accounts, one for each gospel. Leadwind ( talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this is silly of me, but the article currently contains:
There is probably more... Point being, comparison and contrast is already all over this section of the article, and we specifically mention multiple things that are not found in other gospels. I'm not sure why the John material was so controversial and singled out among all this other stuff. Is anyone considering removing all this other material for the same reason the John/baptism/temptation stuff is objectionable? I'm not saying this is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I'm saying this is the manner we generally have taken in describing four similar, but sometimes conflicting stories. We mention notable places where material is unique, and notable places where material is omitted throughout the section. Is our whole approach problematic? Have the objectors read the entire section and agree with it all except the John/baptism/temptation stuff?- Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius' understanding of why John's gospel was different was rather simple. When John, in his old age decided to put his memoirs into writing, he decided not to cover what had already been covered. The story was already well known. There would be no point in saying the same things. He gave it a different perspective and added that there was much more that had not been written down..."volumes that would fill the earth" or something to that extent. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Muslim "scholars" do not debate the crucifixtion of Jesus, they simply believe it because it's in the Quran. It isn't scholarly, nor did they come to such a conclusion through scholarly work. It would be sufficient to say Muslims do not believe in the crucifixtion because the Quran says so. They have no historical records other than two holy books, and a choice to believe in the one they see fit to come to a "scholarly" conclusion. This needs to be changed, it's just plain stupid. Jesus like Christian "scholars" do not debate a fact they believe in the Bible, it is not debatable, it is written in stone, so to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.231.144 ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 January 2009
Whether or not his points are prejudicail or not, it remains unclear whether it is actual scholarly activities, or simply the Quran that is being referenced. If a scholarly view was used by Muslims fine, but if it's the Quran being referenced this should be reflected in the article —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.45.146.200 (
talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[note, moved from the to-do list by Andrew c [talk] 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]
I think the Jesus myth section is rather biased in its blanket statement that most or all scholars accept the historical Jesus and dismiss myth hypotheses. Most or all scholars interested in the area are Christians, as shown by every single reference cited in the section to support this contention. What then would one expect out of such a devotional viewpoint? The sampling is hopelessly biased, being self-selected. One unaffiliated, skeptical, and discerning analyst is worth a hundred apologetic ones.
It would be more appropriate to say that we have no evidence for Jesus's existence outside of what is internal to the tradition- the people who propagated the nascent faith and the documents they produced- all well after the time about which they wrote (including the interpolations to Josephus and all the rest...).
Thus the fair conclusion of the page should be while it is likely that these traditions trace back to a real person, there is no independent evidence to that effect, and indeed quite a few lacunae where evidence should exist. And the many correspondences to other mythical traditions floating around the Jewish and Mediterranean worlds of the time make the majority of key elements of this tradition quite suspect as to their historicity.
Note that all this needs to be presented in a probabilistic manner- this is not a question of refuting X, or being sure of Y, but of recognizing the lack of solid data either way.
http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html etc. etc... Burkbraun ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The Jesus-Myth hypothesis is discredited even among mainstream, nonsectarian scholars, not because the scholars are Christian but because there's every reason to believe he lived (as a mortal man). Leadwind ( talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There is some Internet lies going around web lately claiming Jesus was Korean theory, please note Jesus have nothing do with Korea and Koreans, but it seems Chinese & Japanese do believe this is correct which I can only think of this was lie was invented by Chinese/Japanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Chinese/Japanese communities. I do believe this has to stop, so please add this event on main article to show this was total fabrication. --Korsentry 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
this sounds interesting, but we'll need evidence of the notability of this "Christ was Korean" thing before we can debunk it. -- dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
jesus was a Rabbi and a Carpenter.
please add this two!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.80.216 ( talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We have 11 out of 11 images depicting the adult Jesus in the "standard average" convention of a bearded man with dark hair.
This does not reflect iconographic tradition accurately, since there is a parallel, although weaker, tradition of depicting Jesus as a beardless young man. here is Jesus as a boy (Bulgaria, 13th c.) -- which does not count, but which would be a welcome intermediate stage between the ubiquitous Baby Jesus and Bearded Jesus images. Here and here are examples for the beardless adult Jesus. Here we have a beardless Christ-as-Orpheus, which is probably intended more as an allegory than as a portrait, but which is nevertheless notable for its age (4th century. The oldest image currently in the article is 200 years younger). Early depictions of "Jesus as Good Shepherd" such as this, which also show him as a beardless youth are similar (allegory, not portrait). I think there is a theory that beardless depictions were the rule prior to the 6th century, when with the appearance of the Mandylion, an "authentic" portrait became available, which subsequently set an iconographic standard. -- dab (𒁳) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a particular preference. My suggestions are contained in the post above. I may try fiddling with the images today or tomorrow if I have time, but my intention was mainly to encourage others to widen iconographic coverage. In fact, the main article on this topic, depiction of Jesus, loses itself in "Early Iconography", "Acheiropoieta" and "in Islam" but fails to cover mainstream Christian ionography, which should ideally make for the bulk of the article, so I'll try to invest some work in that some time.
Of course this isn't about the question whether the "real" Jesus had a beard. None of these images are painted after life (if we exclude the Turin shroud debate for the moment). The idea that these images are in any way accurate suffers from the " Muhammad FAQ #3 fallacy". -- dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
So how do we edit a page if it's "semi-protected?" Is it possible to re-format pages anymore? This prohibition from editing doesn't seem very wikipedia-like. :)
Somebody let me know what's going on please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scttvnzn ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I'm putting this edit request here as the main article has been locked to edits.
<Edit request to remove vandalism removed as someone already did this.>
In the "Chronology" section, where it mention "the current year is 2009", "2009" should be replaced by the template CURRENTYEAR (all caps) in order to show the current year automatically without need to edit the year over time. (Place double curly braces before and after the template please.) This will not change the way the year is displayed, only effect is to change the year to match the current year, i.e.: on Jan 1, 2010, the year shown will change to "2010'.
Please delete this section after the above editing has been done as this section will no longer be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 ( talk) 16:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign. Added editsemiprotected 98.247.77.63 ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Edited to reflect current changes. Also added expanded explanation to "currentyear" after reading the request to not change date espression. The above "currentyear" template will not change the appearance, only change as the years roll by. 98.247.77.63 ( talk) 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If the chronology of his life is what is drawn upon for most of this article, would it not make sense to put Jesus's birth at the year zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.155 ( talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Astronomer John P. Pratt, The Planetarium Vol. 19 Number 4 Dec 1990:
"The date of the reported lunar eclipse shortly before the death of King Herod has long been recognized to be important for delimiting possible dates for the birth of Christ. For many years it has been believed that the eclipse occurred on March 13, 4 B.C., and hence that Christ must have been born about 6-5 B.C. However, recent re-evaluation has raised questions about that eclipse, and two other dates have been preferred: Jan. 10, 1 B.C., [1] and Sept 15, 5 B.C. [2 ] This paper proposes yet another eclipse as the correct choice: that of December 29, 1 B.C. It also suggests that Christ was born at the Passover season of 1 B.C. and discusses compatibility with traditional Christmas dates."
[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.159.103 ( talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've got a detailed grammatical question for someone who knows something about Aramaic. In some languages, the word "son" is specifically masculine (e.g., in English). In others, the word "son" is generic, but the corresponding word "daughter" is specifically feminine (e.g., Spanish). In Spanish, if one is talking about a "son" or "sons" in general (hijo or hijos), the term strictly means "child" or "offspring." If I ask you how many hijos you have, I'm asking about your children, not about your male children. European languages with gender often have word pairs that don't map to English, as in "sibling & sister" instead of brother and sister. Or "parent & mother," "teacher & female teacher," etc. What's the case in the term "son of man"? I've seen it translated as "child of humanity" (Ehrman). In Aramaic, does the term "son of man" mean "child of a mortal man" or does it mean specifically "male child of a mortal man"? Leadwind ( talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Spanish: hijo for son, and hija for daughter. Child:(boy) niño m; (girl) niña f. Only CHILDREN - niños - would be ambiguous - so much for Spanish -- JimWae ( talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I can speak neo-Aramaic and write it at a lower level; son of man in Aramaic is "bar-nasha", which has nothing to do with the word child. It has a loose mening to the words "son of man" but a more accurate translation is "human nature", and many Assyrians and Chaldeans say "ana hon bar nasha" (I am only a human!) as a sign of complaining for instance. Gabr- el 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"bar" means son or "of" whilst nasha just means man. Gabr- el 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In English, someone can say "she is the boy who cried wolf;" "the boy" stands in for all children. Leadwind, I think you are missing the point: even if "bar" always means "son," "bar nasha" is an ideomatic phrase that means something else. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not here to question the content of this article nor it's neutrality but rather the reliability of the sources used when considering wiki's neutrality philosophy. I can't help but notice that The Jesus Seminars are extensively relied upon and seem to be assumed to be a neutral source. This is far from true. There really are only two position to take on the issue of who Jesus was and what he did in light of what is recorded in scripture. Either you believe that it is all true--every word of it--or you don't. There is no middle ground. The Jesus Seminars do not accept the text of the scriptures in there totality and are therefore by default entirely on one side of the fence. So what I am ultimately asking here is if we can progressively phase out the Jesus Seminar sources and replace them with sources who do not take an open and declared stance of non-neutrality (which the Jesus Seminars most certainly have--though perhaps without realizing it?). Or, is it possible to flag sources in some way as questionably neutral/non-neutral (as opposed to flagging the entire article)? Thanks. MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all! I am well aware that this is a place to discuss improving the article based on wiki policy, not a place for sermons.
Absolute neutrality on this issue is impossible but using sources that are self-proclaimed non-neutral seems deleterious to the quality of the article (unless they are balanced by other sources taking the opposing stance). What I'm saying here is that The Jesus Seminars are, as an organization, not a neutral source. So anything we cite from them is not neutral. This jeopardizes the neutrality of the article. I see only a few possible solutions: 1) don't use The Jesus Seminars as a source (that's a difficult option to chose!); 2) balance all Jesus Seminar information with other scholarship taking the opposite view (a lot of work but probably the best way to ensure neutrality); 3) some how flag either the information in the article or the sources themselves in the Notes section as of questionable neutrality. Any thoughts? MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, you clearly did not follow what I was saying at all. Also, though I did not want to allow myself to deviate away from focusing on the article, you successfully tempted me into this: The Jesus Seminar is not middle ground in any way shape or form. Let me clarify what I was saying regarding absolute truth. There are only two views to take on the matter. 1) every word of the scriptures is absolutely true, or 2) not every word of the scriptures is absolutely true (this second class includes the spectrum ranging from "one word is wrong" to "the whole thing is false"). That's why there is no middle ground. It really is a black and white issue. The Jesus Seminars do not accept every word of it as truth and are therefore fall entirely into the previously enumerated group 2 (not a middle ground). What I was getting at before--in an attempt to improve the articles neutrality--was suggest a better balance of sources. I know we are not requiredto use neutral sources. I was merely listing the possible options, fully realizing that some of them are not realistic, not what I felt was required. I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I really am just trying to suggest means of improving the article. If no one is interested, forget it. I'm not that emotionally attached, I thought I would present the idea and see if anybody agreed or disagreed. I got my answer. MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
mvkcgb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 115 |
The second paragraph says "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels..." I don't think that this clause is true, and I'd like to see a citation for it. I'd put a fact tag on it, but I figure I'll give people a heads-up first. For a critical scholar, the synoptics are the principal sources of information, filled with historically reliable words and deeds of Jesus. Of them, only Matthew and Luke have substantial teachings of Jesus. John is too different from the synoptics to be used as a parallel source, at least without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics, the Church is the principal source of information, as only the Church has the divinely inspired role of interpreting Scripture. The idea that individuals should turn to the original texts in order to derive Jesus' biography is a humanistic idea championed during the Reformation, not traditional practice. A citation would solve this issue by letting the reader know who thinks that the four canonical Gospels are the principal source of information on Jesus' life. Leadwind ( talk) 16:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No citation has been forthcoming. I've supplied one of my own, although mostly for the Synoptics, because that's what my sources support. Leadwind ( talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
They notate the dates with BC/AD [1]. Does this matter at all? I'm new to the discussion, but it would seem to raise the prestige of the article if it looked less like a battleground -- which BC/BCE makes it look like -- and more professional. If how Brittanica notates it matters not at all, then feel free to simply archive box this, and I'll move along. [Full disclosure: I'm something of a lapsed Protestant, so I truly have no ideological dog in this hunt.] SD J 03:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeshu'a, in Hebrew, means simply "salvation". Yehosu'a means something quite similar to "God will rescue". Immanu-El is a Hebrew phrase and name, not Aramic. See the prophecy in the Book of Isaiah (Yesha'ayahu, in Hebrew), 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.33.119 ( talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeshua doesnt "simply" mean salvation. The derivation is more complex. Literally, it means "God (Yahu) is a saving-shout (shua)": in other words, if you call out for God, God will rescue you. (Just like if you call out the name "police", the police will rescue you.) But even in ancient times, it was interpreted more loosely to mean "God is salvation". Indeed, Immanu-El is Hebrew, the article was corrected and relocated to the Names and Titles section. Haldrik ( talk) 08:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Benedict says that Jesus "explodes" historical concepts. Catholic author G. K. Chesterton said much the same thing in The Everlasting Man (1925). C. S. Lewis mocked using the historical approach for scripture. Benedict doesn't say that Jesus is a historical figure in the general sense that he was a creature of history, someone shaped by historical forces the way any mortal is. He says that Jesus Christ of the the Church is real, but that's different from "historical" just like it's different from "scientific." If he said that the historical Jesus project is a valid one that should end up with the Jesus Christ of faith as its finding, a page number would help. Leadwind ( talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And I'm open to rewording it. The point is that the pope rejects the historical-critical project of describing Jesus Christ as if He were a mortal. That's basically where Chesterton and Lewis were at. I don't want a separate "criticism of historical Jesus efforts" section, but I don't mind summarizing the apologist viewpoint. Leadwind ( talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A link for those following along. Here's what the pope said on the historical-critical method, historical Jesus, etc. Leadwind ( talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
75.209.244.15 (
talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote this text because it was wordy and vague: "Other scholars hold that the real Jesus, the "historical Jesus" in the proper sense of the term is the Jesus of the Gospels, that from the historical point of view this presentation of him is more understandable than the reconstructions that have been offered in recent decades." Quite specifically, the pope and Chesterton reject the so-called historical Jesus project, and we should tell our reader so. I respect another editor's desire to have the pope's criticism portrayed favorably, so I'm willing to work on a more favorable version of my sentence. It just has to be more informative that the one I replaced. Leadwind ( talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The latest version is well-written and OK. I wish the text said clearly that the pope rejects the Historical Jesus project because our readers deserve clear information, but the current version is so much better than what we started with that I'm inclined to go with it. Leadwind ( talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've included two rather well known and easily found elements from the Gospel stories, otherwise omitted in the article. With so many of you swarming, that's a sorry oversight.
I removed the section in the intro because it provides a distorted and overly simplistic account of the Jewish view. Another encyclopedia is not a good source in this case, aside from being another tertiary source it is out-dated and limited in its scope.
I have no objection to summarizing the Jewish view in the introduction, but let's do it right. The introduction should summarize the article. We have a decent article on Jewish views of Jesus, which is itself summarized in this article; these are based on far better research than a line from another encyclopedia. If we want to summarize the Jewish view, let's summarize what this article goes on to say, which should be a summary of what the linked Wikipedia article already says. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
IIII am fine with your edit - I think the key issue is that Jesus and his first followers were Jews, and some part of "the Jewish view" is important for understanding how Christianity became a separate religion, an event that had a huge impact on what we know of Jesus, and arguments about the historical Jesus versus religious views of Jesus. I think you pinpointed the critical issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus." Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford History of the Biblical World, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 371, Chapter 10: Visions of Kingdoms: From Pompey to the First Jewish Revolt (63 BCE-70 CE), M. Coogan et al. (eds.)
This statement can't be right. Thomas doesn't have any narrative. How can it compare to a gospel like Luke? Thomas might be better than John, but it's not on par with the synoptics. Leadwind ( talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that the Jesus Seminar ranked primary sources, but perhaps they did, and if they did, based on number of red sayings the order would be: Matthew 13, Luke 12, Thomas 5, Mark 2, Egerton Gospel 1, Didache 1. See also [2]. 75.15.199.153 ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably, but they don't say much about Jesus, not surprising given Paul never met Jesus in person. 75.15.199.153 ( talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, "Jesus' biography" is the "Acts of Jesus", which the Jesus Seminar rated as follows: Mark, Mathew and Luke: 5 red each; Gospel of the Ebionites 1 red; Oxyrhynchus Gospels 1 red; 1 Corinthians 1 red. 75.15.199.153 ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Often overlooked is the "Jesus Christ's great Paradox", "that which you do unto the least of mine, you do unto mine." ....something about when i was sick you visited me, when i was in prison you visited me...
Seems this is very, very critical to the 'balance' of Gods word through Christ and how to deal with 'the least of'...
The Works of Saint Augustine -- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Corrected title ?
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We pay so much attention to details except the important ones...
(Changed Christs to Christ's )
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one removes this important and timely addition, however, if they so choose, I have included a copy here for discussion for inclusion...
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This edit is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, you put it as the second paragraph of the "Teachings and preachings" section, between kingdom of heaven/prayer and attracting large crowds. This gives the illusion of priority, that Jesus' opinion on marriage is one of the most important, defining aspects of his ministry. I'd challenge you to find enough scholars that suggest that this was on the top of their lists when summarizing Jesus' ministry to demonstrate the weight you have given this information. In fact, I'm not even sure the interpretation you presented is universally accepted (among historians or theologians). In fact, what I believe this edit has done is make a minor, disputed point seems like a Very Important Fact! On top of that, there are spelling mistakes, grammar errors, and so on. Keep in mind that this is a professional, live encyclopedia and we should strive for professionalism and quality (and therefore I would encourage you to copy edit your contributions better in the future). I believe your source is not prominent, nor is it discussing Jesus' ministry. The text may be better suited in the Christian views section, but it would also probably need to be balanced by other views. I think Christian views of marriage or even Traditional marriage movement could be better places to try to incorporate that info. I could be wrong though, I might have missed the prevalence historians and theologians give to Jesus' take on marriage, so perhaps you could supply additional sources so we can better contextualize the weight we should give this content. Thanks for bringing your concerns here to the talk page, and I urge you not to edit war any further, but instead continue this discussion and wait to see if a compromise or consensus can be reached.- Andrew c [talk] 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The observation is made that the deletion was made without any valid cause.
It appears that Christianity has come under attack by 'hostile elements' that have no real interest in the true message of Jesus Christ...
For years we have struggled with the definition of marriage and even today we find some 'sabotors' within the church who have their own personal agenda to corrupt it.
Well let us see what Mathew 19, 4-6 says.
Seems an important issue concerning the corruption within the church by some.-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Caesar, it would be helpful if you reviewed editing policies. You can write almost anything on Wikipedia if you have a reliable reference to support it. What you cannot do is say anything you want. For example, we do not quote scripture, a primary text, unless the meaning is absolutely clear and directly connected to what you are trying to say. What is needed is a reliable secondary source that interprets the scripture to say what you want. More importantly, in this current context your secondary source must state that it is of vital importance to Jesus. Do you understand? -- Storm Rider 08:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will try to input this important information in the appropriate section.
I don't make mistakes,....Once I thought i was wrong, but i was mistaken....
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sunni Islam is the majority and it’s not mentioned. I am wondering to merge all the sub Islamic views to one, “Jesus in Islam” section — Wiikkiiwriter ( talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I kind of understandLeadwind's problems with how this sentence had been phrased. But I have a problem with the replacement, "believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are partially historical." The problem is, all of them are "historical" if we mean they are useful sources for historians. Those parts that historians reconstructing Jesus' life ignore as useless, are useful to historians of the early Church who are trying to document changing views of Jesus by early Christians. How about something like "Believe that some parts of the ancient texts on Jesus are useful for reconstructing his life" or something like this? I would rather let some others weigh in before making any change, and invite Leadwind to make the change as long as we all come up with something that reads well and is accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Slrub removed Yeshua from the lede. I pointed out that it is standard convention to include the original name in their native language in the lede, just after the English-Roman tranlsliteration. Thanks - Ste vertigo 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I reverted this twice - i hope he will assume i did so in good faith. there is a reason why this article does not provide Jesus's "original" name in the lead. The fact is, this was discussed at great length. I will summarize a discussion that went on for many many days. First, Hebrew and Aramaic are two different languages, and it is at least as likely Jesus spoke Aramaic as Hebrew as his childhood language. Second, the sources we have on Jesus' life are all in Greek. Is it plausible that the Greek name is a transcription of an Aramaic name? I think so! But my analysis cannot go into an article, that violates NOR. Look at the article on Yeshu and you will see just how controversial Jesus' name in Aramaic is! These are all good reasons for keeping it out of the lead, we discussed them at length, and the article reflects the consensus. Please do not impose your own POV against consensus without first investigating why we reached that consensus that has been stable for so long. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo's understanding of the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic is just plain wrong. As to the rest of his post, all I can make out is that he finds all points of view nonsensical so just prefers his own original research? Sorry, the web is full of places where people can spew their own BS ad nauseum. Wikipedia is not one of them. Whatever Stevertigo thinks was "probably" the case is just not Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, because I have Alkalai's dictionary, read Chomsky's book, and took Biblical Hebrew in college as well as courses in Biblical and Second Temple History, so I have read a lot of scholarship on the topic. Yeshu in the Midrash and Talmud is not a serious indication of the etymology, only an indication of how complex and controversial the question of etymology is if you have studied 9as I have) the divergent understandings contemporary Rabbinic Literature scholars have of the Yeshu texts.
And while the Catholic Encyclopedia, like Wikipedia and other on-line encyclopedias, is a good starting point for research, it is not a substitution for rigorous research and not reliable on this point. The article itself equivocates on the "original" name, and provides no evidence or reasoning. Since it does not explain its evidence, I find it an unreliable source. It's only advantage is that being on line it is easy for any of us to access. But that is no substitute for walking to a library and reading real scholarship ... and guess what, editors of this article have done that!! Yup, and AndrewC kindly provided all the archives where we had extensive discussions. Those were serious discussions by people who knew the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic and did serious research. Let's not change consensus unless we have another serious conversation based on serious research.
As to your comment about my dismissing the historical Jesus, well all I can say is well-informed Wikipedians already know enough that I don't even need to respond to that.
Now, Steve, instead of bickering with me, why don't you just accept the fact tht your edit, while made in good faith, was ill-advised and when i reverted you it was based on my long experience working on this article and not a personal attack against you. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I see, so you own a Hebrew dictionary, have read a Modern Hebrew morphophonemic treatise, and took semi-historically reconstructed Hebrew in college. And from these you say there was such a difference between Hebrew and Aramaic that any related transcription or reconstructions thereof are invalid. And certainly, you have the authority of knowledge to dismiss even the encyclopedia administered by a two thousand year old institution, which has its own serious concepts of scholarship! Indeed it seems to be a battle between the rabbis and the priests as to what Jesus was all about, let alone whether or not he had a Hebrew and/or Aramaic name. - Ste vertigo 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If SLR really had an issue with this transliteration (or reconstruction if you like) then he would certainly want to object to the etymology section, and deal with it there. He does not, for some reason, instead choosing to keep the same derivation out of the lede. The reason for this, one might infer is due to his giving excess weight and authority to Jewish sources on the matter of Hebrew language, disregarding certain facts about how Jews have traditionally regarded the most beloved Jew in the history of the planet.- Ste vertigo 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You refer to "Jewish sources" that "deprecate the concept of Jesus." What Jewish sources are you referring to? And how and why are they relevant to this specific discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You suggested a Hebrew version of Jesus' name, and then made false claims about Hebrew and Aramaic. I told you your claims were mistaken and you asked me what I knew on the topic, and I told you how I came to know about Hebrew. I truly do not understand how you think. You make an edit concerning the Hebrew language, ask me what i know about the Hebrew language, and I answer, and suddenly you think this is about being Jewish rather than the Hebre3w language? It was you who brought up Hebrew! It was you who asked me what I knew about language! Now, as to the race-card being a tar baby, I know you can deal with it, since it was you who introduced it to the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(Copied from User talk:Orangemarlin, who for some reason immediately deleted my comment from his talk) Could you please actually explain why you made the revert to the article, and not just rely on a terse and useless concept like NPOV. My edit was accurate and NPOV, and was a substantial improvement over the previous version. If you disagree, you can 1) actually read the edit and 2) comment on its specific points on the talk page. Thanks -Stevertigo 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The etymology is fine, but "The name “Jesus” is an Anglicisation of the Greek" is not fully accurate as the form "Jesus" occurs in a number of languages (in some cases with the e or u accented), to wit: it occurs in Afrikaans, Catalan, Spanish, Cebuano (borrowed), Danish, German, Basque, French, Icelandic, Norwegian, etc. Sop "Anglicisation" is not correct: "variation" or "variant" or "transliteration" might be better and would certainly be more accurate. •Jim62sch• dissera! 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why no one has added first century historian Flavius Josephus' account("Antiquities Of The Jews", Book 18, Chapt.3, Sec.3) of Jesus in this article? It would be a nice addition to the historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.62.212 ( talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made one change to the etymology, and propose another to names and titles. The change I made: I removed the link to Yshu which is an article about a character in Rabbinic literature. The majority view is that this character is unrelated to Jesus, and the article is not on the etymology of Jesus' name (we may as well provide a link to the Biblical book of Joshuah!).
My proposal: Stevertigo rightly pointed out that some of my criticisms of his edit to the lead applied to this section. I know that others have been working on the transliteration problem, I am just concerned with V and NPOV.
I propose the following (my changes bolded):
My intention is just to modify the language a bit to make it clear that a POV is a POV. Any objections? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I am sure we can come up with something beter. But the original is just as weasily, and also backwards. We can state that the Septuagint translaterates the Hebrew Yehoshua as Jesus. But this: "based on an examination of the Septuagint some have suggested that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע) (Yeshua — he will save) a contraction of Hebrew name Yehoshua (יהושוע Yeho — Yahweh [is] shua` — deliverance/rescue, usually Romanized as Joshua)" is weasily and overwrought. There is also still the problem that Hebrew and Aramaic are not the same. The Septuagint purports to be a translation of the Hebrew, so that is all we can say. As to whether Jesus' given name was in Hebrew or Aramaic or what it was, that remains a POV claim and we can present it as long as it is peggd 9as it is) to verifiable sources, and identified as a POV. But there is still something wrong in the Septuagint sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced some material that was vague with specific information on the same topics. I hope you'll agree that more-informative writing is better than less-informative writing, but I'll be surprised if I haven't, in the process of adding information, offended someone's take on Jesus. Please criticize me as you would like to be criticized. Leadwind ( talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to know who started BCE/CE and why? And what does BCE stand for, Before Christ's Execution? Why not use BC like scholars have for a thousand years. What happened in the year 1 that was so important that it is a timemark for all the rest of history, could it have been Jesus Christ's birth? It is stupid to use BCE/CE in an article such as this as it conveys the thought that Jesus Christ's birth was not an important historical event in time. Yet BCE/CE is based on this exact same time marker. Please drop BCE/CE from this article now. Thank you. 76.180.230.218 ( talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I prefer BC/AD; however, these are abbreviations. BCE/CE could be considered "before Christian Era/Christian Era" However, they are commonly understood as "before common era/common era. Remember too that Dionysius Exiguus was a little off on the exact year of Christ's birth.-- drb ( talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
1) According to the traditional Christian understanding of the "Nicene Creed", Jesus is one of several incarnations of God, but the incarnation of God. 2) The Trinity as "members" not "manifestations". 3) The Nicene Creed, despite its label, was given current form only in c. 380 CE. If someone wants to make the phrase "of the current era" conform to the dating conventions of this article, please feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnite Critic ( talk • contribs)
I just made some edits to the paragraphs on Jesus and on Christ. I felt that the references to the Septuagint were either unclear, weasily, or OR. All I did, in both paragraphs, was this: (1) the names in the NT, (2) where these Greek names appear in the Septuagint (to comply with NOR, making purely descriptive claims), and (3) how some people have used the Septuagint data to propose a translation of NT names (in Greek) to Hebrew. I do not believe I made any substantive change. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to history, we accept what the Pilgrims and Puritans had to say about themselves- both of which were religious groups. We publish every who, what, where, when and why as historical fact. We do as much when it comes to the history of the Mormon church. Yet, when we discuss Jesus and the early Christian church nothing is admissible by anyone who was remotely involved with Christianity in anyway. Not Eusebius. Not Josephus. I'm sorry, but history is not science and it never has been. At best, history is pure gossip. There are no facts in gossip. It's all information and let the reader or hearer decide and make up their own mind. When you intentionally withhold or misrepresent that information you become worse than the "copyist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.139.120 ( talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is bias, Most of the references come from books published by Christen publishers, only PROVEN Scientific, and Non-religious sources should be included as FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.3.159 ( talk) 10:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jesus out of hand.
Stevertigo, you have some interesting points but need citations to back up your work. I'm reverting your recent edits, including your expansion of the first paragraph. Let's work together more. Leadwind ( talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Yeshua transliteration is controversial, and certain Hebrew scholars have disputed its etymological derivation as an inaccurate reconstruction. citation needed Hebrew Midrash appears to support the use of Yeshua —the name Yeshu ha- Notzri directly translates as "Jesus the Nazarene." But the term Yeshu has certain anti-Christian meaning, and this fact complicates using these texts as the basis for the name's Hebrew etymology. citation needed
Stevertigo, please play nicely with the other editors. Leadwind ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to compliment Stevertigo on a magnificent use of the "Chinaman" phrase. Top quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.79.173 ( talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I once again stepped in and changed the sentence on the Nicene Creed to further clarify what the Nicene Creed is and says. "Confession" may not be as clear as I thought it might be. In modifying the newly added sentence my concern was in making it accurate and NPOV.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What is important is that the lead provide a concise (no more than two sentence) and accurate description of what Christians believe about Jesus. My understanding (could be wrong) is that Stevertigo felt that the previous version represented the views of some but not all Christians and somehow his edit restopred NPOV/accuracy, maybe his claim is that not all Christians accept the Nicene Creed. My suggestion is to compare Stevertigo's original edit with the previous version and ask: which is more accurate and more clear? and then Can this be phrased any more concisely? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo, "Its a matter of being clear - something Leadwind appears to support, but also in a certain way contradict, by removing information that clarifies the issue." For me, being clear is more a matter of information density, how much information there is per line of text. I don't support including most tangential topics, such as the Nicene Creed. That said, if we are going to mention the NC, then I want a concise, informative description of it, so that the lede is packed with information. I oppose vague sentences, often constructed so as not to accommodate minority opinions. I'd rather be clear about what's mostly true than be vague about what's totally true. I'd rather say "Most Christians believe Jesus to be fully God and full man" than say something like "Historically and across the globe, Christians espouse various doctrines about Jesus' divinity and humans identity." I'd rather leave out the Nicene Creed because reference to it doesn't much help one understand what most Christians believe about Jesus. Leadwind ( talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In the New Testament you have Matthew 28:19: "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"; Jesus Christ is also called "God" (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13; and 1st John 5:20-21). The New Testament gives all of the dots that are then connected by the Nicene bishops. The revisionism that has begun in the latter part of the last century takes issue with this and considers even Gnosticism a legitimate claimant to "authentic Christianity." The only one that was indeed considered a heretic by the Second Council of Constantinople (553) was ORIGEN.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The question is, how detailed do we have to get to do justice to the mainstream Christian view? I agree that whatever we say must be (1) accurate) and (2) apply to the vast majority of Christians i.e. all major sects, denominations, congregations or Churches. But with these two criteria in mind, it should also be be (3) as simple and concise and accessible (meaning, it will make some sense to non-Christians or have links taking them to where they need to go for more detail) as possible. If we can all agree in princple at least on these criteria, how about this:
This matches the third criteria I set forth. If you feel it does not match the other two please propose something but also, please conform to the third criteria. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a few active editors who have not yet weighed in, but if all you guys agree I'd say we have a consensus or awfully close. I do not mind if one of you makes the change; alternatively we can wait and see if Andrew, Jim or Hardy have any complaints and then make the change. But I wish we could all put this to rest! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will be bold and make the change, if Andrew or Jim have a problem we can discuss it, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Would auto archiving be useful here? - Ste vertigo 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No mention in this article of Jesus referring to himself as "the son of man". He refers to himself by that title at least 30 times in the gospels! The number of times it appears and the context in which it appears should have been reason enough to include somewhere in this article. What significance does it have with regard to his claim of Messiahship and being the Son of God? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.19.135.200 (
talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
He certainly does refer to himself as The Son of Man in the gospels, and he uses it to show his authority over the preciding legal views of the Rabbinic culture, not to mention the Decalogue itself. Reference: Matt 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 12:40, etc. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Refers to himself, by my count, at least 80 times in the gospels. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Son of Man (a Biblical figure) has authority over the Decalogue? Interesting theory. Presumably part of Antinomianism. 68.123.73.253 ( talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of Vermes' argument is that it goes back to the Aramaic of Jesus, which then got altered when it went into the Greek of the NT, or parallels were made by Early Christians between the Greek of the NT and the Greek of the Septuagint. 68.123.73.253 ( talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible there could be a view on philosophical view as Jesus is one of the most important characters to study in modern Philosophy. Thank you. 6 February 2009. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Objective33 (
talk •
contribs) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not "my theory" when I said he uses the title "son of man" to state his authority over the Decalogue itself. One example:The statement, "For the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day"(Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5) is pretty emphatic, and is one of the reasons, as it is recorded in the gospels, why the preciding religious community was apparently shocked and appalled. They viewed him as a "blasphemer" and a threat to the norm. It's certainly not implied in any sense in the gospels. How does that title relate to the view in the Book of Enoch(1 Enoch, Ethiopic Enoch)? Whether you buy into those particular chapters in Enoch predating or postdating the gospels, it's still there, in your face. Son of Man in Enoch is simply not used as a rhetorical device or a figure of politeness. Rather, it is used as a title of a messianic figure. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
70.19.135.200 may want to check out Biblical law in Christianity. It's only a minority of Christians who believe the Ten Commandments have been superseded. 75.15.197.128 ( talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the point I was trying to make was sidetracked or I did not explain it sufficiently. Originally, I had said that the title "Son of Man" did not receive any mention in this article. I was wrong, sort of. It receives one sentence. That being the case, consider that the word "Christ" appears 60 times within the four gospels, and the phrase or title "Son of Man" appears more than 80 times. I strongly feel that "Son of Man" deserves much more of an explanation than the single line given to it. At a minimum, a paragraph would be sufficient in the context of this article. No? 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me add something here. The Aramaic phrase: "Bar Nasha" is a very common everyday term which literally means "human nature". Gabr- el 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You guys think I'm talking out of my ass. Here's one source, one scholar for you...R.H.Charles, British Biblical scholar:
-The Son Of Man And Its Meaning In Jewish Apocalyptic And In The New Testament -Book Of Enoch:Together With Reprint Of Greek Fragments p.307 "Its (Son of Man) import in the New Testament, this title(emphasis mine), with its supernatural attributes of superhuman glory, of universal dominion and supreme judicial powers, was adopted by (Jesus). The Son of Man has come down from heaven, John 3:13(cf 1 Enoch 48:2); he is the Lord of the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; can forgive sins, Matt 9:6; and all judgement is commited unto him, John 5:22,27(cf 1 En9:27). But while retaining its supernatural associations, this title(emphasis mine) underwent transformation that all Pharasaic ideas, so far as he adopted them, likewise underwent. And just as his kingdom in general formed a standing protest against the prevailing Messianic ideas of temporal glory and dominion, so the title(emphasis mine)"Son of Man" assumed a deeper spiritual significance..." You want more? 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Richard ( talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Outside input is requested at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a section, The narratives compared, which is a table showing the differences in detail between the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Questions have been raised as to whether it should be included. Concerns include original research, novel synthesis, and dependence upon primary sources. The table can be seen at this version of the page: [11]. Opinions concerning whether it should be included at all (given its current state, as well as the "Nativity as myth" section, which addresses discrepancies in the narratives), and if so, then in its current state, or beefed up with references, or converted to prose, are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who respond at the talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Two editors do not want our "gospels" section to tell the reader what all four gospels say abut Jesus' baptism and temptation. They want the article to relate only what the synoptics say and delete reference to what John says (or doesn't say), even when the information is cited. We have a section called "baptism and temptation." Naturally this section should tell the reader what the gospels, all of them, say on this topic. I can understand why a Christian might not want this article to point out differences between John and the synoptics, but I can't think of a good WP reason to exclude this information. Anyone? Leadwind ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ross,
Actually, it is widely considered by Biblical scholars that each of the four gospels has a different "take" on the subject of Jesus' ministry. Another way of putting this is that each has a different message targeted to a different audience. The following text is taken from the "Character of Jesus" section of the Jesus article:
Each assertion in the article text is cited to one or more reliable sources. I didn't include them here but they are in the article text.
The argument then is that similarities and differences between the gospels are not accidental but are the product of each evangelist having a different "take" on the subject; that is, a different message for a different audience. This is explained more fully in the Gospel article under the section "Content of the Gospels"
Once again, this text is heavily cited. I have omitted the citations because they wouldn't show up in the right way on a Talk Page.
I understand that your reversion of the text in question was in good faith but I think that, in this particular instance, you are letting general principles about Wikipedia articles override the current consensus of Biblical scholars.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ross on principle. But I believe principles must be applied relative to the context. In this situation, I think Richard has provided a fine analysis and I agree with him in practice. What is the purpose of the section on the Gospel accounts? It cannot be because the Gospel accounts "speak for themselves" about jesus' life, if only because this view, like any view, is a view and Wikipedia is all about presenting all significant views as views, which are "verifiable" but not "true." This is a fundamental principle at Wikipedia and there is no point in debating or even discussing it. Moreover, there are in fact many different views about how the Gospels should be interpreted or drawn on to learn anything about Jesus's life and teachings. In my view, this section ought to provide a newtral accout of the "raw material" for all those other significant views. The significant views are summarized in this article and presented at greater langth in other articles (e.g. Christology, Historical Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Our principle shoud be: provide a straightforward account of all elements of the Gospels that these significant views consider salient. For several significant views, that John does not mention Jesus' baptism, and that Mark does not mention his birth, are salient. Therefore these facts should be mentioned - briefly, and with no commentary or interpretation (that, I believe, belongs in other articles). The result will be a summary of the Gospels that readers of any of the linked articles I mentioned could refer back to ... or put it this way, an account of the Gospels that anyone could read, and then go on to read and fully follow any of the linked articles. I am sure that Christian theologians have explanations for why Mark does not mention the birth, or John does not mention the baptism. Those explanations belong in the articles Christology, Mark and John. The basic (descriptive) facts that theologians (and historians) explain should be in this section in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Why I include John's omission of the baptism: This section is "what the gospels say about Jesus." This subsection is "what the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation." When I consult my sources about what John, in particular, says about Jesus' baptism and temptation, I see that the gospel omits the baptism, so that information goes in here. The topic is "what do the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation," and this information tells the reader just that. I can't see anything more straightforward than that. On the other hand, a few editors don't want the article to say what John says about Jesus' baptism. Why not? For about 1900 years (since the Diatesseron), Christians have been trying to harmonize the four, different gospels into one, coherent story. Glossing over differences among the gospels is one tactic in this effort. Our gospel section used to be a lot like that, trying to meld the four gospels accounts into one account of what "the gospels" say. And that's a big difference between the traditional Christian POV and the scholarly view: whether there is one account of what "the gospels" say or four accounts, one for each gospel. Leadwind ( talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this is silly of me, but the article currently contains:
There is probably more... Point being, comparison and contrast is already all over this section of the article, and we specifically mention multiple things that are not found in other gospels. I'm not sure why the John material was so controversial and singled out among all this other stuff. Is anyone considering removing all this other material for the same reason the John/baptism/temptation stuff is objectionable? I'm not saying this is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I'm saying this is the manner we generally have taken in describing four similar, but sometimes conflicting stories. We mention notable places where material is unique, and notable places where material is omitted throughout the section. Is our whole approach problematic? Have the objectors read the entire section and agree with it all except the John/baptism/temptation stuff?- Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius' understanding of why John's gospel was different was rather simple. When John, in his old age decided to put his memoirs into writing, he decided not to cover what had already been covered. The story was already well known. There would be no point in saying the same things. He gave it a different perspective and added that there was much more that had not been written down..."volumes that would fill the earth" or something to that extent. 70.19.135.200 ( talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Muslim "scholars" do not debate the crucifixtion of Jesus, they simply believe it because it's in the Quran. It isn't scholarly, nor did they come to such a conclusion through scholarly work. It would be sufficient to say Muslims do not believe in the crucifixtion because the Quran says so. They have no historical records other than two holy books, and a choice to believe in the one they see fit to come to a "scholarly" conclusion. This needs to be changed, it's just plain stupid. Jesus like Christian "scholars" do not debate a fact they believe in the Bible, it is not debatable, it is written in stone, so to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.231.144 ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 January 2009
Whether or not his points are prejudicail or not, it remains unclear whether it is actual scholarly activities, or simply the Quran that is being referenced. If a scholarly view was used by Muslims fine, but if it's the Quran being referenced this should be reflected in the article —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.45.146.200 (
talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[note, moved from the to-do list by Andrew c [talk] 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]
I think the Jesus myth section is rather biased in its blanket statement that most or all scholars accept the historical Jesus and dismiss myth hypotheses. Most or all scholars interested in the area are Christians, as shown by every single reference cited in the section to support this contention. What then would one expect out of such a devotional viewpoint? The sampling is hopelessly biased, being self-selected. One unaffiliated, skeptical, and discerning analyst is worth a hundred apologetic ones.
It would be more appropriate to say that we have no evidence for Jesus's existence outside of what is internal to the tradition- the people who propagated the nascent faith and the documents they produced- all well after the time about which they wrote (including the interpolations to Josephus and all the rest...).
Thus the fair conclusion of the page should be while it is likely that these traditions trace back to a real person, there is no independent evidence to that effect, and indeed quite a few lacunae where evidence should exist. And the many correspondences to other mythical traditions floating around the Jewish and Mediterranean worlds of the time make the majority of key elements of this tradition quite suspect as to their historicity.
Note that all this needs to be presented in a probabilistic manner- this is not a question of refuting X, or being sure of Y, but of recognizing the lack of solid data either way.
http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html etc. etc... Burkbraun ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The Jesus-Myth hypothesis is discredited even among mainstream, nonsectarian scholars, not because the scholars are Christian but because there's every reason to believe he lived (as a mortal man). Leadwind ( talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There is some Internet lies going around web lately claiming Jesus was Korean theory, please note Jesus have nothing do with Korea and Koreans, but it seems Chinese & Japanese do believe this is correct which I can only think of this was lie was invented by Chinese/Japanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Chinese/Japanese communities. I do believe this has to stop, so please add this event on main article to show this was total fabrication. --Korsentry 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
this sounds interesting, but we'll need evidence of the notability of this "Christ was Korean" thing before we can debunk it. -- dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
jesus was a Rabbi and a Carpenter.
please add this two!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.80.216 ( talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We have 11 out of 11 images depicting the adult Jesus in the "standard average" convention of a bearded man with dark hair.
This does not reflect iconographic tradition accurately, since there is a parallel, although weaker, tradition of depicting Jesus as a beardless young man. here is Jesus as a boy (Bulgaria, 13th c.) -- which does not count, but which would be a welcome intermediate stage between the ubiquitous Baby Jesus and Bearded Jesus images. Here and here are examples for the beardless adult Jesus. Here we have a beardless Christ-as-Orpheus, which is probably intended more as an allegory than as a portrait, but which is nevertheless notable for its age (4th century. The oldest image currently in the article is 200 years younger). Early depictions of "Jesus as Good Shepherd" such as this, which also show him as a beardless youth are similar (allegory, not portrait). I think there is a theory that beardless depictions were the rule prior to the 6th century, when with the appearance of the Mandylion, an "authentic" portrait became available, which subsequently set an iconographic standard. -- dab (𒁳) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a particular preference. My suggestions are contained in the post above. I may try fiddling with the images today or tomorrow if I have time, but my intention was mainly to encourage others to widen iconographic coverage. In fact, the main article on this topic, depiction of Jesus, loses itself in "Early Iconography", "Acheiropoieta" and "in Islam" but fails to cover mainstream Christian ionography, which should ideally make for the bulk of the article, so I'll try to invest some work in that some time.
Of course this isn't about the question whether the "real" Jesus had a beard. None of these images are painted after life (if we exclude the Turin shroud debate for the moment). The idea that these images are in any way accurate suffers from the " Muhammad FAQ #3 fallacy". -- dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
So how do we edit a page if it's "semi-protected?" Is it possible to re-format pages anymore? This prohibition from editing doesn't seem very wikipedia-like. :)
Somebody let me know what's going on please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scttvnzn ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I'm putting this edit request here as the main article has been locked to edits.
<Edit request to remove vandalism removed as someone already did this.>
In the "Chronology" section, where it mention "the current year is 2009", "2009" should be replaced by the template CURRENTYEAR (all caps) in order to show the current year automatically without need to edit the year over time. (Place double curly braces before and after the template please.) This will not change the way the year is displayed, only effect is to change the year to match the current year, i.e.: on Jan 1, 2010, the year shown will change to "2010'.
Please delete this section after the above editing has been done as this section will no longer be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 ( talk) 16:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign. Added editsemiprotected 98.247.77.63 ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Edited to reflect current changes. Also added expanded explanation to "currentyear" after reading the request to not change date espression. The above "currentyear" template will not change the appearance, only change as the years roll by. 98.247.77.63 ( talk) 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If the chronology of his life is what is drawn upon for most of this article, would it not make sense to put Jesus's birth at the year zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.155 ( talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Astronomer John P. Pratt, The Planetarium Vol. 19 Number 4 Dec 1990:
"The date of the reported lunar eclipse shortly before the death of King Herod has long been recognized to be important for delimiting possible dates for the birth of Christ. For many years it has been believed that the eclipse occurred on March 13, 4 B.C., and hence that Christ must have been born about 6-5 B.C. However, recent re-evaluation has raised questions about that eclipse, and two other dates have been preferred: Jan. 10, 1 B.C., [1] and Sept 15, 5 B.C. [2 ] This paper proposes yet another eclipse as the correct choice: that of December 29, 1 B.C. It also suggests that Christ was born at the Passover season of 1 B.C. and discusses compatibility with traditional Christmas dates."
[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.159.103 ( talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've got a detailed grammatical question for someone who knows something about Aramaic. In some languages, the word "son" is specifically masculine (e.g., in English). In others, the word "son" is generic, but the corresponding word "daughter" is specifically feminine (e.g., Spanish). In Spanish, if one is talking about a "son" or "sons" in general (hijo or hijos), the term strictly means "child" or "offspring." If I ask you how many hijos you have, I'm asking about your children, not about your male children. European languages with gender often have word pairs that don't map to English, as in "sibling & sister" instead of brother and sister. Or "parent & mother," "teacher & female teacher," etc. What's the case in the term "son of man"? I've seen it translated as "child of humanity" (Ehrman). In Aramaic, does the term "son of man" mean "child of a mortal man" or does it mean specifically "male child of a mortal man"? Leadwind ( talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Spanish: hijo for son, and hija for daughter. Child:(boy) niño m; (girl) niña f. Only CHILDREN - niños - would be ambiguous - so much for Spanish -- JimWae ( talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I can speak neo-Aramaic and write it at a lower level; son of man in Aramaic is "bar-nasha", which has nothing to do with the word child. It has a loose mening to the words "son of man" but a more accurate translation is "human nature", and many Assyrians and Chaldeans say "ana hon bar nasha" (I am only a human!) as a sign of complaining for instance. Gabr- el 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"bar" means son or "of" whilst nasha just means man. Gabr- el 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In English, someone can say "she is the boy who cried wolf;" "the boy" stands in for all children. Leadwind, I think you are missing the point: even if "bar" always means "son," "bar nasha" is an ideomatic phrase that means something else. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not here to question the content of this article nor it's neutrality but rather the reliability of the sources used when considering wiki's neutrality philosophy. I can't help but notice that The Jesus Seminars are extensively relied upon and seem to be assumed to be a neutral source. This is far from true. There really are only two position to take on the issue of who Jesus was and what he did in light of what is recorded in scripture. Either you believe that it is all true--every word of it--or you don't. There is no middle ground. The Jesus Seminars do not accept the text of the scriptures in there totality and are therefore by default entirely on one side of the fence. So what I am ultimately asking here is if we can progressively phase out the Jesus Seminar sources and replace them with sources who do not take an open and declared stance of non-neutrality (which the Jesus Seminars most certainly have--though perhaps without realizing it?). Or, is it possible to flag sources in some way as questionably neutral/non-neutral (as opposed to flagging the entire article)? Thanks. MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all! I am well aware that this is a place to discuss improving the article based on wiki policy, not a place for sermons.
Absolute neutrality on this issue is impossible but using sources that are self-proclaimed non-neutral seems deleterious to the quality of the article (unless they are balanced by other sources taking the opposing stance). What I'm saying here is that The Jesus Seminars are, as an organization, not a neutral source. So anything we cite from them is not neutral. This jeopardizes the neutrality of the article. I see only a few possible solutions: 1) don't use The Jesus Seminars as a source (that's a difficult option to chose!); 2) balance all Jesus Seminar information with other scholarship taking the opposite view (a lot of work but probably the best way to ensure neutrality); 3) some how flag either the information in the article or the sources themselves in the Notes section as of questionable neutrality. Any thoughts? MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, you clearly did not follow what I was saying at all. Also, though I did not want to allow myself to deviate away from focusing on the article, you successfully tempted me into this: The Jesus Seminar is not middle ground in any way shape or form. Let me clarify what I was saying regarding absolute truth. There are only two views to take on the matter. 1) every word of the scriptures is absolutely true, or 2) not every word of the scriptures is absolutely true (this second class includes the spectrum ranging from "one word is wrong" to "the whole thing is false"). That's why there is no middle ground. It really is a black and white issue. The Jesus Seminars do not accept every word of it as truth and are therefore fall entirely into the previously enumerated group 2 (not a middle ground). What I was getting at before--in an attempt to improve the articles neutrality--was suggest a better balance of sources. I know we are not requiredto use neutral sources. I was merely listing the possible options, fully realizing that some of them are not realistic, not what I felt was required. I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I really am just trying to suggest means of improving the article. If no one is interested, forget it. I'm not that emotionally attached, I thought I would present the idea and see if anybody agreed or disagreed. I got my answer. MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
mvkcgb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).