![]() | 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 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
Where is the EDIT button on the main page of Jesus?
error: at bottom, it reads:
"Names of Jesus in the Old Testament"
BUT the link leads to:
"Names of Jesus in the NEW Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.26 ( talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
On this AfD Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"in or our of technical circless" contains 2 typos, "our" and "circless". It should either be corrected to "out" and "circles", or else marked with a [ sic] template, by someone with access to the source: Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71. Art LaPella ( talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph of the section on "Resurrection and Ascension" uses "principle" where the adjective "principal" is intended. The corrected version should read: "Later he appears to seven disciples who are fishing, and finally talks with Peter, foretelling Peter's death[74] and assigning him the principal role as shepherd of the new community.[74][77]" 212.150.94.78 ( talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 ( talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the section entitled, "Historical Views", the statement, "Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his crucifixion" means, prima facie, that the Gospels themselves don't exist (a contradiction indeed!). I suggest changing "Including" to "Excluding", so that the intended meaning, which is clearly that there are no surviving EXTRA-BIBLICAL historically reliable accounts of Jesus's life, comes through.
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speargun3D ( talk • contribs)
I believe the principle of least surprise suggests that this article should be at Jesus of Nazareth, the common, neutral, and unique way to refer to the article's subject matter. Accordingly, I'm proposing the move. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
anyone else noticing the not-so-fluent-english?-- 69.203.28.14 ( talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would submit that the difference between The Christian Church and non-Christian churches or sects is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, the Incarnation of God and the second Person of the Holy Trinity; that one's disbelief in this basic tenant of Christianity determines the extent of one's distance from Christian thought; and that one may not deny Christ's basic nature as God and honestly claim to be Christian. Therefore, I strongly urge that the word most be stricken from this sentence.
Christian doctrine has taught since the first century AD that Jesus, divorced from His divine nature, is naught but a teacher or a prophet-this coincides with the Mohammedan vision of Jesus(Isa)-that he was merely a propeht; a great prophet, but a prohet nonetheless-not divine, not the Incarnation of God. Nor are they alone in this. There are other sects that teach the philosophy of Jesus but refuse to believe His divinity. For this overriding reason they cannot logically call themselves 'Christians'. I call for a consensus on this.-- Lyricmac ( talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
1.it sould be written in his ethnicity: "jewish" alone.
2. he wasen't really a healer but the son of a carpenter he probably did help Josphe but in never says that Jesus was a carpenter
the other thing is about changing the article's name from "jesus" to "Jesus of Nazereth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.188 ( talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please add a ref to Second Coming that is clear in Psalms 2 and Psalms 110 predicted by David approx 1,000 BC or 3,000 years ago. David / J desc 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, wouldn't it be valuable to mention and list all the features attributed to JC which were taken from previous myths or beliefs? Just to mention some (and please forgive if I don't name then in their proper English name):
ATIS died for mankind's salvation, was crucified in a tree, descended to the subworld and resurrected on the third day. MITRA had 12 disciples, gave a Sermon on a mountain, was called the Good Shepherd, sacrificed for mankink's peace and resurrected on a third day. BUDA tought at the temple when he was 12, healed the sick, walked on water and fed 500 men with one basket of bread; his followers were committed to poverty. KRISHNA was the son of a carpinter, his birth was announced by a star from the East.
All of course previous to JC. I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones that come to my mind. These are all facts relevant to JC.
With regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.17.241 ( talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit changed the ethnicity line from "Jewish" to "Galilean Jew." I, for one, have never heard of "Galilean Jew" as a specific ethinicity as opposed to ye olde generic Jew (in fact, the link was left as "Jewish|Galilean Jew"). As such, I reverted. Apparently, however, there seems to be at least one other editor who feels the ethnicity should be left with the addendum. Any thoughts on the matter from the general community? RavShimon ( talk) 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
plese change from healer for carpter, Jesus never worked as a healer for living. while the signs show that he might have super-natural abbilities. none show a was an herbist or something, correct me i wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.59.232 ( talk) 08:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Bilbe never says that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus only followed God. He did not come to be a healer, even though he did do healings and wonders, His sole purpose was for Him to come and die upon a cross so that we might have salvation through Him.
In the movie "Malcolm X", it was explained that there was a phrase in the bible telling that he was yellowish in skin tone. Perhaps the main picture needs to be altered at the article. Also, I know that at the article "depictions of jesus", there is a image of a black jesus, but this wouldn't probably have been accurate neither (just like the picture that is on the main article now). Instead of black, he would be have been between black and white (-quote said: woolly hair and bronze-colored skin-), just like the population's skin tone of Palestine (Nazareth) Also see following link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/DDG0VM628B1.DTL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.145.23 ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The spelling of the Hebrew origin of Messiah is highly unusual: מֹשִׁיַּח. All dictionaries offer the much more intuitive vocalization מָשִׁיחַ, to which i corrected the current spelling. I also added a common Latin spelling "Moshiach", used in many English texts. User:RavShimon undid it without an explanation. I try to follow WP:1RR, especially on an article as sensitive as this; so - is anything wrong with my edit? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no references for the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narendramodi1 ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"Joseph, husband of Mary, appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood. No mention, however, is made of Joseph during the ministry of Jesus." It says he's the 'husband' of Mary; as an Eastern Orthodox I'd only regard him as being the 'betrothed' as they never got married, and I presume this to be fairly significant because if they had been married the expectation would have been to at least try for children, as it is, we do not even believe that Mary slept with anyone, hence the title 'Ever-Virgin'. Eugene-elgato ( talk) 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think its fair that if all other religions are mentioned about their views of Jesus, that a small little section must be included. I added a small section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannyisthebest ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The article cites Mark 16:19 as Biblical evidence for the Ascension of Jesus. This passage is from the longer ending of Mark, and is unknown in manuscripts dating from before the late second century. Isn't citing it here somewhat misleading, to say the least? Perhaps it should be qualified by a phrase like "attested in Luke, a claim echoed by a later addition to the Gospel of Mark." fishhead64 ( talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If I understand the contributor correctly, he is suggesting the 'Ascension' never took place?. There are hundreds of reliably reported cases of levitation in history; (St Therasa, St Francis, even none Saints like D.D.Hume). There was a man in Rome who could remember the name of every person living in Rome. Do we erase him from history because that seems unbelievable to us today? Johnwrd ( talk) 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have an issue with the lead, reproduced below.
I'm not sure about the use of 'is worshipped by most Christian churches'. Why not just 'is worshipped by most Christians'? -Zeus- u| c 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
First, I want to say that I have never been to this page before, so if this has already been discussed, just tell me how to get to the archive so I can read it...
Why isn't the (supposed) relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned? While I myself do not think it happened, this is a NPOV site, and there is significant acknowledgment of the possibility. Remember, if this discussion has already been had, just tell me so.
Josh
ua In
gram
02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, someone has to agree with you in order to create a scholarly work? You know what? Nevermind. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now, trying to reason with the people that control the pages, but you know what? I am wasting my time. But here is a thought: If your faith is so weak that you can't allow one tiny bit of dissent, then you should reexamine your faith. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Bible. And I have no problem reading these books, because my faith is strong enough to know that I am right, even in the face of contrary opinions. And it is strong enough to allow those contrary opinions to be heard, unlike some people's. Good riddance. Josh ua In gram 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that fictional creations by Dan Brown do not warrant mention in this article.-- Melchiord ( talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How does either account trace Jesus to the Davidic dynasty? The lineage mentioned is merely that of Joseph, from whom Jesus did not arise? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've recently acquired two very good RSs about historical Jesus. One is a university-level textbook (the gold standard of RSs). The other is a book by perhaps the most prominent scholar in the field, E.P. Sanders. I don't agree with everything these sources say, but they're top-notch sources. With them, we can be a little more descriptive about who Jesus was and what he did. The lead in particular doesn't even address the basics, such as that he led a renewal movement preaching about the kingdom of God. That's pretty basic and historically solid. So heads up, some day I'll propose some better, more informative text for the lead. Leadwind ( talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) WP:V identifies university-level textbooks as among the most reliable sources, but that's beside the point because that list of items about Jesus' life comes from Sanders' Historical figure of Jesus, which is a regular old book from Penguin. Here's a paraphrase of the historical findings that are almost beyond dispute, per Sanders. I'd like to work this into the lead, where some of this material but not all currently lives: "It is almost beyond dispute that Jesus was born c 4 BC/BCE; grew up in Nazareth; was baptized by John the Baptist; called disciples; preached the 'kingdom of God'; traveled to Jerusalem c 30; caused a disturbance at the Temple; had a final meal with his disciples; was arrested and tried by Jewish authorities, especially the high priest; and was executed on orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate." It surprises me that his exorcisms don't make the cut. I don't agree with everything Sanders says, but WP is about RSs, not about editors who think they understand Jesus better than E. P. Sanders does. The book is from 1993, and Sanders is recognized as a prominent scholar on the topic. Leadwind ( talk) 14:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did this year come from? The article cites Sanders, but he says "c 30," not "29." The "29" figure is too precise. Let's change this to c 30. Leadwind ( talk) 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sanders says c 4 to c 30, and everyone basically agrees, so let's do that. We are already expecting our harried reader to swallow the dual-designation for "AD/CE" and "BC/BCE." Let's not the years even harder. If it's really important to spell out the exact range of possible years, do that in the body, not in the first sentence. Leadwind ( talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the range for Jesus' death is wrong. Paul was converted c. 33, so Jesus must have died before that, not as late as 36. Leadwind ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the ancient texts on Jesus are useful for reconstructing his life,[6][7][8][9]" We're not talking about the apocrypha, here. We're talking specifically about Christian canonical scripture. This should say, "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing his life,[6][7][8][9]." Leadwind ( talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo accused me of removing his name from an ownership list. I did no such thing. There is no ownership list. I did remove him from the list of people who have maintained the article and can be turned to for questions about sources. I removed his name because he has never playd an important role in maintaining this article, has made no significant contribution to the article, and in the last discussion in which he attempted to make edits, revealed that he had no knowledge of the sources, and no interest in supporting his views with verifiable sources. He is not qualified for any reader to go to with questions concerning sources. This would only harm the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, Stevertigo should refrain from personal attacks against me. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I am accommodating to people who do research, even if their sources are not necessarily my faves. But were you around for the one time in three or four years that Stevertigo tried to make an edit (concerning Jesus' name)? He consistently refused to provide a source for anything, and his claims were lmost uniformly nonsense (which is why noone supported his edit, and it was reverted, and reverted, until h gave up). Do you think this describes somone who helps maintain the article? Look provide me with one example where Stevertigo brought to our intention a new, reliabl verifiable source and made a constructive contribution to the article - one example - and I will defer to you. That list is to help people who have questions about sources. Shouldn't such people be editors who have demonstrated some knowledge of sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo is on the list because he put himself there [2] on May 17. Before May 17, his last contribution was a debate with Leadwind and hardyplnts over Christianity and the Nicene Creed, and then the original Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus' name; in both cases he failed to produce sources for his claims, it as just his POV.
As to why I am on the list, I have no idea, I certainly did not place myself on the list. I do not know who did. I have no objection to getting rid of it. But can whoever devised the list strp forward and weigh in? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If one other person agrees with you, I will gladly take my name off myself. And I m not opposed to anyone taking my name off - I hope nothing I wrote gave that impression. As I said, I did not put my name on the list and have no objction to your proposal to get rid of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That is what you think? Then why did you add your name to it? That seems a contradiction (I never added my name to it). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done nothing to foment strife. What did I just write that foments strife? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Would the incredible strife fomenters be a good name for my band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.70.121 ( talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Under this heading, I had posted the following paragraph, which has been removed: <br\> "There is a belief on the Indian subcontinent that Jesus studied theology in Kashmir during his teenage and went back to the Levant to preach. It is believed that he didn't die upon crucifixion but went back to Kashmir and died there. His tomb, called Roza Bal, is in Srinagar." <br\>This is not my personal opinion, there is an article on this even in wikipedia under Roza Bal shrine, with appropriate external references in it, and it was even telecast on BBC. Numerous books have been published on this theory even by Europeans/Americans. Lilaac ( talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings to everyone: I'd just like to contribute the following. The current page says:
The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations.[218]
However it would be more accurate to say:
The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus to be a Manifestation of God with both human and divine stations.[218] Shoghi Effendi explains:
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized" -- Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p.109
Bahá'ís also consider Bahá'u'lláh, the Báb, Muhammad and other founders of the great world religions to be Manifestations of God.
From the Bahá'í point of view there Shoghi Effendi's explanation is better than that of some other author. It also clarifies better to Christians and others what beliefs are held by the Faith regarding Jesus Christ.
I re-edited the text of the paragraph describing Jesus as a Manifestation of God "or prophet".. because it does not exactly explain the Bahá'í point of view. Bahá'ís do not equate the prophet Elijah, Daniel and Isaiah and others with Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and the other Manifestations of God. These are considered "minor prophets" whereas Jesus would be a "major prophet" (imprecise term) or Manifestation of God. From my limited understanding, Bahá'ís understand Manifestations of God to be the revealers of all that is known about God at the time on earth.. so simplifying the term as "prophet" not only has the potential to give the wrong impression.. but it is also wrong. I'd refer instead to the article on the term "Manifestation of God".
190.52.137.192 ( talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) am
So I checked 3 sources and discovered all of them to be evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. Not very neutral, yet used as references for factual statements. Wikipedia has problems.
FF Bruce. "one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Fyvie_Bruce
Herzog II, WR Author of "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation" http://www.tcpc.org/about/bio.cfm?person_id=150
Komoszewski, JE http://www.google.com/search?q=Komoszewski%2C+JE&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Noloop ( talk) 07:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
StormRider wrote:
Please be precise: The issue raised was with regard to the perhaps excessive usage of *evangelical sources, not "Christian" ones —a term which itself seems often enough used in a way that rejects even Christians that are not conservative Protestants. It's a red herring itself to deviate from the issue via such peculiar usage of terms.
StormRider wrote:
This statement lacks accuracy. For one, we also have to write our articles with an NPOV balance such that gives serious regard to issues of undue WP:WEIGHT. There are plenty of sources, most of which will not fit —the issue is selection of diverse sources, and not just those who might think even Rick Warren is a heretic.
And characterizing a valid criticism of possible evangelical excess as "irrational" is not going to win you any argument. More light than heat, rather than otherwise. - Ste vertigo 06:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And the real issue is (get the terminology) WP:WEIGHT. It's not quite easy to assert qualitative judgments about "publishing houses" or other possibly biasing factors. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, all of Western culture is likewise a "publishing house" of sorts, as its writings are all typically Western-culture centric.
At issue then is the possible undue weight given to evangelical concepts. Never mind the sources —they are all quite qualified according to their own denominational criteria I'm sure —just deal with the concepts. Is there a promotional usage of evangelical sources in this regard? My issue with making the change from "[all] Christians [regard Jesus].." to "most Christian denominations..," is just a possible such example of anti-non-Trinitarian bias that was the very first sentence of the previous version. It should be illustrative, at least, of a certain tendency for inaccuracy in dealing with balancing different theological ideas, if not exactly the slightly excessive influence of a particularly Americanized restorationistic (!) Protestant system. - Ste vertigo 04:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not the religions of the scholars but the standing of their publishing houses. University presses are best. Prominent, well-regarded publishers are also good. Books from atheist presses, evangelical presses, Muslim presses and other such sources are not good for general scholarship. If you took a nonsectarian university course about Jesus, you'd probably be assigned university-press works or maybe books by major mainstream publishers (e.g., Sanders) but not something from InterVarsity or from American Atheist Press. It's not a reliable source for historical information. And, yes, I did recently delete an atheist-press source from another page where it was being misused, so this rule doesn't apply just to evangelicals. Leadwind ( talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Your account, SlR, is in error. Collapsed: click "show" for a brief recap:
Extended content
|
---|
I corrected StR for his accusation that NL was attacking "[all] Christian" sources, and I corrected NL for getting into qualitative arguments, rather than finding balance. I then corrected you (SlR) for attributing two incorrect inferences to me, and then turning these into a loaded question, which you put to me under a premise of "giv[ing] [me] the benefit of the doubt." I am now (humbly) asking that you (again) take correction for your personal attack ("troll"). |
SlR, do you really think that "[any] scholar is a [valid] scholar[ly source]?" Neither do I, though I do agree somewhat with StR's statement that "it is meaningless to qualify them," if one ignores for a minute the ambiguities, subjectives, and pontifications inherent to the usage of a word like "meaningless."
I disagree with his usage of "qualify them" (scholars). If we say a certain scholar is "a Jewish scholar," it means something in the context of dealing with religious belief, and therefore its not as much a "qualification" but a "quantification" of a person as belonging to a certain concept. An identity, in other words. That said, I don't think its particularly necessary to identify people as such in the article, except in certain cases. In discussions here, and with regard to editorial decisions about the article, it does have at least *quantitative bearing, if not a certain aspect of *qualification as well. Taking an unusual example, we don't for example allow Irving, David to be quoted on the Jewish Messiah page without qualifying him as being notably incorrect on certain unhappy matters of Earthly history. Nor do I particularly see many Christian annihilationists quoted in Islam-related articles about where Muslims eventually are supposed to end up (and usually with an "according to the Bible" thrown in there, for yucks). Note, that goes too for eternal damnationists —though apparently there is as of yet no proper such term for them. (Have I just coinaged one?).
So anyway, you all appear to have been talking past each other, making use of malformed concepts, and misunderstanding what each other is saying. Count on me to take everything apart just to break it down for you. Again my issue is not so much that we judge subjectives such as "reliability" and "notability" of sources, rather that the concepts themselves be dealt with with regard to their substance. Sources of substance will be evident. If the concept in question is the promotion of an incorrect view, such as the opinion that all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are going to burn forever in hell, then we can simply destroy that concept and replace it with a Christian one. Regards, - Ste vertigo 03:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
For being an encylopedic entry I was highly surprised that this article hardly even mentions the refrences of the epistle's account and the Book of Revelation. Paul's writings are the earliest known Christian writings and were completed within the first generation of Christs' death. By definition these are historical. They are epistles written to historical churches, addressing historical issues and witnessing to the "historical Jesus." Regardless of your opinion to not include what the epistles say about Jesus makes this a weak article.
Also, in the same vein, to not report what the early apostolic fathers wrote about him is also highly suspect. Clement lived within 40 years after Jesus' death and likely knew eye-witnesses to the accounts. Also, many of the writers from the early second century are significant witnesses to at least the legacy and impact Christ had on the early development of this global faith.
A good encyclopedia would obviously refer to these witnesses of Christ as they not only give information about Christ but also about how the early followers of Christ interpreted his life, death, and resurrection. Hopefully someone will make this a better article by adding this information. It shouldn't be hard finding info since Jesus is by far the most written about and studied figure of all history, and the Bible by far being the top selling, and top studied book for centuries now. Thank you. -- 70.136.84.179 ( talk) 00:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul's letters are essential to an understanding of the early Church, but that is another article. Paul to my knowledge never claimed to have known Jesus, and thus cannot be called a witness to the Jesus that this article is about, the Jesus who was baptized by John and later crucified (one could argue Paul knew a lot about the resurrected Jesus but again that belongs in another article, on Christology). As to including references to the epistles: if any major historian (Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, Meier) use the epistles as historical sources, let us make mention of those particular passages and explain how they are used historically.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
See Round Templar Church, London, UK with stone effigies of 7 templars with legs crossed their crossed leg shape then forming XP or Chi Rho, indicating descendants of Jesus and also see WITH them the unidentified no. 8 effigy marking the location of the burial of Jesus, brought from Jerusalem by the Templars... lil Jay ni 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This section "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" is far too long. First of all, there is a link to a main article on that subject, yet the section here is article-length in itself. Either it is extremely redundant with the main article on the New Testament character of Jesus, or the information should be integrated with the main article and trimmed here. Secondly, this article is, it seems, supposed to be on the historical Jesus and shouldn't be dominated by the Christian story. Noloop ( talk) 03:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Historical Jesus Christian views of Jesus ...not to mention "Religious perspectives on Jesus" and several others.
So, an article called "Jesus" is ambiguous in nature, and inherently so. It's like an article on "Troy" that is never clear on whether it is talking about Homer or the historical/archaelogical city state.
Noloop (
talk)
03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Noloop ( talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, according to Wikipedia, a lot of scholars dispute the existence of a historical Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Noloop, theoretically, you're right that this page is bogus. The page on Napoleon is about historical Napoleon, so the page about Jesus should be about historical Jesus. But there's no way that the community of WP editors is going to let that happen, so choose your battles. Besides, in our world today, Jesus exists more as a semi-legendary religious figure than as a real person, so if the Jesus page plays up the religious figure angle, that's not all bad. Leadwind ( talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically, this article is too big per WP:Article size. The most important thing is readable prose. Currently the size of the readable prose in this article is approximately 62 KB. The approx. guide is >40 KB may need to be divided, >60 KB probably should be divided. There are plenty of sub articles for this topic so I think the readable prose definitely needs to be cut. The Gospels section is probably a good start and the religious perspectives section could be shortened too. You could sharpen and cut the historical section too if you wanted, however my opinion would be this article should be more weighted to as many facts about a historical Jesus as possible because that would be what usually a person's main biographical article would be about. Jesus is obviously an exception so I don't know if this article will ever be a real biography type article about Jesus the person (and maybe it shouldn't be, who knows). LonelyMarble ( talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the omnibus article on Jesus. The main articles on Christian views are in other articles - as are the main articles on historians' views. This article is about a Jesus that both historians and Christians refer to. It should provide a summary of the sources that both Christians and historians rely on. It should provide an account of mainstream Christian views and mainstream historian views. It should provide an account of other views in some appropriately proportionate way. But we cannot give undue weight to one view, we must obey NPOV, and we must avoid POV forks. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how this article is being used for the promotiono f Christian views. I have read several books by historians and other scholars reconstructing the "historical Jesus" and the "Jewish jesus" and they all begin with the Gospels, primarily the syncretic ones, for data. Why not argue that this article promotes the historical Jesus? It is certainly dominated by the source material historians use and it has prominent sections on how historians interpret those sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am really tired of Noloop's campaign to cut down the historian's view of Jesus n this article
I am drawing a line here - I will not tolerate this anti-historian POV pushing. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well...Is anybody going to give some actual examples of text in these sections that isn't present in the main articles? Or, explain how these sections don't violate guidelines on sections, summaries, and main articles? Noloop ( talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
The section in question does not provide a view. It provides raw material - a summary of primary sources - about which different people have views. This primary source material is used by all major historians. To remove this material is to undermine any account of critical historians' views of Jesus. I will not support Noloop's attack on work by historians. The view of historians is essential to this article. Stop attacking it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Noloop ( talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Monday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop ( talk) 23:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tuesday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop ( talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wednesday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop ( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
i dont know what is the ORIGINAL Hebrew name of jesus, and how to speak that word. please someone add a voice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.99 ( talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ashalom alecha, Jesus's hebrew name is Yeshua ben yosef (Jesus son of joseph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.118.56 ( talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
SlR, the basis of your earlier disagreement with my suggestion of including a short mention of "Yeshua" in the lede sentence was that such connection between Jesus and "Yeshua" had no Hebrew sources. Because this argument of Hebrew canon gets into historicity or religious territory, I had to try to understand your scholarly and vague argument in confined terms, and I used the term "reconstruction" to confine the issue to linguistics. You at one point also used the term, and thus we had a basis for disagreement that could avoid (for the moment) getting into either historical or religious issues.
You say 1) "I do not think I ever made that argument", 2) that you "never said that Yeshua is a "reconstruction"" and 3) that I (SV) "proposed this reconstruction." I understand that you might not be expressing yourself clearly at the moment, but on the last two counts you are not correct: 1) Your argument was more in the domain of lack of Hebrew sources, but 2) you did follow my example and once used the term "reconstruction." 3) I did not "propose this reconstruction," rather I suggested its usage is sufficiently notable, regardless of its problems, such that it should be included in the lede, with necessary footnote-link to the etymology section that explains its debated relevance.
I agreed with your argument that the (what I called) "reconstruction" issue made this problematic and then added a little treatment of the "debate" to the lede of Yeshua (name): "In modern Hebrew, Yeshu (ישו) and Yeshua (ישוע) are in fact the common transcriptions for Jesus. But the claims that this pronunciation and Hebrew spelling accurately represent the original and historic name of the person known as Jesus remain the subject of ongoing religious and scholarly debate."
At the time I suggested you similarly treat the issue in this article's etymology section. You thus have not. Why not? My purpose here, again, was to add a little clarification, of the same type that I added to Yeshua (name), to the etymology, such that explains why "Yeshua" is not universally accepted. Instead of using the term "reconstruction," we can simply do as I did on Yeshua (talk) and call it a "debate."
But note that in my usage of the term "reconstruction" I was simply trying to classify the argument against associating "Yeshua" with Jesus, or at least one dimension of it —the one that draws upon a linguistic concept. There are other religious and historical issues that underly the objection to the 'Jesus was called "Yeshua"' concept, notably that accepting (even for a minute) any "Hebrew name" for Jesus means giving Jesus (and to some degree Christianity, and even Christian dogmas) certian Hebraic legitimacy —something Jews may simply not want to do. The remaining non-religious arguments against the connection generally can all be classified as arguments against Jesus' historicity.
So of the three relevant dimensions; religious objection, historicity objection, and the linguistic reconstruction objection, the latter two we can deal with, and the last we can deal with in the etymology section.
Now "reconstruction" is somewhat subjective, and depending on the subjective context it can mean something either legitimate or illegitimate. I used it simply because it got to the gist of a serious criticism you noted about the Jesus → "Yeshua" connection, and because it clarified this argument as separate from historical or religious objections. So, while we may call something simply a "debate," I think its useful to break the "debate" down into its constituent dimensions, such that they can be explained in summary. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has used the term "reconstruction" to refer to this or similar connections, and in fact that is why I raised the issue that "Abraham" could itself be called a "reconstruction," simply because the being predated Hebrew writing by several hundred years. - Ste vertigo 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question, the article Yeshua under pronunciation says that Yeshua "is pronounced something like yay-SHOO-a`." It also says that there is scholarly disagreement about whether his original name would have been Yeshua or Yehoshua ("yeh-O-shoo-a`"?) or, by minority views, several other names, like Iesous, Yēšū‘ or Yeshu. Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament also has a long discussion about the personal name of Jesus. In my opinion, all arguments and comments about "the original name of Jesus" would better be left to the discussions of those two articles, here and here, rather than on this talk page.
However, this article ( Jesus) mentions the derivation of the name "Jesus" in three different places: in the lead, in Etymology and in Names and Titles (under Historical views). The last two of these talk about Yehoshua/Joshua. I'm wondering if Yehoshua shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. For example, in the phrase "His Hebrew-Aramaic name, Yeshua (or Yehoshua), means...". Italics mine showing possible insertion. Comments? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no way he could have been born in 6 BC, because BC means BEFORE christ. How can he be born before he was born? He couldn't. I would change his life span to Born: December 25, 0; Died: April 5, 34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.117 ( talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I heared that the meaning of Jesus in Chinese is "moving rat" . What's the meaning of Jesus in Hebrew? I mean the views of Hebrews/Jews. Should we add it to the article? - Jacksole ( talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A question; which has no doubt been asked and answered many times before, but it's a tedious business trawling the archives: Why, when quote "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity", do we use the clumsy era notation of BC/BCE and AD/CE? It looks very bad and, dare I say it, is unencyclopedic. Given that Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, and is of lesser concern to all other world religions, why do we not simply use AD and BC? LevenBoy ( talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The anti-religious simply don't want to be reminded that our dates are based off the Christian calendar, nevermind that they are regardless of which of CE or AD you use. This is of course nonsense. Try to change them and you will be reverted with the best defense Wikipedia zealots could ever have hoped for "no consensus"... nevermind that there was never any consensus for the idiotic combination now in use in the first place. ¦ Reisio ( talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from advising others on how they should contribute to this, or any other, debate. Your comments are unhelpful and if you don't like this debate there are plenty of other areas of Wikipedia for you to work on. I already said that I acknowledge this issue has been debated before - big deal. LevenBoy ( talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
When Christian introduced the notations BCE and CE in the 19th century, I do not think they were being anti-religious, i think they were simply acknowledging that non-Christians use the Gregorian calendar. Why is this so complicated? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Mwha? anti-: against, religious: concerning religion, christianity: a…religion… Have you read this? I have trouble quantifying "Europe" based solely on temporary majority geographical dominance, but it could technically work if you take the side of the allies and ignore everything before 1943. You can absolutely say apartheid was discrimination in favor of humans, just not all humans. While you're considering that (if you've cared to), consider this: There are about 1500 pages in Category:Christian Wikipedians, for which apparently one user box suffices There are about 2500 pages in Category:Atheist Wikipedians, for which apparently there was a need for no fewer than 24 user boxes
Neither is PC, since they're both offensive. One's offensive to uptight Christians, one's offensive to uptight non-Christians. Both are completely inoffensive to 99% of our readers (those that aren't uptight). Just pick one, please. AD/BC does not actually reflect the date Christ was born, and CE/BCE does not actually reflect the calendar that everyone uses. So they both don't make sense. Let's just pick one. They're both NPOV, and half the editors are going to be disappointed either way. Let's help our readers and not let this bickering make the article harder to read. We're trying to write a professional-quality encyclopedia, and no professional-quality anything would use "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" throughout the whole article. The Sanders source uses CE and BCE, so that's what should be used. — Noisalt ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not see how using a composite dating notation affects the quality of the article one way or another - as references to MOS make clear, this is a matter of style not substance. As for the instability of the article, well the facts speak for themselves: this article has been remarkably stable for a long time, given the potential for controversy (which by the way is never about the dating notation, it is about the jesus myth theory versus Jesus is everon'es lord and savior). Now i would like to know something. LonelyMarble, Noisalt, and Yobmod, what substantive contributions have you ever made to this article? What research have you done? have you read the Anchor Bible volumes on the Gospels? have you read Meier's 3 volume history of jesus? have you read Ehrman's book on the orthodox corruption of the Gospels? Have you read Geza Vermes? morton Smith? Anyone? I have seen no evidence that any of you really care about the quality of this article. I have seen no evidence that you care to build a better encyclopedia. Do some honest research and show us how we can provide a more nuanced or accurate account of the current scholarship on Jesus, and then you can preach about how the rest of us - people why I hasten to add have done serious research, have read a great deal, and have spent days, weeks, months discussing ways to improve the quality of thie article - are somehow "sacrificing the quality of the article." When you can show us that you have done even a fraction of the work AndrewC, StormRider, Wesley, JimWae, and others have done to make this a great article, informed by all significant views from notable and reliable sources, then I will continue to discuss this with you. In the meantime, I think this is a pointless discussion that is just disrupting positive work on the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on this discussion it seems like all the editors here wouldn't mind changing it to BCE/CE. Most of the "uninvolved" editors just want to pick one or the other. Slrubenstein prefers BCE/CE. StormRider seems to have said he wouldn't mind BCE/CE. The other editors I'm not sure what their opinions are. Is there anyone that would object to changing it to simply BCE/CE? There is also good reason to change it to that beyond simply a consensus here, the source used for the birth and death dates uses this notation. So is there any objection to this? LonelyMarble ( talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
All scholars use BCE/CE the same way. It is perfectly consistent. Thee is no ambiguity. Therefore, no cause for confusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
How do my remarks suggest any kind of ownership issue? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite. I do not consider that "ownership" because it is non-exclusive. I consider it simple common sense. I find it bizarre when people come here thinking BC/BCE is a big problem with the quality of the article because it is hard for me to tak the concern as good faith. Someone who really cares about the quality of the article would (as you may be doing) put real effort into improving the article by checking references and fixing citations. Or someone would come and take the time to do what encyclopedia article authors are supposed to do, namely, research the topic (e.g., read books on Jesus and first century Palestine) in order to improve the content of the article. I believe most readers will find BC/BCE trivial at most. What they will care about is the sentences and paragraphs on Jesus and how different people view Jesus. We want them to learn something they did not know before. That means reading the cutting edge research out there that many people do not know about. If someone wants to make a big deal about the quality of the article, this is the kind of work I would expect them to do. As for mentioning Wesley, JimWae and others, I think it is massive sign of bad faith on the part of editors who criticize the dating system to be critical of a consensus reached by editors who put a lot of time and energy into writing this article. Perhaps you are not aware of how controversial this article is, but trust me, among Christians, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and various protestant groups have some key difering ideas about Jesus, ditto Jews, ditto critical historians. To write an article that editors of all backgrounds find acceptable took a great deal of discussion and compromise. To write an article that holds up to scholarly standards also took a lot of research. The compromise on date notation was one part of a set of compromises that enabled these editors to work together. Why not assume that these editors did so in good faith? Anyway, I stand by my basic point: someone who comes here and nit-picks about an issue from WP:MOS does not really care about the quality of the article, they just want to stir up a time-wasteful debate. Someone who cares about the quality of the article will come here and say "Hey, I just read this article (or book; anyway, a notalbe and reliable source) and learned x about Jesus (or the context of his life), how can we incorporate it into the article?" That is someone who cares about the quality of an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I am a firm proponent of using BCE/CE in articles that are relevant to other religions besides Christianty, in this article, I can see the exception. As was said, this is the article which, in a sense, gave birth to BC and AD. -- Avi ( talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 105 | ← | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
Where is the EDIT button on the main page of Jesus?
error: at bottom, it reads:
"Names of Jesus in the Old Testament"
BUT the link leads to:
"Names of Jesus in the NEW Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.26 ( talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
On this AfD Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"in or our of technical circless" contains 2 typos, "our" and "circless". It should either be corrected to "out" and "circles", or else marked with a [ sic] template, by someone with access to the source: Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71. Art LaPella ( talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph of the section on "Resurrection and Ascension" uses "principle" where the adjective "principal" is intended. The corrected version should read: "Later he appears to seven disciples who are fishing, and finally talks with Peter, foretelling Peter's death[74] and assigning him the principal role as shepherd of the new community.[74][77]" 212.150.94.78 ( talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 ( talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the section entitled, "Historical Views", the statement, "Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his crucifixion" means, prima facie, that the Gospels themselves don't exist (a contradiction indeed!). I suggest changing "Including" to "Excluding", so that the intended meaning, which is clearly that there are no surviving EXTRA-BIBLICAL historically reliable accounts of Jesus's life, comes through.
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speargun3D ( talk • contribs)
I believe the principle of least surprise suggests that this article should be at Jesus of Nazareth, the common, neutral, and unique way to refer to the article's subject matter. Accordingly, I'm proposing the move. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
anyone else noticing the not-so-fluent-english?-- 69.203.28.14 ( talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would submit that the difference between The Christian Church and non-Christian churches or sects is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, the Incarnation of God and the second Person of the Holy Trinity; that one's disbelief in this basic tenant of Christianity determines the extent of one's distance from Christian thought; and that one may not deny Christ's basic nature as God and honestly claim to be Christian. Therefore, I strongly urge that the word most be stricken from this sentence.
Christian doctrine has taught since the first century AD that Jesus, divorced from His divine nature, is naught but a teacher or a prophet-this coincides with the Mohammedan vision of Jesus(Isa)-that he was merely a propeht; a great prophet, but a prohet nonetheless-not divine, not the Incarnation of God. Nor are they alone in this. There are other sects that teach the philosophy of Jesus but refuse to believe His divinity. For this overriding reason they cannot logically call themselves 'Christians'. I call for a consensus on this.-- Lyricmac ( talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
1.it sould be written in his ethnicity: "jewish" alone.
2. he wasen't really a healer but the son of a carpenter he probably did help Josphe but in never says that Jesus was a carpenter
the other thing is about changing the article's name from "jesus" to "Jesus of Nazereth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.188 ( talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please add a ref to Second Coming that is clear in Psalms 2 and Psalms 110 predicted by David approx 1,000 BC or 3,000 years ago. David / J desc 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, wouldn't it be valuable to mention and list all the features attributed to JC which were taken from previous myths or beliefs? Just to mention some (and please forgive if I don't name then in their proper English name):
ATIS died for mankind's salvation, was crucified in a tree, descended to the subworld and resurrected on the third day. MITRA had 12 disciples, gave a Sermon on a mountain, was called the Good Shepherd, sacrificed for mankink's peace and resurrected on a third day. BUDA tought at the temple when he was 12, healed the sick, walked on water and fed 500 men with one basket of bread; his followers were committed to poverty. KRISHNA was the son of a carpinter, his birth was announced by a star from the East.
All of course previous to JC. I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones that come to my mind. These are all facts relevant to JC.
With regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.17.241 ( talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit changed the ethnicity line from "Jewish" to "Galilean Jew." I, for one, have never heard of "Galilean Jew" as a specific ethinicity as opposed to ye olde generic Jew (in fact, the link was left as "Jewish|Galilean Jew"). As such, I reverted. Apparently, however, there seems to be at least one other editor who feels the ethnicity should be left with the addendum. Any thoughts on the matter from the general community? RavShimon ( talk) 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
plese change from healer for carpter, Jesus never worked as a healer for living. while the signs show that he might have super-natural abbilities. none show a was an herbist or something, correct me i wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.59.232 ( talk) 08:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Bilbe never says that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus only followed God. He did not come to be a healer, even though he did do healings and wonders, His sole purpose was for Him to come and die upon a cross so that we might have salvation through Him.
In the movie "Malcolm X", it was explained that there was a phrase in the bible telling that he was yellowish in skin tone. Perhaps the main picture needs to be altered at the article. Also, I know that at the article "depictions of jesus", there is a image of a black jesus, but this wouldn't probably have been accurate neither (just like the picture that is on the main article now). Instead of black, he would be have been between black and white (-quote said: woolly hair and bronze-colored skin-), just like the population's skin tone of Palestine (Nazareth) Also see following link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/DDG0VM628B1.DTL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.145.23 ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The spelling of the Hebrew origin of Messiah is highly unusual: מֹשִׁיַּח. All dictionaries offer the much more intuitive vocalization מָשִׁיחַ, to which i corrected the current spelling. I also added a common Latin spelling "Moshiach", used in many English texts. User:RavShimon undid it without an explanation. I try to follow WP:1RR, especially on an article as sensitive as this; so - is anything wrong with my edit? -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There are no references for the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narendramodi1 ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"Joseph, husband of Mary, appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood. No mention, however, is made of Joseph during the ministry of Jesus." It says he's the 'husband' of Mary; as an Eastern Orthodox I'd only regard him as being the 'betrothed' as they never got married, and I presume this to be fairly significant because if they had been married the expectation would have been to at least try for children, as it is, we do not even believe that Mary slept with anyone, hence the title 'Ever-Virgin'. Eugene-elgato ( talk) 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think its fair that if all other religions are mentioned about their views of Jesus, that a small little section must be included. I added a small section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannyisthebest ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The article cites Mark 16:19 as Biblical evidence for the Ascension of Jesus. This passage is from the longer ending of Mark, and is unknown in manuscripts dating from before the late second century. Isn't citing it here somewhat misleading, to say the least? Perhaps it should be qualified by a phrase like "attested in Luke, a claim echoed by a later addition to the Gospel of Mark." fishhead64 ( talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If I understand the contributor correctly, he is suggesting the 'Ascension' never took place?. There are hundreds of reliably reported cases of levitation in history; (St Therasa, St Francis, even none Saints like D.D.Hume). There was a man in Rome who could remember the name of every person living in Rome. Do we erase him from history because that seems unbelievable to us today? Johnwrd ( talk) 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have an issue with the lead, reproduced below.
I'm not sure about the use of 'is worshipped by most Christian churches'. Why not just 'is worshipped by most Christians'? -Zeus- u| c 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
First, I want to say that I have never been to this page before, so if this has already been discussed, just tell me how to get to the archive so I can read it...
Why isn't the (supposed) relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned? While I myself do not think it happened, this is a NPOV site, and there is significant acknowledgment of the possibility. Remember, if this discussion has already been had, just tell me so.
Josh
ua In
gram
02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, someone has to agree with you in order to create a scholarly work? You know what? Nevermind. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now, trying to reason with the people that control the pages, but you know what? I am wasting my time. But here is a thought: If your faith is so weak that you can't allow one tiny bit of dissent, then you should reexamine your faith. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Bible. And I have no problem reading these books, because my faith is strong enough to know that I am right, even in the face of contrary opinions. And it is strong enough to allow those contrary opinions to be heard, unlike some people's. Good riddance. Josh ua In gram 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that fictional creations by Dan Brown do not warrant mention in this article.-- Melchiord ( talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
How does either account trace Jesus to the Davidic dynasty? The lineage mentioned is merely that of Joseph, from whom Jesus did not arise? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've recently acquired two very good RSs about historical Jesus. One is a university-level textbook (the gold standard of RSs). The other is a book by perhaps the most prominent scholar in the field, E.P. Sanders. I don't agree with everything these sources say, but they're top-notch sources. With them, we can be a little more descriptive about who Jesus was and what he did. The lead in particular doesn't even address the basics, such as that he led a renewal movement preaching about the kingdom of God. That's pretty basic and historically solid. So heads up, some day I'll propose some better, more informative text for the lead. Leadwind ( talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) WP:V identifies university-level textbooks as among the most reliable sources, but that's beside the point because that list of items about Jesus' life comes from Sanders' Historical figure of Jesus, which is a regular old book from Penguin. Here's a paraphrase of the historical findings that are almost beyond dispute, per Sanders. I'd like to work this into the lead, where some of this material but not all currently lives: "It is almost beyond dispute that Jesus was born c 4 BC/BCE; grew up in Nazareth; was baptized by John the Baptist; called disciples; preached the 'kingdom of God'; traveled to Jerusalem c 30; caused a disturbance at the Temple; had a final meal with his disciples; was arrested and tried by Jewish authorities, especially the high priest; and was executed on orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate." It surprises me that his exorcisms don't make the cut. I don't agree with everything Sanders says, but WP is about RSs, not about editors who think they understand Jesus better than E. P. Sanders does. The book is from 1993, and Sanders is recognized as a prominent scholar on the topic. Leadwind ( talk) 14:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did this year come from? The article cites Sanders, but he says "c 30," not "29." The "29" figure is too precise. Let's change this to c 30. Leadwind ( talk) 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sanders says c 4 to c 30, and everyone basically agrees, so let's do that. We are already expecting our harried reader to swallow the dual-designation for "AD/CE" and "BC/BCE." Let's not the years even harder. If it's really important to spell out the exact range of possible years, do that in the body, not in the first sentence. Leadwind ( talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, the range for Jesus' death is wrong. Paul was converted c. 33, so Jesus must have died before that, not as late as 36. Leadwind ( talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the ancient texts on Jesus are useful for reconstructing his life,[6][7][8][9]" We're not talking about the apocrypha, here. We're talking specifically about Christian canonical scripture. This should say, "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing his life,[6][7][8][9]." Leadwind ( talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo accused me of removing his name from an ownership list. I did no such thing. There is no ownership list. I did remove him from the list of people who have maintained the article and can be turned to for questions about sources. I removed his name because he has never playd an important role in maintaining this article, has made no significant contribution to the article, and in the last discussion in which he attempted to make edits, revealed that he had no knowledge of the sources, and no interest in supporting his views with verifiable sources. He is not qualified for any reader to go to with questions concerning sources. This would only harm the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, Stevertigo should refrain from personal attacks against me. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I am accommodating to people who do research, even if their sources are not necessarily my faves. But were you around for the one time in three or four years that Stevertigo tried to make an edit (concerning Jesus' name)? He consistently refused to provide a source for anything, and his claims were lmost uniformly nonsense (which is why noone supported his edit, and it was reverted, and reverted, until h gave up). Do you think this describes somone who helps maintain the article? Look provide me with one example where Stevertigo brought to our intention a new, reliabl verifiable source and made a constructive contribution to the article - one example - and I will defer to you. That list is to help people who have questions about sources. Shouldn't such people be editors who have demonstrated some knowledge of sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo is on the list because he put himself there [2] on May 17. Before May 17, his last contribution was a debate with Leadwind and hardyplnts over Christianity and the Nicene Creed, and then the original Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus' name; in both cases he failed to produce sources for his claims, it as just his POV.
As to why I am on the list, I have no idea, I certainly did not place myself on the list. I do not know who did. I have no objection to getting rid of it. But can whoever devised the list strp forward and weigh in? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If one other person agrees with you, I will gladly take my name off myself. And I m not opposed to anyone taking my name off - I hope nothing I wrote gave that impression. As I said, I did not put my name on the list and have no objction to your proposal to get rid of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That is what you think? Then why did you add your name to it? That seems a contradiction (I never added my name to it). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done nothing to foment strife. What did I just write that foments strife? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Would the incredible strife fomenters be a good name for my band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.70.121 ( talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Under this heading, I had posted the following paragraph, which has been removed: <br\> "There is a belief on the Indian subcontinent that Jesus studied theology in Kashmir during his teenage and went back to the Levant to preach. It is believed that he didn't die upon crucifixion but went back to Kashmir and died there. His tomb, called Roza Bal, is in Srinagar." <br\>This is not my personal opinion, there is an article on this even in wikipedia under Roza Bal shrine, with appropriate external references in it, and it was even telecast on BBC. Numerous books have been published on this theory even by Europeans/Americans. Lilaac ( talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings to everyone: I'd just like to contribute the following. The current page says:
The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations.[218]
However it would be more accurate to say:
The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus to be a Manifestation of God with both human and divine stations.[218] Shoghi Effendi explains:
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized" -- Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p.109
Bahá'ís also consider Bahá'u'lláh, the Báb, Muhammad and other founders of the great world religions to be Manifestations of God.
From the Bahá'í point of view there Shoghi Effendi's explanation is better than that of some other author. It also clarifies better to Christians and others what beliefs are held by the Faith regarding Jesus Christ.
I re-edited the text of the paragraph describing Jesus as a Manifestation of God "or prophet".. because it does not exactly explain the Bahá'í point of view. Bahá'ís do not equate the prophet Elijah, Daniel and Isaiah and others with Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and the other Manifestations of God. These are considered "minor prophets" whereas Jesus would be a "major prophet" (imprecise term) or Manifestation of God. From my limited understanding, Bahá'ís understand Manifestations of God to be the revealers of all that is known about God at the time on earth.. so simplifying the term as "prophet" not only has the potential to give the wrong impression.. but it is also wrong. I'd refer instead to the article on the term "Manifestation of God".
190.52.137.192 ( talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) am
So I checked 3 sources and discovered all of them to be evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. Not very neutral, yet used as references for factual statements. Wikipedia has problems.
FF Bruce. "one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Fyvie_Bruce
Herzog II, WR Author of "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation" http://www.tcpc.org/about/bio.cfm?person_id=150
Komoszewski, JE http://www.google.com/search?q=Komoszewski%2C+JE&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Noloop ( talk) 07:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
StormRider wrote:
Please be precise: The issue raised was with regard to the perhaps excessive usage of *evangelical sources, not "Christian" ones —a term which itself seems often enough used in a way that rejects even Christians that are not conservative Protestants. It's a red herring itself to deviate from the issue via such peculiar usage of terms.
StormRider wrote:
This statement lacks accuracy. For one, we also have to write our articles with an NPOV balance such that gives serious regard to issues of undue WP:WEIGHT. There are plenty of sources, most of which will not fit —the issue is selection of diverse sources, and not just those who might think even Rick Warren is a heretic.
And characterizing a valid criticism of possible evangelical excess as "irrational" is not going to win you any argument. More light than heat, rather than otherwise. - Ste vertigo 06:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And the real issue is (get the terminology) WP:WEIGHT. It's not quite easy to assert qualitative judgments about "publishing houses" or other possibly biasing factors. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, all of Western culture is likewise a "publishing house" of sorts, as its writings are all typically Western-culture centric.
At issue then is the possible undue weight given to evangelical concepts. Never mind the sources —they are all quite qualified according to their own denominational criteria I'm sure —just deal with the concepts. Is there a promotional usage of evangelical sources in this regard? My issue with making the change from "[all] Christians [regard Jesus].." to "most Christian denominations..," is just a possible such example of anti-non-Trinitarian bias that was the very first sentence of the previous version. It should be illustrative, at least, of a certain tendency for inaccuracy in dealing with balancing different theological ideas, if not exactly the slightly excessive influence of a particularly Americanized restorationistic (!) Protestant system. - Ste vertigo 04:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not the religions of the scholars but the standing of their publishing houses. University presses are best. Prominent, well-regarded publishers are also good. Books from atheist presses, evangelical presses, Muslim presses and other such sources are not good for general scholarship. If you took a nonsectarian university course about Jesus, you'd probably be assigned university-press works or maybe books by major mainstream publishers (e.g., Sanders) but not something from InterVarsity or from American Atheist Press. It's not a reliable source for historical information. And, yes, I did recently delete an atheist-press source from another page where it was being misused, so this rule doesn't apply just to evangelicals. Leadwind ( talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Your account, SlR, is in error. Collapsed: click "show" for a brief recap:
Extended content
|
---|
I corrected StR for his accusation that NL was attacking "[all] Christian" sources, and I corrected NL for getting into qualitative arguments, rather than finding balance. I then corrected you (SlR) for attributing two incorrect inferences to me, and then turning these into a loaded question, which you put to me under a premise of "giv[ing] [me] the benefit of the doubt." I am now (humbly) asking that you (again) take correction for your personal attack ("troll"). |
SlR, do you really think that "[any] scholar is a [valid] scholar[ly source]?" Neither do I, though I do agree somewhat with StR's statement that "it is meaningless to qualify them," if one ignores for a minute the ambiguities, subjectives, and pontifications inherent to the usage of a word like "meaningless."
I disagree with his usage of "qualify them" (scholars). If we say a certain scholar is "a Jewish scholar," it means something in the context of dealing with religious belief, and therefore its not as much a "qualification" but a "quantification" of a person as belonging to a certain concept. An identity, in other words. That said, I don't think its particularly necessary to identify people as such in the article, except in certain cases. In discussions here, and with regard to editorial decisions about the article, it does have at least *quantitative bearing, if not a certain aspect of *qualification as well. Taking an unusual example, we don't for example allow Irving, David to be quoted on the Jewish Messiah page without qualifying him as being notably incorrect on certain unhappy matters of Earthly history. Nor do I particularly see many Christian annihilationists quoted in Islam-related articles about where Muslims eventually are supposed to end up (and usually with an "according to the Bible" thrown in there, for yucks). Note, that goes too for eternal damnationists —though apparently there is as of yet no proper such term for them. (Have I just coinaged one?).
So anyway, you all appear to have been talking past each other, making use of malformed concepts, and misunderstanding what each other is saying. Count on me to take everything apart just to break it down for you. Again my issue is not so much that we judge subjectives such as "reliability" and "notability" of sources, rather that the concepts themselves be dealt with with regard to their substance. Sources of substance will be evident. If the concept in question is the promotion of an incorrect view, such as the opinion that all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are going to burn forever in hell, then we can simply destroy that concept and replace it with a Christian one. Regards, - Ste vertigo 03:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
For being an encylopedic entry I was highly surprised that this article hardly even mentions the refrences of the epistle's account and the Book of Revelation. Paul's writings are the earliest known Christian writings and were completed within the first generation of Christs' death. By definition these are historical. They are epistles written to historical churches, addressing historical issues and witnessing to the "historical Jesus." Regardless of your opinion to not include what the epistles say about Jesus makes this a weak article.
Also, in the same vein, to not report what the early apostolic fathers wrote about him is also highly suspect. Clement lived within 40 years after Jesus' death and likely knew eye-witnesses to the accounts. Also, many of the writers from the early second century are significant witnesses to at least the legacy and impact Christ had on the early development of this global faith.
A good encyclopedia would obviously refer to these witnesses of Christ as they not only give information about Christ but also about how the early followers of Christ interpreted his life, death, and resurrection. Hopefully someone will make this a better article by adding this information. It shouldn't be hard finding info since Jesus is by far the most written about and studied figure of all history, and the Bible by far being the top selling, and top studied book for centuries now. Thank you. -- 70.136.84.179 ( talk) 00:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul's letters are essential to an understanding of the early Church, but that is another article. Paul to my knowledge never claimed to have known Jesus, and thus cannot be called a witness to the Jesus that this article is about, the Jesus who was baptized by John and later crucified (one could argue Paul knew a lot about the resurrected Jesus but again that belongs in another article, on Christology). As to including references to the epistles: if any major historian (Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, Meier) use the epistles as historical sources, let us make mention of those particular passages and explain how they are used historically.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
See Round Templar Church, London, UK with stone effigies of 7 templars with legs crossed their crossed leg shape then forming XP or Chi Rho, indicating descendants of Jesus and also see WITH them the unidentified no. 8 effigy marking the location of the burial of Jesus, brought from Jerusalem by the Templars... lil Jay ni 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
This section "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" is far too long. First of all, there is a link to a main article on that subject, yet the section here is article-length in itself. Either it is extremely redundant with the main article on the New Testament character of Jesus, or the information should be integrated with the main article and trimmed here. Secondly, this article is, it seems, supposed to be on the historical Jesus and shouldn't be dominated by the Christian story. Noloop ( talk) 03:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Historical Jesus Christian views of Jesus ...not to mention "Religious perspectives on Jesus" and several others.
So, an article called "Jesus" is ambiguous in nature, and inherently so. It's like an article on "Troy" that is never clear on whether it is talking about Homer or the historical/archaelogical city state.
Noloop (
talk)
03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Noloop ( talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, according to Wikipedia, a lot of scholars dispute the existence of a historical Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Noloop, theoretically, you're right that this page is bogus. The page on Napoleon is about historical Napoleon, so the page about Jesus should be about historical Jesus. But there's no way that the community of WP editors is going to let that happen, so choose your battles. Besides, in our world today, Jesus exists more as a semi-legendary religious figure than as a real person, so if the Jesus page plays up the religious figure angle, that's not all bad. Leadwind ( talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically, this article is too big per WP:Article size. The most important thing is readable prose. Currently the size of the readable prose in this article is approximately 62 KB. The approx. guide is >40 KB may need to be divided, >60 KB probably should be divided. There are plenty of sub articles for this topic so I think the readable prose definitely needs to be cut. The Gospels section is probably a good start and the religious perspectives section could be shortened too. You could sharpen and cut the historical section too if you wanted, however my opinion would be this article should be more weighted to as many facts about a historical Jesus as possible because that would be what usually a person's main biographical article would be about. Jesus is obviously an exception so I don't know if this article will ever be a real biography type article about Jesus the person (and maybe it shouldn't be, who knows). LonelyMarble ( talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the omnibus article on Jesus. The main articles on Christian views are in other articles - as are the main articles on historians' views. This article is about a Jesus that both historians and Christians refer to. It should provide a summary of the sources that both Christians and historians rely on. It should provide an account of mainstream Christian views and mainstream historian views. It should provide an account of other views in some appropriately proportionate way. But we cannot give undue weight to one view, we must obey NPOV, and we must avoid POV forks. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how this article is being used for the promotiono f Christian views. I have read several books by historians and other scholars reconstructing the "historical Jesus" and the "Jewish jesus" and they all begin with the Gospels, primarily the syncretic ones, for data. Why not argue that this article promotes the historical Jesus? It is certainly dominated by the source material historians use and it has prominent sections on how historians interpret those sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am really tired of Noloop's campaign to cut down the historian's view of Jesus n this article
I am drawing a line here - I will not tolerate this anti-historian POV pushing. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well...Is anybody going to give some actual examples of text in these sections that isn't present in the main articles? Or, explain how these sections don't violate guidelines on sections, summaries, and main articles? Noloop ( talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).
The section in question does not provide a view. It provides raw material - a summary of primary sources - about which different people have views. This primary source material is used by all major historians. To remove this material is to undermine any account of critical historians' views of Jesus. I will not support Noloop's attack on work by historians. The view of historians is essential to this article. Stop attacking it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Noloop ( talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Monday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop ( talk) 23:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Tuesday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop ( talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wednesday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop ( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
i dont know what is the ORIGINAL Hebrew name of jesus, and how to speak that word. please someone add a voice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.99 ( talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ashalom alecha, Jesus's hebrew name is Yeshua ben yosef (Jesus son of joseph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.118.56 ( talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
SlR, the basis of your earlier disagreement with my suggestion of including a short mention of "Yeshua" in the lede sentence was that such connection between Jesus and "Yeshua" had no Hebrew sources. Because this argument of Hebrew canon gets into historicity or religious territory, I had to try to understand your scholarly and vague argument in confined terms, and I used the term "reconstruction" to confine the issue to linguistics. You at one point also used the term, and thus we had a basis for disagreement that could avoid (for the moment) getting into either historical or religious issues.
You say 1) "I do not think I ever made that argument", 2) that you "never said that Yeshua is a "reconstruction"" and 3) that I (SV) "proposed this reconstruction." I understand that you might not be expressing yourself clearly at the moment, but on the last two counts you are not correct: 1) Your argument was more in the domain of lack of Hebrew sources, but 2) you did follow my example and once used the term "reconstruction." 3) I did not "propose this reconstruction," rather I suggested its usage is sufficiently notable, regardless of its problems, such that it should be included in the lede, with necessary footnote-link to the etymology section that explains its debated relevance.
I agreed with your argument that the (what I called) "reconstruction" issue made this problematic and then added a little treatment of the "debate" to the lede of Yeshua (name): "In modern Hebrew, Yeshu (ישו) and Yeshua (ישוע) are in fact the common transcriptions for Jesus. But the claims that this pronunciation and Hebrew spelling accurately represent the original and historic name of the person known as Jesus remain the subject of ongoing religious and scholarly debate."
At the time I suggested you similarly treat the issue in this article's etymology section. You thus have not. Why not? My purpose here, again, was to add a little clarification, of the same type that I added to Yeshua (name), to the etymology, such that explains why "Yeshua" is not universally accepted. Instead of using the term "reconstruction," we can simply do as I did on Yeshua (talk) and call it a "debate."
But note that in my usage of the term "reconstruction" I was simply trying to classify the argument against associating "Yeshua" with Jesus, or at least one dimension of it —the one that draws upon a linguistic concept. There are other religious and historical issues that underly the objection to the 'Jesus was called "Yeshua"' concept, notably that accepting (even for a minute) any "Hebrew name" for Jesus means giving Jesus (and to some degree Christianity, and even Christian dogmas) certian Hebraic legitimacy —something Jews may simply not want to do. The remaining non-religious arguments against the connection generally can all be classified as arguments against Jesus' historicity.
So of the three relevant dimensions; religious objection, historicity objection, and the linguistic reconstruction objection, the latter two we can deal with, and the last we can deal with in the etymology section.
Now "reconstruction" is somewhat subjective, and depending on the subjective context it can mean something either legitimate or illegitimate. I used it simply because it got to the gist of a serious criticism you noted about the Jesus → "Yeshua" connection, and because it clarified this argument as separate from historical or religious objections. So, while we may call something simply a "debate," I think its useful to break the "debate" down into its constituent dimensions, such that they can be explained in summary. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has used the term "reconstruction" to refer to this or similar connections, and in fact that is why I raised the issue that "Abraham" could itself be called a "reconstruction," simply because the being predated Hebrew writing by several hundred years. - Ste vertigo 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question, the article Yeshua under pronunciation says that Yeshua "is pronounced something like yay-SHOO-a`." It also says that there is scholarly disagreement about whether his original name would have been Yeshua or Yehoshua ("yeh-O-shoo-a`"?) or, by minority views, several other names, like Iesous, Yēšū‘ or Yeshu. Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament also has a long discussion about the personal name of Jesus. In my opinion, all arguments and comments about "the original name of Jesus" would better be left to the discussions of those two articles, here and here, rather than on this talk page.
However, this article ( Jesus) mentions the derivation of the name "Jesus" in three different places: in the lead, in Etymology and in Names and Titles (under Historical views). The last two of these talk about Yehoshua/Joshua. I'm wondering if Yehoshua shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. For example, in the phrase "His Hebrew-Aramaic name, Yeshua (or Yehoshua), means...". Italics mine showing possible insertion. Comments? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no way he could have been born in 6 BC, because BC means BEFORE christ. How can he be born before he was born? He couldn't. I would change his life span to Born: December 25, 0; Died: April 5, 34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.117 ( talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I heared that the meaning of Jesus in Chinese is "moving rat" . What's the meaning of Jesus in Hebrew? I mean the views of Hebrews/Jews. Should we add it to the article? - Jacksole ( talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A question; which has no doubt been asked and answered many times before, but it's a tedious business trawling the archives: Why, when quote "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity", do we use the clumsy era notation of BC/BCE and AD/CE? It looks very bad and, dare I say it, is unencyclopedic. Given that Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, and is of lesser concern to all other world religions, why do we not simply use AD and BC? LevenBoy ( talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The anti-religious simply don't want to be reminded that our dates are based off the Christian calendar, nevermind that they are regardless of which of CE or AD you use. This is of course nonsense. Try to change them and you will be reverted with the best defense Wikipedia zealots could ever have hoped for "no consensus"... nevermind that there was never any consensus for the idiotic combination now in use in the first place. ¦ Reisio ( talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from advising others on how they should contribute to this, or any other, debate. Your comments are unhelpful and if you don't like this debate there are plenty of other areas of Wikipedia for you to work on. I already said that I acknowledge this issue has been debated before - big deal. LevenBoy ( talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
When Christian introduced the notations BCE and CE in the 19th century, I do not think they were being anti-religious, i think they were simply acknowledging that non-Christians use the Gregorian calendar. Why is this so complicated? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Mwha? anti-: against, religious: concerning religion, christianity: a…religion… Have you read this? I have trouble quantifying "Europe" based solely on temporary majority geographical dominance, but it could technically work if you take the side of the allies and ignore everything before 1943. You can absolutely say apartheid was discrimination in favor of humans, just not all humans. While you're considering that (if you've cared to), consider this: There are about 1500 pages in Category:Christian Wikipedians, for which apparently one user box suffices There are about 2500 pages in Category:Atheist Wikipedians, for which apparently there was a need for no fewer than 24 user boxes
Neither is PC, since they're both offensive. One's offensive to uptight Christians, one's offensive to uptight non-Christians. Both are completely inoffensive to 99% of our readers (those that aren't uptight). Just pick one, please. AD/BC does not actually reflect the date Christ was born, and CE/BCE does not actually reflect the calendar that everyone uses. So they both don't make sense. Let's just pick one. They're both NPOV, and half the editors are going to be disappointed either way. Let's help our readers and not let this bickering make the article harder to read. We're trying to write a professional-quality encyclopedia, and no professional-quality anything would use "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" throughout the whole article. The Sanders source uses CE and BCE, so that's what should be used. — Noisalt ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I personally do not see how using a composite dating notation affects the quality of the article one way or another - as references to MOS make clear, this is a matter of style not substance. As for the instability of the article, well the facts speak for themselves: this article has been remarkably stable for a long time, given the potential for controversy (which by the way is never about the dating notation, it is about the jesus myth theory versus Jesus is everon'es lord and savior). Now i would like to know something. LonelyMarble, Noisalt, and Yobmod, what substantive contributions have you ever made to this article? What research have you done? have you read the Anchor Bible volumes on the Gospels? have you read Meier's 3 volume history of jesus? have you read Ehrman's book on the orthodox corruption of the Gospels? Have you read Geza Vermes? morton Smith? Anyone? I have seen no evidence that any of you really care about the quality of this article. I have seen no evidence that you care to build a better encyclopedia. Do some honest research and show us how we can provide a more nuanced or accurate account of the current scholarship on Jesus, and then you can preach about how the rest of us - people why I hasten to add have done serious research, have read a great deal, and have spent days, weeks, months discussing ways to improve the quality of thie article - are somehow "sacrificing the quality of the article." When you can show us that you have done even a fraction of the work AndrewC, StormRider, Wesley, JimWae, and others have done to make this a great article, informed by all significant views from notable and reliable sources, then I will continue to discuss this with you. In the meantime, I think this is a pointless discussion that is just disrupting positive work on the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on this discussion it seems like all the editors here wouldn't mind changing it to BCE/CE. Most of the "uninvolved" editors just want to pick one or the other. Slrubenstein prefers BCE/CE. StormRider seems to have said he wouldn't mind BCE/CE. The other editors I'm not sure what their opinions are. Is there anyone that would object to changing it to simply BCE/CE? There is also good reason to change it to that beyond simply a consensus here, the source used for the birth and death dates uses this notation. So is there any objection to this? LonelyMarble ( talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
All scholars use BCE/CE the same way. It is perfectly consistent. Thee is no ambiguity. Therefore, no cause for confusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
How do my remarks suggest any kind of ownership issue? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite. I do not consider that "ownership" because it is non-exclusive. I consider it simple common sense. I find it bizarre when people come here thinking BC/BCE is a big problem with the quality of the article because it is hard for me to tak the concern as good faith. Someone who really cares about the quality of the article would (as you may be doing) put real effort into improving the article by checking references and fixing citations. Or someone would come and take the time to do what encyclopedia article authors are supposed to do, namely, research the topic (e.g., read books on Jesus and first century Palestine) in order to improve the content of the article. I believe most readers will find BC/BCE trivial at most. What they will care about is the sentences and paragraphs on Jesus and how different people view Jesus. We want them to learn something they did not know before. That means reading the cutting edge research out there that many people do not know about. If someone wants to make a big deal about the quality of the article, this is the kind of work I would expect them to do. As for mentioning Wesley, JimWae and others, I think it is massive sign of bad faith on the part of editors who criticize the dating system to be critical of a consensus reached by editors who put a lot of time and energy into writing this article. Perhaps you are not aware of how controversial this article is, but trust me, among Christians, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and various protestant groups have some key difering ideas about Jesus, ditto Jews, ditto critical historians. To write an article that editors of all backgrounds find acceptable took a great deal of discussion and compromise. To write an article that holds up to scholarly standards also took a lot of research. The compromise on date notation was one part of a set of compromises that enabled these editors to work together. Why not assume that these editors did so in good faith? Anyway, I stand by my basic point: someone who comes here and nit-picks about an issue from WP:MOS does not really care about the quality of the article, they just want to stir up a time-wasteful debate. Someone who cares about the quality of the article will come here and say "Hey, I just read this article (or book; anyway, a notalbe and reliable source) and learned x about Jesus (or the context of his life), how can we incorporate it into the article?" That is someone who cares about the quality of an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Although I am a firm proponent of using BCE/CE in articles that are relevant to other religions besides Christianty, in this article, I can see the exception. As was said, this is the article which, in a sense, gave birth to BC and AD. -- Avi ( talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)