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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
This is not a biograhpy at all - it is the "christian" version and is not supported by many "chrsitians" incl;uding the "jesus" seminar. Str and Gator's reverts are unfounded. Until the section is a genbuine verifiable and factual biog it needs to be called something else more approproriate. Robsteadman 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give Robsteadman the same invitation I recently gave someone else: write Atheist view of Jesus. As for the Jesus Seminar, yes, we do need to incorporate them into the article. On that I pretty much agree with KHM03. Arch O. La Talk TCF 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Archie - why not just let us all have a factual and verifiable article? There is no need for specific views of people - should there be a Nazi view of Hitler? Perhaps you'd like a Newcastle fan's view of Alan Shearer? No, this artiucle should be about the factual, verifiable things to do with "jesus" and ONLY that. Robsteadman 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And that deserves no more than a link to the article about the religion - THIS article is meant to be about "jesus" - and should only be the verifiable and factual, not the fancifuil, hopeful, unproven and simply non-sensical as much of the current article is. Robsteadman 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rob in criticizing the title of this section (as I have been saying for the past week). However, I do not want to replace this section with a historical recreation of Jesus' life. If editors change the content of that section, the title should reflect that. Until then, I am going to revert back to the previous title: "Life and teachings based on the Gospels".-- Andrew c 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, whether or not the Gospels are historically true, the version of the life of Jesus which is to be found in the Gospels is by far the most important and significant thing about Jesus. The traditional view of Jesus's life may or may not be true, but it is important that it be presented without too much interruption in an article about Jesus. john k 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"...all other events in the Gospels are set in ancient Israel." I don't think any events in the Gospelsa are set in ancient Israel. They're set in Roman Judea. PiCo 07:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The most accurate term would be "Judaea", but that has the set back of being ambigious: merely Judaea proper, or including other Jewish areas (Gallilee mainly), or even Samaria? So maybe "ancient Israel" is the best solution after all. Str1977 (smile back) 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know of a public domain map of the places Jesus is said to have preached to add to article - the ones I found were quite interesting, but not in public domain -- JimWae 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's one: Palestine in the time of Jesus. The maps on this site are public domain because they were made in 1904. Arch O. La Talk TCF 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good one - but likely not usable: http://www.bible-history.com/map_jesus/index.html -- JimWae 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus was a Galilean, but he went to Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, which was in Iudaea Province. Pilate was Prefect of Iudaea (26-36), Caiaphas was appointed High Priest of the Temple by Rome (18-36), Herod Antipas was Roman Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4bce-39). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 ( talk • contribs)
All true, but I still think we need a map to clarify where all these places are. Geography has changed a lot in the intervening years ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, for the people too lazy to check links, Iudaea Province was created by Augustus in 6 by merging Judea, Samaria and Idumea, capital in Caesarea Palaestina, under direct administration from Rome, as opposed to the previous arrangement of the Roman client king Herod the Great. Iudaea was a critical land link between Rome and the Egyptian wheat fields and also an important border state between Rome and the Parthian Empire.
Yes, a map of the first century would be nice. Land of Israel has a map, but much older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 ( talk • contribs)
I recall people requesting this, so I made this. Can people review it, make comments and suggestions and see if it is appropriate for this article? Image:First century palestine.gif -- Andrew c 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but missing Idumea. Also, it would be nice if it could be shown that Pilate's jurisdiction was Judea-Samaria-Idumea with capital at Caesarea Palaestina, and Herod Antipas' jurisdiction was Galilee-Perea with capital at Tiberias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.2.65 ( talk • contribs)
Calling it Palestine is anachronistic and politically insensitive, the same can be said for calling it Israel, my suggestion for a neutral term would be Holy Land. By the way, Idumea is significant because Herod the Great was Idumean, his people were just recently forcibly converted by circumcision by John Hyrcanus in 125bce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.86 ( talk • contribs)
I've been saying for a while now that we should incorporate some historical details into the Life and Teachings/Biography section. Here's an example, from the Galilee article:
The ... Judeans considered the region to be lower than [the residents of] Samaria and therefore, morally, spiritually and physically "unclean". Isaiah 9:1 mentions it as "Galilee of the Gentiles," and in the New Testament, Jesus and his disciples were repeatedly known as from "Galilee of the Gentiles" or as "Galileans" or "Nazarenes" to emphasize that they were ethnic foreigners preaching to native Judeans.
Actually, the Galilee article may be POV, but still I think we should include something about the relationship between Judeans and Gailileans. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 05:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like somebody will need to rewrite (and dePOV) the Galilee article, especially since we link to this article. Whatever the facts are, I do think we should mention the "significant differences between Judea and the Galilee"— just more accurately and NPOVly than the Galilee article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, everyone, on a job well done. Now we can all relax, and spend more time playing golf. Rick Norwood 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is off-topic, but I thought I should let people know about it.
Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, there seems to be some feeling in favor of having Jesus Christ redirect to Christian views of Jesus, rather than to this article. This seems deeply unhelpful to me. The purpose of redirects is not to make sure people's sensibilities aren't offended, but to get people to the article they want to go to. In the case of people typing in either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, by far the most likely article they're looking for is the main article on Jesus. There is absolutely no reason to make it more difficult for them, and having the redirect can only be interpreted by the most absurdly sensitive person as some kind of statement by wikipedia that we believe that Jesus was the Messiah. john k 05:21, 23 March 2006 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
This is not a biograhpy at all - it is the "christian" version and is not supported by many "chrsitians" incl;uding the "jesus" seminar. Str and Gator's reverts are unfounded. Until the section is a genbuine verifiable and factual biog it needs to be called something else more approproriate. Robsteadman 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give Robsteadman the same invitation I recently gave someone else: write Atheist view of Jesus. As for the Jesus Seminar, yes, we do need to incorporate them into the article. On that I pretty much agree with KHM03. Arch O. La Talk TCF 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Archie - why not just let us all have a factual and verifiable article? There is no need for specific views of people - should there be a Nazi view of Hitler? Perhaps you'd like a Newcastle fan's view of Alan Shearer? No, this artiucle should be about the factual, verifiable things to do with "jesus" and ONLY that. Robsteadman 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And that deserves no more than a link to the article about the religion - THIS article is meant to be about "jesus" - and should only be the verifiable and factual, not the fancifuil, hopeful, unproven and simply non-sensical as much of the current article is. Robsteadman 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rob in criticizing the title of this section (as I have been saying for the past week). However, I do not want to replace this section with a historical recreation of Jesus' life. If editors change the content of that section, the title should reflect that. Until then, I am going to revert back to the previous title: "Life and teachings based on the Gospels".-- Andrew c 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, whether or not the Gospels are historically true, the version of the life of Jesus which is to be found in the Gospels is by far the most important and significant thing about Jesus. The traditional view of Jesus's life may or may not be true, but it is important that it be presented without too much interruption in an article about Jesus. john k 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"...all other events in the Gospels are set in ancient Israel." I don't think any events in the Gospelsa are set in ancient Israel. They're set in Roman Judea. PiCo 07:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The most accurate term would be "Judaea", but that has the set back of being ambigious: merely Judaea proper, or including other Jewish areas (Gallilee mainly), or even Samaria? So maybe "ancient Israel" is the best solution after all. Str1977 (smile back) 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know of a public domain map of the places Jesus is said to have preached to add to article - the ones I found were quite interesting, but not in public domain -- JimWae 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's one: Palestine in the time of Jesus. The maps on this site are public domain because they were made in 1904. Arch O. La Talk TCF 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good one - but likely not usable: http://www.bible-history.com/map_jesus/index.html -- JimWae 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus was a Galilean, but he went to Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, which was in Iudaea Province. Pilate was Prefect of Iudaea (26-36), Caiaphas was appointed High Priest of the Temple by Rome (18-36), Herod Antipas was Roman Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4bce-39). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 ( talk • contribs)
All true, but I still think we need a map to clarify where all these places are. Geography has changed a lot in the intervening years ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, for the people too lazy to check links, Iudaea Province was created by Augustus in 6 by merging Judea, Samaria and Idumea, capital in Caesarea Palaestina, under direct administration from Rome, as opposed to the previous arrangement of the Roman client king Herod the Great. Iudaea was a critical land link between Rome and the Egyptian wheat fields and also an important border state between Rome and the Parthian Empire.
Yes, a map of the first century would be nice. Land of Israel has a map, but much older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 ( talk • contribs)
I recall people requesting this, so I made this. Can people review it, make comments and suggestions and see if it is appropriate for this article? Image:First century palestine.gif -- Andrew c 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice, but missing Idumea. Also, it would be nice if it could be shown that Pilate's jurisdiction was Judea-Samaria-Idumea with capital at Caesarea Palaestina, and Herod Antipas' jurisdiction was Galilee-Perea with capital at Tiberias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.2.65 ( talk • contribs)
Calling it Palestine is anachronistic and politically insensitive, the same can be said for calling it Israel, my suggestion for a neutral term would be Holy Land. By the way, Idumea is significant because Herod the Great was Idumean, his people were just recently forcibly converted by circumcision by John Hyrcanus in 125bce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.86 ( talk • contribs)
I've been saying for a while now that we should incorporate some historical details into the Life and Teachings/Biography section. Here's an example, from the Galilee article:
The ... Judeans considered the region to be lower than [the residents of] Samaria and therefore, morally, spiritually and physically "unclean". Isaiah 9:1 mentions it as "Galilee of the Gentiles," and in the New Testament, Jesus and his disciples were repeatedly known as from "Galilee of the Gentiles" or as "Galileans" or "Nazarenes" to emphasize that they were ethnic foreigners preaching to native Judeans.
Actually, the Galilee article may be POV, but still I think we should include something about the relationship between Judeans and Gailileans. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 05:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like somebody will need to rewrite (and dePOV) the Galilee article, especially since we link to this article. Whatever the facts are, I do think we should mention the "significant differences between Judea and the Galilee"— just more accurately and NPOVly than the Galilee article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, everyone, on a job well done. Now we can all relax, and spend more time playing golf. Rick Norwood 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
This is off-topic, but I thought I should let people know about it.
Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, there seems to be some feeling in favor of having Jesus Christ redirect to Christian views of Jesus, rather than to this article. This seems deeply unhelpful to me. The purpose of redirects is not to make sure people's sensibilities aren't offended, but to get people to the article they want to go to. In the case of people typing in either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, by far the most likely article they're looking for is the main article on Jesus. There is absolutely no reason to make it more difficult for them, and having the redirect can only be interpreted by the most absurdly sensitive person as some kind of statement by wikipedia that we believe that Jesus was the Messiah. john k 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)