![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Ok. I was just going to say that though there is a lot to go into this page, obviously, some minor details are being overlooked because of all this foolish obsessing over the larger. A large basis for faith is the firm belief in what one cannot confirm, but clearly the several accounts of Jesus, the Four Gospels of Canon, are in agreeance for the most part regarding His life and ministry, so it is certainly right to site that the sources for much of this page ARE drawn from Christian Tradition. However, as for the small things, several pages capitalise "He" in reference to God, and Christ as well in certain articles. Either this needs to be 'fixed' or the main article on the Man needs to be altered to match. Also, Jesus was risen, by modern standards, TWO days after He was interred; three was reference to the Jewish calender at the time. Also, as far as pictures go, they are completely unnecessary, but if you must have them, make sure they all display a variety of perspectives, especially considering none of us know what Jesus looked like, nor will we (or ... at least, i don't think we will). [MrLigit was responsible for this section. I wasn't signed in at the time this was created]
Buried means squashed under layers of earth or least permanently placed underground. Interred means placed in a crypt or tomb.Certainly the corpse was interred (placed in THE tomb) on a TEMPORARY BASIS ONLY. Please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.107.29 ( talk • contribs) .
Oh, sorry for my poor grammar! You see, it was pretty late, i believe, when i wrote this. I don't know as if i would necessarily say that "buried" has but a singular definition and is incorrect to use here, but for the sake of killing an insignificant conflict, i will change it. [MrLigit]
Jesus Christ is not in my opinion notable enough to have his own wikipage. hes never written a book or signed a sponsorship deal. Thats why I suggest merging this article with one on faith healers.
I'm afraid that's nonsense. Jesus Christ is the most influential Figure in history itself. Are you saying He doesn't merit a page of His own? The vast majority of people around the world are indeed Christians, and to deny the significance of Christ is no more than naïveté on your part[MrLigit]
It was a joke! Of course hes notable. You dont think the comment above was serious do you? I am a born again Christian- so Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in my life!
The vast majority of people around the world are Christians ?? Very very wrong thing to claim. Perhaps 1/10th of the people in strong "Christian" countries believe in the "son of god" claim. 2 billion in China and India dont believe in Jesus, so I only need an extra billion out of the remaining 4 to not believe in Jesus one little bit to have 50/50. So much for "vast majority". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.107.29 ( talk • contribs) .
True. Figures on how many Christians there are in the world are impossible to verify because firstly it depends on how one defines 'Christian' and secondly if being a Christian is a thing of the heart how can we judge who the true believers are? It is certain that most of the world are not Christians. In fact if MrLigits comments were true then Christianity would be disproven because Jesus said that his followers would always be in the minority. Committed trinitarian Christians are a minority even within historically Christian countries like the UK. So the 2 billion figure can only be an estimate for cultural Christians. Where I do disagree with the person above is in his statement that 2 billion people in China and India dont believe in Jesus. There is a considerable growing underground church movement in China that missiologists have estimated to consist of almost 100 million people. Officially they dont exist because they are in conflict with the Chinese government who have oppressed them. India almost certainly has a Christian population that runs into several million at least. [Unsigned]
Indeed, Christianity is a matter of heart. I am sorry to say, as to the number of Christians in the world, that we can only determine this by taking claims people have made. However, in person, i'll admit it is quite simple to distinguish between true believers and those in colourful, pretty Christian masks. As for those millions i haven't met, i have my own thoughts on them, but i couldn't say for my own life whether their statements are sincere or not!
While it's been a little while since i was delved in the gospels, i am fairly sure Christ told His followers at the time they would be in the minority, but i do not recall His claim being an ongoing one. Also, i mean to measure Christians by their hearts, more so than faith, but i generally consider true Christians to be a devoted people, and Trinitarian for that matter. If this is the case, then while we're still not in the minority, we would certainly not be "vast." I really would rather not go into extensive research to prove my point, but this is a small pie chart i came across while searching the Net. According to this, as of 2005, 33 per cent of the world's religions is Christianity. It is not that we are "vast" but more along the lines that we are more in union (as one) than the others. http://www.cynicalc.com/archives/bloggraphics/rel_pie.jpg
While some, such as J*****h's Witness, are included, i believe most of this chart is representative of Trinitarians.
Judaism! My goodness! They're but a fragment ... [MrLigit]
Truly. But i am used to hearing baseless arguments brought against me; i am not so above them i do not put in a few minutes of my time to correct them. Frankly, this kind of stuff annoys me, so i make it a point to bring the truth to light, so as not to let others be swayed by babble as meaningless as what i have just witnessed (no offense to the stater of that comment). [Mr Ligit]
The opening paragraph currently ends with the sentence:
The phrases "not written immediately after" and "little external documentation" are subjective and POV. It would be more NPOV to have just:
grlea 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
carbon dating implicates that the pieces were written at least something like 70 years after Jesus' death. Is there any reason why carbon dating should be respected in other articles but disregarded in this one? I can only think of religious dogma as a legitimate defense, and that has no weight in an objective article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.146.49 ( talk • contribs)
...not very experienced with wikipedia, messed with a couple articles and regretted it later... but a topic like jesus will never be uncontroversial. the article can be protected from vandalism, but by doing so, insightful comments are excluded also. in a sense are "we" throwing the baby jesus out with the bath water? any comments on if, how this article could ever become unprotected? -- Heavywithsediment 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
And nearly a week later...haven't we resolved the dispute over the templates yet? Or are there other issues? This article shouldn't stay locked forever... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks is a very long time for an article to remain protected. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As the historicity section stands, isn't there considerable overlap between this section and the article on The Bible and history (especially the section on the New Testament/Greek Bible?) Shouldn't we say more about the history of the quest for the historical Jesus and the various scholarly models that have been proposed, and what the scholarly concensus is today?
Definitely some mention should be made of (scholarly opinions of) the reliability of the texts, but as it stands the section seems to put more weight on the historical views of the Gospel texts rather than the historical views of Jesus. To put it another way, it emphasizes the deconstruction of the texts over the historical reconstruction of Jesus' life. The deconstruction is meant to remove religious bias (big conflicts over exactly what that means), but without the reconstruction stage all we're really saying is that the historical view is different than the religious view—without saying exactly what the historical views are.
I also think more could be said about the context, ie the cultral and historical background.
This has been discussed before, but not much has been done. Any other thoughts/opinions/rotten tomatoes? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Has Anyone ever Compiled a Bibliography of Roman Records (Property Owenrship, Acereage under Cultivation, Crops Planted and Crops Harvested (Weight and Quantity, Goods Manufactured, Goods Sold, Goods Transported, Sacks of Flour Milled, Customs, Tax, Census, Conscription, Monetary, Judicial, Prison, Day to Day Administration and Other Records Which were Required to be Kept During the Reign of Augustus? If so, were the reocrds acutally kept on a regular basis and, if so, by whom? Do any of these records still exist? Were any of these records reveiwed by chorniclers and hisotrians of the time or afterward and, if so, by whom and when? Is there any information in any of these records which refers to--or from which, circumstantially, may be inferred--the presence of political or religious dissenters in Judea during the time asserted for the presence of Chirst? It would seem that a Tribune or other official would be required to make note of any rebellious clan, group or sect and how he dealt with it or planned to deal with it. If, for example, there were fairly extensive reports at the same time of rebelions and heresies in the Balkans or in North Africa or in Gaul or in the British Isles and no reports of such in Judea, that may be some indidcation. However, it would not be expected that a historian or chrnoicaller or even a government official would make mention of every minor agitator amony the goiverned populace, although miracles such as those claimed to have been performed by Jesus would almost certainly have caught the attention of one of them. But, then again, maybe not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The core of Christianity lays on the impeccable idea that we are all as one. And because of that one can say that we must do good and not evil. (This takes a little to explain but please bear with patience. We love our children as we love ourselves and we wish for them only the best things. By this extension every good deed we do will contribute for a better world for our children to live in and respectively by wrong doings we pollute the world and come in conflict with our initial preoccupation toward the wellbeing of the future generation. If we think about this backwards in time then everybody would be more or less related to the every living person. And at some point in time, we and the stranger next to us would have had a common grandparent that was wishing all his love for both. One can say that the good one does in life would comeback directly or by ones children or brothers). Islam on the other hand allow killing, and more outrageous it portraits the killing of a person as a righteous deed of justice. In my humble view this is terribly wrong and a great opposition to Christianity.
As a Christian I feel insulted by the presence of reminders and pointers to Islam on an article that tries to portray Jesus Christ. This is not a racial discrimination and perhaps there are many which disagree with my personal point of view but please think how would you feel if you would dedicate your entire life, passion and sorrow to doing good and saving people from their selves and from sin and somebody comes along and says something like “an eye for an eye” and teaches others that its ok to kill someone as long as he kills you. I strongly disagree with this and I think this article should merge Christian concept, links, references and maybe similar content but all that opposes and teaches wrong should be eliminated. The Islamic religion has many similar points of view with Christianity but one huge mistake (vengeance) makes it all wrong.
Please remove any references, links or reminders to anything related to Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.247.56.1 ( talk • contribs) .
This is not a chat-room and this discussion is pointless. We have an NPOV policy. This article must comply with our NPOV policy. Anyone who rejects our NPOV policy is going to run into problems editing the article and clearly has nothing constructive to ad to a conversation on ´´how to improve this article.´´ Slrubenstein
The article currently states that "Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel." But Matthew's list only says that so-and-so was the father of so-and-so; it makes no claims that anyone is the first-born son of anyone, and therefore the inheritor of a title. This sentence should be removed. Nareek 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The Bible claims Jesus isthe only living (yes living) descendant of king David no one else is making that claim with the backing of an exhaustive list of his ancestors back to David. SO, since no one can challenge Jesus, he is the 'legal heir.' George 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Bible makes the claim by
1. Showing that jesus is a decendant of david 2. says jesus is still alive
Jesus and his disciples constantly talked about the kingdom, how Jesus was God's son and how they were part of a covenant for a kingdom. The Bible also shows that the nation of Israel was God's kingdom on earth and that the kingdom would be heavenly in the future.
Since all geneological records would have been destroyed when the Romans completely razed Jerusalem in 70CE it seems incredible anyone after Jesus could claim a lineage reverting to David. George 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So nobody has a problem with "Matthew's genealogy thus demonstrates that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah that a descendant of David would rule in righteousness over Israel."? — Aiden 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there are only four accounts of the events surrounding Jesus life, I think that what they say happened is what should be considered. George 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think
John Locke's reply to
Robert Filmer in the Two Treatises has covered some of this ground.
There are more than four gospels - but only four are recognised as canonical.
Jackiespeel 16:07, 19 July 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Ok. I was just going to say that though there is a lot to go into this page, obviously, some minor details are being overlooked because of all this foolish obsessing over the larger. A large basis for faith is the firm belief in what one cannot confirm, but clearly the several accounts of Jesus, the Four Gospels of Canon, are in agreeance for the most part regarding His life and ministry, so it is certainly right to site that the sources for much of this page ARE drawn from Christian Tradition. However, as for the small things, several pages capitalise "He" in reference to God, and Christ as well in certain articles. Either this needs to be 'fixed' or the main article on the Man needs to be altered to match. Also, Jesus was risen, by modern standards, TWO days after He was interred; three was reference to the Jewish calender at the time. Also, as far as pictures go, they are completely unnecessary, but if you must have them, make sure they all display a variety of perspectives, especially considering none of us know what Jesus looked like, nor will we (or ... at least, i don't think we will). [MrLigit was responsible for this section. I wasn't signed in at the time this was created]
Buried means squashed under layers of earth or least permanently placed underground. Interred means placed in a crypt or tomb.Certainly the corpse was interred (placed in THE tomb) on a TEMPORARY BASIS ONLY. Please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.107.29 ( talk • contribs) .
Oh, sorry for my poor grammar! You see, it was pretty late, i believe, when i wrote this. I don't know as if i would necessarily say that "buried" has but a singular definition and is incorrect to use here, but for the sake of killing an insignificant conflict, i will change it. [MrLigit]
Jesus Christ is not in my opinion notable enough to have his own wikipage. hes never written a book or signed a sponsorship deal. Thats why I suggest merging this article with one on faith healers.
I'm afraid that's nonsense. Jesus Christ is the most influential Figure in history itself. Are you saying He doesn't merit a page of His own? The vast majority of people around the world are indeed Christians, and to deny the significance of Christ is no more than naïveté on your part[MrLigit]
It was a joke! Of course hes notable. You dont think the comment above was serious do you? I am a born again Christian- so Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in my life!
The vast majority of people around the world are Christians ?? Very very wrong thing to claim. Perhaps 1/10th of the people in strong "Christian" countries believe in the "son of god" claim. 2 billion in China and India dont believe in Jesus, so I only need an extra billion out of the remaining 4 to not believe in Jesus one little bit to have 50/50. So much for "vast majority". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.107.29 ( talk • contribs) .
True. Figures on how many Christians there are in the world are impossible to verify because firstly it depends on how one defines 'Christian' and secondly if being a Christian is a thing of the heart how can we judge who the true believers are? It is certain that most of the world are not Christians. In fact if MrLigits comments were true then Christianity would be disproven because Jesus said that his followers would always be in the minority. Committed trinitarian Christians are a minority even within historically Christian countries like the UK. So the 2 billion figure can only be an estimate for cultural Christians. Where I do disagree with the person above is in his statement that 2 billion people in China and India dont believe in Jesus. There is a considerable growing underground church movement in China that missiologists have estimated to consist of almost 100 million people. Officially they dont exist because they are in conflict with the Chinese government who have oppressed them. India almost certainly has a Christian population that runs into several million at least. [Unsigned]
Indeed, Christianity is a matter of heart. I am sorry to say, as to the number of Christians in the world, that we can only determine this by taking claims people have made. However, in person, i'll admit it is quite simple to distinguish between true believers and those in colourful, pretty Christian masks. As for those millions i haven't met, i have my own thoughts on them, but i couldn't say for my own life whether their statements are sincere or not!
While it's been a little while since i was delved in the gospels, i am fairly sure Christ told His followers at the time they would be in the minority, but i do not recall His claim being an ongoing one. Also, i mean to measure Christians by their hearts, more so than faith, but i generally consider true Christians to be a devoted people, and Trinitarian for that matter. If this is the case, then while we're still not in the minority, we would certainly not be "vast." I really would rather not go into extensive research to prove my point, but this is a small pie chart i came across while searching the Net. According to this, as of 2005, 33 per cent of the world's religions is Christianity. It is not that we are "vast" but more along the lines that we are more in union (as one) than the others. http://www.cynicalc.com/archives/bloggraphics/rel_pie.jpg
While some, such as J*****h's Witness, are included, i believe most of this chart is representative of Trinitarians.
Judaism! My goodness! They're but a fragment ... [MrLigit]
Truly. But i am used to hearing baseless arguments brought against me; i am not so above them i do not put in a few minutes of my time to correct them. Frankly, this kind of stuff annoys me, so i make it a point to bring the truth to light, so as not to let others be swayed by babble as meaningless as what i have just witnessed (no offense to the stater of that comment). [Mr Ligit]
The opening paragraph currently ends with the sentence:
The phrases "not written immediately after" and "little external documentation" are subjective and POV. It would be more NPOV to have just:
grlea 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
carbon dating implicates that the pieces were written at least something like 70 years after Jesus' death. Is there any reason why carbon dating should be respected in other articles but disregarded in this one? I can only think of religious dogma as a legitimate defense, and that has no weight in an objective article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.146.49 ( talk • contribs)
...not very experienced with wikipedia, messed with a couple articles and regretted it later... but a topic like jesus will never be uncontroversial. the article can be protected from vandalism, but by doing so, insightful comments are excluded also. in a sense are "we" throwing the baby jesus out with the bath water? any comments on if, how this article could ever become unprotected? -- Heavywithsediment 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
And nearly a week later...haven't we resolved the dispute over the templates yet? Or are there other issues? This article shouldn't stay locked forever... Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks is a very long time for an article to remain protected. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As the historicity section stands, isn't there considerable overlap between this section and the article on The Bible and history (especially the section on the New Testament/Greek Bible?) Shouldn't we say more about the history of the quest for the historical Jesus and the various scholarly models that have been proposed, and what the scholarly concensus is today?
Definitely some mention should be made of (scholarly opinions of) the reliability of the texts, but as it stands the section seems to put more weight on the historical views of the Gospel texts rather than the historical views of Jesus. To put it another way, it emphasizes the deconstruction of the texts over the historical reconstruction of Jesus' life. The deconstruction is meant to remove religious bias (big conflicts over exactly what that means), but without the reconstruction stage all we're really saying is that the historical view is different than the religious view—without saying exactly what the historical views are.
I also think more could be said about the context, ie the cultral and historical background.
This has been discussed before, but not much has been done. Any other thoughts/opinions/rotten tomatoes? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Has Anyone ever Compiled a Bibliography of Roman Records (Property Owenrship, Acereage under Cultivation, Crops Planted and Crops Harvested (Weight and Quantity, Goods Manufactured, Goods Sold, Goods Transported, Sacks of Flour Milled, Customs, Tax, Census, Conscription, Monetary, Judicial, Prison, Day to Day Administration and Other Records Which were Required to be Kept During the Reign of Augustus? If so, were the reocrds acutally kept on a regular basis and, if so, by whom? Do any of these records still exist? Were any of these records reveiwed by chorniclers and hisotrians of the time or afterward and, if so, by whom and when? Is there any information in any of these records which refers to--or from which, circumstantially, may be inferred--the presence of political or religious dissenters in Judea during the time asserted for the presence of Chirst? It would seem that a Tribune or other official would be required to make note of any rebellious clan, group or sect and how he dealt with it or planned to deal with it. If, for example, there were fairly extensive reports at the same time of rebelions and heresies in the Balkans or in North Africa or in Gaul or in the British Isles and no reports of such in Judea, that may be some indidcation. However, it would not be expected that a historian or chrnoicaller or even a government official would make mention of every minor agitator amony the goiverned populace, although miracles such as those claimed to have been performed by Jesus would almost certainly have caught the attention of one of them. But, then again, maybe not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The core of Christianity lays on the impeccable idea that we are all as one. And because of that one can say that we must do good and not evil. (This takes a little to explain but please bear with patience. We love our children as we love ourselves and we wish for them only the best things. By this extension every good deed we do will contribute for a better world for our children to live in and respectively by wrong doings we pollute the world and come in conflict with our initial preoccupation toward the wellbeing of the future generation. If we think about this backwards in time then everybody would be more or less related to the every living person. And at some point in time, we and the stranger next to us would have had a common grandparent that was wishing all his love for both. One can say that the good one does in life would comeback directly or by ones children or brothers). Islam on the other hand allow killing, and more outrageous it portraits the killing of a person as a righteous deed of justice. In my humble view this is terribly wrong and a great opposition to Christianity.
As a Christian I feel insulted by the presence of reminders and pointers to Islam on an article that tries to portray Jesus Christ. This is not a racial discrimination and perhaps there are many which disagree with my personal point of view but please think how would you feel if you would dedicate your entire life, passion and sorrow to doing good and saving people from their selves and from sin and somebody comes along and says something like “an eye for an eye” and teaches others that its ok to kill someone as long as he kills you. I strongly disagree with this and I think this article should merge Christian concept, links, references and maybe similar content but all that opposes and teaches wrong should be eliminated. The Islamic religion has many similar points of view with Christianity but one huge mistake (vengeance) makes it all wrong.
Please remove any references, links or reminders to anything related to Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.247.56.1 ( talk • contribs) .
This is not a chat-room and this discussion is pointless. We have an NPOV policy. This article must comply with our NPOV policy. Anyone who rejects our NPOV policy is going to run into problems editing the article and clearly has nothing constructive to ad to a conversation on ´´how to improve this article.´´ Slrubenstein
The article currently states that "Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel." But Matthew's list only says that so-and-so was the father of so-and-so; it makes no claims that anyone is the first-born son of anyone, and therefore the inheritor of a title. This sentence should be removed. Nareek 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The Bible claims Jesus isthe only living (yes living) descendant of king David no one else is making that claim with the backing of an exhaustive list of his ancestors back to David. SO, since no one can challenge Jesus, he is the 'legal heir.' George 13:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Bible makes the claim by
1. Showing that jesus is a decendant of david 2. says jesus is still alive
Jesus and his disciples constantly talked about the kingdom, how Jesus was God's son and how they were part of a covenant for a kingdom. The Bible also shows that the nation of Israel was God's kingdom on earth and that the kingdom would be heavenly in the future.
Since all geneological records would have been destroyed when the Romans completely razed Jerusalem in 70CE it seems incredible anyone after Jesus could claim a lineage reverting to David. George 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So nobody has a problem with "Matthew's genealogy thus demonstrates that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah that a descendant of David would rule in righteousness over Israel."? — Aiden 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there are only four accounts of the events surrounding Jesus life, I think that what they say happened is what should be considered. George 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think
John Locke's reply to
Robert Filmer in the Two Treatises has covered some of this ground.
There are more than four gospels - but only four are recognised as canonical.
Jackiespeel 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)