![]() | 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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
Please discuss and do not remove this article! There is no copyright violation!
(Copyvio from (JAMA 1986; 255:1455-1463) redacted by Jpers36 -- see here and here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.14.231 ( talk) 21:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I realize what I am about to say is OR, but I think the only thing this article proves is that physicians are as capable as BS as anyone else. I wouldn't want a historian diagnosing my stomach ache (unless of course she has some training and experience in medicine), I also feel better when MDs keep their noses out of history (unless of course she has some training and experience in history)! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
An idea:
"Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming"
could read
"Other common Christian beliefs regarding Jesus include belief in his Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming." Emerymat 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The intro to the "Jesus' life and teachings, according to the gospels" section states: "Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate;"
I am disinclined to believe that as a blanket statement (and I speak as an ordained Christian clergyperson). Possible ways to edit the sentence that would make it more likely to be true: "Christian scholars are inclined to accept more of the gospels' account as historically accurate" or "Most Christian scholars accept are inclined to accept the general outline of the gospels' accounts as historically accurate", or even at the very least "Many Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate"
There has been so much debate within the circle of Christian scholarship around the historicity of this or that aspect of Jesus' life as told by the biblical accounts that the blanket claim that "Christian scholars" generally believe the accounts to be "historically accurate" is tenuous at best. Plenty of Christian scholars would question the historicity of the virgin birth, for instance. Plenty of Christian scholars acknowledge the difficulty in reconciling the timeline of Jesus' life presented in the synoptic gospels with the timeline presented in John. Plenty of debate has been had, by Christian scholars, about the historicity of various miracles. Emerymat 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
For the following statement:
Can someone provide a quote? -- Peter zhou 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Moern scholars of a relevant field? I am not asking about German professors or geologists. I am asking about people with PhD.s in Biblical history or Ancient Near Eastern history or Ancient Near Eastern literature, scholars who are active in the fields of Biblical studies or 1st century Palestine history. I have read many and know of none who claim Jesus never existed. To whom are you referring? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Peter, we need a citation for your statement. You want to add that "Some modern scholars don't believe Jesus was a historical figure." Okay, provide your source. The issue here is not "original" versus "appropriate" research, the issue here is "reasearch" versus "no research." I do not think you have done any research. If you have, provide a source to support your claim. Should I do the same? well, guess what: aside from the fact that rossnixon already provided a source right here - don't be afraid, just open your eyes and look at the quote up top, I have added several references for works by modern scholars to this article. Now it is your turn: provide a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The word "scholars" in this sentence refers to the overwhelming majority of modern scholars who study the Bible as any other historical source (meaning simply, text from the past) and who study the history of 1st century Judea and Galalee as they would study any other place at any other time. if this is still unclear to you I suggest you read any of the many books cited in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood, I was referring to the sentence that starts this thread, "the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure" as well as the one by Michael grant. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this talk page automatically archived? =David( talk)( contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the argument in this article about using the BC/AD system as opposed to the BCE/CE system? -- Avi 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph under life and teachings, as told by the gospels, has been vandalised. Could some-one correct this? 196.203.19.196 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Some people find it easier to shift debate from this page to linked pages. People who care about this topic, please see this recent ... consider reading the section (to get the context) and commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In the beginning of the article the article states and I bold for emphasis: "While disbelief in the historicity of Jesus enjoyed a brief vogue at the turn of the 20th century, modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure[5] and that early documents provide at least some historical information concerning his life — though there is much debate over the extent of the accuracy of these accounts" This rather strong claim is not supported. How much, if any, was this view in vogue at the turn of the century? If this view was in vogue, was it in vague as a minority view among scholars at the turn of century? If it was a minority view at that time, how much of a minority view was it? I think these are important questions and the article does not support its contention and gives no specificity if it is true. Mabol 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent I now understand your request, with which I'm not sure I can help. However I am still unhappy that we are using F+G, Wells and Martin as 'authorities'. F+G clearly are not. Wells has 'recanted' and so now, presumably, regards his earlier work as flawed. It seems perverse to continue to use work now regarded as flawed, as 'authoritative' in this context. Surely the only appropriate 'authorities' are historians or theologians whose work has been peer-reviewed? To quote WP:V (note 4) "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Mercury543210 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent Firstly apologies (yet again!) to Andrew c. I had taken your 'non-replies' to my proposals to indicate that you had no strong objections to the 'removals'. I had stated (three times) that I thought F+G are not credible sources (see [WP:V]]+[WP:RS]]) and so cannot be used here. As for Wells - on reading his article in the New Humanist, and I must confess I found it difficult to pin down EXACTLY what he was saying, nevertheless Wells did conclude by denying that he had EVER held the 'complete myth position'. Taken at face value this means that his earlier works cannot be used to support the 'complete myth position', since he (appears) to deny that is what he meant!? Hence my removal of his citation. I hope this helps explain my reasons more clearly. Mercury543210 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no solid proof that Jesus actually existed in this article. Does anybody have any??? Shutup999 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The answer to any question like this is always very straightforward: "Please read our NPOV policy. There you will learn that Wikipedia articles are not concerned with 'the truth' but rather with presenting accurate accounts of different views. In other words, it is not for us to say whether it is true or false that Jesus is one with God, the son of God, or even that he ever lived. What we can say is that it is true that some people believe that he is one with God, and that some people believe he existed. When we specify who we are talking about, we can say even more: it is true that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. And it is true that the vast majority of Biblical historians believe he existed. This is why the motto of Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth.' If this does make sense to you, please read over our core policies which try to explain in greater detail." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "it is true that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus.":
A rather sweeping statement. Does this mean that there exist in the world no persons who profess to be Christians solely by virtue of their cultural upbringing? That would seem to me unlikely. TheScotch 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "nominal believers", but--as long as you bring this up--I don't know what you mean by "I wouldn't take his statement to refer" to them. Does this make "nominal believers" Christian or non-Christian?
In any case, I (maintain that I) am Christian because Christian mythology and symbolism were bequeathed to me as part of my cultural heritage no matter what I may profess to "believe". Furthermore, to my mind Christian culture is much more significant in the greater scheme of things than the putative "divinity of Jesus". I'm far from the only one who thinks this. (I'm using myself here as one example.) TheScotch 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Nominal believers are Christians, but only in name (as should be obvious).":
Logically, "nominal believers" should be those who believe only in name, which obviously do not include those I've described. Your calling me a "nominal believer" based on what I said above would be rather like your called me "Pro-death" because I support Roe v. Wade. Don't foist your own ideology on me, please.
Re: "Of course, you aren't the only who thinks in such a manner....":
For wikipedia purposes this concession is all that need concern us. Your obiter dicta about the validity of our calling ourselves Christian is not needed (and not appreciated). TheScotch 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding my five tuppence's worth. Back to the top of the section 'Give me proof that Jesus existed please'. Of course no proof can ever be provided. As mentioned earlier, history is not mathematics. Why not ask 'Give me proof that the Earth is not flat' or indeed a current favourite 'Give me proof that Princess Diana died in simple car accident and was not assassinated'. These are equivalent in their absurdity. To my mind, the existence of the four Gospels nails Jesus' existence. It is inconceivable to get 4 texts about a single figure, which agree in the most important areas, two millenia ago unless the subject actually existed. S = k log W 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Even the four gospels don´t verify Jesus' existence. They could have been written by anyone, anywhere and anytime. As far as we know the whole bible could have be written by anyone, anywhere and anytime. As in the song Land of Confusion: "There´s too many men, theres too many people making too many problems...Can´t you see this is the land of confusion..." Skele 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Under "Chronology", the article mentions that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates the birth of Jesus on January 6th, due to the celebration of Epiphany. This is not true. The Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates their Christmas on that date because they have combined the Feast of Epihpany and the birth of Jesus into one celebration. The Eastern Orthodox church however, celebrates Christmas on January 7th. This is simply the date on the Gregorian calendar that corresponds to December 25th on the Julian calendar (which is the calendar we use in America). The Feast of Epiphany is celebrated later. This is the first time I have ever written anything for Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to make an effort to correct this mistake. If anyone can let me know, I would appreciate it. Serb14325 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There's something I don't get : if the Muslim consider the Gospels to be sacred, as the article why don't they consider Jesus as being the son of god. I think the article is quite cosing on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch1981 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no Criticisms section in this page?-- ॐJesucristo301 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't criticisms of Jesus. They're citations of criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.135 ( talk) 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added this in the Principal View. This is an account of a Roman official and writer, which is considered the "earliest external account of Christian worship" (see Pliny the Younger). I believe this should be included being the earliest non-Christian historical account of the Principal View.
This additional information and expansion of the section is in accord with my earlier proposal on NPOV proportionality, i.e. more extensive treatment of the Principal View based on the NPOV policy: to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. People then agreed to my proposal.
Hello I am very open to ideas and I have been researching and discovered the name Jesus comes from Greek/Latin, the Greek part is Je or in Greek Ge which means Earth or Soil and sus is latin for Swine or Pig and Iesous is Greek for Man Horse the site that explains this information is the following site please read, http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm thank you if you have any comments please contact me at moogle1979@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogle1979 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I study Greek and Latin. Yes, 'ge' does mean earth in Greek and 'sus' does mean pig in Latin. Iesous, however, is not a composition of these two words, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, words are not formed by combining two words from two different languages. I can't think of a single example from ancient times. Also, even if Iesous were a combination (which I emphasize it is not) the word would be Gesus not Iesous. Iesous does not mean horse in Greek or Latin. Hippo and Equus are the respective Greek and Latin words. Lastly, Jesus was Jewish. He was raised Jewish and came from a Jewish family in a Jewish society run by a Jewish king. There were little Hellenizing effects in the area which Jesus is said to have preached. It would be so extremely odd that his parents would choose to name him a complex amalagation of Greek and Latin words to the point where I (if I may insert my personal opinion) would say it is impossible. The truth is unfortunately less interesting than what you've heard. Jstanierm 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Jstanierm 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus to this article. Kathleen.wright5 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding this page to the category "Fictional Characters". I wish to assume good faith and that he is not simply trying to vandalise (although I did not do so initially, and was wrong not to do so).
Nonetheless, it is clearly not an appropriate change. Regardless of whether Jesus was or was not fictional, there is a scholarly consensus in relevant fields that he was not - to include him in a category of fictional characters is therefore contrary to our policies of proportionally representing already published research in reliable sources, and is contrary to WP:NOR. TJ 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
jesus is a historical character he founded christianity, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 ( talk) 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about posting this on this page, but I cannot view this article anymore. Whenever I go onto this article (and only this one) I can only see a gigantic pixillated picture which takes up all of the screen. I could look at this article fine, until today, but now I can't read it at all. Any help will be appreciated, although I realise this may not be the most appropriate place for this comment. Thanks. 86.150.251.208 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's ok now, it fixed itself. 86.150.251.208 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, time to talk rather than revert. I don't feel strongly in favor of keeping the text that was deleted by User:B. However, I think we need to ask "what are the criteria for including a gospel"? It seems obvious that we are not restricting ourselves to the four canonical gospels. However, once we get into the non-canonical gospels, how do we determine which gospels are "taken seriously" and which are not?
And, at a higher perspective, we should ask "what is this article about?" Is it about the "historical Jesus"? I would think not. We have an article on that. So then, what does it mean to "take a gospel seriously"? Are we trying to discuss those gospels which, although not one of the four canonical ones, were considered canonical by some "respectable" group (thus admitting the "Gospel of Thomas" but not the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas")?
I probably know far less about these gospels than other editors of this article. I ask the above questions not as polemic but in a sincere desire to understand what criteria are being applied here.
I also point out that there is a difference between saying "X is true about Jesus because Gospel A says so" and "Gospel A says that X is true about Jesus". The former asserts something about Jesus. The latter only asserts something about Gospel A. Whether that asserts anything about Jesus depends on how much credence you give to Gospel A.
-- Richard 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what C. Logan and B have written above with one important caveat. Most of the discussion of non-canonical writings does not belong in this article. I'm not quite sure where the discussion belongs; perhaps Early Christianity, Patristics or Development of the New Testament canon.
What I think this article needs is a very high-level summary of the issue about canonical and non-canonical writings and how they influence what we think we know about Jesus. Leave the details for one of the other articles.
-- Richard 05:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the text we have:
Wouldn't it be instructive to also examine the differences in Christian views of Jesus more critically. It would be useful to have an insight into why different Christian groups are sometimes so full of hatred about each other. S = k log W 12:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The article certainly discusses the different views of Christians but in a very top-level manner. There is no examination of any consequences of these different views (beliefs?). There must be some. Sectarian problems in Northern Ireland and in Glasgow are examples.
It should be possible to construct a (lower triangular) matrix allowing the points of contention between the different Christian beliefs to be shown more graphically. S = k log W 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Hope I haven't offended anyone. I'll move on to pastures new. S = k log W 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is far too long. If you would write any other article not in contact with christianity it would be marked to be shortened. And again the neutrality of this article is to be nominated. Skele 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there an agreement on how this should be done? I checked the archives, but there was only one that I found, and it was from 2004, and there was not much discussion. I don't want to scour the myraid archives, so if it was discussed somewhere, tell me.
The way I've learned, when you have a singular possesive noun ending in -s, you add 's. When you have a plural possesive noun ending in -s, you add s'. These three sites agree with that. This page says (#3) singular proper possesive nouns ending in -s take an s'—specifically proper nouns, non-proper singular noun get 's. This is the only page I have seen that on. This page says either. This article specifically mentions Jesus, and says we use s'. However, this is not supported by the other sites, except this one, but for different reasons. This page says that singular possesive nouns ending in -s take 's, but plural take s'. This is from the Purdue University website, so it should be reliable. Therefore, I suggest we change Jesus' to Jesus's. i said 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
there seems to be a group of people who's only purpose in Wikipedia is to keep everything unchanged.
i added 3 youtube links, under: External links | Historical and skeptical views. the videos make the first part of Zeitgeist, presenting a different view of jesus and the bible. first it was cataloged as spam, and the second time the same. but this time:
RV- Spamming of Youtube videos which seem to have no particular notability, and violate #2 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided.
first, Wikipedia on Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites
There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.
the links are related to the content, and they are under (read carefully) External links | Historical and skeptical views. so for a free and evolving encyclopedia, and also wanted to be reliable, which has to present everything, especially contradictory opinions, the links are not having, quote:
no particular notability
and do not violate #2 of 'Links normally to be avoided.'
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
because the same thing I can say about the bible, jesus, or the 'jesus page'. no one decided that the bible is accurate. it is only a point of view of certain persons, so ALL the information and opinions must be presented.
and where's the spam? i don't get money out of this, while the full movie can be viewed for free.
Deny censorship.Present all the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- [1]
- To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth- conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
- Wikipedia on NPOV
- Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.
- NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.
- We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
- [...]
- Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them— Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
- From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
- If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
- Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
- Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
- Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
- Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
- Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.
- [...]
- Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details. Self-published sources should never be used as sources about living persons other than their author, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details.
Fellas, with all due respect, I think we have passed from the "be kind to newbies" stage to the "don't feed the troll" stage. Some people go to biiiig buildings with LOTS of books and journals in them. There they do this thing called "research" and hopefully some of them who are willing to donate their time contribute to Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia. Other people make up things and spout garbage, but really, we don't want to encourage these people. You guys have really bent over backwards to explain why Wikipedia has standards. I fear at this point you are wasting time. Let's move on, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I just tried to edit the page and was almost imediately reedited. It's a fact that there is no historical record of Jesus from the comtemporary academics, shcolars, historians of his time.
"(this is clearly an attempt to give undue weight to the Mythisist hypothesis, contemporary historians wern't exactly in ample supply 2000 years ago)" This was the statement attached to the editor who removed my contribution and its wrong. There is alot of material from that time period by many individuals. Did I try to edit the wrong article? Does this article not deal with historical fact? The only thing I'm attempting is to contribute historical fact.
Here's what I wrote "Most historians and members of academia who lived around the Mediterranean Sea during the time of Jesus failed to mention or keep any record of his excistance. Three shcolars of the time do mention a "Christ" in their writings. Being only a title with no name however, it is impossible to be sure they were refering to Jesus." Does this belong somewhere else? Is there a way to phrase it so it is more neutral? Does anybody think its even worth mentioning? Charlie
Ok, besides the bible, there are no historical records from that time period regarding Jesus, his entourage, his miracles, .. nothing. How am I supposed to phrase that with making somebody mad? It's not my fault it's a fact.( Avidreaderofhistory 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
The issue here is also NOR. Respected historians - with PhDs and stuff like that - have written on the topic, we should start with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Iulian28ti 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of questions: (1) What are these religions? Obviously Islam is one (as mentioned in the text), but what are the others? (2) Can we name these religions instead of being vague here? Perhaps the answer is "no" due to the possibility of inflaming things. It occurs to me, for example, that some would consider Mormonism to be one of these religions, but that would imply they're not Christian, which they would dispute. (Of course, two is not "several".) I notice from the article that other religions have something minor to say about him, but would not consider him "important" (except Bahá'í where he is important in a good way and Mandaean where he is important in a bad way). Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the text in question in the intro, but I gotta say, "several other religions" really isn't that helpful to readers. However, considering the length of this article, I think mentioning just Islam and Christianity in the intro is a pretty good summary of the article, which is what an intro is. Perspectives from other religions are not mentioned very much by the article, simply because they are generally either very small religions in comparison, or because Jesus isn't very important to the religion. Homestarmy 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Mandean ought to be removed. Aside from a couple of websites there is no evidence it exists; it is one of the things Cheese Dreams forced into the article two or three years ago and never got cleaned out (I think the idea is, Mandeans are contemporary followers of John the Baptist)
Slrubenstein |
Talk
21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was never able to find reference to any scholarly sources, or to any representative organization comparable to a conference of Baptists or United Synagoge of America that represents the religion. If it exists, is it notable? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article seems too long by far. Sure, Jesus is one of the most famous blokes out there, but seriously, 113 kilobytes? It should be split. JIP | Talk 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering the people whom the referenced author cites as examples of "representative quotations," there's a noticeable bias. Unless I am mistaken, they are almost all Anglican churchmen, and those who are not are still Anglican theologians. Even if he is not presenting a biased picture here, it certainly looks biased. Some other source with a broader perspective would be preferable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Section was moved to the relevant talk page at
Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Hebrew translation.
Erudecorp
?
*
08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
he:ישו —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.81.137.4 ( talk) 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Section was moved to the relevant talk page at [[Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Jesus' name Iesous is from Iaso.
Erudecorp
?
*
08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a drop of hint that there is a slight sparkle of cliché in the article, due to the fact that the majority of the headings are in the same format of "[subject 1] and [subject 2]". This and is too repetitive. A split of these parts into separate headings will seem logical and give an encyclopaedic touch to the article. — Adriaan ( T★ C) 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete the information. It is a valid theory and the references are within wikipedia guidelines. The section should certainly be shortened, but removal is not called for. There is no original research, no new generation of information, and any call for a citation has been obliged. It is fully sourced and provides relative insight. Tony Reed 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; this material does not belong here. Obvious violation of the "undue weight" clause. Moreschi Talk 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE clearly. -- SECisek 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why has this page reverted to the medievil beliefs? The article says: "After Jesus' birth, the couple was forced to use a manger in place of a crib because there was no room for them in the town's inn (Luke 2:1–7)." The Bible used the word "kataluma" which was translated as "inn" but the Bible used the word twice and the second time it described what a kataluma was "a large furnished upper story room within a private house". This is what Christian scholars now generally accept. The manger is not unusual either as most houses in those days had several mangers indoors and they were sometimes used as cribs for convienence. Last time i read this page it read according to the research not according to popular myth and explained this. Wayne 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Catholic Encyclopedia says Jesus is Greek Name. Erudecorp ? * 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, it seems to me that (because there are comparatively few high-quality resources on this important topic) Keith Akers' "recent" book (foreworded by Walter Wink) should be referenced briefly at the end of the current subtitled Reference Note #40: I would add "See also The Lost Religion of Jesus (2000) by Keith Akers, Lantern Books. ISBN 1-930051-26-3." (He does extensive, original and scholarly work on the Essenes in that volume..) Note 40 comes in the text after this sentence: "Other scholars theorize that Jesus was an Essene, a sect of Judaism not mentioned in the New Testament.[40] "
Akers could likewise be mentioned under note #93, which even more specifically references Ebionites and their likely vegetarianism. (Akers references both Ebionites and Essenes in his book.) Mr manilow 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The following statement (from the Jesus article) is somewhat misleading and should be more carefully nuanced: "Some texts with even earlier historical or mythological information on Jesus are speculated to have existed prior to the Gospels,[48] though none have been found." The Pauline epistles should at least be tacitly/implicitly referenced here, seeing as they pre-date the Gospels by a significant stretch AND provide minimal (however scant) historical and mythological data. I suggest that this statement is prefaced with: "Apart from Paul's letters," or "Other than the Pauline epistles," or another similar "disclaimer" statement - so as to achieve the highest technical accuracy possible with this article. THanks Mr manilow 15:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
After this statement "In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI referred to Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a believing Jew, who concluded from his analysis of the Gospel texts that Jesus claimed to be God by asserting himself to be a higher authority than the Jewish Law which was given to the Jews by God through Moses.[79]" I think that one other book should be referenced, at least in the footnote:
Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Paperback) by Murray J. Harris (Author)
(This is the most clear and concise book I have seen on the topic, and it also conforms to high theological and academic standards.)
Only $200 on Amazon! ;) This could also be appended as follows: "(Murray J. Harris makes a similar conclusion in his book devoted to the topic: Jesus as God.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Another one for the helluvit:
Thanks, Mr manilow 16:07, 9 November 2007 (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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
Please discuss and do not remove this article! There is no copyright violation!
(Copyvio from (JAMA 1986; 255:1455-1463) redacted by Jpers36 -- see here and here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.14.231 ( talk) 21:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
I realize what I am about to say is OR, but I think the only thing this article proves is that physicians are as capable as BS as anyone else. I wouldn't want a historian diagnosing my stomach ache (unless of course she has some training and experience in medicine), I also feel better when MDs keep their noses out of history (unless of course she has some training and experience in history)! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
An idea:
"Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming"
could read
"Other common Christian beliefs regarding Jesus include belief in his Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming." Emerymat 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The intro to the "Jesus' life and teachings, according to the gospels" section states: "Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate;"
I am disinclined to believe that as a blanket statement (and I speak as an ordained Christian clergyperson). Possible ways to edit the sentence that would make it more likely to be true: "Christian scholars are inclined to accept more of the gospels' account as historically accurate" or "Most Christian scholars accept are inclined to accept the general outline of the gospels' accounts as historically accurate", or even at the very least "Many Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate"
There has been so much debate within the circle of Christian scholarship around the historicity of this or that aspect of Jesus' life as told by the biblical accounts that the blanket claim that "Christian scholars" generally believe the accounts to be "historically accurate" is tenuous at best. Plenty of Christian scholars would question the historicity of the virgin birth, for instance. Plenty of Christian scholars acknowledge the difficulty in reconciling the timeline of Jesus' life presented in the synoptic gospels with the timeline presented in John. Plenty of debate has been had, by Christian scholars, about the historicity of various miracles. Emerymat 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
For the following statement:
Can someone provide a quote? -- Peter zhou 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Moern scholars of a relevant field? I am not asking about German professors or geologists. I am asking about people with PhD.s in Biblical history or Ancient Near Eastern history or Ancient Near Eastern literature, scholars who are active in the fields of Biblical studies or 1st century Palestine history. I have read many and know of none who claim Jesus never existed. To whom are you referring? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Peter, we need a citation for your statement. You want to add that "Some modern scholars don't believe Jesus was a historical figure." Okay, provide your source. The issue here is not "original" versus "appropriate" research, the issue here is "reasearch" versus "no research." I do not think you have done any research. If you have, provide a source to support your claim. Should I do the same? well, guess what: aside from the fact that rossnixon already provided a source right here - don't be afraid, just open your eyes and look at the quote up top, I have added several references for works by modern scholars to this article. Now it is your turn: provide a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The word "scholars" in this sentence refers to the overwhelming majority of modern scholars who study the Bible as any other historical source (meaning simply, text from the past) and who study the history of 1st century Judea and Galalee as they would study any other place at any other time. if this is still unclear to you I suggest you read any of the many books cited in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood, I was referring to the sentence that starts this thread, "the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure" as well as the one by Michael grant. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this talk page automatically archived? =David( talk)( contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the argument in this article about using the BC/AD system as opposed to the BCE/CE system? -- Avi 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph under life and teachings, as told by the gospels, has been vandalised. Could some-one correct this? 196.203.19.196 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Some people find it easier to shift debate from this page to linked pages. People who care about this topic, please see this recent ... consider reading the section (to get the context) and commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In the beginning of the article the article states and I bold for emphasis: "While disbelief in the historicity of Jesus enjoyed a brief vogue at the turn of the 20th century, modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure[5] and that early documents provide at least some historical information concerning his life — though there is much debate over the extent of the accuracy of these accounts" This rather strong claim is not supported. How much, if any, was this view in vogue at the turn of the century? If this view was in vogue, was it in vague as a minority view among scholars at the turn of century? If it was a minority view at that time, how much of a minority view was it? I think these are important questions and the article does not support its contention and gives no specificity if it is true. Mabol 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent I now understand your request, with which I'm not sure I can help. However I am still unhappy that we are using F+G, Wells and Martin as 'authorities'. F+G clearly are not. Wells has 'recanted' and so now, presumably, regards his earlier work as flawed. It seems perverse to continue to use work now regarded as flawed, as 'authoritative' in this context. Surely the only appropriate 'authorities' are historians or theologians whose work has been peer-reviewed? To quote WP:V (note 4) "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Mercury543210 08:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent Firstly apologies (yet again!) to Andrew c. I had taken your 'non-replies' to my proposals to indicate that you had no strong objections to the 'removals'. I had stated (three times) that I thought F+G are not credible sources (see [WP:V]]+[WP:RS]]) and so cannot be used here. As for Wells - on reading his article in the New Humanist, and I must confess I found it difficult to pin down EXACTLY what he was saying, nevertheless Wells did conclude by denying that he had EVER held the 'complete myth position'. Taken at face value this means that his earlier works cannot be used to support the 'complete myth position', since he (appears) to deny that is what he meant!? Hence my removal of his citation. I hope this helps explain my reasons more clearly. Mercury543210 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no solid proof that Jesus actually existed in this article. Does anybody have any??? Shutup999 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The answer to any question like this is always very straightforward: "Please read our NPOV policy. There you will learn that Wikipedia articles are not concerned with 'the truth' but rather with presenting accurate accounts of different views. In other words, it is not for us to say whether it is true or false that Jesus is one with God, the son of God, or even that he ever lived. What we can say is that it is true that some people believe that he is one with God, and that some people believe he existed. When we specify who we are talking about, we can say even more: it is true that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. And it is true that the vast majority of Biblical historians believe he existed. This is why the motto of Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth.' If this does make sense to you, please read over our core policies which try to explain in greater detail." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "it is true that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus.":
A rather sweeping statement. Does this mean that there exist in the world no persons who profess to be Christians solely by virtue of their cultural upbringing? That would seem to me unlikely. TheScotch 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "nominal believers", but--as long as you bring this up--I don't know what you mean by "I wouldn't take his statement to refer" to them. Does this make "nominal believers" Christian or non-Christian?
In any case, I (maintain that I) am Christian because Christian mythology and symbolism were bequeathed to me as part of my cultural heritage no matter what I may profess to "believe". Furthermore, to my mind Christian culture is much more significant in the greater scheme of things than the putative "divinity of Jesus". I'm far from the only one who thinks this. (I'm using myself here as one example.) TheScotch 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Nominal believers are Christians, but only in name (as should be obvious).":
Logically, "nominal believers" should be those who believe only in name, which obviously do not include those I've described. Your calling me a "nominal believer" based on what I said above would be rather like your called me "Pro-death" because I support Roe v. Wade. Don't foist your own ideology on me, please.
Re: "Of course, you aren't the only who thinks in such a manner....":
For wikipedia purposes this concession is all that need concern us. Your obiter dicta about the validity of our calling ourselves Christian is not needed (and not appreciated). TheScotch 10:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding my five tuppence's worth. Back to the top of the section 'Give me proof that Jesus existed please'. Of course no proof can ever be provided. As mentioned earlier, history is not mathematics. Why not ask 'Give me proof that the Earth is not flat' or indeed a current favourite 'Give me proof that Princess Diana died in simple car accident and was not assassinated'. These are equivalent in their absurdity. To my mind, the existence of the four Gospels nails Jesus' existence. It is inconceivable to get 4 texts about a single figure, which agree in the most important areas, two millenia ago unless the subject actually existed. S = k log W 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Even the four gospels don´t verify Jesus' existence. They could have been written by anyone, anywhere and anytime. As far as we know the whole bible could have be written by anyone, anywhere and anytime. As in the song Land of Confusion: "There´s too many men, theres too many people making too many problems...Can´t you see this is the land of confusion..." Skele 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Under "Chronology", the article mentions that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates the birth of Jesus on January 6th, due to the celebration of Epiphany. This is not true. The Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates their Christmas on that date because they have combined the Feast of Epihpany and the birth of Jesus into one celebration. The Eastern Orthodox church however, celebrates Christmas on January 7th. This is simply the date on the Gregorian calendar that corresponds to December 25th on the Julian calendar (which is the calendar we use in America). The Feast of Epiphany is celebrated later. This is the first time I have ever written anything for Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to make an effort to correct this mistake. If anyone can let me know, I would appreciate it. Serb14325 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There's something I don't get : if the Muslim consider the Gospels to be sacred, as the article why don't they consider Jesus as being the son of god. I think the article is quite cosing on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch1981 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no Criticisms section in this page?-- ॐJesucristo301 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Those aren't criticisms of Jesus. They're citations of criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.135 ( talk) 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added this in the Principal View. This is an account of a Roman official and writer, which is considered the "earliest external account of Christian worship" (see Pliny the Younger). I believe this should be included being the earliest non-Christian historical account of the Principal View.
This additional information and expansion of the section is in accord with my earlier proposal on NPOV proportionality, i.e. more extensive treatment of the Principal View based on the NPOV policy: to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. People then agreed to my proposal.
Hello I am very open to ideas and I have been researching and discovered the name Jesus comes from Greek/Latin, the Greek part is Je or in Greek Ge which means Earth or Soil and sus is latin for Swine or Pig and Iesous is Greek for Man Horse the site that explains this information is the following site please read, http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm thank you if you have any comments please contact me at moogle1979@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogle1979 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I study Greek and Latin. Yes, 'ge' does mean earth in Greek and 'sus' does mean pig in Latin. Iesous, however, is not a composition of these two words, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, words are not formed by combining two words from two different languages. I can't think of a single example from ancient times. Also, even if Iesous were a combination (which I emphasize it is not) the word would be Gesus not Iesous. Iesous does not mean horse in Greek or Latin. Hippo and Equus are the respective Greek and Latin words. Lastly, Jesus was Jewish. He was raised Jewish and came from a Jewish family in a Jewish society run by a Jewish king. There were little Hellenizing effects in the area which Jesus is said to have preached. It would be so extremely odd that his parents would choose to name him a complex amalagation of Greek and Latin words to the point where I (if I may insert my personal opinion) would say it is impossible. The truth is unfortunately less interesting than what you've heard. Jstanierm 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Jstanierm 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added http://christianity.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus to this article. Kathleen.wright5 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding this page to the category "Fictional Characters". I wish to assume good faith and that he is not simply trying to vandalise (although I did not do so initially, and was wrong not to do so).
Nonetheless, it is clearly not an appropriate change. Regardless of whether Jesus was or was not fictional, there is a scholarly consensus in relevant fields that he was not - to include him in a category of fictional characters is therefore contrary to our policies of proportionally representing already published research in reliable sources, and is contrary to WP:NOR. TJ 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
jesus is a historical character he founded christianity, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 ( talk) 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about posting this on this page, but I cannot view this article anymore. Whenever I go onto this article (and only this one) I can only see a gigantic pixillated picture which takes up all of the screen. I could look at this article fine, until today, but now I can't read it at all. Any help will be appreciated, although I realise this may not be the most appropriate place for this comment. Thanks. 86.150.251.208 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's ok now, it fixed itself. 86.150.251.208 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, time to talk rather than revert. I don't feel strongly in favor of keeping the text that was deleted by User:B. However, I think we need to ask "what are the criteria for including a gospel"? It seems obvious that we are not restricting ourselves to the four canonical gospels. However, once we get into the non-canonical gospels, how do we determine which gospels are "taken seriously" and which are not?
And, at a higher perspective, we should ask "what is this article about?" Is it about the "historical Jesus"? I would think not. We have an article on that. So then, what does it mean to "take a gospel seriously"? Are we trying to discuss those gospels which, although not one of the four canonical ones, were considered canonical by some "respectable" group (thus admitting the "Gospel of Thomas" but not the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas")?
I probably know far less about these gospels than other editors of this article. I ask the above questions not as polemic but in a sincere desire to understand what criteria are being applied here.
I also point out that there is a difference between saying "X is true about Jesus because Gospel A says so" and "Gospel A says that X is true about Jesus". The former asserts something about Jesus. The latter only asserts something about Gospel A. Whether that asserts anything about Jesus depends on how much credence you give to Gospel A.
-- Richard 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what C. Logan and B have written above with one important caveat. Most of the discussion of non-canonical writings does not belong in this article. I'm not quite sure where the discussion belongs; perhaps Early Christianity, Patristics or Development of the New Testament canon.
What I think this article needs is a very high-level summary of the issue about canonical and non-canonical writings and how they influence what we think we know about Jesus. Leave the details for one of the other articles.
-- Richard 05:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the text we have:
Wouldn't it be instructive to also examine the differences in Christian views of Jesus more critically. It would be useful to have an insight into why different Christian groups are sometimes so full of hatred about each other. S = k log W 12:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The article certainly discusses the different views of Christians but in a very top-level manner. There is no examination of any consequences of these different views (beliefs?). There must be some. Sectarian problems in Northern Ireland and in Glasgow are examples.
It should be possible to construct a (lower triangular) matrix allowing the points of contention between the different Christian beliefs to be shown more graphically. S = k log W 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Hope I haven't offended anyone. I'll move on to pastures new. S = k log W 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is far too long. If you would write any other article not in contact with christianity it would be marked to be shortened. And again the neutrality of this article is to be nominated. Skele 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there an agreement on how this should be done? I checked the archives, but there was only one that I found, and it was from 2004, and there was not much discussion. I don't want to scour the myraid archives, so if it was discussed somewhere, tell me.
The way I've learned, when you have a singular possesive noun ending in -s, you add 's. When you have a plural possesive noun ending in -s, you add s'. These three sites agree with that. This page says (#3) singular proper possesive nouns ending in -s take an s'—specifically proper nouns, non-proper singular noun get 's. This is the only page I have seen that on. This page says either. This article specifically mentions Jesus, and says we use s'. However, this is not supported by the other sites, except this one, but for different reasons. This page says that singular possesive nouns ending in -s take 's, but plural take s'. This is from the Purdue University website, so it should be reliable. Therefore, I suggest we change Jesus' to Jesus's. i said 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
there seems to be a group of people who's only purpose in Wikipedia is to keep everything unchanged.
i added 3 youtube links, under: External links | Historical and skeptical views. the videos make the first part of Zeitgeist, presenting a different view of jesus and the bible. first it was cataloged as spam, and the second time the same. but this time:
RV- Spamming of Youtube videos which seem to have no particular notability, and violate #2 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided.
first, Wikipedia on Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites
There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights.
the links are related to the content, and they are under (read carefully) External links | Historical and skeptical views. so for a free and evolving encyclopedia, and also wanted to be reliable, which has to present everything, especially contradictory opinions, the links are not having, quote:
no particular notability
and do not violate #2 of 'Links normally to be avoided.'
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
because the same thing I can say about the bible, jesus, or the 'jesus page'. no one decided that the bible is accurate. it is only a point of view of certain persons, so ALL the information and opinions must be presented.
and where's the spam? i don't get money out of this, while the full movie can be viewed for free.
Deny censorship.Present all the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- [1]
- To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth- conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
- Wikipedia on NPOV
- Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.
- NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.
- We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
- [...]
- Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them— Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
- From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
- If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
- Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
- Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
- Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
- Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
- Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.
- [...]
- Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details. Self-published sources should never be used as sources about living persons other than their author, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details.
Fellas, with all due respect, I think we have passed from the "be kind to newbies" stage to the "don't feed the troll" stage. Some people go to biiiig buildings with LOTS of books and journals in them. There they do this thing called "research" and hopefully some of them who are willing to donate their time contribute to Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia. Other people make up things and spout garbage, but really, we don't want to encourage these people. You guys have really bent over backwards to explain why Wikipedia has standards. I fear at this point you are wasting time. Let's move on, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I just tried to edit the page and was almost imediately reedited. It's a fact that there is no historical record of Jesus from the comtemporary academics, shcolars, historians of his time.
"(this is clearly an attempt to give undue weight to the Mythisist hypothesis, contemporary historians wern't exactly in ample supply 2000 years ago)" This was the statement attached to the editor who removed my contribution and its wrong. There is alot of material from that time period by many individuals. Did I try to edit the wrong article? Does this article not deal with historical fact? The only thing I'm attempting is to contribute historical fact.
Here's what I wrote "Most historians and members of academia who lived around the Mediterranean Sea during the time of Jesus failed to mention or keep any record of his excistance. Three shcolars of the time do mention a "Christ" in their writings. Being only a title with no name however, it is impossible to be sure they were refering to Jesus." Does this belong somewhere else? Is there a way to phrase it so it is more neutral? Does anybody think its even worth mentioning? Charlie
Ok, besides the bible, there are no historical records from that time period regarding Jesus, his entourage, his miracles, .. nothing. How am I supposed to phrase that with making somebody mad? It's not my fault it's a fact.( Avidreaderofhistory 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
The issue here is also NOR. Respected historians - with PhDs and stuff like that - have written on the topic, we should start with them. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Iulian28ti 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of questions: (1) What are these religions? Obviously Islam is one (as mentioned in the text), but what are the others? (2) Can we name these religions instead of being vague here? Perhaps the answer is "no" due to the possibility of inflaming things. It occurs to me, for example, that some would consider Mormonism to be one of these religions, but that would imply they're not Christian, which they would dispute. (Of course, two is not "several".) I notice from the article that other religions have something minor to say about him, but would not consider him "important" (except Bahá'í where he is important in a good way and Mandaean where he is important in a bad way). Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the text in question in the intro, but I gotta say, "several other religions" really isn't that helpful to readers. However, considering the length of this article, I think mentioning just Islam and Christianity in the intro is a pretty good summary of the article, which is what an intro is. Perspectives from other religions are not mentioned very much by the article, simply because they are generally either very small religions in comparison, or because Jesus isn't very important to the religion. Homestarmy 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Mandean ought to be removed. Aside from a couple of websites there is no evidence it exists; it is one of the things Cheese Dreams forced into the article two or three years ago and never got cleaned out (I think the idea is, Mandeans are contemporary followers of John the Baptist)
Slrubenstein |
Talk
21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was never able to find reference to any scholarly sources, or to any representative organization comparable to a conference of Baptists or United Synagoge of America that represents the religion. If it exists, is it notable? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The article seems too long by far. Sure, Jesus is one of the most famous blokes out there, but seriously, 113 kilobytes? It should be split. JIP | Talk 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering the people whom the referenced author cites as examples of "representative quotations," there's a noticeable bias. Unless I am mistaken, they are almost all Anglican churchmen, and those who are not are still Anglican theologians. Even if he is not presenting a biased picture here, it certainly looks biased. Some other source with a broader perspective would be preferable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Section was moved to the relevant talk page at
Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Hebrew translation.
Erudecorp
?
*
08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
he:ישו —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.81.137.4 ( talk) 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Section was moved to the relevant talk page at [[Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Jesus' name Iesous is from Iaso.
Erudecorp
?
*
08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a drop of hint that there is a slight sparkle of cliché in the article, due to the fact that the majority of the headings are in the same format of "[subject 1] and [subject 2]". This and is too repetitive. A split of these parts into separate headings will seem logical and give an encyclopaedic touch to the article. — Adriaan ( T★ C) 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete the information. It is a valid theory and the references are within wikipedia guidelines. The section should certainly be shortened, but removal is not called for. There is no original research, no new generation of information, and any call for a citation has been obliged. It is fully sourced and provides relative insight. Tony Reed 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; this material does not belong here. Obvious violation of the "undue weight" clause. Moreschi Talk 19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE clearly. -- SECisek 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why has this page reverted to the medievil beliefs? The article says: "After Jesus' birth, the couple was forced to use a manger in place of a crib because there was no room for them in the town's inn (Luke 2:1–7)." The Bible used the word "kataluma" which was translated as "inn" but the Bible used the word twice and the second time it described what a kataluma was "a large furnished upper story room within a private house". This is what Christian scholars now generally accept. The manger is not unusual either as most houses in those days had several mangers indoors and they were sometimes used as cribs for convienence. Last time i read this page it read according to the research not according to popular myth and explained this. Wayne 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Catholic Encyclopedia says Jesus is Greek Name. Erudecorp ? * 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, it seems to me that (because there are comparatively few high-quality resources on this important topic) Keith Akers' "recent" book (foreworded by Walter Wink) should be referenced briefly at the end of the current subtitled Reference Note #40: I would add "See also The Lost Religion of Jesus (2000) by Keith Akers, Lantern Books. ISBN 1-930051-26-3." (He does extensive, original and scholarly work on the Essenes in that volume..) Note 40 comes in the text after this sentence: "Other scholars theorize that Jesus was an Essene, a sect of Judaism not mentioned in the New Testament.[40] "
Akers could likewise be mentioned under note #93, which even more specifically references Ebionites and their likely vegetarianism. (Akers references both Ebionites and Essenes in his book.) Mr manilow 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The following statement (from the Jesus article) is somewhat misleading and should be more carefully nuanced: "Some texts with even earlier historical or mythological information on Jesus are speculated to have existed prior to the Gospels,[48] though none have been found." The Pauline epistles should at least be tacitly/implicitly referenced here, seeing as they pre-date the Gospels by a significant stretch AND provide minimal (however scant) historical and mythological data. I suggest that this statement is prefaced with: "Apart from Paul's letters," or "Other than the Pauline epistles," or another similar "disclaimer" statement - so as to achieve the highest technical accuracy possible with this article. THanks Mr manilow 15:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
After this statement "In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI referred to Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a believing Jew, who concluded from his analysis of the Gospel texts that Jesus claimed to be God by asserting himself to be a higher authority than the Jewish Law which was given to the Jews by God through Moses.[79]" I think that one other book should be referenced, at least in the footnote:
Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Paperback) by Murray J. Harris (Author)
(This is the most clear and concise book I have seen on the topic, and it also conforms to high theological and academic standards.)
Only $200 on Amazon! ;) This could also be appended as follows: "(Murray J. Harris makes a similar conclusion in his book devoted to the topic: Jesus as God.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr manilow ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Another one for the helluvit:
Thanks, Mr manilow 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)