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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
These images are a wasteful distraction. All images of this figure are irrelevant, bar scientific approximations of what a jewish male from this area may have look like at the time, (nothing like these artists non-contemporaneous imaginings).
There were two paragraphs about the Trilemma in Majority Views, and I cut them both. This is not the place for singling out one proof of Jesus' divinity (there are plenty) as if it has pre-eminence above the others (it doesn't). Maybe there could be a "Proofs that Jesus is God" section under majority views, and more than just the trilemma would go there. Leadwind ( talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
can we varyfie this part of the article? it doesent make sence due to the fact that they were related and that St.John the Baptist literaly LIVED for Jesus after He babtized him? and we need records to see whay that they think Jesus is evil after all all the other religions see him as a good figure(exept for satanics and somewhat ethiest) and that the Mandaean religion is a religion for peace and that there are no records of Jesus ever sinning?-- Sonicobbsessed ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This information is about the gospels, and it was in the historical Jesus section. It's all primary sources. There's already another section with the gospel accounts. Do we need this information at all? Leadwind ( talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the New Testament, Jesus accepted worship ( Matthew 14:33; Matthew 28:9), was accused of assuming God's authority by telling people that their sins were forgiven ( Luke 5:20–21), and made claims about himself including that:
We need it in that section because that section is about Jesus words about himself. I did make the quotes less extensive. I am not sure if Andrew is propsing an alterative but if he is I do not understand what he is asking for.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
First, the issue is simple WP policy. We can't use scripture to describe historical Jesus, except insofar as historians tell us we can (e.g., he really was baptized and crucified). Leadwind ( talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Second, even when the author of the gospel of John puts words in Jesus' mouth, Jesus still doesn't say that he's God. Leadwind ( talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's more scripture removed from the historical Jesus section.
According to the New Testament, Jesus accepted worship ({{bibleref2|Matthew|14:33|NIV}}; {{bibleref2|Matthew|28:9|NIV}}), was accused of assuming God's authority by telling people that their sins were forgiven ({{bibleref2|Luke|5:20-21|NIV}}), and made claims about himself including that (1) he is ("[[I am that I am|I am]]") before [[Abraham]] was ({{bibleverse|John|8:58|NIV}})(2) he and the Father "are one" ({{bibleverse|John|10:30|NIV}}) (3) he has "all authority in heaven and on earth" ({{bibleref2|Matthew|28:18|NIV}}) (4) he is the only way to God the Father ({{bibleref2|John|14:6|NIV}}).
This page seems to collect stuff. Leadwind ( talk) 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude: "We need it in that section because that section is about Jesus words about himself." You have a point. We should explain what Jesus said about himself. So go find a reliable source that tells us what Jesus said about himself. Summarize what that RS says, put the summary on the page, and cite it. The rules of WP are that primary sources, such as The Bible, don't count as reliable sources. You can't quote the Bible to demonstrate what Jesus said, any more than you can quote the Koran or the Book of Mormon to demonstrate what Jesus said. Leadwind ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude: "Jesus never said, Good morning folks. Welcome to Capernaum. I am God. and for a very practical and historical reasons." This is an important insight and one worth documenting on this page. After all, lots of holy men have pretended they were God, but the one holy man who really is God kept it hush-hush. Find a reliable source for why Jesus didn't proclaim his own divinity, and we'll owe you one. Leadwind ( talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus didn't proclaim his divinity because he was a first century Jew, similarly the first Christians didn't proclaim Jesus' divinity because they were Jewish Christians. Ref: Raymond E. Brown, "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73. 75.15.202.250 ( talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here, I'll even throw in a free quote, why not?:
75.15.202.250 ( talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone put back the scripture in the historical Jesus section, with two citations, one of them about the gospel of John, not about Jesus, per se. So I cut the primary source information and the citation that was about the gospel of John. I summarized the citation that was actually about Jesus. Leadwind ( talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of:
At the end of Chronology and before Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels. Can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.51.228 ( talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should erase all pictures that depict Jesus's Face. It is too controversial, and is not neccesary. If the Captions help tell his biogarophy, then you can find a way to add it. Please Remove it!!!!!!!!!!! Obaidz96 ( talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am here to tell the truth that you people have covered up. First of all on the article put thet Yeshua is His REAL name not just a name he is called by. Secondly Yeshua's birhtday is sometime during The Feast Of Tabernacles which goes on in September His birthday is not during Christmas. This is the truth you people have hid and you have been decieved by lies (I have too) but now it's time for the truth to be known!! The K.O. King ( talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what either of you are talking about. The K.O. King ( talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear K.O. King. You must be new to Wikipedia. We welcome your contributions but you need to follow our policies if you ant any of your contributions to last. Your concern with the truth, and the implication that you know the truth, violates two of our core policies. None of us care about the truth, and no one cares what you think. if this does not make sense to you, then it must be because you have not read and understood our core policies, which is why Adriatikus and I kindly provided links to two of the core policies, so you could understand our rules and values. Indeed, your comment also violates WP:POINT, so you should review that policy as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We have previously established Ehrman as worth citing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the following text will press someone's button and get reverted.
Each gospel portrays Jesus' life and its meaning differently.<ref name ="Harris">[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.</ref><ref name="MisJ">[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]]. [[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4</ref> To combine these four stories into one story is tantamount to creating a fifth story, one different from each original.<ref name="MisJ">[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]]. [[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4</ref>
Honestly, this is the only scholarly information I have on the validity of massaging the four gospels into one account. If there are contrary scholarly statements, I'd love to see them. Leadwind ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult or impossible to add "many Christians believe ..." unless there has been a worldwide poll to indicate this. I could accept "many or most Christian denominations." A recent poll in the United States showing most people can't name the four gospels indicates that if they believe the gospels are in harmony, then it is not worth noting. Burpboohickie ( talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The text was altered and half-deleted, so I restored it. Those of you who disagree with Harris and Ehrman, please find reliable sources to back up your opposition. Leadwind ( talk) 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Anchor Bible is an excellent source for showing the different views and motivations of the gospels, as is Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Matthew's is clearly driven by OT prophecy, Mark's is the earliest, John's is geared toward Gentiles and has no virgin birth, etc. Should be no problem backing up the notion that the gospels are different. Burpboohickie ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
These images are a wasteful distraction. All images of this figure are irrelevant, bar scientific approximations of what a jewish male from this area may have look like at the time, (nothing like these artists non-contemporaneous imaginings).
There were two paragraphs about the Trilemma in Majority Views, and I cut them both. This is not the place for singling out one proof of Jesus' divinity (there are plenty) as if it has pre-eminence above the others (it doesn't). Maybe there could be a "Proofs that Jesus is God" section under majority views, and more than just the trilemma would go there. Leadwind ( talk) 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
can we varyfie this part of the article? it doesent make sence due to the fact that they were related and that St.John the Baptist literaly LIVED for Jesus after He babtized him? and we need records to see whay that they think Jesus is evil after all all the other religions see him as a good figure(exept for satanics and somewhat ethiest) and that the Mandaean religion is a religion for peace and that there are no records of Jesus ever sinning?-- Sonicobbsessed ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This information is about the gospels, and it was in the historical Jesus section. It's all primary sources. There's already another section with the gospel accounts. Do we need this information at all? Leadwind ( talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the New Testament, Jesus accepted worship ( Matthew 14:33; Matthew 28:9), was accused of assuming God's authority by telling people that their sins were forgiven ( Luke 5:20–21), and made claims about himself including that:
We need it in that section because that section is about Jesus words about himself. I did make the quotes less extensive. I am not sure if Andrew is propsing an alterative but if he is I do not understand what he is asking for.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
First, the issue is simple WP policy. We can't use scripture to describe historical Jesus, except insofar as historians tell us we can (e.g., he really was baptized and crucified). Leadwind ( talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Second, even when the author of the gospel of John puts words in Jesus' mouth, Jesus still doesn't say that he's God. Leadwind ( talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's more scripture removed from the historical Jesus section.
According to the New Testament, Jesus accepted worship ({{bibleref2|Matthew|14:33|NIV}}; {{bibleref2|Matthew|28:9|NIV}}), was accused of assuming God's authority by telling people that their sins were forgiven ({{bibleref2|Luke|5:20-21|NIV}}), and made claims about himself including that (1) he is ("[[I am that I am|I am]]") before [[Abraham]] was ({{bibleverse|John|8:58|NIV}})(2) he and the Father "are one" ({{bibleverse|John|10:30|NIV}}) (3) he has "all authority in heaven and on earth" ({{bibleref2|Matthew|28:18|NIV}}) (4) he is the only way to God the Father ({{bibleref2|John|14:6|NIV}}).
This page seems to collect stuff. Leadwind ( talk) 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude: "We need it in that section because that section is about Jesus words about himself." You have a point. We should explain what Jesus said about himself. So go find a reliable source that tells us what Jesus said about himself. Summarize what that RS says, put the summary on the page, and cite it. The rules of WP are that primary sources, such as The Bible, don't count as reliable sources. You can't quote the Bible to demonstrate what Jesus said, any more than you can quote the Koran or the Book of Mormon to demonstrate what Jesus said. Leadwind ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude: "Jesus never said, Good morning folks. Welcome to Capernaum. I am God. and for a very practical and historical reasons." This is an important insight and one worth documenting on this page. After all, lots of holy men have pretended they were God, but the one holy man who really is God kept it hush-hush. Find a reliable source for why Jesus didn't proclaim his own divinity, and we'll owe you one. Leadwind ( talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus didn't proclaim his divinity because he was a first century Jew, similarly the first Christians didn't proclaim Jesus' divinity because they were Jewish Christians. Ref: Raymond E. Brown, "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" in Theological Studies, 26, (1965) p. 545-73. 75.15.202.250 ( talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here, I'll even throw in a free quote, why not?:
75.15.202.250 ( talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone put back the scripture in the historical Jesus section, with two citations, one of them about the gospel of John, not about Jesus, per se. So I cut the primary source information and the citation that was about the gospel of John. I summarized the citation that was actually about Jesus. Leadwind ( talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see a lot of:
At the end of Chronology and before Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels. Can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.51.228 ( talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should erase all pictures that depict Jesus's Face. It is too controversial, and is not neccesary. If the Captions help tell his biogarophy, then you can find a way to add it. Please Remove it!!!!!!!!!!! Obaidz96 ( talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am here to tell the truth that you people have covered up. First of all on the article put thet Yeshua is His REAL name not just a name he is called by. Secondly Yeshua's birhtday is sometime during The Feast Of Tabernacles which goes on in September His birthday is not during Christmas. This is the truth you people have hid and you have been decieved by lies (I have too) but now it's time for the truth to be known!! The K.O. King ( talk) 16:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what either of you are talking about. The K.O. King ( talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear K.O. King. You must be new to Wikipedia. We welcome your contributions but you need to follow our policies if you ant any of your contributions to last. Your concern with the truth, and the implication that you know the truth, violates two of our core policies. None of us care about the truth, and no one cares what you think. if this does not make sense to you, then it must be because you have not read and understood our core policies, which is why Adriatikus and I kindly provided links to two of the core policies, so you could understand our rules and values. Indeed, your comment also violates WP:POINT, so you should review that policy as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We have previously established Ehrman as worth citing. I have a sneaking suspicion that the following text will press someone's button and get reverted.
Each gospel portrays Jesus' life and its meaning differently.<ref name ="Harris">[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.</ref><ref name="MisJ">[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]]. [[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4</ref> To combine these four stories into one story is tantamount to creating a fifth story, one different from each original.<ref name="MisJ">[[Bart D. Ehrman|Ehrman, Bart D.]]. [[Misquoting Jesus]]: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 978-0-06-073817-4</ref>
Honestly, this is the only scholarly information I have on the validity of massaging the four gospels into one account. If there are contrary scholarly statements, I'd love to see them. Leadwind ( talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult or impossible to add "many Christians believe ..." unless there has been a worldwide poll to indicate this. I could accept "many or most Christian denominations." A recent poll in the United States showing most people can't name the four gospels indicates that if they believe the gospels are in harmony, then it is not worth noting. Burpboohickie ( talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The text was altered and half-deleted, so I restored it. Those of you who disagree with Harris and Ehrman, please find reliable sources to back up your opposition. Leadwind ( talk) 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Anchor Bible is an excellent source for showing the different views and motivations of the gospels, as is Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Matthew's is clearly driven by OT prophecy, Mark's is the earliest, John's is geared toward Gentiles and has no virgin birth, etc. Should be no problem backing up the notion that the gospels are different. Burpboohickie ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)