This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32Auto-archiving period: 15 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Definition - FAQ discussions - POV tag - Pseudohistory Quotes on the historicity of Jesus - Quotes on the ahistoriciy of Jesus - Christ myth proponents I - Christ myth proponents II |
![]() | On 1 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Jesus myth theory. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Do we have WP:RS that make this statement, or are editors counting a number of sources and then WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to make this statement in the WP:LEDE? I did see the WP:CITEBUNDLE and wondering if there is anything in the citebundle that actually contains an analysis to support this statement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I was encouraged to take my issue here to discuss it. I don’t think Aron Ra should be listed as a Living Proponent of the theory. All the other modern proponents listed are scholars (mostly historians) with advanced degrees who have published books, articles, and other research on the subject matter. Aron Ra is a YouTuber of middling size.
I initially replaced him with Thomas Brodie, a living scholar and (relatively) famous proponent of the Christ Myth Theory but this was reverted. I’d like to officially put forward the idea that this section should be reserved for those who have published research in support of the theory, and not lay persons who happen to agree with the theory or find it convincing.
We can fill the table entirely with tons of YouTube atheists who find the theory convincing. But I don’t think that’s helpful. Nor do I think it makes much sense to include just one random YouTuber among a list of primarily scholars. Jaredcruz899 ( talk) 05:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: WP:Lede "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead."
Lede is currently 6 paragraphs.
"the lead section is an introduction ... and a summary of its most important contents."
Lede contains: "... in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty"; Isn't this detail that should be further down in the article?
The lead section should be "well-composed".
It currently introduces the concept in the first paragraph,
then debunks it ("In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus ... denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles") in the 2nd paragraph,
then gives some history ("Mythicism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, ...") in the 3rd,
then gives its arguments ("Proponents broadly argue ...)
then gives a different summary of arguments ("Most mythicists employ a threefold argument ... ) in the 4th paragraph
then in the 5th paragraph goes back to debunking ("Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory ...")
and finally in the 6th goes back to history ("With the rise of the internet ...")
This is good organization?
I attempted to to trim and reorganzie the lede and was reverted by Joshua Jonathan, who told me "Please discuss at talk". -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the image of the resurrection of Jesus. Inclusion of such an image unnecessarily and incorrectly implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected. If an image is required, use one that more accurately reflects the difference between the mythicist view and the secular view. For example, an image depicting Jesus' baptism, ministry or execution, without religious iconography or supernatural imagery, would be more appropriate.-- Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected- serious? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This is easily resolved. Here are some appropriate neutral images. Which one should we use?
Wdford ( talk) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The Resurrection of Christ by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1875)—some mythicists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising deity.
It's indeed clear that it's not clear to you... "Stop pretending I have suggested something unreasonable" is not a sign that you understand my objections; it looks more like you want a discussion only on your terms, that is, a non-discussion. And "Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed" is non-informative, a mere duplicate of what's already stated over and over again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
A big part of the problem with an article about the CMT is that different mythicists have different views on what the CMT actually is. Some contend that the entire Christian religion is based completely on a pure myth, originally cooked up deliberately to compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. Others contend that the Christian religion is based on one of the many historical Jewish "messiah-men", onto whose real life and death were slathered many layers of mythical material, so as to deliberately compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. This second position is also held by many mainstream scholars, although some other mainstream scholars with a Christian bent pretend that only the first CMT position exists, which they loudly denounce as "fringe" and "pseudo-scholarship", and other mainstream scholars seem to think the slathering all happened by "accident" and that the resemblance to the rival religions is all just co-incidence. Try finding an image to cover all of that? PS: I was happy with the caption on the original image, and I would be happy to reinstate it, although we can certainly strengthen the caption to make it clear that only SOME mythicists hold the dying-and-rising-god position. Wdford ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue
* Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue
The separate concept that Jesus is historical—but was not a supernatural ‘Christ of faith’, the Lord God of Christian devotees—is a mainstream view in scholarship and of virtually everyone who is not a Christ devotee. 2db ( talk) 09:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32Auto-archiving period: 15 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Definition - FAQ discussions - POV tag - Pseudohistory Quotes on the historicity of Jesus - Quotes on the ahistoriciy of Jesus - Christ myth proponents I - Christ myth proponents II |
![]() | On 1 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Jesus myth theory. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Do we have WP:RS that make this statement, or are editors counting a number of sources and then WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to make this statement in the WP:LEDE? I did see the WP:CITEBUNDLE and wondering if there is anything in the citebundle that actually contains an analysis to support this statement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I was encouraged to take my issue here to discuss it. I don’t think Aron Ra should be listed as a Living Proponent of the theory. All the other modern proponents listed are scholars (mostly historians) with advanced degrees who have published books, articles, and other research on the subject matter. Aron Ra is a YouTuber of middling size.
I initially replaced him with Thomas Brodie, a living scholar and (relatively) famous proponent of the Christ Myth Theory but this was reverted. I’d like to officially put forward the idea that this section should be reserved for those who have published research in support of the theory, and not lay persons who happen to agree with the theory or find it convincing.
We can fill the table entirely with tons of YouTube atheists who find the theory convincing. But I don’t think that’s helpful. Nor do I think it makes much sense to include just one random YouTuber among a list of primarily scholars. Jaredcruz899 ( talk) 05:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: WP:Lede "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead."
Lede is currently 6 paragraphs.
"the lead section is an introduction ... and a summary of its most important contents."
Lede contains: "... in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty"; Isn't this detail that should be further down in the article?
The lead section should be "well-composed".
It currently introduces the concept in the first paragraph,
then debunks it ("In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus ... denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles") in the 2nd paragraph,
then gives some history ("Mythicism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, ...") in the 3rd,
then gives its arguments ("Proponents broadly argue ...)
then gives a different summary of arguments ("Most mythicists employ a threefold argument ... ) in the 4th paragraph
then in the 5th paragraph goes back to debunking ("Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory ...")
and finally in the 6th goes back to history ("With the rise of the internet ...")
This is good organization?
I attempted to to trim and reorganzie the lede and was reverted by Joshua Jonathan, who told me "Please discuss at talk". -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the image of the resurrection of Jesus. Inclusion of such an image unnecessarily and incorrectly implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected. If an image is required, use one that more accurately reflects the difference between the mythicist view and the secular view. For example, an image depicting Jesus' baptism, ministry or execution, without religious iconography or supernatural imagery, would be more appropriate.-- Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected- serious? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
This is easily resolved. Here are some appropriate neutral images. Which one should we use?
Wdford ( talk) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The Resurrection of Christ by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1875)—some mythicists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising deity.
It's indeed clear that it's not clear to you... "Stop pretending I have suggested something unreasonable" is not a sign that you understand my objections; it looks more like you want a discussion only on your terms, that is, a non-discussion. And "Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed" is non-informative, a mere duplicate of what's already stated over and over again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
A big part of the problem with an article about the CMT is that different mythicists have different views on what the CMT actually is. Some contend that the entire Christian religion is based completely on a pure myth, originally cooked up deliberately to compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. Others contend that the Christian religion is based on one of the many historical Jewish "messiah-men", onto whose real life and death were slathered many layers of mythical material, so as to deliberately compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. This second position is also held by many mainstream scholars, although some other mainstream scholars with a Christian bent pretend that only the first CMT position exists, which they loudly denounce as "fringe" and "pseudo-scholarship", and other mainstream scholars seem to think the slathering all happened by "accident" and that the resemblance to the rival religions is all just co-incidence. Try finding an image to cover all of that? PS: I was happy with the caption on the original image, and I would be happy to reinstate it, although we can certainly strengthen the caption to make it clear that only SOME mythicists hold the dying-and-rising-god position. Wdford ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue
* Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue
The separate concept that Jesus is historical—but was not a supernatural ‘Christ of faith’, the Lord God of Christian devotees—is a mainstream view in scholarship and of virtually everyone who is not a Christ devotee. 2db ( talk) 09:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)