Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

NPOV in lede section

I believe that this sentence:

"Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh" is POV.

The lede gives the viewpoint of all major religions, but only for Judaism does it give an argument for those beliefs, and is therefore apologetics.

Does anyone see a reason to keep this information in the lede? The information already appears in the body of the article. Flash 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the well-chosen words should stay in the lede. They are embellished upon in a later section, and they are crucial to the following words about the Islamic interpretation.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing on the talk page.

Your response did not touch on the most crucial point. Why should the lede give an argument for only one religion's belief? Flash 08:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Truthfully, I'm on the fence regarding the word "arguing". I believe the statement is meant merely as a brief description rather than an argument. Maybe if it were to be altered like this...

"Because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Tanakh, Judaism rejects his prophethood, whereas . . ."

Keep in mind that there are more subtle "arguments" and "apologies" throughout the lede, so this descriptive "reason" for Judaism's rejection is essentially NPOV.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the formulation "because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" would be POV, because it asserts as fact that he didn't, which Christians and Muslims would dispute. As currently phrased the sentence presents the position as a view within Judaism. Furthemore saying that Jews consider that he was a "false prophet", as preferred by Flash, imples that they all accept that he claimed to be a prophet and that what he prophesised was false. Well, I'd suggest that many Jewish scholars would see Jesus as as figure within Jewish culture at the time, whose life took on new meaning in stories and claims after his death; so they would not necessarily make such clear cut claims about what he actually believed about himself. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it NPOV to explicitly state an argument for only one religion's belief? There is a huge difference between supposed "subtle" arguments and one that is plainly stated. Flash 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really follow your objection. The current wording says "Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill...". That is different from saying that he was a false prophet. It a rejection of claims made on his behalf, not necessarily an assertion about the actual Jesus. The rest is a very brief explanation that follows from the much longer explanation of why Christians think he was the Messiah prophesised. IMHO, this is hardly bias towards the Jewish view. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Christianity section does not give an argument defending their beliefs. The Judaism sentence is the only one in the lede which explicitly gives a specific argument. The first part of the sentence sums up what Judaism believes; the second is pure apologetics. Flash 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in that all the Judaism sentence gives is a source for the rejection. The entire 2nd paragraph of the lede, and much of the rest of the lede gives sources for the Christian belief. The judaism sentence merely gives a source for the disbelief that Jesus was the Messiah. In this respect it is no different from the second paragraph of the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism sentence gives a reason, an argument, for the belief, and is therefore apologetics. The Christian section doesn't give arguments, such as, "arguing that Jesus has fulfilled or will fulfill the Messianic Prophecies" or "arguing that the historical evidence suggests that Jesus resurrected".

I'm making a distinction between stating what the belief IS, and stating an argument which supports that belief. Flash 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand, however the entire second paragraph is a subtle "argument" that supports the Christian belief, isn't it? I see no difference other than the word "arguing". If you can leave the entire statement alone and find another word for "arguing", that might work. However, I personally think it's a pretty big leap from "arguing" to "apologetics".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk about apologetics, what does this sentence mean to you: [Jesus] came to provide humankind with salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins. Furthermore, what is the difference between Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah[31] and Judaism ... argu[es] that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. If we change "present" to "argue" or vice versa, they are nearly identical claims (identical opposites). Switch "awaited Messiah" for "Messianic prophecies"... really, there is great parity between those sentences. I can't see how you can read the entire paragraph on Christian belief, and then claim the one sentence about Judaism in the lead is doing something more than what the entire previous Christian paragraph did. I see no such "Jewish Apologetics". -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the opposite of "Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah" would be:

Judaism does not view Jesus as the Messiah.

There is a difference between the belief itself and the reasoning or argument behind the belief. Flash 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think it is semantics at this point. What does it mean to be "the awaited Messiah"? Is this referencing say Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh? Is it referencing anything more? Anything less? The exact opposite of your proposed sentence would be "Christians view Jesus as the Messiah". When we introduce arguments (or presentations) made by Christian scholars in regards to a theological concept derived from Judaism and their ancient texts, such as the "awaited Messiah", I believe you are doing more than simply presenting belief. But then again, I wouldn't agree with you that the Judaism sentence is going above and beyond what the Christian paragraph did. But even if we grant that there is something more, I don't see how that is problematic. Is the sentence inaccurate? Is there something problematic with the presentation or facts of the sentence? I don't think that is the issue. Just out of curiosity, is there a sentence or two that you can think up that we could hypothetically add to the Christian paragraph that present reasoning and arguments for their beliefs?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "awaited Messiah" is not an argument. Where do you see the Christian paragraph presenting arguments?

If arguments are added to every belief, the lead would be unreadable.

The sentence is not inaccurate, and appears in the body of the article, but stating the arguments of only one religion's beliefs is POV.

The sentence can easily present what Judaism believes without going into arguments, such as, "Judaism believes that Jesus is the not the awaited Messiah" Flash 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is the perhaps the most important aspect of wikipedia. I was hoping you would defend and clarify your position. Nevertheless, thanks for discussing on the talk page. Flash 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not convey my position adequately enough. Or I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I believe I have put forth my position, and that continuing this discussion wouldn't be productive. To repeat, I don't agree with your assessment that the one single sentence about Judaism is presenting a detailed argument and rationale behind a belief, while the entire paragraph devoted to the Christian section is doing nothing of the sort. Saying "Jesus is the awaited Messiah" and "Jesis is not the awaited Messiah" is really really similar to "Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies" and "Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies". To me, it comes down to minor semantic issues. I don't see any NPOV violation, and I don't believe you have made a convincing case (and it doesn't seem like anyone else agrees). Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

I disagree with you in that I believe the sentence, "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" is giving an argument. I see that as a NPOV violation, you clearly do not. I believe discussion is still productive in determining what should go in the article even if there is a disagreement about NPOV.

Why do you oppose making the sentence in both sections the same? As I said earlier, changing the sentence to "Judaism does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah" summarizes their beliefs without referring to an argument. Flash 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah makes perfect sense in the lead. There's nothing in NPOV about not explaining reasons for different perspectives. Leadwind (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons and arguments behind many of the Christian beliefs as well. Why should the Judaism section be treated differently? Flash 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same statement over and over. There is an entire paragraph devoted to the Christian view. The fact that it does not use the word "argue", but has "present" and other words instead does not mean it is not putting the Christian argument. It is. The one sentence devoted to Judaism is essentially a very short respose to the previous para, "aruging" is a actually a modest, tentative word in contrast to - say - "asserting". Paul B (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between belief and argument. Where, specifically, do you see the christian paragraph presenting the argument? Jesus is (or is not) the messiah is a belief. Whether he fulfilled (or did not) the prophecies is a reason behind those beliefs. I am simply advocating both sections be phrased very similarily. Flash 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like splitting hairs to me. Christianity "views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament", which implies that Christians see him as fulfilling those foretellings - or are you arguing that the reader could get the impression that Christians see him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament despite not fulfilling said prophecies? Huon (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression when I first read it. It certainly implies that, but one needs at least some basic knowledge of messianic prophecies and to read into the text a bit to get the implied message.

I would be OK with the sentence saying: Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" Flash 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you saying that instead of clarifying Christianity's views, we should de-clarify Judaism's? While that could be seen as "neutral", it seems counterproductive. Huon (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" is neither ambiguous nor confusing, and it sums up the beliefs of Judaism. I am advocating that the lead does not contain sentences such as Religion A believes x, arguing y. Flash 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with the wording you object to. I argued above that, while using different wording, we say the same about Christianity's opinion, namely, that Christianity sees Jesus as the Messiah because he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. I don't think NPOV requires us to use templates for our sentences without variation. On the other hand, the Judaism sentence seems a little awkward to me. If I read it correctly, it makes two different points: Jesus is believed not to be a prophet in general, and not the Messiah in particular. Thus, the "arguing..." part does not actually provide an argument for the "not a prophet" part. Or am I mistaken? Huon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I argued previously that I believe the Christianity and Judaism sentences were substantially different, in that it is very difficult to deduce "fulfilled Messianic prophecies" from "foretold in the Old Testament".

To me, it is more natural to say that Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament because they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, and so the fulfillment is the reason behind the belief.

I am confused about the wording as well, it seems that the editor who wrote that sentence used "Messiah" and "prophet" interchangeably, and the sentence does not directly say Judaism believes Jesus is not the Messiah. Flash 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider "is the Messiah as foretold" and "fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" as synonymous, but if you feel otherwise (can you explain the difference?), we should indeed clarify that Christians believe he fulfilled the prophecies instead of making it difficult to deduce that Jews believe he didn't fulfill them - as you now say we'd do if we followed your suggested wording for that paragraph. Huon (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, "is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" says that Christianity sees him as the Messiah, but does not specify why. It's simply a belief.

Christianity could have believed him to be the foretold Messiah simply because they see him as divine or have miraculous powers, and that Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled later. So the messianic prophecies may have nothing to do with why Christianity believes him to be the Messiah.

"fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" is not even a belief, it is more of a condition. Someone who haven't fulfilled the prophecies could be believed to fulfill them in the future, and so "have not fulfilled" does not necessarily mean "not the Messiah".

Therefore, one is not equal to the other.

The reasons behind believing whether Jesus is the Messiah is not limited to the Messianic prophecies. Flash 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you mean. How about "... which views him as the Messiah, having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, ..." instead of " ...which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, ..." in the first sentence? Actually, do all Christians really believe Jesus has already fulfilled the prophecies, or are there significant groups who believe that he is the Messiah, but has some work yet to do? In that case, "fulfilling" may be better than "having fulfilled". Anyway, should we also clarify that Jews don't see him as the Messiah? Huon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testamant may be an importan point of reference in describint Christian beliefs. When it coms to Jewish beliefs however the Old testament is irrelevant; since Judaism does not accept an "Old Testament," we cannot refer to the old Testament to say anything about Jewish beliefs. As with AndrewC, PaulB and othersI must say, I have yet to see an explanation as to how the current phrasing violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not an NPOV problem as much as a lack of clarity. My suggested modification was meant for the first sentence, which reads in part "the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament". If I understand Flash correctly, we should mention both that Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and that they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies (in what Christians call the OT). Conversely, we currently say a few paragraphs later that Jews don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but don't explicitly say they also don't believe he's the Messiah. We don't say anything about Judaism and the OT, and I wasn't suggesting we should. Huon (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oky, I see what you are saying, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

However, since we do mention the views of Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and since Christianity arose out of Judaism, should we not include a sentence that states the position of Judaism as well, for completeness? Wdford (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that since Jesus was the leader of a Jewish sect and that Christianity became a distinct religion by breaking with Judaism, it is important to restore to the first paragraph a line on the Jewish view. Also, I added the word "messiah" to the sentence on the Jewish view later down, since what Jews really care about is the claim that he was a messiah, more than any claim about prophecy. These cannot be NPOV violations: adding attributed views is never a violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The "foretold in the Old Testament" is an important clarifier to disambiguate between different Messiahs. The fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, as I previous said, is more of a condition. Christians don't necessarily believe he fulfilled those prophecies, and that they believe he will fulfill them later. Furthermore, why Judaism rejects Jesus goes far beyond prophecies, it is also due to the fact that Jesus rejected the Law in the Torah, and established a new Covenant. The Judaism section in the body also gives some other reasons.

The sentence not only singles out a particular reason, it also would be the only place in the lead where reasoning behind beliefs is discussed.

And Judaism is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. As you previously said, Slrubenstein, Judaism really have no view of Jesus, and it is fitting that it is mentioned last. Flash 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flash that this is apologetics for Judaism and not really called for in the article lead. POV would seem to be the only reason to include it there. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph has the views of major Abrahamic religions, and the lead then has mor detailed paragraphs, generally giving more space to those religions in which he counts for more. There was a line for judaism in the first paragraph for a very long time I see no reason to delete it. My only concern is that it say that judaism rejects claims that he is the messiah. as to why Christians believed or still believe he is the messiah, I am not trying to make any claims one way or the other about that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rever Flash, you say I should not make changes without discussing them here. Except i do discuss them here, i discuss them above. But you ignored my expanation and just restored your own version. Now, you should not delete what i wrote on the article page without responding to what I wrote on the talk page. You are insisting on a version that violates NPOV, and that misrepresents Judaism. Yet you have not even tried to defend either of these! Try responding to my talk, and see if we can reach an agreement, before you impose your POV on the articleSlrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism simply rejects Jesus, and therefore really doesn't have a view on him, even you said that earlier. There is absolutely no reason to include it twice in the lead. Please reach an agreement on talk before making changes. Unilaterally making changes before an agreement is reached upon is counter-productive.

I have said repeatedly why I think the sentence is POV: it is the only sentence where a reason/argument is presented which supports a religion's belief. Flash 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain why the sentence violates NPOV. Providing the reason is essential, since Christianity established itself through reasons relating to Judaism. The vast bulk of the article goves much attention to these reasons. As to Judaism "simply" rejecting Jesus, you are being anachronistic. Judaism has little to say about Jesus today but for a great deal of the Middle Ages most Jewish philosophers were asked by Christians to provide their reasons for rejecting Jesus, and did so. Judaism's reasons for rejecting Jesus were important to those Christians, and are important now, because jesus first preached to Jews. Now, even if you disagreed with all my points, that woulod still not be enough to explain how the sentence violates our NPOV policy. you have to be more specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV. Please do not simply ignore what I have said.

Furthermore, please stop making unilateral changes before the discussion has concluded. First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility. Flash 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaver you keep removing material that was in the article for a very long time without any consensus. Stop doing that. You have removed the statement that Jews do not share the views of Christians and Muslims. Why? Is it false? Why do you wish to exclude this point of view? Do you not know that the only way we achieve NPOV is by adding multiple views? you have also removed the specific claim that jews reject jesus as messiah. Why? Again, you seem determined to exclude the jewish view from the article. YOU WILL NOT CENSOR WIKIPEDIA. You MUST comply with NPOV. This means including views, even the Jewish view you seem not to like.

"I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV." So what? of course it is POV, just as stating that Christians believe jesus is the messiah is POV and that Muslims believe Jewsus is a prophet is POV. All of these are POVs. Please read out NPOV policy again. Articles must comply with NPOV and one way we do that is by including different points of view. So your "repeated" statement is simply a reason for putting it in the article. You have yet to justify your deletions in any way. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the reasons why I objected to your edits: First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility.

Please do not simply ignore what I said and label my edits as "censoring". Making unilateral edits in an ongoing discussion is also very counter-productive.

And only giving arguments or reasons behind one belief is POV, and violates NPOV. Giving POVs does not mean you can add information indiscriminately, especially in the lede where information are supposed to be very general. Flash 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Slrubenstein's edits are to portions of the text that you do not contest. Unless I have read too quickly, you chiefly contest usage of the word "argue". His edits are meant to clarify WHAT the Jewish position IS, not why, and do not affect your dispute with about "argue". I think it is quite reasonable & NPOV for the lede to briefly say WHY Jews do not think Jesus was the Messiah--JimWae (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and why Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah. The lead is already quite long, and the lede would become almost unreadable if all the relevant arguments are added to it. Such specific information belongs in the body of the article. My main objection is therefore, not the word "argue".

I contested Slrubenstein's edits because they are repetitive, and add specific information to parts of the first paragraph, where only general information are supposed to be presented. Flash 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is far more in the lede about Islam's views AND some of it is also repetitious. The repetition comes about because sometimes the first paragraph introduces other parts of the lede--JimWae (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The lone argument presented in the lead is also problematic. Why should the argument of only one religion be presented? Arguments such as "he did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" or "he will fulfill them at the second coming" should go in the body of the article. Flash 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitious info on Islam's views is not the issue. Repetition on one thing is no reason to keep repetition on another. That said, feel free to remove an excess on Islam's views and/or discuss elsewhere if need be.

I mostly see no one addressing (or understanding?) Flash's view.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

particular text

Maybe if a partictular text was proposed here it can help move things along. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

“ Rabbinic Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah fortold in the Tanakh. In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى, commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets, and uses the title "Messiah" for Jesus, but does not teach that he was divine. Islam also teaches that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven without experiencing death or the crucifixion. ”

I support this proposal. It presents the views concisely and neutrally. Flash 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit more informative than that, yet avoids the word "argue":

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, maintaining the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh were not fulfilled.[21]--JimWae (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying the entire Judaism section into the lead would be more informative as well.

Why do you support introducing arguments or reasons behind beliefs into the lead, where information presented are supposed to be very general?

Also note there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We could just say "Judaism does not think Jesus was the Messiah" - but that is too cursory. There's plenty of detail in the lede already, these 10 words are as informative as just about any other 10 words there. And they are still general - they do not, for example, say which Messianic expectations were not fulfilled. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, any Jewish position on Jesus is very relevant. --JimWae (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other arguments/reasons behind beliefs in the lead. Why do you propose to introduce them? They do not add any information about what Judaism actually believes, they just present an argument which defends it, and is therefore, apologetics. The information is general; a reason which supports a belief is not general.

If you do intend to introduce arguments into the lead, keep in mind there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

YOu insist using the word "argument" somehow violates NPOV policy. You keep repeating this, ad nauseum, as if it meant something. What part of the NPOV policy rejects the use of the word "argues?" Plase quote the portion o policy you are refering to. I cannot find it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A text can be an argument without the use of the word "argument."

It is POV to include an argument here because there aren't any counter-arguments included here. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is really, really POV to say Jesus was born of a virgin, so we should remove that from the lead because we don't have counter arguments. We shouldn't say he came to save sinners either, because that is extremely offensive to non-Christian (or at least an outright lie) so without a counter to that, it's incredibly POV and should be removed. In fact, we should strike the whole Christian paragraph from suffering from POV, because we don't balance it with the scientific, atheistic, Jewish, Muslim, and other POVs. Heck, we should probably not say he was a historical figure in the lead either, because that is POV and those crazy Jesus mythers would disagree. Of course I am not serious about any of the above, but then again, I don't see why you two are so hung up on the concept of "argument". I don't see the difference between the presentation of the Christian views, and our sentence on the Jewish view. Saying there is an argument, and that it is POV, doesn't make it so (or doesn't make it a bad thing). I don't feel like when reading it there is any imbalance between the various views presented in the lead. Perhaps we need to have a RfC, and ask the reader if they think the one sentence on Jewish views violations undue weight, or is otherwise inappropriate when compared to the paragraph on Christian views... -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So do we have consensus? I can delete the material on virgin birth, saving sinners, etc from the lead to sae it for the body where we can deal with such controversial material. Does anyone object? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Andrew is being sarcastic. The lead is supposed to be a summary and introduction to the article, not a place for arguements, etc. If it is a summary to x, y, and z in the lead that is fine. There is no reason to have every arguement in the core of the document in the lead otherwise it isn't a summary. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe SLR is being sarcastic. Marauder40, do you think the one sentence on Judaism currently in the lead is appropriate or problematic based on your notion of "summary" vs. "arguements"? I'm just trying to get down to specifics, and how your comment can be related to the current debate in this thread. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with including and only including the Jewish counter-arguement due to the fact that Jesus was Jewish and either he claimed or was claimed to be (depending on how you view the theology) to be the Jewish Messiah. He wasn't claimed to be the Messiah of any other religion whether it existed at the time or not. Clarification on how each of the individual religions view Jesus can happen in the body but I don't think it is needed in the lead. If we want to include some summary a simple sentence could be added that says other religions have differing views of Jesus' importance or something like that. Marauder40 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the text is one sentence long doesn't mean it's not problematic.

Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument or reason to support that belief (e.g. Jesus did/didn't fulfill Messianic prophecies).

Currently, the Judaism sentence contains the only argument in the lead, and the Judaism is the only section that is supported by an argument. Flash 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to say "most Christian denominations believe him to be X, Y, and Z" and to say "...Judaism does think Jesus is not-X" but it is something different to say "so-and-so believes this because of such-and-such." -- Now I think it could be fine to give arguments for the Christian view-- because Jesus is hardly noteworth without Christianity-- but this no NPOV reason to have the arguments for Judaism's view only. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What would such arguments reasons look like? Could it be given in 10 words or less? 30 words or less? JimWae (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons that could be added are:

Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies resurrection is the best explanation for historical evidence

Since Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the christianity section should have more reasons given.

I would rather put all the reasons/arguments into the body instead of further expanding an already length lead section. Flash 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing we add any arguments for the Christian view. That would add to a already long lead section, and would require starting this whole discussion again from scratch. I recommend the text in the blue quotes above. I am just indicating how "reasons" or "arguments" here for Judaism's beliefs are POV. They are arguments only for one POV. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash writes, "Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument" but this is the problem - Christians have beliefs, Jews have arguments. What I mean is, that christian views take the form of beliefs, and Jewish views take the form of arguments. If you wish to give equal space to Jewish and Christian views, some will take the form of arguments, and others, beliefs. This is because of a difference between Judaism and Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First, read what apologetics is.

Second, such a prejudiced posting dosen't even help improve the article-- which is the only reason for this discussion page-- even if you do really "think" your post to be true.

Thrid, this would be yet another attempt to troll for unproduction diatribes and rabbit trails-- hoping reasonable people will tire and leave-- since such there is evidently no good or genuine purpose to keep this POV in the lead, for such people to discuss anymore. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologetics for only one religion's beliefs clearly violates NPOV. I see no reason to keep the sole argument in the lead, which was only added recently by a previously banned sockpuppet. [1] Flash 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys can spout however much rhetoric as you want. NPOV is our policy. It says that al signficiant views belong in an article. You think that only those views that take the form of "beliefs" count, when another group of people's views don't count because they take the form of "arguments." that is just your own prejudice. You cannot keep Jewish views out just because they do not take a form you approve of. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism view would be included even if the argument is removed. The policy you cited is hardly relevant in the discussion. Please respond to what I wrote. Why should the lead include apologetics for only one religion's beliefs? Flash 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I added apologestics to the article? Do you have any evidence? Please provide the edit difference in which I added apologetics. Now, here is an edit difference for where YOU reverted me: [2] And this is what you deleted: you deleted my adding the Jewish view alongside the Christian and Muslim view, and you deleted my saying that the Jewish view is that Jesus was not the Messiah. You did not delete any apologetics. That is because I did not add any apologetics. I did add content, and it is content that you deleted. You deleted content that expressed the Jewish view, not apologetics. Your whining about apologetics has nothing to do with your campaign to exclude the Jewish view or to distort it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because I think a part of the text should not be included does not mean I'm on a campaign of censorship. Please discuss in good faith and focus on the topic at hand instead of making accusations. Flash 04:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss in good faith the topic at hand? All this talk and you refuse to respond to anything I have written. The article said that Jews do not believe Jesus was a prophet. I added that they also do not believe he was the messiah. This is undoubtedly true, and it is more notable than "prophet," so should be an uncontroversial edit. But you deleted it. I added "messiah" again. You deleted it. i added it again, you deleted it. Each time you keep adding this obnoxious edit summary that I should discuss my edit on the talk page - obnoxious because I keep explaining to you that Jews do not accpet Jesus is the Messiah and you keep deleting it and you have never responded to my explanation. Your only explanation for deleting what i added is that we should discuss it on the talk page which is an insult to me and to Wikipedia given that I keep trying to discuss it and you refuse to discuss it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing what should be in the article. Whatever complaints you have about me as an editor should be brought up on my talk page, or elsewhere; I will not discuss it here.

The lead currently contains only one argument for a single religion's beliefs, which was only added recently by a currently banned user. Including apologetics for only Judaism's beliefs is a violation of NPOV.

I propose cutting the bolded text:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh Flash 05:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Flash, I still disagree with your entire presented concept. The lede is chock-full of argument. The entire second paragraph is argument, just worded with more subtlety than the sentence you propose to change. I disagree that your bolded text is the only "argument" in the lede and therefore must be removed. I'm so sorry that you cannot see this. That is not the only argument in the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph? Do you mean:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels,[9][10] though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.[11]

or do you mean another paragraph? Where else do you see an argument being presented which supports a belief? Flash 12:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not even see where the jewish reasons for not believing in Jesus are provided. Sure, it says that Jews don't believe he was the messiah their sacred writings foretell - but it desn't provide a single word as to why Jews do not believe that. May we need to addd the specific arguments, why have Jews been telling the world Jesus isn't the messiah, for two thousand years? I do not see any reason provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Willful blindness. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not willfully blind and this is an insult. Please quote for me the argument? Reading the articl, do you have any clue what the argument is? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is an "argument"?

You, Flash and şṗøʀĸ, are contending that the following sentence, found toward the end of the lede, is an argument and an apology:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

Let us first note that all this sentence really does is to state the source of why Judaism rejects the assertions. It goes into absolutely no detail, therefore it cannot properly be called an "argument", let alone an "apology". The second paragraph:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

...also provides the source(s) of the beliefs noted in the first paragraph. Therefore it is just as much an argument or apology as the sentence above about Judaism! Just as much. There are more of these mini "arguments and apologies" throughout the lede. They are more subtle, but they are definitely there in the lede. To remove the second part of the sentence, i.e., "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh", would be a violation of NPOV, and that is not what we are here to do. So, editors Flash and şṗøʀĸ, since you have spent a lot of time trying to convince other editors, and you have not succeeded in doing so, then I suggest you try another tack. If you truly cannot "see" why you are incorrect, then you seem to need more editors involved to either agree with you or to agree with me and the rest here. Feel free to use the proper channels if you are unable to see the truth of our argument.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and clarifying your position.

Apologetics is the defense of a belief. That Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecies is an argument used to defend Judaism's belief. When you ask Jewish scholars why they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, this is an argument they would use to defend their beliefs.

Likewise, Christian scholars of theologians would use arguments such as Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies, or that he will fulfill them at the Second Coming.

The sentence you cited, which lists the principal sources of information for Jesus' life, is not a defense or argument for any belief. It's just a statement of fact. Flash 08:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what apologetics is. You are correct when you say that his not fulfilling the prophesies is an argument. Since it does not furnish any detail, it might be called a "mini-argument". It is just as much of an argument as showing the sources for belief in paragraph two. Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The second paragraph "argues" that:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

You cannot seem to see the truth in this, so as I said, rather than continue an argument that you are losing, why not use the proper channels to either garner support or to lose to greater consensus?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Paine, can you please clarify how a statement of fact concerning sources of information for Jesus' life is an argument for the Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah? Flash 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I already have, Flash. That statement of fact does not only concern sources of information for Jesus' life. They are writings upon which the Christian faith is based, so the second paragraph is saying (a bit "between the lines") "Christianity accepts assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he fulfilled the Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament, as clearly depicted in the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, and in other texts such as the Gospel of Thomas."

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is at best, a very, very big stretch. To say that a statement about the main sources of information for Jesus' life, which does not even mention any specific religion, is an argument for the a specific Christian belief just doesn't make sense. Flash 03:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When taken out of context, yes, it would be a stretch. However when one reads the article and starts with the first paragraph, then one places the second paragraph in context following the first paragraph, which does mention Christianity, then one can see the mini-argument. It's "Jesus' life and teachings" that are the reasons that Christians view him as the Messiah. I've done all I can, Flash, to show you that the lede has subtle "arguments" and "apologetics" in addition to the one you want to remove. We need to move on.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about using the term "reasoning" rather than "arguing"?:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, reasoning that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is Jesus the messiah, or not. Jews say no, and have arguments as to why he is not. Christians say ye, and have arguments as to why. Our article has the following: "Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven," and then concludes, that jesus was the Messiah. Now, Jews have arguments for why all this is baloney - Jews regularly had to provide community representatives to argue over this with represantatives of the pope during the Middle Ages. So it would not be that hard to find the arguments as to why Jesus could not have been born of a virgin (and why no messiah will ever be born of a virgin), the arguments against miracles, the argument agaist his rising from the dead ... All these jewish argumnts for Jesus is NOT messiah are missing from the article and if I am wilfully bind in not seeing them, maybe you are hallucinating in seeing them The arguments are not there. SO: Which do you want, should we delete the mterial I quote here, full of Christian arguemtns, or should we add the Jewsh counter-arguments? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the essential question is about the mean of the word "Jews", although I acknowledge that the material quoted by Slrubinstein above needs serious reworking, particularly regarding the virgin birth, founding of a church, and rise and ascension. Yes, that is what most modern Christians believe, I think, but that hasn't always been the case, and it would be a mistake to imply that it has. It does seem that most Jews who have historically seen Jesus as the Messiah also accepted his divinity, and became "Christians". However, at least initially, there seems to have been serious disagreement within Jewish Christianity whether Jesus was god or "just" a Prophet. Those who saw him as "only" a Prophet tended to be treated as outsiders by both groups, and apparently died out in the first few centuries, but they were and are counted as Christains. I think changing the text to read "From the 400s (or whenever) onward, the majority of Christians have believed...," would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Which historians hold this view? Most of what Jesus does in the Gospels is preach and heal, and we do not have any evidence that he was viewed as an outsider by Jews. What really was going on between say 25 CE and 100 CE is far from clear. But all historians I know of say that the vast majority of Jews rejected claims that he was messiah (using any definition/all deinitions) after he was crucified, and this has been a view of normative Judaism ever since. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. All I can really say is that the early Jewish Christian groups, which some might consider "Jewish", in some possibly broader sense, were not all agreed about Jesus being "Son of God", although they did, I think, all agree that he was a "Messiah". This may partially be about how numerically big these groups may have been, and I haven't seen a lot of evidence that they were ever particularly big, but I haven't researched the subject that extensively. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Excluding information from the lead

We should generally favor edits that make the article more informative rather than less, especially edits to the lead, which should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Editors who are pushing a particular POV regularly attempt to reduce how informative our articles are, especially leads. It's routine for editors to try to get information that they don't like out of an article or at least out of the lead. It's a disservice to the reader to reduce the lead's informational value. If the problem is that only Judaism gets its view explained, then we can simply add some context for Islam. "Islam recognizes many Biblical figures, putting Moses and Jesus in a class with Muhammad, as divine prophets each with a written revelation." Let's add information, not reduce it. Leadwind (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Leadwind, because in the classic struggle between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, I always tend a bit toward preserving information when possible. However, articles can get very long, and ledes especially can get extremely long if not attended to frequently. When this begins to happen, that is a time when any questionable text must go, or else Readers, in this age of "Drive-thru" mentality, might just take a pass on reading long, drawn-out ledes and articles. That's why we're here. To discuss the Readers' needs and adjust articles whenever possible to those needs. Sorry, I didn't mean to "soapbox". I'll step back down, now.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

I think the lead looks fine except that theres too much coverage on islam in the lead of article about the founder of Christianity. Judaism is a biblical religion but gets only two sentences in the lead, whereas islam is non-biblical and gets 5 sentences, which is undue weight in my opinion. There are enough passages about Jesus and Islam in several other articles: Jesus in Islam, Isa (name), Disciples of Jesus in Islam, Religious perspectives on Jesus, Islamic eschatology, Christianity and Islam, Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, Islamic view of Jesus' death, Jesus through Shia Narrations, etc. Even though i agree its inclusion in this page is valid, i think this is too much. As an example, if you look at Moses page, you won't see this much coverage on other religions. Nor do we see a whole paragraph devoted to buddhism on a Krishna article. Also, Jesus is not so important in Islam as is evident here Template:Prophets in the Qur'an where he is an ordinary prophet and one of many. Matter fact, the Quran makes much more coverage of other prophets such as Moses and arguably gives more reverence to Noah and Abraham. On tis page theres a heading called religious perspectives and three of those two islamic sentences should be moved there instead to balance it out. Everything has it's right place and i'm simply asking for this islam paragraph to be reduced and/or partly moved to religious perpectives part. Thoughts? Someone65 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Also, i want somebody to mention what language Jesus spoke. I think it was greek, or aramaic right? Someone65 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It already does "Jesus lived in Galilee for most of his life and spoke Aramaic and possibly Hebrew and some Greek." The bit in the lead on Islamic views doesn't seem to bad to me. It is true that the lead does not really summarize the article very well, but it does do a fairly decent job (I think) of giving a broad perspective and hitting the most important points, even if it doesn't give coverage in the same proportions as the article. Getting a broad perspective is more important than giving proportionate coverage. ^BE_Critical__Talk 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont mean in the article. I mean in the infobox template. Could somebody add this to the infobox Jesus template please that he spoke greek, aramaic and hebrew? I tried to do it but its just not showing. Someone65 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But we do not know that. Most historians agree that he would have spoken Aramaic, I do not think this is controversial. It is very likely he spoke Hebrew, and likely he spoke Greek or some Greek, but even from the Gospels do we have real evidence of this? Is this enough to change the infobox? (In articles, we can explain sources and uncertainties; in infoboxes we cannot) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. theres different, gospels, canons, manuscripts and other books accepted by some and not by others. Therefore we should go by what the historians say. Since they mostly agree Jesus spoke Aramaic, greek and hebrew it should be reflected in the template, especially since it says so in the article. I doubt there's any controversy here, but if you insist we could wait it out for any opposition and make the edit in 2 days. Do you agree? Someone65 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I missed the part where you established, through citations, that Jesus spoke Greek. Meier, in A Marginal Jew argues that if Jesus spoke any Greek, it would have been rudimentary phrases used in commerce, and he would not have been fluent, and that none of the Greek phrases attributed to him in the NT can go back to him untranslated. If this is the case, would it be fair to say that he spoke Greek in the same manner he spoke Aramaic? His Hebrew is similarly disputed, and goes along, to a degree, with the question on whether he was literate or not.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Someone, your proposal for two day's discussion is fine by me. But Andrew C's point is well-taken. Meier is well-respected and clearly there is some range of opinion, and this should give us reason to be very cautious about changing the template. My point was not to veto, but to call for more discussion. This is a controversial topic - many historical topics are - and in my view there is a world of difference between saying that "Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" and saying "Most historians believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek." I am not trying to be difficult or play a semantics game. The reason I believe there is an important difference is: those historians may not be uniform in the degree to which they are sure Jesus spoke a particular language, and they may have different arguments. When we say this in an article, we can explain what the different arguments are and where and why there is room for doubt. But when people see it in a template, they just conclude that it is a fact, as much a fact as other information commonly found in templates like, the anthem of Ecuador is "Salve, Oh Patria." or Barack Obama is the "44th President of the United States." it just seems to me that information in templates is virtually never speculative or controversial. And I think we should be careful that it not be speculative or controversial, even if most scholars would agree that a degree of controversy is unavoidable, or that they are as confident in this bit of speculation as anyone can be. I see a threshold and I am very concerned about readers scanning these templates and assuming that they are, if you forgive the pun, gospel. In the case of what number president Obama is or what the national anthem of Ecuador is, in fact people can treat what Wikipedia says as if it were "the truth" (even though we are officially agnostic about the truth). Such is not the case here. So, this is my concern. I hope enough people take it seriously that there is some healthy discussion for two days. Whatever the consensus emerges by say Tuesday night, or Wed. morning, is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the addition to be phrased like this... Language; Aramaic, (some greek and hebrew) Someone65 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, have you guys read my concerns about the lead above? Someone65 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Jesus is more important to Muslims than to jes, I think it is reasonable and in fact necessary that the lead say more about Muslim views of Jesus than about Jewish views. I certainly do not think there is anything more about Jewish views of Jesus that can be said in the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I likewise how no issue with the coverage of Islam in the lead, or in the article. You mention other Islamic prophet's articles, such as Moses, but I don't think that is a fair comparison because the lead is too short as is (and there is significant coverage of Islam in the body of that, and other articles). Just saying that I don't find an issue currently, and think part of NPOV is including multicultural coverage.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey two days have passed and there have been no objections to addding a language section to the Jesus template. So lets do it. Someone65 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If Andrew C has no objection then i won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was Language; Aramaic, (some greek and hebrew) ? I'd feel more comfortable with (possibly some Greek and Hebrew). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we waiting for Christmas to make this edit or what ? Someone65 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I promise to do it for you as a Christmas present. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It should have been done a week ago but still nothing. Didn't we come to a consensus to add Jesus' language? Someone65 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Andrew c's wording is reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, make the edit then! Someone65 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. Here is why. I was about to make the change, but asked myself, where in the template should one's language go? Si I looked that the article for Karl Marx and discovered ... it does not list his language. Then I loked af Charles Darwin ... again no lonaguage! I looked at Simund Freud, Albert Einstein, Henry Ford,, Claude Monet, and Pablo Picasso. And Ghandi. No languages. These are mong the most important people of recent years. I figure, if we do not have a convention of enternig people's languages, and if language is not included in comparable important articles, I am not going to start now. It seems we have no strong convention. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Needed copy edit

Someone needs to fix this. I'm not sure how to do it:

Not all groups that identify with Christianity are Trinitarian. or Nicene-based believe that he is the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead. Only a few do not.

It's inside a ref tag. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it by removing the ref, which has inserted the text, and have added a cite tag. I know the statement is factually correct, but it ought to be reference. If on the other hand people think it is an excessive addition to the lede, please feel free to delete - it wasn't my text to start with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Historicity, legend, myth, etc.

We can't define the topic of this article as the Christian Messiah, and then claim the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most scholars. The historicity of someone who was the son of God, conceived immaculately, performed miracles, and was resurrected is not accepted by most classical scholars. That figure is a legend, mythic in the same sense that Odysseus or Rama are mythic. They may very well be based on individuals who really existed, but those real individuals didn't battle cyclops or winged monkeys. We could not say scholars agree that they did. This article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine: from a secular perspective, Jesus (as Messiah) is a legendary, mythic figure. Noloop (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edit (actually it seems Ari and I did it at the same time, and he got there first). Please wait for consensus before reintroducing the unsourced assertion that Jesus is a legendary (in the sense of 'not historical') figure, particularly as the article now contains more than adequate sourcing that many scholars are happy to work from a point that there was a historical Jesus. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) (1) The claim that the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most scholars is cited. In fact, most scholars do not know of any scholar in the field that doubts the historicity of Jesus. Your edit misrepresents this cited fact. (2) Your opinion that the "figure is a legend" is your opinion, your opinion does not dictate the scholarly consensus. (3) I agree, this article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine, but more to the contentious edits - it doesn't exist to promote your own personal opinions. --Ari (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no historic Jesus. I said there was no historic figure who walked on water, etc., and that is not a point of contention among classical scholars. Noloop (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point does the article say that the historical Jesus most definately did perform those miricles? IIRC, it says that Christians, Muslims, and a few others believe that, but where does it say that this means it's true? It doesn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many historical figures to whom supernatural events have been ascribed including all saints. All the people in the List of people beatified by Pope John Paul II were considered to have performed at least one miracle after their deaths, but no one argues that Pope John XXIII (d. 1963) was not an historical figure - there are pictures of him! TFD (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the proper response to Noloop's reasonable concern is: this article does not discuss ANY activity of the resurrected (i.e. crucified) Christ. The historical Jesus - who is also known as Jesus Christ, but perhaps not when he was alive - is the proper subject of this article. And the fact that many believe he peformed miracles does not mean that he is the real messiah (Elisha and Honi the Circle Drawer performed miracles just like Jesus, and were not messiahs). In fact, there is a lot of material on the Christ part of Jesus' identity that is not included in this article and that goes into the article on Christology. I think having these two distinct articles is the best solution we will ever come up with to this matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how we do that since the only source for Jesus assumes that he did all those miracles. There are many semi-mythological characters like this, like King Arthur and Odysseus. The difference with the last two is that archeological evidence may be found that provides an independent source of information. We of course do not know if Jesus lived, some scholars claim he did not, in which case separating the real from the mythological Jesus would not make sense. TFD (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what The Four Deuces is referring to, but I too believe that Jesus and Christology should be different articles, and that the bulk of the material on the "Christ"-like material related to Jesus be included in the latter article. It is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that we might, at some point, find contemporary sources from the time of Jesus attesting to these miracles, just as we might about King Arthur/Riothemus and Odysseus and the other figures of the Trojan War. Also, the fact that individuals claimed he performed these miracles doesn't necessarily mean that they were all "miracles." I remember having read a few works which indicated that many of these miracles could be ascribed, potentially, to Jesus having "charismatically" cured people of what may have been psychosomatic illnesses. Such cures would not, necessarily, be "miraculous" by our standards today, although they probably would have been described as such by contemporaries at that time. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the important thing is that there is enough consensus among scholars that there was a historical character who started a bit of a religious movement in Galilee. The religious movement snowballed remarkably, based (and here TFD is right) on the legend who walked on water, raised the dead etc, but also based on a religious or philosophical creed which the first generation of the movement believed were passed to them by the historical character. An article which attempts to pick the historical character out from the "legend" (as in "Mick Jagger is a legendary rock star", not "King Arthur is a myth without historical grounding") is a good thing. Noloop is right in that we should ensure that this article only refers to the 'legend' side incidentally - detailed interpretation of the parables, miracles etc belongs in the Christology article. The focus here should be on the scholarship surrounding the prospect of Jesus as a historical figure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that we know nothing of the historical Jesus except what is in the New Testament. Even if he did live, we do not know if he spoke the words ascribed to him. Some writers believe that his words were changed in order to conform with Pauline doctrine, and there are a variety of interpretations of Judas Iscariot. Many of the things ascribed to him, which fulfilled Jewish prophesies, may have been added later: his birth in Bethlehem, descent from David, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, his riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, the crucifiction. Then again, the miracles may have happened, but had natural causes, just as modern magicians can pull a rabbit out of a hat. I just do not see how we are to determine what is and is not historical. And there will never be any contemporaneous evidence. TFD (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the Messiah. I say that because the lead defines the subject, and that is the essence of the lead. The suggestion that this article is about the historic Jesus makes no sense, because there is already Historical Jesus, as well as Quest for the historical Jesus. The gist of my edits was simply to clarify that classical scholars tend to believe there was a Historical Jesus, not a Messiah. It was to clarify that Wikipedia views the Messiah as a legendary figure, which is as NPOV as Wikipedia viewing the Earth as being 4 billion years old, or Hercules as a mythical figure. It is not a violation of NPOV to stick to science and reason, and conclusion of science and reason is that the Messiah is as mythical as Shiva or Zeus. Noloop (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Noloop has a good point here. Why do we have an article on Christian Jesus, Historical Jesus and this one? What's this one supposed to be about? Is this the 'outline of Jesus' article? Are we able to clarify on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not, and should not, because it would be a POV fork, which is against WP policy. It seems to me at this point that Noloop simply misunderstands out NPOV policy and also has misread the article. NPOV is premisedon "verifiability, not truth." We are not claiming that this article is about the messiah. it is about a Jesus who is refered to in, or reconstructed in people's minds based on, the Gospels. Now, people have different views of that Jesus, and this article has to represent all significant views. One view is that he was God incarnate. There is a wide range of views that he was just a human being. When some say Jesus was messiah, they could mean he was God incarnate or purely human, depending on what they mean by messiah. In any case, this article should present all significant views. To fork views as if there are two different Jesuses is just to mislead our readers and to undermine the very idea of NPOV. The subject of this article is not the Messiah. It is a person called Jesus, and the introduction presents multiple views of him including a few views that he was not the messiah, so the only way Noloop can claim that this article is about "the messiah" is by ignoring all the views we include that he is not messiah. To create a POV fork would be to make his hallucination real, which is not a good idea. Let's just keep the views that he was not messiah in this article, and remind readers that Christians and non-devout historians are talking about the same person but have different views of him. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a POV fork. It is recognizing that there are different topics: historical Jesus and mythic Jesus. The Jesus who (presumably) was a real man, conceived by a human sperm fertilizing a human egg, and the other One. It is recognition that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles need to have well-defined topics, not be mish-mashed overviews of how a term is used. As for the view that Jesus was not the messiah, I might be more convinced that it is an equally important part of the article if it had a significant portion of the lead. But none of that actually addresses the point of my edit, which was simply to clarify that scholars generally support the existence of a guy named Jesus conceived in the usual way, not the other One. Noloop (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. As I look into this topic further, I am increasingly disturbed that most of the sources for the historicity of Jesus are 1) Christian, and 2) not identified as such.

OK so this is the Outline of Jesus article. I'm just grateful no-one has yet suggested that he has fjords. Srsly, in that case it needs to tie together an introduction to Jesus-in-the-Bible, Jesus-in-history, Jesus-in-Christianity, Jesus-as-seen-by-other-religions etc. So it must refer to the accounts in the bible of walking on water, raising the dead etc, along with the extent to which scholars consider there was a historical Jesus (more than a historical King Arthur, at any rate), together with what Jesus means for Christianity. Can't see any reason to use the word 'legendary' (which is kind of an inflammatory word in the way that it is used), but the article should clearly cover that scholars recognise a historical possibility in some of the stories, which can be extrapolated to work towards a historical Jesus, while at the same time acknowledging that some of the stories can only really be analysed in a faith context (there used to be a popular talk given at Christian Unions 30-odd years ago "A lawyer discusses the case for Jesus", which was supposed to be an evangelistic tool. Seemed pretty dumb to me - you can't make faith in a court of law - but there you go.)Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the Jesus article and it does a pretty damn good job of compling with our NPOV policy in providing all significant views from verifiable sources. It correctly distinguishes between diferent fiews, and the introduction has one of the best summaries of what critical scholars suggest about Jesus, as well as a very fine short account of Christian belief, and the jewish view and other views. Noloop seems intent on casting every view in this article as Christian. Sorry, that won'e fly. Please reread our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Jesus any different from the Pope, who is claimed to be God's representative on Earth, or the Queen of the U. K., the "Defender of the Faith" who rules "by the grace of God". In both cases supernatural forces are are ascribed by followers, but we do not split the articles. TFD (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what Slrubenstein is talking about. The characterizations of my edits and my intent fly in the face of my own statements about my intentions and what any common-sensical person could possibly glean from my edits. We all agree that there are different versions of "Jesus" in play in the article. The intent of my edits was to clarify that the historicity of Jesus is not concerned with the historicity of the Messiah, or an entity immaculately conceived, etc. That was the main point of my edits. I further note that there is nothing controversial at all, from a neutral scientific standpoint, in referring to Jesus as a legend--that's the mythic/divine/messianic Jesus. It is no different for encylcopedic purposes than referring to the legend of King Arthur or from rejecting Creationism as a neutral scientific description of anything. There is an additional problem that is starting to surface: most of the sources used to assert "scholars" agree that a historic Jesus existed are Christians. Somehow, I don't think Christians are going to investigate the matter and conclude that, no, it turns out Jesus never existed. There is a conflict of interest and bias in the sourcing. Noloop (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're also not going to get many non-Christians who disagreed that Jesus existed, so the point is moot. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How so? I don't disagree that there was a person on whom some of the Jesus legend derives, i.e. a historic Jesus. I'm not Christian. Likewise, I believe there was a real Troy from which the legendary one derives (this is fact). Yet, I don't believe in Zeus. I believe there was an historic King Arthur, yet I'm not a druid. Legends are commonly accepted to have some connection to an actual event, place, or individual. That's what we're talking about here when we distinguish the historic and divine Jesus. Of course it is controversial because Christians object to that distinction just as they object to distinguishing the origin of the Earth from creationism. So? Noloop (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there was a person on whom some of the Jesus legend derives, i.e. a historic Jesus. Then what was the point of your edit? The sources we used happened to be Christian, but since there is scholarly consensus, there is no need for the change. Soxwon (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit didn't imply there was no historic Jesus, so I don't understand your question. I've explained the purpose my edit repeatedly. Noloop (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Noloop, your edits have been reverted. For example, why is "Critical Biblical scholars and historians believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life" changed into "Christian scholars believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life." Other than your personal misgivings, what verifiable basis is there for this change? --Ari (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of the hateful way you express yourself to me. Hating in the name Jesus. Now that's a miracle. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My above post was so overwhelmingly hateful, right? Is that really the best justification you could bring for objections to your clearly POV disruptive edits? --Ari (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue is not what is the religion of the historian. Have we stooped to asking university professors about their personal beliefs? When it coms to history, any historian can recognize a bias like "The Bible is the revealed word of God" or "The Bible is historically accurate." We do not need anyone to tell us what their religion is. Conersely, it is easy to see when a historian rejects those assumptions. What is important is whether a historian applies to all 1st and 2nd century sources (including the NT) the same methods they apply to any historical source. The views described in the paragraph in question are those of critical historians. Their religion is irrelevant. But Noloop just wants people to think that this article is only about what Christians think. Sorry, Noloop, we include all significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the edits for the reasons I've explained a million times. When you use a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian as a source for a neutral factual claim about Christianity, readers should know. Slrubenstein, your characterization of the issue is a strawman. Nobody is saying all Christian historians are biased on all topics. Christians are biased about Christianity. Ultimately, Christians are harming their own cause. Non-believers who read this article, and notice that Evangelicals are being used as sources for historical claims, will just stop taking the article seriously. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A million times? Hah, hah. The paragraph that follows draws on the scholarship of over ten different authors. It does not matter whenther one of them is Jewish or Christian, Protestant or Carholic. The views in the paragraph are those held by critical historians. There is nothing "Christian" about the views in that paragraph. If a "non-believer" is too stupid to accept good scholarship from whatever source, it is that person's loss. Surely i tis not our fault if some of our readers are idiots. What is our fault however is the acts of our editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing Christian about the view that Jesus existed, huh? I'm not sure which paragraph you mean, since I edited two. One of my edits concerned a statement that was sourced to a single "scholar" (described by his Wikipedia article as a fundamentalist Evangelical). The other had two books (three authors). Not ten. You're arguing as if I am challenging reliability and trying to remove sources. That's wrong. I'm noting potential conflicts of interest, and trying to explicitly identify sources for readers. There's a big difference. Noloop (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer is not described as "a fundamentalist Evangelical". Please get your facts right. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective." [3] Noloop (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're citing the article. Where is Schaeffer described as "a fundamentalist Evangelical"? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The part that describes him as "Evangelical" and the part that describes him as "(promoting) a more fundamentalist Protestant faith" as well as the part that associates him with the religious Right and the part that associates him with "a conservative Puritan and Reformed persepctive." Maybe you could give a little, and explain your objection with some specifics. It seems rather obvious that, regardless of how we describe him, he is far from neutral and that should be mentioned to the reader. Noloop (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

These citations don't make him "a fundamentalist Evangelical" as you've stated. Maybe you should consider editing articles that don't challenge one's ability to remain neutral. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, we are also having very similar problems on the Historical Jesus article with certain editors from above. For example, most recently, the lead was changed to:

"Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all" Scholars Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy share the view, and argue that Jesus is just a derivative of pagan gods like Dionysus. The renowned scholar Joseph Campbell also compared the Jesus myth to the myth of Osiris." (emph. mine)

It seems that only sources of certain religious persuasion are being selectively prejudiced with epithets. All input appreciated. --Ari (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is canvassing, and is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Noloop (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a user who accuses everyone else for being Christian biased and citing sources selectively. I note that this user edits from an apparent anti-Christian point of view. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, Ari, I think you've been doing a great job on the Historical Jesus article. The funny thing about that Islamic guy is that according to Islamic beliefs, Jesus WAS a prophet (hence a real, historical person). So, his bias really doesn't make any sense. I guess he could be a young, recent convert to Islam, who hasn't yet learned this from his religious teachers. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased Sourcing

Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"

• 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
• 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [4]. Dunn is a theologian.
• 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". [5] (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
• 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[6]. NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)

• 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [7]
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [8]
• 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"[9]
• 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above. Noloop (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia policies. This is nothing short of bigotry. It's like saying we can't cite Cornel West on topics of African American studies due to racial bias. If you have valid criticisms and specifics, please get into them, but please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling people "bigots" is antogonistic. In the enxt step, I start calling you a "Christian bigot/zealot etc." and then you escalate, and so on. I've taken this to the reliable sourcing noticeboard: [10] Noloop (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c is quite right. Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest. This talk is for improving the article, and you have done nothing towards that goal. Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. Nothing you have posted here says that these scholars are bad scholars, or that what they have written takes a non scholarly view; you have shown nothing that says that their scholarship furthers a specifically Christian point of view. All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: to believe that a Christian historian, or the historian who has authored a book read by Christians, is not capable of adhering to the exact same standards and methodological principles as any other historian. Now, are you going to call me a Christian bigot/zealot? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)