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.

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." [1] 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." [2]. 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". [3] (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."[4]. 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 [5]
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [6]
• 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"[7]
• 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: [8] 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. In a few cases you correctly identify a scholar who is writing from a Christian point of view - but in the article itself, these sources are used to identify that view which opposes the "historical Jesus" view!! Of course devout or orthodox Christians are likely to reject the historical Jesus view held by most historians. But this is nevertheless a view we need to include in the article. Now, are you going to call me a Christian bigot/zealot? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was thoughtful. I guess we should just start calling each other names. You're right, claiming it's a fact that Jesus existed does nothing to "further a specifically Christian point of view". There is no connection between Jesus and "a specifically Christian point of view." If it's a historical fact that Jesus existed, why does the consensus about this fact exist only among Christians? Can you cite some peer-reviewed, non-theological sources that treat the existence of Jesus as fact? Noloop (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So, are we to only cite Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Neopagan, and Scientologist authors in the articles Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris (author), and Christopher Hitchens? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your assertion Noloop is that scholars really haven't questioned the existence of Jesus save for G.A. Wells and his small group. Most scholars don't talk about something that isn't up for debate. I scoured EBSCOhost and couldn't find any sources that really disputed Jesus' existence save for G.A. Wells. Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious what Noloop has to say about Bart Ehrman... -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If Noloop thinks I am just calling him a name, it is because he di dnot read my post. I made substantive points which he refuses to respond to. Besides Ehrman, this article presents the views of Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen. There is no doubt that the mainstream scholarly view is accurately presented. Noloop's test - if you think Jesus existed, therefore you are a Christian - shows such an incredible ignorance of both Christianity and history, that I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling. It is an attempt to defend this article from a POV pusher who rejects mainstream academic historical research, and who rejects our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, the problem is that the non-Christian historian community hasn't supported the existence of Jesus either. Editors are declaring that Christianity is right, and citing 90% Christians in support. Because, non-Christians don't agree (or disagree) that Christianity is right. That is wrongly represented as a mainstream consensus, and it is not a basis for excluding skepticism on the grounds that it's a fringe theory. Recently, on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, I demanded some peer-reviewed secular sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. User:Andrew c cited a priest. Noloop (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I bleive that Islam bleives in the exsistance of Jesus the man not Christ the son of god, mthe the christianity argument is a red herring. Asl ocan we have a source that says that the majority of non-chrsitna historian do not bleive in the exsistance of Jesus? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They cannot just be any historian. A historian of medieval England is no authority on 1st century Roman occupied Palestine. The standard for historians is an bility to read original sources in the original language. We would want a survey of historians who know koine Greek and Aramaic, and are also knowledgable in the archeology of the region. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.161.70.55, 29 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

This entire Jesus wiki doesn't even mention Jesus leading a tax rebellion, or forbidding paying taxes. It only briefly mentions Matthew, and that Jesus sought tax collectors to heal them.

But, Just look at how much more is missing:

1. Jesus was publicly charged with the crime of "forbidding paying taxes." Luke 23:2.
2. Jesus was teaching that taxes belong upon "foreigners". And, "the subjects [children, sons] are exempt." Matthew 17:25-27
3. Jesus was completely surrounded by tax collectors who "were everywhere in the habit of coming close ... to listen to Him." Luke 15:1
4. Jesus was disrupting tax collections by taking tax collectors away from their jobs. Luke 19:8 , Matthew 9:9
5. Jesus was publicly tested over the subject of "taxes", by "hypocrites" who possessed and used the Caesar-is-god coin. Matthew 22:15-21
6. Jesus disrupted the moneychangers operations in the temple, thus disrupting the banking industry. He even called them thieves. Mark 11:15, John 2:15, Matthew 21:12 .... Notice, less banking = less money = less taxes.
7. Jesus taught, rich men don't get into heaven (since a camel will never fit through a needle's eye), and taught against the accumulation of money, and against the Caesar-god's money system... "With men this is not possible." Matthew 19:23-26, This would also mean less taxes, and would have resulted in a reduction or even the destruction of the moneychanger's (banker's) tax-money-slave system.
8. Jesus insulted the chief priests and elders (i.e. local authorities, local government, crime partners of moneychangers) by telling them "tax collectors and prostitutes will get into God's kingdom ahead of you!" - Matthew 21:31 And, Jesus taught; priests weren't necessary; hypocrites frequent church; and praying should be done at home, in secret. This would have also insulted all those other tax collectors, those who were perfectly happy taking other people's money (stealing).

Why does this Jesus wiki avoid Jesus on taxation? Jesus died for our sins, which was worshiping Mammon, another god, but none of that is even mentioned.

75.161.70.55 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:OR--Cube lurker (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "render unto Caesar" when asked about paying taxes in Mt. 22? But that really doesn't matter. We cannot publish your original interpretation of biblical verses. We should take care when presenting primary sources, and instead rely on published, notable interpretations by scholars. Do you have any sources regarding this you think meet our editorial standards? What section of the article do you think this is best presented in? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to historical section

I'm working on something like the following. I think we should give the reader an idea of the interesting contours of the debate. Right now, the section presents a facade of unanimity that doesn't even exist within the theological community, much less the mainstream historical community. This is just a rough start. Please make constructive suggestions, collaborations, etc.

Scholars agree on the existence of a wide range of teachings attributed to Jesus, and on historical evidence for the nature of early Christian movements. They disagree on the validity of a historically reconstructed Jesus. Princeton University professor of religion Elaine Pagels comments:

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more.” --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University.

William Arnal also argues that Jesus scholarship tends to be incomplete: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates".Noloop (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the citation for the Pagels' quote? Is it peer reviewed? Also, we normally don't give a laundry list of awards after someone's name, and I feel like you are presenting Pagels personal opinion as if representative of the whole of scholarship. Your first two sentences are not supported by the citation. And if we are going to start introducing quotes critical of historical Jesus reconstructions, what is stopping us from including quotes from the other side of the debate, who say studies of the historical Jesus work to discredit faith, and take too much away from Christ? I don't think we really need that sort of balance in this article, because in the lead we already state "Academic debate continues..." and "Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus..." and I feel that is enough. That said, I actually wouldn't mind having Pagels opinion in the historical Jesus article if it was sourced to something other than an online magazine's interview. You know something that is vetted by a publisher in some way (though not necessarily peer-reviewed, but I'm sure you'd agree that wouldn't hurt).-Andrew c

(reset) There seems to be a bug in Wikiepdia. I don't see your comment rendered on the page, although I see it in the history and edit box. Apologies for the list of awards. That whas accidentally included, via a hasty cut/paste. I will remove it. Noloop

I think its fixed..Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No one questions Pagel's expertise on the New Testament and Gospels that were rejected by th Church as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another ANI

Edds might like to comment here [9]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edds? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors.Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The first sentence is wrong: "Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE),[3] also known as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament."

Jesus of Nazareth is the historical figure, who is not considered to have walked on water, or had God as a dad. Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ are different ideas. From a neutral, scientific, encyclopedic persepctive, Jesus of Nazareth was probably real; Jesus Christ is a legend from a sacred text. Noloop (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While not agreeing with Noloop's reasoning, the term Christ means Messiah and of course He would mostly be known by this name by Christians and Muslims. TFD (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus is known as Jesus Christ. Even if you don't agree with the beliefs behind the title Christ, he is still known as that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the character, Jesus, in the Bible is known as "Jesus Christ." Jesus of Nazareth is the historical figure. Jesus Christ is the son of a god; he performed miracles. Jesus of Nazareth, as an actual historic human being, did not (from a scientific, encyclopedic perspective) do any of those things. They are different. Noloop (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being tendentious. Every one realizes that when a person says "Jesus" they mean the same person as "Jesus Christ". Find RS before you pursue this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The two names are often used interchangeably. Without an RS saying otherwise let's not change this.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sorry Noloop, I think you're onto a non-starter here, and you would definitely need support from sources for your take on things. To me, JC and JoN are completely interchangeable. Maybe the historical Jesus wasn't even from Nazareth, who knows? --FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)When people refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" they often do NOT mean "Jesus Christ". As for RS, look at the Jesus articles, e.g. "The Historical Jesus is a scholarly reconstruction of the first-century figure Jesus of Nazareth....The Historical Jesus is conceptually different than the Christ of Faith. The former is physical, while the latter metaphysical. " And "scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith". So which is this article about? the physical or the metaphysical? The Jesus of history or the Christ of faith? They are not same, they are not considered the same by scholars. Noloop (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus articles aren't RS, though. In any event, what you quote doesn't support the idea that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ should be considered different people. "The Historical Jesus is conceptually different than the Christ of Faith" is what it says. The historical Cary Grant was conceptually different from his persona in the public media. Does this mean we should state in the intro to his article that there were two of him? --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally: "different than"?? --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"So which is this article about?" Short answer. Both. This is the top level, Jesus article. Per NPOV, we cover all notable views. We have a section on the Gospels. A section on the historical view. A section on various Christian denominations. A section on Islam (and other religions). A cultural inpact section. If we were to make any changes based on your comments, it would change the scope of this article, and we'd have to delete entire section (and thus probably create a POV fork, as opposed to the content fork of an article like historical Jesus). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We provide all significant views on a particular thing, not a word. The correct way to do it is to decide what the most common intent is when people search 'Jesus", choose that topic, and have a reference to a disambiguation page for the others. Shoving all meanings into an omnibus article is not per policy; disambiguation is per policy. This is obviously not something that is going to change, due to certain dogmas among certain editors. However, what does need to happen is that the topic needs to be clarified in particular contexts in the article. Sometimes it is not clear which Jesus is being referred to. Noloop (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. And pretty much all views about "the Christ" in Christian theology are excluded from this article and instead placed in our Christology article. As for the title and object of this article's attention, all of our knowledge about a historical Jesus or a mythic Jesus starts with the same source material, the synoptic Gospels, and it is convenient to use this article as an omnibus for both views of Jesus. Anyone who writes about the historical Jesus knows that they are actually making an argument, that the person others consider Christ, was really a person and this (x y z) is what we know about him. So we have two views of a named person. To create a disambiguation page would be to create a POV fork, which is strictly forbidden by policy. In fact, we do have separate articles on Christ (Christology) and on the historical Jesus (Historicity of Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus) but the reason these are separate articles is that if they were ALL in here this would be one of the longest articles in Wikipedia and too long; the decision was pragmatic.

Besides, Noloop, you are making a tremendous historical error. You are using your own definition of "Christ." But in the year 30 CE, a messiah was someone annointed in God's service - priests were messiahs and so were kings. Since Jesus was crucified, and Romans crucified people for sedition, we can infer that Jesus either claimed to be king or there were followers of Jesus who claimed that he should be king. But a king is a human being who is soveriegn over a kingdom. David was a king and thus a messiah; accordig to the Bible Cyrus the Great (king of Persia) was a messiah. So in the year 30, to call Jesus "messiah" did not mean any of the things you claim. Back then, a messiah WAS a mortal man. You also misunderstand "son of God," I think - according to the Bible, King David was the son of God. For Jews, back then "son of God" meant an especially righteous person (today, many Jews just think all humans are children of God). So a son of God certain WAS also a mortal man. By the way, many mortal men were believed to have performed miracles. Pretty much everything Jesus did, Elisha and Honni the Circle Drawer did, and they were both mortal men (although you may not believe that they really performed the miracles attributed to them!). So I really have a lot of trouble making any logical sense of what you are saying. You keep using the word "science" but I am not sure you know what this word means. You certainly seem to be woefully ignorant about what mortal men in 1st century galilee or Roman-occupied Palestine were like, or what they believed. Do you know anything about this topic at all? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)