Talk:Jesus

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Key to archives, Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59.

	Subject-specific:	Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus

	ACTIVE sub-pages	/Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus, /Historical Jesus

---

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

• /Archive 55 - Infobox.
• /Archive 56 - Arrest, trial and execution section.
• /Archive 57 - Neutral evidence, Isa, Day of Jesus' death, FA nomination, Chronology section, Bible versions
• /Archive 58 - Christ: Title or name; cult leader; vandalism; Islam; what should "Life and Teachings" section include and exclude?
• /Archive 59 - The trial again, part 2.

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alledged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, /Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to /2nd Paragraph Debate.

Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels section.

Rewrite the arrest/trial/execution section?

Here is proposal for a revision of that section:

1. state from the beginning that there are two versions. The one of the Synoptic and the one of John. Follow the events, but mention the difference if they are important. If you like I can based on the current one present here a draft. Oub 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC):

Seems fair to me.

In response to Slrubenstein: I don't know if you caught my question in an earlier section. I asked, if we are going to treat the Gospels strictly as texts, then which texts do we use? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are canonical to Christians. Some Catholic and Orthodox traditions are based on noncanonical texts that Protestants believe are apocryphal. Historians also use other texts; I noticed John Crossan using the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter in some of his works. It has occured to me that the very selection of primary sources could be considered POV, which is probably part of the reason that some believe this article leans too far towards a Christian POV (not entirely true because we have other sources, especially the canonical epistles, but the perception is there). So I ask you: how do we decide which primary sources to use? Do we stick with the Christian-canonical Gospels, or do we bring in other sources? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I caught this, sorry I didn't respond. I mean the four canonical texts - canonical is exclusively Christian as I mean can literally not metaphorically. I have already stated my rationale, if not in specific application to this question. My rationale has two components: (1)The section should provide the primary source material accepted by the largest and most diverse groups of people. Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Morton Smith all accept the four canonical Gospels as the primary sources. (2) different points of view make synthetic and interpretive claims by bringing in contextual information. JimWae has pointed this out, although he privileges the contextual information used by historians. I do not think we can privilege any contextual information, as that would violate NPOV. we should present the contextual information used by Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Morton Smith and others to justify their respective interpretations. For some, this contextual information will include the non-canonical Gospels e.g. of Thomas or Peter. others do not. Now, I do not believe we can include all the contextual information and explain all of the interpretations of Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, and Morton Smith let alone the many other clerics, theologians, historians, and others who have interpreted the Gospels or who have made claims about Jesus in this article. we simply do not have the space. We have to do it in linked articles, with abstracts of each one in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. I just wanted to be sure which way we were heading. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is just my view. I believe it would make the artivcle more compliant with NOR, and better accommodate NPOV, and I have tried to explain fully my reasoning - I hope others agree. But I am not claiming that this is the consensus, I just hope others see the sense in it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll see how others respond. As a point of fact, in the first two subsections we do have brief mentions of noncanonical sources (namely New Testament Apocraphya and Josephus). However, these are a sentence or less apiece. My own view is that if it's not disputed, it can be included; but if there are divergent views, they belong in later sections. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I stated several days ago that I don't wish for the article to become an apologetics showcase, but I really don't like the idea of stating that the Gospels disagree about X when that in itself is an interpretation. If it is not an interpretation, and, e.g., Matt. says explicitly "Jesus likes milk" and John says "Jesus hates milk", that is one thing; but when one writer says "two angles were at the tomb" and another says "one angel was at the tomb", then the interpretation that the second writer meant "one and only one" should not be given de facto priority over the interpretation that holds that if there were two angels then there was also one and hence the writers don't conflict. We can avoid this by saying something like "writer2 seems to indicate that there was only one angel, but [reputable scholar] interprets him to mean that there was at least one angel, not only one angel", or something of the like. Of course this is just a rough-hewn example, not a formula, but I think it makes the point. » MonkeeSage « 08:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "differences" instead of "contradictions?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Differences" is definitely more neutral. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind "contradictions", if that is the majority view of scholars, I just want to be sure we attribute rather than assert and make room for significant minority dissent, or else phrase things in a more neutral way (like "difference", "appears to", "seems to", &c). "Differences" can be understood of a grammatical/structural/presentational difference (e.g., a use of a synonym in one writer for a different word in another, e.g., "left" "went out"; or one writer giving more details than another), or it could be taken as a difference of meaning/intent (i.e., a contradiction); so it is better because it can apply to both views. » MonkeeSage « 13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Christ?

Recent content moved to Talk:Christ.

jesus

in what the hell was jesus was he black or muslim or just a plain jew looker tell me--206.176.124.227 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the article. —Aiden 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Or try reading Race of Jesus Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Very long. 82kb

Move them to other articles. Skinnyweed 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not entirely certain what we could possibly cut out :/. Homestarmy 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the historicity section delves too much into history of canon then of Jesus. —Aiden 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why pick on the historicity section? To be balanced we'd have to trim all the sections. We already do have the subarticles for them. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Condensing the article is already #3 on the todo list. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks! What about moving the details of the date of Christmas to the Chronology of Jesus article? --CTSWyneken 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, im not so sure that Jesus's exact birthdate really helps readers understand Jesus more myself. Homestarmy 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

the cross is black

How come the cross is black in all the articles about Christianity and about this one about Jesus? Dot Bitch

I think someone changed the template symbol thing. Homestarmy 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Jesus a bastard?

Or was Joseph, "God in disguise"? In either case we should mention it in the article.--Greasysteve13 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If we were to mention this in the article, we would call it "illegitimacy" not "bastardy". With all the politically-correct garbage against Christianity, there definitely shall be some in defense of Christianity. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we conduct a vote as to whether or not we add Jesus's name to the "list" of people in the illegitimacy article?--Greasysteve13 06:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We all got a little drunk on voting a couple of months ago. But, if you think it will help… Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jews do not consider a child born out of wedlock illegitimate. Not now, not then. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that it is possible he "was" illegitimate. It is possible he had a human father not married to his mother. That does not make him illegitimate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should it matter what the Jews think? Jesus isn't mentioned in the old testiment. Isn't that the only testiment Jews belive? Besides this is an English encyclopedia.--Greasysteve13 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, as Martin Luther said, Christ was born a Jew. As were most of the people he came in contact with while he walked the Earth, including his disciples. Religiously, I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully human (hypostatic union.) That "fully human" nature of Jesus was a Jew. True, most of Jesus' followers today are not ethnic Jews, and those who are (such as Messianic Jews) are seen as non-Judaic by other Jews. However, your question is rather like asking, why should it matter what Americans think of an American expatriate? Answer: because that expatriate was born an American, just as Jesus was born a Jew. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I relise Jesus was Jewish. I'm just asking if Jesus was illegitimate in the modern sense of the word. And if he was... why do Christians look down on illegitimacy? Although I suppose technically Adam and Eve were illegitimate too.--Greasysteve13 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Applying "the modern sense of the word" to past events before there even was such a word, is simply anachronistic. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter?--Greasysteve13 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be: Did other first-century Jews consider Jesus to be a mamzer? I do not know the answer to this. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Illegitimacy%20of%20Jesus%22

"Illegitimate" in this context is just an English word that means "born out of wedlock." I don't understand how Jewish beliefs come into it at all. john k 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say - Jewish belief cannot negate the English language. If Jesus was "born out of wedlock," then he was also "illegitimate," because the two terms are synonymous. john k 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Google links all seem to be pointing to the same Jane Schaberg book, ISBN 1850755337 (for a recent edition). Any other sources?Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Raymond E. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, Appendix V, pg 534-542 The Charge of Illegitimacy

Origen Contra Celsus 1.32: "But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;""

Gospel of Thomas 105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus of Nazareth "Birth of Jesus. The Jews, who are represented as inimical to Jesus in the canonical Gospels also, took him to be legitimate and born in an entirely natural manner. A contrary statement as to their attitude is expressed for the first time in the "Acts of Pilate" ("Gospel of Nicodemus," ed. Thilo, in "Codex Apoc. Novi Testamenti," i. 526, Leipsic, 1832; comp. Origen, "Contra Celsum," i. 28). Celsus makes the same statement in another passage, where he refers even to a written source (ἀναγέγραπται), adding that the seducer was a soldier by the name of Panthera (l.c. i. 32). The name "Panthera" occurs here for the first time; two centuries later it occurs in Epiphanius ("Hæres." lxxviii. 7), who ascribes the surname "Panther" to Jacob, an ancestor of Jesus; and John of Damascus ("De Orthod. Fide." iv., § 15) includes the names "Panther" and "Barpanther" in the genealogy of Mary. It is certain, in any case, that the rabbinical sources also regard Jesus as the "son of Pandera" (), although it is noteworthy that he is called also "Ben Sṭada" () (Shab. 104b; Sanh. 67a). It appears from this passage that, aside from Pandera and Sṭada, the couple Pappus b. Judah and Miriam the hairdresser were taken to be the parents of Jesus. Pappus has nothing to do with the story of Jesus, and was only connected with it because his wife happened to be called "Miriam" (= "Mary"), and was known to be an adulteress. The one statement in which all these confused legends agree is that relating to the birth of Jesus. Although this is ascribed only to the Jews, even in Celsus, the Jews need not necessarily be regarded as its authors, for it is possible that it originated among heretics inimical to Jesus, as the Ophites and Cainites, of whom Origen says "they uttered such hateful accusations against Jesus as Celsus himself did" ("Contra Celsum," iii. 13). It is probable, furthermore, that the accusation of illegitimacy was not originally considered so serious; it was ascribed to the most prominent personages, and is a standing motive in folk-lore (Krauss, "Leben Jesu," p. 214). The incident of Jesus concerning the dispute with the Scribes was copied by the rabbinical sources (Kallah 18b [ed. Venice, 1528, fol. 41c]; comp. N. Coronel, "Comment. Quinque," p. 3b, Vienna, 1864, and "Batte Midrashot," ed. Wertheimer, iii. 23, Jerusalem, 1895). All the "Toledot" editions contain a similar story of a dispute which Jesus carried on with the Scribes, who, on the ground of that dispute, declared him to be a bastard. Analogous to this story are numerous tales of predictions by precocious boys."Pericope Adulteræ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.25.231 (talk • contribs)

A mamzer is the offspring of an incestuous or adulterous relationship, although according to the Shulchan Aruch if the adulterous union is with a gentile (as would have been the case with a Roman soldier) the offspring is not a mamzer. As to John K's point, many people translate mamzer as illegitimate, so I think clarity is important. And I maintain my point about anachronism and add to it cultural difference. Why say that Jesus was a bastard (or illegitimate - I fail to see how saying someone lacks "legitimacy" is any kinder or more polite than saying someone is a bastard), if niether he, his companions, and opponents did not think he was a bastard or illegitimate? He wasn't a Democrat (or republican) either - but so waht? "Democrat" and "Republican" are terms meaningful only in the context of American politics from the late 18th century on. A historian would tell a student that it is silly to ask whether Jefferson was a Democrat or a Republican because those parties did not exist when Jefferson was president. Well, being a "bastard" is a social status too. For a period of time it had serious legal consequences (far more serious than the consequences of being a Democrat or republican); then it had social stigma. People seldom use the word today not because they have decided "bastard" is a rude word; people seldom use the word today because it just isn't important to us anyomre. At least, in many parts of the world. I have a friend whose child was born out of wedlock. If anyone called the kid a bastard, her response, and that of her friends, would not be "you are being rude" it would be "Huh? Do you think we are living in the 19th century?" My point is, no one cares.

I don't want to get into a long discussion of illegitimacy in the USA, i understand that being born out of wedlock still does have some legal consequences, and in some places social ones too. But any reasonable person should agree with me that the consequences aare not as great as they used to be, and the word is not applied as much as it used to be. In 1830, perhaps being a bastard mattered and thus must be included as an important biographical note. In 2000, in NY or LA, it doesn't matter and is just irrelevant. To insist that someone is a bastard here and now is to push an eccentric point of view.

So what about the Galilee 2000 years ago. Even if Jesus were born out of wedlock, would people have considered there to be something wrong with him? No. To use a stigmatizing label, whether bastard or illegitimate, that was meaningful in Europe and the US (and perhaps other places) seventy years ago (and earlier) to describe someone in a very different time and place just seems weird to me. Why use it? It seems POV to me, saying we should view Jesus from our own cultural point of view. I hope it is clear my point is NOT about what word to use. I know illegitimate is the English word for child born out of wedlock. I am questioning why the category, child born out of wedlock, is appropriate for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the UK he husband of a married woman is the father of any child born to her unless the legal courts get involved. I don't know why (ie I can't give quotes) but I always assumed Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Jesus' birth (otherwise why would he have taken her with him to Bethlehem?) so if that were the case "born out of wedlock" would not strictly apply anyway. Sophia 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me this might just be an attempt to get the phrase "Jesus was a bastard" into the article. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are right but it would be nice to defeat this attempt with logic. Sophia 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia have anything to do with logic? ;) Of course, as Slrubenstein has pointed out, Jesus does not count as a mamzer; and terms such as "illegitimate" or the b-word are anachronistic. So, in light of countering systemic bias, we should not be chronocentric. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the logical approach is, to follow our NPOV and NOR policies. We need to distinguish between major and fringe views, and try to represent all major views. Is there anyone of these views for whom Jesus being "a bastard" or "illegitimate" is important? If so, let's report it - as a particular point of view. As for a neutral account of the facts, however, I just do not see the point if it woul dnot have mattered to Jesus, his family, friends, or opponents - if it didn't matter to them, why should it matter to us? Articles on historical subjects MUST avoid anachronisms. Look at the history of the Copernicus article, which, a long time ago, was torn apart over arguments over (1) he was Polish (2) he was German (3) he was neither, these identities that are meaningful today were not meaningful back then, or did not have the same meaning as they do today. Let's avoid anachronisms. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

name

I'm going to ask in all ignorance: why is this article Jesus, and not Jesus Christ? Stevage 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Because "Christ" is a title used by Christians. This article covers all perspectives on Jesus of Nazareth, both Christian and nonChristian. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fiction

Will someone please state that this is fiction? Or link to fiction in "topics related to Jesus".

Also, something that should be added is the theories in which Jesus was Iulius Caesar / John the Nazarene.

skribb 17:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Since most of this article is not fiction, the first line would be inappropriate. There is some fiction (such as The DaVinci Code) listed in the "Cultural Impact" section, but that is a rather small part of the article.

As for your second point, please cite sources. Also, who is John the Nazarene? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Might as well provide an historical source. A good place to start is VanVoorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. ISBN 0802843689. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well for references you have The Fable of Christ by Luigii Cascioli and Jesus was Caesar by Francesco Carotta. John the Nazarene was a man that lived during Jesus' time, a man that actually could be the real Jesus. skribb 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's the thing: to say that Christ is a fable is not the same as saying Jesus as a fable, as any number of nonChristian historians have pointed out. Even if everyone got John's name wrong, there still would have been a nonfictional John for everyone to get his name wrong. Julius Ceasar was dead by the first century (are you saying Julius ressurected?), during this time we have his successors Augustus through Tiberias. Of course, there's always the Jesus-Myth article for the minority who believe that Jesus is all myth, but there are other perspectives. ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant John the Baptist. And what do you mean Christ isn't the same as Jesus? By "Jesus" do you mean the physical person, and by Christ, his divinity? Because if you don't, it's the same person, right? skribb 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More or less. "Christ" is a title, originally a Greek translation of "Messiah," which came to mean "what Christians believe about Jesus." Obviously, to a Christian like myself, "Jesus" is "Christ" and the only Christ: they are one and the same. There are other people who believe that there was a historical Jesus, but don't believe in Christ. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Jesus is also a title, correct? From the greek "iessous" meaning anointed? Also, I find it quite saddening to see so many christians in "charge" of this article. We need more atheists and freethinkers, ones who aren't biased and subjective. I'm not saying you are, but there are others who are. skribb 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First point: many are of the opinion that the Greek ησοῦς (Iēsoûs) is a transliteration of a common Jewish name, either יהושוע {Yehoshua) or ישוע (Yeshua). "Joshua" is also a transliteration of "Yehoshua," but this name didn't take a trip through Greek. See Yeshua for more.

Second point: There are have been all kinds of people come through here, both Christian and not. At the moment it seems that most of the Christians are at Talk:Christianity, where we are debating the definition of "monotheism." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As an evil, "closed-minded," fundimentalist, Christian, I'm very biased (see my user page). But I follow the neutral point of view policy, so I don't know why my biases should be of any concern (or why someone else with a different worldview and set of biases would be better to edit the article). Anyhow, there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia — anyone is welcome to edit the article in any way they see fit. Of course, they should also respect other editors and work toward consensus, but there is no Christian cabal keeping the "freethinkers" at bay with a stick or anything. » MonkeeSage « 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this applies to anyone here, but sometimes it seems that people use the phrase "closed-minded" to mean "doesn't agree with me." If Quizfarm is any guide, I'm only 31% fundamentalist, so maybe I'm only 31% closed-minded? It doesn't matter, we all have various viewpoints and should all learn to work together. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage: It has happened to me.

On another note, I think I'll remove this article from my watchlist. It makes me weep. skribb 16:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I would think Jesus would weep that this article isn't currently from the perspective of sharing the Gospel message to readers, but you can't always get what you want can you? :) Homestarmy 16:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

John 11:35. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Skribb writes, "As far as I know, Jesus is also a title, correct? From the greek "iessous" meaning anointed? Also, I find it quite saddening to see so many christians in "charge" of this article. We need more atheists and freethinkers, ones who aren't biased and subjective. I'm not saying you are, but there are others who are." Personally, I would weep if the people who were in charge of this were people who thought that Jesus is a title, no matter what their religious beliefs. All of us have biases, that is why we have an NPOV policy. What is more important is that contributors to articles be well-informed and willing to do research, and not use the talk page to make claims that are false and clearly reflect an unwillingness to do research. All you need to do is look up "annointed" in a Greek dictionary, Skribb - is that too much to ask you to do before you assert a point here? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Skribb writes, "it happened to me." What happened? do you think you have come up against some Christian cabal? You have not. You have come up against editors who respect serious research (whether it coincides with their own views or not) and not fringe, crank theories. There are many serious historians who have written about Jesus. Cascioli and Carotta are not among them. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is everyone fannying around with the truth. Anyone who disputes the historicity of Julius Ceaser doesn't get a mention on his page, so why, when there is more evidence for a historical Jesus than Henry VIII or Julius Ceaser, does this get a mention on Jesus' page. Also, why is his divinity questioned, when he rose from the dead? Why is existence of a creator God (which Jesus was) questioned when we live in a created world? What unbelieving times we live in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erf28 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 May 2006.

Wikipedia is not about truth. Please read our NPOV policy carefully. Your above statement suggests you do not understand it. If you make many edits in ignorance of our NPOV policy, you will eventually be reverted several times. If you want to contribute to this project, please learn why truth is not the issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the obvious nonsense from Erf28, how on earth is there more evidence for Jesus than for Henry VIII (!!!) or even Julius Caesar? That's completely absurd. There's tons and tons and tons of contemporary material from the time of Henry VIII. Less true of Caesar, but we actually have surviving examples of Caesar's own writings, as well as other contemporary writings which mention Caesar, like those of Sallust and Cicero. Can't we just ignore people who demonstrate their complete ignorance of the topic at hand? (And this obviously applies to idiot atheists like Skribb, too - Jesus a Greek title, indeed). john k 19:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Criminals category

I added this article to Category:Criminals. This is not an attempt to start a flamewar or to troll; by all contemporary accounts (and even The Bible), Jesus broke Roman laws through His religious teachings. Adding this article to this category is not a justification of his execution, but rather an objective categorization of the page. Just wanted to clear this up so that my action wasn't dismissed as derogatory. Jeff Silvers 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which laws? A.J.A. 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy, at least as defined by those who persecuted Him. Once again, I'd like to point out that this isn't an attempt to justify His treatment; I'm merely stating that he did, indeed, break established law. Jeff Silvers 04:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about it... would "Disputed convictions" perhaps be a better category? The question that needs to be answered is this: Did Jesus' actions constitute a crime under Roman law? If so, he belongs in the criminal category; if not, then perhaps disputed convictions is more fitting. Jeff Silvers 05:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy wasn't a crime under Roman law. That's why Pilate "washed his hands". A.J.A. 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked into it further and discovered that He was actually accused of what amounts to disturbing the peace, ordering His follows to not pay taxes to Ceasar, and proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah. The Bible claims He was entirely innocent of the first two. I'm an atheist, so for me, The Bible isn't enough to convince me He was innocent (nor do I know if He was guilty), but it's certainly enough to make His conviction "disputed." I've removed the criminals category and replaced it with disputed criminals. Jeff Silvers 05:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed convictions is much better. A.J.A. 05:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who believe Jesus lived, there is virtually no doubt that he was crucified. This means that he was found guilty of a crime. Most critical historians believe this crime was sedition. Now, Wikipedia is not about "truth," the question is not whether he "really" was a criminal. It is not the place of Wikipedia to declare whether Mumia Abu-Jamal, for example, was "really" guilty. But Abu-Jamal was convicted of a crime. Similarly, many people, including historians, do believe Jesus was convicted of a crime. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed criminals" seems fair to me :/. Homestarmy 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have problems with the implication that there are undisputed criminals or that being a criminal is bad. What King a criminal when in the Birmingham jail? If so, I applaud his breaking of the law. Ditto Ghandi. Sometimes the world needs a criminal. To me, to call Jesus a "disputed criminal" is to day "disputed good guy." Well, maybe that is what you mean. Maybe some people think Jesus should not have broken any laws. I guess to keep NPOV ... on the other hand, don't we take it for granted that "criminal" is always necessarily from one point of view? In other words, to call someone a criminal is not the same thing as to call them an animal or a vegetable. "Criminal" is always from a particular POV. Criminal is always disputed (most people in prison say they are innocent). So isn't "disputed criminal" redundent? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me the dispute is over whether Jesus literally broke any laws of the Roman empire or whether it was just a set up of sorts. I mean Pilate seemed really reluctant to execute Him. "Criminal" is a somewhat loaded term, and while I agree that in many contexts the word "Criminal" can have quite positive connotations, im not so certain that the positive connotation is nearly universal or anything. Homestarmy 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not know how Pilate really felt as we have divergent accounts of Pilate. All who agree Jesus exist, however, agree that he was executed by crucifiction. Just or unjust, this is punishment for violation of some law. I think that what is important - in terms of classifying/providing a link - is that Jesus was not murdered by an individual or group of individuals, or even assassinated, but was executed by the state. Now, we can argue as to whether wikipedia should have links for people who are classified according to how they died. But if we are to have such categories, I think it makes sense to have classes like, died of illness, died of accident, was murdered (apolitical), was assassinated (political), was exscuted (by the state). Jesus clearly falls under the final category, whatever the reasons for the execution or their merits may have been. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• For comparison, the article List of convicted or indicted religious leaders says:

In the cases of early religious leaders there are also issues of documentation, the lack of religious freedom, and the definition of crime that would make their inclusion problematic. Hence it seems wise to limit it to founders or leaders convicted or indicted after 1880.

Paul of Tarsus, Saint Peter, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Michael Servetus, Patrick Hamilton (martyr), Jan Hus, Hugh Latimer etc. are not included in the criminals category. Neither is John Bunyan, who was never executed but spent a lot of time in jail for preaching without a licence and preached out the window from his cell. Neither is Martin Luther King, Jr., BTW. A.J.A. 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I never meant to insinuate that being a criminal is a bad thing. Criminal is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime. The categorization boils down to whether Jesus' actions actually constituted a crime under Roman law or whether he was executed by the state because they viewed him as a threat. Since there seems to be varying opinions on that subject, "disputed convictions" is probably a better category for this article than criminals. Jeff Silvers 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology"?

I can't spot the diff, but it looks like somebody changed the intro to put in "Christian Mythology" what ever that means. Wouldn't being the central figure of Christianity sort of make saying the "Center of Christian Mythology" redundant? And when did that neutrality tag appear, who wants to debate whether the article is neutral or not? Homestarmy 03:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)