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.

Muslim "Scholars" a misnomer

Muslim "scholars" do not debate the crucifixtion of Jesus, they simply believe it because it's in the Quran. It isn't scholarly, nor did they come to such a conclusion through scholarly work. It would be sufficient to say Muslims do not believe in the crucifixtion because the Quran says so. They have no historical records other than two holy books, and a choice to believe in the one they see fit to come to a "scholarly" conclusion. This needs to be changed, it's just plain stupid. Jesus like Christian "scholars" do not debate a fact they believe in the Bible, it is not debatable, it is written in stone, so to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.231.144 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 January 2009

New edits, Leadwind's revert

Stevertigo, you have some interesting points but need citations to back up your work. I'm reverting your recent edits, including your expansion of the first paragraph. Let's work together more. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that. What I do object to is people such as yourself using the revert button to undo legitimate and constructive changes, based on a technicality.

I made two separate changes in separate edits; the first was to the lede, in correcting the inaccurate statement that the "incarnation of God" doctrine was a part of Christianity. It is not. It is the core concept within the Nicene Creed that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are in substance the same being. While the majority of Christian denominations subscribe to the creed, others do not, and disagreement varies, and related controversy is typically diminished. In order to correct the way the sentence is formed, I simply put the "incarnation" concept in context. Certainly one could argue that the concept of "incarnation" preceeds the creed in the Bible itself, but the passages which are said to support this are vague and only interpreted to indicate that concept; attributing or defining this concept as part as a Nicene concept is necessary.

The entirely separate second issue is a short treatment of the apparent controversy that we discussed above dealing with the name Yeshua as an accurate transliteration of Jesus. It will be sourced, certainly. But keep in mind that its a very general treatment; one which is handled in detail by the Yeshua and Yeshu articles. -Stevertigo 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Yeshua transliteration is controversial, and certain Hebrew scholars have disputed its etymological derivation as an inaccurate reconstruction. Hebrew Midrash appears to support the use of Yeshua —the name Yeshu ha-Notzri directly translates as "Jesus the Nazarene." But the term Yeshu has certain anti-Christian meaning, and this fact complicates using these texts as the basis for the name's Hebrew etymology.

The Chinaman is not the issue here

Um, at present we are not actually talking about the Yeshua transliteration for the simple reason that I removed it and made little reference to it. What we are dealing with is the edits to the lede that deal with the Nicene concepts of incarnation and the trinity, not to mention the inappropriate elevation of Islam in imporance with reference to Jesus. I greatly appreciate your response above, and I will get to it, but for the moment let's please deal with your actions of the past couple hours; reverting my edits to the lede without so much as a comment let alone an explanation. -Stevertigo 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, please play nicely with the other editors. Leadwind (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am. For one, I am actually talking on the talk page, and commenting each edit I make in complete detail. The "other editors" are not, and thus are acting like ninjas rather than editors. Because they are not communicating, I can and probably should go ahead and undo their reverts ad nauseam until they start being responsive and CIVIL. Otherwise their edits can be regarded as OWN, and I can just ignore them. They aren't actually communicating, so what else can I do? -Stevertigo 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is never the only option that you have. Make a Request for Comment to solicit a broader set of opinions. Or just walk away from the situation and spend a couple days in a completely different area of the encyclopedia before returning with a fresher perspective and a calmer approach. You are not being forced to edit war; you are choosing that path, and if you continue on it, you will find yourself blocked, regardless of how anyone else is acting. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like I came in too late. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to compliment Stevertigo on a magnificent use of the "Chinaman" phrase. Top quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.79.173 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lead paragraph

I once again stepped in and changed the sentence on the Nicene Creed to further clarify what the Nicene Creed is and says. "Confession" may not be as clear as I thought it might be. In modifying the newly added sentence my concern was in making it accurate and NPOV.--Drboisclair (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention the Nicene Creed in the lead because it's more about Christianity that about Jesus, but no big deal. If we mention the NC, I prefer that we name the year 325 for the it because the original creed (no longer in use) defined Jesus as being of one essence with the Father, and 325 is a good year for anyone interested in Church history to learn. It's also shorter and more precise than "fourth century." That said, I'm not going to worry about it because the lead paragraph is pretty good. Leadwind (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was originally supposed to be about the person. The Nicene Creed really shouldn't be here. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You are both right here, but you might want to have something in there about Jesus' being divine and human in Christian orthodoxy. I mean orthodoxy in the general sense.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What is important is that the lead provide a concise (no more than two sentence) and accurate description of what Christians believe about Jesus. My understanding (could be wrong) is that Stevertigo felt that the previous version represented the views of some but not all Christians and somehow his edit restopred NPOV/accuracy, maybe his claim is that not all Christians accept the Nicene Creed. My suggestion is to compare Stevertigo's original edit with the previous version and ask: which is more accurate and more clear? and then Can this be phrased any more concisely? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is actually true as there are Arians around [1]. Best to paint Jesus in broad strokes, I think. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate broad strokes in general because they reduce the amount of information in the text, and the lead in particular has a duty to be packed with information. It's better to give a clear description of what most Christians believe than a vague description of what's believed by all Christians, including unorthodox and minority traditions. Leadwind (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually disagree: the lead paragraph should be a broad preamble, by way of introduction, to the article (which will deals with the subject in a detailed, structured fashion which is outside the scope of the lead paragraph). --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with that, but will everyone else be? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version is fine. I disagree with Leadwind's view, and note that his characterization of "the original creed" (was there one?) "defined Jesus as being of one essence with the Father." The term "essence" here can be interpreted in a number of ways, such that the meaning is lost if you don't qualify it and describe the concept. Arius, for example explained his concept (as "purpose") to indicate that they (Jesus and God) were basically on the same page, not that they were one being. Even the "one being" concept of Nicene Christianity is itself too problematic to treat here, but that is why its necessary to directly attribute the dominant view to the creed. Its a matter of being clear - something Leadwind appears to support, but also in a certain way contradict, by removing information that clarifies the issue. Is that what you assert Leadwind? Because you state "the lead in particular has a duty to be packed with information." and yet, because "it's better to give a clear description of what most Christians believe" you want to remove "what's believed by all Christians, including unorthodox and minority traditions." Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you did say "I wouldn't mention the Nicene Creed in the lead because it's more about Christianity that about Jesus" which is a bit.. inconsistent with a number of concepts. "If we mention the NC, I prefer that we name the year 325" - this I can agree with - a simple (year 325 CE) suffices. Regards -Stevertigo 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The essence is just a bit outside the scope of the article. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what Stevertigo is saying ... is he saying that the current lead of the article fails to describe mainstream Christian views accurately? Isn't that the only relevant issue here? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): I don't think you need to deal with it, SLR, if you don't understand it. My comment was pretty clear enough. The issue with adding the reference to NC was to qualify the concept of incarnation, "as one substance with the Father..." That was all there was to it. We can get into theological differences later in the article. I think the current version is just about right, considering the problems with how it was before, and not to mention my general understanding of what a good lede should read like. Its not bad. -Stevertigo 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we could debate what mainstream really means.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "mainstream" in this context, is a bit overloaded. We can't use it without qualifying it. Better just to say "dominant statement of the faith"-Stevertigo 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, "Its a matter of being clear - something Leadwind appears to support, but also in a certain way contradict, by removing information that clarifies the issue." For me, being clear is more a matter of information density, how much information there is per line of text. I don't support including most tangential topics, such as the Nicene Creed. That said, if we are going to mention the NC, then I want a concise, informative description of it, so that the lede is packed with information. I oppose vague sentences, often constructed so as not to accommodate minority opinions. I'd rather be clear about what's mostly true than be vague about what's totally true. I'd rather say "Most Christians believe Jesus to be fully God and full man" than say something like "Historically and across the globe, Christians espouse various doctrines about Jesus' divinity and humans identity." I'd rather leave out the Nicene Creed because reference to it doesn't much help one understand what most Christians believe about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And I blieve in simplicity - not simple ideas, just simple language - in the lead. But with this noted, I agree with everything else Leadwind wrote. If people can agree to a straightforward and direct statement of what is mainstream (majority, all major denominations) view, I woud prefer that over a vague or weasel word sentence. I just think that the details about the complex divisions and debates among Christians belong in the Christianity or Christology articles. I have an idea - write a sentence that provides links to those articles! Thatway people who want to learn more about what Christians think can do so with a mouse-click, and we keep this article focused on Jesus rather than Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I still would prefer to see more concise language than what Leadwind has suggested. For example, instead of saying, "Christians believe that Jesus was fully and God and fully man", I would suggest saying simply, "Christians believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God." The fully God and fully man line is fairly incomprehensible to readers unaccustomed to Christian doctrines. Simplicity first while rejecting the unique turn of phrases found within Christianity. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: the "fully God and fully man" distinction matters very much in re the crucifixion -- where he could be only fully man for the crucifixion to make any sense. Also "Son of God" would cover the divinity issue as Christianity has no demigods (unless one counts angels, saints and Mary). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, while I support your position in general, I think that we should state the orthodox view, even though it's wrong. It's useful information to the reader to know that Christians mostly see Jesus as both God and man. It's true that the first Christians weren't Trinitarians, but now they mostly are. Furthermore, most religions have much more modest estimations of their central figures, while Christians have, since the 4th century, defined Jesus as not only the image of God (Biblical wording) but as sharing God's very essence. That's worth calling out. Lots of holy men have been "Son of God," but how many have been Person Two of the Trinity? One. Leadwind (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Interpost) " I think that we should state the orthodox view, even though it's wrong". Might want to look up the meaning of orthodox .... not sure what you were trying to say but you ended up with a paradox. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I always support taking the majority position regardless of the article; doing anything less misguides readers. We should take the orthodox position, but can't the orthodox position be stated in several different ways? I personally seek for a different way to describe the orthodox position than "fully man and fully God." That statement skates over what is really being stated and readers who don't know much about Christianity are going to be puzzled by it. Avoid buzz words and yet state the principle in as simple a form as possible. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As to cutting the length of the sentence that quotes the Nicene Creed: the descriptive subordinate clause on what it is and its date could be omitted, relying on the linking to the article on the Creed to provide that information. As a church historian I would differ with Leadwind when he says that Christians before Nicaea (325) were not Trinitarians. The New Testament teaches the doctrine of the Trinity on the foundation of Matthew 28:19, and the Apostolic Fathers were certainly Trinitarian. It is the views of the 2nd and 3rd century thinkers like Origen, who might not be considered Trinitarians. Of course, it remained for the 4th century for the church to confess the faith of the New Testament in the Triune God. Of course, this is only a majority POV because there are the revisionists, who would disagree with me. Of course, too, Jesus' deity can be an issue separated from the doctrine of the Trinity to some extent. The New Testament specifically calls him "God." The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly enunciated in the New Testament, but the deity of Jesus is. You then can say, too, that the New Testament very clearly identifies Jesus as truly human as well. The consensus of Chritianity is that he is fully human and fully divine at the same time.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, sorry, but I'd rather use a more descriptive and distinct phrase ("fully God and fully man") than a vaguer phrase ("Son of God"). As for readers getting confused, the term Son of God actually leads the naive viewer to the wrong idea, that most Christians consider Jesus to be separate from Heavenly Father. It must be galling for Triniarianism to get top billing just because it's orthodox, but as long as there's a clear orthodox statement we should state it: "fully God and fully man." Leadwind (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DrB, if we mention the Nicene Creed we have a duty to describe it. As for Trinitarians before 325, I'd love for you to cite something for us about early Christian Trinitarians. They might have talked about Father, Son, and Spirit, but their views would be heretical by Nicene standards. My cites are that the Trinity is a post-New Testament doctrine (Harris), and that the 2nd century Apologists considered the Logos to be distinct from God (Oxford). As for the New Testament, I'm sure Storm Rider can back me up when I say it calls Jesus the image of God, the mediator between God and man, the Christians' high priest, the firstborn of all creation, the Son begotten not eternally but in time, who became lower than the angels and earned divine exaltation by his obedience and sacrifice. Leadwind (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In the New Testament you have Matthew 28:19: "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"; Jesus Christ is also called "God" (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13; and 1st John 5:20-21). The New Testament gives all of the dots that are then connected by the Nicene bishops. The revisionism that has begun in the latter part of the last century takes issue with this and considers even Gnosticism a legitimate claimant to "authentic Christianity." The only one that was indeed considered a heretic by the Second Council of Constantinople (553) was ORIGEN.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I certainly support stating the orthodox, majority position, it is true I have a personal dislike of illogical statements. The mystery of fully man and fully God is beyond human understanding. For a matmatician by training it is vexing and does not follow logic. Lead, I will accept your statement realizing that my personal preference is not more than that. Anything pre 325 will get confusing and demand a more in depth discussion than the topic warrants. Can't we limit statments to when the majority postion is/was beyond question? --^StormRider 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand Leadwind's comment. Does he think it heretical to hold that the Logos is distinct from God? The penny catechism (when something could still be bought for a penny) said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "really distinct and equal in all things". Soidi (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Apologists viewed the Logos not as God but as an intermediary between God and man. It's hard to demonstrate that any particular writer contradicted the Trinity because the Trinity so readily accepts contradictions: fully man yet fully God, three distinct persons yet one being, eternal yet acting in time, etc. But if you can find a historian who thinks the Apologists or other writers before 325 depicted Jesus as fully God in the Trinitarian sense, I'd love to see it. Leadwind (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See [2]. Hardyplants (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that this page is not meant for theological debates re the "truth", which is precisely what it has become. (I'll keep me own opinions to meself on the debate itself). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. So, unless an attempt is made to insert into the article the idea (which I can't find in "Oxford") that the Apologists held the Logos to be only an intermediary between God and man, I'll say nothing about the identifying of Jesus with the Old Testament appearances of the LORD. Soidi (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, how detailed do we have to get to do justice to the mainstream Christian view? I agree that whatever we say must be (1) accurate) and (2) apply to the vast majority of Christians i.e. all major sects, denominations, congregations or Churches. But with these two criteria in mind, it should also be be (3) as simple and concise and accessible (meaning, it will make some sense to non-Christians or have links taking them to where they need to go for more detail) as possible. If we can all agree in princple at least on these criteria, how about this:

also known as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God.

This matches the third criteria I set forth. If you feel it does not match the other two please propose something but also, please conform to the third criteria. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Soidi (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - concise, linked and works. --^StormRider 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - it expresses what Christianity believes to be important about Him.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Let's delete all the material related to the Nicene Creed. Christology is handled in the lead two paragraphs down. Leadwind (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) *Support - It’s clear and correct, and the terms are linked where they can be covered in detail on those pages. The information in the lead should be covered in more detail in the body - without turning the intro into a theological or overly historical study. Hardyplants (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a few active editors who have not yet weighed in, but if all you guys agree I'd say we have a consensus or awfully close. I do not mind if one of you makes the change; alternatively we can wait and see if Andrew, Jim or Hardy have any complaints and then make the change. But I wish we could all put this to rest! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will be bold and make the change, if Andrew or Jim have a problem we can discuss it, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, very nice job of NPOV -- covers the points while ascribing them perferctly. Sorry I was larte in responding but my daughter broke her foot .... she needs a guy with a beard to rub her foot with mud and say ephphatha .... well, another Aramaic word, anyway. LOL. •Jim62sch•^dissera!

Its wrong. Its imprecise. Its not correct. Saying most Christians that belong to a denomination which has historical allegiance to Nicene-based doctrines must therefore believe that "Jesus is God," is like saying all Catholics must be against birth control because the Pope says its a sin. IIRC, something like 80% of card-carrying Catholics not only disagree with the above concept, but they actually disregard it. Some people here have been quite quick to assert how certain religious attitudes can be varied, nuanced, and sophisticated - why is regard for that nuance not considered acceptable here?-Stevertigo 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, it sounds as though your point is that plenty of Christians don't buy the Jesus=God doctrine even when it's foundational to their denominations' creeds. If that's the case, please find a source that says so. Leadwind (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, many editors discussed this a couple of years ago and reached a consensus. You made an edit against that consensus. We (including people who were not here a couple of years ago for the last consensus) discussed the edit for a week, a full week, and reached a consensus to go back to the, er, old consensus version. You can spew all you want about how wrong it is, but wy don't you try showing some respect for your fellow editors instead? We left your edit there unreverted for a week and discussed it. None of the people who really helped build this into a great article are pursuaded by your arguments. Time to move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Burkbraun's comments on Jesus Myth section/bias

[note, moved from the to-do list by Andrew c ^[talk] 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]

I think the Jesus myth section is rather biased in its blanket statement that most or all scholars accept the historical Jesus and dismiss myth hypotheses. Most or all scholars interested in the area are Christians, as shown by every single reference cited in the section to support this contention. What then would one expect out of such a devotional viewpoint? The sampling is hopelessly biased, being self-selected. One unaffiliated, skeptical, and discerning analyst is worth a hundred apologetic ones.

It would be more appropriate to say that we have no evidence for Jesus's existence outside of what is internal to the tradition- the people who propagated the nascent faith and the documents they produced- all well after the time about which they wrote (including the interpolations to Josephus and all the rest...).

Thus the fair conclusion of the page should be while it is likely that these traditions trace back to a real person, there is no independent evidence to that effect, and indeed quite a few lacunae where evidence should exist. And the many correspondences to other mythical traditions floating around the Jewish and Mediterranean worlds of the time make the majority of key elements of this tradition quite suspect as to their historicity.

Note that all this needs to be presented in a probabilistic manner- this is not a question of refuting X, or being sure of Y, but of recognizing the lack of solid data either way.

http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html etc. etc... Burkbraun (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There appears no reason not to quote these scholars. Broad, unreferenced statements asserting facts should be tagged for citation requests. I see no problem with just following standard Wikpedia editing policies. --^StormRider 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have done a great job of providing the significant views from notable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The link provided above seems to be no more than an essay with a name that may be a pun.

On the other hand, our one footnoe, "^ "…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200. 1977 " is illogical and possibly very POV (which is OK, if a source with a competing POV were to be inserted). But then again, the answer to Jesus' real existence will never be found based on anything other than extrapolation. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jesus-Myth hypothesis is discredited even among mainstream, nonsectarian scholars, not because the scholars are Christian but because there's every reason to believe he lived (as a mortal man). Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To be accurate: they believe there was at least a basis in a real person who became the myth. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have been over to the disjointed mess that is Jesus myth hypothesis you will see that there is a lot of confusion as to what the Christ myth theory even is. The biggest problem is that different authors use different definitions for the term. Remsburg's and Dodd's definitions include a historical person with other says it only refers to the idea Jesus never existed. In short the literature on this is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the title "Son of Man"

No mention in this article of Jesus referring to himself as "the son of man". He refers to himself by that title at least 30 times in the gospels! The number of times it appears and the context in which it appears should have been reason enough to include somewhere in this article. What significance does it have with regard to his claim of Messiahship and being the Son of God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.135.200 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Geza Vermes has strong evidence that this is not a title. The question is addressed in the linked article on the names and titles of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Jesus was calling himself Son of Man, the apocalyptic figure from Daniel, but Christians sure do use that term as a title for Jesus. I have wanted to see more information about "Son of Man" in the article. It probably belongs in the gospels section, because in the gospels Jesus sure does refer to himself as the apocalyptic Son of Man. Plus a treatment in the Names & Titles section. Leadwind (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He certainly does refer to himself as The Son of Man in the gospels, and he uses it to show his authority over the preciding legal views of the Rabbinic culture, not to mention the Decalogue itself. Reference: Matt 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 12:40, etc.70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Refers to himself, by my count, at least 80 times in the gospels.70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Geza Vermes has strong evidence that this is not a title. The question is addressed in the linked article on the names and titles of Jesus.Slrubenstein | Talk 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems more of a sobriquet, frequently found in the deliberate misuse of the Greek word Ιχθυς, which is aleeged to stand for Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ, Jesus Christ, of God, the Son, Saviour. Seems odd that no one ever came up for one for "piscis" -- it could have been easily done. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, slightly different, my bad. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Son of Man (a Biblical figure) has authority over the Decalogue? Interesting theory. Presumably part of Antinomianism. 68.123.73.253 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR, when Vermes says that it's not a title, is referring to how historical Jesus used it or to how the gospel writers used it? This article could address both. Leadwind (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Vermes' argument is that it goes back to the Aramaic of Jesus, which then got altered when it went into the Greek of the NT, or parallels were made by Early Christians between the Greek of the NT and the Greek of the Septuagint. 68.123.73.253 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of - a phrase that had one meaning in Aramaic was translated literally into Greek, where it did not have the same colloquial meaning. This is a common translation problem and the web has many sites with funny examples of translations of English ad slogans into other languages or signs in English in other countries where the meaning gets hopelessly mangled (e.g. when Chevrolet marketed its car, Nova, in Latin AMerica, where "no va" means "doesn't go"). Anyway, a good deal of the article on Names and Titles was - like many other articles on Jesus - originally part of this article and spun off when Jesus got to big. Vermes looks at every other known use of "son of man" in Hebrew or Aramaic literature from the period (e.g. 100 BCE to 200 CE) and sees that it is used as a rhetorical device to refer to one's self; apparently it was considerd bad form ot just wasn't colloquial to say "I" or "me." You know how some people today refer to themselves in the third person and it drives everyone nuts? Vermes concludes that that is how people in Palestine felt about the first person, and in certain situations it was just considered bad form, and people would use the phrase "son of man" as a polite way of saying "me" or "I". I think this is all explained in the article we have linked to the section on "titles of Jesus." I find Vermes scholarship very very impressive; his methods are very sensible and he applies them thoroughly. I regretted it when the material representing his research was removed from this article. But it realy was a size issue, not a POV issue. (that said, since that article was spun off, I thionk it has become a mess, mixing up original research with research based on verifiable sources; mixing up theological and historical views, etc. But I put enough work into it and just can't keep cleaning it up. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SLR. I buy that historical Jesus meant "I" or "a human" when he said "Son of Man." But the evangelists clearly make him out to be referring to himself as the "son of man," a divine figure of judgment, an echo of Daniel. The phrase deserves both a historical and a religious treatment, for its two competing interpretations. Leadwind (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need some verifiable and reliable sources for that, and the wording will require a "X meant A historically, however, modern evangelists have ascribed a secondary meaning of Y" type statement. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, all I ever said was, "according to Geza Vermes, it was not a title." Wikipedia should include all significant views from all notable sources. I never objected to adding other significant views from notable, verifiable, and reliable sources ... I just do not know them. I just offered the one thing I do know, that's all! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK; but we'll still need a conditional statement. I was raised as as Lutheran and escaped when I was 13, but I do not recall Son of Man being used as a title in the same way Christ is. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible there could be a view on philosophical view as Jesus is one of the most important characters to study in modern Philosophy. Thank you. 6 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective33 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything is posible! hey, we would love for you to help us edit Wikipedi! But we can include only significant views from notable sources. You can become an editor by doing the research for your own question! Here is my advice; look for college textbooks on philosophy, or reviw articles on modern philosophy published in peer-reviewed journals for philosophers and by philosophers, and find out hat modern philosophers consider to be the most important people to study as part of modern philosophy! That would be useful research! Then if you find out jesus is on the mjor lists, we can say that. or you may find he is not, and may discover who the most important modern philosophers are! That would be important research too! Slrubenstein | Talk 06:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my theory" when I said he uses the title "son of man" to state his authority over the Decalogue itself. One example:The statement, "For the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day"(Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5) is pretty emphatic, and is one of the reasons, as it is recorded in the gospels, why the preciding religious community was apparently shocked and appalled. They viewed him as a "blasphemer" and a threat to the norm. It's certainly not implied in any sense in the gospels. How does that title relate to the view in the Book of Enoch(1 Enoch, Ethiopic Enoch)? Whether you buy into those particular chapters in Enoch predating or postdating the gospels, it's still there, in your face. Son of Man in Enoch is simply not used as a rhetorical device or a figure of politeness. Rather, it is used as a title of a messianic figure.70.19.135.200 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It may help if you cite scholars who are making these interpretations. Surely, just because something is written in the Gospels, doesn't mean the historical Jesus necessarily said it, right? So how do we know if something is authentic? We go to our sources. So what are sources saying about this? Where are you getting your interpretations? If you don't have sources, then we can't add your suggestions to the article per WP:NOR. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

70.19.135.200 may want to check out Biblical law in Christianity. It's only a minority of Christians who believe the Ten Commandments have been superseded. 75.15.197.128 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the point I was trying to make was sidetracked or I did not explain it sufficiently. Originally, I had said that the title "Son of Man" did not receive any mention in this article. I was wrong, sort of. It receives one sentence. That being the case, consider that the word "Christ" appears 60 times within the four gospels, and the phrase or title "Son of Man" appears more than 80 times. I strongly feel that "Son of Man" deserves much more of an explanation than the single line given to it. At a minimum, a paragraph would be sufficient in the context of this article. No?70.19.135.200 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some controversy over how to translate and interpret "sone of man." This article used to include an account of that debate, but this article grew too big. We now have a separate article on the names and titles of Jesus, and a separate article even on just the phrase, son of man. So there are two entire Wikipedia articles that cover this issue. There is no need to return to this article material that was removed because it is too long. That material did not disappear, it is a link-click away. Or type into the search box names and titles of Jesus, or son of man. It is so easy for you to find, there is no point in discussing it any further here. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add something here. The Aramaic phrase: "Bar Nasha" is a very common everyday term which literally means "human nature". Gabr-el 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To put slr's query more crudely: what the fuch does "son of man" mean? Are the 6.6 bn of us here on this planet included, excluded, transcluded or just clouded by this gibberish. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the son of man article? -Stevertigo 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys think I'm talking out of my ass. Here's one source, one scholar for you...R.H.Charles, British Biblical scholar:

-The Son Of Man And Its Meaning In Jewish Apocalyptic And In The New Testament -Book Of Enoch:Together With Reprint Of Greek Fragments p.307 "Its (Son of Man) import in the New Testament, this title(emphasis mine), with its supernatural attributes of superhuman glory, of universal dominion and supreme judicial powers, was adopted by (Jesus). The Son of Man has come down from heaven, John 3:13(cf 1 Enoch 48:2); he is the Lord of the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; can forgive sins, Matt 9:6; and all judgement is commited unto him, John 5:22,27(cf 1 En9:27). But while retaining its supernatural associations, this title(emphasis mine) underwent transformation that all Pharasaic ideas, so far as he adopted them, likewise underwent. And just as his kingdom in general formed a standing protest against the prevailing Messianic ideas of temporal glory and dominion, so the title(emphasis mine)"Son of Man" assumed a deeper spiritual significance..." You want more?70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another source -[3]. Hardyplants (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some controversy over how to translate and interpret "sone of man." This article used to include an account of that debate, but this article grew too big. We now have a separate article on the names and titles of Jesus, and a separate article even on just the phrase, son of man. So there are two entire Wikipedia articles that cover this issue. There is no need to return to this article material that was removed because it is too long. That material did not disappear, it is a link-click away. Or type into the search box names and titles of Jesus, or son of man. It is so easy for you to find, there is no point in discussing it any further here. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's understandable that the account of the debate over "Son of Man" got moved to a separate article. However, I think this article should have a summary of that debate. In fact, the relevant passage in the Son of Man article is only the two paragraphs from the section titled "Christian interpretation" and should, IMO, be included in this article.

Some argue that the phrase son of man took on Messianic significance within the Christian movement primarily due to the Jewish eschatology during the time of its early conception. These people originate the phrase in the book of Daniel, in a vision, one like a son of man is described coming upon the clouds of the sky to unite the world. Contenders point out that the phrase "the son of man" and "one like a son of man" are not the same and that in Daniel 8 the phrase "son of man" is translated as merely "mortal" therefore the eschatology is added later.

As a result, some Christians believe that the New Testament's, primarily the Gospels, usage of the son of man eighty-three times represents an apocalyptic title of Jesus. Some scholars and Christians have argued that the apocryphal tradition of this phrase even goes back to Jesus, himself, though not necessarily as a phrase Jesus used as a reference to himself but rather another figure alluded to in Daniel 7:13. Other scholars and Christians believe Jesus did not use the phrase, originally, as a title at all and that he used it primarily to refer to humanity generally. The phrase then became reworked toward an apocryphal slant Later, especially during the medieval ages, Christians interpreted it as Jesus showing humility Still other Christians believe the title is meant to signify Jesus upholding his identification with his humanity and fellowship with mankind, perhaps also conveying the idea that Jesus is the man par excellence. In this last context it serves as putting humans and Jesus on the same level.

--Richard (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I'm with you. When a section gets so long that it's spun off, a summary should remain on the main page. The summary you quote is good. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk auto-archiving

Would auto archiving be useful here? -Stevertigo 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think so Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The config is kept at the top of this page. I've set the archive size to 200K (the last one was well over this). There will be 5 threads left on the page after each archiving sweep. These can be changed, if needed. -Stevertigo 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed at Nativity of Jesus

Outside input is requested at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a section, The narratives compared, which is a table showing the differences in detail between the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Questions have been raised as to whether it should be included. Concerns include original research, novel synthesis, and dependence upon primary sources. The table can be seen at this version of the page: [4]. Opinions concerning whether it should be included at all (given its current state, as well as the "Nativity as myth" section, which addresses discrepancies in the narratives), and if so, then in its current state, or beefed up with references, or converted to prose, are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who respond at the talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

John on baptism and temptation

Two editors do not want our "gospels" section to tell the reader what all four gospels say abut Jesus' baptism and temptation. They want the article to relate only what the synoptics say and delete reference to what John says (or doesn't say), even when the information is cited. We have a section called "baptism and temptation." Naturally this section should tell the reader what the gospels, all of them, say on this topic. I can understand why a Christian might not want this article to point out differences between John and the synoptics, but I can't think of a good WP reason to exclude this information. Anyone? Leadwind (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the context. Any diffs you could cite? I mean, I have my own opinions about John (the gospel and the author (whoever he was)), but I'm not able to conjure up any objections out of thin air, so if you could offer a little background, it might help. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's basically been the only edit activity on this article for the last couple days. Here is one diff. But I believe there have been 3 reverts on each side...-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been deleting the fact that John says nothing about the aforesaid topics. Wikipedia should report information, not the absence of information. We should only say that John doesn't mention the baptism & temptation if there is a contradiction (there isn't!) or that there is some strong significance (is there?, and who says so?). ^rossnixon 02:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For arguments sake, why? As someone not feeling strongly either way, your argument isn't that convincing (please, no offense intended), so perhaps you could explain it a little more.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ross, does your analysis derive from a WP policy? I get suspicious when someone starts deleting information from a page. I'd rather a page have more information than less. Deleting information is sometimes (not always) the mark of someone defending a POV, especially when there's no policy issue at stake. Leadwind (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to delete non-information, as non-information does not inform us and just makes an article longer. This article is already lengthy, which is OK given the importance of the subject, but I just don't see the point of unnecessary padding. If there is a good reason to say the information is missing, please let me know what it is. Thanks. ^rossnixon 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would agree with Ross that commenting on what a source does not say is risky business. However, this sort of thing (what a gospel does not say) is the very stuff of Biblical analysis. It is precisely the difference between the Gospel of John and the synoptic gospels that makes the synoptic gospels synoptic. And it is what makes the Gospel of John unique. Entire volumes have been written about the interpretation of these differences. Now, we should not be doing Biblical analysis ourselves but it is reasonable for us to report what Biblical scholars have noted about what each gospel says and does not say. I would be in favor of restoring the text that Ross reverted as long as it is cited to a reliable secondary source. (i.e. not to the gospel itself which is a primary source but to a reliable New Testament scholar which is what was done in the text that was reverted). --Richard (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edit in question and I find it to be unobjectionable. I think Ross' objection is one of principle rather than that this particular edit is saying anything objectionable. As was commented in the edit summaries, this kind of observation is very common in Biblical commentaries. This article is not the place for a long discourse on why the Gospel of John is different from the synoptics. Entire volumes have been written about that and the right place to mention this is the article on the Gospel of John. For this article, what is appropriate is to make a passing reference to some of the differences such as the edit in question makes. --Richard (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ross,

Actually, it is widely considered by Biblical scholars that each of the four gospels has a different "take" on the subject of Jesus' ministry. Another way of putting this is that each has a different message targeted to a different audience. The following text is taken from the "Character of Jesus" section of the Jesus article:

Each gospel portrays Jesus' life and its meaning differently. The gospel of John is not a biography of Jesus but a theological presentation of him as the divine Logos. To combine these four stories into one story is tantamount to creating a fifth story, one different from each original.

Mark presents Jesus as a heroic, charismatic man of action and mighty deeds. Matthew portrays him especially as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy and as a greater Moses. Luke emphasizes Jesus' miraculous powers and his support for the poor and for women. John views Jesus' earthly life as a manifestation of the eternal Word.

Each assertion in the article text is cited to one or more reliable sources. I didn't include them here but they are in the article text.

The argument then is that similarities and differences between the gospels are not accidental but are the product of each evangelist having a different "take" on the subject; that is, a different message for a different audience. This is explained more fully in the Gospel article under the section "Content of the Gospels"

The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke). In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony. In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy. In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor. Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community. Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion. Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.

The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming. Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple. He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics.

Once again, this text is heavily cited. I have omitted the citations because they wouldn't show up in the right way on a Talk Page.

I understand that your reversion of the text in question was in good faith but I think that, in this particular instance, you are letting general principles about Wikipedia articles override the current consensus of Biblical scholars.

--Richard (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I added another citation of John not describing the baptism, and it's from a section of text that is specifically addressing how the gospels portray Jesus, which is our topic for the "gospels" section. Leadwind (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why two sources to say that John doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus? Indeed why even one? I'm sorry, I just don't get the significance of the insistence that John does not mention the baptism of Jesus. Is it intended to suggest that Jesus was not in fact baptized? Or what other purpose does it serve? Soidi (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, as you well know from your struggles to make a point over at Roman Catholic Church, sometimes excessive citationing is used as a rhetorical weapon to establish a point that other editors refuse to accept. From the point of view of good encyclopedia writing, sometimes the citations are unnecessary, excessive and distracting. This is probably one of those cases. --Richard (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ross on principle. But I believe principles must be applied relative to the context. In this situation, I think Richard has provided a fine analysis and I agree with him in practice. What is the purpose of the section on the Gospel accounts? It cannot be because the Gospel accounts "speak for themselves" about jesus' life, if only because this view, like any view, is a view and Wikipedia is all about presenting all significant views as views, which are "verifiable" but not "true." This is a fundamental principle at Wikipedia and there is no point in debating or even discussing it. Moreover, there are in fact many different views about how the Gospels should be interpreted or drawn on to learn anything about Jesus's life and teachings. In my view, this section ought to provide a newtral accout of the "raw material" for all those other significant views. The significant views are summarized in this article and presented at greater langth in other articles (e.g. Christology, Historical Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Our principle shoud be: provide a straightforward account of all elements of the Gospels that these significant views consider salient. For several significant views, that John does not mention Jesus' baptism, and that Mark does not mention his birth, are salient. Therefore these facts should be mentioned - briefly, and with no commentary or interpretation (that, I believe, belongs in other articles). The result will be a summary of the Gospels that readers of any of the linked articles I mentioned could refer back to ... or put it this way, an account of the Gospels that anyone could read, and then go on to read and fully follow any of the linked articles. I am sure that Christian theologians have explanations for why Mark does not mention the birth, or John does not mention the baptism. Those explanations belong in the articles Christology, Mark and John. The basic (descriptive) facts that theologians (and historians) explain should be in this section in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said, I agree wholeheartedly. --Richard (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If John's non-mention of the baptism of Jesus is "significant" (Slrubenstein), it would be helpful if the article indicated why this non-mention is considered more significant than the hundreds of other non-mentions by John. What puzzles me is what "point" (Richarshusr) is it that one editor wants other editors to accept. Does anybody deny that John does not mention the baptism? So I can't believe that the mere non-mention is "the point" that the editor wants to get across. What is it he wants to suggest? Soidi (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Noting, for example, that something is mentioned by Suetonius but not by Tacitus, or by Heroditus but not by Thucydides is standard in the study of history, and as such omissions or inclusions are generally not accidental, they are of great importance in gaining a true picture of the actual history of specific items: hence, John's non-inclusion of the baptism and temptation (among numerous other things) is important. Also of importance would be Paul's non-mention of a virgin birth or the resurrection as portrayed in the synoptics as well as John. •Jim62sch•^dissera!

Paul alludes to Jesus unusual birth twice: Galatians 4:4 "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," and Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." He uses strange phrasings to speak of Jesus birth. If we think this has a place in the article, I can hunt down a scholarly reference or two. Hardyplants (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Paul's allusion that is unusual, at least in the phrasing. Really, though, it is nothing more than a nod to Jesus' proper place in the pantheon (as it were). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem helpful to explain why the omission is of import. The language takes the reader to a position without stating why it is important. I agree that there may be some value to this line of discussion, but this level of detail does not belong in this article.

It is interesting that there are these types of idiosyncrasies within what is perceived as the word of God. The Pauline letters are full of these types of situations that fuel discussions. IMHO, it is evidence that the scriptures are not complete, there was more to say. However, that is meaningless to this article. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I take it you don't read much history?

Also, trying to define why John did not include these two (as well as a number of other) items would likely be a violation of WP:NOR. As the author of John left no working notes of which we are aware, not even historians know precisely why he left them out.

As for detail, as this article already goes into greater detail of a religious sense than a true history really should, I can't see what the addition of pointing out the omission harms. As these two items are rarther important in Christian dogma, it seems to make sense to note that the author of John chose not to include them. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim, are you trying to imply something about me personally? How about we just focus on the article and not what we think of others. Believe me, I have been around long enough to despise this type of infantile stupidity. Soidi asks the right question that remains unanswered, what is the purpose of mentioning it? I continue to hear a lot of talk about why it is important, just answer the question. --^StormRider 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(ex x2)I think you totally missed my point. I have twice explained the reason for mentioning it: as this article is about a historical figure, thus it is a history article, thus and therefore the standard processes used in writing about history should be used. If you read history books (not textbooks) you'll notice a plethora of statements or footnotes that say, for example, "Suetonius does not record this", "Thucydides" records this differently", etc.

Re you personally, I don't know you from a can of paint. If you were offended however by my slight sarcasm, I apologise. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why I include John's omission of the baptism: This section is "what the gospels say about Jesus." This subsection is "what the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation." When I consult my sources about what John, in particular, says about Jesus' baptism and temptation, I see that the gospel omits the baptism, so that information goes in here. The topic is "what do the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation," and this information tells the reader just that. I can't see anything more straightforward than that. On the other hand, a few editors don't want the article to say what John says about Jesus' baptism. Why not? For about 1900 years (since the Diatesseron), Christians have been trying to harmonize the four, different gospels into one, coherent story. Glossing over differences among the gospels is one tactic in this effort. Our gospel section used to be a lot like that, trying to meld the four gospels accounts into one account of what "the gospels" say. And that's a big difference between the traditional Christian POV and the scholarly view: whether there is one account of what "the gospels" say or four accounts, one for each gospel. Leadwind (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, "it is evidence that the scriptures are not complete." Yeah, if only Jesus, after his resurrection, would have gone to some other continent and explained things further. Oh wait... Leadwind (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

According to StormRider, Soidi asks the right question. With all due respect, which question was that? Do you mean the question: "why this non-mention is considered more significant than the hundreds of other non-mentions by John?" What puzzles me is that Soidi asks this question after I amswered it. Let me pose a comparable question: Why mention any one thing from the Gospels, and not something else? I mean, we have not quoted all four Gospels verbatim. That means we have left stuff out. So why do we include some stuff and not others? This is in essense the same question. And as I say, I have already answered it: our account of the Gospels should be guided by the rest of the Jesus article and linked articles. We have a section on the historical Jesus with links to three articles. Anything concerning the four Gospels that is mentioned in those three articles should go into our section on "...According to the Gospels." We have an article on Christology. Anything in the Gospels refered to in that article should go into the section. In other words, our articles that provide interpretations of Jesus or Jesus Christ should guide what goes into the section on the Gospel accounts. Any element of the Gospels that is subject to interpretation by any of the viewpoints covered in our linked articles should go into the section on the Gospels. Now, why mention one thing that John does not say, and not all the other stuff John does not say? Because this particular difference has been noted and interpreted by significant views in notable sources and is covered in linked articles. ANY of the countless differences that are subject to interpretation by a notable source in one of our linked articles should be mentioned in the "Gospel" section. Why not include ALL the differences? because I do not know that any notable view covered in any of the linked articles interprets every difference. The Gospels are important because they are primary sources for notable viewsd that interpret them. Those notable views refer to specific items in specific Gospels ... and elements found in multiple Gospels ... and differences between Gospels. All this stuff, as long as it is subject to interpretation by a signficant viewpoint in a notable source that is mentioned in one of the linked articles that are summarized in the Jesus article should go in. Isn't this a simple and commonsensical principle? Anything that is not subject to interpretation by notable sources does not go in. Again, seems like a simple, commonsensical principle that is NPOV and meets our notability standards. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead, you make me chuckle; thanks. Sl, I am not sure we are disagreeing with one another. If there is a significant reason identified by a reliable source that explains the significance of this ommission, then it may make sense to include a discussion about it. I would reject a wording that states, Author X notes that John does not include ... whereas the other three gospel all mentioned... If we could instead say, Professor X states that John's omission of ... is significant because ... Does this make sense to you? I certainly support notability, but mere absence is not notable in this article unless there is a meaninng attributed to it. At least, that is my humble opinion. --^StormRider 01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're assuming that there's a nefarious reason for the inclusion of the John non-mention. Note that we state "According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea to Mary, a virgin, by a miracle of the Holy Spirit.", which by default means Mark and John don't. Would you prefer we point this out? Even if we did, the present prose of the baptism and tempation section (not sure why it's one section) is self-explanatory. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To respond to StormRider: as always I think we need to acknowledge the concerns of active contributors to the article. If all major contributors agree that a detal concerning the Gospel's clearly is an object of interpretation, then there is no need to provide a link ot==to the section of this or a linked article that provides the interpretaion(s). If however there is controversy among active contributors about whether a fact about the Gospels is an object ov interpretation, I would have no objection to our including a link to the place in htis or a linked article thar provides interpretations. I do not think that the section "... according to the Gospels" however for the kind of statemtne "According to X, ...." I think the section " ... According to the Gospelsx" should provide a neutral, purely descriptive account of the Gospels (the question we have been discussing is, "which facts about the Gospels do we describe," and my answer has been, "those alements that are objects of interpretation" but the interpretations belong in other sections of the articles and linked articles.

Frankly, I think that this conversation has become trite and indicative of a serious problem: many people - in good faith, I have NO doubt - spend morre time chatting on talk pages than working on articlkes. I have a feeling that there really are LOTS of facts about /of/the Gospels that have been objects of interpreataion by significant scholas publishing in notable sources, and I think our articles barely scratch the surface. Here is what I would like to see: someone sit down with The Anchor Bible and make sure that all major issues it addresses are in our articles on Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I assume that there is something comparable written either by the Church Fathers or the major contemporary churches and someone whould work on adding that material to the articles on the four books AND Christology. I'd like someone else with Vermes, Sanders and others to go ove the articles on the historical Jesus and clarify the relationship between their interpretations and the principal sources (Gospels). Alas, I cannot do it - I already put real time into this stuff, and now have real life work to attend to. But if we had spent the last few days clarifyong the use of specific elements of the Gospel as sources for interpretations among theologians and hisorians, mostly in linked articles, this encyclopedial would be much better AND it would be simple to resolve such disputes as this one Slrubenstein | Talk 05:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found where Slrubenstein had answered, before I asked it, my question about why John's non-mention of the baptism of Jesus is so much more significant than, for instance, his non-mention of Baptist John's proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) or the Baptist's garb and diet (Mark 1:6). The reader of the article is left wondering why the article singles out that particular non-mention. There would be much less puzzlement if it were made clear that this is by no means the only non-mention by John in his gospel, even in the immediate context. However, I won't lose any sleep about the lack of a clear answer to my question about the content of the article. Soidi (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, if I read SLR right, they're saying two things: 1. this particular non-mention deserves citation because it's referred to in RSs as part of their notable interpretations. 2. Could we pretty please spend more time finding RSs and feeding them into articles and less time going round and round on minor points in talk-page discussions? If that's SLR's point, then I concur. There's another reason to include it, I think, and it's that Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist is one of two or three other events that historians are most likely to accept as historical. For a gospel not to mention a true fact is noteworthy. In John, not only is there no baptism scene (as in Luke), but there's no mention of Jesus being baptized at all, and John isn't even "the Baptist." These same sources don't mention John's lack of a Temptation. Why not? Maybe because it's not as historically relevant as treatment of a historical event is. And, as a point of fact, the "per the gospels" section contains lots of instances where John differs from the synoptics, so one more case is going to seem par for the course. Leadwind (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Leadwind of course you read me correctly. My answer to Soidi was quite plain when I answered before he asked on 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC), and repeated my answer at 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC). StormRider understood my point, and you, perhaps Soidi just is not reading what I wrote. We include mention that John does not refer to the baptism (or Mark to the birth) because it is verifiable that it is a significant view found in reliable sources that this absense is considered notable by historians. We do not include "all other things that are not found in John but are found in the synoptics" for the simple reason that historians do not say that all other differences are notable. Soidi, if you can provide me with a verifiable significant view found in areliable source that claims that it is notable that something else is not found in John, well, then of course we should note that in the account of the Gospels! But if you cannot provide me with a verifiable significant view found in areliable source that claims that it is notable that something else is not found in John, well, in this case we could not make note of it in the section on the Gospels. As with any other article, what we include or do not include starts with notable sources presenting significant views, like the historians Leadwind alludes to. Or perhaps Soidi you are confused about this simple point because you have never read any of these sources and thus do not know what they say. But Soidi, if you have not done any meaningful research, why are you even bothering us about this matter? Maybe you should edit articles on topics you are prepared to research? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is silly of me, but the article currently contains:

• Only Luke tells that Jesus was found teaching in the temple by his parents after being lost
• Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus' superiority to John
• John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry, implying that Jesus preached for at least "two years plus a month or two". The Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year.
• In the synoptics, Jesus' ministry takes place mainly in Galilee, until he travels to Jerusalem, where he cleanses the Temple and is executed. In John, Jesus spends most of his ministry in and around Jerusalem, cleansing the temple at his ministry's beginning.
• In John, and not in the synoptics, Jesus is outspoken about his divine identity and mission.

There is probably more... Point being, comparison and contrast is already all over this section of the article, and we specifically mention multiple things that are not found in other gospels. I'm not sure why the John material was so controversial and singled out among all this other stuff. Is anyone considering removing all this other material for the same reason the John/baptism/temptation stuff is objectionable? I'm not saying this is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I'm saying this is the manner we generally have taken in describing four similar, but sometimes conflicting stories. We mention notable places where material is unique, and notable places where material is omitted throughout the section. Is our whole approach problematic? Have the objectors read the entire section and agree with it all except the John/baptism/temptation stuff?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And your post reminds me that I really need to get moving on my "NT Discordance", which I have no doubt will be much bigger than any concordance. Hell, only two of the Gospels partly agree as to what Jesus allegedly said on the cross -- but overall it's a hodge-podge that offers statements that are contradictory in mood. But, I digress. Bottom line is that the approach follows the proper standards of historical writing. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we cannot commit OR - safest way is to peg "notability" to a verifiable source. Makes for a better encyclopedia all around. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being serious in the context of the article -- the discordance is something I've always meant to do since I was a wee lad in Sunday School. I've started it a few times, and then I get bored with the material. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a funny idea ... sorry I was obtuse (Jews generally take discord for granted, so at first glance it sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do or something that would already have been done!) Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Which explains why I admire Judaism more than Christianity -- Jews ask questions because they want answers and are willing to disagree, Christians ask questions (often, they aren't questions but tropes) to prove dogma (see Aquinas and the RCC). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A joke:

Q: Why do Jews always answer a question with a questio?

A: Why not?

Slrubenstein | Talk 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eusebius' understanding of why John's gospel was different was rather simple. When John, in his old age decided to put his memoirs into writing, he decided not to cover what had already been covered. The story was already well known. There would be no point in saying the same things. He gave it a different perspective and added that there was much more that had not been written down..."volumes that would fill the earth" or something to that extent.70.19.135.200 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Caesarion

Cut the uttermost crap already!

Jesus = Ceasarion (Image of Aamon) represented the moon

Judas/barabbas = Alexander Helios (crucified) represented the sun UnionWorker (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)