Talk:Jesus

Archives and Live Subpages

	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, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84.

	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

---

Recent Archive log

• /Archive 71 - Discussions about various images for article; Messianic "Jews" ???
• /Archive 72 - Jesus and India; "commonly referred to."; AD/CE vote
• /Archive 73 - Doctors (Finding in the Temple); Inconsistency?; Lostceasar's Issues
• /Archive 74 - Era notation vote; We have an article called "Evidence of evolution" but...; Denomination; Jesus' Family; central figure to founder; With respect to the section on Gnosticism
• /Archive 75 - I could find no other encyclopedias which denied the existence of Jesus; Forensic reconstruction?; Missing the logic; POV, "Little external documentation" about Jesus according to whom? Also, little is too vague/subjective; Wasn't Jesus Black?
• /Archive 76 - Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus, Christian view, 6th century portrait, Jesus in Japan?, lack of modern historians views, trilemma, New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus, African?
• /Archive 77 - Revision of Christian Views, The Great Mystery link, Inline citations, NPOV proportionality, fact of Jesus, Jesus' family, Jesus was Albanian, Scholarship, Kabbalah vs. logia of Jesus.
• /Archive 78 - Cultural effects, The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection, Supernatural/psychic categories, intro and historicity/myth, "...was handed over by Pilate the Roman governor to be crucified," Sanders on Jesus as a Pharisee

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.
• 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.

Linking of the dates

Currently, the dates of Jesus' life are given as 8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE. I've tried changing this to 8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE, but people have changed it back. Isn't it the norm to link years on this site? If it's so, and I think it is, I really really do, then who keeps removing the links and why? VolatileChemical 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, excessive wikilinking is to be avoided. Only wikilink dates if the link is contextual, and explains the relevent topic in more detail than what can be explained here. Furthermore, wikilinking the start and end years in a range is useless. Say Jesus was actually born in 4 BCE and died in 32 CE. Those years aren't wikilinked, so wikilinking the beginning and end ranges doesn't help in this situation.--Andrew c 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well...uh...yeah...I mean...I knew t-that... VolatileChemical 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off harsh or anything. I'm bad with projecting tone over the internet. Please forgive me and accept my most sincere apologies.-Andrew c 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Life and teachings as told by Non-Christian sources

This is a new section of dubious value. I have not checked the links to see if these are reliable; or if the views are more than "fringe", but will do so when I get a chance. Any comments from others? ^rossnixon 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this information has a place in the historicity article, and perhaps may even be mentioned in a concise manner here. However, we have to note that these sources are awfully late, poorly attested, biased, and otherwise not that historically significant in the eyes of scholars. Just as scholars deny Matthew's birth narrative as historical, considering it a rehashing of OT themes, they believe it is much more likely that Celsus is insulting a cult's founder by calling him a bastard child instead of actually knowing about a rape that happened over a century before his time in some remote corner of the empire. The problem with this material is that it is just summarizing primary sources. We must consider scholarly opinion before we state how significant these sources are (and how much of them we can trust). A lot of this content has been moved to this historicity article, which I believe is a step in the right direction.--Andrew c 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Content Removed

This article needs balance. There are other ancient sources besides the gospels that give information about Jesus and his life. Just because this information may be unpleasant to Christians does not mean it should be deleted or removed from an encylopedic article. All the information has been sourced and can be verified and much of it comes from Christian writers themselves. The articles on Wikipedia should not reflect the views of only a group of people (i.e. Christians) but encompass a world-view. Wikipedia articles are not meant to confirm religious beliefs but to present the facts. The following content was removed and should be restored:

The article as it stands does not only reflect the views of Christians. Furthermore, at least some of the material referred to in the following is at least debatable - the "mainly due to the fact..." thing I would expect is almost universally disagreed with.TheologyJohn 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the stuff below is copied virually word for word from anti-Cristian websites. Some of it is totally mixed up. Celsus never says that Jesus was the son of "Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera". This is the name of an individual whose tomb was found and whose name an lifespan have led some fringe authors to speculate the was Jesus' dad. Paul B 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the claim about what the Qu'ran (19:16-19:24) states is not compatible with at least my translation. I suspect the other footnotes are a similar mixture of misinterpretation, selective reading, and creative translations.--Stephan Schulz 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Life and teachings, as told by Non-Christian sources

Few of the non-Christian sources of Jesus' life have survived. This is mainly due to the fact that Christians had no use for these hostile (to their beliefs) sources, and usually only referenced them in order to refute them. Enough has survived, however, to form some idea of what non-Christians believed about Jesus in antiquity.

More due to, you know, the fact that contemporarily, Jesus was a nobody who didn't start riots, didn't speak to the Senate in Rome, or do anything else that became truly notable to Non-Christians until many decades after his death. Plus he died the most shameful death that one could die in those times, and that was usually considered proof enough that he was a nobody: "God" wouldn't have allowed himself to be so degraded. It's very sketchy to imagine conspiracies where the evidence doesn't exist - consider the fact that pretty much anything we DO have of that era was preserved by the Church and its monks. Such a tendency to create conspiracies leads to beliefs like "We never landed on the moon", or "The earth is flat, and everyone's just falling for a lie."128.211.254.142 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Parentage of Jesus

The Christian tradition of events, however, was not the only preserved by ancient writers. According to the Greek philosopher Celsus, Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, who had had an affair with Mary. The text states the following in translation: "Mary was turned out by her husband, a carpenter by profession, after she had been convicted of unfaithfulness. Cut off by her spouse, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard." The 3rd-century church father Origen found this story to be of sufficient importance to go to the pains of arguing against it in his book against Celsus. In a subsequent passage, however (1.32), Origen supported the Jewish records and confirmed that the paramour of the mother of Jesus was a Roman soldier called Panthera, a name he repeated in verse 1.69. Turtullian also found the story important enough to offer a heavy handed criticism of the assertion. St Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis (315-403), confirmed the story and frankly stated that: "Jesus was the son of a certain Julius whose surname was Panthera.. Furthermore, in the Acts of Pilate it is asserted that the majority of the Jews believed that Jesus was born of fornication. The Talmud writers mention Jesus' name twenty times and quite specifically documented that he was born an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panthera, nicknamed the "Panther". The story of Mary's pregnancy by a Roman soldier also appeared in the sacred book of the Moslems, the Koran. It stated that 'a full-grown man' forced his attentions on Mary, and in her fear of the disgrace that would follow she left the area and bore Jesus in secret.

The "Miracles" of Jesus

The non-Christian tradition believed that Jesus, "on account of his poverty was hired out to go to Egypt; that while there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing." According to the Talmud, Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it. Furthermore, it goes on to state that Jesus cut the magic formulas into his skin. The Talmud also states that the disciples of Jesus healed the sick "in the name of Jesus Pandera" Another story is preserved in the Toledoth Yeshu. This document asserts that when Jesus was expelled from the circle of scholars, he is said to have returned secretly from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he inserted a parchment containing the "declared name of God" ("Shem ha-Meforash"), which was guarded in the Temple, into his skin, carried it away, and then, taking it out of his skin, he performed his miracles by its means. This magic formula then had to be recovered from him, and Judah the Gardener (a personage of the "Toledot" corresponding to Judas Iscariot) offered to do it; he and Jesus then engaged in an aerial battle (borrowed from the legend of Simon Magus), in which Judah remained victor and Jesus fled. The Christian writer, Jerome, mentions the accusations of magic that were frequently brought against Jesus.

Do these sources actually agree with the accusations, or merely document them? And do they have anything to back up any agreements, if they do exist, besides hearsay?128.211.254.142 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Zonaras 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Zonaras and Disco79 blocked

Note: Zonaras has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Disco79, used to evade 3RR. Disco79 has been blocked for two weeks. Grandad 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Wording

I added the weasel tag to the "Questions of reliability" section. There is very obvious weasel wording in the statements "Several Biblical historians have responded to claims", and "Some say that the Gospel accounts."

I also added the tag to the "Possible external influence" for the statement "Some scholars believe"

These statements should be reformulated to cite sources or removed.

CBadSurf 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Some scholars believe..." could be cited by the book The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, though the designation scholar might need to be revised since I'm not so sure the authors quite qualify as scholars. I'm going to fact tag those lines so it is very clear what needs to be fixed.--Isotope23 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The authors of that book really don't qualify as scholars, in my view. The principal author, Frekke, only has a BA. Neither author is associated with a university. The other titles they authored include "Encyclopedia of Spirituality: Essential Teachings to Transform Your Life" and "Lucid Living: A book you can read in an hour that will turn your world inside out" So citing this book is akin to citing the "Dummy's Guide to Jesus" If this statement is kept, it should be qualified along the lines of "Gnostic author Timothy Frekke writes ..." CBadSurf 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure that "scholar" necessarily has a direct correlation to "collegiate degree held", but I agree with you in principle that neither of these authors has a particularly good claim to the term. Point being though that much like the Earl Doherty text in the section these statements should be solidly attributed to a source with a citation to where the source said this. I don't think this would be particularly hard thing to do.--Isotope23 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about article

Is there an equal balance and a consensus of arguement in this article that argues for Jesus being the son of God and dying for our all of our sins, and an arguement made for Jesus being a mortal human being who died at the hands of the romans and was crucified on a cross and his body like anyone else's turned to dust over centuries ? Is both sides of the view being fairly represented here ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinct lack of ancient documentation for the second view. However, minority and fringe views are still cited in the article. ^rossnixon 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bernie, no, there is nothing like balance on this page. Jesus is noteworthy primarily as the central figure of Christianity. Jesus as a historical figure just doesn't hold a candle to Jesus as a religious figure. It wouldn't make sense to strike an equal balance between these two views. Look at historical Jesus for Jesus as a regular old mortal. Jonathan Tweet 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural effect and Legacy of Jesus

The last paragraph of this section states:

For some Jews, the legacy of Jesus has been a history of Christian anti-Semitism, although in the wake of the Holocaust many Christian groups have gone to considerable lengths to reconcile with Jews and to promote interfaith dialog and mutual respect. For others, Christianity has often been linked to Atlantic slave trade and European colonialism (see British Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire, French colonial empire, Dutch colonial empire); conversely, Christians have often found themselves as oppressed minorities in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and in the Maghreb.

Slrubenstein removed the last sentence, stating, "This clause has nothing to do with the legacy or cultural effects of Jesus." I fail to see 1) how it is not relevant to the section and 2) how if persecution of Christians is not relevant, persecution by Christians is. This logic seems to imply a double-standard in my humble opinion. I personally find them both relevant. As I stated in my edit summary, "I wholeheartedly disagree that persecution of Jesus' followers has 'nothing to do with the legacy or cultural effects of Jesus'." —Aiden 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph can go, but the bit about slavery certainly should since its just an inaccurate diatribe. Lostcaesar 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the slave trade / colonialism sentence is a gross mischaracterization and diatribe, and I will also state the obvious that a 'true' follower of Jesus could harbor no such prejudice of anyone, Jew or non-Jew, as is equated with Christianity in the first sentence. —Aiden 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Christianity and slavery has been removed, which is good because that's a Christianity issue, not a Jesus issue. But LC, are you saying that Christianity is not linked to the Atlantic slave trade, just the Mediterranean slave trade, or what? Aiden, I guess I'm asking you, too. Editors curious about Christianity and slavery are directed to Christianity_and_slavery#Enslaving_nonchristians. Jonathan Tweet 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the atlantic slave trade could be thought a cultural effect of Jesus, other than that it was conducted by, in part, baptized people. But, of course, a termendous ammount of events were conducted in part by baptized people, so selection of just this issue is clearly polemical. Lostcaesar 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't that those who practiced slavery were Christian. It's that they used Christianity to justify slavery. Jesus said obey God. God said enslave heathens. If Christians hadn't used Christian beliefs to justify slavery, then it would be just a smear. Jonathan Tweet 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't slavery in general but the atlantic slave trade, a much narrower issue. Whatever the case, I don't see how the atlantic slave trade was a cultural effect of Jesus, or Christianity for that matter. Indeed I would think that it was the nature of the atlantic slave trade, and the nature of Christendom, that lead to the West's re-evaluation of the more general topic of slavery in the broad sense percipitating its abolition alltogether and condemnation. Lostcaesar 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, Jonathan, from what I got from the OT if that's what your talking about was that you could enslave non-Jews, not that you should actively go out and do it all the time every time, and I really don't see how the NT just plain giving permission is a mandate for me to go enslave someone either. It's just something i'd think I would of noticed earlier. Homestarmy 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Homes, OK, let's call it "permission." Jesus said believe God. God said perpetual slavery is OK. Editors not familiar with Leviticus 25 may find it here [1]. Feel free to ignore the commentary. Jonathan Tweet 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

JT, your webpage would benefit by attending to Pope Eugene IV's Sicut Dudum (1435), Pope Paul III's Sublimis Deus (1537), and especially Pope Gregory XVI’s In Supremo (1839), among other key texts. Lostcaesar 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, anyone ever hear of indentured servitude? Or consider what servitude might have meant back then? Servants may not have been treated as heirs of the clan, but were still considered part of it - consider the prodigal son. To be a loner alien would have been considered much worse (and more dangerous), than accepting servitude as payment for protection. True, the concept was abused quite early on during the Mercantilist era, but even at the beginning, it was acknowledged that it started as a way to pay a debt - not as something that could be done indiscriminately to the innocent or debtless.128.211.254.142 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the clause about slavery, but otherwise restored the deleted paragraph. This paragraph has been in the article for a long time and has been discussed several times. I am not opposing more critical discussion here and now but Aiden, just because you ar a couple of others do not like it, does not mean you should just remove it from the article. Let's discuss it but while we are discussing it a paragraph that has been part of the article for so long should stay in it. Now: if you are asking for sources, it will take me some time but I swear to you there are loads of sources to support the claim that many people see anti-Semitism as a legacy of Jesus, as well as the European conquest and colonization of the Americas and Africa and elsewhere. Aiden's comment that this is a "gross mischaracterization" misconstrues what Wikipedia is all about, which is NOT presenting "the truth" but rather verifiable views. We are not never nowhere nohow characterizing (or mischaracterizing, grossly or not) Jesus or Christianity. We are only characterizing different views. Just because you do not share or like the view gives you no right to delete it, on the contrary, one purpose of our NPOV policy is to ensure that views we do not like or share are included. Aiden's claim about what "true" followers of Jesus would or would not do again betrays his misunderstanding of Wikipedia. It is simply not our place to decide who is a true follower of Jesus or not, or what a true follower would do. We are not the Holy Inquisition. We are an encyclopedia. Virtually all historians of European colonialism will agree that one of the claimed motives of colonizers was to spread the teachings of Jesus. Whether you think that these people were good or true Christians or bad or false Christians is just not relevant. And let me conclude with a final personal point: the vast majority of the section presents Jesus' legacy as very positive. If you cannot tolerate the possibility of our acknowledging that there is also the view that there was a negative legacy to Jesus, if you can't tolerate even one short paragraph that is negative, it makes me wonder just how weak and fragile your faith is. Be that as it may, you cannot push your POV here. We must comply with NPOV and one way to do that is to represent multiple views including ones we do not like. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph needs either a solid source or a clear connection between Jesus and colonialism, etc. Without a clear connection to the person of Jesus, these crimes are the legacy of Christianity, not of Jesus. I could see a line like: "So-and-so said that one could trace the persecutions carried out by Christians since the late Roman Empire back to the influence of Jesus himself." Jonathan Tweet 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the reversion.

First of all, this would be the wrong section for these comments. This section deals with culture: painting, sculture, literature, etc.

Beyond that this is full of weasel wording, and no sources are cited. If you want to include this text here, please rewrite it to include supporting citations from reputable sources. See WP:NPOV for the npov policy.

These comments may have been here for a long time, but that does mean that the article cannot be improved. I particular, I think you need to show that Jews attribute Christian anti-antisemitism to Jesus himself. Otherwise it is akin to blaming Moses for the bombing of refugee camps. I also believe to say that Christianity is linked to European colonialism needs relevant citations to show it stems from Jesus or his teaching. Otherwise it is akin to blaming Moses for Zionism. And if you want to go down this road, we need to look at the impact of Christianity on ending slavery in the British Empire. Many things may be done in the name of a religion that bear no relationship to the founder of that religion. We need to differentiate.

And then it should probably go into the Section dealing with the Jewish view of Jesus.-- CBadSurf 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think you misunderstood my original point. And I'm a bit puzzled by your comments. I agree that the paragraph has been in the article for some time, but I find your claims that that warrants keeping it a bit puzzling, especially considering that your removal of part of the paragraph without discussion is the very reason we are now discussing it. My only concern was that the paragraph should not represent a double-standard. You cannot maintain neutrality and mention persecution of others by Christians as part of Jesus' cultural legacy while not also mentioning persecution of Christians, which section you removed. Either they are both linked to Jesus' cultural legacy, or are not. I'm not advocating the suppression of views in the slightest. —Aiden 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right that I should have responded to your specific point. I just do not see the double standard. For example, I would not say that the legacy of Abraham includes anti-Semitism or the Holocause. Sure, there would be no anti-Semitism and would not have been a Holocaust (narrowly defined) had there been no Jews. But the Holocaust was not done by Jews in the name of Abraham. I see "legacy" as including consequences of Jesus' teaching and acts. The expulsion of Jews from Spain and European colonialism were done by people who thought they were following Jesus (right or wrong is not for us to judge, though I am sure you know what I personally think). I don't see how anyone oppressing Christians was in any way doing it in Jesus' name. This does not mean I think there should be no discussion of persecution of Christians. on the contrary, we have a whole article on the persecution of Christians and I certainly have never objected to that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a case that could be made for the bit about anti-Semitism, but I still contend the atlantic slave trade should go. And again, there is a difference between colonialism and the atlantic slave trade. How exactly is the latter connected to Jesus? Lostcaesar 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree - which is why when I put some material back in the article, I did not include the stuff on the slave trade. To my knowledge, people began using Christianity to justify slavery only after others began using Christianity to call for its abolution. The history books I know of on the origins of slavery do not call attention to religion as a cause or motivation. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph again -- you just do not have any citations for what you are writing, and you rely on weasel wording. See the policy WP:V "he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." CBadSurf 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is back with the same claims of anti-Semitism and slavery as part of Jesus' legacy, except this time without any mention of persecution of Jesus' followers, namely Christians. —Aiden 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a poll to see if there is a consensus to keep this section in place, or remove it. What do people feel about a poll? CBadSurf 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Slr, "To my knowledge, people began using Christianity to justify slavery only after others began using Christianity to call for its abolution." The Pope authorized hereditary slavery for Muslims, heathens, etc. See Dum Diversas, 1452. "The Pope said I could" sounds like using Christianity to justify slavery. Jonathan Tweet 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's the 17th century idea that Africans were better off as Christianized slaves than as free pagans. [2]Jonathan Tweet 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My sole issue is the double-standard that is created when you mention things done by Christians supposedly due to their beliefs, but not things done against them. I personally think the whole paragraph should go for the reasons numerated above. But if we are going to mention persecution by Christians, persecution of Christians should also be mentioned. It's like saying Christians who commit these acts are part of Jesus' legacy but persecution of his followers is unrelated. I don't understand that. —Aiden 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Slavery existed BEFORE Christianity existed. Slavery existed BEFORE Judaism existed. It is the Judeo-Christian tradition that ABOLISHED slavery. --70.171.38.69 11:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that: This is an article about Jesus and not Christianity; worldview is needed

This article is definitely severely biased toward Christianity and, IMHO, does not meet Wikipedia's standards. I'd like to support the comments others have made in this vein. The way it is written it really belongs in the existing article "Christian views of Jesus." I would say that the reasonable thing for this article to do is deal with the historical figure (i.e. the things that can be discerned from scientific/archeological methods including the debate as to whether he existed at all) and only very lightly give an overview of his religious significance deferring to the Christian and Islamic articles for more clarification on those issues. Because of the extreme controversies surrounding this topic I would argue that it is, in fact, more important than some others to make this particular article extremely neutral and leave the more controversial topics to those other articles that are intended to discuss the various viewpoints.

BTW, I find the implications that Christians have more of a right to define Jesus than Muslims disturbing. As a Christian I consider such notions blasphemous at best. As a human being ... well, I just hope the article will be cleaned up. --Mcorazao 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Christianity still the religion devoted to worshipping Jesus as God, and does Islam still see him as merely a prophet, or has that changed in the last few centuries. And besides that, didn't Jesus give the deciding rights to Peter (and his Catholic Church)? From what I understand, Islam is not DEFINED by Jesus. Christianity is.128.211.254.142 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know somebody is going to argue that there is no scientific basis to say that Jesus existed. The Gospels and other texts still count as evidence regardless of their role in religion. That does not mean that they prove his existence but just because millions of people revere some of these documents does not disprove their validity. --Mcorazao 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you certainly shouldn't need all caps to get your point across....However, the article you're looking for with historical stuff and all that is at Historical Jesus, this is more of an all in all outlook with most attention given to religious views, in order of weight. But how exactly is the application of undue weight blasphemous? I was unaware of any anti-Wikipedia verses in the Bible, no "Thou shalt not obey the vain philosophy of WP:Undue Weight" verses that i've seen anyway.... Homestarmy 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

??? The caps weren't mine. That was just a cut-and-paste.

I know there is a Historical Jesus article. Some might argue that the best way to remove the controversy here is to make this page a disambiguation page only with links to the historical and religious pages. Personally I think for explanatory purposes having a page which gives an overview of the subject is a good thing but only insofar as it does this without injecting bias. I say that this page should focus more on the scientifically-based stuff (i.e. the "historical Jesus") simply because I think, as a general rule all encyclopedia articles (Wiki or otherwise) should focus on the scientifically-based stuff unless the article is explicitly about a certain biased set of opinions (in which case it should be a scientific discussion of those biased opinions). Religious viewpoints, by definition, are biased opinions and should be treated as such. If you are implying in some way that the Historical Jesus article should be merged with this one, that is a separate issue. My opinion would be to have this article be something relatively simple that does not go into as much detail as the Historical Jesus (and at least touches on the religious opinions clearly describing them as such), and let the reader follow links to whichever type of info he/she wants to know more about.

I realize that this article is written as more of a discussion of religious views about Jesus and I think that is the problem. This is rather like writing an article about, say, Caesar Augustus and focusing on the cult of emperor worship that formed around him rather than focusing on the actual anthropological information about his life. If one wanted to have an article discussing strictly the religious views of him, that might be appropriate, but it is inappropriate to call such an article "Caesar Augustus." It is acceptable to discuss those religious views within the Caesar Augustus article as long as they are treated as a subtopic clearly separated from the anthropological information. --Mcorazao 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't say that applying "undue weight" is blasphemous. I don't know where you got that. --Mcorazao 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think religious beliefs are inherently more biased than non-religious ones. In fact, I find it utterly confusing why anyone would think that at all, to be honest. In any case WP:NPOV makes it clear that beliefs about bias etc are irrelevant to wikipedia - what is important is to present existing relevant literature. And a heck of a lot of the relevant literature about Jesus comes from religious sources! TheologyJohn 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that religious beliefs are more biased than non-religious ones. I said that religious beliefs are, by definition, biased opinions, to the extent that they are based on faith rather than factual evidence. If there were no faith required then it would not be a religion.

Folks, what I'm reading here is an inability to get past personal bias. That is, you seem to be attacking me for things I have not said rather than trying to discuss what I have said. To that end I'm not sure that there is a point to continuing this thread. --Mcorazao 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the whole reason Jesus was worshipped as Christ was because of the "empirical" evidence that he rose from the grave. Your demand is the same as denying the existence of Abraham Lincoln unless he repeated the Gettysburg Address throughout all of time. And to boot, it is even more fallacious, as Abraham Lincoln is accepted to be a human, and thus, able to be forced to do something. God is not so accepted. (Of course both are open to personal opinion on the matter - it's just that more will ridicule you if you deny Abe)128.211.254.142 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As to your "faith" argument - 1) No, most "successful" religions are based on the idea that they actually witnessed the events happening, empirically, so to speak. Very few religions (and these are usually classified as cults, and die out VERY quickly) ask for belief without some "proof" that they are telling some form of truth. And 2) At what point does any religion say "You must deny what you see with your eyes and hear with ears, and believe only that this is true, even against all personal evidence." (This of course, excluding that all reality is illusion - it's impossible to correlate those to anything rational, as they suppose irrationality in the first place).

Furthermore, of course religious viewpoints will be biased. EVERY viewpoint is biased, because every viewpoint will ALWAYS be colored by the holder's experiences. It's kind of impossible to communicate such a viewpoint in this, our physical world, and not have experiences.128.211.254.142 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some points: (1) Every position is a point of view and every point of view a bias, even the "scientifically-based stuff". (2) The notion that the "religious views" can be distilled from the "real" Jesus is a loaded pov, one that must take its place alongside all others. (3) The notion that faith and reason are opposed is also a pov, and a minority one amongst Christians. (4) Out of curiosity, why do you, as a Christian, find it "blasphemous" that Christians might "have more of a right to define Jesus than Muslims." ? Lostcaesar 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcorazao, you implied that science wasn't biased (or was less biased than religion), by suggesting that the inherently biased nature of religion means that it shouldn't be given as much space in this article as the 'scientific' bits.

In any case, although I am a Christian, I do not believe that I am such due as a result of 'faith' in any sense that does not include rational arguments. By that definition, I am not religious, but I think that it would be a rare person that would not consider me religious. (I think probably only "Christianity is not a religion it's a relationship" people - who I think don't understand the meaning of the word religion!) TheologyJohn 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we wrote this article as if we were wrting one about Caesar Augustus we would necessarily focus on his activities and what he said. The article would turn into very religious focused article closer to a Sunday school lesson than an encyclpedic article. To me the value of the article is reporting on why the individual known as Jesus had such an impact upon humanity. Further, who is he perceived by various groups. For that reason alone the article will be more focused upon Chrisitianity than any other group. All other religions exist outside or independently of Jesus Christ; Christianity does not. I realize I am coming to the this conversation late, but is there a proposal that is offered so that concensus may be achieved and we can move on with a positive action? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

People keep comparing to Caesar Augustus. Has anyone considered that the closest to first-hand documentation we have on him could fill, if you stretched, a few pages (of 8 1/2 x 11)?128.211.254.142 08:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be something along the following lines. The intro would start out something like this (the phrasing may not be the best).

Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus son of Mary, or Jesus Christ, was a man believed to have lived in Roman Judea during the first century CE (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE according to some scholars). He is a central figure in both the Christianity and Islam both of which regard Him as having been sent by God although His exact nature is debated, even within those religions. The name "Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Iesous, itself believed to be a transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua or Aramaic Yeshua, meaning "YHWH is salvation."

The rest of the intro seems actually not bad in presenting different viewpoints in summary. The reference to the Gospels should probably be adjusted to say something like

The main sources of historical information regarding Jesus are the various biographical writings of his followers (including those known as the Gospels). Although many other writings about Jesus exist most were not written by contemporary observers and, therefore, are of limited value to historians.

This is significant, in particular, because the Quran also gives accounts of Jesus but its value from a secular historical perspective is limited because Mohammad was not a contemporary (i.e. that's not to say Muslims have any less right to their beliefs it is just that one has to make a distinction).

This is like saying that a soccer-player has as much right to their beliefs about a baseball star as a baseball player does.

Or that a scholar with a degree in Meteorology has as much authority as a one with a degree in the Biblical Era (culture, history, economics - whatever addendum you wish to affix).128.211.254.142 08:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The organization of the rest of article in general is ok, it is just the perspective that is bit skewed. The article seems to talk as though the Gospels are, by definition, true and correct and then mentions after the fact that historians disagree with some of it. Ideally the right thing is to present the secular historians' view (which, of course, is based a lot on the Gospels but does not "take them as Gospel") and then carefully present how the views of the different religions differ from this view. It is probably better to present these religious viewpoints only briefly here and leave it to the other pages to give the details (i.e. as a practical matter it is easier to make the whole thing less controversial that way). Giving a full account of what the Gospels say in this article is ok as long as it is presented as a section separate from the secular historical account (may be less confusing to simply have that in a separate article, though).

Anyway, this is just my opinion.

--Mcorazao 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had much time to think about what I think about everything in there, but just wanted to comment on your comment:

"Ideally the right thing is to present the secular historians' view"

Which I disagree with. I don't think secular and neutral are anything like the same - in fact, I don't think there's any such thing as a neutral position (and if there were one, as a Christian I would have to say it would be a form of Christianity). There are plenty of well-regarded and influential scholars whose religion have been profoundly affected by their studies (and presumably their religion has, despite their attempts, affected their studies - in the same way that an atheisms atheism would similarly affect their studies, e.g. by ruling out the possibility of miracles, or unnumerable other things). TheologyJohn 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would echo a point made by Str1977 on several occaisions. There are only historians; not Christian historians or Secular historians. Historians may have a specific field of study, but their religious beliefs or lack there of having nothing to do with being an historian. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are confusing terminology. I meant secular in the same sense as a "secular government." When we say that the U.S. has a "secular government" that does not mean an "atheistic government." It means a government that does not subscribe to or base its decisions on any religion. This is one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. government (and many others). It is also one of the basic principles of most fields of modern science and historical study.

--Mcorazao 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Theology John, "I don't think religious beliefs are inherently more biased than non-religious ones." I agree so far as to say that WP policy should be to treat religious beliefs as if they weren't biased. And I would say "generally more biased" rather than "inherently." But religious beliefs are clearly more biased than, say, scientific beliefs or historical beliefs. Want to see for yourself? Look how well scientists agree. Lots of agreement, still some bias. Or historians. General agreement but also unresolved disagreements about day-to-day issues and plenty of apparent bias. Then religious people. Each religious person has fundamental disagreements with most other religious people. Disagreement outpaces agreement on religious issues. Since in a believer's assessment, most believers are wrong, don't believers themselves consider believers (other than themselves) to often be biased? Jonathan Tweet 04:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my vulgarity, please, but what pipe are you smoking? Scientists and historians are no more often in agreement than any other group that has to make decisions of great weight and importance. This has been evident throughout almost ALL of history, and still is today. We may be closer (or possibly farther) to understanding the universe today, but we are by no means "almost there", and I doubt any scientist would try to tell you that unless he also believed he was omniscient.128.211.254.142 08:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus in Popular Culture

I believe his presence in the West as a pop symbol, often laughing =D and doing other humorous things deserves something more than just: 'Jesus has been drawn, painted, sculpted, and portrayed on stage and in films in many different ways, both serious and humorous.' Of course this being far from one of this article's immediate needs, or maybe a link to some major article 'Jesus in popular culture' or something like it if exists. 189.5.143.217 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am more jaded than most on the value of Popular Culture. I find the vast majority of the information contained in such sections is more appropriate for People magazine or some other "quality" magazine. Worse, it often turns into fancruft or trivia that serves no purpose. Maybe I am too highbrow, but I find it has no value in an encyclopedia of any quality. If we must have the section, please keep it as small and concise as possible. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How the topic should be introduced

At the risk of stirring controversy I am interested in gauging opinions as to how the topic should be introduced in the article, specifically relating to the POV debates above. Please note: This is strictly a straw poll for assessing opinions of interested parties for the purpose of aiding the discussion. The results are not intended to be binding in any way (as per Wiki policy). Also, please assume good faith in the creation of this poll. If anybody feels that I have inadvertently created a straw man please do not assume bad faith. --Mcorazao 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the following choices, which of these do you consider the best way to introduce this topic and treat the various views on the subject? Please choose one and sign below using the four tilde signature.

-->> Point of clarification: The question here is NOT whether or not Jesus' role in Christianity, Islam, or any other faith should be mentioned in the introduction or not (it goes without saying that this should be mentioned). The question is whether the introduction should be slanted toward assuming any particular perception of him is more popular or more correct. --Mcorazao 19:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

• Introduce Jesus as the Christian religious figure and focus the core discussion on the Christian view of him with other views (Muslim, secular, Judaic, etc.) as secondary perspectives.

1. The article should be mostly about Jesus the central figure of Christianity. The disambig statement at the beginning should link to historical Jesus for people who want the secular view and to religious perspectives for people who want the array of religious viewpoints. Jonathan Tweet 20:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
2. No changes as suggested by Mcorazao, are required. ^rossnixon 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
3. When both Jonathan and Rossnixon agree on something, chances are its probably the best choice :). But seriously, this article has been constructed very carefully through some rather, to be honest, just plain ugly looking debates and arguments, and most of the outside comments about the article have been positive concerning how it is structured and ordered. I just don't see the point of changing it a bunch now. Homestarmy 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
4. No change is needed. The article has reached its current form through exhaustive discussion and compromise and is in my opinion one of the best on Wikipedia. It represents each view fairly, accurately, in a neutral fashion according to WP:NPOV, and with proper balance according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. —Aiden 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
5. No change is needed. All articles about founders of religion introduce the founder from the viewpoint of the religion they founded. See Muhammad and Gautama Buddha for examples. And both these articles provide very little perspective from the viewpoint of other religions. CBadSurf 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
6. The above poster makes a great point in looking how the Muhammad and Buddha articles treat their subjects. The secular and other faith perspectives should obviously be included but the first thing when people think of Jesus is the fact that he is an important figure to the Christian faith. Logically it would follow that that the first perspective of him should be the Christian perspective with a segway into the other views. 205.157.110.11 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
7. I wasn't sure on this one, but the editors who have voiced opinion here I respect. I think Jesus, through Christian perspective, should be the first priority of the article. Other perspectives should be dealt with - perhaps more than now - and then directed to relavent articles (e.g., Islamic views of Jesus). I also agree that this approach matches that used for other religious leaders (the only exception to this general rule that I found was L. Ron Hubbard). Pastordavid 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
8. His centrality to Christianity must be mentioned in the first sentence as it is the main reason for his notability. However, the first sentence should also say who he was, i.e. a Jewish religious teacher. The historical section should be moved further up in the article.Itsmejudith 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Agree with above comments, especially consistency with treatment of founding figures of other religions as discussed by CBadSurf. PubliusFL 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Per NPOV we cannot assume that any view is more correct but it is certainly more widespread ("popular") and more historically founded than other religious perspectives. As for the rest, I agree with what has been said above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Introduce Jesus based on the complete New Testament Gospel descriptions treating any other aspects of the Christian, Muslim, secular, etc. views as secondary perspectives.

1. If I must choose I choose this one, but would rather have this one followed by #1. I feel this would provide a construct of who Jesus was and then show how the different religions view Jesus. Scifiintel 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Introduce Jesus without giving any weight to any particular perspective on him (i.e. introduce the name and the mundane basics that are non-controversial but leave all other details to secondary discussions of the various perspectives).

1. -

• Introduce Jesus as a historical figure (the "secular" view) focusing on the non-religious reconstructions of his life (and the controversies regarding his existence) and the general impact he had on the world. Treat the religious perspectives as secondary.

1. As a stand-alone article this one is well written. It is heavily biased toward Christianity, politely mentioning other viewpoints but not giving them equal weight. This would be appropriate in an article entitled "Jesus Christ" or "Christian views of Jesus" (for such a title this article is very neutral). However, given that the title "Jesus" was chosen, the article should not be biased toward religion since the title refers to the person not a religion. --Mcorazao 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
2. The article is clearly biased in terms of content toward Christianity. That said, there are few if any outside sources, so it is easy to understand. However, it would be more valuable I think if it concentrated on the "man" himself, and shifted its more explicitly religious content toward another article. Badbilltucker 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Mythology category

JoshuaZ readded the category Christain Mythology. I think this is a miscategorization. Christian Mythology is about mythology within Christianity and not Mythology that is also Christian if one can understand the distinction. Looking at other articles in the categoy, we have Joseph of Arimathea, Angels, Holy Thorn, Black Nazarene, Black Mass, and Ariel (demon). I did see Devil in the category, but I would probably revert that depending on the article itself (if we are talking Lucifer, then it would be reverted; a man in red cap with a pitch fork then I can see it fitting). Regardless, these are myths within Christianity. Jesus is not a myth in this context. I am removing the category, which was previously removed by Str1977. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that there are these two definitions of Mythology, which is highly annoying because one is negative to be applied to Christianity, and the other simply isn't. That category seriously needs a better name. Homestarmy 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed the category Mythology before for the article and at that time concensus led it not to be added. I agree with Homestar; there are two perceptions of the term and it depends on context of discussion. The category in question, IMO, is simply not appropriate for this article given the other topics in the category. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of "mythology":

mythology 1 : an allegorical narrative 2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS 2 <cold war mythology> 3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth 4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something : MYTH

And for "myth":

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths

I am at a loss as to how Jesus can fit any of that. Perhaps advocates of the inclusion of the category could share with us their apparently deep insight into this subject. (Of course, the skeptic in me is telling me that certain people are simply trying to game the system knowing that there are both positive and negative connotations to the word.) Jinxmchue 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mythology" is an academic weasel word best left to academic papers. Wikipedia is a general purpose source of information designed for the general public. Please use terms as they are understood by the general public. ^rossnixon 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am the one who originally added the category, and I believe it is correct. Mythology defines mythology as "1a. "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon", citing the Westminster Review of 1830 as the first English attestation[3]" - which is exactly the sense in which the Jesus Story is a mythological - Jesus was a supernatural being and the story embodies the early days of Christianity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs).

If the impression people get when they see "mythology" is that Jesus is a fable or a legend, then that's pushing a POV, even if you can point to a dictionary definition that seems to give some justification for it. When a word has multiple meanings, and there's a strong likelihood that people will take the wrong meaning, then that word should be avoided. This is like saying that Catholics "worship" Mary, and then pointing out, when challenged, that in addition to the normal meaning (the first one that comes to mind) of the word - adore, it also has a secondary meaning of honour. Jimxmchue makes an excellent point. Grandad 01:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There's just got to be a better title for the category than "Christian Mythlogy", like maybe "Christian Stories" or something like that, that's what the category seems to be getting at anyway, and its not like that title has to mean the article itself is a story, just that its at least related to Christian stories. Homestarmy 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In some places "Bad" means "good" and "Cool" means "hot", but I am not going to stop using either word in the sense of the first-listed definition. Especially in context. I'm sorry if this bothers you, but it is proper for an encyclopedia. BenBurch 02:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is proper for an encyclopedia." You seem to use that turn of phrase a lot, though I have my doubts you actually believe it. It's strange how something that is supposedly "proper for an encyclopedia" is not advanced on any other encyclopedic website (some of which are far more reputable than Wikipedia). Jinxmchue 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I really do believe that this article is more correct with the category. BenBurch 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the category again, as it violates WP:NPOV The tone of the word mythology represents bias, regardless of dictionary definitions. See WP:NPOV which relates to the tone. CBadSurf 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to justify that it biases the article in any way shape or form. The only bias is one you derive by your flawed internalization of the meaning of the word. It is a totally proper and respectful categorization. This is a lot like that poor civil servant who lost his job in the DC government because he used the word "Niggardly" because people mistakenly believed that it was in some way a pejorative related to that other N-word when it was an ancient word of specific and non-racist meaning. BenBurch 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I see your perspective, and concede that your use of the word is valid, your analogy doesn't accurately represent this debate. This isn't a case of confusing one completely distinct word for another. Anyone with a dictionary can find an applicable definition for the word "myth" that indicates something fictitious or untrue (for example, the Merriam-Webster definitions cited above). Considering this, I don't think your statements above (concerning flawed understanding and lack of any justification for bias) are quite fair. Since this is obviously a controversial subject and a controversial change, I think some patience is in order. Can we at least agree not to unilaterally make changes (i.e. edit war) without attempting to come to some sort of agreement? --Fru1tbat 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. His and every other average person's "flawed internalization" of the definition. This is en.wikipedia.org, and in the Western, English-speaking world, the word "mythology" far, far more often than not is used in the negative sense. And knowing you, Ben, I don't think you could treat anything about Jesus as "proper and respectful." Jinxmchue 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

my take is "miscategorisation" Chensiyuan 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So who else agrees with Ben? If not... it goes. Manderiko 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't--while Ben is denotatively correct, the connotation of the word (the more common usage) would completely overwhelm any possible benefit. Justin Eiler 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a funny situation (not haha funny). Most people recognize that the terms myth and mythology have multiple meanings, and that there is a meaning that is relevant here. However, people also recognize that another meaning can be offensive to Christians. So what everyone seems to be favoring is the 'politically correct' choice of not risking offending Christians. It's just odd to me to see people being PC in this situation, but again it isn't necessarily surprising. (I personally see nothing wrong with being PC in general, so don't take this as a criticism). I'm skeptical of the motives of the editor requesting the categorization. It seems to me that Christian theology and one use of Christian mythology overlap, so I do not see the benefit in making a distinction between the two.--Andrew c 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the category is correct for this topic. Further, I see a majority of editors do not support its use. For it to be applied to the article it would be necessary to explain how the other topics in the category relate to this new topic, which has little in common, and I would want to see a majority of editors support the use.

As an aside, I would be one the is not PC and does not believe that anything regarded as PC does anything to build a proper society. (Although I do have a high degree of respect for Andrew, on this matter we disagree) I find being PC is the equivalent of developing socially acceptable terms for being duplicitous. One reason I reject the term, which finds accord with Andrew, is that it does not do anything that Christian Theology has not already achieved. It is definitively POV and is used only to accomdate those who disbelieve in religion. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:CAT - whilst it stresses that categories are just an aid to finding information and not a definition, it does say that if there is some controversy the category should be avoided. Sophia 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Commentary on the Poll

I had hoped that some of those who had chimed in on earlier discussions might register an opinion in the poll but they have not. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no consensus for change. I hope that at point some of you who have registered opinions here will do some research to check the facts that you base your opinions on. I have been surprised in my own research in recent years to discover how many "facts" I once took for granted turn out to be more conjecture than anything else, albeit conjecture which has existed for hundreds of years. As such, these revelations have taught me to be more understanding of others' beliefs as I realize that much of what I believe really has as much to do with faith than objective fact. --Mcorazao 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, for participating. --Mcorazao 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

William Lane Craig debate

Because I was reverted, I felt I needed to explain a little further. The recent addition of WLC's opinion is surely cited, but is it relevent? It is a citation of a debate at a the "College of the Holy Cross". Because it is a debate, we cannot see the sources behind WLC's statement. We have to take his word for it that he is telling the truth, instead of exaggerating for rhetorical purposes. On top of that, his debate opponent disagrees with him. So should we cite Ehrman as well? Who are we to believe? I strongly believe that not only is this citation problematic from a WP:V and WP:RS stance, but it is also incorrect. We scanned a lot of literature and came up with as many points as a very diverse group of scholars could agree upon. That is how we came up with the second paragraph. Should we be adding things that may or may not be found in our huge list of cited sources (in the previous sentence) just because WLC said so?-Andrew c 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is always difficult to discern what the majority of scholars agree on. Also, there is a right way to use sources and a wrong way, and this seems to be a real push, one we should be cautious about. I have seem the position before, though - I think Habermas says a similar argument in one of his books, "historical evidence for Jesus" or something like that. That might be a better souce. Lostcaesar 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Reason I reverted was because I misinterpreted original edit statement to mean something like "we can't cite him, he's an apologist" - which effectively means "we can't cite him, he believes in a view he's arguing for". I see now that my objection to that line of reasoning was completely irrelevant.TheologyJohn 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-Christian views of Jesus

An article called Non-Christian views of Jesus was created recently. I have proposed it for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Christian views of Jesus. Editors here may be interested because the topic is a spinout of this parent article. Thanks.-Andrew c 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

you can't delete it without deleting the Christian views of Jesus also. with expansion, Non-Christian views of Jesus can be a good article. Goalie1998 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are other articles that present non-Christian views of Jesus. On principle I think articles about "What Everybody Else Thinks" are a bad idea. There should instead be articles about the views of specific "Everybody Elses" (which, in fact, exist in this case, at least to some degree).

This specific article looks to be really more about random musings regarding Christianity. The fact that they are non-Christian appears to be more incidental. So maybe this article is more mistitled.

--Mcorazao 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Teachings of Jesus

Can we please have a brief section on the teaching of Jesus? + probably a main article on that? --Aminz 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I too have advocated such a section for some time. I originally created a layout at User:Aiden/Jesus, but stopped working on it after Andrew c and I put effort into condensing the section for the sake of readability. However, I would still like to see some summary made, following my layout or not, of Jesus' most important sermons. —Aiden 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Searching for scholarly sources, I have found the following sources on ethical teachings of Jesus. Would you please add any sources you might have so that we can start working on the section. It would be good not only to describe his teaching but also to specifically point out the "new" teachings he introduced:

• [3][4][5][6][7][ [8] The Message of Jesus to Our Modern Life, by Shailer Mathews, The Biblical World, Vol. 44, No. 4. (Oct., 1914), pp. 297-300.

• [9], How Relevant Is the Ethic of Jesus?, by S. MacLean Gilmour, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Jul., 1941), pp. 253-264.

• [10][11], A Professional Reading Course on the Ethical Teaching of Jesus., Clyde Weber Votaw, The Biblical World, Vol. 46, No. 4. (Oct., 1915), pp. 249-257.

• [12],The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, Erwin R. Goodenough, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 57, The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review. (1967), pp. 243-266.

• [13], Ethical Emphases in Teaching the New Testament, James T. Cleland, Journal of the National Association of Biblical Instructors, Vol. 2, No. 1. (1934), pp. 24-26.

• [14], Trends toward Individualism in the Teaching of Jesus, Paul E. Davies, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Jan., 1956), pp. 10-17.

• [15], The Ethical Principles of Jesus, Alfred Williams Anthony, The Biblical World, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Jul., 1909), pp. 26-32.

• [16], The Ethical Teachings of Jesus in Relation to the Ethics of the Pharisees and of the Old Testament. Outline of Nine Studies, Ernest De Witt Burton, The Biblical World, Vol. 10, No. 3. (Sep., 1897), pp. 198-208.

• [17], Self-Sacrifice in the Teaching of Jesus, The Biblical World, Vol. 21, No. 5. (May, 1903), pp. 323-326.

• [18], The Significance of Jesus,A. C. McGiffert, Jr., The Journal of Religion, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Jan., 1931), pp. 47-62.

• [19], The Question of the Relevance of Jesus for Ethics Today, Jack T. Sanders, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 38, No. 2. (Jun., 1970), pp. 131-146.

• [20], The Ethical Element in Jesus' Teaching: The Ethics of Jesus by Henry Churchill King and The Ethic of Jesus according to the Synoptic Gospels by James Stalker, Review author[s]: C. W. Votaw, The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Apr., 1911), pp. 282-286.

--Aminz 08:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

View of Majority of scholars on Death and Resurrection of Jesus

My addition was removed [21]. Would you please discuss it. Please also see the talk page of historical Jesus. --Aminz 03:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the user who removed your addition did so on the basis that the source was not up to Wikipedia standards. However, if this scholar did make such a claim, I'm almost positive we can find it in published material such as a peer-reviewed journal. —Aiden 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is a college discussion, it is either based on the professor's own speculations (in which case, we shouldn't consider this an authority) or it is based on assigned readings (which could be in peer-reviewed journals, academic textbooks, including stuff written by the professor in question) - it is those published works we should draw on as sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: Is there any difference between biblical scholars and historians? --Aminz 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; historians study all manner of things, from the English Civil War to the Investiture Contest. Even one who studies the Antique Near East is operating in a field much different from Biblical Scholarship. The latter are scholars who study the events in the Bible. Sometimes the fields overlap, and so this article can use both. One may also say "scholars of the historical Jesus", which is really more akin to a Biblical Scholar who specializes in a narrow field, rather than a historian who does the same (its really too narrow for a historian). There is also the related field of apologetics, which in a sense can be understood as those scholars of the historical Jesus whose scholarly opinion is that the Gospels got it right (that is a simplification, but you get the idea). Basically what we must to is ensure that the source is fitting for encyclopedic use - after that we should have little prejudice against it. Lostcaesar 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But individual historians do not cover the large range you imply. Biblical Scholars cover about as much range as the average historian.128.211.254.142 08:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Aminz 13:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing we need to be cognizant of is the Western academic notion of "modern languages" which has a big impact on the study of history, because traditionally the study of history is the study of historical texts. Many universities have Departments of Modern Languages (Spanish, French, German etc.) and most History Departments focus on historical documents in those languages in effect French, Spanish, English history. There are of course other languages that are "modern" in the sense that they are spoken today (are contemporary) yet are often in different departments - thus Quechua and Swahili may not be taught in a "Modern Language Department" and the history of Quichua and Swahili apeakers may often be taught in an anthropology department rather than a history department! Similarly, non-modern languages, like Greek and Latin and Hebrew, are generally not taught in a Modern Languages Department, and the study of historical documents in these languages is often not taught in a History Department. Some universities have a "Classics Department" which teaches Latin and Greek, and studies both Latin and Greek literature and history (even if they use the same methods as people who study French or Italian literature and history). Similarly, some universities have a "Biblical Studies" or "Ancient Near Eastern Studies" department where they teach Hebrew, Aramaic, Uggaritic, Akkadian, as well as the literatures and histories of the people who wrote in these languages. Again - and this is the key point - a person may have a PhD. or teach in "Biblical Studies" but when it comes to method and theory is as much a "historian" as someone in the History Department teaching American history. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I am the user that removed the edit, and I did discuss it here on talk (look 3 topics up). It didn't come out of nowhere. My main point was we did a whole lot of research (look at all the cited sources in the 2nd paragraph) and came up with the basic elements that the VAST MAJORITY of scholars could all agree upon regarding Jesus. We do not have information about the burial and post-resurrection appearances because not all of our sources supported those claimed events. It's an odd situation, do we trust WLC wasn't exagerating for rhetorical purposes (because he doesn't cite any sources), or do we trust the research we put into the article. I know this is a lot of work to ask, but the best thing to do (IMO) is to track down all the books we cite in the 2nd paragraph, and see if you can find page numbers for these authors supporting (or not supporting) Craig's 4 points. The reason the paragraph is worded the way it is, is because every single point is cited in every single source. I do not think we can simply add on to that list based on what an apologist said in a debate (when his opponent disagreed with him. why not cite Ehrman instead?).-Andrew c 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Andrew, Craig does cite his sources, and they are standard texts, have a look. Lostcaesar 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, LC, you can see for yourself that the statement In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. is unsourced. He cites Brown supporting one statement, Robinson and Kremer supporting another, Lüdemann supporting a 3rd, and L.T. Johnson and N.T. Wright supporting the last. This is the majority of scholars supporting all 4 statements?-Andrew c 21:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Craig in such an academic debate wouldn't make such a big claim if it is wrong. Maybe we can email Craig and ask him for sources (?) --Aminz 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the current and longstanding 2nd paragraph reads "most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that..." Ehrman, replying to Craig says "the majority of historians do not agree with Bill’s conclusion.... [and] the majority of critical scholars studying the historical Jesus today disagree with his conclusion that a historian can show that the body of Jesus emerged physically from the tomb." (we'll have to assume that Ehrman wouldn't make such a big claim in such an academic debate if it wasn't supported by sources, right?) Craig himself just uses the word "scholars", while Ehrman says Craigs claim is only accurate if you are talking about Christian-believing New Testament scholars. Because exactly whom Craig is referring to by saying "scholars", and because the word "majority" is disputed, I cannot support the proposed edit. I will repeat my suggestion. Dig through our already cited sources and see if they agree or disagree with Craig. If we can find more points of agreement between these scholars, it will only help the article. But I believe the proposed changes are vague and misleading as they stand.-Andrew c 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Craig says: "Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead". [www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html]. Britannica Encyclopedia also confirms it("It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely.") Ehrman also didn't deny that the early disciples thought that Jesus was raised from death. He is just argues that we can not approve that a miracle happened.

So, I think there should be a consensus on that and it could be added. --Aminz 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific wording you could propose?-Andrew c 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Something along these lines(probably more NPOVed): "While the scholars are splitted over the historicity of Resurrection, however they hold that the earliest disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead"--Aminz 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed this discussion, but the proposed text needs to be worded better: "While scholars disagree over the historicity of the Resurrection, most hold that the earliest disciples sincerely believed that Jesus had risen from the dead" CBadSurf 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned over sources (I'll look into my books a little later), but how about something like "While scholar disagree over the historicity of the resurrection, most agree that some of the earliest disciples claimed to have had visions of the risen Jesus."-Andrew c 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A claim can be sincere or not. "sincerely believed" is better. But I understand we need reliable sources for that. --Aminz 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew when I wrote it that "claimed" wasn't the best term because of negative connotations. But you are also correct that "sincerely believed" is fairly strong language.-Andrew c 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone, I think Aminz (sorry if I am mistaken) revelas a BIG slippage in this discussion when s/he writes, above, "Well, Craig says: "Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead." This sentence means we are not just talking about what some, many, most, or almost all scholars believe. We are also talking about what scholars believe about Jesus versus what they believe about Jesus' followers. There is a world of difference between saying that most scholars believe Jesus's post-mortem appearances occured, versus they believe that many of Jesus' followers believed they saw Jesus. My point: we should keep these separate. This is an article on Jesus, and in the introduction we should state only what shcolars believe about Jesus (not what his followers believed). The article has sections on Christian and NT views and there it would be very appropriate to have sentences like, "The vast majority of scholars believe x about the NT" or "According to the vast majority of scholars, jesus's early followers believed ..." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but wasn't sure how to phrase it. It felt like the follower's beliefs fell more under the Christian views section than the scholarly/historian section. There is some overlap because these are historical Christians, but this article isn't exclusively about early Christianity, or the early follower's belief, so I do feel that this information (while clearly relevent) may not fit so neatly in the LEAD, or at least not in the 2nd paragraph.-Andrew c 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a little more research into this. According to G. Theissen and A. Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Gerd Lüdemann (the person that Craig cites for one of his 4 points) "argues... emphatically for a subjective vision theory. For him the tradition of the empty tomb is an unhistorical apologetic legend." After reading that, I wanted to post it here and hold back my attacks on Craig cherry-picking his sources to support his 'majority'. Furthermore, after some discussion Theissen and Merz conclude "the empty tomb cannot be either demonstrated or refuted with historical-critical methods". They point out that scholars who say the empty tomb is unhistorical typically also "attack" the burial as well. (strike two for Craig) They say it is hard to tell if the empty tomb created the resurrection stories, or if these visions were later explained by creating an empty tomb story. They conclude "the story of the emplty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb." When considering scholarly opinions, they believe "the balance would tilt towards the possibility that the tradition of the emplty tomb has a historical nucleus. But only a little way." I'm sorry if this is all irrelevent because the proposed change only dealt with Craig's point 3 (maybe 4), not points 1 and 2.-Andrew c 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains these points concern what historians believe about early beliefs of Jesus' followers, not what historians believe about jesus. This distinction is crucial. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Without meaning to sound argumentative, I think that the fact that the subject of discussion is, as it were, not really about the "life" but possible "afterlife" of the subject, that it might be better if that information were included in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus article. (By the way, I am a Christian, just trying to be NPOV, OK?) However, I do think that a section to the effect that "As described in the canonical Gospels, there is reason to believe that the body of Jesus was found to be absent from the tomb on the third day following his crucifixion. Several scholars, prominently including Bart Ehrman, have stated that the evidence available indicates that the majority of Jesus's followers believed that he had arisen from the dead, as described in the New Testament. They also seem to have believed in the post-mortem appearances Jesus is described as having made in the New Testament. For more information, see Death and Resurrection of Jesus." I do not have the materials Ehrman used to make these points when he was speaking against the Jesus Seminar, who held that these appearances could not be justified by fact, readily available, but I think that I might be able to find them rather quickly if it were indicated that they would be useful. Badbilltucker 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Q document

"While the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments of these texts are dated later than the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments of the canonical Gospels, they are probably copies of earlier manuscripts whose precise dates are unknown."

I think the correct word here is POSSIBLY - the Q document is NOT the consensus view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.254.142 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Joshua

The first paragraph explains that Jesus is an anglicized for of the Greek for Yeshua, and even tells us what this name means in Hebrew, but does not tell us that this is the same name as Joshua in English.--Counsel 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It does now, and that information is verifiable by the same source already cited there. Badbilltucker 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I personally think these edits should be reverted and not reintroduced until people have reviewed these past discussions: [22] and [23]. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than expect everyone to dredge up musty archives in order to understand your meaning, why not explain why you don't think this article should mention this? Arker 10:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to cut and paste what many other people have said. What I did do is I went through all the archives - a very time-consuming a tedious process - to find the relevant discussions and I provided links. I do not think discussion from last year (concerning a topic two thousand years old) is "musty" and I do not think that my asking you simply to click on a link is asking too much of you. I already did the dredging, and put it in the form of two simple links and all you have to do is click on them. And you complain? It will take you far less time to read the links than it would for me to write uop a summary for you - FAR less time. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing though. I've read the archives. I don't see any convincing reason to omit this information (thought I do see reasons to phrase it very carefully, perhaps.) So if you see something in the archives I don't see, you need to bring it up. Arker 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking at the archived discussion. If you think careful rewording would suffice to address the various concerns, then that is fine by me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have read the archives. I am also a lifelong practicing Christian (and a bit of a biblical scholar as well) and have never heard any convincing argument against it. The "scholarly arguments in favor of something are not sufficient for inclusion in an article" response could also be applied to everything from gravity to childbirth. Perhaps a more subtle phrasing than that which I used might be called for, or a short statement with a direct link elsewhere, but it is I believe useful to point out that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus had a unique name, which is something that I have heard expressed repeatedly by people who are I believe ill-informed on the matter. Badbilltucker 15:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning it in the article, but what makes it relevant enough to mention in the intro? That Yeshua was also transliterated into Joshua isn't the most pertinent thing to discuss. —Aiden 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible external influence and Reinventing Jesus

There has been a little back and forth regarding some edits (see my and SOPHIA's talk pages). The work Reinventing Jesus is aimed towards a popular audience, and written and praised by a number of theologians and Christian apologists. While it may be true that they cite actual scholars, within the greater context of the book, I believe the bias is questionable. Therefore, I would request that we cite the actual scholar's work (outside of this book) instead. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that there isn't criticism of the mysteries/mythist view. I know there is, but I just think we can do better sourcewise than Reinventing Jesus. It is just odd to cite a popular, apologetic work in the historical section when there are actual scholarly works we could use instead. --Andrew c 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, thank you for comments. Please accept my apologies for misposting my comments. I'm still finding my way round, even after a few years!

Can I also complement you on your edit which I like very much. I think it's a great improvement on my original.

Regarding using 'Reinventing Jesus'. I choose that partly because it's very current and partly because, though a scholarly work, it is aimed at a lay audience and would therefore be more readily available and accessible. I also felt that if I cited some of the original sources it would be unfair as I'd not read all of them myself.

Keep up the good work.Mercury543210 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

Doesn't an article under constant semi-protection fail #5 of WP:WIAGA? Hbdragon88 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm...#5 says that it doesn't apply to semi-protection. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Beat me to it. I was going to self-revert this, but this talk page is too active. Hbdragon88 03:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Another Question: How can Jesus be listed as being born 8–2 BC/BCE ? Hello people, BC/BCE is Before Christ/Before Culteral Event...either way he IS the dividing line, he cannot have predated himself.

It's is now a commonly accepted fact that the traditional year of Jesus's birth was wrong. Please get the facts before you ask a question. Zazaban 04:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude; but yes, if you read the Chronology section of this very article you will find a pretty good explanation of the dating issue. —Aiden 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be rude, I was just pointing out that he really should get the facts. Really! Zazaban 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what encyclopedias are for, and how convienent that people who are confused can actually ask the probable contributors of the article how something works. Homestarmy 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates of Jesus/John the Baptist

However, the gospels do indicate that John the Baptist was born in the Jewish month of Nisan (which is now Mid-March to Mid-April). The Gospels also indicate that Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist which corresponds to the Jewish month Tishri (which is now Mid-September to Mid-October).

Where do the gospels say this? Grover cleveland 06:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is likely based on Luke 1:35-36, which seems to say that Jesus was conceived 6 months after John the Baptist was conceived. 35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” (NKJV) Elsewhere in Luke 1 and 2 it says that both Elizabeth and Mary gave birth 'when their time was completed', suggesting that the pregnancies lasted the usual nine months. Wesley 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

BCE/BC - CE/AD

What exactly is the logic behind having Julius Caesar's dates given in BC/AD form and Jesus's dates in this hybrid slash style? If anyone should have the old AD tacked on the end you'd think it'd be this guy.Theotherkg 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh... please read WP:LAME#Miscellaneous_lameness's entry on Jesus and don't open Pandora's Box!--Isotope23 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It just reflects badly on Wikipedia to start off an article with something that silly. So sorry to disgust your eminence, but if you could indulge me a bit further, why is this only the case with Jesus? Why do all these poor pagan Romans have BC tagged on their dates?Theotherkg 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that both are accepted as valid, so whatever way the article starts should probably be left unless there's a very good reason against it. ElinorD 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that AD and CE are both acceptable, so users are not to go changing one to the other. We had a vote on it almost a year ago, and the consensus was to use both. I'd personally prefer just BC and AD, but individual users who start unilaterally changing it will simply be reverted. Musical Linguist 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• No matter how this is changed, people will become enraged. This is a guarantee of an edit war and nobody wants that, do they? It simply is not worth the effort AT ALL. --BenBurch 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please no - not this one again. Both are ok and either would be fine. I have never understood what this fight is about as it sooooo doesn't matter. I agree BC and AD make the most sense for this article due to the context but it's not worth the trouble to try to change it. Sophia 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth the trouble of any kind of edit war. But the slash is so ungainly looking I'd prefer to see CE stuck up there than AD/CE. And even so, it's a bit odd. As I said, Jesus seems to be the only article with this format. Most of the others I've seen, classical figures included, have been BC. Pretty strange that only Jesus should be singled out. Kind of poor taste, too. Someone had best accuse me of violating "assume good faith." Theotherkg 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why people don't realise that Wikipedia is secular, and doesn't take a religious bias. The usage of CE is more appropriate than AD/CE or just AD alone. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While the first resolution (and longstanding 'consensus') for the AD/CE notation began over a year and a half ago, we had a large vote to reaffirm (or rather, no consensus to change) the system in place back in September. You can find that discussion in archives 72/74. Jesus is the only article to my knowledge that uses both notations. There are, however, a large number of articles that use BCE (even a few featured articles). However, you are correct that BC is more common. If you look through the Manual of Style, (and past arbitration discussion), you will find that both era notations are correct and it is strongly suggested against changing from one to the other. There have a been a few editors who try to go on crusades and push one system over the other, causing edit wars on multiple pages. This compromise, while sloppy, has kept the peace here for over a year and a half. It isn't perfect, but there has never been enough people on either side to support changing it away from the compromise. So we are stuck with it (so it seems), and I for one think there are much more important things to consider (such as the two do list, and the fact that we aren't a FA yet) before we discuss the era notations again.-Andrew c 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew. Nail. Head. —Aiden 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

islamic view of jesus

It is quite surprising that in such an important article the last paragraph of the introduction contains a mistake.

disclaimer: first I should mention that I am not a theist and have no interest in influencing anyones religous or spiritual views. I am a an australian of athiest parents with iranian heritage whose grandparents were shiite muslims, I have extensively studied religion (out of intelectual interest) and am familiar with shiite sunni ismaeli, and other sects of islams view of jesus as well as ofcourse the christian views (inluding the jahovahs witness's rejection of crucifiction etc).

"Most Muslims also believe that he will return to the earth as Messiah in the company of the Mahdi once..."

This is a mistake, in the all the muslim accounts (though any scholar would tell you these vary widely in many aspects) the main charactor is always mahdi, and jesus is merely a background charactor. In anycase stating that, most believe that jesus "will return to the earth as MESSIAH in the company of the Mahdi" is at the very least misleading, this statement gives the reader the false impression that muslims believe that jesus is the "Messiah" (the saviour). A reader who leaves this article with this impression would be misled and be rudely awakened during a conversation with a muslim about the later's beliefs. A christian, informed by this wikipedia article, commenting: "atleast we both believe jesus is the messiah..." would be corrected by his muslim friend, "I believe that mahdi is the messiah, the saviour, the one who will fight the last battle on earth" etc.

It is true that muslims refer to jesus as Isa Maseeh (Maseeh being arabic for messiah)but this is out of convention and respect and does not have the same corresponding meanings and historical implication as the english word "Messiah" which is used here, and its use particularly in this context with mahdi not stated as the actual percieved saviour is misleading, and will lead to misunderstading.

thankyou. 58.106.16.99 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that difference in Messiah is discussed in the Messiah article.... Homestarmy 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Color

It would only be right to put a short paragraph on the idea that Jesus was a man of color, given multiple scientist and common sense conclude that from the region he was, he had middle eastern characteristics. Of course, I am guessing that is to much to ask.