Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 89 1 Jesus Christ in Proto-Indo-European, Birth year, Lead sentence... again, Jesus' Siblings, Reasons for Removal of Alternate Dating Notation
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 90 1 Request for edit, Yeshua is His name, Raelian view of Jesus, Feature?, 1st paragraph of article, Official religion of Roman Empire
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 91 POV pushing in introduction / Both POV's presented in introduction, Just Curious
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 92 Milton Steinberg's opinion, Bias in the first sentence
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 93 BBC image
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 94 2nd paragraph, Yeshua's Birthday, chronology, AD/CE and BC/BCE Usage, FA push, Inclusion of Piss Christ image
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 95 About a problem with "Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity", Second paragraph, Notice for GFDL Attribution Requirements, Images, Chocolate Jesus, Why discuss so much', Biased reference, Wrong Interepretation of Jesus, Joseph, Step-father
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 96 "Me!", Joseph dies, Birthdate, Adding "Peace Be Upon Him", "Other religions", Citations, What is the better topic?
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big

Subpage Activity Log

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

Literature to be mentioned

I think [1].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.153 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of birth

I am still trying to get the hang of the technical aspects and protocol of this, so bear with me. I disagree with the way it is presented that Luke places Jesus birth during a specific census, as this is speculation. The writer of Luke simply says Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor, and is not specific about which census. While I understand the controversy belongs in the article relating to the census, the statement is still incorrect and borders on being a point of view. If Luke is going to be used, it should be quoted as it is in Luke. Whether the article elaborates that Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 CE doesn't matter necessarily, but it is valid to point out that Matthew and Luke do not agree at face value. There's something odd about the whole Chronology section, actually.Burpboohickie (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, completely. Go ahead and edit as appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in the stuff on Quirinius because I wanted to make it easy for someone to follow that link, but it's pretty tangential, really. I'd be happy to have it cut. Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. I don't want to rush in and make any edits yet, as it seems there isn't really a problem with this article, but that the details are all being broken up into their own separate articles. (There appears to be a commentary on every section of the Bible!) The Census of Quirinius is not referred to as such anywhere else as far as I can determine, and that article is extremely lengthy considering it is a controversy. Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is it doesn't necessarily do any good to, say, specify what Matthew and Luke say about the birth of Jesus when it may be covered in twelve different articles that are not coordinated. I understand that's just one of the issues facing a living encyclopedia. It's just something that I am figuring out, though, so again bear with the greenhorn! Burpboohickie (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

this section exists largely for us to comply with our NPOV and NOR policies. NPOV demands that we provide all notable points of view. Many Christians and many historians have conflicting views of Jesus, and both views have to be represented. But both groups draw on the Gospels as source material and many felt it made sense for this and other reasons to summarize the Gospels. But the Gospels are primary source material and editors cannot use them to forward their own arguments or views. In other words, if we insert summaries of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, we have to be as literal as possible to avoid suggesting any particular interpretation of the Gospels. Many interpretations - by historians and devout Christians, hinge on how the reader views the differences or relation among the Gospels. If we were to try to synthasize different statements in different Gospels, or if we were to draw on one Gospel and leave out mention of a different one, we would be implying a particular way of reading the Gospels that would violate NOR. So, the shape of this section has a lot to do with complying with these two policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not realistic to say We have to allow for every side of every argument. These are theological issues, not encyclopedia articles. Half of Wikipedia will end up being about Christianity. It is already ridiculous how many articles there are on the tiniest issues. It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to correlate all the sub articles. I've seen many with NO citations and many are pure apologetics. The way to do this to simplify and condense. We don't have to give every side of every story. A reader wonders, Who is Jesus? and looks it up. Oh, he is a prophet of Islam and the Son of God to Christians. If people want apologetics, they should go to Conservapedia. I love studying religion and love Wiki. But I can't consider Wiki a reliable source on Christianity any more. Burpboohickie (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your response, since I did not say that we have to allow for every side of an argument. I do not believe anyone here has ever said we have to provide every side of an argument. What I did write was, we have to provide all notable points of view. This is WIkipedia policy. If someone adds anotable view to the article, neither you, I nor anyone has a right to remove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

four gospels

Not surprisingly, this article gives special weight to the four canonical gospels. For example: "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Does anyone have a citation for this? I'd say, "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the synoptic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke." The gospel of John is not a source of information about Jesus' life. Historians regard it as not reliable. Leadwind (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

no objection on my part, although John is of course very important not only for Christian theology but for how historians explain the origins of early Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Shall we look for the 31 AD edition of the Daily Mirror? Or better still to the Gnostic Gospels, nonesense written decades after the Cannonical gospels? The latter were written by individuals who met Jesus or were influenced by people who met Jesus. Thats as reliable as one can get you know. Tourskin (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is a mistake to consider John (at least) any sort of chronological account of Jesus life, but it has become an accepted source for his "teachings"--JimWae (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would never denigrate John as a historical window into early Christianity. Very influential and descriptive. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, you're right, the gnostic gospels are bogus hokum, Jesus-wise. I would suggest using the three earliest gospels because, as you say, they're closer to the source. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, you're right, John has long been accepted as faithfully representing Jesus' teaching. It just isn't any more, not by most contemporary scholars, anyway. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin and Jim, I am looking for a citation for the original sentence. If you have one, please share. Leadwind (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• On further consideration, I agree John has to be the least reliable. An alternative to singling him out by omission would be to just say gospels rather than naming any. --JimWae (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, sure, we could just say synoptic gospels and not name them. Leadwind (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other Gospels should also be discussed. There were more than 4 Gospels. Also, all the pictures in the article show Jesus with sinful long hair. Only women were allowed to keep their hair in that fashion under Jewish Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.110.136 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

lead, nontrinitarianism

"Nontrinitarianism profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity (see below)." The lead should summarize the topic. This sentence doesn't. The lead should be able to stand alone. Let's try "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A good lead "can stand on its own as a concise version of the article," so we need to say something about the nontrinitarians instead of "see below." Any objections to: "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Except, it isn't simply individual Christians but well-defined faith groups. Perhaps, "The doctrine of the trinity is not universally accepted and some Christian denominations hold to a different non-trinitarian understanding of the divinity of Jesus." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's at least hint at what the nontrinitarian understandings are. Leadwind (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the gist of nontrinitarian theology should be in the lead. I'll give you the honour of creating the brief synopsis :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

historical Jesus, Jesus as myth

The whole "Possible external influence" section is rambling. Apparently various editors have layered pro and con evidence here. The historical section could use a concise summary of the "Jesus as myth" movement, so I've provided one. I've commented out the original "possible external influence" section because it's easier to start over than to make sense out of a troubled section. Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that Jesus is an Alien the spirit decended as a dove which could be a space craft. It is time to look for a scientific answer to reilgion not a metaphisical or spiritual. God is from the stars UFOs are their vehicles to which they travel in.

the second coming will be a mass landing of UFO vehicles they want mankind to get along, and live in harmony, so they will feel safe when they land here on the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.47 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, lets see how THAT view turns out when the Rapture comes around.

There are several NPOV problems with this section, it frquently refers to Jesus' history as self-evident fact when it is in fact under considerable doubt. That article as whole has a blindspot for the evidence that Jesus never existed at all (at least as the Bible depicts this Jesus) and that his story is merely the evolution and synthesis of many other myths of the region.

Please give a more complete and honest account of how Jesus is regarded academically and not by referencing crackpot Bible scholar websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.27.9 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is no longer a good article - actually, it's getting into a bit of s state. The Jesus myth is hotly contested by people who believe the Bible, but we have little or no evidence outside of relgious texts that such a person existed. This will offend Christians, I have no doubt, but the same applies to the images of Muahmmed that Wikipedia will not remove. We have little firm evidence that anything in the Bible actually happened so I would question the use of facts here as this is an encyclopedia.Smidoid (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.32.158 (talk)

Indeed, I was expecting the first section under "Historical Jesus" to be called "Evidence That He Existed", or something like that. Right now it reads like a religious article, with a tiny "appeasement" thrown in. It says that a Dutch school laborously denies his "historical reality". I was under the impression that there were many historians around at the time, yet every one failed to mention him, except for one, which is a "known forgery". What makes it a "known forgery"? Is it debated? Why isn't any of this mentioned? Why is the "Jesus as Myth" section hardly one paragraph? There is even a term for "life-death-rebirth diety", because it is such a common theme in other religions. The article on it mentions Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, phoenix, Jesus, Baldur, and Odin.

Furthermore, I thought there were dozens or more people claiming the be prophets at the time, most with followers who claimed miracles. Why for Jesus these "claims" turned into "it happened", I don't know. The point is, these views (if correct) are not even mentioned. Somebody needs to actually change this section (I'm not an expert). 99.246.109.131 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be shaped by the scholarly literature available. Mainstream historical debates about Jesus do not revolve around the question of whether he existed. Instead, the revolve around the question of teacing apart elements of the NT accounts that make sense in the context of what we know about 1st century Jewish life, and elements that reflect doctrines that developed in the Church after it separated from Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Manichaeism

I'm surprised the article says nothing about the Manichaean view of Jesus. This really ought to be mentioned somewhere. Skoojal (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We should have a section that covers Mandean, Manichaean, Gnostic, and early minority views of Jesus. Mani believed that the prophets, Buddha, and Jesus had all been sent to help liberate humanity from the material world. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to add a short sentence about the Manichean view, with a link to the Manichaeism article. Skoojal (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

year of jesus's birth

Jesus wasn't born between 2, and 7 B.C. they started counting after his death thats why its the year 2008

Can you explain this further?--C.Logan (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think hes saying that AD 1 is the death and resurrection of Jesus so born ~30 BC? No thats not true, they count after his birth. Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AD means from the year of our lord. 2008 years since Jesus's claimed birth year. It's no more accurate than the date of Christmas.Smidoid (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.32.158 (talk)

Edit at top of Jesus page

At the top of the Jesus page, a sentence proclaims in bold capitals that jesus had sex with small children. I feel certain that this inappropriate comment was a prank edit of some sort. As a wiki reader without an account, I cannot remove this sentence myself. Could someone who does have that power please restore the article to its original status? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.121.42 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism you were refering to was reverted in less than a minute. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) It's gone. If you still see it, clear your browser cache. Such obvious vandalism in a high-profile article has a very short lifetime - this one was on less than a minute. There is usually no need to mention it on talk. But thanks anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Colored Yeshua

Out of curiosity why did you'll take the Yeshua off the article? And did any of you know Yeshua was a colored man this not my point of view it's a fact even though most people know Him to be white He is a colored man and I think that should be mentioned. The K.O. King (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "Yeshua" you are referring too - can you be a bit more specific? Anyways, if Jesus existed, both the Bible and normal common sense suggest that he looked like a typical inhabitant of Palestine at that time. That is, he would have been swarthy, but not black. We are all coloured, at least in a non-PC sense (I go from pale pinkish brown in winter to medium dark brown in summer - successfully avoiding blazing red most years ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The part that said Yeshua is His name in Hebrew. Yeshua was black no one knows how dark He was though. If you would like to explain this I will. The K.O. King (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken out of the lead, but is still in the article, at Jesus#Names_and_titles, and in more details in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't think that a black Jesus has mainstream or even significant minority support in the academic community. Do you have any sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see it is plausible that Jesus could have been anywhere from quite white (Roman/Greek) to light brown (Arab/Persian) to very dark (Egyptian/Libyan) and that the only reason for the movement to assert that Jesus was black is to counter the more popular assertion that Jesus is white, neither argument of which has any particular basis and is almost universally put forth by individuals of that ethnicity. The only part of Jesus' genealogy that I have seen that is mapped out significantly is the family tree of Joseph, which individuals who believe in the immaculate conception don't believe Jesus is related to by blood anyway. Peter Deer (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Gospels describe him as inconspicuous, and the Romans needed Judas to identify him among the disciples. This makes all but a normal levantine coloring (which, btw, overlaps with at least current Greeks and Italians and Egyptians) very unlikely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That indeed would seem to indicate that. On another note, asserting that He was white or black when there is not conclusive evidence supporting either notion just serves to essentially use Jesus/Yeshua/Isa/etc. for political and bigoted ends. Peter Deer (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look for a source just give me some time. And just for the record I didn't say He was a dsrk black he could have been olive or dark colored no one knows but He was colored. The K.O. King (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying he was not an albino? All human beings have some skin pigmentation - Diana Spencer, Golda Meir, Yasir Arafat, Barak Obama, Alicia Keyes, Anwar Sadat, Papa Doc Duvalier - they are/were all colored. So what? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

THere are a lot of scholars who think he was black, but mainly there are a lot of scholars who think he was just dark skinned like an arab or palestinian because that's where he lived. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources please? Also, there is a huge difference between saying someone was black and saying someone was dark-skinned. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of Jesus which currently exists

Hey all, I'd just like to point out that there is an image (or several) of Jesus which currently exists. It is currently about 2000 light years from where earth was 2000 years ago moving away at the speed of light and a really good telescope could make it out at that location. We however can't catch it, unless superluminal travel is possible, although it's theoretically possible for it to reflect back off something to us, or an extraterrestrial could record it and send a copy back. This of course applies to all historical people and events, so maybe someday we could just sit back and watch it all! Roy Brumback (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was light that hit Jesus then bounced into space, carrying His image with it. It's currently about 2000 light years away, and thus so is His image. So someone at that point in space, with a very good telescope, would be able to watch Him, Augustus, Caligula, ect, or anything else happening on Earth back then, just like when we look at say Alpha Centauri we are watching it as it was 4 years ago. If it were to reflect back to us or if someone saw it, recorded it, and sent it back to us, we could then watch history happening. I just say all this because it's not actually accurate to say an image of Jesus doesn't exist, because it does. I changed that statement that there are no images of Jesus to no known images, but it's actually more correct to say no known images on Earth, as we do know there is one about 2000 light years from where Earth was 2000 years ago, but that might be a bit much for the article. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. That's very interesting. Now could you back up your information? Skele (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take into account WP:NONSENSE. Peter Deer (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true Roy, but the reflected light rays would have diverged to a width of billions of miles by now. Quite difficult to collect, wouldn't you say? ^rossnixon 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. With a good enough telescope you could see an alien planet, and with a really good one you could see the surface of it and everything on it. This almost certainly couldn't be done in our lifetimes, but in principle it can be done, just like the WMAP satellite can see back to near the big bang for instance. If we had really good telescopes we could look at the surface of alien planets as they were back in the past, so someone could obviously watch Earth as it was in the past too, then send us a message telling us what they saw, although they would have to just do it out of good will and hope we would get the message as we couldn't ask them to do it before they would receive the messge as we can't overtake the light, unless of course superluminal travel is possible. The telescope would have to be very big, although I'm not sure about the billions of miles across. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah now I know what you are talking about. But, well, that's very far fenched and with our current technology it's not yet possible. And ofcourse all the space dust planets and even the weather on Earth on the way, I would say it would be never possible. And think of the size of that telescope, it would be huge. And ofcourse Earth's rotation, because of that the point where the images are heading is every direction which means we couldn't put it in a video and show it as a whole. Skele (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel I need to point out that we should keep discussion in here pertinent to the article and not just about whether or not there's a theoretical space Jesus image that doesn't appear like it could actually be included in this article at all. Peter Deer (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry if you don't understand. I have everything under control. Skele (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

We need to have a section or mention about Jesus' son. There are many people who think Jesus had a son. Maybe we could talk about it if there is any evidence. Also, is there any evidence that Jesus is the savior or any evidence other than the bible that he did miracles? Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean like The Da Vinci Code? If you have evidence maybe that would be a place to take it.--Carlaude (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is little to no current evidence that He had a son. There are some circles that assert that He had a daughter, but I haven't seen anything conclusive in that regard either. Christ certainly had brothers, and possibly sisters, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that there are still descendants of Joseph and Mary, but the prospects of there being descendants of Christ are dubious. As for the bible, one thing to remember is that the bible is a collection of accounts of the life of Jesus that the church believed at the time to be the most authentic and not 'slanderous'. There are actually several accounts of the life of Jesus that never made it into the bible, I believe that of those that survived are for the most part still in the possession of the Vatican, but I am unaware of any source by which one would gain access to them. Peter Deer (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections should correspond to notable fiews from reliable sources. I know of no - no tone - notable Biblical scholar or historian who has made this argument. Since no one of note thinks it is worth talking about, it it an unencyclopedic topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this. Unless there is a noteworthy historical source that can provide indication of this, it really has no place outside of tinfoil hat discussions. Peter Deer (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

I have removed a large amount of text that has been added without(?) any discussion on the talk page. There was much duplication of info that was already in the article. There was original research. There was info that better fits in the 'Historicity of Jesus' (or whatever it's called) article. The Jesus article is already long enough - too long many would say. ^rossnixon 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you made a good call removing the material Rossnixon. It was added quite recently without much discussion, and it is clearly too detailed for inclusion here. There is already a link to the main article Historical Jesus. Summary style should clearly be observed here if possible. A cursory examination reveals that the recently-added section bears little resemblance to the actual article Historical Jesus. Perhaps it is more appropriate to merge into that article as a new section instead of putting it here. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the new text and, with Jossi's support, restored it. This article has done a poor job of explaining who Jesus was. That's what this section does. There are other sections less relevant to who Jesus was that could be cut first. If there are errors, duplications, or irrelevant details, point them out individually. Leadwind (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the length issue, we have recently lost a lot of extra material from Chronology and Possible External Influences, so we have a little space for good information. If the new information's bad, criticize it on that account. If the information's good, make room for it. Leadwind (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point of view for inclusion. However, I continue to have serious reservations about whether it is appropriate to include the section. First of all, it is unclear to what extent this section represents the consensus of all scholars on the field. It relies very heavily on the one work of the Jesus seminar. Is this representative of the vast majority of scholarship in the area? I don't know. Secondly, the other source is the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. This is no doubt a very good source, and is probably quite reliable despite being a tertiary source, but the references to it are astonishingly generalized. Usually when referencing an encyclopedia or dictionary, it is appropriate to reference the specific entry which is being cited. As a lay reader, I am not qualified to make an assessment as to whether the section is accurate or representative of scholarly opinion, however the references do not inspire much confidence. Thirdly, some of the added text is redundant with the first paragraph of the section (which is a reasonable summary of the article Historical Jesus). I really think that, if you feel that more detail is warranted here, you should try to pack it down into as few sentences as possible. The finer details belong in the main article. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit. I'll start naming the articles from ODCC. Jesus Seminar represents over a dozen leading figures in the field, plus dozens more. As far as I know, I'm not including anything controversial, based on my understanding of other scholars' work. If the section has too much ODCC and Jesus Seminar, then add references of your own! None of this represents consensus of all scholars, just a general consensus. I'd be happy to consider ways to compress the text and make it shorter. Leadwind (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ross Nixon, I restored the material you deleted. Much of it is properly cited. Deleting cited information because it contradicts your POV is bad. Please stop. Leadwind (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried taking out some of the weasel words, irrelevant commentary and uncited original research. Leadwind reverted me straight away. I think the whole section should go, as per my deletion yesterday. If it's all from the Jesus Seminar, even more reason to delete it. They are a fringe scholars with a mission to destroy traditional Christian views. Fair enough putting it somewhere, but not in the main Jesus article. ^rossnixon 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not all from the Jesus Seminar, and the Jesus Seminar isn't fringe. It has included a lot of heavy hitters who are respected scholars in the field in their own right. Christians often hate the JS, but that doesn't make it fringe. If you want citations, ask for them. This section is important because it's the only place where a nonsectarian reader can hope to find out who Jesus was. The article describes what the Christians' gospels say, what various manner of Christians say, snd wehat religious people of various stripes say, but the nonsectarian reader deserves to know what nonsectarian scholars say. Was Jesus baptized? Did he preach imminent apocalypse? Why was he killed? These are relevant historical issues that are covered nowhere else in the article (not as historical issues anyway). Leadwind (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ross, how about this deal? You cut anything you want out of the Historical Jesus section, and you paste it here. I won't restore the deletion. We can talk about the material here instead of fighting over it on the page. Leadwind (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar consists of a number of notable scholars. But it does not include all major scholars - Geza Vermes, Paula Fredricksen, and EP Sanders for example have not participated. I think it is fair to replace the generic word "historians" with something more precise, naming "The Jesus Seminar" when appropriate, and also looking to see what Fredricksen and Sanders think (IF the Jesus Seminar AND Sanders, fredricksen and Vermes all agree, then I think one can safely say "Most notable historians" or something like that). Ross Nixon, You write, "They are a fringe scholars ..." What is your evidence? You also write, "... with a mission to destroy traditional Christian views." Um, I am not sure what you mean, I do not think it is possible to destroy a view, although one can reject or ignore or criticize a view. Be that as it may, again, what is your evidence, and also, so what? Can you explain why this is a justifiable basis for removing their views from the article? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SR, I agree that the JS doesn't speak for all scholars. On the issue of apocalypse, for example, they are firmly on one side of an open issue, with Karen Armstrong, James Tabor, NT Wright, and probably lots of other scholars on the other. But the JS alone amounts to "many" notable scholars, over a dozen that would be notable in their own right (according to a particular critic of the JS, who writes that "only" 14 of them are notable). Plus, on most issues they're in the scholarly mainstream: the ulterior motives of the evangelists, etc. But a fair number of Christians really hate the JS, and I don't blame them. I guess when referring to the JS, it would be fair to phrase it as "Many contemporary scholars..." Leadwind (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The JS are a self-selected group of liberals who start with the assumption that nothing supernatural exists. Thus when they say that only 31 of 503 sayings of Jesus are authentic, this obviously reflects their starting bias. I think WP:AGF is a better starting point. http://www.watchman.org/reltop/slipslop.htm ^rossnixon 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this sounds like they disagree with Christian views, but I do not see how this means they are "destroying" Christian views. Do you think anyone who rejects your beliefs is thus destroying them? It sounds like you are saying that everyone either agrees with you, or they are destructive. Do you really mean that? By the way, I do not understand what you mean about WP:AGF is a better starting point. A better starting point than what other starting point? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to consider whether the JS meets wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. And we should decide their notability and the amount of weight they should be given, in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. If there is also notable criticism of the JS's findings, then we can cite that as well. From what I gather, they JS is notable, and they can be cited as a reliable source, even if we personally disagree with their findings. That's the beauty of NPOV!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The To-Do Section

I am not trying to step on any toes here, but the above "To-do" section (that heads this discussion page) does not seem very helpful. Actually it seems to be vandalized.Cublue (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to attention. I've reverted those changes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove all the ridiculous bias! Start by getting rid of unsubstantiated (impossible to substantiate) claims that "most" scholar/academics/historians believe that Christ existed. Either cough up the impossible evidence or remove this joke.

The rest of the text should then be restructured to reflect that not everyone agrees he even existed. The use of subjunctive grammar would be obvious.

As is stands it read like some Bigfoot watcher's blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.212.231 (talk • contribs)

Here we go again... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "here we go again" is how we atheists feel too! Get over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.101 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that attitude explains the POV problems. This artcle should be delisted till it fixes its bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.85.187 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

commenting out instead of deleting

Lonely Marble accuses me of deception because I commented out a paragraph in Historical Jesus. I often comment out sections rather than deleting them outright for two reasons. One, I've had my material deleted outright too many times (Hi, Ross). Two, I want to leave the text on the page so that another editor can easily see what I cut and easily restore it, which LM did. So LM benefited from my commenting out the section and then accuses me of deception. I love this page. If folks would rather that I delete stuff outright and stop commenting-out stuff as an intermediate step, let me know. Leadwind (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is better to cut controversial or poorly cited edits (if there is no obvious fix)onto the talk page and discuss until a consensus is gained. ^rossnixon 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack on you whatsover because I had no idea who commented it out. I just thought it odd that a section would be commented out with an explanation that it would be better to rewrite the paragraph entirely than fix the current one. If the current parapraph is still in the article text, just invisible commented, people will still try to fix it either by not knowing what invisible comments mean or just because the text is still there. So I thought your reasoning for keeping the text there was kind of odd. I completely understand your reasoning as you just explained it, and like I said don't make it personal because I had no idea who made it an invisible comment. My main point was I think most editors, unless very informed about this page, will probably more likely try to fix the invisible comment paragraph rather than create a new one thus making your intentions void. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LM, ah, I see your point. In fact, I had rewritten the paragraph, so no work was still needed, but I can see now how that wouldn't be clear to other editors. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Islamic movie on Jesus

Where can this go in the article:

• The Messiah (Iranian film) is a 2008 Iranian film from the Islamic Republic of Iran, directed by Nader Talebzadeh on the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. Robert C Prenic (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Jesus in modern media" page? There's about a million things that could go in it, assuming it doesn't exist in some form already. Peter Deer (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. The nearest thing is a category "Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film". Paul B (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like just right. Good find. Peter Deer (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical section/Christian views section

Why is the historical section so long when there are two major articles on the topic. Is it my imagination or did it grow recently. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a lot of that stuff. First, I cut less-relevant material from other sections to make space. Now I'm adding the HJ stuff. I'm adding it here because the perfect article is nearly self-contained, and this stuff seems relevant to Jesus. The Christian views, by the way, are also really thin. The Mormons get their own section but the EO, RCC, and Protestants don't? There's a lot more we can say about Christian views of Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's contained within "Majority Views": "It is possible to describe a general majority Christian view by examining the similarities between specific Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant doctrines found in their catechetical or confessional texts." More specifically, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches all follow a Chalcedonian christology; ie, the hypostatic union: that Christ is one person with two natures, both human and divine. I'm more concerned about the exclusion of the Oriental Orthodoxy (They're trinitarian, but Miaphysite: they believe that Christ is one person with one nature, both human and divine).

This is somewhat reductionist, but if I understand correctly, the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches has more to do with pneumatology than Christology; the infamous filioque clause. The difference between the Christology of the Catholic and Protestant churches has to do with theories of atonement and justification--from a traditional Protestant POV, Catholics confuse justification with santification (the joint statement of Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists notwithstanding). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the three mainstream views are summarized in this section, but they should still be called out individually. EOs believe that the incorporation of Jesus' body into the Trinity paves the way for our own theosis. RCCs believe that the Church is Christ made manifest on earth. Protestants emphasize personal faith in Jesus over the saving power of the church. Most of the majority view stuff is also held by the minority: Jesus as divine, as the Son, as judge and savior.

Plus, this section should cover where Christians get their beliefs: the NT, the creeds, and church tradition. The page mentions the gospels, but what about Paul's epistles and Revelation? The historical Jesus section points out where these historical ideas come from (200 years of historical and literary analysis). The Christian views section should have a subsection on "sources of Christology" or something.

Christians' views of Jesus are a big, important topic that deserves more space. I'd say two or three more paragraphs. Leadwind (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a noteworthy division in contemporary Christianity between liberal Christians (many of whom doubt some of Jesus' miracles in the gospels) and traditional Christians (who hold that it's all true). Leadwind (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Paul's epistles and Revelation should be mentioned, as should the difference between liberal and conservative Christians. They were at one time... I'm not sure, though, that the fine details of the EO/RCC/Protestant distinctions belong here or in Christian views of Jesus. As I said, reductionist (Wikipedia:Summary Style). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)