Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

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

Muslim "Scholars" a misnomer

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

you have no idea what "scholarship" means, do you. Nor ever tried your hand at exegesis of ancient texts. If it isn't "scholarship" that compiled the disparate ancient and medieval manuscript of the New Testament, compared them, edited them, translated them, and then debated their content, I have no idea what you understand by the term. The fact that you can go to a shop and buy a copy of "the Bible" is the result of literally centuries of scholarly efforts. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon, you have poorly characterized an entire people and hundreds of years of Muslim scholarship. It may be easy to skim newspapers today, read about Islamic fundamentalists and make an assumption about Muslim efforts to educate their people, but it would be a terribly naive conclusion. You may want to read more history and less NYT and WP. Cheers. --^StormRider 16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Burkbraun's comments on Jesus Myth section/bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this goes to show that there should be no "Jesus myth" section here. A "historicity" section is enough. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus was Korean fabrication

There is some Internet lies going around web lately claiming Jesus was Korean theory, please note Jesus have nothing do with Korea and Koreans, but it seems Chinese & Japanese do believe this is correct which I can only think of this was lie was invented by Chinese/Japanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Chinese/Japanese communities. I do believe this has to stop, so please add this event on main article to show this was total fabrication. --Korsentry 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Uh, I don't think we could include that with WP:FRINGE. You'd need to satisfy WP:REDFLAG. And considering the sudden rise in other forms of this propaganda that is (Budda, Mao Zedong), I personally would be disinclined to believe any of it w/o major evidence from reliable sources. Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

this sounds interesting, but we'll need evidence of the notability of this "Christ was Korean" thing before we can debunk it. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Occupation

jesus was a Rabbi and a Carpenter.

please add this two!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.80.216 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagery

We have 11 out of 11 images depicting the adult Jesus in the "standard average" convention of a bearded man with dark hair.

This does not reflect iconographic tradition accurately, since there is a parallel, although weaker, tradition of depicting Jesus as a beardless young man. here is Jesus as a boy (Bulgaria, 13th c.) -- which does not count, but which would be a welcome intermediate stage between the ubiquitous Baby Jesus and Bearded Jesus images. Here and here are examples for the beardless adult Jesus. Here we have a beardless Christ-as-Orpheus, which is probably intended more as an allegory than as a portrait, but which is nevertheless notable for its age (4th century. The oldest image currently in the article is 200 years younger). Early depictions of "Jesus as Good Shepherd" such as this, which also show him as a beardless youth are similar (allegory, not portrait). I think there is a theory that beardless depictions were the rule prior to the 6th century, when with the appearance of the Mandylion, an "authentic" portrait became available, which subsequently set an iconographic standard. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello D, I don't see any reason why beardless iconography should not be inn the article. The diversity would be good. If you are looking to replace a picture, maybe you could provide which ones you would replace. It may be easier just to add one. I would suggest being bold in this case. Cheers. --^StormRider 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Being beardless would not be accurate considering he was Nazarene and as such didn't use a razor. Soxwon (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, he was not a Nazirite. Hardyplants (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular preference. My suggestions are contained in the post above. I may try fiddling with the images today or tomorrow if I have time, but my intention was mainly to encourage others to widen iconographic coverage. In fact, the main article on this topic, depiction of Jesus, loses itself in "Early Iconography", "Acheiropoieta" and "in Islam" but fails to cover mainstream Christian ionography, which should ideally make for the bulk of the article, so I'll try to invest some work in that some time.

Of course this isn't about the question whether the "real" Jesus had a beard. None of these images are painted after life (if we exclude the Turin shroud debate for the moment). The idea that these images are in any way accurate suffers from the "Muhammad FAQ #3 fallacy". --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing changes needed

I'm putting this edit request here as the main article has been locked to edits.

<Edit request to remove vandalism removed as someone already did this.>

In the "Chronology" section, where it mention "the current year is 2009", "2009" should be replaced by the template CURRENTYEAR (all caps) in order to show the current year automatically without need to edit the year over time. (Place double curly braces before and after the template please.) This will not change the way the year is displayed, only effect is to change the year to match the current year, i.e.: on Jan 1, 2010, the year shown will change to "2010'.

Please delete this section after the above editing has been done as this section will no longer be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign. Added editsemiprotected 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited to reflect current changes. Also added expanded explanation to "currentyear" after reading the request to not change date espression. The above "currentyear" template will not change the appearance, only change as the years roll by. 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)