Talk:Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Is this section POV or OR or both? or I guess possibly neither?

Is this article supposed to be written from a Christian viewpoint or from a neutral viewpoint? I think that the answer is "neutral." In that case, I'd like to call your attention to a section that looks like original research and Christian POV. Years ago when my wife was sick I edited this page a lot. In fact, I was one of the editors listed on the talk page as a go-to expert on the topic. (That might have been my earlier username, leadwind.) I bought a lot of good books on the topic and did a lot of research. I learned a lot, especially from fellow Wikipedians, and I made several additions to the page that stuck. It's a great topic, and I'm really happy with the high quality of the page, despite the emotions it sometimes raises. But there's one issue that's really nagged at me over the years, so here I am trying to uphold the highest standards of NPOV. Wish me luck.

There's a section that doesn't label itself as Christian but that describes Jesus the way Christians want him described. And the content of the section is based on citations to primary texts, not secondary or tertiary RSs as you could easily find on this rich, wonderful topic. I remember making this mistake myself and adding material that cited the Gospels. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to quote the New Testament in describing Jesus. Why not? The New Testament is sort of the reason that I know who Jesus even was. So the section of "Life and Teachings in the New Testament" seems like a natural. If we just paraphrase the New Testament, all cited to the New Testament itself, isn't that exactly the content that the title of the section promises?

Unfortunately, not according to Wikipedia, and I didn't understand this at first. If our reader sees a section on a different page called "Evolution of cetaceans," they expect to read content that summarizes what the best secondary and tertiary sources have to say about the how whales evolved. (Hint: it's cool.) What do you call it when editors gather primary sources together and present it without reference to RSs? That seems like original research. Are there any tertiary sources that treat the topic in this way? If you opened a book and saw a summary of the gospels cited to the gospels themselves, what sort of book would you expect it to be? A sectarian book. Who is it that says we should learn about Jesus from the New Testament? Christians. Who says you should learn about Jesus by reading summaries of the best secondary and tertiary sources? Wikipedia. So the format is OR driven by POV.

Years ago, the section didn't have the scholarly intro, explaining the synoptic gospels etc, and I'm one of the editors that helped establish that subsection. Maybe a scholarly introduction to each section is in order. For example, why are the Romans so nice in Luke? The Gospel of Luke isn't going to tell us that, but a reader might be curious to know why the crucifixion in Luke is painless instead of agonizing. For that sort of insight, you need RSs.

But that's not all. Another official stance of most Christians is that all the material in the New Testament about Jesus should be considered together as a coherent whole, and all of equal weight. This section follows the Christian playbook by conflating the gospels. No one but Christians does that. In fact, for almost 2000 years Christians have been working hard to make the New Testament hang together as a single narrative. There's a de facto policy of minimizing the differences between gospels, and that's exactly what this section does. Historians routinely talk about the three synoptic gospels together because they tell similar stories that are useful for learning about the historical Jesus. But no one takes the Gospel of John seriously, except Christians. It's too different from the other three, and it doesn't have the ring of truth to it. I'm fine with including what John says about Jesus because that's a big part of Christianity. You wouldn't have the trinity without John. But it should be described under its own subsection, not with the synoptics. And again it shouldn't be citations to John, it should be what the best scholars say that John says about Jesus (e.g., gave spectacular signs, didn't cast out demons, preached mostly near Jerusalem, etc.).

Finally, here's a relatively minor point, but one that again shows the Christian bias. The section is about Jesus' life, so it shouldn't include his resurrection. That's his afterlife, and it doesn't tell us anything about the historical Jesus. You might say that the resurrection is key to understanding Jesus, so OK, then maybe you can talk me into it so that we get everything in the four canonical gospels into the section. Even if it's after he's died, OK, if you think it's that important, let's include it. And then let's also include that before Jesus was born in a stable (Luke) or born in his father's house (Matthew), he was the eternal divine Word (John). Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and the first thing we should know in the section about the New Testament and Jesus is that he is the firstborn of all creation, who was with God from the beginning. I can imagine why Christians don't want to put that first. It totally doesn't fit the Christmas story, which is a much better story. Also, it's a little odd that Jesus wasn't the Logos until about AD 90. I can see why there's reference to the resurrection (afterlife) but not the Logos (before life). But WP says we should be neutral. It's got to be about his natural life only or his entire supernatural life.

Finally, why isn't this section just "Jesus in the New Testament"? Why is it his life and teachings that we care about. Because he really was alive and really taught? OK, that's a great reason, but then take out the resurrection stuff. Or is it because the New Testament, resurrection included, did so much to define who Jesus was? Then why not the whole New Testament? I can see why Christians would want to keep out scholarly opinion on "Jesus in the New Testament," but maybe let's give the reader the whole story. Or stick with just the synoptics because they have historical value. But don't include John and Acts without including what Paul wrote about Jesus (e.g., that he was the holy spirit).

I know I've been gone a long time. This has been on my mind. Honestly, I think it's a pretty clear case, but I expect some pretty stiff resistance. I trust that this page is still civil. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't get away from referencing the gospels here, IMO, since even scholars recognize it is the main source of information, historial or otherwise, on Jesus. However, there may be sections where scholarly views can be expanded on. And there are undoubtedly other areas in which the article can be improved. But the above is a lot to go through between general concerns and what could be construed as proposals. I recommend you summarize it into some specific and pointed proposals for other editors to consider. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Airborne: "We can't get away from referencing the gospels here, IMO, since even scholars recognize it is the main source of information, historial or otherwise, on Jesus."

First, only the synoptics are a main source of historical information. If scholarly opinion is important to you, would you agree with scholars that we treat the synoptics together and John separately? Second, can you cite a WP policy that agrees with you? Is there a WP policy that says, "In such and such a case, go ahead and treat a topic the way that sectarians involved with the topic want it treated" or "just lean on primary sources and rely on editors to get it right"? I don't think such a policy exists. Lacking such a policy, we should instead follow the policies that actually exist. Shouldn't we follow WP policy, even for this article? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually looking through the citations, the only primary source I see cited is one Quran verse. The rest are from secondary sources that happen to be commenting on primary sources (which they have to do by definition of being secondary sources). Would you please point to the primary sources you act like half the article cites?

The section is clearly labelled "Life and teachings in the New Testament." Where does it say that anything in that section actually happened outside of the New Testament? Where does it tell the reader they have to regard the New Testament as anything more than the most popular legends from which most of the world knows of Jesus? Where does it say that Jesus's miracles or resurrection occur outside of the New Testament?

Given that about the only thing academia can agree on was that Jesus:

• probably existed
• frequently spoke about religion (and probably politics given their overlap in that day)
• was baptized by someone we might as well call John the Baptist
• was crucified by Roman soldiers under either orders of the Romans or the Pharisees with cooperation of the other group

--there's not a damn thing material to do a "life and teachings" section without relying on the New Testament so much that we have to just say from the get-go "this is just from the New Testament." Oh, wait, the article doesn't even do that: it cites secondary sources that discuss the New Testament and the most common interpretations of those works in academia. That is, the section is explaining those texts in the light of modern historical scholarship, rather preaching doctrine. When it doesn't do that, it treats the work as a story (notice that the section on the resurrection and ascension is mostly present tense instead of past tense).

You've more or less made a broad and unevidenced accusation that everyone who has worked on the article since you left it of pushing a fundamentalist Christian POV -- all based on your failure to read the section in context, your WP:OR opinions regarding the texts (particularly John), your utter failure to actually check a single Goddamn citation, an "all or nothing" attitude toward the New Testmant that would require academia to reject most primary sources written before the modern era (and even many of those for political reasons), and the paranoid assumption that only Christians would dare include the sources commenting on the earliest and most common texts about Jesus in the article about Jesus. How does that fit in with WP:AGF? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding discussing the Gospels, reliable sources tell us they are useful. Consider, for example some passages from Bart Ehrman in his latest book, How Jesus Became God.

• Regarding discrepancies, embellishments, etc in the Gospels: "Does this mean that the Gospels are useless as historical sources? No, it means that we need to have rigorous historical methods to help us examine books that were written for one purpose."
• "But even though they are the best sources available to us, they really are not as good as we might hope." (my italics)

So, my position that we cannot ignore the Gospels is supported by scholars, or at least one in this case. However, you appear to believe that we are saying different things; we are likely saying the same thing. And Ehrman chimes in with something similar: "The reason we need [secondary sources] is that the Gospels cannot simply be taken at face value as giving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did."

Thus, to answer one of your questions, my comment that we cannot ignore the Gospels follows WP:RS, although I agree we have to be careful to include what scholarly sources say and how they separate historicity from theology. And my suggestion that you make more pointed and focused specific recommendations remains. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, you folks are right. There's a lot less primary source citation than I remember. I'll drop that as a concern. What about conflating the gospels? What secular source merges John with the synoptics? More generally, this section gives the impression that the gospels tell one story, whereas historians say they tell at least two, maybe four. If you can't cite a secular source that treats the gospels this way, this section is POV. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the best way to go to determine that would be to consult one of the more recent articles in reference sources and see what it does. The Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, along with the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity, seem to me to be the most recent really well-regarded reference sources likely to deal with this topic, and I think following their lead, whatever it is, would probably be considered acceptable. Give me a few days and I'll respond with what I find there. John Carter (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I remember your name from years back. I think yours is a fine suggestion. Can I add one? Encyclopedia Britannica is a highly-rated encyclopedia, and I'd like Wikipedia to have everything they have about Jesus. Our article is longer, so it should have everything they have and more. Of course, that's just my opinion, not WP policy. For simplicity, if I had to pick one thing that's most wrong with this section, it's that it uses exactly the four gospels that have been canonical since c 180. That's a Christian way of thinking about "the gospels." Historians refer to the synoptics, or if they are reaching broadly enough to look in John, then they'll look in Thomas, too. Thomas has more authentic words of the historical Jesus than John, so to include John but not Thomas looks a lot like POV to me. If this section changed to "Life and teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels," I'd be happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is a well-respected tertiary source that I like to use because it's scholarly and dense. It has a long article on Jesus Christ which we could use as a model. The ODCC capitalizes "Him" when referring to Jesus, so it's on the sectarian side, but it's scholarly. I would propose that our secular article on Jesus be no more sectarian than the Jesus Christ article in the ODCC. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Airborne you rightly say: "my position that we cannot ignore the Gospels is supported by scholars." I agree with you. The gospels are central to understanding both Jesus and how historians know anything about Jesus. If anything, I'd like us to say even more about the gospels than we already do. For example, I'd like to cite EP Sanders when he says that the "empty tomb" accounts don't seem like deliberate fraud. You're also right to cite Ehrman as a reliable expert on this topic. Let's put more of what Ehrman says into this section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not object on theological grounds (though that I personally have doubts about the uncanonicity of the Gospel of Thomas is not a reason for inclusion) and understand that Thomas is contemporary with the Gospel of John, but I do have to point out that the Gospel of Thomas features almost no biography: it is a collection of sayings and parables. It also barely features reactions to the sayings, except for a couple of points where the disciples react in confusion and Jesus has to explain things or otherwise derides them. Plus, even though while I personally do study Thomas for my own religious fulfillment, I have to acknowledge that it would be revisionist and POV to include Thomas in the New Testament when no known historical church does so. The section is on Jesus's life as detailed in the New Testament. As before, the article does not go "Ok, let's look only at John but not Thomas," it merely looks to the secondary and tertiary sources, which in turn choose to use John but not Thomas because that's where more biographical information (however legendary) is found. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Gospel of Thomas may provide some information. Churches (that I know of) have not and do not draw from it, but that is probably because they have a particular theological point of view and that Gospel doesn't always align with it. For example, Linda Woodhead notes in Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, that within it, "Jesus endorses the authority of women, rejects attempts to turn him into a figure of unique authority, instructs people that the truth is already within and around them, and encourages a view of the spiritual quest as an individual rather than a group enterprise.” Wikipedia does not follow any particular POV, so if scholars such as Woodhead and other reliable sources discuss this Gospel, it can be included. Airborne84 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian, since the gospel of Thomas is full of teachings, it seems to fit in a section on scriptural accounts of his life and teaching. if you're saying that we should include biographical gospels even if they're legendary (like John), then there are a couple more gospels we could include, like the gospel of Peter. Those would round out our information on why he was baptized (even though he was sinless and didn't need to repent), why he was crucified (he wasn't, it was a trick), and what people saw at the empty tomb (like a giant talking cross). This material contradicts the synoptics, but so does John, and that's apparently OK. It's not clear, however, that adding legendary material helps our readers. Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you think of seeing how other tertiary sources handle the material, since you seem happy with the current arrangement. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has a paragraph on Mark, then one on Matthew and Luke, and then one on John. The paragraph on John points out its difference from the synoptics, such as Jesus not experiencing any human weakness (no baptism, no temptation, no Gethsemane, no agony). How about we follow that outline? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek name in lead

Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew possibly, Greek doubtfully. He lived under the Latin-speaking Roman Empire. Why is his name rendered in Greek in the first sentence, but not in other languages? I suggest leaving all foreign renderings to the Etymology section. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the earliest definite rendering of his name we have is the Greek version. This, not Latin, was the lingua franca in the eastern Empire (that's why the New Testament manuscripts are in Greek). We know his name in Aramaic/Hebrew was "Yeshua" but we don't know for sure what the original spelling of this was—it was probably ישוע in Hebrew, but not definitely—so it's left out. I hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed passages

I removed the below passages from the "other views" section and am posting them here. Perhaps they can go in a different section. The "many" part will need some sourcing, of course. The issue regarding location has to do with WP:NPOV. Placing "rebuttals" at the end of sections can be seen as moving toward a POV or even an essay. This position should be sourced properly and listed in a section positing similar views, not offered to rebut a statement. Not to say that can never be done on Wikipedia, but this just seemed out of place to me in the section it was placed. It is also not clear to me that C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar are addressing Russell's points, so this could also be WP:OR. Feel free to weigh in. Airborne84 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Many have disputed Russell's opinion regarding Jesus' alleged vindictiveness, including C.S. Lewis, who thought the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside, and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

References

As you acknowledge, rebutting an opinion can be done in Wikipedia. It seems highly inappropriate to have the only quoted statement in the article come from Russell, especially when that statement is patently false. Forgiving enemies was a central part of Jesus' message. I think Lewis and von Balthasar do address Russell's point about Hell - that the existence of Hell does not imply a vindictive God.Jimjilin (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Jimjilin. Removing the above statement unbalances the article. Furthermore Christian theologians over the centuries - more than just Lewis and von Balthasar - have adequately addressed this claim. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If are no other objections I'll repost the above mentioned passage.Jimjilin (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind in principle if the passages above are in the article, provided they are adequately sourced. They are not now. However, I do not believe that they belong in "other views" which is where the criticisms are stated. This is not a criticism or an "other view". It should be located in the article along with other similar thoughts.

I'm also a bit concerned by the comments above. We don't decide as editors in these situations which reliable sources are true and which are false. And the fact that various theologians disagree does not cancel out Russell's position on Wikipedia, nor would that invalidate it or falsify it (putting aside whether it is actually valid). Multiple positions and ideas, even conflicting, can appear in the same article. Claims about the falsity of Russell's statements should should be saved for other platforms on the web. And removing the passages does not unbalance the article. It achieved Featured Article status before they were added.

Finally, as we discuss reinstating the passages—in any part of the article—please address my concern that (1) it is not adequately sourced, specifically the claim about "many", (2) that it appears to violate WP:SYNTH (if the two authors were not addressing Russell's point specifically (and it is not clear that they are), then the ideas cannot be linked), and (3) that it appears to present a POV in the main article by "rebutting" any stated criticism of Jesus. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about the comments above. The point is that Russell's opinion on the matter clearly fits under WP:FRINGE given that the vast majority of theologians, scholars and historians share the opposing viewpoint. While his viewpoint doesn't need to be eliminated entirely from the article it should not be given great prominence, especially by removing a paired rebuttal from statements of his opinion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your challenges: (1) I will leave to those more well-versed than I. But Russell's opinion is a challenge to the core teachings of Christianity, and so I am absolutely certain there are hundreds if not thousands of cites that deal directly with Russell's viewpoint, even if they don't directly cite Russell himself. (2) I would disagree with your statement that "it is not clear that they are". It seems abundantly clear to me, negating any concern of WP:SYNTH. (3) Letting Russell's opinion stand without rebuttal would appear to present a POV as well - and a minority one at that. Besides, I don't think it would be ethical to state Russell's opinion without also stating responses to Russell's opinion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the Russell quote as well? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If the concern is simply that it is Russell alone making the statement, and that it could be a fringe view, that can be remedied easily enough. There is plenty of existing literature by commentators on the same topic. The idea can be sourced by other authors as well. And I don't think historians and scholars much discuss Jesus's vindictive character or lack of it. Theologians do, of course. But it should be clear why.

If there are sources directly addressing Russell's position, then they should be used, not the ones listed. That would alleviate the WP:SYNTH issue. However, they should still be listed in a section with like ideas, not in the section called "other views".

Finally, I don't agree that it reduces a POV position to rebut a critical statement like this. Please read through the article and see what other critical statements exist. There is one short paragraph, of which Russell's idea is part, and a few sentences in an above section on Jewish views. So, about 99 percent of the article is neutral or has unrebutted statements like "John's Gospel presents the teachings of Jesus not merely as his own preaching, but as divine revelation" or multiple discussions of the miracles he performed. Certainly many have disagreed that Jesus's teachings are divine revelation, including likely the entire non-Christian world throughout history. And none of the latter statements about miracles have accompanying rebuttals from commentators who addressed other possibilities. Yet, you're suggesting that if a very few critical passages exist within the article without a rebuttal showing their "falsity", then the article is POV? I strongly disagree with this idea. I truly would not be interested in suggesting we sprinkle in "rebuttals" from WP:RS commentators disagreeing with many of the unchallenged Gospel and theological positions in the article. Yet, it would be consistent with your suggestion that a critical statement for which opposing ideas exist should be rebutted. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's well put, Airborne84 and I agree with it. --Rbreen (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood me on the POV discussion. My point was, and still is, that whether Russell's criticism is presented without a rebuttal, or with a rebuttal, the article is still presenting a specific POV. There is no point in arguing to the contrary as it is a truism, and any argument regarding POV here is not helpful. As for your other comments on POV - you're welcome to start inserting rebuttals to the claims of miracles, divinity, etc., but you would also need to insert rebuttals to those rebuttals ... and to those ... and to those ... Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your latter point is exactly why we should avoid putting in "rebuttals". And yes, Russell's quote presents a particular POV. I doubt there's disagreement there. The Gospels in the article present another POV. Peter and others present other POVs. It's OK to present POV statements in the article as long as the article adheres to the guidelines in WP:NPOV. Since the article is a featured article, a consensus of editors thought that it met Featured Article criterion 1d. If you are arguing that the entire article is POV, you will have to describe the problem beyond one quote in the article, IMO. Airborne84 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see that someone had reinstated the "rebuttal". Whoever it was, please review WP:BRD. Until a consensus is established to insert the passages in the article, the version without them has consensus. Airborne84 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad we agree on the point regarding rebuttals :) I think we're getting a little off-track here. To summarize: I don't find a POV argument particularly helpful in deciding Russell's position in the article. I am also not advocating for his complete omission. Rather, I am advocating that if he is included, his critics ought also be included. That would be sufficient, for one who wishes to delve further into the discussion, to browse the back-and-forth rebuttal arguments that have inevitably occurred. Something as simple as "Russell argues for abc; others have responded xyz" is fine. That is no different than what I would expect Wikipedia to do to air minority arguments on other, less emotionally and religiously charged, topics. As for whether he goes under "Other Views" or elsewhere...I have no opinion on that.

Oh, and full disclosure (which I should have mentioned from the start): as a conservative Christian I do have a conflict of interest in this discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I understand your position. At this point we are simply rehashing. To add the rebuttal, you'll need to properly source the "many" wording, remove the editorializing "alleged", provide passages that clearly and directly address Russell's specific points and, most importantly, build a consensus for the change.

Your personal beliefs don't matter here at Wikipedia. We all follow the same Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It'd be quite easy to argue that the very materials Russell uses to support his position actually contradict him, but that would be original research and so disallowed. I will therefore leave it to those better versed in others' research to do so. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jimjilin, please review WP:BRD as your restoration of the passages violates it, and does not address the other concerns that I noted. The second addition appears to be edit warring and I left you a note on your talk page about this. As the previous version had consensus, you need to build a new consensus to add the passages. Simply re-adding passages that have been noted to have multiple issues and do not have a consensus behind them is not the best way to get results here at Wikipedia. Airborne84 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't really addressed it before because my primary issue with the passages in question is that they should not be juxtaposed with Russell's. I assume that likewise it would not be acceptable to list the C.S. Lewis and Balthasar passages in another section followed by Russell's as a "rebuttal". However, since Jimjilin appears to be willing to stride boldly toward the 3RR rule regarding the link between these passages and Russell's, I'll address it to potentially keep Jimjilin from getting blocked for this.

The passages imply (at least to me) that C.S. Lewis and Balthasar allow that hell might not equate to everlasting punishment. This implies a lack of vindictiveness on their part. It has no implications for Jesus. Russell is stating his belief, ostensibly based on his reading of scripture, that Jesus believed in everlasting punishment. He also asserts "a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching", which is different again from the idea of hell being or not being everlasting punishment. If C.S. Lewis said that Jesus thought that "the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside", this would establish a link to part of what Russell is asserting (but not the reaction to his preaching). But the passage says only that CS Lewis thought that. This article is not about C.S. Lewis or Balthasar's views.

Having said that, I will reiterate that, even with a clear link (which there is not), it is not appropriate to rebut statements here in the manner of an essay.

As a final note for Jimjilin, it might be useful to think about what precedent that this rebuttal statement would set in a controversial article. It would not be something I would do, but this would open the door for others to go through the article and list opposing positions from reliable sources to many of the scriptural positions on miracles, divinity, etc. And as Jtrevor99 noted, editors may then want to list rebuttals to the rebuttals and where do they stop? It just seems like a bad idea. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Russell is stating his belief, ostensibly based on his reading of scripture, that Jesus was vindictive. C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar and others have stated their position, clearly based on their reading of scripture, that Jesus was not vindictive. The book I linked to goes into detail discussing Jesus' statements to support von Balthasar's position. Don't you like balance?Jimjilin (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why not list the C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar passages in a section not called "other views" which contains criticism? I don't think you will get much support for using C.S. Lewis as a reliable source here; but, if not, I'm sure you can find a reliable source that opposes Russell's position. The point is that competing views by reliable sources can exist in the same article. But we as editors don't, in matters of opinion, choose which is "correct" and which is "false".

Again we're just covering the same ground here. But there is room for compromise. Since you seem to want these ideas juxtaposed, would you be OK listing the C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar passages in another section and listing the Russell position immediately afterward in a rebuttal manner? Airborne84 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine.Jimjilin (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All right. Please provide the exact wording from von Balthasar that provides the link to Jesus' position on hell (as opposed to von Balthasar simply making a statement about hell that requires someone to make a connection), I'll draft the proposed passages and a proposal for where to place them and we'll request additional input from other editors. And to be fair, I will recommend that the "rebuttal" from Russell be paraphrased/shortened afterward to only capture his key points. I open this as an option for further comment by other editors. Airborne84 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be less objectionable (to me at least) to also use C.S. Lewis's quote in another section on Jesus' views. For example, this discussion has come up before in archive 62 where an editor opined that C.S. Lewis "was clearly a Christian and speaking as such and to put his views in a section meant to represent non-Christian views does not add neutrality, it violates it." The other editor was talking about the "other views" section we are discussing here. However, as a Christian, C.S. Lewis's quote could go in another section as we are discussing here. However, please provide the specific words that C.S. Lewis is using where he attributes wording about hell to Jesus. Then I think it will be more acceptable in a Featured Article. What other editors think is to be determined. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Two quotes from Hans Urs von Balthasar, who thought Jesus was anything but vindictive.

Von Balthasar pointed out that Jesus “judges, however, only insofar as anyone who persists in darkness does not himself want to come into the light, and thereby, in view of God’s proclaimed word of love, judges himself." Dare We Hope: "that All Men be Saved"? ; With, A Short Discourse on Hell p. 42.

Hans Urs von Balthasar approvingly quoted 1 Timothy: God our Savior, desires all men people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all. Dare We Hope: "that All Men be Saved"? ; With, A Short Discourse on Hell p. 35.Jimjilin (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In The Problem of Pain C.S. Lewis said, "The doors of Hell are locked on the inside." Lewis was clearly giving his opinion of Jesus' teachings.Jimjilin (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I shall now await Airborne84's descent from his snow-covered peak after his high conference with other great and powerful Editors. lol Just kidding.Jimjilin (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the passages above. Please provide the full citations as this is a featured article and incomplete citations are not fitting. When I have those I can craft a proposal although it may take me a day or two.

Please don't comment on other editors; focus on the material instead. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs (1988) Dare We Hope: "That All Men be Saved"? Ignatius Press p. 42

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs (1988) Dare We Hope: "That All Men be Saved"? Ignatius Press p. 35Jimjilin (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lewis, C.S. (2001) The Problem of Pain Harper San Francisco p. 130Jimjilin (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to have the ISBNs, if available. However, that should be enough for now. I'll put a proposal together tomorrow for you and other editors to consider. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I mulled this over for a bit and decided to try a different approach which I hope will be acceptable to editors here. After a bit of research, there are quite a few options on how to handle this. However, as laying all these out is not how I prefer to spend my Christmas (Merry Christmas by the way), I decided to tackle the problem as I think has been communicated—concern that the Russell quote is too prominent in the article—by simply paraphrasing the quote.

It is possible to list the positions that Jimjilin's sources note in the "Christian views" section along with Russell's words. However, these positions (that there might be a way out of hell) are also contradicted by Christian sources. I listed a few below, but these are only a smattering of what is available.

• Michael Allen Rogers (Doctor of Ministry, Westminster Theological Seminary) wrote here that “One foundational principle Jesus taught in the lesson of the rich man and Lazarus was that hell has no exit door.”

  Russell Moore, “president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention” states in an article called "Why is Hell Forever?" that “[T]he Scripture is quite clear that hell is indeed everlasting. Jesus leaves the psychic burden intact.” Interestingly, Moore points to C.S. Lewis’s words to emphasize that there is no departing from hell for the sinners: “They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what [God] does.”

  Matt Slick, apparently the president of CARM, writes in a CARM article called “Is Hell Eternal?” that “Eternal fire is real. Jesus said it was.”

  Seattle Pastor Mark Driscoll is quoted in a Christian Post article as saying: “Regarding a second chance after death, Driscoll stated plainly that there is no second chance. ‘Your eternal destiny is sealed upon your death. This life is your only opportunity.'”

  This website proposes to collect the thoughts of famous Christian commentators through history. It paints a rather bleak picture for someone arguing that hell may not be eternal, although I have not checked whether the quotes are properly attributed or not.

Given the above, it would certainly be encyclopedic to note the two opposing Christian views on this in the section called "Christian views". However, that need not necessarily involve the Russell quote (although it could). Yet, Russell also pointed to a separate issue regarding the reaction to Jesus' preaching, not related to Hell, which would not fit well in such a discussion.

So, I decided to simply reduce the prominence of the Russell quote. Perhaps that is acceptable to the other editors here. The question of whether to create a new paragraph in the "Christian views" section can then be left to someone who may wish to assemble it, if desired. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought this matter was settled. That some disagree with Lewis and von Balthasar is not the point. And I don't think you'll find any Christian thinkers who conceive of Jesus as vindictive. I'd like to add: Some have disputed Russell's opinion regarding Jesus' alleged vindictiveness. Short and to the point and not out of place in that section. Russell is expressing an extremely controversial opinion and it would serve Wikipedia users if alternate views were mentioned. Just asking for balance. If you'd like to include a link to a more conservative Christian group that doesn't think Jesus was vindictive, that would be fine too. Something like this: http://www.explorefaith.org/punishment.html Jimjilin (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

References

All right. We disagree at this point. A Christian point of view is, to me, out of place in the "Other [non-Christian] views" section. Please work to (1) establish a clear consensus to put a Christian point of view rebuttal after Russell's quote in the "Other views" section, or (2) start a new thread and establish a consensus to delete Russell's position if that's what you'd like to do. I oppose the first because it introduces POV. Perhaps you can establish a clear consensus for it with some additional input from editors though. Airborne84 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, since I did say I would present the reverse possibility, listing the Christian point of view followed by the position Russell supports, I will do so, in concept at least. It could be a new paragraph in the "Christian views" section in a manner after the following:

Whether Jesus believed hell equated to everlasting punishment is a matter of some dispute. Various Christian commentators, such as C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar believe that Jesus thought hell was not everlasting punishment. Other Christian sources [such as the ones I noted] state that Jesus was clear in the Gospels that there is no escape from the punishment of eternal hell. Bertrand Russell called Jesus’ belief, as portrayed in the Gospels, as vindictive and a defect in his moral character, opining that no one who is "really profoundly humane can believe in" hell. This position is echoed by atheist author Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens stated a similar sentiment in his book God is Not Great. Probably no one has noted detailed positions by Hitchens in this article because he did not have qualifications as a historian. However, if we are to use C.S. Lewis's position as a Christian in this type of discussion, it would seem that Hitchens' position as a notable atheist could be included.

Please note that the statements do not refer to each other. I.e., the latter statements do not refer to the earlier ones in a manner that suggests they invalidate them (introducing POV). This provides the balance you feel is needed without presenting the impression that one opinion is "false".

Russell's position on Jesus' reaction to his preaching is a separate matter.

Finally, if you feel that this is an improvement, it will still require other editors to approve, as it lists non-Christian ideas in the "Christian views" section. I don't think that is an improvement; but, if you insist the ideas must be juxtaposed, and don't mind the Russell position following the others, then feel free to present the above as a proposed edit to the article (with sources, of course). Airborne84 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

It lists Jesus as a "fictional character." Even if you are not a Christian, Jesus is not a fictional character. 128.164.114.254 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not, nowhere in the article does it say Jesus is fictional. Please read the article before making comments.Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The image of Jesus

As everyone knows there is a lot of controversy around the image of Jesus. But It seems that one version always wins out, at a price. Jesus is loved by millions of non-White people around the world. The best solution and I do not think anyone could argue with this is to use this composite image in the lead as done here Historical Jesus. This is the best way to handle a plural world.--Inayity (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely it is more inclusive and more in line with the spirit of Christian doctrine to have one image representing everyone? Having different images seems to me to imply arbitrarily splitting up Christians based on what they look like. After all, according to Christianity "Christ is all, and in all" (Col 3:11) and the race isn't relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually see that "Christ is all, and in all" and race not being relevant as a reason to go ahead and have a composite image of the most common racial depictions of Jesus. It wouldn't have to be as small as the one at Historical Jesus and Race and appearance of Jesus, just four of the most diverse. Say, the Chinese, Ethiopian, European. All we need is a Native American Jesus (I'm seeing plenty in a Google image search, just need to find one that we can use and figure out how to upload it), and we'd have all the bases from Jesus Loves the Little Children covered. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the change. It is in line with WP:WORLDVIEW, and having multiple notable depictions of Jesus' image is encyclopedic. I'd be fine now with the one from Historical Jesus. Not opposed to Ian.thomson's suggestion either, but would be interested in seeing the composite image. Airborne84 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been and widely remains the view amongst Bible loving Christians that images of Jesus are a profound and offensive violation of His commands, specifically the second commandment (Matt.5.17-20, Deut.5.8-9, Col.1.15). [1] Cpsoper (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good thing to take to the wiki for Christians by Christians. This one is by everyone for everyone. Compatibility with Christian doctrine is not one of our core values nor should it be.--Adam in MO Talk 01:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So everyone who disagrees with you - i.e. 90+ % of Christians everywhere - is not a "Bible loving" Christian. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am a conservative Christian, and I've never heard this claim before. Obviously, there is such a claim regarding Mohammad in the Islam faith, and there may indeed be some sects of Christianity that view images of Christ as offensive. But neither western Christianity, nor for that matter Judaism, hold that images of God or Christ are offensive - only those of any other god, or worship of a graven image as a substitute for God. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Christianity has been fine more often than not with depicting God (though there have been movements in most denominations that have complained at some point), but Judaism actually does get a bit touchy about the matter. Some Jews even self-censor the English word "God" to stay as far away from idolatry as possible. Still, Cpsoper's claim appears to be personal belief presented universal and objective claims regarding historical doctrines, ones that simply do not hold up to scrutiny. Is he spiritually right (or wrong)? That's not a matter for the talk pages. Is his claim applicable or relevant to policies and guidelines concerning article content? Not at all. I think the concensus is clear that we're not going to remove images representing Jesus, the issue is whether we're going with Jesus cracker on a Christ, an older image, this composite image, or a simpler composite image. We should probably hat this portion of the discussion, in fact, and get back to business. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

To play "devil's advocate": The historical image is indeed compatible with WP:WORLDVIEW, but the current image, though undoubtedly less accurate, is nevertheless more universally recognizable. Current Western and Eastern media, as well as historical media (Renaissance artists, medieval artists, and the like), all use an image like the current one. Significant exceptions include the Ethiopian church, and probably a few others. Keep in mind, additionally, that the "historical" image is nothing more than a reasonable guess - which is exactly what the current image was in the minds of those historical artists, though their guess was borne out of a desire to make Jesus look "more relatable" to patrons of the Roman and Greek Orthodoz churches - i.e., like a European.

Or, to put the argument a slightly different way: we simply don't know what he looked like, and while the historical image is probably closer to reality, the current image is more universal as it's closer to what's been used throughout antiquity in the majority of western and eastern cultures. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that "current image" was added to the article with no discussion [2], and was later edit-warred back in, replacing a longstanding, much more historically notable picture (this one), that had been there for years. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That IS interesting. For purely aesthetic reasons I'd prefer the one that was edit warred out. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

All of the majority-black churches I've visited depicted Jesus as black, or had mostly black depictions if they had any non-black ones as well. The store I used to work at also stocks roughly equal numbers of white and black nativity sets, and the town I live in is 40-45% black. This is in line with the common trend that Jesus is usually depicted as the local race, if not depicted as a Mediterranean Semite. My family actually has a black manger set, and if we were any more Scottish, and we'd still be in Scotland; though this was in part to see if my grandparents would react to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's try to get organized here. I'll lay out the various proposals and then we can argue in favor or against each one below. The proposal to remove all images entirely has already been voted down. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Keep current image. Primary argument in favor is that it is a more universally recognized and accepted depiction of Christ, even if it is less historically accurate. (The "European edition Jesus" is the most widespread due to Roman Catholicism being the most widespread of all Christian sects.)

(2) Change to the earlier image that was removed during an edit war. Primary argument in favor is the same as (1).

(3) Change to a single image that is intended to portray scholars' best guess on what Jesus may have actually looked like. Primary argument in favor is historical relevance and accuracy.

(4) Change to a composite image such as this one. Primary argument in favor is that it can satisfy a variety of viewpoints. Exact composite to use TBD (to be determined) if this proposal wins.

I'm for the current image. The Good Shepherd is perhaps one of the most recognizable depictions of Jesus and appears already in the early Christian art. A composite image may better suit the Historical Jesus article and putting it here too would duplicate lead illustrations. Also, the current image is of higher quality, with 3,186×6,151 pixels. Brandmeister^talk 22:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear (to me anyway) that there is enough consensus to change now. Why not put the composite image in the article in the "Depictions" section? Perhaps that's a good middle ground. Airborne84 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Would that mean moving the one from the "Language, ethnicity, and appearance" section down, or having a different one? —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked through for a composite image and missed it. I'd still support a composite image in the lede, but until a consensus of editors concurs, I'm fine with that one in the main body. Airborne84 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer a single image that was closer to Jesus's likely appearance, but was still recognizable as the Jesus of popular conception. That is, a compromise between (1) and (3). If this is impossible either (1) or (2) would be better than a composite. Even though the misconceptions about Jesus's race are frustrating, our mission is to report information, not correct ignorance. -- LWG ^talk 18:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus theories

Wondering if any of the accounts presented in this article are appropriate for this page or some other page about Jesus and theories that depart from the religious accounts? http://www.alternet.org/belief/not-so-virgin-birth-why-stories-jesus-became-more-magical-over-time 24.5.69.164 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus as a Judean rather than a Jew

Issue is ultimately about a single tendentious editor who is going to be blocked any time now has been indeffed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has today changed several descriptions of Jesus as a Jew to read that he was a Judean. However, the source for this is a book by Benjamin H. Freedman, who is described as an anti-semite, and I feel their is a danger that he is describing Jesus as a non Jew to square up with his own anti semitic beliefs. Does anyone else feel that this at least might make him an unreliable source? Britmax (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I've reverted this. Saying Jesus was not Jewish is nonsense. And Judaea and Galilee are two different places—saying somebody's a "Judaean from Galilee" is like saying someone's a Scotsman from Wales. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I guess you were talking about myself, well when you talk about anti-semitism, I dont remember saying this to anyone. You are the first person to tell me this. The Roman Province actually was called Judea. I am not talking about today's Galilea and today's Judea. I will ask you not to make this references because you are this way spreading Anti-Semitism. In Wikipedia, we have to stop judging people's character or personal beliefs like you are doing but analyze scientifically what has been said. Let's Learn from Science and Reason and not by Emotion.In a democratic society, everyone is allowed to express his opinion thats why i let you express your Beliefs about Benjamin Freedman, he is "Jewish" by the way, because you are allowed to express your beliefs no matter how unpleasant that may be, if you are planning to stop someone from expressing himself, you are just acting as a Tyrant. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC) contribs) 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC) If that is the inference you draw from my question about your source, I suggest you read my question again, more carefully, and read our article about him. Britmax (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Judea was a very short term governmental entity whose citizens were overwhelmingly Jews. Jesus, by the information related to us by the sources, was a Jew. Jew is the standard description of people sharing this religio-cultural heritage. There is no reason not to describe him as a Jew. To describe his as a Judean, or citizen of Judea, is both less than helpful, because people on average are not familiar with the Judean government, and also rather clearly obfuscatory, as the evidence clearly indicates his status as an ethnic Jew. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Well, I want you then to tell me what is the Religion of Judaism and Christianity, because according to you, there is a connection between the two, and in my opinion they are not related. Explain to me what is Judaism and its basic tenets.And so in your, professional opinion, his work has to be ignored because he is labeled an Antisemite? I dont agree with such logic unfortunately, and I see that you are biased against Mr. Freedman. And no, I think the article you people wrote is Very Antisemitic, because the man is "Jewish". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC) @LearnedElder: freedom of speech does not apply to Wikipedia, and we are not here to broadcast one's opinions, so don't try to dismiss as opinion that [[Freedman (who rejected Judaism) was a known antisemite is as confirmed a fact as him being an anticommunist (in his mind, they were the same thing); and don't claim to be on the side of reason when you cited an antisemitic conspiracy theorist as if he was a historian. The best case scenario for you citing him is that you had absolutely no idea what you were doing, in which case you should leave the article to people who do know what they're doing. If you did know what you were doing (hinted at since you tried to use Freedman's Jewish ancestry as a red herring), then you clearly saw nothing wrong with citing an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, which is highly problematic. Your opinion that they are not related is rejected by mainstream academia, which is what we side with. You yourself have to keep putting "Jewish" in quote when referring to Freedman, because he was about as Jewish as Richard Dawkins is Christian. Your accusation of antisemitism for pointing out that Freedman (who again, was not a historian, but a conspiracy theorist) wrote antisemitic material and campaigned for antisemitic causes is an attack on others and will be used as evidence against you if we have to suggest to the admins that you need to be topic banned from articles relating to Jews and Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC) You are refusing to enter in a debate with about Judaism. I am ready to discuss the topic and cite quotes from famous historians on the content of that book, and we will compare the Talmud and the Bible (the word of God). And then we together will decide if Christianity has anything to do with Judaism. Thats my offer. Also, i dont appreciate when you say when most academia agrees, because you know very well that progress is accomplished by the minority and not by the masses. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC) No, mainstream academia decides, Wikipedia merely summarizes their findings. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC) The purpose of this talk page is to improve this article, not to engage in debate. Rmhermen (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Well, in order to improve the article, the majority has to agree, thats the rules and so how do you want to improve something if there is no debate. I am not even allowed to change nothing of the article the majority of the writers on Wikipedia dont agree. I want to point out my facts and I am not let the chance to. If Jesus was really a Jewish rabbi, then lets analyze the content of the Talmud and see if it is in accordance with the Bible. I am ready to do that, the question is "Are You?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Everyone may be interested in the ANI thread I've filed regarding LearnedElder's posts here. I've suggested at least a topic ban from Jews and Judaism (including pre-Nicene Christianity), if not a broader topic ban or more severe measures. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC) And I have submitted a request for admin attention to the username, which seems designed to refer to the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I strongly suspect that this editor is not here to build an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Again Mr. Thomson. You have not even let me the chance of pointing out my facts. Remember that. Your a fudging your own Rules. I obey the Rules. You break them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC) You have not even let me cite other professional scholars, I will give up on Mr. Freedman if he is labelled an Antisemite. I never even read your article about him before that. But you are not obeying the Rules and I deserve a better judgment than yours. I want a summary of your accusation against me because I want to talk to the admin also about your lack of respect towards wikipedia subscribers who are trying to provide for humanity but are silenced by people who lack morals and character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Which rules would those be? We cite mainstream academic sources, and do not give undue weight nor even false balance to fringe claims. We are not here to debate, nor promote your personal beliefs, nor present original research, nor even engage in general discussion about matters that are not going to be included in the article. If you are not here to cite mainstream academic sources, but here to "right" what you imagine are "great wrongs", you are not welcome here. All that blue text are links to site policies and guidelines supporting what I'm saying. Your other actions on this site have made it clear that you have been blinded by antisemitic foolishness. I'm not going to even ask why we should listen to you, when it's clear that you have wasted whatever judgement you have and squandered whatever learning you could have had by wasting your time with hateful and ungodly lies. As for accusations, if you'd bother to read, you'd see that there was a link on this page, and I left a message on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Again, you dont even let me point out my sources, I will drop Freedman I tell you, you dont even let me explain myself but you keep ranting me with this rubbish of antisemitism that I dont want to discuss, I want to point out professionals scholars its ok if we drop Freedman, I never read that article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC) How have I stopped you from citing sources here? I've merely pointed out what kind of sources we accept for articles, and pointed out that we're not here to debate. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I will say one more thing. I know my case is lost, I understood in which hands my faith is. But I will say one last thing:Ye are of your Father, The Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Lets not forget: "Your Father", He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)