Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 30 April 2005

What externally verified events?

Give a reply before reverting, please.

moved

suggested to add section on Jesus's Family / Descendants either as part of this section on life of Jesus or new major subsection

to include ref to Wikipedia' pages

that suggestion was in the main article, i'm moving it here where it belongs. 63.227.176.210 01:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture of George W. Bush

I am going to delete the link to the picture of George W. Bush in 1 week, unless someone can give me a good reason not too. It's not that I'm offended--far from it--it's just that it's one of the most asinine attempts at humor I've ever seen, and is a distraction, not least of all for it's atrocious English. So yeah...I guess I WAS a bit offended by how stupid it was.

Restructuring

This article is garbage. It is presenting as scientific facts a set of far fetched speculations (recognized in the cited source as a pure slightly possible alternative) from the weblink "Nizrael". The active users delete all mentions and arguments about the historical references. Given the huge set of reverts and deletions, and the nerve with which they are done, it is expected that peace cannot be done (at least not more than in Jerusalem). Moreover, the page contains sacrilegious text that repulse readers from large classes of people (perhaps meant to keep them away and allow exclusivity to a set of people with an agenda).

I recommend to transform this page into a really neutral page (i.e, containing only links to original sources, i.e., gospels, etc...). The interpretations of different groups will then go into corresponding pages (so that one no longer needs to delete each other with no explanation and such bitterly). I already copied the current content into Jesus: the Jewish POV. User:I834

I strongly object to the changes you are trying to make. You have not indicated which specific statements in the article you dispute; "a set of far fetched speculations" and "sacrilegious text" do nothing to identify what your actual concerns are. Which past reverts and deletions do you find objectionable? What aspects of the article are not neutral, in your opinion? Please give concrete reasons for wanting to restructure this article, and you might overcome my objections. Also, you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy, lingo, etc. despite your recently created user account. What other user accounts have you edited under? (I'm not necessarily accusing you of being a sockpuppet; I know sometimes people have legitimate reasons for switching to a different account.) Alanyst 23:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

Please discuss deletions before doing so. They may contain valuable information which needs to be cleaned up or expanded instead. - Amgine 21:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reiterate above - Amgine 19:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine

Misleading edit summary

I just wanted to note that a recent edit by CheeseDreams carried an edit summary which implied, I think, that all the edit did was remove vandalism from the article. CD did in fact remove the vandalism -- I'm quite pleased about that, btw -- but also reintroduced the sentence about koans to the article. I haven't been involved here enough to know where the discussion went on koans, but when I saw the diff I thought it was strange that no mention was made in the edit summary, and I can see there is a large dispute about the inclusion of the word "koan" on this talk page, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. If it's just an edit war, then I guess I'd say the misleading edit summary is underhanded...perhaps even a "dirty trick" if intentional. If, however, consensus was to remove the word, then I think it's more serious than that. Anyhow, I thought it needed noting. Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries only have so much room

P.s. that is not an NPOV observation. Why criticise my edit summaries when you do not criticise those of others? CheeseDreams 19:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries provide quite a reasonable amount of room; I've seen summaries on history pages that are pretty long. Anyhow, 'rv vandalism; re-insert koan phrase' is pretty concise and would have communicated what you really did, and is shorter than a lot of existing edit summaries. Alanyst 20:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Alanyst -- and CD, if I'd noticed the edit summary by anyone, I would have commented here, I promise you. I have no real interest in the koan argument, but if anyone had edited the page inserting or removing it with an edit summary such as the one you gave, I would have left a note here. Edit summaries are important, particularly when you are making an important (i.e., not correcting spelling or grammar) change. If people don't get in the habit of accurately describing their edits, it creates problems. I just want us to be honest with each other. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I have been following this recent spout and I think it was a pretty damn shady thing for CD to do. --Alterego 00:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: CheeseDreams

I see you are determined, as per your latest edit, to put in this nonsense about Koans. Is it absolutely necessary that you use "some" though, and not be specific? It seems to me like you are trying to write your little POV as official history, to be honest. --Alterego 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: CHEESEDREAMS

I am getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of seeing you try to insert this Koan crap with misleading edit reasons. YOU CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY. --Alterego 00:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, I have added the two edits with misleading edit summaries to the request for arbitration against CheeseDreams -- hopefully there will be consequences for this sort of thing very soon. Jwrosenzweig 00:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you *calms down* :p --Alterego 19:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't you mean Achtung?CheeseDreams 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oh, I've just noticed you swore. CheeseDreams 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why can't I rewrite history? The church did. The pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus), together with 2 Thessalonians, are widely considered by most scholars to be fakes. Remove them, and Paul suddenly takes on a whole new light. CheeseDreams 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While this is irrelevant, could you leave information - or links about this - on my talk page? I've never heard this, and I'm genuinely interested. thanks.--Josiah 00:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

P.s. to those who do not know, Christos Pantocrator is supposed to look annoyed. CheeseDreams 22:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, I am sure, but is it my imagination or is Jesus (in the picture on the top of the page) starting to look annoyed? Slrubenstein 22:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am really trying to be serious and sincere here -- Explanation for CheeseDreams

Okay, CheeseDreams, I just reverted and want to explain why and perhaps lay the basis for some constructive dialogue. One reason I reverted is that the record of this article and its talk page [Now in Archive 12 -- added by AB CD at 16:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)] fore the past several days reveals that you are the only one who thinks mention of koans should be included, and many people feel strongly it should not. At Wikipedia we try to build a consensus and that can be difficult, but there is no need for a poll here -- you simply haven't convinced anyone the sentence should be included. And if you cannot convince people who care about the article, you really should ask yourself if your point is that important, or valid. The people who reject your wanting to include this point int he article do so in good faith. You are right, that if "some people" think so we usually include it in an article. But I don't think you have convinced anyone here that anyone really thinks Jesus used koans. At best, some people make an analogy that might help explain things to people who are really familiar with koans, but that is not applicable to this encyclopedia article. Can you try to explain, as calmly and as reasonably as possible, why you think this sentence is so important that it has to be added to the article? Why do you care so much about this? I can explain to you why I revert it -- I really think that to make mention of this is to suggest a similarity between Jesus and Zen thought where no such similarity exists, and I think to make this suggestion misleads people about Jesus (forget the question of whether he existed or not -- a red herring -- I just mean the character in the Gospels) and how he taught. Okay, why is it so important to you? Slrubenstein

Perhaps there is a compromise possible here. There ought to be an article specifically about Jesus' teachings where various theories about what he might have meant, how he presented his teachings, and their relation to similar literature could be presented. The theory of "Jesus koans" could be appropriately mentioned on such a page, I think. There is a category on his doctrine and teachings already, but apparently no main article. We could create such an article and link this disputed section to it. In any case, I will continue to object to the mention of koans in the main Jesus article. Alanyst 23:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any compromise should be based on good reasons. I would have no objections to the claim being made on this page, if it were valid. But the question is, who has claimed that Jesus used koans, and what is the nature of this claim? What does it mean? We don't create compromises by creating new pages. By the way, compromise is usually for matters of style; when it comes to content what matters are basic policies: no original research and NPOV, and above all else this is an encyclopedia. So I repeat: what is behind this claim, and why does CheeseDreams really think it is so important? Slrubenstein

I understand your point, Slrubenstein, but differ with you a bit on this. In my opinion, it's not so much a question of who is making the claim (although that is not wholly unimportant), but more a matter of how appropriate it is for this particular article. In an article devoted to how Buddhists interpret Jesus' teachings, it might be very suitable, even if the equating of koans to his teachings is still a minority view. For this reason I proposed creating a new article, because adequately treating the subject of his teachings while including perspectives such as CheeseDreams's would seem to require more space and have a different focus than the current article can accommodate. Alanyst 23:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Slruenstein never tolerates the existence of views opposed to his. See Talk:Cultural and historical background to Jesus, pay particular attention to the archives (and their summaries) CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I've read so far just about descriptions of some of the books mentioned, people have drawn analogies between some of Jesus' sayings and koans, or have composed koans that Jesus might have said had he been familiar with them. I haven't found anyone who says Jesus actually, deliberately used koans as a teaching guide. This doesn't mean no one has by any means, but it does mean that finding lots of google hits or book titles that include "Jesus" and "koan" in the title by itself does not establish the point. Koans are intended to help the listener towards 'enlightenment', a concept and goal that as far as I know was foreign to any of the religions or sects in the Roman Empire in the first century. I welcome further education on this subject. In other words, I have no problem with presenting minority views, provided that they are in fact the views of a real minority and not just the pet theory of one or two wikipedians. Wesley 01:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really doubt Zen Buddhists would equate Jesus' parables with koans. They really aren't anything alike. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ

ᑐ]] 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, thats why they would say "parables AND koans". Koans are tiny little phrases like "you must die to live" and "he who is first is last" not "there was once a Samartan and he crossed the road one day when someone was suffering...." CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those are paradoxical statements, not koans. There are substantial differences between paradox and koan; a Buddhist would most likely consider these statements irrelevant. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ

ᑐ]] 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wesley—I agree, and for the sake of fairness I would observe that CheeseDreams's phrase (at least in its latest incarnation—no pun intended) does not appear to state that Jesus used koans in his teachings, but rather draws an analogy between some of his teachings (specificity regarding which teachings would be nice) and koans. If there are others besides CheeseDreams who perceive a similar relationship, and we have references to what those people have written, then perhaps this idea has a place somewhere on Wikipedia. Just not in this article. Alanyst 02:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to do it where the idea could be fleshed out a little more. If some Buddhists have written about a similarity, maybe it could go in Religious perspectives on Jesus in the Buddhist section, for instance? Wesley 04:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you'd need to be very careful about breaking the no original research rule. Also, I am particularly wary since CheeseDreams has said it is her intention to rewrite history. I still haven't seen anything quoted from reliable scholarly sources drawing any serious analogy between koans and Jesus' sayings. jguk 14:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I googled on Jesus and Koans, and three of the five sites I looked at were Christians drawing the link. Furthermore, the Buddhist site didn't say that Jesus used koans; it only identified him with the Buddha. (The fifth site was just the I-K page of a religious glossary.) Ben Standeven 22:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus

Since I last visited this article it has sharply declined in intellectual clarity. In particular the section on the historicity of Jesus has been reduced to meaningless cliches. There is now no clear discussion on the historical sources (or lack thereof) for the existence and biography of Jesus. Sloppy and misleading statements have been allowed to proliferate, such as "The main account of his life is the four Gospels" (in fact the Gospels are the only account) and "Debates concerning Jesus as a historical figure center on three issues [the first of which is] the role of God in natural and human history" (they certainly do not centre on this "issue", which presupposes the existence of God and is thus a theological debate rather than a historical one). This article must contain an accurate statement about the attitude of secular scholarship towards the textual evidence for the existence and biography of Jesus. I inserted an attempt at such a statement at one point, but it has been completely emasculated, presumably by Christians. Next time I feel like an argument I will resurrect it (!) and put it back in the article. Adam 08:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the kind of statement I believe needs to be restored to this article:

The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which Christians believe to be the word of God. Most secular historians agree that the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death. They take the view, however, that since there is absolutely no evidence for any aspect of Jesus's life and work outside the Gospels, which were written or compiled by his followers, no detailed account of his life can be accepted as historically verifiable. This applies in particular, of course, to events such as the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, which contradict the scientifically accepted laws of biology and physics and thus require a higher standard of proof. Belief that such events occurred must remain a matter of faith and not a matter of history. Adam 09:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For other sources, see Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Jesus, the Gospel of James, and others. Also, calling into question the miracles solely because they contradict the laws of biology and physics is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Science assumes that it can explain all via science, but it makes no attempt to prove this; indeed, by definition it is incapable of doing so. Once you say that only science is "real", you are stepping outside of science and into philosophy. Hence, this widely held philosophy of materialism is important and deserves prominent mention, but as one POV among others. Wesley 06:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. You present a scientific argument for the existence of Jesus (evidence from non-Gospel sources) and then claim that science is not a valid method of establishing his existence (or non-existence). Trying to have it both ways I think.

Exile 19:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to me that science is the only way to prove whether or not Jesus actually existed as a living human being. Nothing that I know of has been "dug up" to show Jesus walked the Earth. Thus, relying on the Gospels (which really is a POV account of Jesus' life) is a matter of faith. Further, to prove the miracles is definitely beyond current science, and can only be taken on faith. Belief in beautiful things and stories can inspire people to do good works, but in an encyclopedia, we of course need to deal with facts. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may seem this way to you, but that is precisely why this view does not belong in the article. We don't put our own views in articles. It is a fact that some believe Jesus never lived and of course the article should acknowledge it. But it is not a fact that the only people who believe he existed because of their faith. It is a fact that historians and critical (meaning, not religious or Christian) scholars of the Bible believe Jesus existed. This fact must also be in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On that point, we could also mention the possibility of historians having their lives and livelihoods imperiled if they dare suggested otherwise. There's a certain pressure Christians put on the rest of us to stay in lockstep with their views... I think this is obvious. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No proof?

I ve seen proof. I ve seen people healed like Jesus did. I ve seen People speaking in tongues like Jesus disciples did. I ve seen people laying hands on others and speaking prophecies, like Jesus followers did. I ve seen people reciving visions just like so many people throughout the bible did.

Of course you can decide not to believe in Jesus and continue living your senseless life, but I assure that it will lead to destruction.

Jesus lives and he offers you salvation. It is up to you.

btw: somebody shoud fix this detestable display, which is shown as the word Jesus is typed in.

Perhaps you can get Him to teach you about punctuation. Adam 06:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologise if you are incapable of readidng my gramaticly incorrect comment. I ve only been speaking english for 2 years.

- Perhaps, if you focus more on the content then on the spelling you might be able to understand the actual message.

Actually, I'm curious about the "speaking in tongues" - when the Apostles did it, it was a tongue that was universally intelligible by all, regardless of their native tongue. Is this what you observed? Or was it someone merely babbling? Graft 07:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-Speaking in tongues is not neccesarily a gift used as a translation tool and it is not simply a language that everybody understands. Hence the Bible says "they began speaking in different languages" ..."they were bewildered to hear their own languages spoken by the believers". I point out that it says "languages" and therefore means that the apostels were speaking in a multitude of languages rather than in only one.

Nevertheless, the more importnat point about this occurance is the reason why it happened. According to the bible, the holy spirit came over them and thats exactly what I believe to have witnessed. During my visits in different churches I witnessed four unrelated people speaking in tongues. All were very faithfull and committed Christians. Though I could not understand what they were saying, I could make out clear patterns in their speeches. Furthermore, I noticed that these differnt people, who probably never met each other seemed to be speaking in the same patterns, which is a sufficient amount of evidence for me to believe that speaking in tongues is far more than merely "babbling".

By the way, I have heared that, in a church in america, where worship was practiced quite intensly and people regulary spoke in tongues, that the speaking of tongues was recorded and analysed. It turned out to be arameic. The language that Jesus spoke.

Actually it usually turns out to be gibberish. Talking gibberish is a well-known sign of hysteria, and religious hysteria is easily induced in the credulous, gullible and stupid. Adam 23:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- If you want to believe that, that's your problem. I personally think that you neither have the experinece nor the knowledge to make such a judgement.

You should go re-read Acts chapter 2. The whole point of speaking in tongues was that it was universally intelligible to the listeners, who came from many nations, and thus was miraculous, not that it was unintelligible nonsense that had to be translated. What you are describing, which could be understood by nobody (or, in some dubious cases, only intelligible after "analysis"),is wholly different than the "speaking in tongues" described in the Bible. It is babbling. Graft 03:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you know nothing about what experience or knowledge I possess, so you can't make that judgement. Secondly, I am not a Christian so instructing me to read bits of your holy texts is not a method of argument I recognise. I am not talking about people alleged in old books to have spoken in tongues in the first century AD, a matter about which (like the life of Jesus) nothing can be known, but about members of modern Christian cults who claim to speak in tongues. They are invariably found to be in the grip of religious mania and talking gibberish. Adam 08:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err. You should reread my text. It was addressed to the unattributed anon, and it agrees with you; it merely argues from a position that s/he might find more convincing. Also, I am not a Christian and it is not my holy text. Graft 14:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. Adam 01:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adam, please do not use AD. You shouldn't impose your Christian views on the rest of us. Slrubenstein 18:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am an atheist, but it is a Christian calendar whether we like it or not. BC and AD are the standard term of reference, and I have seen "CE" and "BCE" deleted from Wikipedia articles as non-standard. Is there a rule about this? Adam 01:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CE and BCE are the academic standard, and we are academic, no? The rule goes that AD and BC are just as good as CE and BCE and vice versa. Except... Christian-based articles should always be done in AD and BC. ---The Sunborn

To Graft: Perhaps you should go and re-read (or read) 1 Corintians 12 to 14. I think it would might give you a clearer view on the gift of speaking in tongues. Besides, the people who were listening to the disciples as they first spoke in tongues were not simply people from many nations but jews from many nations. The disciples could simply have spoken in heberew and everyone of them would have understood them anyway. (they heared them speaking in their native tongues)

Acts is quite clear. This from the KJV:

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Also, Paul is quite clearly discouraging of the practice of speaking in tongues unless it is intelligible. E.g.:

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

So, in any event, the modern-day babblers are at odds with the instructions of Paul, even if they DO have the gift of tongues (which is at odds with the miracle accounted in Acts). Graft 03:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- I totally agree with that. Nevertheless, there are cases when there is a person who appears to be able to understand what is said in tongues.

Christianity's basic teachings

I don't mean to be TOO facetious, but isn't this:

Jesus's acts and words, as presented in the Gospels, constitute Christianity's basic teachings.

a matter of considerable POV? I don't find most of modern Christianity to be in line with Jesus's acts and words at all. (insert Nietzsche quote here). Graft 20:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your observation about modern Christianity doesn't seem to address what the quoted statement says. First of all, the statement is about Christianity in general, and does not distinguish between modern and ancient Christianity. Secondly, it only speaks to the basic teachings of Christianity, and does not offer any judgments about how well Christians adhere to those teachings. In that regard, I find the statement to be very NPOV, and unless you are trying to say that the basic teachings of Christianity are in fact not largely constituted by Jesus' acts and words (which I would find to be a ridiculous assertion), I fail to see how you can find fault with the statement, notwithstanding your apparent cynicism about modern Christianity. Alanyst 22:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barnabas

Does this belong in the intro? Or even in this article at all? No mention of other alternative Gospels...

According to the recently discovered Gospel of Barnabas, Barnabas (who was one of the 12 original disciples of Jesus), said that Jesus is a prophet (not the son of God) and he calls Paul "the deceived". Furthermore, he notified and explained in details that Jesus was not crucified but raised alive to the heaven while the one who got crucified instead was Judas Iscariot the traitor. This belief (that Jesus is a prophet of God, and he was not crucified but raised alive) confirms with the Muslim belief.

Graft 20:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. This is just too ridiculous to be even regarded as a comment. (Barnabas was not one of the 12 disciples) Instead I will go straight to the real issue. Islam. If you read the bible carefully you will see that it clearly predicts and explains why the Islamic religion exists. Jesus states that a false Prophet will come, who would deny that Jesus was the son of God and cause war on earth. The Quoran, which was written by the "Prophet" Mohammed does say that Jesus is not the son of God. And think about it: How many wars wouldn't have taken place if there wouldn't have been Islam. So it becomes rather clear who Jesus was talking about.

-Is that right? I suspect your thinking abilities when you say "think about it."

The two most desastrous and horrific wars (WW I and WW II)that mankind has ever seen have
transpired in Christian Europe and waged by Christian nations not by Islam.

-The colonialization and exploitation of the World, and the ensuing multitudinous wars were caused by Christian Europeans. How many religious wars were carried on by the Christians. So please, give me a break, and read a little bit of history, not fairy tales, okay. -Serkan Z.

-Jesus was speaking of false prophets like St. Paul who interpolated things such as the godhead of Christ, the original sin and the Trinity into the teachings! If believing in Christ as the savior is what is needed to be saved as you Christians always say, Jesus would not have said the following. If you read your "gospels" once again you will see that Jesus will say to people like you: "On that day, many will come to me saying 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, didn't we cast out devils in your name and did wonderful works in your name?', I will say to them: 'GET AWAY FROM ME! I NEVER KNEW YOU, YOU EVIL DOERS'" Serkan

Jesus also states that this false prophet would be send by the Antichrist. So I warn you, do not belive the people that deny Christ. In the end of revelation it clearly states that nothing should be neither added or subtracted from the bible. It is finished as it is.

There was and is no need for another book.

Must we have a religious flame-fest here? I agree with Graft that the quoted paragraph does not belong (and it has been removed since he posted about it), but the statements made immediately above are not consistent with the qualities of mercy, meekness, peacemaking, and loving one another that Jesus taught, and moreover have nothing to do with improving the quality of this article. Alanyst 22:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- If we all would follow Jesus teachings then we would have peace.

 There was no need for Mohammed, ergo he was the false Prophet who was predicted by Jesus.

- For 2000 years, Christians have followed without any doubt the supposed teaching of Christ and what came out of it is allowing even homosexuals to be priests! This is how they have been changing the dictates of their religion to suit themselves!

 Muhammad did not claim to be God, but a humble servant of God.

- If there is anybody who is a false prophet nobody would fit this definition better than St. Paul!

I wonder which scholarly history books would call Jesus Christ to be "God on Earth"?!!

-Serkan

+Do Not make the mistake of thinking that everybody who calls himself a Christian is a Christian. The Bible is strictly against homosexual activities just like any other sexual immorality. The people you are talking abouts are hypocrites, not priests. Dont loose your faith just because some people dont undersatnd their own religion. -Jan

-Yeah but, for God's sake, you always bring forth this excuse and then after 50 years later one sees that now it has become mainstream Christianity. How many times Christianity have changed its positions on controversial matters? Earth being flat, birth control, conraception, abortion, now homosexuality? Please don't try to fool yourselves. What is being done is to change the religion to suit your own desires. And one will always find a way of explaining it (that is not a difficulty, neither is it an issue). The problem is: it does happen.

-You change your religion by hook or by crook. And this is what is going on for 2000 years. Other (however trivial it might seem) examples are, for example: Christ never ate pork, you do, he was circumcised, your are not, he did pray by falling on his forehead (at least three times a day as other Jews did, remember the garden of Gethsamane?) like Abraham, Moses etc. you don't, and on and on. It is amazing how you sometimes misunderstand and misuse Christ's teachings. For example, for he not eating pork you bring the argument that Jesus said "what comes out of you makes you filthy, not what gets in", well, if he meant what you claim then why didn't he eat pork? Or another very similar example is: when he saved the prostitute from getting stoned, does he imply you can do prostitution? no of course. The issue is you don't understand his point. When he points at the Moon, you look at his fingers. -Serkan

This is the wrong place for this debate. Article talk pages are not here for people to try and convert each other, they're here to discuss how best to improve the associated article, including how to best make it NPOV. Haven't looked at the article yet, but no alternative gospels belong anywhere near the intro. Any claims about Barnabas being one of the twelve had better be well documented, to say the very least. Wesley 03:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-Yeah but this you should tell people who without reason attack and vilify Islam in this page!!- Serkan

-Why do you care if a few Christians change their positions. The more importnant fact is that God did not. And he never said that the earth is flat, nor that killing of children could be seen as a good action. Furthermore, through out the bible he tells us to turn a way from sexual immorality. So you may go to the people who practice homosexual actions, while calling themselves christians, and call the hypocrites.

Well, I agree that it does happen too often that some of the so called Christians bend the laws which they are meant to follow. But that does not allow you to make judgements on a religious community that is present in the entire world.

I apolgise if my statement about Islam seemed like an atack to you, but think about this: what was first, the truth or the abnegation. - Jan

If your "truth" claims that a man was God Almighty, I am sorry, I cannot agree with you. Also, remember, in addition to truth and abnegation, there is also self-deception! -Serkan

In order to take the sin of man, he had to become a man. Of course Jesus was more like a part of God, rather than actually God the father, or as we say: a part of the trinity. and yes, there is self-deception, and people can have wrong perceptions about God. The only way to find understanding and wisdom is by receiving it from God and he gives to those who ask for it. No simplistic mind, like ours can figure out truth about God on its own.

-Jan

Edits by I834 and reverts by Alanyst

I want to explain my recent reverts to this article so people know where I'm coming from.

I noticed this morning that the Jesus article had been completely rewritten and most of the informative content had disappeared. In its place was this text:

Jesus is a very controversial figure (and this site had a strong history of reverts and deletes). Here one should keep only links to copylefted first century original source documents. The different POVs should be described in the corresponding sites:

There followed a list of links to such articles as Jesus: the Christian POV, Jesus: the Jewish POV, and so forth. Then there was a Documents section that seemed to be intended as a gateway to copylefted excerpts and/or full-text versions of the books of the Bible, together with articles about debates regarding their authenticity. Finally, there was a section titled "Statements accepted by everybody" with a single paragraph below it (perhaps the author intended to add more).

These edits had been made by User:I834, which is a brand-new account, and I have no reason to believe at this point that this user is any other than a new contributor to Wikipedia who's trying to be bold and doesn't yet grasp some of the important Wikipedia conventions or Wikiquette. However, I think that this user's edits changed a pretty good article into something much less so, both in terms of substance and in style. (The wiki syntax and link naming convention were just plain wrong.)

I also saw that the edits made before this user changed the article included POV edits, and in fact only one edit (made by User:Cburnett) between the current revision and the latest one by User:Jayjg appeared to be worth preserving. That one edit, a change of the Ben Hur link to Ben-Hur (book), was also slightly off-target, since the more appropriate destination would be Ben-Hur.

So, I reverted back to the last version by Jayjg and left a note on I834's talk page to explain my revert. Concurrent with my revert, I changed the Ben Hur link to Ben-Hur in order to preserve the intent of Cburnett's edit.

My first revert to Jayjg's version had an incorrect edit summary link to Jayjg's user page, which I tried (and failed) to correct by making a dummy edit—hence the two apparently consecutive reverts.

Now it appears that we have a revert war on our hands. I do not intend to violate the 3-revert rule, so I will refrain from touching the article for a little while and hope that somebody else will step in to restore order.

I834, please stop insisting on preserving your rewrites since they are wrecking the article. If you feel like the article needs major revisions, let's talk about it here before you do it. Otherwise, you'll probably keep getting reverted. Alanyst 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who did/does Jesus say he was/is?

I am a follower of Jesus. By language, it is apparent that some of the editors of this article have been christian, while others have not been. I have no qualms with those who disagree with my faith in Jesus Christ. He needs no justification that my lips can bring. Some of the posts that were clearly made by those who believe in jesus were unkind. On behalf of Jesus Christ I apologize.

Some disagree with the logic of believing in Jesus based upon the fact that he substantiates himself. I believe that the best solution to some of the struggle here would be to have a section that is about "Who Jesus says he is". This could be done using actual blocks of NT Text, particularly in the area of the gospels.

Placed promonately at the top of the page, the article could sumarize Jesus's story and key points historicaly from Jesus's own perspective as recorded in the gospels. Presemted in this fashion, it should please both christian and non-christian.

A. As a christian this would please me, because it would present jesus's words in an arranged fashion, that would allow people to draw there own conclusions. For me, as a believer in christ, I sufficiently trust God to be able to work through such. (In fact I am more interested in smoothing ruffled feathers here, than getting "the kind of jesus page I want").

B. For non-christians, because the title would be: "Who does Jesus say he is?", it would be unnecessary to disagree with certain historical accuracies as to his resurrection, etc. If you disagree with the realities of Jesus, or disagree with anything that Jesus said, it would be a non-issue in this section. Such disagreemants are understandable and could be confined logically to a different section like: "My gripe with Jesus's teachings".

I understand that there will continue to be disagreement here. I ask that those who are followers of Jesus would submit to God in whatever manner is appropriate (i.e. prayer, contemplation of scripture, etc...) before they become involved in debates here. Lets stick to Jesus here and let the peripherals get taken care of in person. Believe me, this is not the battle, but a means for us to relate to others and love them.

I love you all, without knowing you. And because of this I know that God loves you.

This has been my first post. If I have erred in any way I ask that you bear with me graciously.

Jonathan Kibler Jon.Kibler@gmail.com

I think something a little like what you describe is at New Testament view on Jesus' life. Wesley 04:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate Jon Kibler's effort to propose an NPOV approach to the article. I must, however, point out that many people are not convinced that Jesus said everything the NT claims he said -- and surely, he said things that were not preserved in the NT. Thus, as Wesley observes, the relevant article is on what the NT claims. Slrubenstein 19:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

explanation for deletion

I deleted this:

Jesus of Nazareth is uniquely polarizing as a figure in history, as a reader's opinion of the historicity of Jesus is inextricably intertwined with the reader's perception of the relevance and merit of his message to the individual.

because it is not true (even if it is true for some people) and I don't think it is necessary for the article. There are people who accept that Jesus existed but, because they do not trust the Gospels, do not even now what "his message" was. And many historians study him because even if it isn't literally accurate, the NT is a very important source from and about the culture of late antiquity Roman Palestine -- regardless of Jesus' message. Slrubenstein 21:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lunisolar trivia

Jews use a lunisolar calendar, true. But this calendar was established by Hillel II in 359 C.E. Are we sure that they used a lunisolar calendar at the time of Jesus?

Hillel II fixed the calendar, but it was lunisolar long before that; the Sanhedrin declared the months and holidays, and added leap months when required. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image of Jesus

File:RFJesus.jpg

Why is this not the image used at the top of the article, or not even at all on the Jesus article? It seems the most worthy candidate to me, considering it's the only intepretation that relies on science. --Christiaan 00:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be included inside the article somewhere, but with proper context, i.e. don't replace it with the intro image. Regarding the intro image, I would say it is a strange looking depiction of Jesus, slightly tyrannical, evil-looking. Not what most (Christians?) would expect. —Cantus…☎ 08:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tyrannical? Haha, okay. I thought he looks rather like a "friendly builder" who's a little worried about paying his next rent bill. Maybe this is a better angle? I'd like to see it given some prominence; I'd prefer replacing the 'anglo halo' image but if people have a problem with that at least have it toward the top of the page. This page is worth a gander too. —Christiaan - ☎ 11:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The image used of Jesus makes Jesus seem very angry and they should have a nicer, softer Jesus to conform with wikipedia's NPOV policy. I do not want young children to stumble upon this evil looking Jesus and become atheists because of it!!! --Iconoclast 06:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's going to happen. Anyway, I agree that this image should be placed in the article somewhere. It is probably best suited for the historical/cultural section of the article as the image is really just a depiction of what a Jew from the area looked like during that time. It's actually more likely to be an image of someone Jesus met than to be Jesus himself.

--Will2k 14:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Whilst no doubt the visual image of Jesus like many subjects has been romantacized throughout European history and art, I don't know if that image is a particularly useful representation. I seem to recall something like this on that BBC documentary a couple of years back.

I think it is difficult to put that image forward on the basis of science alone (as someone mentioned) because you are then infering it is somehow authoratitive, or the most authoratitive document on the subject. At least that is how I think it could be interpreted without some explanation of the science (and art) that went into it.

just my 2c

That visual image is just a general sketch of a random person, it doesn't really claim to be what Jesus in particular looked like. While controversial, the Shroud of Turin offers a specific image that is claimed to be of Jesus' face. Scientific arguments have been made both for and against its authenticity, but if we're going to include speculative images, a photographic negative of the Shroud might perhaps be worth including as well. Or the article could just avoid speculative images. Wesley 04:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that it would be good to remind people that Jesus wasn't a blue-eyed blonde, that he may have looked more like Arabs do. --Goethean 23:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or, well, you know ... like Jews do. Slrubenstein 18:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the near-certainty that that picture does NOT represent an accurate depiction of the historical Jesus (assuming he existed), there's the fact that the mythical Jesus depicted in Christian art has far more cultural significance than the historical Jesus. In other words, Jesus IS a blue-eyed blonde, because Christians imagine him that way. The Jesus page should just show a typical image taken from Christian art. We created Images of Jesus precisely to settle the "Jesus-is-blond/Jesus-is-a-hook-nosed-Palestinian" controversy; this image ought to stay there. (Is this even seriously in dispute?) Graft 18:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cultural significance doesn't trump historical significance, and an enclycopedia doesn't exist to prop one up at the expense of the other. This is an important image because it's the only one that uses science to portray what many men looked like where and when Jesus may have lived, and hence gives people a better overall understanding of Jesus as the historical figure many believe him to be. —Christiaan 11:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

possible addition as follows:

---True Image of Jesus--- The true face of Jesus is on the Maitreya statute at Mulbekh, Ladakh, India AND is the same face as face of the Sphinx if YOU CAN imagine it / the Sphinx as it looked before all the damage.

As for his looks, Jesus was blue eyed and red headed as most descendants of David who had the same look. The myth of how Israel Royals looked as hooked nosed and dark skinned and "Arabs" is just that myth.

JC,ens - PS Nautonnier

Referring back to the question why the picture at the top of this article is not used to display Jesus:

1. The person in the picture seems to have slightly grey hair. Jesus did merely reach the age of 30. which makes it unlikely that his hair would look like that

2. the person in the picture looks confused. Since Jesus inherited infinite wisdom from his father, I think that it is unlikely that he ever looked confused.

3. The person in the picture doesn't have a torso.

I don't like the Picture used by Wikipedia either.

I think a picture that is fit to display Jesus must be a Materpiece, and it should make obvious that it is him by his expression. It must display his character, which is far more important than his looks. Something like this perhaps: http://www.pgmc.bc.ca/chinese/photos/image/Jesus-Love.jpg

- Jan

Page move

Today, Mindwiz moved Jesus to Jesus Christ, which I just moved back. My reasons:

The user moved the page on his 2nd edit
The talk page archive links were broken (they don't go with a move)
A double redirect was created which was not resolved

I'm not familiar with this page's history, but I suspect it's been moved back and forth and resides at Jesus, now, for a reason. Cburnett 03:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/Archive_9 for one such debate. Cburnett 03:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the issue was debated and settled long ago. Some wanted Jesus of Nazareth, some wanted Jesus Christ, some wanted Jesus. His name was Jesus, Christ is a title, and he is famous enough that people know who he is. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And the redirect from Jesus Christ does its job nicely.--Jerzy (t) 16:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I suppose it's only a matter of time before we move Julius Caesar to Julius, since Caesar was his title and not his name? All the other names at Julius would of course go somewhere like Julius (disambiguation). (and please don't delete my comment on this subject this time) Wesley 05:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jesus is by far the most famous of all the Jesus's of history; Julius is much more ambiguous. A more apt example would be "Moses", which is at Moses, and not Moshe Rabbeinu (i.e. Moses our Rabbi), as Jews refer to him. By the way, which commebt of yours was deleted, and who deleted it? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible Citations re Witnesses

Along with refinement of many dreadfully neglected lks, & various improvements described in my edit summary, i removed from the second 'graph

(Acts 1:15 and 1st Corinthians 15:6)

which was offered as an inline citation re the 500 witnesses to state of resurrection. This may be valuable elsewhere, but here it is overly detailed and tendentious in tone: the purpose of the article is to describe essentials, not establish the strength or weakness of the evidence that believers cite. --Jerzy (t) 16:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Meaning of "3rd day"

I found "crucified ... before rising ... on the third day", which is ambiguous.
I rewrote "[executed and rose] two days later".
A colleague rewrote in turn "...on the third day following] and summarized (unhelpfully) "we've been through this before; it doesn't say two days later. See old Talk:".

If there is evidence that the sequence is day of x'n, another day, yet another day, day of res'n, i'm not interested in contesting it, but if that's it, it needs to be presented in an article in light of the implication of how easy it is to misunderstand.

My understanding is

Friday: X'n (commemorated on Good Friday) on the first day
Saturday: (Shabbat) the second day
Sunday: Res'n (commemorated on Easter Sunday) on the third day

This is consistent with the reasoning that

In a culture with no concept of zero as a number, you make the earliest event's day the base ("the first day"), and thereby avoid having to describe the base day each time you want to refer to it, by having called it the first day. Thus you never interpret "third day" as "third day following", bcz if you do, you have no good way of answering "Wait a minute, following which day?".
The style would likely follow that of Genesis, where the creation is described along the lines of starting "and that happened on the morning and the evening of the first day", and ending with the 7th day.

The first day following Friday is Sat, so third day following means either Res'n on Tuesday (leaving x'n on Friday) or X'n on Wed (leaving res'n on Sunday).

Say what you think it means in one article, in terms no less clear than my Fr/Sa/Su account, and link the various accounts like [[The Passion#Chronology|three days later]] or you've got [[garbage|something unencyclopedic]].
--Jerzy (t) 19:58, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

It's all quite confusing; the synoptic gospels all say he was crucified on the first day of Passover, but John says he was crucified the day before Passover. They all say he was resurrected on the first day of the week. Perhaps the wording should be "on the first day of the week", which is what they all agree on. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In other words, "we've been through this before" means that words were left in the article despite the fact that those who may be better informed than the reader couldn't decide what those words meant?

The attractiveness of "the third day" is not its info content, but just the strength of tradition the phrase carries. Arguably resurrection after being dead for 24 hours is more impressive than after being "mostly dead", and arguably resurrection within the week is less unverifiable than, say, the notion of Jesus as the prophet Isaiah reincarnated centuries later. But the exact number of days serves no purpose here unless it is clear and uncontested enough to shorten the language on the subject. I was tempted to explain the imprecision with

(The apparent inconsistency between John's account and the others, and various responses to that, are outside the scope of this article.)

But where it is germane (maybe Resurrection of Jesus or elsewhere on the Web) is the place to discuss it. "Why don't they talk about the exact number of days?" The first step to wisdom about that is firmly grasping the obvious: if it were in the scope of the article, it would be there; case closed.
--Jerzy (t) 03:38, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I did not know that Jesus' was well-endowed. The things you can learn on Wikipedia!

This is a very strange thing. When I open the article, the second paragraph reads like this:

While almost nothing is known of his life except from the four Gospels, most secular scholars accept the historical fact that he had a 12 inch dong, and calculate the birth and death dates given above based on independently known events implied in those scriptural documents. ...

But when I hesitantly and resentfully go to edit the page (so that it says that Jesus had a 3 inch dong) it reads like this:

While almost nothing is known of his life except from the four Gospels, most secular scholars accept his existence, and calculate the birth and death dates given above based on independently known events implied in those scriptural documents. ...

Looks like somebody hacked into it.

removed about 30k from the history of Jesus section

This article looked very much like a featured article until all the additions by 203.144.210.225 came on march 5'th. I don't know why it hasn't been deleted before, so I'm somewhat nervous about deleting it all now two days later and in such a prominent article. But I really think it's way too much and shouldn't be here. My appologies if I've been deleteing something that everyone but me thought looked good. Just revert me if that's the case, and I'll leave it alone. Shanes 18:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with your edit. The article was unreadable before, and the historicity of Jesus can be further discussed in the appropriate page. Luis rib 18:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I liked - learned a lot ( will try to fix) By George

I removed this. Whoever added this, you need to give a reference for this, as I've certainly not heard it before.

<< suggested addition - In these End Times (time just before Second Coming of Jesus , a time that experts agree is NOW) , the Bible refers to Jesus as an "Ensign" (or flag) for the People(s)- See Bible-Isaiah.

DJ Clayworth 16:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Support

I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers, and for unrelenting Anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic bias. This link [[1]] will take you to the Arbitration page. I think that you too have been subject to similar treatment with biased edits and reverts of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide in this case. A.Khalil 04:57, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles

VERY rough draft for addition.

Although debated, the book "A Course in Miracles" is purported to have been "written" by Jesus in modern times. It is a first person account of his teachings, and has a large following. The book was 'dictated' to Helen Schucman, Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia University. The book is available at Amazon for about $25.......

Comment: This is really a great book imo, and gives a clarification of what Jesus's message truly was. I mean even the Apostles misunderstood a lot of what he said........how are we supposed to understand what he meant from the Bible, a book that was written hundreds of years after his death......Zardiw 14:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This really isn't an appropriate comment for an editor of an encyclopedia committed to NPOV (please review our NPOV policy). After all, how can you -- Zardiw -- know what Jesus' message "really was," especially if you didn't meet him? If the Apostles, who did know him, misunderstood him, then how do you know that you haven't misunderstood him? I do not expect you to answer these questions. My point is, it is precisely because anyone can raise these objections to your opinion that we have an NPOV policy! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The New Age text A Course in Miracles already has a good article in Wikipedia. As it's a fairly obscure minority POV I don't think it really needs discussing in this article. --G Rutter 13:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You both should read it, or about it anyway. This is a really GOOD book, and I myself didn't realize it was written (dictated) by Jesus Christ, until I came to some parts which read:

1. p. 86: "My brothers slept during the 'agony in the garden,' but I could not be angry with them because I knew I could not BE abandoned".

2. p. 87: "These are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is really only the message of love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, 'I come not to bring peace but a sword.' This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught."

3. p. 87: "I could not have said, 'Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?' unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifiction was simply that I did not."

4. p. 39: " 'Many are called but few are chosen' should be, 'All are called but few choose to listen' ".

5. p.39: "I was a man who remembered spirit and its knowledge. As a man I did not attempt to counteract error with knowledge, but to correct error from the bottom up. I demonstrated both the powerlessness of the body and the power of the mind. By uniting my will with that of my Creator, I naturally remembered spirit and its real purpose. I cannot unite your will with God's for you, but I can erase all misperceptions from your mind if you will bring it under my guidance."

Those are some of the ones I found off hand, there are more.

Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.

My point is that if we have something from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, let's at LEAST make people aware that it exists. They can make up their own mind whether it's the real deal or not. I have an IQ of 148, and it convinced me without question.

Zardiw 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the "Other Perspectives" section which reads "The New Age movement has reinterpreted the life and teaching of Jesus in a large variety of ways (For example, see A Course in Miracles)." I'd be strongly opposed to any further additions, as I think it's a minority POV and doesn't warrant any more space in this article. --G Rutter 19:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zardiw writes, "My point is that if we have something from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, let's at LEAST make people aware that it exists." You can do this through your own website, or a blog. Or you can write a book review, or pay for advertisements for the book. But this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deletion of material on "pagan godmen"

I deleted a section someone added to "historicity" because (1) it was written in a highly POV way, (2) it is a fringe theory that at the most merits only a minor mention and link to some other page, and (3) this is something CheeseDreams pushed obsessively, and, before she was banned, we reached an agreement that it was not appropriate here. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is a "fringe theory." The similarities between Jesus and these other Pagan Godmen is very well documented and proven. Whether it means that Jesus didn't exist is indeed debatable, but that idea was simply not posted as fact. It was indeed stated that this was a theory, and so I don't see how it could be considered inappropriate. I don't plan to post it "obsessively" as this other user apparently did, but I do feel that it's an important bit of information that doesn't detract in the least bit from the page. It's no less useful than the idea that "a small minority" of scholars question Jesus existence in real life. It's not at all a small minority. I'm placing the information back on the page. If a majority of people feel it should be removed, I'll remove it.

Dirtygreek 18:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, most historians reject the claims you are making. The Jesus article is long and an NPOV article discussing the claims you make would require much more development. Remove the content, put in a link, and create a separate article. Also, check and see what other articles already address these claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jesus was not a Jew!

The article's description of Jesus as "a Jewish preacher and healer" is based on biased historic propaganda, not evidence. History of populations and the new testament holds substantial evidence against its correctness. I suggest that all blind assumptions of his "Jewishness" are removed, and there should be no reference to his "Jewishness" other than in the form of (or in a section neutrally presenting) arguments for or against why he should be considered a Jew. For those who blindly take his Jewishness as given, this link may shed some light upon you: http://www.sweetliberty.org/perspective/jewishpersecution7.htm

Please don't change the article again. -Goethean 18:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was working on it while you changed it (I used an incorrect expression). For Jesus was Judean, who were not same as Jews or Pharisees as they were called. I cannot leave this matter be, before you tell me why you think this is incorrect information. Please explain yourself.

Your link to an editorial article on an anti-semitic website does not trump the commonly known fact that Jesus was Jewish. Please consult any book on New Testament studies written in the past hundred years to confirm this. Examples include Tenney, New Testament Studies; Crossan, The Essential Jesus; Grant, An Historians Review of the Gospels, etc. Again: do not edit the Jesus article. If you do, it will be considered vandalism. --Goethean 19:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I leave the rest of editing up to you, but please hear me. I thought that article I found summed up my point pretty well. I have no sympathy for anti-semitism, and you can find countless other completely pro-jewish documents online, which state the same things. "Jewish" is not an accurate description at all. Commonly known, yes, but fact? See the wikipedia article "[[[pharisee]]]"; it states that "Judaism" begun from phariseanism. And Jesus was not a pharisee. Nothing called "Judaism" or "Jews" neither existed at that time, so it is technically incorrect to call ANYONE who lived around then a "Jew" in a NPOV/non-Jewish POV. "Judean" is simply much more accurate. Disagree?

Well, now you're talking about a semantic difference, rather than any substantial one. If we changed the word "Jewish" to "Hebrew", would you be satisfied? (I am moving this discussion to the bottom of the page, which is whre current discussion belong.) --Goethean 19:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Jewish" strongly suggests that he bore all the traits of what we today consider as a Jew, though he was neither nearly as closely related to Jews as a pharisee nor a talmudist. The term "Jew" is much more specific on religious tradition - it could apply more specifically to pharisees or talmudists, but Jesus? No. Religion is a substantial defining point for Jews or pharisees, whereas Jesus was a Judean Hebrew but not Jewish/pharisee. Notice that in the New Testament he condemns the Jews/pharisees as the "synagogue of satan".

"Jewish" strongly suggests that he bore all the traits of what we today consider as a Jew

It does no such thing. Your statement reeks of racialist pseudoscience and displays a studied ignorance of modern genetics.

Jesus was part of a group of what the Ancient Romans, including Josephus, called Jews. That is to say, Jesus was a Jew. Your inability to emotionally deal with these facts has no bearing on this article. --Goethean 20:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Altogether, I think it's just unnecessary and creates too many conflicts. Judean and/or Hebrew would suffice, but I would like to see him described as none of these rather than as "Jewish". Jacob, Moses, Samuel, Saul or Jeremiah are not described as "Jewish" in their respective articles, why should Jesus? If you are not willing to remove it from Jesus' article, then why don't you state it in the articles of the persons mentioned above? That would at least be more consistent.

Can you find an encyclopedia which does not describe Jesus as a Jew? Why should Wikipedia be any different? If you claim Wikipedia should be different because your references are correct, why then do all the encyclopedias which are researched, written, and reviewed by professionals not use your same references? There simply isn't enough evidence to suggest anything different from the mainstream view. Further, any type of Hebrew related religion in Judea at the time, whether you want to call it Judaism or not, was a subset of what we today call Judaism. Jesus adhered to it and considered himself to be the fullfillment of that religion. Thus "Jewish" fits his character appropriately and therefore certainly should not be changed here.--Will2k 20:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you are right, this encyclopaedia must represent the mainstream view. That Jesus was "Jewish" is a mainstream view, but regardless that word is quite "edgy" and somewhat controversial in an objective context. For example, a Finnish book-lexicon of mine defines Jesus in the first sentence as (roughly translated) "the originator of Christianity and the central character of its thoughtworld. He was born..." It sums up the essence of his history as simple as that. Thus My question remains; what about and why not Jacob, Moses, Samuel, Saul, Jeremiah... since they are much less controversially "Jewish" in the mainstream view?

That Finnish book-lexicon is neither scholarly, nor is it NPOV. Jesus did NOT "originate" Christianity. He began and remained a Jew his entire life. "Christians" didn't come into being till after he was dead and/or gone... Scholarly work shows that his teachings were thoroughly Jewish and extant before he was born, or they were developed by the Early Christian Church and put back in his mouth once the Gospels were written.

This is just one of the hypotheses and not necessarily the most believable one. Many scholarly works oppose to what you say. Jesus is and remains a mystery. The debate about historicity of Jesus and his teachings is centuries old and still very alive.

For example, Christian religion started in the environment of Judaism and spread among Jews at first - using Gospels, an important part of which are Jesus' teachings. The Gospels include contradictions, show apostles as unreliable, show Jesus (with two or three prostitutes between his ancestors) in the company of women (more than that, sinful women) again and again.

Jesus' teachings about death, family, women and children are absolutely revolutionary for the antique cultures and especially Judaism. Somewhere in-between (beside his other teachings) he even says that he is not good.At the end, Jesus says to his Jewish disciples that they should eat his flesh and drink his blood to live forever and finally dies being humiliated on the cross (!). Then he rises from the dead. I really can't understand why would the Early Christian Church not write Gospels, including Jesus' teachings, more believably and conformistically, if they wanted to invent a new religion as a forgery in the Jewish-Roman environment.

And yes, of course Jesus was the one who originated Christianity, as the vast majority of Christians believe historical statements about him, included in the Nicene Creed. Even the word itself derives from "Christ" (anointed) - believing that Jesus was a messiah/a king, as foretold by the prophets.

I suggest that this discussion limits itself to what was the original question: whether Jesus was a Jew or not. I would say he was, according to what has already been said - he lived in the Jewish environment, he believed that the New Testament is the continuation and expansion of the Old one and he sent his disciples only to Jews.

The final point: sign yourself. Happy editing! --Eleassar777 08:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely central to Jesus's story that he was Jewish. King of the Jews in fact. (Grace Note 06:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

"Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" in fact, whatever it may mean. Mikkalai 22:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Their messiah. Etc. If he existed, he was Jewish in the commonly accepted meaning of that word. However, to suggest that the gospels are good historical sources seems a bit iffy to me and suggesting that Jesus was a preacher and healer doubly so. It's laughable to quote Josephus as proof but ignore other things he said. Many people hold the view that he didn't exist and was an invention, or that if he existed, his reality was very far removed from that described in this article, even in the Mishna he's not the Christian Jesus exactly. I'm not going to bother editing this article -- I have no interest in causing a controversy! -- but I do want to note that the introduction seemed dodgy to me, and Will2K, Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopaedia. It doesn't print "mainstream views" as facts, but as mainstream views. That is the essence of what we are doing here, I believe. I think the first sentence should read that Jesus was "thought to be" or "claimed to be" or "traditionally was" or something that captures the doubt. Grace Note 06:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good points. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I'm not saying we keep it because it's the mainstream view. I'm saying we keep it because the mainstream encyclopedias corroborate our current view and we certainly should not break from that unless there is undisputable evidence to suggest otherwise. Since we lack that evidence, and the professionals lack that evidence, we cannot just try and break off or we lose the standards we are trying to live up to.--Will2k 20:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user's claim that Jesus was not Jewish is based on a profound misunderstanding of historiography and historical research. It is true that modern Judaism grew out of rabbinic Judaism which grew out of the Pharisees. But that does not mean that non-pharisees were not Jews, or that before there were pharisees there were no Jews. What is true is that the meaning of "Jewish" has changed over the centuries, and is heterogeneous. Certainly, the Pharisees recognized non-Pharisees to be Jews. Even Herod, who was descended from Idumeans, was a Jew -- all historical sources from that time agree that he was a Jew. To say that Jesus was not a Jew because he did not adhere to the Talmud — which was compiled after he was killed – is like saying Robespierre was not French, because he did not grow up in the Fifth Republic, or like saying George Washington was not an American, because he was not born in "the United States of America." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In John 8:44-47, Jesus said to the Jews "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.... He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God." Though Jesus was of Hebrean blood, at least from his mother's side (whose "virginity" has truth only in myth),

You are being inconsistent. The NT says that Jesus said to the Jews "you are of your father the devil" and you believe this, but when the NT says Mary was a virgin you don't believe it. It is by no means certain that everything the book of John says Jesus said, he really said. And even if he did say this -- well, maybe you haven't watched Jews in an argument, but they can say some really nasty things to one another. That does not mean that they really don't believe they or their opponent are Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the commonly known distinction between Jewry and Christianity was born there.

What is your source for this? Most historians believe that the break between Judaism and Christianity ocurred with Paul, not with Jesus. And some have even challenged this claim, arguing that the Rabbis and the Christians often engaged one another, or at least recognized a common bond and origin, for quite some time after Paul. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that neither Hebrews who were Jesus' followers nor Hebrews who are Christian today are called Jews.

So what? Of course today Jews and Christians consider themselves separate, This fact has no bearing on what was going on two millenium ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So therefore calling Jesus "Jewish" is valid, but only in a very small sense of what the word "Jewish" can mean.

What do you mean "small sense?" Jews are a nation, and that nation has a particular covenant with God. Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, Jesus, and the first Christians all belonged to this nation. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles are well-written enough not to describe all historical figures with semitic background or who are Israelis as "Jewish". Why is that? Because, "Jewish" is very inspecific and inexact when not applied to religious AND modern Jews. I only ask you, why is it NECESSARY?

It is important for two reasons. For Christians, it is important because they believe Jesus is (was?) the son of the Jewish God, foretold by the sacred books of the Jews. For critical historians, the only way to understand what Jesus may or may not have done, or said, or what his actions and words meant, is to look at them in context -- meaning, a Jewish peasant in Hellenic and Roman-occupied Palestine. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just want to point out that it is you ThreadStarter who started the thread. The onus is on you to convice us that it is that necessary.--Will2k 01:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not necessary to the Hebrews of the old testament, why should it be to Jesus? The word lacks CONTENT,

Do not make the mistake of believing that a word lacks content merely because you do not know what that content is. But no matter, scholars like Crossan, Sanders, Fredricksen, and Vermes know what this content is and why it matters mdash; and our articles are based on scholarly research, not some editor's personal opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

which other articles have in describing the person in a much more informative way - here are some examples from Wikipedia articles of much clearer ways to describe it...... "Sigmund Freud was born Sigismund Schlomo Freud into a Jewish family in Freiberg" "Albert Einstein's family was Jewish (and non-observant)" "Giacicomo Meyerbeer was born to a Jewish family in Vogelsdorf, Germany with the name Yaakov Liebmann Beer" "Felix Mendelssohn was born in Hamburg, the son of a banker, Abraham, who was himself the son of the famous Jewish philosopher, Moses Mendelssohn." "Gustav Mahler was born into a Jewish family in Kaliste, Bohemia." (perhaps this is so because he converted to Catholicism) "Daniel Barenboim (born November 15, 1942) is an Argentinean-Israeli pianist and conductor... ...his parents were Russian Jews." Even leaders such as Ariel Sharon are described as "Israeli", much more helpful than "Jewish", while for example "Jewish-American" for Steven Spielberg denotes that he is American with Jewish ancestry. --Threadstarter

What sort of wierdness is going on here? Of course Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother; adopted by a Jewish father; circumcised on the 8th day and thus a member of the Jewish covenant; he worshipped in the Jewish temple; taught in Jewish synagogues as a Jew; interpreted Jewish law as a Jew; he made pilgrimages as a Jew to the Jewish capital, Jerusalem in order to observe and celebrate Jewish religious feasts; he was crucified by the Romans as a claimant to the Judean throne and labelled a "King of the Jews"... Jesus (be he an historical or a fictional character) in point of historical, literary and religious fact (in our consensual world) lived and died a Jew.

Perhaps there should be two separate articles, to depict difference between history and myth. One article for the mythical Jesus Christ, partly constructed by indo-europeans, who according to the bible was a divine healer of sick people, who performed miracles and who ascended from the dead. Another article for Jesus of Nazarene who was, according to historical research, the harsh Jewish teacher; while there is evidence of that he shared views with Jews to a greater or smaller degree, there is no historical evidence of him healing paralyzed or blind people, only a religious myth. The tension between these two entitities has always been quintessial within the Christian church. Alternatively, two separate sections in the same article presenting these two entities. Any thoughts? --Threadstarter

We already have the articles Jesus and textual evidence and Historicity of Jesus linked to from this article in the history-section. Or do you have anything else in mind? Shanes 22:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall read these later. Then, what about the head/intro text of this article? It's a molten mess of historical and mythical conceptions of Jesus which do not necessarily support each others. Should not the difference be made already in the head text? --Threadstarter

Well, the intro should be kept short. So discussions about these things is better placed in the history section and as articles on their own. And the intro allready uses words and statements like "Most secular scholars accept his existence", "little exists outside of the canonical Christian texts", "Christians further believe" and "It is commonly thought that Jesus preached", which will make the reader aware that there are indeed uncertainties and disputes around the factual acuracy of all these statements. A reader who wants to learn more about this will then read on to the history-section and there be pointed to the Jesus and textual evidence and Historicity of Jesus articles. But maybe there could be a more explicit pointer to these things in the intro. I don't know. If you have any specific sugestion, I'd be happy to read them. Shanes 23:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus a "Hebrew"? Not really... Hebrew is a language...perhaps he spoke it. Hebrew might appropriately refer to ancient tribes, but not to the historical Jews. To do so is particular Christian POV...c.f. Hebrew.

Jesus a "Judean"? Not really... Judea is a section of Palestine...from which Jesus didn't come. He is explicitly called a "Galilean" which is a different section of the land. A "Galilean Jew"? Perhaps, but that isn't worth saying more than once, unless one is specifically discussing diffences between diaspora Jews and Judean Jews.

Jesus a "Christian"? No way... Christians didn't exist till after his death. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ...Jesus Christ is outside of the set, no?

I never said that. But if Christians follows the morals of a "Jewish" teacher, then how come our religion is not considered a subset of Judaism? Why do we follow the words of a Jewish teacher if we have no desire to be Jewish. --Threadstarter

Good question Threadstarer... (FWIW I was responding to aspects of this entire section and not simply what you wrote.) As I understand it, Early Christianity is indeed considered a subset of Judaism by NPOV scholars. However, after the Fall of Jerusalem when Christianity and Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism where the two major types of Judaism left (the Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, Qumramites etc. being mostly wiped out) these two remaining Jewish religious movements fought over who was the legitimate heir and continuant of Biblical tradition. They both cursed each other and wrote each other out-of-the-family as it were. This sibling rivalry is at the roots of modern antisemitism and a whole lot of trouble. Of course there was quite a bid of "de-Judaizing" of the tradition on the part of Christians, since after the revolt, Jews were in "bad-odor" with the Romans. Christians, believing that Jesus was also the Christ, and understanding the Christ to be the Logos, a person of the god-head, helped distance Jesus from his Jewish humanity, no? It's all very fascinating.

To those of us who are Christian, Judaism is something we disagree with, concerning the unity of God and hierarchy of man (especially between Jews and Gentiles), and it is essential to our Christian faith that we disagree with Judaism on this. The two ideas, God's homogenous unity, and the idea of a "chosen people" is what unites all Judaism (and its laws), including the patriarchs since Abraham. Jesus separated himself from the Jews, if not in both, at least in the latter idea when he abandoned the principle of the "chosen people" and promised redemption to Gentiles and Jews alike. Jesus OF NAZARENE was, according to historical evidence, a Jew by blood, but he taught against the essence of Judaism. However, the mythical figure Jesus CHRIST, son of God, has indeed been "de-Judaized" throughout indo-european tradition (down to the greek word "Christ"), and outside of that tradition his followers saw him above a mere Jew, begotten by God (he was, after all, the manifestation of God himself). The head-text needs to state this distinction. (As for the statement "was a Jewish preacher and healer", was he some kind of a healer except a healer of paralyzed and blind people? If not, then historical evidence ("Jewish") and myth ("healer") are already mixed and messed up in that article.) --Threadstarter

By the way, those of you "anonymously" contributing your two-cents might be a bit more credible if you were to sign and date your contributions... : -) 66.19.205.209 20:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Ahhhhh!!! Hoist by my own petard! I, author of the previous paragraphs, am your humble servant, Emyth 20:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous editor wrote this, above:

One article for the mythical Jesus Christ, partly constructed by indo-europeans, who according to the bible was a divine healer of sick people, who performed miracles and who ascended from the dead. Another article for Jesus of Nazarene who was, according to historical research, the harsh Jewish teacher; while there is evidence of that he shared views with Jews to a greater or smaller degree, there is no historical evidence of him healing paralyzed or blind people, only a religious myth.

... which again reveals real ignorance of history and historiography. The main source we have for Jesus' life is the Gospels. What is this "Indo-European myth?" Some of the authors of NT books were Gentiles, but many were Jewish. What we see in the NT is the formation of a set of beliefs that originally constituted a branch of Judaism, and which then split off from Judaism to become a new religion. Historians do not reject it as myth (a meaningless word in this context) -- they see it as a document produced by a number of people over a certain period of time for certain purposes, and it is this context which provides scholars with a perspective to read it critically. But there is no historical research that starts with some other text. Why do you say that the "historical" Jesus was a harsh teacher? Why is Jesus as the divine healer of the sick not a Jewish Jesus? In fact, historians recognize that Jesus' healing the sick (or at least people believing he healed the sick) is one of the things that makes him Jewish, as this was a very common Jewish practice at the time. Historians do not necessarily believe that these people really could heal the sick -- but they do know that there were many Jews who claimed to have this power, and many Jews who believed them, so Jesus' being a healer is very much part of the "Jewish" Jesus and the historical Jesus. It is true that historians reject the claims about miracles and resurrection. But they still see Jesus as a central figure in the formation of Christianity. This does not mean he was not a Jew. Indeed, Jesus had to be a Jew, because only a Jew could be the messiah (the messiah was of the house of David). The last supper was a Passover seder (a major Jewish holiday). Jesus' followers claimed that he was prophesized by the prophets -- another mark of his Jewishness, since non-Jews didn't care what the Jews' sacred scripture said. He preached in Caperneum and Jerusalem -- both Jewish towns. His two most important "commandments," "The first is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." happen also to be the two central commandments of the Pharisees (and were established as such before Jesus was born). If he were not Jewish, the Sanhedrin would not have tried him (if indeed they did), since they did not have authority over non-Jews. So -- why would anyone think that a guy with a Jewish name, who relies on the Hebrew Bible in his preaching, who preaches to Jews, who has Jewish disciples, who celebrates a Jewish holiday -- why would anyone think this guy wasn't Jewish? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"It is true that historians reject the claims about miracles and resurrection." - not necessarily. --Eleassar777 14:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I should have been clearer I meant critical historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where do I mention "Indo-European myth"? The myth started from the apostles (either most or all of whom) were semites. It was adopted and developed further by indo-european people, hence the expressions I used were correctly "de-Judaized throughout the indo-european tradition" and "PARTLY constructed by indo-europeans". When I said that according to historical evidence, Jesus was a Jew by blood, I went to accept calling Jesus the person Jewish according to the historical evidence; even though he taught against the fundamentals of the Judaic law,

It is not at all clear that Jesus "taught against the fundamentals of Jewish law;" this is a ridiculous claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jewish descent qualifies for a person to be called jewish. But according to the Christian religious myth of the Europeans in general, as Christianity spread around the Aegean Sea, the "Jewish" characteristic was removed from the construction of this character (in addition, gaining the greek title "Christ" and portrayed as a white, blue-eyed warrior). As side notes, it is contradictious to us Christians to refer to our patron as "Jewish", or our "Jewish master", and Christians certainly don't speak of "the Jew who saved us all". When Martin Luther adresses Jews in his "On the Jews and Their Lies", he certainly refers to all Jews but not to Jesus. --Threadstarter

I wouldn't want to rely on a piece of anti-Semitism to support my claims, but if you insist — just because Luther was critical of Jews in his day, does not mean that Jesus was not Jewish. In the United States, Democrats today strongly dislike Republicans -- but none of them deny that Abe Lincoln was a Republican. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greek title "Christ" denotes "the anointed one", the Jewish Messiah. --Eleassar777 14:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: The article is shaping up to look better. To many true Christians it would be nearly blasphemy to include Jesus, when referring to Jews in religious (not historical) context - an article about his "europanization" would be useful, but I fear my knowledge is not specific enough at this moment.

By "true Christians" do you mean anti-Semitic Christians? Certainly "true" Christians recognize that Jesus was Jewish. Citing Luke 2:21, the Roman Catholic Catechism states that "Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the Law and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate throughout his life." Citing Galatians 4:4, the Roman Catholic Catechism states of Jesus that "His religious life was that of a Jew obedient to the law of God, a life in the community." Quite clearly, according to the Gospels Jesus was Jewish. So why is acknowledging his having been Jewish blasphemous, but talking about this "europeanization" is not blasphemous? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Christianity is not fundamentally anti-semitic and neither am I. It is however, anti-Judaism, just like Judaism is anti-Christian; we reject their idea of a "chosen people" and the idea of God's homogenous unity. How could Jesus have remained faithful Judaism til the end of his life, if he abandoned their essential idea of a "chosen people" (and possibly also God's homogenous unity)? You also ignored my question about Martin Luther. I hope the article gets reverted back to the yesterday version. --Threadstarter

Christianity may be "anti-Judaism" (according to the Catholic Chucrch, Lutherans, and other denominations, though, it is not), but that does not mean that Jesus was not Jewish. "The chosen people" is not a "central" idea and developed over time, it is unclear as to whether Jews at that time used the phrase. Finally, Judaism was heterogeneous then as it is now, and just as today there are many Jews (and Jewish organizations) that reject the notion of "chosen people," there is no reason why Jews back then could not also have been divided on this issue. And what question about Martin Luther? You never asked any question about Martin Luther -- although I did respond to your statement about Martin Luther above, try reading it. In any case, nothing that you have just written responds to any of the points I made above, referring to the NT and the Catechism. Clearly, there are many true Christians who believe that Jesus was Jewish. If you do not understand how that could be, ask them! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure about Lutherans, but Martin Luther himself condemned Judaism altogether in "On the Jews and Their Lies". In their text, at least the way it's written in the Old Testament, there seems to be no-one among Abrahams' descendants who opposes himself to the idea of a "chosen people", and anything in conflict with the text is not Jewish law. God promises to Abraham to make 'his' people as many as the stars in the sky, Isac and other fathers command their sons to marry their cousins, and disgust is expressed for "uncircumcized" people. "Christianity may be "anti-Judaism" (according to the Catholic Chuch, Lutherans, and other denominations, though, it is not), but that does not mean that Jesus was not Jewish." This is something that's hard to understand for me. Clearly, many Christians believe Jesus was Jewish without even thinking about this question, but many Christians also believe the opposite. With God's "homogenous unity" I meant their rejection of the Christian heterogenous triforce, father, son and holy spirit.

You need to read your own Bible. Aside from the verses I quoted above, John 4:9 clearly identifies Jesus as a Jew. By the way, the Jewish concept of "chosen people" is not hierarchical -- God made promises to many other peoples besides the Jews. Perhaps you do not understand the Jewish concept of "chosen people" -- it in no way denies the fact that God chooses other peoples as well. Also, be careful about criticizing God's covenant with Israel because the fact of that covenant is the starting point for Christian theology. I am sorry you do not understand how Jesus could be a Jew. You have to talk to religious and knowledgable Christians, or theologians, to understand why. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and Senseless Life(see "No Proof")

Of course you can decide not to believe in Jesus and continue living your senseless life, but I assure that it will lead to destruction. Jesus lives and he offers you salvation. It is up to you.

Uh, who are you to judge a person's life as senseless, and state with assurance that their life (of which you know nothing) will lead to destruction? Please prosletyse by fear elsewhere; this is an online encyclopedia, where we try to deal with matters of fact, not faith. Thank you. Fergananim

Dating System

The Common Era dating system is not based on the religious beliefs regarding the birth date of Jesus. To say otherwise is erroneous. Kelvin uses the same scale as celsius, but it is not based on the boiling point and freezing point of water. The anno Domini system is based on the date originally made up for Jesus' birth - the CE system is seperate and just uses the numbering of the most popular calendar. ~

--JimWae 19:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)==Odd theory==

It is commonly thought that Jesus preached for a period of three years, yet it is never mentioned explicitly in any of the gospels. One theory suggests that in the Gospel of John, a timeline is described which depicts a ministry time period of approximately one year (Passover to Passover). This theory of a one year ministry would coincide with the type and shadow of the passover lamb (lamb of God) being a yearling lamb. This, however, is not commonly taught and thus not a wide spread theory.

This was re-insterted by Slrubenstein. Can you (or someone else) please explain why the lead section should be clogged with detail like this, especially when constituting "theories that are not widely spread"? The lead section should only cover the most relevant facts. Fredrik | talk 18:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that in his hurry to remove what he mistakenly claimed was POV, he reinserted several things that now appear twice - including a jpg. I have done some editing to clear up text to make it more apparent it is not POV --JimWae 18:43, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I removed it, and a paranthetical that was out of place in the introduction. The introduction should flow from the most general to the most specific, so after a very brief description, the order of information is first, about his name, second, about the sources, and third, about Christian beliefs. I don't see the sense to saying "The primary sources about him and his teachings are the four Gospels, according to which he was a Jewish preacher often at odds with other Jewish preachers at that time," for two reasons. First, we go over the sources in the next paragraph, and second, according to the Gospels Jesus was many things -- why stop with "Jewish preacher," why not say "healer, son of God, messiah," and so on? You just can't provide the view of the Gospels in one sentence, so let's do it later on. I removed the passage about the CE dating system as this is not an article on the CE dating system and if it needs to be mentioned in the article, it shouldn't be in the introduction. I also corrected a few mistakes: Jesus was not just a preacher, he was (according to both religious and critical historians) a healer; also, there is not point to saying that he was at odds with other Jewish preachers since this was true for virtually all Jewish preachers at that time. Also, it is not accurate to say that many scholars believe that the passage in Josephus is "possibly" a forgery -- yes there are some scholars who do not think it is a forgery, but the scholars who believe it is a forgery believe it to be a forgery. I also added mention of the Talmud which -- though anachronistic like the Josephus passage, is still an early document referring to Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JimWae, you have just reverted my changes twice in a row, without explanation. Moreover, it is simply rude to make a major change without explaining it, especially when I had provided a detailed explanation for the changes. Why can't you actually use the Talk page to discuss issues in the article? You assert that "healer" is POV but do not explain why you think it is POV, or what POV is represents. The opening is indeed NPOV because it provides the view of historians, Jesus' Jewish contemporaries, Muslims, and Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have now reverted me 3 times. Twice Or was it 3?) before ANYTHING appeared here - and with nothing in edit summaries but "less POV". You complain I did not explain, then complain about my explanation. Healer is POV that he had healing powers. I included healer in mine in a more NPOV way & you reinserted your POV. You have not been following the edits over the last day. Scriptural is overly-reverential (& a redirect) when historicity & specificity are called for - specifically mention of New Testament. Your Talmud insertion is worth considering. Your removal of material on his existence is not. Because sources & existence are open to question, they need to be introduced before asserting any description of him. Putting name content so early delays getting to anything about who he was. I will leave it to someone else to put my last content back until tomorrow so I do not do 3 reverts as you have --JimWae 19:29, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)--JimWae 19:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I don't see an explanation to your revert, except to point out repeated material -- which I removed, following your comment. Healer is not POV because it doesn't claim that he was a good or bad healer, effective or ineffective. Even bad doctors are doctors. You claim that you included healer in a POV way, but in your version "healer" was not even in the introduction (and Vermes and others consider it to have been his principal role). I honestly don't understand what you mean by "Scriptural is overly-reverential (& a redirect) when historicity & specificity are called for - specifically mention of New Testament." And as far as following what has been going on the past couple of days -- well, I have provided extensive explanations for my changes. But except for your 18:43 comment of today, I can't find any explanations that you have provided for your changes. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen - please. Religion is always a difficult POV call, and requires patience. One point - and I'm not getting in the middle of this entire thing - a person can be described as a healer without the implication of a miracle worker. I admit this would be difficult in Jesus' case. But, a healer was a valid category of teacher during the period, whether they healed by the spirit or by more conventional means for the time. Peace. WBardwin 19:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, WBardwin. I am willing to grant that Jesus and his followers believed that he "healed" physical maladies with supernatural means. My point is that he was a healer because of what he claimed to do, and not necessarily because of what actually happened. Let me give an analogous case -- and my purpose of using an analogous case is that if we want to maintain NPOV, we shoulc consider treating Jesus as we would other healers. Now, there is a good deal of scholarly literature on "shamans" (also sometimes called "healers," "witches," "witchdoctors" or "medicine men.") There is some scholarly literature from psychology, but most of it is from anthropologists, historians, or scholars of religion (who may not themselves be religious). Now, virtually all of these scholars assume that shamans can't really do the things that shamans by definition are supposed to do (e.g. heal people using supernatural means). Nevertheless, they all use the word "shaman" (or one of the related terms) to describe their subjects. When Mircea Eliade calls someone a shaman, or E.E. Evans-Pritchard calls someone a witch, they are most definitely not claiming that shamanism or witchraft are "real" (that is, they do not believe that shamans and witches have supernatural powers). It is very common for scholars to describe people using the same language those people themselves use. And it is enough to add that critical scholars "reject the supernatural elements of New Testament accounts." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at my edit summaries which you yourself provided a link to in an edit summary - there are plenty of explanations there. You've really screwed up the first paragraph. To immediately say he WAS born & died & WAS a preacher & healer, is to undermine the possibility from the outset that he never lived. To say his existence is accepted is to ignore the questions that remain unresolved - much of the acceptance he's given is just presumptive because it is undecideable. To say he was a prophet in Islam before saying he is central to Christianity is putting the cart before the horse - that's why I put his centrality in the first sentence. You have repeated Jesus Christ unneccessarily in the 1st two sentences. You have again linked dating to "sacred texts" instead of naming the New Testament. There is now no mention of Common Era in article - and such IS appropriate for intro- and is mentioned similarly in other encyclopedia. There's so much more - please read my version again.--JimWae 19:52, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Edit summaries are no substitute for explanation -- most of the edit summaries you (like me and many others) are so abbreviated as to be cryptic -- they amount to saying "an improvement" without explaining why this is an improvement. I disagree with you about CE, since CE is not used and this is not an article about CE. As I said before, I have no problem with discussing it in the body. The term "sacred texts" does not appear in the introduction. Now, if you want to propose changing all dates to CE/BCE, I have no objection, indeed, I would strongly support that. But if there is a consensus to use the conventional AD/BC, then we should follow that convention. I see no point to adding a discussion of BC/CE in the introduction. As I said, if you want to change all dates to BCE/CE I don't object but youshould see what other people think, first. As for your other comments, some are reasonable and I will try to make changes, in the spirit of compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think JimWae's changes were generally for the better. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about now? Why do you think it is better to have a discussion of CE dating system in the introdcution? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dating system is the Anno Domini system, NOT the CE system! What is the problem with stating Anno Domini system (correctly)?

If dating system is irrelevant, fine, but if not, its the Anno Domini system, not the CE.

Hey, I am just replying to JimWae. But the argument against AD is that it violates our NPOV policy. Many editors and readers of Wikipedia do not consider Jesus to be their "lord." To use AD is to imply that according to Wikipedia Jesus really was/is the Lord -- a Christian POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to do any editing of this article, but I'd like to say that it's POV and inappropriate to use BC/AD, because as Slrubenstein says, it implies that Jesus really was someone by whom dates ought to be set, whereas the Wikipedia article should only describe who says what about him, but should not take a side; using BC/AD not only takes a side, but does so in an implicit, almost structural way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting using the AD dating system in the article, I am saying that the dating system which used the date arbitrarily assigned to Jesus' birth is the AD system. I agree that using the CE system for dates is preferable. The Rev of Bru

I agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rev of Bru, what is your evidence that half or more secular scholars of the Bible or Biblical history do not believe Jesus existed? I have read works by several critical scholars (e.g. Vermes, Sanders, Crossan, Fredricksen), and they all claim that Jesus existed. Can you share your research with us? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that any secular scholars who are concerned with the existence or not of a christ character believe he existed? Assuming that someone existed because it doesn't concern your study, or assuming that someone existed because it doesn't matter to you, is entirely different from actually studying the issue of whether or not a mythological character was real. Please provide some secular authors who actually investigated the evidence of whether or not a historical Jesus existed and came to the conclusion that he did. All the secular sources who actually looked into the issue rather than ignoring it have at the very least come to the conclusion that he may or may not have existed, not that he definitely did.The Rev of Bru

You are not answering my question -- you are evading it; why? Provide your sources (I doubt you can do that, since you are wrong). As to your question -- why should I repeat myself? Please read what I wrote. If you have done any serious research into this matter, you will recognize the names of four of the most well-established and well-regarded critical scholars of this period. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please read what is in front of you before replying. Vermes just assumes that jesus existed, he has not investigated the issue at all. As does Sanders. Crossan *believes* in a historical Jesus: he is not a secular scholar. He presupposes his existence. As does Paula Fredricksen (although she doesn't 'believe' in a Jesus.) NONE of your examples have actually looked at the (lack of) evidence skeptically.

I really don't see what the issues are with the JimWae version, except that is says he was at odds with other Jewish preachers of the time, which I don't think is accurate; rather, he was at odds with the established religious authorities. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Preachers

Fish Supper continues to revert my change of "at odds with other Jewish Preachers" to "at odds with Jewish authorities." Why? My change was simply to follow up on the suggestion of Jayjg. If you think Jayjg was wrong, why not explain why on the talk page? In any event, I know of no evidence that Jesus was ot odds with other preachers. Please cite your source. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was my concern as well; which Jewish preachers was he at odds with? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet Fish Supper keeps reverting! What can I do? I cannot block him/her since I am in conflict, but I just do not see how we can allow an editor who is only disruptive, refusing to participate in discussions on the talk page, refusing to provide evidence or sources, adding nothing to the article, and only reverting everything I do, to continue doing this. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Your course (which isn't fun, but is correct in the long run) is to take the moral high ground and keep to the 3RR.

JimWae, you just wrote an edit summary, "it's being at odds with authorities that is important to story" but as far as I can tell, your edit had nothing to do with his being at odds with authorities. Are you being deliberately deceptive? Or is this a typical Wikipedia glitch, in either how you saved your edit, or how I am retreiving the edit history? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look again, I guess, when you are again allowed or whenever --JimWae 23:44, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

- Jesus — also known as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene — is the central figure in Christianity and an important prophet in Islam. The primary sources about him and his teachings are the four Gospels, which depict him as a Jewish preacher and healer often at odds with other Jewish preachers and the authorities at that time.

+ Jesus — also known as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene — is the central figure in Christianity and an important prophet in Islam. The primary sources about him and his teachings are the four Gospels, which depict him as a Jewish preacher and healer often at odds with Jewish authorities at that time.

Thanks. You might note that I made this same change several times and Fish Supper reverted it every time. In any case, I am glad we agree (at least on this!) Slrubenstein | Talk 00:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had made the same change much earlier -- but you guys were so intent on reverting you were not paying attention. Btw, How is it you can still post? --JimWae 01:23, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I am sorry that I didn't catch your earlier post. Honestly, all I remember was the clause "at odds with other Jewish preachers." I admit that my first edit was to remove the entire clause, and I provided an explanation on this talk page. I also read and took seriously your explanation for putting the clause back in, and from that point on all I did was delete "preacher" and add "authorities." I think that despite some tension we have reached a point of reasonable compromise and I am glad about that. As for posting -- well, I haven't tried to edit the article lately and as far as I can tell, it is now at a point that I pretty much find acceptable. But I think I was unblocked by others because (1) I explained my changes on this talk page, expressing a desire to improve the page (and I hope you see my not reverting the text you worked on now, as evidence of this), and (2) Fish Supper has given no evidence at all of any interest in improving the article — he never explained his changes and never responded to any of my explanations or questions on this talk page. But the main reason I was unblocked seems to be that people think Fish SUpper is a sock-puppet of CheeseDreams [2]Slrubenstein | Talk 01:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also am quite content with the article as it now stands. I must point out it is substantially as I had left it before you started reverting anything, with some improvements of course. I think it is better now than it was, in part thanks to you but also to those who backed me up, but it should not take all day to accomplish that. The part about Common Era has relevance for 2 reasons - it has bearing on estimates of his birth - it displays how important he is considered that the calendar is STILL "based" on him. But the shorter version now there is an improvement over the longer more detailed one, which content is now included below. I also made the AD-CE & BC-BCE transition - except where context demanded otherwise. I am sure we shall meet again & let's try to "presume" the best about each other then. Cheers, --JimWae 01:53, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I can promise that. By the way, I did just do some rewording of the first paragraph on historicity. I hope you see it as an improvement; if not, I certainly wold like to know why and if you suggest something else (besides just going back to the previous version), Slrubenstein | Talk 02:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR violations

Both Fish Supper and Slrubenstein have been blocked for 24 hours for their respective violations of the 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

the Talmud

Yesterday I added a clause stating that the Talmud also mentions Jesus. Jayjg had a reasonable argument for deleting that clause, and I accepted his deletion. However, I have been doing more research and have now put the clause in. The fact is, there are at least some scholars who do believe that certain passages in the Talmud refer to the same Jesus who is the subject of this article. It is true that the Talmud was not committed to print until the sixth century, but it contains within it texts from the first and second centuries. Many of the passages that specifically referred to the Christian Jesus and Christianity were censored by the Church in the Middle Ages (or left out by Jewish printers who were afraid of Church censorship), which is why someone who has read the Talmud today would not find these passages. However, Talmud scholars -- I mean critical scholars, not rabbis -- have identified several earlier manuscripts that contain these passages. The passages in the Talmud come from the Tosefta, which originates in the second century -- in other words, not much older than Josephus and the Gospels. If we mention Josephus, who may not even have written the passages ascribed to him, we should at least mention the Talmud. I added a paranthetical to make clear that the Talmud passages in question should not be read as history. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not that the passages themselves exist, but rather that they a) do not refer to Jesus, and b) are too late to be historically relevant anyway. Regarding a) the references are to various individuals, including a couple of Yeshus, one who lived 100 years before the gospel events, and one who lived about 100 years afterwards. Various other references are dubious, or based on a later scribal emendation of one manuscript not found in earlier manuscripts. In any event, if they did indeed refer to Jesus, it would mean that the gospels stories were entirely false in almost every detail. Regarding b), the earliest references are from the second century at best, and probably later. The whole Jesus in the Talmud = Yeshu was popular at one point, but is unravelling today. I urge you to carefully read the Yeshu article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty of course is how to reword: --JimWae 18:08, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
- Though mention is made of a Jesus in the complete works of Josephus (in a passage considered a forgery by many scholars), nothing else exists outside of the canonical Christian texts....
Maybe
- Other documents from that era make some mention of a person that might have been the same Jesus, but they are all suspect. Lacking evidence outside the New Testament, a number of historians have seriously questioned whether Jesus ever really lived. While most religious and secular scholars presume his existence, many find the question of his existence undecideable by historical means alone.
Then discussion of Josephus & Talmud can go in historicity section - making intro more genaral too

-- In support of Slrubenstein, I think his passage summarises the current position well. Although most scholars don't think there is a correspondance between Yeshu and Jesus, this remains an important minority position, and one that is more widespread outside academia. Therefore, I think it should be mentioned, if only to largely dismiss it. I think that the satement should be restored, with the addition of a link to the Yeshu article: "and in the Talmud (although most scholars do not view the relevant passages as historically accurate or as refering to Jesus; see Yeshu)." --G Rutter 18:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Grutter. Jayjg, with respect I have to disagree with you strongly. Your position implies either that the only material on Jesus put in the article must be historical (in which case we would have to delete a lot of material from the article), or that the only mythology about Jesus that can be allowed in the article must come from Christianity. I disagree with both positions. It is true that there has been considerable work by critical historians and Bible scholars concerning Jesus — anyone who has followed these pages know that I am committed to including their views in the article. But that does not mean that the article should contain only historically accurate material. Jesus is an object of Christian mythology (and I am using "myth" in the academic and not popular sense), and that material should be in the article. Some will say that this material reveals more about Christians than it does about Jesus, but nevertheless I feel it should be included. But Jesus is also important in Jewish mythology. Much recent scholarship has explored the ways that the Amoraim and Tanaim were consciously competing with Christianity in the formative years of Rabbinic Judaism, and their stories about Jesus are very much relevant (and if some scholars say these stories are not about this Jesus, I can provide sources that claim that they are about this Jesus. Both views should be represented, not only one). Only two religions from the Roman world have survived to this day: Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. And they emerged and first took shape in Roman Palestine. For a very long time people, including scholars, have anachronistically claimed that these two religions are so different that there is no meaningful connection between them. But today, many scholars are revising that view and recognizing how Rabbinic stories of Jesus and Christianity played a role in the processes through which Rabbis saw themselves, and Rabbinic Judaism took shape. I think one sentence that signals this is very reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree, but I've tried again by modifying the POV of the existing sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with the rewrite. --G Rutter 19:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you explain to me why you disagree? My sources are Daniel Boyarin, a Talmud professor at Berkeley, Shaye J.D. Cohen, professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard University, and Jeffrey Rubenstein (no relation, I swear!), professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University. I am using works they have published within the last ten years; Rubenstein's book is 2002, so this reflects the most recent scholarship. These are three very well-regarded scholars at prestigious universities, so surely you can understand why I believe that the sentence concerning the Talmud should be in the article. You say that many Talmud scholars (and I assume you mean critical scholars) do not believe that the toseftas refer to Jesus. Can you tell me who you are referring to? Okay, you disagree with me, but can't you explain why? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historicity Section

The Historicity section DOES need serious work - another revert war will accomplish nothing. The "acceptance" (as it appears) is a little too facile, but the part about "for ancient standards" (or whatever) is worth keeping. Many people accept his existence just as a presumption - finding it undecideable & not worth the time to argue over. The section also needs expanding --JimWae 18:40, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

JimWae, what bothers me is that Rev of Bru will revert anything I write, not because of its contents but because of his vendetta. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have written some excellent parts of this article before slrubstein. I was very impressed with some of the rewording you did in other sections for NPOV. All you have to do is stop showing POV in the historicity section. Secular scholars who have actually investigated the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus overwhelmingly doubt his existence. Not liking that fact does not change it. I know you can accept facts on other issues. Please accept this one.

As Jimwae says, many (most) people presuppose his existence, and do not question it. The Rev of Bru

"Secular scholars who have actually investigated the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus overwhelmingly doubt his existence"; which "scholars" in particular are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Secular scholars who have investigated the issue. Sorry if that was confusing. The Rev of Bru

Cite your sources. --G Rutter 19:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Earl Doherty. Timothy Freke. Peter Gandy. Alvar Ellegard. Robert M. Price. Frank R. Zindler. Tom Harpur. G.A. Wells. Marcello Craveri. Luigi Cascioli. Italo Libri. Etc.

Now, one of you cite some secular sources who, ON HAVING INVESTIGATED IT, came to the conclusion that there definitely was a historical Jesus. The Rev of Bru

Off the top of my head: Ian Wilson, A N Wilson, Robin Lane Fox. Also, a number of Christian authors, who became Christians at least partially because they came to the belief that the Gospels were accurate after they investigated it- including Frank Morison, C S Lewis, Alistar McGrath. --G Rutter 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C S Lewis was Christian before he even started studying theology at Durham. He was also gay.

So you agree then that most *secular* scholars who have investigated the issue at least have doubts that there was a historical Jesus. Good. So stop reverting valid edits, please.The Rev of Bru

Oh: Maybe you didn't bother reading what I said. Secular. Secular scholars. Not religious scholars, with their conclusions determined before they start - like Ian Wilson (Who thinks the flood was a real event, FFS). A.N. Wilson, as far as I have seen, also assumes the historicity without bothering to investigate it. Robin Lane fox is the only real secular scholar you have mentioned. Christians are biased. They believe jesus exists. They cannot deal with this issue rationally. It contradicts their faith. And I would not expect them to. But at least be honest.The Rev of Bru

Rev of Bru, I seriously appreciate your kind remarks. But I ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt in understanding that when I make an edit I believe I am writing something that is accurate and that doesn't violate NPOV. If you disagree with me, please take the time to explain why before (or at the very least, immediately after!) you revert. Now, the matter on hand. I do not think that the distinction between secular and religious is always useful. I do understand why you would think so, but I know many religious people who do not believe that the Bible is literally true or describes events that actually ocurred. I also know atheists who don't really understand critical scholarship and make claims that really are tenuous at best, and often just wrong. When I say "critical scholar," I mean someone who assumes that texts, no matter what their claims, were written by people for people; and who uses the critical tools of comparative literature and history to interpret texts. Since I have done a fair amount of research in this matter I feel comfortable with my own judgement, but I know that is no reason for anyone to accept my judgement. So in this particular matter what I do is I ask historians and Bible critics in major (secular) universities what books they assign. I also look for books written by professors at prestigious universities, published by academic presses. I look for books written by people who publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, and whose works are cited by others who publish in peer-reviewed academic journals. And I have to say, several of the people you name fall short.

Now, I believe that the people I have read represent what scholars consider reliable scholarship: From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredricksen, William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of Scripture, Boston University, and published by Yale University Press; The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders, professor of religion at Duke University, published by Penguin; Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, by Geze Vermes, Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford and member of the British Acadamy; The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart Ehrman, Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published by Oxford University Press — these are all critical scholars whose research is in no way dictated by religious dogma, who teach at major research universities in the US (except for Vermes, who teaches at a university in England that I have heard of, maybe it is a good school), and I am confident that if you asked anyone who has published on Jesus or the New Testament in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, they will agree that these are well-respected prominent scholars – all of these books accept the existence of Jesus even as they question the New Testament account of events, and orthodox Christian interpretations of the New Testament.

Now, as to the people you mention. Earl Doherty, though not trained in NT studies, is certainly a legitimate scholar and his argument is fascinating. But his argument does not require that Jesus never lived, it only claims that the Jesus in the NT was not the "real" Jesus that lived. No one would argue with his claim that Paul and perhaps John created a Jesus very different from the man who lived — which is actually precisely why I think critical studies of Jesus the man are so valuable. Timothy Freke has a BA in philosophy, and to my knowledge was never trained in critical history and hasn't published in peer-reviewed journals. Sorry, but not my idea of a real scholar. Peter Gandy at least has an MA in Classical Civilization, but as far as I am concerned there is no comparison between his credentials and scholarship and that of Sanders, Vermes, etc. Alvar Elegard is a real scholar, but if I understand him, he is claiming (like the scholars I rely on) that the NT reflects the views of Christians in the second century; this does not mean Jesus never existed. Robert M. Price is a very good scholar, but as far as I can tell he is agnostic concerning the existence of Jesus (not the same thing as definitively claiming that Jesus never existed). Frank R. Zindler is a biologist and geologist! He has no training in comparative literature, history, classics or the ancient Near East. Again, I don't see how there is any comparison between his scholarship and that of Sanders and Vermes. Tom Harper is a real scholar of early Christianity, although I do not think he has a PhD. But Rev, you make such a big deal about secular scholars and Harper is not secular!! He is an Anglican priest who taught at the Toronto School of Theology! G.A. Wells was a professor of German, never trained in Roman or Biblical history or literature or language. Credentials are not the only problem. He does not use the critical tools of historical scholarship, and in my book doesn't even rate. I know Marcello Craveri has written on the apocrypha, but I do not know what his credentials are. I do not know what Luigi Cascioli's credentials are either. I have read only a review of his book, but if it is accurate he uses the tools of a lawyer to prove that Jesus never existed. I have also heard lawyers claim that using their standards, God really did reveal ten commandments at Sinai, so I am sceptical of lawyers trying to do history. I prefer trained historians. Italo Libri is a lecturer of mechanical technology. He may be secular, but he is no scholar.

Look Rev of Bru, I know that there are scholars who do not believe Jesus existed and I have never deleted the claim that some do not believe he exists. But be reasonable: when someone asks you for a list of scholars, don't give us a mechanical engineer, a professor of German, and a geologist. If you insist on the article stating that "most secular scholars believe Jesus never existed," I will have to add "scholars of German, mechanical engineering, and geology." When I write "most accept the existence of Jesus" I am referring to prestigious critical scholars of Roman Palestine, the New Testament, or some other field that actually involves expert critical study of Jesus and the NT. I maintain that the scholars I listed are unquestionably among the top critical scholars of the New Testament or Biblical history. And they accept the existance of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate what you say, but as far as I'm concerned, the quality of the work is what is important. I didn't mention Ian Wilson; Director of Studies in Chemical Engineering and alleged Jesus expert from your list. Technically, Einstein was a patent clerk. Does that invalidate him? Secondary interests can also be viable studies.

I do not know if we are miscommunicating or what. Ian Wilson is not on my list and I am certain that I have never mentioned him. As for Einstein, he may have worked in a patent office, but he had a PhD. in physics and his articles on the photo-electric effect and Special Relativity wwere published in reputable journals and he recieved the Noble Prize. All of this is evidence of the recognition given to him by his peers in physics. Now, there is no Noble Prize Sanders, Fredricksen, Vermes and Bartman can win. But they clearly are well-regarded by other critical scholars of the NT and History. So your Einstein analogy supports my claim. I do not see how it supports your claim. Zindler, Wells, and Libri have no been recognized by experts in this field, so there is no comparison between their situation and Einstein's.

Another thing: I cannot see how you can claim that some scholars are 'critical' when their conclusions are preconcieved. People who believe in Jesus already are NEVER going to honestly say that he didn't exist, no matter what the evidence against it. Christians cannot be critical scholars of Jesus as a historical figure; they already believe in his existence.

You have no evidence that the scholars I rely on had preconceived conclusions, and my reading of their works is that they do/did not have preconceived notions. When you say "Christian scholar" do you mean anyone who disagrees with you? I just do not see how this comment relates to the scholars I listed.

Be reasonable: If someone asks you for a list of secular scholars who believe Jesus existed, provide some secular scholars. And if someone says scholars, lets take the definition : 1. A learned person. or 2. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge. That doesn't mean it is their only field of knowledge.

It is not enough for them to claim to be specialists. Most critical Bible scholars and historians went through rigorous training in critical theory and methods; the ones that I rely on have clearly established themselves among their peers. I am not dismissing Zindler, Wells, and Libri because they have other fields of knowledge. I am criticizing them because their work on this particular topic does not meet the standards of critical scholarship.

I don't claim that Christian scholars are not qualified to discuss history, since they have no training on thinking critically/ rationally. Maybe I should start. Or maybe we should stick with the usual definition of scholar. The Rev of Bru

I do not understand your point here. If by "Christian scholar" you mean someone whose scholarship is based on assumptions that come from their religion, and is meant to serve their religion, I do not understand your point. The scholars on my list are not "Christian scholars" as I made crystal clear above. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Fredriksen and Vermes are Jewish, not Christian. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I used to think that too, but I think I read somewhere that Vermes was actually a Christian missionary until he started studying the NT critically, which led him to leave Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I know that your last edit was in the spirit of compromise and I appreciate that. I really do believe we can work out something that everyone will consider accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming specific historians in Historicity section

Re:

(E.P. Sanders, for example, has argued that the documentary evidence for Jesus' existence is as strong or stronger than the documentary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great).

In the Alexander article we have very specific info, such as -- "In the afternoon of 323 BC June 10, Alexander died of a mysterious illness in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. He was only 33 years old." Also: somebody had to be the leader for a series of conquests

E.P Sanders may argue that -- but WHY should anyone listen to him? What doubts, if any, does he raise about Alexander?--JimWae 08:48, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

There are not doubts about the existance of Alexander. THAT'S THE POINT.--198.93.113.49 16:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put in the E.P. Sanders to replace an allusion to Homer. The reason I did this was simple: the remark about Homer was unsourced. The remark about Alexander is sourced, E.P. Sanders. Why should anyone listen to him? Who cares? People can listen to him or not, that is none of our business. But what is our business is this: representing the views of different scholars (and NOT our own views); this section is about the views of critical historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's the only name mentioned - there's lots of "some historians", "many historians", "most historians", " a number of historians". More names need to be added. It seems extremely unreasonable to doubt Alexander's existence, but far from entirely unreasonable to doubt Jesus'. Is that the best example anyone can give? The Homer one seems more on a parallel --JimWae 19:05, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Jim, when you say "seems more on a parallel" that suggests to me that this is your own view. Am I right? Because that constitutes original research and you cannot put that in the article. Also, when you say "it seems extrememly unreasonable," it sounds like that is your opinion too. But surely you know that we do not put our own opinions into the article. We put the opinion of "Christians," "Historians" and so on. The fact that you happen to disagree with (or question) a historian is just irrelevant here. Before I fixed this section, it read:

They therefore consider that the accounts of the life of Jesus in those Gospels provide as reasonable a basis of evidence, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death, as Hesiod's accounts provide evidence for Homer.

"They" refers to scholars. But whoever wrote this sentence didn't name which scholar has compared the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for Homer. I have read a good deal of history and don't know who made this comparison. But I do know that Sanders makes the comparison with Alexander. Since this is a verifiable claim, I put it in. Now, if you want to put the comparison with Homer back in, well, fine — but tell us which scholar makes that comparison; Wikipedia:Cite sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're getting the wrong idea about my intentions - when I have more time I will hunt down the Homerr-Hesiod source--JimWae 19:28, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Well, actually I am not sure about your intentions; my questions were sincere. But I infer from this that you didn't think you were doing any original research but were rather reflecting the views of established scholars. Great! I am looking forward to finding out the Hesiod-Homer source. Since Sanders is widely considered a top critical historian, I don't think including his view needs any justification. I gather your reference is to a well-known and established historian also, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

historicity

I have some doubts about this phrase in the historicity section, concerning people who take a purely naturalistic approach: "are particularly skeptical" about miracles and such. Maybe people who are inclined toward a naturalistic approach are skeptical, but I think that if we are talking about people who are purely naturalistic this phrase is hedging and I think should be phrased more strongly. I think people who take a purely naturalistic approach flat-out reject miracles and stuff. How about something like, "reject supernatural elements in the accounts, including the resurection" or something? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didnt change that because I thought too many 'unnaturalists' would complain. Go ahead and change it if you want. You could link to Jefferson in that too, he was a famous materialist (He did not believe in anything supernatural; he was a deist but thought of his God as a kind of superintelligent alien)

Dead Sea Scrolls?

Which fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to Jesus? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I did not think that any of them did. As far as I understand it, the significance of the scrolls is that they reveal some similarities between Jesus' views and the Qumran community, presumably Essenes -- which indicates that Jesus' thought was not so divergent from Jewish views at the time, and suggest, some believe, that he even spent time in an Essene community. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any of them doing so either. I think there is a fragment several letters long that some people have rather dubiously suggested might be from a gospel, but even that certainly doesn't mention Jesus. JimWae, can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My revert: the reasons

As a passing stranger, I reverted some recent edits by User:Rossnixon for the following reasons: 1) the "a" before "Jesus" when discussing Josephus is a sensible rider and 2) a statement that no serious historian doubts the existence of the Jesus is far too sweeping. It only takes one reader to adduce one historian who does doubt this to call into question the accuracy of this article and, by extention, the whole of Wikipedia. This kind of sweeping statement cannot be made without cast-iron referencing. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That was me. On consideration, I would concede point "2", as this was a historical quote from around 1972, which could easily be (or become) outdated. However, the statement accredited to Josephus obviously points to Jesus. ...Regarding the extra-biblical sources I have added, you will find most of them confirmed (with details) by looked at the articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Historicity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence I will revert, and remove the sentence I concede to be potentially outdated. RossNixon 09:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence when I wrote the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Historicity article, some of it is now redundent. Since this one paragraph is so highly disputed and open to abuse by those on both sides of the debate, I advocate that we restore the link to the Historicity article as it demonstrates in a NPOV way, the esential test through which historians determine the Historicity of a text, and the arguments for and against the historical reliablity of the New Testament, the primary source material for the person Jesus. Rclose 13:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting "Jesus the Nazarene"

It was a silly mistake and when I realized what I had done I went to put it back but it looks like someone already has.

tightening up the intro

I fixed the following passage:

A number of historians have seriously questioned whether Jesus ever really lived, and while most religious and secular scholars presume his existence, many find the question of his existence undecideable by historical means alone.

The problem with it is that it sounds redundant, because it is poorly organized. It contains three claims: (1) A number of historians have seriously questioned whether Jesus ever really lived, (2)most religious and secular scholars presume his existence, (3) many find the question of his existence undecideable by historical means alone. Obviously the first and third claim go together -- people who seriously question Jesus' existence are also likely to find his existence undecidable by historical means alone. I do not want to delete content, so I will not delete one of these redundant claims. But it is poor organization to have a "jesus didn't exist" claim followed by a "jesus did exist" claim and them followed by a "Jesus didn't exist claim." This isn't a debate (or a tennis match) -- we just want to communicate different positions. So I put claims (1) and (3) together. Also, I deleted the following: "However, ancient historical and mythological figures are often portrayed only from references written centuries after their deaths." What is the point of this here? Maybe ancient historical and mythological figures are often portrayed after their deaths (or what they claim is the date of their deaths). So? All that matter here is Jesus. The fact that one person's death was not recorded until centuries later does not prove anything, one way or the other, concerning another persons' death. And if this is a point specifically made by a historian concerning Jesus, well, let's put it in the historicity section -- it is extraneous here. We have communicated two views: some believe he existed, some do not. A detailed catalogue of the reasons belongs in the body, not the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words and other changes

Rev of Bru, please read weasel words and you will see this article to be full of them: e.g. Many historians - how many (many implies a majority if no reference point is given).

AD and CE are different? I fail to see how. Leaving aside the arguments about usage, they are absolutely identical in their reckoning of years.

I changed skeptical to doubtful. These words are equivalent in the current context. However, skeptical is American English whereas doubtful is neutral. This was my reason for changing it. I'm reverting it to doubtful, but what was your reason for reverting to skeptical?

At one point I replaced undecideable, a very clumsy word that doesn't appear in most dictionaries (e.g. this one). I see it has also been reverted. Can we come up with something else please? Arcturus 22:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arcturus, that you fail to see how AD and CE are different does not mean they are not different, it only means that you do not see the difference. The difference is this: "CE" in no way suggests that Jesus is Lord. Many people consider this a very important difference. By the way, I am unhappy with both skeptical and doubtful (the former suggests a general attitude and if we have to choose, is better than doubtful) -- people who take a purely naturalistic approach do not "doubt" that miracles take place, they flat out reject their miraculous nature. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have contributed to the debate about AD vs. CE. I am, therefore, aware of all the arguments and the differences. In fact, they are identical. CE notation is just another name for AD notation (or vice versa if you like). It placates those, who for various reasons, object to AD. The one has not been derived from the other. To make such a claim would be analogous to stating that Myanmar had been derived from Burma.

Skeptical, doubtful.. what might be better? Arcturus 22:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see you've changed it - nice one. Arcturus 22:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CE/ AD : "Leaving aside the question of usage" - if you DONT leave aside the question of useage, you will see why they are different. As Slrubstein says, one presumes (and accepts :P ) that Jesus is lord. That is the difference.The Rev of Bru

mediation

Rev of Bru, do you want to take this to mediation? You revert what I write, you refuse to explain why, and you refuse to respond to my explanations. This is inappropriate behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see it as you reverting what I write. What exactly is wrong with the passage you keep reverting? As far as I can see, you are violating NPOV by putting a slant on the article. MOST people have not investigated one way or the other the evidence, lack of, surrounding the existence of the character Jesus Christ. It is not correct to say that they accept it; they simply presume it.The Rev of Bru

Additional: I explained why this was the first time it was added. It is not true to say I refuse to explain why, I simply have not written the same thing several times. What is inappropriate behaviour is reverting valid edits to reflect a slanted, biased POV.The Rev of Bru

Additional 2 - You did not respond to the earlier discussion on the subject either, simply stating 'you're wrong.'The Rev of Bru

@@ Line 867: / Line 867: @@
 : I see it as you reverting what I write.  What exactly is wrong with the passage you keep reverting? As far as I can see, you are violating NPOV by putting a slant on the article.  MOST people have not investigated one way or the other the evidence, lack of, surrounding the existence of the character Jesus Christ.  It is not correct to say that they accept it; they simply presume it.[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]
 : Additional: I explained why this was the first time it was added.  It is not true to say I refuse to explain why, I simply have not written the same thing several times.  What is inappropriate behaviour is reverting valid edits to reflect a slanted, biased POV.[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]
+: Additional 2 - You did not respond to the earlier discussion on the subject either, simply stating 'you're wrong.'[[User:The Rev of Bru|The Rev of Bru]]