Talk:Jesus/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

101112131415161718Archive 1920212223242526272830405060708090100110



Remove the part about Jesus being a prophet of Islam and Bahá'í, its stupid to mention that since Bahá'í and Islam faiths are contradictory to the teachings of JEsus who says that the only way to God is through him. That means you can't mix Christianity with anything else.. I see the mentioning of Bahá'í and Islam at the top as a form of advertisement for those faiths, its and effort to gain more acceptance from Christians and non-Christians who are easily misled.

Of course people these days mix religions without really understanding the religions at all, as if its like playdough.. Create your own religion from your own hands. Christians would say all other faiths are man-made.. At the very least put the references to Islam and Bahá'í at the bottom with all the other Christian inspired cults. hindu and their religion have nothing to do with juses.Hindu avater or someting like that this is only because the want to show to the christen world (dominate religion) they ractify them only because they bow their head to any dominate power of the time.this is only single reason to write something about jesus .do remove this proclamation of Hindu's which is baseless


Why have Bahá'í so close to the top, Bahá'í worshippers would denounce Christ as the only path to God which is what most all Christians believe, and if they don't then can they say they are? Also I don't believe Islam should be mentioned too close to the top. This creates a kind of advertisement for these faiths, and should remain at the bottom just like all the others. If you are going to talk about Christ, talk about Christ, don't try to put advertisements for faiths and denominations at the top.. An Advertisement, adverts people elsewhere, that's what it is.. Secularists tend to want to make everything the same for fear that if there was any dispurportion or bias it would create riots.. Note in the bible Christ says he would bring brother against brother, the purpose for that is that there would be disagreements, you can't make everyone agree.. Christ says his way is the narrow path.. If you go through every prophet, its not narrow is it? Either represent Christ correctly or don't represent him at all!! If you remove this message at least give me your reasons for removing this text, if you have no other reasons and feel it would be upsetting, then why post Christ here if its upsetting, having Christ here on Wikipedia isn't going to release him from existence, he exists whether you want him to or not, he is not just a man, he is God. But you have complete control over what you do until death, after death who does? --Kiernan Holland 1:01, 27 July 2005 (MST)

It doesnt matter what christians believe jesus said. They could be wrong as well. Maybe jesus never said the only way to god is thru him. Nobody knows. Tell me one thing, how can you put all but one religion at the bottom? Unless you make 20 headings called "Christianity", almost half of the religions have to be closer to the top than the bottom (if you think logically). Why are you so passionate about this anyways? What's wrong with having an article about jesus on wikipedia? We can't write about jesus from the catholic POV only as that would be against wikipedia policies.-- 20:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Catholic view on salvation[edit]

Copied from User Talk:JimWae by Jim.

Catholicism does not preach a ‘works’ salvation. They hold that it is necessary to accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, to be justified. See catechism. The link you provided showed that this justification is available to all. I ask you to withdraw your revert. The Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration [1] [2] shows that there is little or no difference between these churches on this issue. --ClemMcGann 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • And so I have changed it to "just life" as in the link[3], instead of good works. Can you show where the RCs teach ONLY those who accept grace, merited by the Passion of Christ, will be saved? The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved. Non-Christians, especially those who heard little or none at all of Jesus, could not be expected to consciously accept Christian grace! The works part remains as the qualification that faith is not sufficient. --JimWae 21:31, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
Jim. Yes, as you say, “The RCs teach that non-Christians can also be saved.” ,by grace. However your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is factually incorrect. Please re-read the catechism link--ClemMcGann 22:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the catechism link is to a long page on which the same words appear many times, perrhpas you could provide the relevant point numbers. The link I provided does not mention grace, so secondly, I have to wonder if the catechism is the ONLY official interpretation. Thirdly, how does a non-Xian freely accept Xian grace? (Perhaps that is another mystery, but from further reading, it appears the word "accept" is not needed.) --JimWae 22:25, 2005 July 18 (UTC)--JimWae 22:49, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Jim. Your edit “Roman Catholics believe that good works are also necessary for salvation” is not true. What is your source? My source is the catechism.
You say “The link I provided does not mention grace” – it does.
Your question “how does a non-Xian freely accept Xian grace?” belongs to a different forum. My interest is history, not theology. However I am remined of a debate between Celtic Christians and delegates from Rome concerning unbaptised deceased infants. When the rest of Chrisendom buried such infants outside consecrated ground in the belief that baptism was necessary for salvation, the Celts didn’t. When confronted with scripture, they replied that “God will find a way” :)--ClemMcGann 23:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my link does mention grace. I should have extended my remark to say it does not say "accept grace". It says "receive grace" which changes things considerably - without resort to further mystery. Catholics do not believe faith alone (without good action) is sufficient for salvation. I will not look for a source, but let another do so - delete it if you wish.--JimWae 23:29, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim - I will ammend and mention sources. I'm wondering if this is too much detail? --ClemMcGann 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd change it to

"Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe that even non-Christians who lead a just life can receive the grace of salvation.[4]" (and other links)
receive and accept are quite different requirements, one can receive a gift without even knowing it --JimWae 00:30, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Apostles' Creed[edit]

I accept your argument regarding my edit,

The Apostles' Creed, an early statement of Christian belief that is widely used by the major demoninations today, likely dates to the first or second century.

I suppose it is more an early confirmation of the writings and beliefs rather than source material. But where is your assessment that it was 390? I believe it may have been as early as 1st Century. --Noitall 04:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

As you likely are aware, the creeds were likely written in response to heresies. It took a while for a hierarchy to emerge that could command other teachings (even Gnosticism) as heresy - and parts seem to be about heresies later than Gnosticism - if it had been in place earlier, there'd have been more clarity of doctrine to preclude such heresies & there'd have been less disagreement over the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the virgin birth. It is, I suppose, compatible with pre-Nicene teachings, but...

The 390 year regards a written form and comes from

Early fragments of creeds have been discovered which declare simply:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the resurrection of the flesh."

The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215). The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542).

It's also unclear whether it was a precursor to other creeds, a later simplification for children, or something that grew up alongside the others. The Nicene Creed is too complex for kids or those "just learning". Anyway, dating it - even as "likely" - is probably an inconclusive task. --JimWae 06:00, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Good analysis. You should put it on the Apostles' Creed page. --Noitall 01:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia standards also apply to Christian/Catholic perspectives in articles concerning Christian subjects?[edit]

Dear Jayik,

Perhaps your editing on 21 July happens to have crossed with mine. Perhaps not. I am very happy for anyone who has something to say about Christian subjects to add this to the Christian perspective, providing always the Christian perspective is being stated first and sufficiently fully and clearly. Moreover that the accounts we derive from the Gospel and the rest of the Bible are stated first, then the Church's teaching, thereafter modern scholars' hypotheses. Unless, someone wants to put the cart before the horse and discuss hypotheses before knowing what they query.

At present the contributors to this article strenously exclude, and keep on editing out, snippets that may help the non-Christian to get a notion as to why people have died a martyr's death, and joyfully so, for the Christian belief. Did they endure being tortured to death because Jesus is the central figure in Christianity? or because another religion regards him as a great prophet? And just in case the modern source hypotheses scholars got it wrong – and truth does not depend on a head count –, would it not be a more balanced presentation to state first the ancient tradition concerning the apostolic origin of the canonical Gospel accounts? Or is this not a neutral point of view, because it is being maintained by the Catholic Church rather than some other religion?

Wikipedia needs to be watchful that its lofty standards do not get violated even and especially in articles dealing with religious beliefs!

Portress 22:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have just noticed that my earlier addition to the introductory paragraph has been deleted wherein I mentioned that the correct understanding of the details of the trial and death of Jesus is a hotly debated subject and that their misunderstanding has resulted during the past 2000 years in the shedding of the blood of many who had not been present at the events. Now why should this have been removed? Does anyone want to deny the truth of my assertion? Is it not of the foremost pertinence to the Jewish-Christian dialogue? Have Catholics no right to acknowledge this prominently (cf. Nostra Aetate Section 4 paras 6-7 in Flannery's edition, Vol. I, p. 741)? Who feels offended by this being mentioned? Who considers it irrelevant in the context of the present subject? There is no neutral point of view in religious beliefs, only a balanced presentation; and this terrible issue adds to the balance of this article.

Portress 23:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I know you tried hard with your extensive edit, but, to be frank, much of it was confusing and not clear, is disputed, or just wrong. Perhaps you should try editing in smaller bites focusing on what you are trying to say and then people can argue the merits. Just a suggestion. --Noitall 23:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have tried to clarify it? Or perhaps took it to the talk page for clarification? Isn't this normal practice? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Noitall, for the benefit of others reading your criticism of my edits in this article as much as for my own benefit, would you kindly state the instances where my own edits were
... "confusing"
... "not clear"
... "disputed" (where I have not acknowledged this)
... "just wrong".
If not, would I be in order to assume that you have withdrawn your above made accusations?
Dear JimWae, which of my edits would also be disputed in the "Christian view of Jesus" article that I have not already acknowledged as being disputed? (That is to say, I assume that you do not mean to suggest that it is disputed whether the literal text of Scripture and Roman Catholic teaching may be mentioned in articles on Christian subjects!) By the way, having seen that the views on Jesus of Nazareth of some non-Christian religions are listed in this present article, it had not occurred to me that a separate "Christian view of Jesus" article exists; and its existence scandalises me. Apart from this grievance, since there is already a religious viewpoint section, in how many places is one supposed to read about the same topic, and in how many places are contributors supposed to make the same point, moreover, in how many places are they supposed to watch out for mistakes and other problems that may be introduced by subsequent edits of others?
Portress 08:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wish I could help you, but I have no idea how many articles have Jesus in the title - as far as I know there are articles with titles only slightly variant from Jewish view of Jesus & Religious perspectives on Jesus & New Testament view of Jesus & New Testament views of Jesus & Jesus according to the New Testament & Christian perspectives of Jesus &Mormon view of Jesus. Everybody wants to have an article with their version of the truth in it. Try this: List of Jesus-related articles Branch articles are created when a section gets too long --JimWae 09:02, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Disputed edits[edit]

I have added some stuff back to the lead section that I feel is neutral, and also helpful.

With regards to the paragraph:

"The historicity, teachings and nature of Jesus are subject to debate. The earliest New Testament texts which refer to him, Paul's letters, are usually dated from the mid-1st century. Paul himself had seen Jesus only in visions; but he claims that the good news that he delivered to his churches was authoritative all the same, because he had received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (cf. Gal 1:12). As regards the four canonical Gospel accounts, their historicity depends on their apostolic origin. This the Catholic Church has always maintained, and continues to maintain, namely that "the apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they and apostolic men handed on to us in writing the same message they had preached, the foundation of our faith: the fourfold Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.11.8; Vatican II, Dei Verbum 18). However, most modern Christian scholars hold that the works describing Jesus (primarily the Gospel accounts) were communicated by oral tradition and were not committed to writing until later that century, hence that the historical reliability of those works – and even more so, of works of Christian apologists and Church historians which post-date the 1st century – is disputable. As a result, while many historians and scholars have either assumed or concluded that Jesus probably lived, many have questioned this; and some have found the issue undecidable by historical means alone."

I feel that this would do better in the main article, and not the lead section.

I have restored quite a few edits removed. A lot of them were very reasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


I have replaced:

"No one was a witness to the resurrection, though the women who went to anoint the body found the tomb empty, and the Synoptic gospels further state that an angel was waiting at the tomb to explain that Jesus had been resurrected; Mark further claims that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus himself later that morning. The Gospel of John makes no mention of an angel, but states that after Mary returned to the gravesite, the risen Jesus appeared to her. After the resurrection, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Gospels, and the book of Acts give accounts of Jesus meeting various people in various places over a period of forty days before "ascending into heaven". I Corinthians, which was written before the Gospels or Acts, mentions visits to Iakobos ("James") - presumably the brother of Jesus - and to 500 brethren. Neither one is mentioned in the later accounts. This suggests that the number of post-resurrection visits decreased, rather than increased, as time went by, in the written accounts. This diminution was due probably to ideological and cultural problems. For example, I Corinthians fails to mention any of the appearances to women that are so prominent in the Gospels. This may be due to prejudice (on the part of Paul, or of his source) against accepting women as reliable witnesses. The disappearance of the account of the visit to James may probably be due to censorship because of conflict between the Ebionites (Jewish followers of Jesus, led by Jacob/James) and Gentile Christians."


"No one was a witness to the event of the resurrection. However, the women who had witnessed the emtombment and the closure of the tomb with a great stone, found it empty, when they arrived on the third day to anoint the body. The Synoptic Gospel accounts further state that an angel was waiting at the tomb to explain to them that Jesus had been resurrected, though the Gospel according to John makes no mention of this encounter. The sight of same angel had apparently left the guards unconscious (cf. Mt 28:2-4) that with Pilate's permission the high priests and Pharisees had posted in front of the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen by Jesus' disciples (Mt 27:62-66). Mk 16:9 says that Mary Magdalene was the first to whom Jesus appeared very early that morning. Jn 20:11-18 states that when Mary looked into the tomb, two angels asked her why she was crying; and as she turned round she initially failed to recognise Jesus until he called her by her name. The Gospel accounts and the Acts of Apostles tell of several appearances of Jesus to various people in various places over a period of forty days before he "ascended into heaven". Just hours after his Resurrection he appeared to two travellers on the Road to Emmaus. To his assembled disciples he showed himself on the evening after his resurrection, when Thomas was however absent, though he was present when Jesus repeated his visit to them a week later. Thereafter he went to Galilee and showed himself to several of his disciples by the Lake and on the mountain; and they were present when he returned to Bethany and was lifted up and a cloud concealed him from their sight."

You tell me which is more neutral! The first has unsourced speculation and statements. The second has sourced and more neutral writing. It doesn't speculate, it only mentions what was said in the Gospel accounts. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Fire Star 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ta bu shi da yu and Fire Star, as the article stands (including my own edits) it seems to me that it still requires some constructive unbiased input; but thank you for joining in the pursuit of a more balanced presentation! If all contributors to this article chip in in this same spirit, I do not see why together we cannot achieve an adequately informative article that accurately states the essential points of every denomination, religion and entity that claims to have a vested interest in this subject.
Portress 10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
By all means, I would love it if you continued editing! Just don't forget to cite your sources and present the information neutrally — remembering that if information is disputed that we cover that dispute in some fashion. Please, let me encourage you to continue being bold! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ta bu shi da yu, my earlier optimism concerning this article may well turn out to have been naïve. The editorial principles dominant this morning make no allowance for the fact that the subject is intrinsically connected with CHRISTIAN belief and Christian BELIEF. Even in a summary this has to be a guiding principle. And what so obviously – right in the opening para – shows up the present editorial bias is that, whilst Christianity is only permitted a statement from the perspective of its critics ("its Messiah and God" – which in this form is wrong and misguiding concerning the belief of Christians themselves), in the very next sentence other religions are quoted with their belief from their own perspective ("a major prophet" - which is not what Christians believe of Christ Jesus, for whom he is the last of the Prophets). – Otherwise, this morning the article seems to me to settle dogmatically some issues that are subject to an ongoing scholarly debate (although, admittedly, there are those who may not number among scholars those standing up for the traditional position of the Fathers and the Church, and who therefore perhaps want to say that there is no debate). Pilate's handing over of Jesus to be crucified is a case in point. To infer "(to the Roman soldiers)" from Mt 27:26 – || Mk 15:15 – || Lk 23:25 "to their will" || Jn 19:16a "to them", as an editor has just done, would require some careful arguing that is however lacking (quite apart from the question what nationality of soldiers the Centurion Mt 27:54 || Mk 15:39 || Lk 23:47 was commanding, most probabily auxiliaries, recruited in the Levant). Jewish-Christian relations, which presumably were on the mind of said recent editor, can only progress in the right direction, if there is a desire to find the truth, not to make it up.
I do not have the time to keep on watching out whether my edits concerning some traditional aspects of the Christian Faith fall victim to someone's bias.
Silence on my part concerning any aspect of articles that I have visited therefore may not be interpreted as concurrence with the presentation at any stage.
Thanks again for your earlier help, not forgotten.
Portress 05:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Question to JimWae about edit summary[edit]

Hello, Mr. Wae,

I see your edit summary about an edit of mine, and I have a question. (You actually reverted, and maybe should include "rv" or "revert" in the comments, as I noticed you reversed my spelling correction.)

I make reference to your comments here: Revision as of 07:12, 23 July 2005 JimWae (Talk | contribs) Off topic here - already dealt with in Christianity section of this article - and what's there is a bit different from the view removed

1 - First, regarding your comment, "Off topic here", I understand your first concern to be that you think I placed my clarification in the wrong section. At the time of my edit, this seemed an appropriate section, because these quotations of Jesus were His teachings, however, I think you may have a good point. These views would also be Christian beliefs also. Before you would edit and reverse my edits, please review my three points.

2 - Next, you state that my clarification was "already dealt with in Christianity section of this article." You seem to be correct, but I felt that this clarification seemed necessary to highlight a distinction in the "faith vs works" in their Christian beliefs. I still feel that way, and I hope you consider this in your review of my more recent edit.

3 - My main question revolves around your comments above that "and what's there is a bit different from the view removed." This would seem to imply either one of two things.

  • I think you mean that my comments that you removed differ or contradict the views held or claimed. If that is so, please help me understand this point. I think I was correct in my interpretation of the Christian beliefs, and I cited some sources in their scriptures.
  • The less likely meaning of your comment would be that another editor placed comments on a prior occasion, and they were removed. You don't refer to a previous editor's edit do you?

Thank you in advance. I do not have time for protracted "edit discussion" or "edit wars." I am hoping to add clarification on points that are not easily intuitive or understood and would hope that you would concur to provide this useful information to the readers on the subtle shades and points of the beliefs systems. If I have erred, please make clarifications or corrections, but please include as much useful information as is possible. ~ For example, if you think that the view I stated is not held by all Christians, please make distinctions and clarifications on which Christians do not hold these beliefs, and change the article to reflect the current information.

I hope I was helpful to your page.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I have made some more edits - what you included was basically the "Protestant" position, so I put it with the sentences that discussed that. There are differing Christian views on this that need to be noted. I also commented that miracles are out of place in that paragraph, that who "expects" is left hanging, and I questioned who needs good works as "evidence". Btw, nobody owns any page - but wikipedia. Btw2, be aware that British spelling is not incorrect, though article is not consistent yet --JimWae 18:31, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review and assistance, Jim. I think that the final result is improved, even though I couldn't find a spot for all the elements. While I am not an expert on the Catholic views, I will trust your distinction here. As far as "good works are expected," that is probably easily understood that God, who is the alleged author of the scriptures, expect us to have good works, but that is a good point. Probably, it could also mean that other Christians expect good works, and that would not be untrue. This is passive voice, but as opposed to active ("God expects..."), but still probably OK. ~ Oh, when I said in reference to hoping to help "your page," yes, I should have known. You're right, but I was just being informal and colloquial, or even careless: This is Wikipedia's page for all of us. Oh, one more thing that I notice: Yes, I "recogniSed" (vs "recogniZed") many British spellings (joke, ha ha), and did not purposely change them to American English. (Both are correct.) The few spelling corrections that I did (particularly "centred") may actually be British, but I am not sure so I changed them. I'm American, but I don't have any problems with using British spellings if the article can use both or is not specifically related to one English-speaking country. It seems that the article is acceptable and in capable hands, and I thank you all for your attention.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas[edit]


The somewhat controversial non-canonical Gospel of Thomas also provides source material for much speculation about the possible early teachings of Jesus. This is the only relatively well preserved non-cononical Gospel believed to quite possibly predate the canonical Gospels themselves.
  • you need to provide some background here why this gospel should be mentioned prominently (even MML&J are not) in the lead and not just expanded in the history section. The lead should not be where the fullest development of a topic exists.
  • "believed" by whom?
  • "believed to quite possibly" says virtually nothing.
  • "material for much speculation about the possible" says virtually nothing - that DaVinci code or my fingernail could also be as much
  • --JimWae 20:06, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
Matthew Mark Luke and John are mentioned as 'the four canonical Gospels' in the lead. Approximately 30% of the lead is discussing the contents of the four canonical Gospels. I cannot see why two sentences discussing what our own G of T article describes as a near even split on whether or not it is believed to predate the canonical Gospels, are not called for. The topic of the Gospel of Thomas is not fully developed in two sentences, but an entire well developed article does exist that develops it quite well. The phrase 'quite possibly' was used to summarize this near even split. Please tell me why the only document that is reasonably believed by an even split of scholars to most likely predate the canonical Gospels, and which contains some very significant teachings that if genuine are highly illuminative of the actual teachings of Jesus, should not be mentioned in the lead.
Scott P. 20:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I will explain again more

  • your additions are very weak sentences, filled with so much qualification that they say very little at all in the end -- except that GoT exists
  • MML&J are not named nor singled out
  • just about anything can be a "source for much speculation about the possible" ...(anything)
  • within this article, your fullest development of GoT is in the lead - then part of the lead is repeated later - that is not the function of a lead.
  • The lead is discussing Jesus & whatever we know or is believed about him. We "know" very little about Jesus from the GoT - (only partly because it is read by few) - but likely we would "know" little more anyway - though we might have a few more things to speculate about. It adds to speculation, but does not improve what we "know" about him.
  • The GoT will not lkely ever become a primary source
  • your addition would work better in the historicity section - IF it were fixed up. The lead is not the place to contain the largest part of an argument supporting a new source. The lead is about Jesus.
  • --JimWae 20:48, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Trying to describe G of T in two intro sentences....[edit]

I tried to get the two sentences to say exactly what they mean, perhaps it could be done in a better way. Here is what I tried to say in these two sentences:

(sentence 1) The somewhat controversial non-canonical Gospel of Thomas also provides source material for much speculation about the possible early teachings of Jesus.
If the G of T is dated as many believe, then much work needs to be done to revise popular teachings about what Jesus taught, so that it might be harmonious with these teachings. Thus, I use the phrase ‘much speculation’ as an attempt to summarize this 'much work' that may need to be done.
(sentence 2) This is the only relatively well preserved non-cononical Gospel believed to quite possibly predate the canonical Gospels themselves.
This tries to say exactly what it says. Any suggestions to say this in a more succinct way would be appreciated. The phrase here, ‘quite possibly’ is the best way I could think of to summarize the 'near even split' on the G of T's dating into two words. Again any suggestions for how to be more succinct would be appreciated.

(you wrote) The lead is discussing Jesus & whatever we know about him. We "know" very little about Jesus from the GoT - (only partly because it is read by few) - but likely we would "know" little more anyway - though we might have a few more things to speculate about. It adds to speculation, but does not improve what we "know" about him.

We can only speculate in any event. Given two documents, if one predates the other, the earlier one, in so far as I can see, whether or not it was canonized by an emperor directing some bishops 300 years later, is probably the one with the most pertinent historical information in it.

(you wrote) The G of T will not likely ever become a primary source.

Popularity usually has little or nothing to do with historical accuracy. Even in religious questions. I know that it may be a bit uncomfortable to some Biblical scholars to think that they might have to go back to some basics all over again in order to find out what our best guess is about what really happened, but if that is what must be done, that is what must be done.


Scott P. 21:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Less is more[edit]

You do not have to say it all in the lead. I had introduced the topic in the lead (which you deleted). I have tried again - but doubt other editors will let specific mention of Thomas stand in lead, but if "the dozen" stays, you have an opening to discuss it in the main body -- Actually you do not even need that in the lead to discuss it in main article--JimWae 21:23, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Scott P. 21:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
While looking at talk and the article about my own concerns, I could not help but notice the debate about the G of T. (I paged through the successive edits on talk and in the article and saw all the diffs.) I am glad you all got resolution on this. Since I am not an expert on the G of T, I would suggest that if any one has concerns over its emphasis (how important is it as a "non-Canonical book?), then you could find some sources the verify any claims. Of course, if there is a debate, I hope y'all are able to provide the various points of view with sources. Well, that was bland and dull advice, but I hope it is helpful. In the end, recalling how I was satisfied that some elements of my edit are in the article, even if not in the intro, my own acceptance of the edits should be a good example or role model for how to deal with questions about edits. What a coincidence, since that was the subject of my edit itself. Well, I'm out of words, but I hope y'all the best. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 00:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical Reliability[edit]

In the opening section, it is stated that most scholars believe two things

  1. That the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
  2. That these writings are therefore of disputable reliability.

In contrast, I maintain the following:

  1. There is no real dispute that the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
  2. That only a few (or some) scholars say that these writings are therefore of disputable reliability. For ref; see especially the comment that "Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves." RossNixon 11:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This opens a whole other set of concerns. First of all, di the authors of the Gospels have the same understanding of "historical reliability" that we do? If so, no problem -- but if not, if they applied other criteria to determine the "truthfulness" of a text, then the fact that the atuhors of the Gospels claimed that they were truthful does not mean that by our own criteria they are historically accurate. In your quote above, you suggest historians distinguish between "legendary accounts" and soemthing else (historical accounts?) But what if people back then did not make this distinction? Or if instead of distinguishing between legendary accounts and historical accounts, they further distinguished between five other kinds of accounts we don't even recognize? All I am saying is that understaning what the Gospel authors thought about their own writings may not be at all obvious. For example, some people may have sincerely believed that they had an encounter with Jesus after he was crucified, and that this is proof of his resurrection. The claim "the author of the text believed this" may be accurate. But that doesn't mean that the what the author believed happened is an accurate account of what happened. Second, what are you referring to as "these writings?" Most scholars mnay agree that the Gospels were originally written down by the second century. But do we actually have these original texts? If we rely on later manuscripts, how do we know that they accurately represent the original texts? Bart Ehrman, in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, has observed a number of places in the Gospels where, for ideological reasons or by accident, it is likely that the process of transcription led to various changes between the original text and what we had in the 5th century, or today. Let's say that the original writings were accurate. Okay, but we do not have those writings on our possession. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Portress' extensive additions to lead[edit]

  • The lead is not the place to make the most extensive explication of a point. The lead is to introduce points that will be discussed more fully later. Your extensive additions need to find a place in the historicity section.
  • You also use the term "handed down to us" - that is not writing for a universal audience, First person rarely, if ever, is appropriate within an article --JimWae 04:24, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
Strongly agree - I think few, if any, of the recent additions have been neutral and encyclopedic. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute paragraph[edit]

:Silence's version: "

As all historians and scientists must agree we must return to the facts and relics in existence today about a man called and known to be Jesus of Nazareth. The Romans speak of him in passing so he did in fact exist if we believe Roman history. Today we have a sample of his blood in the Sudarium found in the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain. It is safely guarded and a treasure of Spain. Tests are being done on its DNA to see if this man was truly non human or a human with a different physical structure than the rest of the billions of humans out there. We know that turban was found untouched where this man was placed after he was taken down from the cross. We know too that the Roman soldiers that were responsible for making sure his body did not disappear were either incompentents, given sleeping gas, or were threatened or bought out not to tell what happened to the body. Now, everything that has come after has been a mere reconstruction of events which are needed by some men to try to explain sensations and thoughts which science has still not been able to explain thorough and convincingly. But lets be real here, what do we really know? We do not even know where he was buried if in fact he was dead and if in fact they placed his body in some tomb. All I have as a scientist to go on is his blood found in the Sudarium. If you read Asarim you will understand what I mean. I expect a reply from all you scholars out there trying to prove the existence of non existence of something without evidence. Forget works written 30 some years after the fact. That is worthless oral tradition. I need proof. Scientific proof. The only thing we really have is the Sudarium which supposedly covered this man's head and is full of his blood.

Paredōken - to whom was Jesus handed over?[edit]

from Matthew

27:26 Then he released Barabbas for them. But after he had Jesus flogged,35 he handed him over36 to be crucified.37 27:27 Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the governor’s residence38 and gathered the whole cohort39 around him. 27:28 They40 stripped him and put a scarlet robe41 around him, 27:29 and after braiding42 a crown of thorns,43 they put it on his head. They44 put a staff45 in his right hand, and kneeling down before him, they mocked him:46 “Hail, king of the Jews!”47 27:30 They48 spat on him and took the staff49 and struck him repeatedly50 on the head. 27:31 When51 they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes back on him. Then52 they led him away to crucify him.

My translation has a note for he handed him over36, noting it can also be translated "delivered him up"

It was suggested there was no textual support for saying Jesus was handed over to the Roman "execution squad". Looking not only at the reality of politics of the day but also at the text, there is plenty of support for that claim - and it contines on & on in Matthew

  • --JimWae 04:38, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
You should read this book: Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. The "reality of politics of the day" was that the Romans appointed the King of the Jews, if they wanted a Jewish King at all (they didn't after Herod) and anyone claiming or not denying the title was guilty of sedition, anyone teaching about the "Jewish Messianic Age" was guilty of sedition, anyone disturbing Herod's Temple (which was used by the Romans as part of their apparatus of occupation) was guilty of sedition. The penalty for sedition was death, generally by crucifixion, to serve as an example to others who might wish to oppose the Roman Empire.

Matthew & Mark make it very clear the Romans did the crucifying. Luke & John use more passive voice & non-referential pronouns. I think it likely when/if the crowd called for Barabbas, they were calling for the "son of the father" --but I do not think there was snowball's chance Pilate would free a any seditionist at all. --JimWae 08:04, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Later Christianity cleared the Romans and blamed the Jews for killing God - see Antisemitism#Anti-Judaism_in_the_New_Testament and Antisemitism#Early_Christianity.


The recently added footnote is way too detailed - imagine how it would be if we added a paragraph on every scholar who has an opinion about Jesus. Shall we move this to the article about the quoted scholar? DJ Clayworth 19:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

To the person who put he footnote back - please read what I say and explain why you think I am wrong. A few points: 1) There is a lot to say about Jesus. We are barely skimming the surface. To have a whole paragraph from one scholar, not even a particularly major one, is unbalenced. 2) The view that Jesus was a Pharisee is a minority one. Given again the number of people with an interest in this subject, any view not subscribed to by at least a few hundred million people is probably better left until later in the article. I'm not saying it shouldn't go in the article, but the intro is reserved for the briefest overview. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

E. P. Sanders is not just another scholar and his opinion is not a minority opinion. The view that Jesus was a Pharisee is not a minority one and is very important to understanding Jesus as recorded. If you feel it is so important to block the mention of Jesus being a Pharisee, why don't you add another paragraph later explaining your view, WITH REFERENCES!
It is a minor opinion that I have never heard of it. Considering the number of debates I have had daily with Christians, Jews and Aiethiests on the nature of Jesus, you think I would've heard it by now. You can't refrnce a negative statement like this. You simply note that the lack of evidence is circumstance suggesting the lack of public knowledge.--Tznkai 22:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If you don't know who E. P. Sanders is, you should not be contributing to this article. Follow the link to E. P. Sanders, read his books, learn. If there is a lack of evidence for the claim that Jesus was not a Pharisee, as you seem to claim above, then it is original research and should not be in the article, see Wikipedia:No original research
Ye gods, theres a misapplication of a policy if I've seen one. I don't have exact quotes, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the catholic church would have considerable objection to the notion that Jesus was a Pharisee, and thats just for starters. This is a minority position, of questionable notability outside of scholarly circles. I have yet to see proof that this is a widely held notion even there.
As for your notion that certain people should not be contributing, I suggest you take a good look at the five pillars of wikipedia. You might learn something about the community spirit we try to foster.--Tznkai 22:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please provide a reference to the modern (post Antisemitism apology) Catholic Church objection to Jesus being labeled a Pharisee. Also, any references from modern Catholic scholars, such as Raymond E. Brown.
It certainly is a "minority opinion" - which is not the same thing as saying that it is a "minor opinion" (or not worth consideration). Compare to "The New Perspective on Jesus", by James DG Dunn; and "The New Perspective on Paul", by N.T. Wright. A minority consensus has been forming among such scholars, that the antithesis between Jesus and the Pharisees has been exaggerated - and that, if a school of Judaism were to be chosen which most nearly approximated the teachings of Jesus, the Pharisees are very near to Jesus' teaching on many issues - so much so that, Jesus could be called a Pharisee, if he must be put in a branch of Judaism (which I believe would be a mistake). Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how important it is to note that opinion. We get into the trap of how notable whos perspective is without bloating the article. That I am iwlling to discuss. I am very skeptical however, that this is notable enough to include in the lead.--Tznkai 22:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Another, more direct, reference: Jesus the Pharisee by Hyam Maccoby ISBN 0334029147. The notion that Jesus was not a Pharisee tells a great deal about the believers of that notion. See also: Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus.

Rather, what "tells a great deal" about believers in a notion, is when they cast extreme accusations against conclusions, regardless of whether they are drawn for causes entirely separate from the charged fault. There are many reasons not to place Jesus among the Pharisee party, and it is quackery, conspiracy theory and sensationalism that would discount those reasons in favor of the theory that the real roots of the contrary opinion are in anti-semitism. Somebody is selling something. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Please sign your notes in talk. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is beyond thought that Jesus would be considered a Pharisee; the label is a slur to those who seek the Spirit. They were doctors of the law, but did not understand the law. I don't believe Christ ever referred to them in a kindly light.

T's point is that it does not belong in the lead and not that it does not belong. If you are committed to it, put it lower in the article. I agree with T. Storm Rider 23:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we're gaining consensus that This is a strong claim that requires a great deal of support, especially to suggest it is a major uncontested position except by antisemites.--Tznkai 00:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And besides, the use to which the quote was put was an exaggeration. At least in that quote, Sanders did not say that Jesus was a Pharisee; only that, he did not preach against the law. In other words, he was a Jew ("born of a woman, born under the law"). But the editor cited Sanders as claiming that Jesus was a Pharisee - quite a different thing. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


"E.P. SANDERS (1990) received his Th.d. from Union Seminary (NY) 1966. In 1990, he was awarded a D. Litt. by the University of Oxford and D.Theol. by the University of Helsinki. He is a Fellow of the British Academy. The author, co-author or editor of thirteen books, as well as articles in encyclopedias and journals, he has received several awards and prizes, including the Grawemeyer Prize for the best book on religion published in the 1980s (Jesus and Judaism). His work has been translated into nine different languages. He came to Duke from Oxford, where he was from 1984-1990 the Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis and also fellow of the Queen's College."


"To put the main arguments of the book briefly: Jesus was a prophet of the restoration of Israel, who began as a follower of an eschatological prophet (John the Baptist), and whose ministry resulted in an eschatological Jewish movement (early Christianity, especially as seen in Paul’s letters). He pointed to restoration in word and deed, proclaiming the kingdom as soon to arrive and indicating the restoration of Israel especially by calling the Twelve. He made dramatic symbolic gestures pointing to this hope. One of them, overthrowing tables in the temple court, led Caiaphas to the view that he might start a riot. The requirements of the Roman system resulted in his execution. His followers continued his movement, expecting him to return to re-establish Israel. This naturally led to their incorporation of the prophetic hope that in the last days the Gentiles would turn to worship the God of Israel."

E.P Sanders may be a brilliant and well-respected scholar; I don't dispute that. But in this field I can name a hundred people who are equally brilliant and well-respected. Should all of them have a paragraph in this article explaining their views? It would make the article unbalenced. As is said above, a point of view has to be exceptionally widely held to belong in the opening paragraph, and this doesn't make it. Absolutely no objection to it being mentioned later in the article. (But please don't bring the quote back. I copied it to E.P. Sanders page. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I never knew that he subscribed to the kooky idea that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, though. That's just nutty. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Kooky? Nutty? They were blood relatives, John the Baptist baptized Jesus and Jesus then went into the wilderness as part of the initiation process which was related to if not actually the process of being a Nazirite. John and James the Just were probably Nazarites, Jesus was known as "The Nazarene". The Nazirites exceeded the Pharisees, see Matthew 5:17-20, part of the Sermon on the Mount, the actual teachings of Jesus, for what that means. Christians have to decide whether they are followers of the religion of Jesus or just one of the many religions about Jesus. If you are a follower of the religion of Jesus - the question is what was the religion of Jesus? See Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, for details.
Yes. It's a perfect example of how people prefer to read past what is written, pretending to know what is happening in the background, so that what is obvious suddenly seems less important than some hidden message. To say that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist is quackery. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There certainly are other important critical Bible scholars, but I can't agree with DJ Clayworth's claim that there are a 100 just like him. He is among the five or six most frequently cited, well-respected historians of Jesus. As such his views should be prominent (but by no means exclusive!) in any article or section on "the historical Jesus." As long as we make the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christian Jesus clear, Tznkai's comments are just irrelevant. Of course Catholics, Protestants, and other groups of Christians will have their own accounts of Jesus's life. And if a person spends most of his time discussing Jesus with people whose knowledge of Jesus is mediated through their relation, there is no reason to think s/he'd ever hear anything about Sanders (or Vermes, Fredriksen, Meier, Ehrman, maybe Crossan and a few other top-ranked criticle Bible scholars). That does not mean that Sanders is not important nor that his views are not widely shared. They are widely shared (or at least, some of his views are) by most critical Bible scholars. Discussion of their views should be in a section "the historical Jesus" and a detailed discussion of their views should be in a separate article. It would be ideal to have all points of view equally represented in this article, but we won't have the space for it. But we definitely have to acknowledge some of the major views of critical scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong about a hundred, but even if it's twenty its too many to give them a paragraph each in this article. Myself I wonder why Sanders says "I am one of a growing number of scholars [who believe that Jesus was a Pharisee]". I usually associate that language with people who are still in a minority but hope to be in a majority one day. If he was in the majority he would probably say so.
Just to be clear, in an article (or a section) on the Historical Jesus I'd be much more inclined to give this view prominence. And I have no trouble with it appearing further down the article. DJ Clayworth 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
My comment on the Catholic Church was to point out with an obvious example the huge amount of mainstream opinion against this interpretation of sander's view. Now, I am not saying that bible scholar's opinions are not notable, but they do not belong in the lead, nor deserve to be portrayed as mainstream opinion, or indisputed fact. They should be described as prominent, notable scholarly views.--Tznkai 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to check our NPOV policy. No one view should dominate. Look at it this way: only about a third of the world's population is Christian. That means that two-thirds of the world's population either believe Jesus never existed, or believe that he existed but was not a god. Now, of this 66% of the world's population, I can't say how many know of Sanders' works — I conceded that it is probably a small number. But whether they know his name or not they are more likely to share his views than those of Christians. I will further concede to you that Sanders (and Vermes and Fredriksen and Meier and others) views should not be presented as "mainstream opinion." But I would then have to insist that there is no "mainstram opinion" or whatever you believe is "mainstream opinion" should not be expressed in this article. There are simply different points of view — the scholarly (we'd have to add "critical" so as to distinguish them from Catholic or Protestant scholars who work within the framework of their theology) view, the Roman Catholic view, and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Breath Slrubenstein. Take a look at my edits and my other comments on this page. I've never suggested that the Catholic view should dominate. I'm not even Catholic myself. My point was our representation of notable, and neutral tends to make concesions towards the mainstream and away from the fringe opinion. We respresent more of the mainstream, and less of the fringe. More of the notable, less of the less notable. My contention was only that Sander's view was not a consensus held view either in the world or in Wikipedia. My understanding of the mainstream opinion is that there was a man named Jesus, born a jew, somewhere in the vicinity of Jeruslem, who ran around preaching something having to do with love, and got nailed to a couple of sticks and hung like a painting for a while. He may or may not have been divine, was probably a nice guy, and is an infleuential person in history, possibly the most. You have a problem with that? --Tznkai 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Tznkai. I appreciate your clearing up your position which is not very distant from my own. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article present different views of Jesus, rather than attempting to present a lowest common denominator kindergarten sunday school view that no one finds offensive? Jesus as some Jewish guy, but not too Jewish, more like a Nordic sun god, who taught about love and hung out with the Greatful Dead in Haight-Ashbury? There is no "mainstream" view of Jesus - he was and continues to be a controversial figure. If this article was faithful to wikipedia it would present Augustine's Jesus, Luther's Jesus, Calvin's Jesus, the Evangelical Jesus, the Roman Catholic Jesus, the Orthodox Jesus, the born-again Jesus, Jefferson's Jesus, Schweitzer's Jesus, the Jesus' of modern scholars, the Jesus of the Jesus seminar, the Jesus of the recent PBS series ...

Because the article would get too long (technically, too long for many servers). Thus, the bulk of what you suggest should be in linked pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It does. The more notable something is, the more it remains in the main article. The less notable, the more it gets spun off into other pages.--Tznkai 17:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but whether highly notable or less notable, this article (the main one) at least has to mention it, if not provide a brief summary, and provide a link to the larger, dedicated article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, so long as it passes the bare minimum notablitly requiremenets we have for everything.--Tznkai 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Roland Walleij painting[edit]

--I'm pretty sure that's Lil Kim and NOT Walleij's Jesus.

I can't help feeling that the Walleij painting would be practically unknown (and in my opinion, deservedly unknown) if it weren't for Wikipedia displaying it on this page. Personally, I dislike it intensely; so, it may be that my personal taste is getting in the way of a sound opinion. If a non-traditional pictoral representation of Jesus is sought, Rembrandt van Rijn's "Head of Christ" is much more familiar. Am I alone in this? Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are not alone, but it is what it is; art. It is certainly not a common interpretation. The article includes several other pictures; but I am surprised not to see the crucified Christ and Christ risen. Storm Rider 19:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>

I agree with Mkmcconn. As we don't appear to have an article for Roland Walleij (as of 09:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)) and the image was uploaded by one User:Linus Walleij I think we could probably delete it as vanity. Like you say there are better known (and better!) non-traditional representations. Does anyone object to this image being removed? --G Rutter 09:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone who can read German [5] slum around there please. Otherwise, it seems to have no notability, which is too bad, since I like the picture a great deal.--Tznkai 16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's Swedish (it's a Swedish coded website- .se and it's certainly not German). The Swedish wikipedia (and the Norwegian and German ones!) doesn't have an article on him either, so I don't think he can be classified as particulary notable.
Mkmcconn- is there a copyright-free version of the "Head of Christ" or are there any similar images we can use? I actually quite like Walleij's picture, but I think we probably need to use a more notable non-tradition image. --G Rutter 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
G Rutter, I don't work a lot with images, so I don't know whether any of those that are on the web might qualify as "fair use" or "copyright-free" - such as this, for example?. I do like the Rembrandt, as a version that's open to varieties of interpretation, and for that reason possibly more appropriate than either, the Walleij or the Rouault (my taste and interpretation favors the Rouault, however). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Rouault replacement[edit]

The article, Georges Rouault, has an image that I would prefer over the Walleij. If there's no objection, I'm using that. If there is objection while the page is still protected, let me know and I'll revert it to bring the issue back under discussion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the old one better personally, but this one is more notable, so I have no prolem with it.--Tznkai 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with the Rouault. Mark, the website with the Rembrandt had a copyright notice on the front page and especially as they want to sell posters, I don't suppose they'd be very happy about us using their photo! (I tend to assume that unless they actually say we can use the images we can't, but I'm probably being too cautious). Whilst we're on the subject of images- has anyone got any non-Western images of Jesus we can use? --G Rutter 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to Section 9: Interpretations of Jesus[edit]

Add Emmet Fox The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life and the Lord's Prayer : An Interpretation

Add Swami Prabhavananda Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta

Actually, Sermon on the Mount would cover them both plus provide more info.

Who wrote this? Can you please sign your comments? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Replace The Passion of the Christ with Dramatic portrayals of Jesus as it covers that movie and others

Add Raymond E. Brown 1928-1998 Union Theological Seminary Professor Emeritus, Does the New Testament call Jesus God?, Theological Studies #26, 1965, pp.545-573


Just a note: to link to a category, make sure you include a lead-in colon in thw link. Otherwise, the link doesn't work, and the page is included in the category. For example, [[:Category:Mythology]] results in a link to Category:Mythology, whereas [[Category:Mythology]] only includes the page in the category. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please add [[Category:Mythology]] once this is unprotected, as this category is blatently missing. unsigned comment by user:FestivalOfSouls -- Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Category added as per request Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
FestivalofSouls, I'm very surprised that you made this request half an hour after you'd been blocked for similar behaviour and three quarters an hour after Jayjig made his initial comments on your talk page. Can an admin please remove Category:Mythology please? It might be appropriate in a subcat, but this requires consensus first. --G Rutter 21:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The page has been unprotected, so I've removed the Cat. Thoughts on an appropriate sub-cat (if any) people? --G Rutter 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad I didn't notice a response on the talk page so I just put the request through when an admin unprotected the article since there at the time was no objection on the article talk page. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the reason I brought it up was because the users complaining told me to get a concensus before adding it. That is what I am doing. The definition of mythology from the good ol' wikipedia :"Mythology is the study of myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system." That definition make it eminatly clear that a mythology category of SOME sort is needed here. It would be more POV to not include anything at all, since well, it fits that definition completely. christianity is a culture. The stories of jesus are believed to be true, and they are very much based on religion. FestivalOfSouls 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Many Christians believe that either their faith is grounded in history, or it is not to be believed. They defend the historicity of their beliefs. Simply to categorize their belief as mythology because it is a "religious or belief system" is not neutrality, it is argument - the view of those who subscribe to belief in Christianity as a myth, notwithstanding. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you read Mythology or at least skim it, since nothing you have said actually disputes the fact that the category is needed. Here is another quote :"Myths are generally narratives based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings..., natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. Not all myths need have this explicatory purpose, however. Likewise, most myths involve a supernatural force or deity," Your arguments actually show how well this category fits. To say that the christian stories are not myths is to ignore the very definition of mythology as defined on wikipedia. FestivalOfSouls 15:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
FestivalOfSouls is correct from a definitional basis. The issue is how "grounded in history". Most believe that the Bible was not meant to be for "historicity" or for science, but to show the way to God. The word "mythology" is someone accurate strictly speaking, but is perjoritive. Many of the stories are more appropriately titled "parables", which Jesus was fond of using and which our own culture can relate to without the negative connotation. --Noitall 15:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I understand that this is the way that the word is being used. However, it is absolutely prejudicial to the point of view that the account of Jesus is history; and for that reason, the imposition of the word, together with its disingenuous modern definition, is offensive. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Noitall sort of missed the point. The label is not for the stories jesus told, but for jesus, at least on this article. Mkcconn, I am sorry you feel that way, and feel free to suggest a different word/ category to use. Apparently there is a subcategory on mythology that is "christian mythology" would that apease you? I am truly sorry that you are so detatched from reallity that calling a myth a myth is insulting, and for that I appologize. However, your offense does not make the lable any less true, accurate, or nessicary. The absence of the lable is insulting to science, claiming that the "miracles" he allegedly proformed are true, but you don't see me complaining about that. Again, I am sorry if you are offended, but if you feel personally affronted, maybe you need a bit to cool down and think it over.... FestivalOfSouls 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
If it is determined that the article should be categorized as "mythology", then, it would be better suited for the subcategory as mentioned above (Category:Christian mythology). --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for you concern, FestivalOfSouls. However, I am not speaking only for myself when I say "it is offensive". I am speaking of the point of view of those who believe that Jesus is an historical figure. It is argumentative to categorize the article as mythology. Perhaps you would be interested in starting an article on Jesus myths. Such an article, clearly, would be the appropriate place for anyone to list every account of miracles or claim of deity pertaining to Jesus, in the New Testament. And, such an article would most appropriately be categorized as Category:Mythology. Would this be acceptable to you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I would start that article if i felt I had the time and energy. However, I don't, so I feel like making contributions to existing articles. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia. As such, it needs to be NPOV and factual. Part of factual means correctly and accurately labeling things. Short of finding a more NPOV category, category:Mythology or category:Christian mythology will have to be it. I agree that mythology is not the most NPOV category for this, but i cannot find a category for contested mythology, possible mythology, mythology from the standpoint of science or any other such thing. Even though mythology does have a slight connotation to it, it is still much more NPOV than not including the categorization, and according to the definitions 100% accurate and appropriate, even in the light (and partially due to) the fact that some people believe it to be truth. FestivalOfSouls 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
FestivalOfSouls I admit that I don't have a lot of time either. But if an article like this were to be started, and linked conspicuously from this article, would this satisfy your requirement? I understand why this is not satisfying from a skeptical point of view, and I acknowledge that it lowers the credibility of the encyclopedia from a naturalistic point of view if the article is not labelled as pertaining to some type of mythology. However, the present article already accomodates the anti-supernaturalistic perspective to such a degree that the credibility of the claim of neutrality is strained, for anyone who does not share that perspective.
Incidentally - since we're chatting (but in the context of a disagreement, I hope it isn't taken as flattery) - I really like your nick. In English it has a very nice ring. It's a reference to O-bon, right? I'm surprised there is no article of that title. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No relation on the name. If the article was written, and written well, and very prominatly linked, maybe. I still think it would be much better to just lable this with the correct category in the first place. "However, the present article already accomodates the supernaturalistic perspective to such a degree that the credibility of the claim of neutrality is strained, for anyone who does not share that perspective." just FYI...18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There are many myths about the United States. We don't categorize that geo-political entity as a Mythology. People have many beliefs about hair treatments; we don't sully the article on Hair by labelling it Mythology. What we know about Buddha, or what we might write in explanation of who he is, is predominantly legend and, and arguably, myth; but it is not appropriate to categorize the Buddha article as Mythology. The subjects of Mythology are not Mythology, unless it is beyond argument that the figure is not historical but actually the issue of myth. Otherwise, the categorization is simply another way of advancing an argument. No one argues that Mount Olympus is geographical, historical, real - it is a pure issue of myth - unlike Jesus. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you are wrong, and Category:American folklore agrees with me, since the USA has not really been around for folklore to have grown into full blown myths. Quite a few of the myths about the USA and people from it appear there. Additionally, quite a few people believe that mount olympus was a real place. They believe that it was the highest mountain in Greece, at which mythical events are located, much like many people believe that mount arat(that the right one I am thinking of?) exists, but it was just "lost". I am also quite certain that if their was a story about hair and the beliefs related to it, say that a man put raw egg on his head every day for a year, and suddenly sprouted hair all over his body on the 365th day, and the story was prominent enough to be on wikipedia, it would be labeled a myth. You are forgetting the story part, it is not just a belief that makes something a myth. If I recall correctly from my college courses on the subject, the Buddha didn't proform a whole heck of a lot of miracles, and isn't primarily know for the stories about said miracles. Infact, the wiki makes almost no reference to outside supernatural actions. The only real supernatural claim it makes was enlightenment...FestivalOfSouls 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You are pursuing a policy that can only be implemented by brute force. It invites edit wars, and proposes to solve the conflict it creates by encouraging all editors to adopt your POV. This is not neutrality. it is argumentation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

just because you say it over and over again, doesn't make it so. Even it it DID, and you wern't just blowing it out your ass like you are, how would that be any different than say the 3rr? or the anti-vandalism policy? or NPOV? or, well, the entire premise that wikipedia is built on? next time, try and think before you type. Just because I don't agree with your dogma, doesn't make me wrong. FestivalOfSouls 21:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the final sentence in the introduction to this article is the crucial one: "however most scholars agree that the actual existence of a historical Jesus is probable.". Therefore, Jesus himself is arguably not a myth, although many scholars would argue that particular parts of the Gospel narratives are mythical or legendary. Looking at the mythology page, I think the phrase "enriched history" would probably be closest to how many people see Jesus (while many more would see him as simply historical). I think only a small minority would see Jesus as basically mythological, so I (and it appears most other people on this page) would argue that the placing of this article in the Mythology category is misguided or a mistake. --G Rutter 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Myths on the page mean the category fits. FestivalOfSouls 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Exactomundo. (update: refers to GRutter's comment, not FestivalofSoul's) --goethean 21:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
FestivalOfSouls, the fact that you think it is an issue of "doesn't make me wrong", makes you wrong - you are arguing for a perspective. And I am saying it over and over again - you're right. You might as well get used to it. You will never hear the end of it - it's inherent to the action you are taking. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right on one thing, I AM arguing for a perspective, which I have made blantenly clear and have admitted time and again. NPOV is a perspective, and it is the sanctioned wiki pov, which puts me in the right and you in the wrong. NPOV is one of the highest standards for wikipedia, please don't twist it and abuse it. FestivalOfSouls 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Fest, although you appear to be quite certain that you are "Right" (isn't that such a self-congratulatory word; feels so self-aggrandizing) and others are "Wrong" (it almost makes you look down on the poor soul beneath your feet when you say it, doesn't it), WIKI is based on a community that seeks consensus within a frame work of rules. I suspect that there is enough twisting of policy going on for both sides to take a breather.
The man, Jesus, is deemed by many, if not most, to be a historical figure... i.e. Christ is not a myth. The article is entitled "JESUS" not the Philosophy of Jesus, or Stories of Jesus, but Jesus. However, this article attempts to define the individual, again, not a myth. Simply because you believe that people believe myths about Jesus does not mean Jesus, or this article, is appropriately labeled mythology.
Your POV is not swinging the righteous sword of NOPV over the rest of us mere mortals, but just your POV. When you try to dress it up like it is NPOV it just comes off like eathing strawberries in an outhouse. You might be having a good time, but the rest of us will steer clear of you and your POV. Storm Rider 22:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Reaaly quick folks, before I get into this ugly mess of POV accusations: This article is on Jesus, also called the Christ. It is not the christian view of Jesus. It is not the Muslim view of Jesus. The vast majority of historian's agree that a guy named Jesus ran around preaching. This is not myth anymore than the moonlanding is a myth. The fact that singificant portions of the population disagree does nto make it a myth. This is an article on a figure and his effects, in summary. The ressurection, the Bible, the religious views, the parables, the miracles. Those are all myth. They may also be true, but they are myth. Thats what I think anyway--Tznkai 15:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a major misunderstanding going on here. I recognize that popularly, most people use the word "myth" to mean "not real." But this is not how scholars use the word, as as an encyclopedia we should try to represent the scholarship on any given issue. What definies a myth is not whether it actually happened or not, but that people refer to it as a way of giving meaning to their lives, or explaining how they live their lives to themselves and others. Most beliefs N. Americans have about the "founding fathers" — including beliefs that are based on documented, historically acurate events, are "myths" in this sense. It also follows that "myth" refers to a stories about people and events, not to people and events themselves (e.g. Paul Bunyan and George Washington are not "myths," they are "objects of myth"). There is no doubt that at the very least many people treat the NT account of Jesus as a myth, and in so doing are not making claims one way or the other as to whether Jesus existed. They use the word "myth" to refer to an account, a narrative, a text. Stories about the US moonlanding of course are myths, not because they are historically innaccurate but because they play such an important role in how N. Americans understand themselves and their country. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

ahem. Exactly. FestivalOfSouls 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The word "myth" is loaded with sometimes unintended implications. I do not misunderstand. I do not object to explaining in the article, how scholars use the word or the idea of "myth". My objection is to categorizing the article "Jesus" as "Mythology", "Mythical figures", "Myths", etc. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A few points. 1) Because an article contains some things about a subject doesn't mean it should be in the category for that subject. Otherwise the category for a city will end up including the article for everyone who visited that city. 2) We need to be able to distinguish between Christian stories that are accepted as true (by Christians) and those that are not. 3) While technically 'myth' does include true stories, that is not a widely held understanding and is likely to be confusing.

The best category for these articles that Festival is flagging is something like Christian Doctrine or Christian theology. That really tells us what we need to know. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading all what has been said here I have to say the following: Even if we accept that Jesus himself was a historical figure and not a myth, the article itself talk a great deal about the mythical aspects of Jesus. On the other hand, not inserting the article in a category only because the "word" used to describe the category has certain taboos is, I think, blatanly stupid. I do not think Wikipedia should tie herself to general taboos. On the other hand, why aren't the articles about Christianity and New Testament view on Jesus' life and even the Bible included in the mythology category (added the two former ones)? For the views discussed by those who don't think this article should be included certainly point out that those should be. Why, moreover, is Achilles's article in a Mythology subcategory when it's obvious he was a historical figure? Easy answer, because there's a (perhaps) mythical aspect that has been created around the historical figure: that he was the son of Thetis, a sea nymph and that he was made almost invincible by being dipped in the Styx, somwhat obvious legends created after his great ability in battle.. maybe. Because if the mythological aspects of Jesus' life that are discussed in this article are not enaugh to add him to a Mythology subcategory (and I am one who thinks that all subcategories should automatically add into the parent category) just because people think this to be true, what stops anyone to believe in the greek myths, and to demand greek mythology articles to be removed from all mythology subcategories and added to religion, or even historical facts? What makes Christianity more important in this aspect than other Mythologies? I agree this is an amazingly well balanced NPOV article, but not adding it into Category:Mythology just because it would have the wrong "sound" to it under some POV is stupid. As for who said that the article is NPOV enaugh that people shouldn't feel it POVed only out of it not being in a Mythology category I must say, the categories that something is included in should not be there only to "balance out" POV problems --Lacrymology 08:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lead changes on Aug 2nd are POV - virtually says Jews crucified Jesus[edit]

The Gospels record that he was often at odds with Jewish authorities for opposing their religious establishment and for making frequent statements alluding to his deity; for these reasons, he was was crucified in Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate

Why not express both views, something like this: Jesus was either: a) killed by the Jews because he claimed to be God, or b) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for causing a disturbance in Herod's Temple. View a is traditional however much of modern Christianity has embraced view b instead, not least because view a is the cause of antisemitism.
"Why not?" Because the first view is not accurate? He was handed over to the Romans to be killed, he was not killed by the Jews, even according to the "traditional view". As for the view of the ignorant and spiteful, that's a different matter. The traditional view is that Jesus looked on those responsible for putting him on the cross, and said, "Father forgive them; they do not know what they are doing." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Forgive who? The Jews? All Jews, past and present? And the traditional view of Christianity is that the Jews killed Jesus (by "handing" him over to the Romans, i.e. the kiss of Judas Iscariot whose name means Jewish Assassin or the selection of Jesus Barabbas and not Jesus the Nazarene ...). But this is a distortion of the gospel accounts. Most educated modern Christians understand this, but not all. Christianity as a whole is still dealing with its antisemitic past. Most modern Christians concede that Jesus was Jewish, but many still cling to the notion that he was opposed to all Jews past and present and forgave the Romans because they were manipulated by the Jews.
"Forgive who?" Forgive the individuals responsible - and by extension, if this can be forgiven, then any sin can be forgiven. Whoever thinks that Jesus was forgiving his Roman tormentors, but not asking for forgiveness for his Jewish opponents, he is outside of the Christian Tradition in thinking this - as Christians understand their own tradition. Nothing's stopping you from putting your own spin on things, but that is not Tradition that's teaching you to think that way. Any Christian that doesn't concede that Jesus was Jewish is willfully ignorant. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
"Now there was a fine upstanding black man" "Who?" "Jesus Christ." "Uh... Gary, Jesus was white." "No, Jesus was black" "No no, Jesus was white" "No, I'm prett sure Jesus was black!" "Guys guys guys! Jesus was Jewish!"--Tznkai 17:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The Gospel of Matthew (and I believe John, also) almost explicitly pins it on the Jews. It is a source of much anti-semitism, and it is also the traditional view. Matthew 27:20-26 --goethean 16:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Those who crucified him, crucified him. It is not a "traditonal" interpretation of tradition, that blame is placed on the entire Jewish people, as though they bear the blood-guilt of what certain individuals a long time ago had a hand in. Why wouldn't anyone of Roman descent be just as guilty? The fact that a view is widespread does not mean that it is part of the Tradition (although I'll grant that the "Christ-killer" crap is "traditional" if all you mean by that word is that, it has been believed and repeated by many). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Matthew and John present "the chief priests and elders" and "the Jews" (respectively) as responsible for Jesus' death. And John has this: Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. I'm guessing that it wasn't Gentiles who were hanging out in Jerusalem during Passover. --goethean 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
What are you asking? whether the people who said "his blood be on us and on our children" actually have the ability to lay this charge to the account of their children? Of course they don't. They didn't know what they were saying. The anti-semites will think what they want to; but it is not Tradition that teaches them to blame the whole Jewish nation, and of every generation, for the killing Jesus in some special way. That's racist folklore, not the tradition - as Christians interpret their tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that Matthew and John present "the Jewish elders" and "the Jews" as successfully conspiring to have Jesus executed by the Romans. Anything else is a distorted interpretation, IMO. --goethean 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The intro now reads:

The Gospels report that he was often at odds with Jewish authorities for opposing their religious establishment and for making frequent statements alluding to his own divinity; for these reasons, the Jewish leaders pressed the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus, bringing false charges of sedition against him.
Jewish authorities? What does that mean? Don't you really mean the Roman system of occupation, some of whom happened to be of Judean ancestry? Religious establishment? What does that mean? Herod's Temple? Or Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, John the Baptist? The implication is that you mean all Jews, past and present, and all Judaism, past and present. And "false charges of sedition"? Did Jesus claim to be "King of the Judeans?" Did he deny it? Not denying that title is sedition. Did Jesus cause a disturbance in Herod's Temple? That act would be sedition. Herod's Temple was part of the Roman system of occupation of Judea, not a symbol of all Judaism and all Jews past and present.
yes, *false* charges is rather pov. after all, he was subverting religious authority, and behaving like a drunken rockstar in the temple. "false charges of sedition" with relation to subverting Roman power, maybe, although Jesus' presence in Jerusalem certainly resulted in a surge of anti-Roman sentiment among those who were waiting for the messiah (who was, after all, expected to kick out the Romans) dab () 09:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this, but the portion after the semicolon is also reported by the gospels (and I don't believe them — hence my concern). I'm not sure how to implement this, else I'd do it myself. --goethean 17:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored and earlier, NPOV intro. One section of this article -- granted, the largest section, is on the Gospel view of Jesus' life. But this is not the only view and cannot be presented as neutral fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

Jesus was either: 1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God, or 2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for causing a disturbance, overturning tables, at Herod's Temple. Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, however it is the root of antisemitism. Instead, many modern Christians have embraced interpretation 2, which is more in accord with the history of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

it's not (1) vs. (2), it's a combination. Jesus was causing some hysteria in town, the religious notables came clamoring he was a heretic, and the Romans just crucified him as a troublemaker without batting an eyelid. You didn't have to have messiah aspirations or special powers to be crucified in those days, I suppose a few important enemies and no important friends was enough to land you on the cross for pickpocketing. And frankly, regarding 'guilt', crucifying pickpockets I find morally much more questionable than crucifying shady characters that are suspected of revolutionary conspiracy, making oblique comments about their royalty when questioned, and whose minions go about cutting off occupation forces soldiers' ears. Jesus' crucifixion would have been such a non-event had he not risen, afterwards (and it is asking rather too much of religious and political authorities to have predicted that course of events). dab () 09:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, we are not sure about any of this. period. Some people think Jesus never even existed. Of the many historians who do believe he existed, there is no absolute consensus as to exactly how and why he was killed, although most agree that he was executed for sedition. The NT details may be historically accurate, they may not be. There is no compelling evidence that Jewish atuhorities thought he was a "heretic" and many historians reject this claim. We can argue back and forth about this. The point is, it is not a "combination of 2 and 3," we do not know what the truth really is; we do not agree on this. Moreover, as editors this is not our job. It doesn't matter whether one of us believes it is 1, 2, 1+2, or something else -- our personal beliefs are irrelevant. All we can agree to is that there are various points of view, each of which must be represented in the article. The only way to handle this is to have as brief and as NPOV as possible an opening, and go into details in the relevant subsections. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with the editor job bits. I think the mainstream/traditional what not view is that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, claimed to be the Son of God (not that we can agree on what that means), and rallied a bunch of Jews into being pissed off at the Jewish authorities and the Roman authorities. The Jews didn't like him, handed him over to the Romans, who decided to crucify him.
I don't think thats anti semetic at all. Fact is somebody killed Jesus. Jesus was Jewish in a Jewish community, ruled by Roman occupation. I think its reasonable to say he wasn't well liked and they (Jews in the area+Romans in the area) killed him.--Tznkai 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what it means to say that "the mainstream" view is that "the Jews" didn't like him. There were lots of Jews, many of whom probably didn't even know Jesus existed. What does it mean to say "the Jews?" "Jews" refers to some group of people. "The Jews" refers to all people classified as "Jews," right? What is the function of the definite article? In any event, "the mainstream view" is hard to pin down. I do think that we can strive to summarize the NT account as neutrally as possible. In other articles that focus specifically on Christian interpretations, it won't be too hard to find official or authorized accounts of how major Churches interpret the events leading to Jesus' execution. In another article, we provide an account of what different historians think (and none of the major historians I know of think that Jesus pissed off "the Jews"). Also, to say he wasn't well-liked is not at all reasonable. There is as much evidence that he was liked as that he wasn't well-liked. Moreover, the crux of the story, for both Christians and critical historians, is not that he was executed because he "wasn't well-liked," this is a meaningless statement. The question is, why exactly did the Jewish authorities turn him over to Pilate, and why did Pilate order his execution? "Not well liked" is no explanation at all. Lots of people are not well-liked, but they don't get crucified for it! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to get towards the turth while being silly, but I think my point got missed in semantic difficulties. The Jews I was refering to the relvant Jews. You know, those in Jesus' community. He was very much disliked to the point of being killed. Specificly, crucified. If you want to be more specific, go ahead, I was just trying to indiciate the direction the mainstream view was in.--Tznkai 15:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in this case, then, it is simply an error to use the phrase "the Jews" and I ask you, with respect, not to use it this way again. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the NT account can be interpreted different ways, and that most critical historians I know of disagree with your view. Based on my reading of both the NT and historians, I definitely do not believe that he was killed because "he was very much disliked," at least if we are using the words "dislike" and "like" they way they are usually used in English. What is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am far too ill to play this semantic game right now. My understanding and personal view is that Jesus was a non violent relvolutionary who thumbed his nose at jewish authorities in the area, and represented a threat to the political stability of the area to Pilate. He had been attributed a number of miracles/sorcery, and was considered a serious threat to religious and political lawfulness, and was thus exucted by the local Romans, probably with the support of the local jewish community.--Tznkai 16:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, there's no reason to take offense at the term "the Jews", especially if the sentence in question begins: "the Gospel of John reports..." The fact is that the phrase "the Jews" occurs repeatedly and ambiguously in sections of John that I linked to above. --goethean 16:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, you are quite right about that sentence in particular. But as I am sure you are aware of (and certainly various Christian denominations are aware of this) such passages have been sore points for Jews. In any event, my point in this talk section was not about the "according to john" claim, which is specific and appropriately phrased to comply with NPOV; it concerned more general factual claims being made by another editor. As for Tsnkai, I am sorry you are ill. However, if you think I am playing a semantic game, you entirely misunderstand my point, which has to do with accuracy as well as complying with our NPOV and NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page does not require NPOV and NOR. Its discussion. Hopefully friendly to communicate and collaborate. Surley, I have faith that if you tried you could see what I was getting at without taking offense.--Tznkai 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not offended -- I simply (1) asked what you meant by "the jews" and (2) observed (accurately) that many Jews have found those passages from John to be offensive. As to your point, Tznkai, I have to admit — and I am not saying this because I am angry or offended or disrespectful — I do not understand what you are getting at. You are right that the policies I invoked do not apply to talk pages. But talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. I still do not understand how the claim "the Jews did not like Jesus" can add anything to the article. So I am just being honest: I do not get your point. Can you explain it to me? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer Jesus was unpopular? It was a springboard for discussion, a baseline of commonly agreed upon bareminimum ideas. Jesus was Jewish. Jesus probably existed. Jesus was not popular. Etc etc etc. I was trying to find something easily agreed upon by most persons.--Tznkai 18:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still think that since talk pages are meant to contribute to the article, it is simply pointless for us to try to figure out what most people would agree too, as that is original research and prohibited. As far as what would be a factually accurate, NPOV statement, all I can suggest is this "Among those people who believe that Jesus existed, all agree that he was crucified by the Roman authorities." Anything beyond that has to be in the plural ("there are various explanations as to why he was executed. According to the Catholic Church ... According to historians A and B ... According to historians X and Y ..." etc.) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. dropping it. Also, could you please use the :'s?--Tznkai 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to accommodate you, but I am not sure what you mean by ":'s" Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

He means for you to put colons in front of your comments for proper indentation. --goethean 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How bout this?:[edit]

Jesus was either: 1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God, or 2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for causing a disturbance, overturning tables, at Herod's Temple, or 3) a combination of the above. Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, however it is the root of antisemitism. Instead, many modern Christians have embraced interpretation 2, which is more in accord with the historical context of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

A little argumentativie, but that can be fixed with some editing. My problem is with "xxx is the root of antisemitisim" I really think antisemitism has a lot of roots, most of them involving ignorance and scapegoating Its a very strong claim, especially for the lead.--Tznkai 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
What is the aim, here? a change to the lead? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
change it to: "xxx is widely viewed as antisemitic". Also ", overturning tables, at Herod's Temple, " is unnecessary. --goethean 19:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
according to those who claim view 2, overturning the tables at Herod's Temple is the particular reason for Pilate and Caiaphas to crucify Jesus, just as Jesus claiming to be God is the particular reason in view 1. Both views summarize who killed Jesus and why.

Jesus was either: 1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God, or 2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, or 3) a combination of the above. Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, although it is widely viewed as antisemitic. Interpretation 2 is more in accord with the historical context of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

I guess my problem is the term "Anti-Semitic". Yes, the fact that Jesus was turned over by the Sanhedrin to Pilate has been used by anti-Semites, but the mere fact is that is what happened. It may be politically incorrect to talk about, but it is hardly anti-Semitic. It is a fact. Granted, was have had some reconstructionist historians who have attempted to cast Pilate as someone who would have sought Jesus out had he the opportunity, but scripture is clear. The Sanhedrin arrested Jesus, tried him, and found him guilty. The Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because they themselves were not able to put Jesus to death. I see no problem with stating it the way it is recorded in the bible. I also see no problem with adding the thoughts of others as to why the Sanhedrin felt it necessary or why Pilate and the Romans implemented it. Just stay with the facts as we know them and forget about being polically incorrect. Also, do not say the Jews did it, as a people they did not; the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over, not the Jews. Storm Rider 19:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Dude! This is not that hard: Jesus was killed by ALL the participants, that is, it was a combination, a team effort, a group doing. Here's the proof: Without the Jewish leaders' complaints, it would not have gotten to the Roman authorities; Without the authorization of occupying force, that is, the Romans, it would not have happened. Both were necessary elements. ALSO, Jesus did this willingly, so He was a contributing factor; Lastly, He was provoked to live a "perfect" life and die, and then (I allege) rise again, all as an example for us humans to follow. So, WE are partly responsible. EVERYBODY is partly responsible, for without any one contribution, it would not have gone down. Man, how hard can all that be. Word.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

spelling error: seperate (should be spelled: separate) CapeCodEph 00:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting back to my native colors of blue to get a little attention to my points above, which —oddly enough —seem to be ignored. Thank you for the heads up on the spelling of separate, which I often misspell, but in this case, there were no misspelling of this word on this page ...wait! I see in the main article a misspelling- thx 4 the heads up, Cape Cod. Another Biology and Chem. double major, eh? You're smart! THANK YOU for pointing out this spelling error -but, oops! I see the page's locked. Oh that bad luck. When I team up w/ spell check I'm smart too, but I'd better stick to my genetics, biology, chemistry, and politics/religion stuff -that spelling stuff's best left to computers.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ow! The article's locked. Well, I tried to fix the misspelling; Ths again 4 the heads up, but oh the bad luck.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Which part of the article are we talking about? I don't think anti-Semitism should be addressed at all here. It should abe addresed in the anti-semitism and Jewish/Christian relations articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
He's referring to the sentence in the proposal that reads: "Interpretation 1 was and still is popular, although it is widely viewed as antisemitic." --goethean 18:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you, Goethean. In this case, I disagree when Storm Rider writes, "I guess my problem is the term "Anti-Semitic". Yes, the fact that Jesus was turned over by the Sanhedrin to Pilate has been used by anti-Semites, but the mere fact is that is what happened. It may be politically incorrect to talk about, but it is hardly anti-Semitic" because it doesn't matter what us editors think. It is true that many view interpretation 1 as anti-Semitic. It isn't hard to find sources. I think it is fair to include this simple accurate statement with a link to the anti-Semitism article, and leave it at that. That is, if we revert to the August 2 intro. I am not sure we need this in the current intro ...Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm asking again, "proposal" for what? None of that should go in the article. It's synthetic ("either 1 or 2") and speculative ("however it is the root of antisemitism"). I prefer the intro as it stands, and I do not think that these alternative "interpretations" stand alone as sentences. They are over-simplified ... glib ... caricature; they are not needed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of caricature, the current proposal reads: "...although it is widely viewed as antisemitic." --goethean 21:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
That difference makes no difference to me at all. What is it being proposed for? What is its suggested destination? Where is the material supposed to be inserted? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
As I think I have made abundantly clear, I agree with you that it shouldn't go into the intro, and if it goes into the article at all (the bit about anti-Semitism) it should be the briefest possible statement plus a link. I don't think many people if any claim that John's discourse about Jews is the root of anti-Semitism, but certainly there are many who have labeled it anti-Semitic so there wouldn't be any problem sourcing it, it is certainly not in violation of NOR. I am not arguing that we should include it, I am only arguing against one of Storm Rider's objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
My intent was to indicate that calling it anti-Semitic is my problem, not that others view it as anti-Semitic. There is a difference. Agreed, it would be easy to source and should be. I hope this clears up what my point was. I don't think we are saying different things, Rub. Storm Rider 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Who are "the Jews"? Isn't that construction just inherently a) anti-Semitic and b) meaningless?

Meaningless, yes. It is misleading because it is intentionally vague and general. Why not say, "Jesus was killed by white people" ? or, "Jesus was killed by religious people"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Because the New Testament specifically blames "The Jews", technically the correct translation of the Greek would be "The Judeans" but few modern English translations of the New Testament follow this. And yes, blaming "The Jews" is exactly antisemitism. The New Testament scapegoats the Jews and downplays Roman brutality, because Christianity failed among Jews and eventually took over the Roman empire, i.e. moral of the story: Jews bad, Romans good. That's the standard popular story, the more enlightened story goes something like the Jesus Seminar's: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. He was baptized by John the Baptist. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic." He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans as a "public nuisance", not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary.
There is no Jewish scapegoat in the New Testament - well - except for Judas, a disciple of Jesus. The Romans are not portrayed as "good". There is only the Messiah crucified through the unbelief of those he came to save, at the "hands of wicked men" (the Romans). What you are repeating is the twisted story that's popular to attribute to Christian interpretation. I won't discourage you from believing the more enlightened invention if that's your preference to reading the Bible. It certainly is easier to believe than either, the perverted racist version, or the New Testament's Son of God version. But I oppose any but the latter being represented as normally, present Christian interpretation; and exceptionally, some Christians prefer to hate Jews, and others prefer to hate what Christians have believed and taught about who Jesus was. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Judas means Jew, the Roman Pilate is portrayed as a kind ruler who finds nothing wrong in Jesus but reluctantly crucifies him at the insistance of "the Jews", the Roman centurian in Acts converts to Christianity as first Gentile convert, "unbelievers" is the Jews and Judaism, "wicked men" are the Jews who forced Pilate to crucify Jesus. This is not "perverted racism" but popular Christianity as portrayed in films like The Passion of The Christ which itself is based on the Gospels.
I thought The Passion of The Christ was based on some visions ("The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich") by a catholic fundamentalist "holier-than-thou" nun called Anne Catherine Emmerich. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Passion of Christ is mostly based on the Gospels

We could just put "Jesus was killed by Jesus-killers". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Christ-Killers" is the term used, which by the way should probably have a wikipedia entry
See e.g., the section above, which I have changed to red to grab attention. Did someone miss my 2cents worth above -or was my suggestion merely dumb, idiotic, and stupid?--GordonWattsDotCom 16:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem with your theory is that Pilate, Caiaphas and the occupied Judeans does not equal everybody. Repeating:

Jesus was either: #1) killed by the Jews, by "handing him over" to the Romans, because he claimed to be God; or #2) crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate and his quisling Caiaphas for overturning tables at Herod's Temple; or #3) a combination of the above. #1 has always been popular but is widely viewed as antisemitic, whereas #2 is derived from the historical context of 1st century Roman occupied Judea.

I find it incredible that we are even discussing this! How can anyone alledge that they all contributed to his death. Quit saying the Jews, the Jews did the nothing, but stand idle (Yes, that is a decision in and of itself). The Sanhedrin arrested him, turned him over to Pontius, and the Roman soldiers did as they were commanded. How can there be any arguement. Why is there any discussion on who really did it? Just stick to the facts and move on. Storm Rider 20:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Storm Rider. I appreciate the fact that this debate is taking place in the talk page instead of waging a revert war. Thank you for that. The material is a misleading oversimplification that appears to be calculated to be provocative. If not intentional, it is nevertheless offensive on many fronts to say "the Jews" killed Jesus, or to say with such brief and inaccurate summation that Jesus "claimed to be God". To speak of this being a "popular" view goes right off the end of the chart. Someone seems to be wanting to make someone angry. To imply that this was tied in such a simplistic way (to say the least) to upsetting some furniture, is outrageous. If the material belongs in the article at all, it requires much more explanation in the immediate context than the proposed sentences give. This is troll material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You should read this book: Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus

If that book just details what is said here, why do I need to? If the paragraph is an example, someone is reading books that produce hateful opinions. The article doesn't need this. All of the writers of the New Testament were also Jews. Jesus himself is a Jew. The people who killed Jesus, handing him over to be killed, according to the New Testament were Jews. The first opponents of the church were Jews, just as the first followers in the church were Jews. These are all such different statements than saying that the New Testament blames "the Jews" for killing Jesus. The latter is troll material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Crossan's book is here:

From Publishers Weekly In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal The two main theses of this extraordinary book are that the roots of anti-Semitism spring from gospel narratives of the death of Jesus and that the Romans, not the Jews, killed Jesus as a revolutionary agitator inimical to their continued governance of Judea. Crossan, a former Roman Catholic priest and now a noted expert on the life of Jesus, fascinatingly describes here two types of historical writing: 1) history remembered?history written as it actually happened?and 2) prophecy historicized, a tendentious interpretation of what really happened made to conform to or "fulfill" ancient prophecies?in this case, supposed prophecies about the life of Jesus uttered by Hebrew prophets. According to Crossan, the passion accounts blaming the Jews for Jesus' arrest and crucifixion are based on this second type of writing and are thus myths if not downright lies. He pleads for a reevaluation of the passion stories, which have caused such animus toward Jews for the past 2000 years. An excellent study for lay readers and specialists; recommended for larger religion collections.?Robert A. Silver, formerly with Shaker Heights P.L., Ohio Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist Given the conjunction of concern with Jesus and public discourse in the ascendancy of the "Christian coalition" in our own historical moment, Crossan's decision to make this argument available to a popular audience is a timely one. Briefly, Crossan contends that the understanding of the passion narratives in the canonical Gospels as historical "fact" is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It is dangerous because of the particular way in which the confusion of "interpretation" and "fact" came in this case to be backed by power. Crossan notes that, for Christians, the Gospel accounts are divinely inspired, but that inspiration comes through human beings in human communities and can come as inspired propaganda. When Christianity was a relatively powerless sect within Judaism struggling like other sects for the hearts and minds of the Jewish community, its propaganda about "Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence" was relatively harmless. But as Christianity and the Roman Empire became inextricably linked, that propaganda became the lethal basis for transition from a theological controversy within a religious community to propaganda directed by one religious community against another to genocidal anti-Semitism. What may have been relatively harmless propaganda at its origins has become, Crossan argues, "the longest lie." The scholarly debate behind this discussion asks whether the passion narrative is derived from "history remembered" or from "prophecy historicized." Crossan has argued consistently for the second option, and he wrote this book largely in response to Raymond Brown's influential Death of the Messiah, which defends the first. The book is a lucid, accessible guide to the controversy, but, more important, it is one of the best accounts of how prejudice is transformed into racism in the conjunction of mythological and political power. Steve Schroeder--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Booklist "Given the conjunction of concern with Jesus and public discourse in the ascendancy of the 'Christian coalition' in our own historical moment, Crossan's decision to make this argument available to a popular audience is a timely one. Briefly, Crossan contends that the understanding of the passion narratives in the canonical Gospels as historical 'fact' is not only wrong, but also dangerous. It is dangerous because of the particular way in which the confusion of 'interpretation' and 'fact' came in this case to be backed by power. Crossan notes that, for Christians, the Gospel accounts are divinely inspired, but that inspiration comes through human beings in human communities and can come as inspired propaganda. When Christianity was a relatively powerless sect within Judaism, struggling like other sects for the hearts and minds of the Jewish community, its propaganda about 'Jewish responsibility' and 'Roman innocence' was relatively harmless. But as Christianity and the Roman Empire became inextricably linked, that propaganda became the lethal basis for transition from a theological controversy within a religious community to propaganda directed by one religious community against another to genocidal anti-Semitism. What may have been relatively harmless propaganda at its origins has become, Crossan argues, 'the longest lie.' The scholarly debate behind this discussion asks whether the passion narrative is derived from 'history remembered' or from 'prophecy historicized.' Crossan has argued consistently for the second option, and he wrote this book largely in response to Raymond Brown's influential Death of the Messiah, which defends the first. The book is a lucid, accessible guide to the controversy, but, more important, it is one of the best accounts of how prejudice is transformed into racism in the conjunction of mythological and political power."

Book Description The death of Jesus is one of the most hotly debated questions in Christianity today. In his massive and highly publicized The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown -- while clearly rejecting anti-Semitism -- never questions the essential historicity of the passion stories. Yet it is these stories, in which the Jews decide Jesus' execution, that have fueled centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. Now, in his most controversial book, John Dominic Crossan shows that this traditional understanding of the Gospels as historical fact is not only wrong but dangerous. Drawing on the best of biblical, anthropological, sociological and historical research, he demonstrates definitively that it was the Roman government that tried and executed Jesus as a social agitator. Crossan also candidly addresses such key theological questions as "Did Jesus die for our sins?" and "Is our faith in vain if there was no bodily resurrection?" Ultimately, however, Crossan's radical reexamination shows that the belief that the Jews killed Jesus is an early Christian myth (directed against rival Jewish groups) that must be eradicated from authentic Christian faith.

As I said, the book is hate material. Since it is hatred of Christianity, who will care. After all, did we not kill the Jews? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Things are much easier when you realize that the historical fact is that Pontius Pilate, a man, not an ethnic or religious representative, crucified Jesus, and many others. It is the truth that sets one free, not self deception.

With all due respect to everyone I do not see the point of continuing this thread.

  • This article cannot say "who" killed Jesus or "why." It can only say, "According to x, y killed Jesus" or "According to A, B,C, and D killed Jesus," and so on.
  • Some people have interpreted the John account as an authorization for anti-Semitism, and others have interpreted it as anti-Semitic. This discussion belongs NOT in this article but in the articles on Anti-Semitism and on Christian anti-Semitism or Christian-Jewish relations. At the very most this article could mention that some have interpreted the NT account of Jesus' death as anti-Semitic," with a link to the anti-Semitism article, and that is enough for this article
  • Crossan does not hate Christianity and he is a legitimate scholar. The appropriate article — not this one — should provide an account of his arguments as well as other views.

Really, I am not blowing my own horn here, but do we really need to say anything more than this? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For a person sensitive to offense, your radar is off on this one. But regardless, you are right that this discussion is a waste of time and is doing no good. I need to bow out, if not take a vacation from this place for a while. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ushakov Nerukotvorniy.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to add a fourth Eastern Orthodox icon, especially under the "Other Perspectives" subsection. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, update from Jesus Seminar[edit]

In 1998, the Jesus Seminar published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (ISBN 0060629789).[6] In summary: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary.

Re: Removal of Jesus from Diety Category[edit]

To whom it may concern,
          Recently Phatcat68 added this article to the 'Diety' category, then Mkmcconn reverted the article back out of this category. While I agree with Mkmcconn's revert, still I think that the question of whether or not Jesus was a diety bears some comment here.
          Within traditional Christian theology, apparently whether or not Jesus was truly a diety would remain as what I would call, 'in the mystery department'. By this I mean that unfortunately, traditional Christian theology is self contradictory on this subject, and therefore the question of this subject, when pressing hard enough, will generally result in an answer that runs something like, "Don't you know, this is one of the Christian 'mysteries'", essentially meaning, "please don't ask me any more questions about this, because I really haven't a clue."
          Unfortunately this would appear to be an easy theological 'stock' answer given to any points of contradiction within traditional Christian theology. As the answer to this question will forever remain amongst the traditional Christian 'mysteries', I agree with this revert. I agree that it is not fair to assert that the the most common answer to this question from the majority of traditonal Christians would be any kind of clear 'yes'. Instead it would more likely be, "Well, he's God's Son, but he's also God made flesh, but he's part of the Trinity which means that he's different from God, but the three are really all the same, uh.... gee, ya got me....". Thank God for Wiki. Questions and comments like this that are now freely posted on this page would have probably gotten us all turned into heretical shis-kabob delights about 400 years ago!

Scott P. 15:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting unsubstantiated edits re the Gospel of Thomas and early oral tradition[edit]

  • On July 23, 2005 JimWae and I agreed to add the reference to the Gospel of Thomas (G of T) in the Intro as I have reverted it back to just now, which states that,
... the Gospel of Thomas is considered by some scholars to predate the canonical/Biblical Gospels themselves.
  • On Aug 2nd, Westonmr altered this to read,
..considered by a few scholars to predate the canonical/Biblical Gospels themselves.
In Westonmr's editorial explanation he claimed that he was simply adding Further details about the four canonical Gospel accounts, and somehow he forgot to mention that he might actually be correcting something.....
  • On Aug 9, anonymous user further modified this phrase to read,
..considered by a very few scholars to predate the canonical/Biblical Gospels themselves.
This the anonymous user did without any editorial justification at all.

I recognize that the fact that the G of T is believed by many Biblical scholars to predate the canonical Gospels may be somewhat disconscerting to some. I say this because in some ways this implies that some earlier suppositions that some may have based years of their dilligent studies upon, may need to be slightly revised. Still, obviously these types of unsubstantiated edits regarding the G of T will remain as being considered POV and will be reverted, unless the editor might be able to substantiate any further such edits with documentation here on this discussion page.

I apologize for my insistence here, but I believe that there is a great wealth of information and understanding that can be gained via the study of the G of T, and that by trying to be open minded enough to consider the possibility that Christianity as it was essentially fossilized by Constantine in the early 4th century, only slightly de-fossilized by the reformation in the 16th century, and only slightly more de-fossilized beginning with Vatican II as convened by Pope John XXIII, may not be entirely complete, and that we may still have many things that we can learn fresh. Thanks for putting up with this rant.


-Scott P. 16:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you might be going over the line here, by trying to fix what you believe to be a historical mistake and trying to promote more interest in the Gospel of Thomas. The fact is that whether by Constantine or by some other route, the Gospel of Thomas indeed has been "essentially fossilized". And by the way, I think that it might be a very rare opinion indeed, to regard its historicity as an important aspect of its meaning. It is important as a possibly early interpretation of Christ; but who regards it as a source of historical data, as for example, the Christians regard the Gospels? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Elaine Pagels finds Thomas more accurate than John. --goethean 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
More accurate as history, or more accurate as an interpretation? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. She's not a fundamentalist. --goethean 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
That answer is somewhat related to my point. Non-gnostic Christianity sees the Scriptures as explaining Jesus as an actor in history. Gnosticism, as in the Gospel of Thomas, is more interested in understanding Jesus regardless of history. It is a way of understanding, not an account of events. The "information" that it provides is an insight, an interpretation. The collection of the "secret sayings" of Jesus, as recorded by "Twin, Twin, the Jew" - that is, the very equal of Jesus - does not depend on Thomas being real, or even Jesus actually saying these things. When you are the very twin of Jesus, his spiritual equivalent, you don't need history. This is a book of mystical religion. That is very different from the gospels, which concern acts, events, birth, death, peoples, places, history. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
There are understandings of Thomas that are different from yours. Namely, that it was an early source of the canonical gospels on a par (in regard to historical authenticity) with Q. Furthermore, despite its location in the Nag Hammadi cache, no gnostic cosmological terms occur in Thomas, further evidence for a date of composition prior to the second century. --goethean 21:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I recognise that there are different interpretations. I also recognize the great handicap under which even legitimate scholarship must labor - besides the difficulties of anti-catholic prejudice, by which people like Pagels are burdened. But the issue here is only whether or not it presents itself as information about Jesus, or rather "secret sayings" - secret in contrast to what? to sayings "well-known"? To sayings "published"? These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. It does not present itself as an account, but a record of the mystical spirituality of Jesus. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
In this context, the terms "account" and "record" are synonyms. Your last sentence is incoherent. --goethean 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In this context, "account" means "narrative". Does this help you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mkmcconn|Mark,
Setting my own personal opinion/ rant about the historical value of the G of T aside, I have a question for you. Can I assume by the fact that your own posts are silent regarding the fact that many scholars believe that the G of T may predate the canonicals, implies that you agree with this fact about Biblical scholars?
-Scott P. 21:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
If these scholars that you are referring to can be numbered in the dozens, is that "many" or "few", or "very few"? It's all relative, I suppose. If the number of writers who believe that the Gospels are the product of the first and second century numbers in the hundreds, or the thousands, would it matter to you? I'm confronted with a statement of what "many" "scholars" "believe" - A little detail might disqualify the sentence from any mention at all. Do you want to risk that, or would you be satisfied with saying "some writers". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Wiki's own article on the G of T, editors there have agreed that:
There is currently much debate about when the text was composed, with scholars generally falling into two main camps: an early camp favoring a date in the 50s before the canonical gospels and a late camp favoring a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 90s. Among critical scholars, the early camp is dominant in North America, while the late camp is more popular in Europe (especially in the U.K. and Germany).
-Scott P. 22:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it should read "... among which the Gospel of Thomas is believed by some textual critics to predate the Gospels of the traditional canon". I think that competing with terms like "very few", etc. is not relevant. If the scholars are not corner-case kooks, but real, published, quoted, influential to a noticeable degree, then we ought to represent their views and not fuss over "how many" of them there are on their side. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Good point about some 'Biblical scholars' being Corner Case Kooks ! I know I'm probably a Prolific, (but still) Unpublished PC Piker, if that's anything close. :-) Thanks.
-Scott P. 23:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Murdered activist[edit]

I have removed the category "Murdered activist", which was added by an anon IP a minute ago, because I feel that the category does not apply in this case and is POV-ing the article. If you disagree, let me know! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Random House Webster's Unabridged, 1999:
ac·tiv·ist (akÆtà vist), n.
1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. –adj.
2. of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern.
3. advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House.
mur·der (mûrÆdÃr), n.
8. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Did not Jesus vigorously advocate forgiveness, brotherly love, and faith in God?
Was not Jesus killed barbarously?
Unless anyone might post something to disprove the contention that Jesus vigorously advocated these things and was killed barbarously, I would like to reinstate the category "Murdered activist".
-Scott P. 22:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Joseph Smith is not in the murdered activist section. Should he be? I might lay emphasis on the "political cause" part; the three items mentioned don't fall under such an umbrella (and, without offending, they are rather generic--most people profess advocacy of forgiveness, brotherly love, and faith in God). Now, perhaps a case could be made that Jesus as described in the Gospels is portrayed as a political activist, but that case hasn't been made yet (and might be deemed speculative, but I'd like to see what others think). --Peter Kirby 00:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"clarified" by Kdbuffalo[edit]

"although he is also reported in the New Testament to have heard Jesus ask why he was persecuting him on the road to Damascus and to have had scales on his eyes which fell off when he met the person he was foretold to meet". This is placed in the opening paragraphs, but it seems slightly OTT for the article on Jesus to be placed there. And what is the point--is it inserted to lead the reader to a conclusion, or is it irrelevant? I suggest moving the facts contained to another section of the article or another article altogether (one on Paul?). --Peter Kirby 00:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

to: peter kirby[edit]

I believe in the principle of total evidence. Paul did not reportedly only see Jesus in a vision but he also reportedly heard Jesus and was told to meet a man and which point the scales fell off of his eyes.

  • I have no problem with the statement itself, but I question (and am not the only one) its relevance in the very opening paragraphs of an article on Jesus. Reportedly, Paul prayed to Jesus Christ that a woman would be miraculously saved from fire and she was (Acts of Paul and Thecla 6:7). That's well and good to note somewhere on Wikipedia, but not in the opening paragraphs to the Jesus art. So I suggest a better place be found for it. That Paul also, reportedly, heard Jesus does not imply it to be false that Paul's only seeing of Jesus was visionary (as opposed to during His earthly life). There has to be some way to word this, perhaps just "Paul did not see Jesus during his lifetime." --Peter Kirby 00:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

objection to removal[edit]

Someone removed this sentence:

At the other end of the spectrum are historians which have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection and did not believe the Christ myth was plausible - scholars such as Thomas Arnold [7], A. N. Sherwin-White [8][9], and Michael Grant. [10][11][12]

Why is someone like Doherty who denies the existence of Jesus mentioned which is a extremely minority position but opinions/arguments by noted Professors/historians opinions deleted. I strongly object to its removal.

ken 00:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

sentence made more concise[edit]

I made the sentence more concise.

It now reads:

At the other end of the spectrum are historians which have been very favorable to the Christian claims regarding Jesus such as the resurrection. Historians which were favorable to a historical resurrection of Jesus include: Thomas Arnold [13], A. N. Sherwin-White [14][15], and Michael Grant. [16][17][18]

I also restored the mithraism footnote so readers can see where it is located in relation to the claim made in the body of the text.

ken 00:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

  • Is it fair to Michael Grant to say that he has been "very favorable to the Christian claims regarding Jesus such as the resurrection" when Michael Grant has never publicly stated that he believes in the resurrection of Christ? I'm sure another third historian could be found in his place, who does demonstrably support belief in the resurrection of Christ. --Peter Kirby 01:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

recent cut[edit]

I just deleted:

Benjamin Urrutia, a modern scholar, contends that Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba was the historical Jesus of Nazareth and was the leader of the successful nonviolent Jewish resistance to Pilate's attempt to place Roman eagles - symbols of the worship of Jupiter - on Jerusalem's Temple Hill. This episode is found in Josephus, who does not say who the leader of this resistance was, but shortly afterwards, in a passage which, some scholars have argued, may have been slightly but significantly altered by later editors, states that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified. (See articles Josephus on Jesus - especially the section "Arabic Version" and "Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba")

which comes from an unknown and as far as I can tell uncredible author. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

disputed statement[edit]

"They resented Roman occupation, but in Jesus' time were relatively apolitical."

This statement is patently false and an attempt to force a POV onto an historical epoc. For starters, it's contradicted by the later statement:

"Many Jews hoped that the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish king (or Messiah) of the line of King David — in their view the last legitimate Jewish regime."

That is not an expression of "apolitical". Obviously, to rephrase this statement, many Jews hoped that the Romans would be replaced by the Kingdom of God which meant restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. THIS IS VERY POLITICAL!

Secondly, the statement that the Judeans of Iudaea Province were apolitical is equivalent to claiming the French under German occupation were apolitical or that the Kurds under American occupation are relatively apolitical.

Please read more carefully. It states that the Pharisees were relatively apolitical. Moreover, most Jews were apolitical. Some Jews (we can quibble over words, if you want to use many -- but it is still less than a plurality) wanted to end Roman occupation; most did not. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is truly an absurd statement. Most Judeans wanted an end to Roman occupation, a few did not and those few who did not were Roman quislings. If this statement is to remain in the article its source should be stated otherwise it is original research and should be deleted. This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of first century Judea, unless your claim is that the Romans crucified all the political Judeans and thus only or mostly only apolitical ones remained, which is also absurd. Again, my analogy to German occupied France, yes the French surrendered to Hitler, and for a while may have been not very militant, but they certainly were never apolitical about the situation.
Also, they were Jews. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
2nd Temple Jews = Judeans, as distinct from all Jews throughout history.
No difference. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? During the time in question these words were in flux, but Judean had come to refer to a geopolitical entity, and Jew to the people inhabiting it and other places. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of "geopolitical entity": The geopolitical entity was Latin IUDAEA and the residents were Latin IUDAEI. In English: Judea and Judeans.
  • "Jew" and "Judean" are the same word in the ancient languages (i.e. Greek). --Peter Kirby 22:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The issue is modern English, Jew means any Jew, modern or ancient, any of the Hebrew tribe. Judean forces the historical context, the Judeans are specifically the residents of 2nd Temple Judea.
Again, they are the same. They were Jews then, and Jews now. They came from multiple tribes then and now. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Come on Jayjg, you know better. 1) There was a Temple. 2) The geopolitical entity was Roman occupied IUDAEA. 3) Modern religious Jews are primarily Rabbinical, which is derived from 2nd Temple Pharisaic Judaism, but the 2nd Temple period was not only Pharisees. Even the Pharisees were not monolithic, i.e. Hillel the Elder versus Shammai.

Anonymous user, please give me your sources. Mine are Shaye JD Cohen, the preeminent historian of the period in Jewish history, and EP Sanders, one of the preeminent historians studying early Christian history. On what do you base your claims about first century Judea? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You are making the claim in the article, site your sources there. If it is Sanders, you should quote the entire context, my guess is it is something like: "relatively apolitical compared to 6ce when Herod's son was ousted and the period of the Great Jewish Revolt" If you are going to claim "relatively apolitical" you should state relative to what? The Southern US prior to the American Civil War? An episode of "Leave it to Beaver?" Relative to what?
I must say that I have heard the same comparison (between the French under Nazi rule and the Jews under Roman) made by Ronald H. Miller, a (little-known) NT scholar. But I suspect that the ideas are not original to Miller. Crossan, maybe? --goethean 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

An example of translation error:

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." John 7:1(KJV)

But wait! Galileans aren't Jews? Galileans are Jews but not Judeans. Jesus walked in Galilee because he feared the Judeans! More like this:

"After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life." John 7:1(NIV)

And who are the "Jews" in Judea? They are Judeans, of course. See how much easier things are when you translate correctly? In Latin:


SUMMARY: IUDAEI=Judeans, not Jews

The situation is identical in Greek, it's just harder to write in Greek, maybe someone else would like to do that.

This is sophistry, not scholarship. Saducees, Pharisees, and Essenes were all Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Josephus divided the Judeans into Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots. I.e. these are *POLITICAL* divisions. So much for "apolitical". Yes, they were all Jews and Proselytes, but so were the Samaritans and their Temple on Mt. Gerizim, so were the Galileans, so were the Idumeans who were just recently "re-judaized" ... If you're going to dumb it down why not go all the way and just call them people, just your average "apolitical people", siting around happily paying taxes and watching "Leave it to Beaver", not a care in the world, don't worry be happy ... --anonymous

Better info on Idumeans: Antipater the Idumaean

Josephus divided the Judeans into Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots. I.e. these are *POLITICAL* divisions.
I don't see how that follows. Why is it inconceivable that Josephus was listing religious groups andpolitical groups together? --goethean 18:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Religion is apolitical? Only in the notion of American separation of church and state, which is only a notion.

"For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes." Josephus The Jewish War 8:2. Three, not four, and the word used is best translated as "schools."

OK, good quote, excellent reference, why not add it to the article? Now, Josephus is recording the Judeans in terms that the Greeks would understand. Now, in Hellenism, are "schools" apolitical?

"Now when that feast, which was observed after seven weeks, and which the Jews called Pentecost, (i. e. the 50th day,) was at hand, its name being taken from the number of the days [after the passover], the people got together, but not on account of the accustomed Divine worship, but of the indignation they had ['at the present state of affairs']. Wherefore an immense multitude ran together, out of Galilee, and Idumea, and Jericho, and Perea, that was beyond Jordan; but the people that naturally belonged to Judea itself were above the rest, both in number, and in the alacrity of the men." This is from The Jewish War 3:1. Obviously Josephus is including Galileans as Jews. The reason that there were more Judeans present was because Jerusalem is in Judea. But Jews from outside of Judea did go up to Jerusalem for Shavuot. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? I agree that most Galileans were Jews (excluding the Greek enclaves in Galilee), what they were not was Judeans, unless they moved to Jerusalem, for example the Jerusalem Church of James might be considered to be Judeans by outsiders, for example Paul. Judean is a more precise term than Jew. Judean refers to residents of Iudaea Province.

What is my point? Well, Anonymous user (it would really help if you registered and signed in), another anonbymous user wrote "2nd Temple Jews = Judeans, as distinct from all Jews throughout history," although as you point out this is a false equation. I agree that at certain times in history Judean is more precise than Jew. Now, let's go back to what that other anonymous user wrote, "Most Judeans wanted an end to Roman occupation," and I am still waiting for a source for this claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, but allow me to take a longer route to summarize my point. Iudaea Province was politically charged from its inception when Herod Archelaus was deposed (4ce) and the Roman Legate Quirinius of Syria was put in charge (6ce) resulting in the Zealot's Tax Revolt. It was relatively quite until Pilate was appointed, John the Baptist beheaded for sedition, Jesus crucified for sedition, etc. It was only after the Jewish-Roman wars that Judaism became apolitical, because only apolitical Judaism survived. Josephus' Jewish War (yes it should be called Judean War) is a good source, however it is also an apologetic. Case it point: Messiah. The Jewish concept of Messiah was at odds with the Roman Empire, as far as the Romans were concerned, Jupiter Capitolinus, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, was in charge now and any Judean Kings would be appointed in Rome. So what does Josephus do with the Messiah problem? Jewish War 6.5.4[19]:
"But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction."

Note it says "many of the wise men were deceived". Josephus says "the Jews" thought the oracle (Torah has become oracle, a concept familiar to Greco-Romans) meant a Jew would rise to rule the earth, i.e. the Messianic King, however, says Josephus, this was foolishness, as the oracle actually predicted that Vespasian would be appointed Roman Emperor on Jewish soil and that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed. After the Roman-Jewish Wars, Judaism and the turncoat Josephus were apolitical, and for that reason alone they survived, but not before. Judaism before the wars was politically charged.

Write for the reader. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To educate or to entertain?

Write for the reader by following our NPOV and NOR policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. This statement currently in the article:
"Many Jews hoped that the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish king (or Messiah) of the line of King David — in their view the last legitimate Jewish regime."
Plus Jewish War 8.2 Plus Jewish War 6.5.4 (both cited above) is clearly in conflict with the unreferenced POV claim also currently in the article that:
"They resented Roman occupation, but in Jesus' time were relatively apolitical."
The hope that the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish King of the line of King David is very political. And the result of these hopes was the Roman-Jewish wars, which the Romans won, thus forcing surviving Judaism to be apolitical. But it is an anachronism to assume that the pre-War forms of Judaism were also apolitical. See Pontius Pilate for some of the politics of his time.

Josephus' fourth sect[edit]



"1. ...Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essens, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which sects, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now."

In conclusion, Josephus says there are three sects, Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, plus a fourth sect, founded by Judas of Gamala (in Galilee) and Sadduc the Pharisee in 6ce, later called Zealots.

Thus the claim that the 2nd Temple Pharisees were relatively apolitical is very misleading. No doubt Hillel was relatively apolitical, but Shammai? Obviously Sadduc the Pharisee was relatively political.

"6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."

Anonymous editor, please sign your contributions. Now, Josephus is a primary source. Are you engaging in original research? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"As stated by Josephus ("B. J." iv. 3, § 9), they boastfully called themselves by the name of "Ḳanna'im" (Zealots) on account of their religious zeal. The right of the Ḳanna'im to assassinate any non-Jew who dared to enter the consecrated parts of the Temple was officially recognized in a statute inscribed upon the Temple wall and discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871 (see Schürer, "Gesch." 1st ed., ii. 3, 274; comp. Josephus, "B. J." vi. 2, § 4; both Derenbourg and Grätz ["Gesch." iii. 4, 225] misunderstood the passage). "Ḳanna'im" was the name for those zealous for the honor and sanctity of the Law as well as of the sanctuary, and for this reason they at first met with the support and encouragement of the people and of the Pharisaic leaders, particularly those of the rigid school of Shammai. It was only after they had been so carried away by their fanatic zeal as to become wanton destroyers of life and property throughout the land that they were denounced as heretic Galileans (Yad. iv. 8) and "murderers" (; Soṭah ix. 9) and that their principles were repudiated by the peace-loving Pharisees."

"The Shammaites, on the contrary, were intensely patriotic, and would not bow to foreign rule. They advocated the interdiction of any and all intercourse with those who either were Romans or in any way contributed toward the furtherance of Roman power or influences. Dispositions so heterogeneous and antagonistic can not usually endure side by side without provoking serious misunderstandings and feuds; and it was owing solely to the Hillelites' forbearance that the parties did not come to blows, and that even friendly relations continued between them (Tosef., Yeb. i. 10; Yeb. 14b; Yer. Yeb. i. 3b), for a time at least. But the vicissitudes of the period exerted a baneful influence also in that direction. When, after the banishment of Archelaus (6 C.E.), the Roman procurator Coponius attempted to tax the Jews, and ordered a strict census to be taken for that purpose, both schools protested, and the new measure was stigmatized as so outrageous as to justify all schemes by which it might be evaded. The general abhorrence for the system of Roman taxation manifested itself in looking with distrust upon every Jew who was officially concerned in carrying it out, whether as tax-collector ("gabbai") or as customs-collector ("mokes"); these were shunned by the higher ranks of the community, and their testimony before Jewish courts had no weight (B. Ḳ. x. 1; ib. 113a; Sanh. iii. 3; ib. 25b). About this time the malcontents held the ascendency. Under the guidance of Judas the Gaulonite (or Galilean) and of Zadok, a Shammaite (Tosef., 'Eduy. ii. 2; Yeb. 15b), a political league was called into existence, whose object was to oppose by all means the practise of the Roman laws. Adopting as their organic principle the exhortation of the father of the Maccabees (I Macc. ii. 50), "Be ye zealous for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers," these patriots called themselves "Ḳanna'im," Zealots (Josephus, "B. J." iv. 3, § 9, and vii. 8, § 1; Raphall, "Post-Biblical History," ii. 364); and the Shammaites, whose principles were akin to those of the Zealots, found support among them. Their religious austerity, combined with their hatred of the heathen Romans, naturally aroused the sympathies of the fanatic league, and as the Hillelites became powerless to stem the public indignation, the Shammaites gained the upper hand in all disputes affecting their country's oppressors. Bitter feelings were consequently engendered between the schools; and it appears that even in public worship they would no longer unite under one roof (Jost, "Gesch. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten," i. 261; Tosef., R. H., end). These feelings grew apace, until toward the last days of Jerusalem's struggle they broke out with great fury."

Anonymous editor, please sign your contributions. Now, Josephus is a primary source. Are you engaging in original research? what is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

WHAT is going on here???[edit]

Aug 23, 10:22PM CST This is the page text I am getting for this article:

removed disgusting filthy paragraph RossNixon 10:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

but when I go to the edit view it shows the source for the normal article. How is this happening?

Sam Walker -- 03:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems that it is alright now, but I am still curious as to how the edit view showed the normal source. Did I really click edit right after it was reverted? Explain this:

I loaded the page, saw the vandalised text, and went to the history to revert it Comparing the two most recent edits listed in the history, they both had un-vandalised text. Assuming it had been reverted, I returned to the main page, and saw the vandalised text still there Went to talk page and added the above question Returned to main page to see normal article back

Funkiness observed may be due in part to cache, in part to changes to the page, and on the whole to vandals. --Peter Kirby 03:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The text you saw was actually in the article for a very short period (1 minute) about 4 hours ago. I guess the vandalised version was then cached somewhere, and that was what you were still seing. Shanes 03:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Most Peterists believe Peter is the second member of the Triumvirate[edit]

Put this way it is not clear if this is a simple or a compound article of faith

  1. there is a Triumverate
  2. Peter is the second member

or if the existence of the Triumvirate is not disputed, and the article of faith is Peter's membership--JimWae 19:51, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

POV dispute[edit]

The skeptics are raising complaints about the resurrection without allowing adequate counter info. The section is not POV.

I would grant you that 'no one was a witness' seems unnecessary. But apart from that the literal christian interpretation has most space, after which three different perspectives are summarised. What additional info do you have in mind? --ExtraBold 22:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Please be careful not to misuse the RFC. It is not a mechanism for starting discussion; rather, it is the next resort after stalemate has been reached, after a good-faith effort to arrive at agreement has failed. Did I miss that discussion? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

suggestion for resolution: I admit some fault in raising the RFC too soon. I will remove it. With that being said, here is my solution. I suggest if a paucity of info is given for "resurrection section" in the "Jesus section" then the skeptic/christian side is likely to try to give just a little more info than the other side. My suggestion is the following. Keep the "Resurrection of Jesus" main section that is solely devoted to that topic. However, make a copy of that section and place it in the Jesus section as well. Otherwise I believe the tit for tat battles will be far more likely to continue.

Signed, the gentleman who responded to the skeptical objections to the resurrection but was subsequently deleted.

Thank you. I wish that you would dispense with the anonymity thing, brother. It causes more problems than it solves, I assure you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

to: Mark

I have looked at your userpage. If memory serves, it has a gentleman who says he userpage was vandalized. I know you want me to not be anonymous. But I have told you I wish to remain anonymous and I gave my reason. I told you I had a few "internet wikipedia stalkers". Please respect this and do not continue to ask me to be anonymous.

Signed, the gentleman who strenuously and ravenously wishes to remain largely anonymous and politely asks you to respect that. LOL

further rationale for duplicating the "resurrection of jesus" in the Jesus article.

The resurrection is the central controversy surrounding Jesus. I think it should be front and center in the Jesus article. Having the section not also incorporated in the article is counter productive. And as I said before there are no current spats in the resurrection of Jesus section because each side feels it views are being aired.

Signed, the gentleman who responded to the skeptical objections to the resurrection but was subsequently deleted and then raised the POV dispute.

Great solution?

I think I thought of a solution. Why not say something like this:

Christians see the issue the resurrection of Jesus as a very central tenet of the Christian faith. There has been much written on this matter both affirming and denying the resurrection of Christ (see the large Wikipedia article written on this subject: resurrection of Jesus).

signed the anonymous wikipedian

Keep it disputed

I almost think that the best course of action would be to keep the article as it is, with the complaint of neutrality present. There is going to be endless debate for or against anyway, and the article does deal more with the Christian vision of Christ than any other. As with any religion, nearly any aspect of it can be countered by non-believers with the notiont that it "simply did not happen." We can clutter up the articles with numerous arguments and counterarguments if we want. But if we simply keep it as-is, with a very visible warning that the article may not be agreed with by all, then most anyone can figure out that it's not hard fact. If they seek further info, then they can use the link suggested above. Because frankly, you cannot have an article about religion be completely neutral as long as humans are writing it, whether they are biased for or against. I know it goes against official Wikipedia policy, but religion is a tricky matter. Just my opinion.

It wouldn't be appropriate to use disputed banners just to reflect disagreement, or to warn that no one can agree with everything in the article, and it is not necessary to clutter this article with argumentation.
Frankly, I do not understand the grounds for the POV dispute; on the other hand, I don't think that it is necessary or helpful to detail the reasons that some people disbelieve the resurrection. There is an entire section of another article dedicated to that purpose. I've merged the skeptical arguments into that section. More details of who they are, who deny the resurrection, would be appropriate for this article. Their arguments for disbelieving are better placed in the other article. I'm assuming that this resolves the dispute? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 12:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

to: the person who made the changes, kudos

I like the way it reads now. I think it was an equitable solution.

signed, the anonymous wikipedian

Torah observant?[edit]

The introduction claims the gospels present Jesus as a Torah-observant Jew, but I think this is potentially misleading because he seems to be Torah observant by the Gospels' own definition, not that of Judaism. Whilst Judaism doesn't "own" the term, I think the phrase should be rephrased as it implies that it portrays him as in harmony with Torah Judaism. Any suggestions? Frikle 00:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It definitely needs rewording, but I think it is a mistake to say that he was Torah-observant by the Gospel's definition and not by Judaism's. I do not think the Gospels have any definition of "Torah-observant." More importantly, the Judaism of Jesus´time was fgragmented into different sects each of which had different ideas about how to observe the Torah, and each of which were entirely Jewish. Jesus may very well not have been observant by the standards of the Shulhan Aruch or the Tlamud, but since these texts did not come into existance until long after Jesus was killed, we can´t use them as a standard -- they do not represent the Judaism of Jesus´time. SR
Do the Gospels even claim he was Torah observant? Jayjg (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

From the Sermon on the Mount:

"You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt5:14-20(NRSV)
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.” ‘Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell--and great was its fall!’ Matt7:15-27(NRSV)
I'm a little confused here. Where exactly does the introduction claim that Jesus was "Torah-observant" Jew? I cannot find those words anywhere in it. Stephen C. Carlson 13:19, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
It has been there in the past but generally gets deleted by overly agressive editors who are unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Attitude Toward the Law.

Yet in several particulars Jesus declined to follow the directions of the Law, at least as it was interpreted by the Rabbis. Where John's followers fasted, he refused to do so (ii. 18). He permitted his followers to gather corn on the Sabbath (ii. 23-28), and himself healed on that day (iii. 1-6), though the stricter rabbis allowed only the saving of life to excuse the slightest curtailment of the Sabbath rest (Shab. xxii. 6). In minor points, such as the ablution after meals (vii. 2), he showed a freedom from traditional custom which implied a break with the stricter rule of the more rigorous adherents of the Law at that time. His attitude toward the Law is perhaps best expressed in an incident which, though recorded in only one manuscript of the Gospel of Luke (vi. 4, in the Codex Bezæ), bears internal signs of genuineness. He is there reported to have met a man laboring on the Sabbath-day—--a sin deserving of death by stoning, according to the Mosaic law. Jesus said to the man: "Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, accursed art thou, and a transgressor of the Law." According to this, the Law should be obeyed unless a higher principle intervenes. While claiming not to infringe or curtail the Law, Jesus directed his followers to pay more attention to the intention and motive with which any act was done than to the deed itself. This was by no means a novelty in Jewish religious development: the Prophets and Rabbis had continuously and consistently insisted upon the inner motive with which pious deeds should be performed, as the well-known passages in Isa. i. and Micah vi. sufficiently indicate. Jesus contended that the application of this principle was practically equivalent to a revolution in spiritual life; and he laid stress upon the contrast between the old Law and the new one, especially in his Sermon on the Mount. In making these pretensions he was following a tendency which at the period of his career was especially marked in the Hasidæans and Essenes, though they associated it with views as to external purity and seclusion from the world, which differentiated them from Jesus. He does not appear, however, to have contended that the new spirit would involve any particular change in the application of the Law. He appears to have suggested that marriages should be made permanent, and that divorce should not be allowed (x. 2-12). In the Talmud it is even asserted that he threatened to change the old law of primogeniture into one by which sons and daughters should inherit alike (Shab. 116a); but there is no evidence for this utterance in Christian sources. Apart from these points, no change in the Law was indicated by Jesus; indeed, he insisted that the Jewish multitude whom he addressed should do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, even though they should not act as the Scribes acted (Matt. xxiii. 3). Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity. It is, however, exaggerated to regard these variations from current practises as exceptionally abnormal at the beginning of the first century. The existence of a whole class of 'Am ha-Areẓ, whom Jesus may be taken to represent, shows that the rigor of the Law had not yet spread throughout the people. It is stated (iii. 7) that, owing to the opposition aroused by his action on the Sabbath, Jesus was obliged to flee into heathen parts with some of his followers, including two or three women who had attached themselves to his circle. This does not seem at all probable, and is indeed contradicted by the Gospel accounts, which describe him, even after his seeming break with the rigid requirements of the traditional law, as lodging and feasting with the Pharisees (Luke xiv.), the very class that would have objected to his behavior.

I'm still not seeing the sentence in the Gospels that states the Jesus was Torah observant; could someone isolate it for me, please? Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the Jewish Encyclopedia article: "His choice of twelve apostles had distinct reference to the tribes of Israel (iii. 13-16). He regarded dogs and swine as unholy (Matt. vii. 6). His special prayer is merely a shortened form of the third, fifth, sixth, ninth, and fifteenth of the Eighteen Benedictions (see Lord's Prayer). Jesus wore the Ẓiẓit (Matt. ix. 20); he went out of his way to pay the Temple tax of two drachmas (ib. xvii. 24-27); and his disciples offered sacrifice (ib. v. 23-24). In the Sermon on the Mount he expressly declared that he had come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it (ib. v. 17, quoted in Shab. 116b), and that not a jot or tittle of the Law should ever pass away (ib. v. 18; comp. Luke xvi. 17). It would even appear that later tradition regarded him as scrupulous in keeping the whole Law (comp. John viii. 46)."

So, according to the author of that Jewish Encyclopedia article (from around 100 years ago), he kept some of the laws, and later (Christian) tradition considered him to have been scrupulous in keeping all of it? Jayjg (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the JE article is also being anachronistic. It is not at all clear that the "laws" Jesus is accused of having broken were universally considered to be laws by Jews in the early 1st century CE. SR

He was "Torah-observant" in the context of first century Judaism. He was not a modern Orthodox Jew. Understand the difference? "He appears to have suggested that marriages should be made permanent, and that divorce should not be allowed ... Apart from these points, no change in the Law was indicated by Jesus; indeed, he insisted that the Jewish multitude whom he addressed should do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, even though they should not act as the Scribes acted. Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah <Rabbinical oral law> was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity. It is, however, exaggerated to regard these variations from current practises as exceptionally abnormal at the beginning of the first century." See E. P. Sanders for a modern statement of the same historical fact.
The question here is not how later Christians viewed him, or how modern authors (or you) view him either, but rather how the New Testament describes him. These are quite different things. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Plenty of New Testament references have been provided. They describe Jesus as Torah observant, in the context of first century Judaism, which was much more diverse than modern Orthodox Judaism, and, most importantly, included a temple. If you are truly interested in learning, go and study.

Please sign your messagtes, anon. user, so we can keep trtack of the discussion. The phrase "Torah observant" is itself an anachronism. SR

It is not an anachronism, it is simply a Hebrew word, Strong's 8451, translated into English as direction, instruction, law (BDBG Lexicon). Into Greek as nomos. Specifically the "Law of Moses". See Nehemiah 8 (Ezra the scribe brings the Torah to Jerusalem from Babylon, around 400bce). Hillel the Elder and Shammai, famous first century Pharisees, were both Torah observant, even though Shammai would be later judged negatively. For first century religious Jews and Jewish proselytes of Iudaea Province and Galilee and other regions, Torah observance was the primary issue. It is certainly not anachronistic. The goal of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and even Zealots was to be Torah observant. Just in case it needs clarification, the Torah itself specifies observance, see Shema, and the following terms are not synonymous: Torah, Tanakh, Halakha, Talmud.
Strong's 8451 is the Hebrew word for "Torah," not for the phrase "Torah observant." No one here however has claimed that "Torah" is an anchronism, but that the phrase "Torah observant" is. Stephen C. Carlson 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's the train of logic: the Shema defines Torah observance, both words are clearly contained in there; the Shema is part of Deuteronomy; Deuteronomy was probably found in the Temple by a priest of Josiah, in conection with his reforms.

In case anyone cares, Josiah probably either invented or rediscovered the concept of Torah-observance.

Also, Torah-observance is certainly as old (at least) as the synagogue.

Deuteronomy 6:1-2 (NRSV): "Now this is the COMMANDMENT TORAH -- the statutes and the ordinances--that the LORD YHWH your God charged me to teach you to OBSERVE in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy, so that you and your children and your children's children, may fear the LORD your God all the days of your life, and keep all his decrees and his commandments that I am commanding you, so that your days may be long."

Nehemiah 10:28-29 (NRSV): "The rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, the temple servants, and all who have separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to adhere to the law of God, their wives, their sons, their daughters, all who have knowledge and understanding, join with their kin, their nobles, and enter into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to OBSERVE and do all the commandments TORAH of the LORD our Lord and his ordinances and his statutes."

From Antinomianism#Antinomianism_in_the_New_Testament: Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, mentions several times that we are saved by the unearned grace of God, not by our own good works, "lest anyone should boast." He used the term freedom in Christ, for example Galatians 2:4, and it is clear that some understood this to mean lawlessness, for example Acts of the Apostles 21:21 records James the Just explaining his situation to Paul: "They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs." (NRSV)

The references provided state that Jesus followed a small number of Jewish customs. Other New Testament references have him repudiating various Jewish customs. None of them describe him as "Torah observant". Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources No Original Research

Mark 12:28-34 (NRSV): One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 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.’ Then the scribe said to him, ‘You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that “he is one, and besides him there is no other”; and “to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,” and “to love one’s neighbor as oneself,” —this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ After that no one dared to ask him any question.

Matthew 22:35-40 (NRSV): and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘”You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’

Luke 10:25-28 (NRSV): Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’


What is your point? How does this respond to my previous statement? Jayjg (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
How about a compromise? Some Gospel verses depict Jesus as Torah observant, such as the Sermon on the Mount, while others depict him as rejecting the Torah, such as John 6:52-71 or the interpretations of Marcion.
First, making statements supporting the Torah, and actually being Torah observant, are two entirely different things. Second, given that the record of his actions in the gospels is mixed, why bring a disputed point into the introduction? Please remember, it is an introduction, intended to bring out the main points, and is already four paragraphs long. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism[edit]

I think a few lines about this is in order. This is a version of Judaism that does not follow the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.

It is wrong to equate followers of the Talmud exclusively with Orthodox Judaism. It would probably be more precise to equate Orthodoxy with followers of the Shulhan Aruch. All mainstream modern movements of Judaism, with the exception of the Karaites, give the Talmud some importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is probably more accurate:

Yes, the above is accurate. However, all of the modern mainstream forms of Judaism — again, excepting the Karaites — accept Rabbinic Judaism as the legitimate form of Judaism between the Hellenic and Middle Ages. Thus, even movements which reject elements of Rabbinic Judaism (e.g. Reform) still trace their lineage back through Rabbinic Judaism. Note that the leaders of the Reform, Orthodox, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements are all called "Rabbis." All accept the notion that Rabbinic teachings replaced and, until the messiah comes, continue to replace Temple sacrifice; all reject the claim that the messiah has come (claiming either that the messiah will come at the end of history, or that the Davidic monarchy will simply never be restored). These are all important defining features of contemporary Judaism that come from Rabbinic Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the NT call Jesus God?[edit]

Source: Raymond E. Brown, Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73 "Does the NT call Jesus God?"

Mk10:18, Lk18:19, Mt19:17, Mk15:34, Mt27:46, Jn20:17, Eph1:17, 2Cor1:3, 1Pt1:3, Jn17:3, 1Cor8:6, Eph4:4-6, 1Cor12:4-6, 2Cor13:14, 1Tm2:5, Jn14:28, Mk13:32, Ph2:5-10, 1Cor15:24-28 are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject." Also: "Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before 58." And "The slow development of the usage of the title God for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament material, but also there are passages, cited in the first series of texts above, that by implication reserve the title God for the Father. Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God, there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage - a study of these texts will show that this is true of the Pastorals and the Johannine literature. The most plausible explanation is that in the earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the use of the title God; hence, God was a title too narrow to be applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the God whom he prayed. Gradually, (in the 50's and 60's?) in the development of Christian thought God was understood to be a broader term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that God had to be able to include both Father and Son."

Good points. Jayjg (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
If "the Word" is interpreted as "the Word was God," then "the Word was made flesh" gets very close to implying Jesus was God, or at least of Its essence ("the Word was with God"). It certainly is a fine line between the Father, "the sons of God," and the Word, e.g., John 1:1, 12-15. RDF talk 13:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
It would be accurate to say the Gospels depict Jesus as the Son of God. RDF talk 15:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Son of God in the biblical sense, not the pagan sense. Son of God, not God the Son. On John 1: Jn1:1 is mired in controversy (see Brown's Gospel of John). A perfectly valid translation of the Greek could be: "In the beginning was the word and the word was toward God and divine was what the word was." In any case, the topic here is clearly the pre-existant word (i.e. "Let there be light") which is only loosely connected with Jesus (see Brown's Gospel of John). Again, we have a cite that can only support a preconceived theory at best. Brown warns against reading this verse in a post-Nicene context.
A description or characterization of the term, "Son of God," as used in the Gospels to refer to Jesus is verifyable and noteworthy. The meaning or appraisal of the term in the Gospels and elsewhere as it refers to Jesus is controversial. Such a controversy can be noted here and addressed more fully in the article Son of God. RDF talk 17:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
One disputed mention in John does not make it characteristic of the gospels, or noteworthy enough for the introduction. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. Certainly, the article should cover this issue (as well as the linked article on the titles of Jesus) but the introduction should be as general as possible to comply with NPOV and not immediately get into claims or possibilities that are distinctive of particular points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it curious how forty-seven references to "Son of God" in the Bible for a statement about how Jesus is referred to in the Bible violates NPOV. (Try a King James version search at Bible Gateway.) Whatever. RDF talk 02:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
You're right, I was wrong. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's still the "the/a" problem - and the problem of what "son of god" means - it is by no means an exclusive attribution - so non-exclusive that there is still some reason to doubt it is appropriate for lead --JimWae 04:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be "a Son of God", most if not all of the issues associated with that phrase are covered at Son of God.

  • Rather than rely exclusively on a 1965 article by Raymond Brown on the issue, contributors should read Brown's An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Paulist Press 1994). Especially review Appendix III where Brown goes through all of the "candidate" passages and notes "[i]n three reasonable clear instances in the NT and in five instances that have probability Jesus is called God. The use of "God" for Jesus that is attested in the early 2d century was a continuation of a usage that had begun in NT times. There is no reason to be surprised at this. "Jesus is Lord" was evidently a popular confessional formula in NT times, and in this formula Christians gave Jesus the title kyrios which was the Septuagint translation for YHWH. If Jesus could be given this title, why could he not be called "God" (theos), which the Septuagint often used to translate Elohim? The two Hebrew terms had become relatively interchangeable, and indeed YHWH was the more sacred term." Page 189. I would also suggest discussing the work of Richard Buackham in God Crucified, N.T. Wright in What Saint Paul Really Said, and Ben Witherington in The Christology of Jesus. Layman 06:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Placement of images[edit]

If the cartoon image (Cobb_jesus.gif) must be included (and I have serious doubts), must it really be the primary image? At least move the images around so that the relevant ones are at the top. It'd be like using a political cartoon as the primary image of George Bush. Ataru 09:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included at all. The message it sends about wikipedia as a site would not be a good one. Frankly, it cheapens the artical to an extent where someone who turned here to do research on Jesus might decide to go somewhere else. The point is, unless there is any justifications, it should not be in the artical, and it certainly should not be at the top for any reason.

On the subject of images, is it really necessary to have the same image twice on a single page? Image:Jesus and the doctors of the Faith dsc01783.jpg -Silence 15:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Reorginazation[edit]

I'm proposing to reorganize this article. Life and teachings

I. Introduction (see here Its not done, feel free to edit, and add input) II. Cultural Backround III. Life of Jesus according to New Testemant A. Birth(merge from Birth, death, and resurrection chronology) B. Life and teachings(move and organize) 1. overview 2. teachings and parables C. Death and Resurrection(ditto to Birth) 1. Gethsemane and trial 3. Crucifixtion and Resurrection IV. Christian Movment(probably a better title) V. Religious Views A.-H. same as now VI. Names and titles VII. Historicicty(reason for it being so late, is that you need everything else before you can determine if its historic, could also be placed in front of Religious Views)-also add a relic section underneath here. VIII. Artistic Potrayals IX. Interpretations of Jesus(I originally thought this was duplicating Religious views but have changed my mind as this is almost like a Trivia section) What do y'all think? Newbie222 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • No - way too much detail for Intro & way too much delay on historicity. Many details on life are already known by many readers - they become interesting only when alternative interpretations have already been mentioned. Present organization is not all that bad --JimWae 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The intro needs Bio info and should be longer to be featured. Thats part of becoming a featured article. Historicity, is not as important as his life or teachings, infact he is the only religious figure that I can find that has historicity. Its of secondary imortance to his life because its supposed to be a biography and all biographies describe the persons life first. The current format could be improved, like combing the small relic section with historcity. Thanks for your response. Newbie222 00:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the current organization works pretty well. If I was to make any changes, I'd change:
        Historicity: Possibly rename section. Also, shorten this section by moving specific information into the expanded articles, leaving only a general interview of the most important facts. Make it more introductory and simple, including more information on Historical Jesus rather than being almost entirely focused on textual evidence, which does indeed make more sense to explore after the details of his life have been gone into later in the article. But there's no need to explore them that much at all, when we have so many separate articles to go into that much depth in.
        Reorganize life and teachings like so (possibly also just rename it to "Life of Jesus"; why not have a totally distinct section for "Teachings", if any such section at all?):
        IIIa. Chronology (Merge "Birth, death, and resurrection chronologies" here)
        IIIb. Early life
        IIIc. Preaching (Or some other name; I can't think of a good one at the moment. Also, most of the text from "Jesus as a Leader of Nonviolent Resistance" should absolutely be moved elsewhere; it is an interpretation of Jesus' life, not an account of it)
        IIId. Trial and death (Merged from "Arrest and trial" and "Resurrection and Ascension". "Resurrection and Ascension" is terribly POV; if we're to use that, we need to explicitly show that this whole account is just a summary of the Gospels, not an attempt to historically reconstruct his life using the Gospels, by renaming "Life and teachings" to "New Testament account of Jesus' life" or something. And do something about the last section, it doesn't belong at all and it's terribly short.)
        Relics: This section needs a little expansion if it's to stay its own section, rather than being merged with some other section on miracles of Jesus in general or something. -Silence 03:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems with planned heavy copyedit?[edit]

rv - restore more neutral Ers notation removed by anon IP w/o explanation - see archives

Could I ask for a bit of an elaboration on the reason why my recent edit was reverted? I can understand the ever-present difficulty with new editors like myself not being aware of many past decisions regarding the page, but "See archives" is not exactly the most helpful advice when there are 19 pages of archives. I'm also confused as to what "Ers notation" means, and especially confused by why you called me an "anon IP" and said that I did it "w/o explanation"... though if any part of my edit confused you, I'd gladly explain each and every change—I have no interest in forcing my version on others; if there are disagreements, let's talk. -Silence 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Typo for Era - as in BC/BCE & AD/CE - I had just spent 15 minutes fixing it & you removed it 4 minutes later. I see now you changed only the intro though. Want to try again with neutral era notation? --JimWae 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A note about eras, its not neccesary to put BC/BCE. There was a vote on how to do with them in July, and May which came back as both being equally valid on wikipedia in all articles just a user preference which is the current policy to my knowledge. One or the other will do. Newbie222 00:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • There were at least 2 votes on era notation for this article after extensive debates that led to the issue being discussed throughout wikipedia. The only resolution for this article was to use both --JimWae 00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I understand the choice, certainly, but isn't it more important to make the article is high-quality as possible than to go to extreme lengths to avoid possible edit wars (which seem to have significantly died down recently anyway)? The same principle applies to vandalism: an article shouldn't be in any way worsened in quality just as a preventative measure against possible vandalism. It makes our lives easier, yes, but it's. Sticking to either AD/BC or CE/BCE is a bit better, because it takes up less space and people will understand it. I have no preference as to which; looking at it solely from a format perspective, the disadvantage of 'AD/BC' is that 'AD' has to go before a number rather than after (which is also a significant problem in your current "AD/CE" compromise—you force the AD to go someplace it isn't meant to be to accomodate the slash), which is confusing, and the disadvantage of 'CE/BCE' is that 'BCE' is three letters long, an awkward length for such a common, important abbreviation. So I'm neutral on which to use, and only slightly opposed to this current compromise, though not opposed enough that I'll make a stink about it anymore if you leave it as-is; I just wanted to make my opinion known (though my opinion isn't why I didn't have your format in my intro-paragraphs edit earlier, that was purely an accident).
  • some of your edits also struck me as assuming Jesus existed - which is in dispute among editors--JimWae 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not intend that, of course; I had to deal with numerous edit conflicts because I spent so many hours working on the opening paragraph, and I must not have noticed that one. Editing this page is really tough, it being so active... I thought that the consensus throughout Wikipedia was to use either the Anno Domini system or the Common Era system on each article, and only to worry about internal consistency, not using a single system for every article on Wikipedia. I've never heard of using "AD/CE" and "BC/BCE"; I'd have thought such a system would be unforgivably cumbersome and space-consuming. But, have I missed some recent debates that have resulted in this consensus?
Also, which of my edits seem to assume that Jesus existed? I'd say that the opposite actually happened, with my edit resulting in a lot more neutrality on the whether-Jesus-existed issue, though I suppose mine's not perfect either; just an improvement. But maybe I'm missing it. Where is the suggestion that Jesus was definitely a person, more so than there already were ones? -Silence 00:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Which are more neutral regarding existence?

  1. The primary sources for information on Jesus
  2. The primary sources about Jesus
  1. which, based on the mentioning of Pilate, probably occurred sometime between
  2. which, based upon mention of Pilate, would have been sometime during the years
  1. is now estimated to have occurred sometime between 8 BC
  2. is now estimated from 8 BC/BCE

Also problem with

  1. The canonical Gospels focus primarily on Jesus' last three years,
  2. The canonical Gospel accounts focus primarily on Jesus' last one to three years

Also note difference in meaning of "between" and "from.. to.."

--JimWae 00:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I do note the difference. The difference is, as far as I can see, purely a matter of grammatical construction and clarity, with all four of those examples being equally unbiased regarding whether Jesus existed, but the above constructions all making a lot more sense to the typical reader (in my view) and having much better grammar. If I accidentally made the section more pro-Jesus'-existence with my edits, I apologize, but those edits were purely intended to try and clarify some ambiguous lines; if you can change any of those to a third option that will appease both my grammar-hunger and your neutrality-hunger, I welcome such a compromise, though I still fail to see the need.. if you could explain it to me, maybe? -Silence 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It should be assumed he existed as that is majority opinion by all scholars, historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists other theories can be mentioned in the historicity section. Same treatment for Evolution for example. 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Silence, you will find this article VERY difficult to edit. It receives constant scrutiny and often deletions seem to be knee-jerk reactions rather than thought out disagreements. When doing major edits, particularly to introductory paragraphs, it would be best to address the concern on the discussion page, achieve a degree of concensus, and then make the edit. Coming out of the blue with major edits makes those editors that have devoted many, many long hours to this article to react in ways not to the benefit of our edit. Btw, Jim, I actually thought Silence's edits were more neutral. Further, I would agree with Anon's edits; it should be assumed that Jesus existed and then cover the contrary opinions in the historicity or other, later sections. Storm Rider 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I don't expect it to be easy. Just because something's a challenge doesn't mean it's not important; large portions of this article need some serious editing. I'm also fully aware that there will probably be a lot of disputes on my changes; that's why I focused solely on editing the introductory paragraphs with my first edit (and the obvious fix of removing the doubled image). If I wasn't concerned about people objecting to some of my edits, I'd just edit the entire page in one fell swoop, but since that's such a factor, I'll make sure to do my edits gradually, section-by-section, and always to listen to any objections people have to any bits. For example, thank you for taking the time to correct individual problems you had with my edit this time, JimWae; much more helpful than the total revert. However, I have a few questions on the changes you made:
  • The primary sources for information on Jesus v. The primary sources about Jesus - I don't think yours makes sense. You have sources for or of something, not sources about something. For example, "the source for Macbeth" or "the source of evil"; I've never seen anything resembling the construction of "the sources about Jesus" in the English language.
  • focus primarily on Jesus' last three years, v. focus primarily on Jesus' last one to three years, - Both versions may not be ideal, but the current one just doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like it's trying to say "the events spanning the last one, two, and three years", which would be taken care of just by saying "last three"; if the intended meaning is to show that how much time is spanned in the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' life is disputed, there are better ways of wording that, like "primarily focus on Jesus' last few years" or "primarily focus on the end of Jesus' life" or "primarily focus on what have been estimated to be the last three years of Jesus' life" or whatnot.
  • based on the mentioning of Pilate v. based on the mention of Pilate - "Mentioning" implies a continuous action rather than a single event, which works better than "mention" because Pilate is not mentioned only a single time in the Gospels.
  • probably occurred sometime between 26 AD/CE and 36 AD/CE. v. is now estimated from 26 AD/CE to 36 AD/CE. - We can use "is now estimated" if you prefer, but it definitely doesn't work with "estimated from"—we'll need to use "is now estimated to have occurred between 26 AD/CE and 36 AD/CE"; "from" in the current version makes it sound like the crucifixion occurred over a span of 10 years, rather than occurring at a single point in time sometime within those ten years.
  • Most Christians also believe v. Most Christians believe - The problem with the current version is that it starts three consecutive sentences with, in order, "Most Christians believe", "Most Christians believe", and "Most Christians also believe". Using that starter twice is fun, as long as the second instance uses "also", but using it three times is unacceptably repetitive.
  • is now estimated to have occurred sometime between 8 BC/BCE and 4 BC/BCE v. is now estimated from 8 BC/BCE to 4 BC/BCE - Again, I've never seen this construction in the English language. An event can't be "estimated from X to X", it has to be estimated to have occurred between X and X ("occurred from X to X" only if it's a continuous action over the span of time, as opposed to an event that occurred at a single time within that span of time).
  • A faulty 6th-century attempt v. A faulty 6th century attempt - Isn't "6th-century" the adjective form of the noun "6th century"? That's certainly how it's used in the caption of the first image on the page.
So, yeah. Let the discussin' begin! -Silence 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

New Testement date?[edit]

I'm probably missing it but is the date given for the Gospels 150 AD if so it should be mentioned that many christians and non-christians hold the Gosples to be compiled by 90 AD as is in the Columbia encyclopedia article. I'm probably just missing the actual date given . 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Current consensus of scholarship places Mark around AD 68-70, Matthew and Luke 70-90, and John 90-120. Although you ill find some schollars suggesting dates before and after those. --Doc (?) 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

#Jesus as a leader of non-violent resistance[edit]

I have removed the above section - it was clearly un-referenced riginal research. Besides which, I recall an artcle by similar title was afd'd some months ago and deleted for the same reason. Please watch for reinsertion. If the original author is reading ths, please make a case here before reinserting. --Doc (?) 12:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Islam section[edit]

Why is it so important that it is a list. It was suggested under peer review that it not be such, and I will revert and change it back to the last version. Notice the last version is different than the first one I had, I simply put all of the imformation into paragrahp form instead of merging with the other article. Newbie222 13:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It makes absolutely no sense to have the Islam section consist of a list when none of the other religious perspective sections have any lists. It would be acceptable to have a short illustrative list if there was also a fair amount of non-listed text to properly set context, but that's not possible in a short little section. Change the Islam section into paragraph form, and if someone's really that in love with the idea of the list summary, move it to Religious_perspectives_on_Jesus#Jesus in mainstream Islam or somewhere in Isa or something. -Silence 13:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see why it can't be in a list guys. The list gives a very good overall explanation of Jesus in Islamic belief. The current paragraph form is really poorly written because it is just unrelated sentence after sentence. I think that the list should be readded here because that is just a summary. The paragraph format should be added to the "Religious perspectives" aticle which is the main article. Also, Newbie next time please discuss before you replace it because that was a major edit. I will also keep Isa as the main article link and I never removed it before. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What I meant was under the list, the name Isa was not used under the Islam section at the beginning. If you disagree with how the paragraph is now, then change it, but I don't think you'll find a list like that in any FAC and consensus currently stands with paragraph format. I haven't made any major edits before discussing them first either on talk or the peer review. Please look at teh peer review. Thanks. Newbie222 18:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the peer review. There is only one user's opinion there (Ryan Norton). Was that the page you were referring to? Secondly, I changed the Islam section in the religious perspectives article into a paragraph format. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is what I was refering to. You claimed above that I made major edits without discussion that is not true, and was why I wanted to look at peer review and make your opinions on how to improve the article clear so I would know how to edit the article. I really want to get over this revert, revert revert stuff. Newbie222 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Another problem with using list format for that section is that it's unnecessary by virtue of how friggin' long every item on the list is. If each item on the list was only a line or at most two long, I'd understand wanting them listed rather than having to add filler to string them all together, but when the list is almost in paragraph format already due to its bulk, putting it in real paragraph form is just the only route that makes sense for the sake of consistency within the article. That's how I see it, anyway; I tried my own hand at reorganizing the section to work just as well in paragraph form. What do you think of it now?
Also, I don't agree that it's necessary to use "Isa" within this article in the Islam section (beyond what we have now, initially mentioning that he's called that). I considered it at first, but now that I've thought about it, it doesn't make sense—EVERY part of the world has its own unique name for Jesus. Do we have to change the name we're using in this article entirely each time we discuss a certain region or religion's views on Jesus? Do we need to use Hebrew for the "Jewish views" section? Mentioning what he's called in Islam is enough. -Silence 19:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
First, I did not change main article link name to Isa, I had inititally changed it to "Jesus in Islam" a long time ago when I worked on this article. Now to the list. I still think the list was better because it provided comprehensive summary of beliefs, was organized appropriately and yet did not disrupt the flow of the article. I think a list summary is good for the Jesus page, wheras I have already created a paragraph version on the main religious perspectives article. As for the bulk of the list, I don't think it differs a whole lot from the paragraph version (see comparison [20]) and that it's exceptionally less compared to the Christianity section. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hm? I'm the one who changed the main article link to Isa, and I did it because "Jesus in Islam" is nothing but a redirect to Isa. There's no reason for us to try to hide the names of our own articles.
And I'd agree with you about keeping the list format if I also thought that it all "was organized appropriately" and "did not disrupt the flow of the article", but I don't. I also disagree that a list summary is best for the Jesus page and a paragraph for the religious perspectives; if anything, I'd prefer something closer to the opposite. Perhaps a very brief, paragraph-format summary on Jesus in Islam on Jesus, a less brief summary with both paragraphs and possibly a short list in Religious perspectives on Jesus, and the fully expanded information on Isa, where lists would also be appropriate. But absolutely not here.
Furthermore, the fact that the current list version barely differs at all from my paragraph version is my entire point. It's only if they were very different (and the list version was better) that there would be justification in using a list. If the same exact information can be provided just as well by each version, then we should go with the unlisted version for the sake of consistency. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have "articles" on Wikipedia, we'd just have lists for everything. "List of events in the Algerian Civil War" in place of "Algerian Civil War", "List of beliefs regarding Jesus" instead of "Jesus"... That's not how it works. Lists are for when plain text can't do nearly as good of a job. They are not the default. Oh, and since this is more appropriate here than on my user talk page, I guess I'll mention here my three prime reasons for recommending paragraph format in this instance:
  1. Consistency. There are no lists anywhere else in the article; using a list here will surprise, trouble, and confuse most readers, making the overall article seem more like a patchwork hodgepodge of different articles and less like a cohesive whole. If you had any interest in making all the other sections on religious views of jesus list-formatted, I'd be more inclined to consider having the Islamic one be a list, but that would be a bit silly anyway.
  2. The text was already getting quite dense even as a list. Your list, while convenient, is almost in paragraph format already, as each list item is quite long indeed (all but one are over a line long, and four of them are three or four lines long). As such, putting it in true paragraph format is easy, and almost just a formality. If the list items were a lot shorter and more obviously stuck to only a single topic for each list item, I'd have much fewer problems with it.
  3. Fluidity of topic and ease of reading. Putting things in paragraph format rather than list format has the advantage of forcing us to be linear in our explanation, rather than being able to abruptly jump from fact to fact without any overall cohesion. It requires a few more "However"s and "Also"s, sure, but other than that, it's worth the trouble.
Thar. -Silence 20:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that if the Jesus article includes summaries of the religious perspecpectives then a list is appropriate. Details and paragraph form are acceptable on the main article which is religious perspectives. Also, the list gives a very short summary as compared to the paragraph. You should remember that if a paragraph style is created, then people will also want to add specific details to the section and eventually the section will grow to the size of the christianity section which is huge. A list discourages people from adding any more specific details in what is clearly supposed to be only a summary of Islamic belief. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
. By the logic your using all "incomplete" sections or articles should be in list form instead of paragraph. That is something that should probably go through village pump policy. I'm not saying I don't see your point I just think it the current format hampers the flow of the article. The best thing to do is to add to the Islam section so that it can be relatively similar size to the Christian. My goal is to get this to FAC so if you know of any resources that I could use to expand it I would be glad to do so in my free time. Newbie222 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I stand by my logic. Also, I will try to help you with the expansion of the article but I am not sure FAC is possible because this article has gone through a ton of controversy in the past and will in the future I am sure. I will see later whether I can add to the Islam section specifically, but I still think the list offers a very good straight-forward explanation of Jesus in Islam. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with your logic as well. Both versions of the section make it very clear that the beliefs are only being briefly summarized, both by linking to larger, more in-depth articles for expanded commentary (Is and religious views on Jesus) and by their own clearly summarized content. To additionally state that the section is only a summary of majority Islamic views is totally redundant and unnecessary; everything in the entire article is a brief, generalized summary, one way or another! Articles like Jesus have few hard and fast facts, and almost every section has several expanded versions of itself where all the details are meant to go. This entire page is practically an exercise in skillful summarization. At the very least, if you feel it's that important to make it clear that the Islamic views are being briefly touched on in this article, just put that at the top of the "Religious views" section, since that's clearly what's being done with every section. Even the Christianity on Jesus section, while longer, is still just a summary of another page. \
Additionally, I disagree (and even if I didn't I'd consider it too minor a point to influence what we should do) that having it in list format makes it less likely to have trivial stuff added to it than paragraph format. In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that the opposite is the case, and people will be much more prone to add redundant or irrelevant information to the section if it's in list format, because it makes it look like a trivia section or a disorganized, assorted list of tidbits, not a concrete, solid, organized summary like a few paragraphs would tend to look to typical readers. It's much, much easier to just randomly add a factoid about Islamic views on Jesus with a * preceding it and not having to worry about whether it makes sense in that part of the article because it's just a list (they'll probably just add it to the bottom of the list rather than considering whether it might fit better between some of the pre-existing list items) than to figure out where to add something into a few paragraphs, which means that it's more likely that someone will add to a list without reading the list first, a very bad idea. Paragraphs encourage reading through casually rather than the list-reader's tendency of skimming over absently and reading only the list items which look interesting at a glance.
I also disagree with "Also, the list gives a very short summary as compared to the paragraph." - both are quite short. Though my version takes up less room in the article because it doesn't use up the excessive lines that a list requires.
As for FAC, I see no reason why it should be impossible for Jesus to become one eventually. But the key word is eventually—I've seen too many articles rushed into FAC status before they're adequately high-quality and coherent, just because people are interested in their topics. We can keep FAC in the back of our heads as a possible future goal once this article is a lot closer to what it should be, but we shouldn't be using it in every other conversation as an explanation for our reasoning. FAC does not change anything; the rules for improving articles are the same either way. -Silence 21:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are curently three people (that I know of) who think we shouldn't have the Islam section in list format (myself, Newbie222, and peer-reviewer Ryan Norton), and one person (that I know of) who thinks we should have the Islam section in list format (you, anonym). As such, at least until you can counter my above arguments, I think the page should remain in the standard format for all normal Wikipedia articles—paragraph style. And let's avoid changing it back and forth anymore until this discussion has reached one of the three Community Cs: common ground, compromise, or consensus. 'zat OK? -Silence 20:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Tell you what Silence. I will accept your initial suggestion and move the list summary to the religious perspectives article. I will in turn rework the paragraph created in this article to make it better. However, I would like to suggest that next time you wait for a response from me (as I would for you) before editing the section being disputed. Aside from that, you did a good job of merging the summary together into a paragraph. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Er, you did immediately edit the disputed section, several times, without waiting for responses from Newbie222 or myself when you disliked our versions. I don't see how what I did's any different, except that I waited almost 24 hours for a response before making the change, then went ahead because I wan't sure how much longer of a wait it would be and because I'd reached that section on my slow top-to-bottom copyedit of the article anyway. However, I apologize if it seemed like I was forcing the point; I should have just suggested we keep it in paragraph-format and then waited a little longer to make sure you were OK with that, since you have, after all, contributed so much to it already. I'll try to do better next time with keeping in mind that there's no rush on Wikipedia to get anything perfect immediately; a day or two makes no difference. And, thanks for all the compliments, and for agreeing to help further improve the section even though it's not the way you wanted it to be. Very nice of you, really. Anyway, if anyone outside of this discussion feels like weighing in on the dispute, I'd love to hear more voices, so we can get a better idea of consensus on the list/paragraph thing. But for now, anyway, this works. -Silence 03:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Judaism's Claim that Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth Was Not the Messiah[edit]

First, and seems most importantly: Maimonides said, "It is certain that he is not the One whom the Torah has promised": (No one can be the Messiah, if they died; and Jesus died, therefore, he could not have been the Messiah). What about the Scriptures that prophesy that the Messiah would be "cut off"? These are mentioned in Isaiah, where the (singular) "Servant of the Lord" would be extensively mistreated, rejected by His Own (people; His family, the religious leadership, and most of the nation and people of Israel), and would be "cut off". This historically happened to Jesus of Nazareth, not because He was a false prophet, but because He was and is the Jewish Messiah. Whether the gentiles would have accepted Him or not (which they didn't; the pagan Romans executed Him), Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Also, not only did the prophet Daniel prophesy that the Messiah would be cut off, he predicted the exact year it would happen (in Daniel's famous prophecy about the "sevens/weeks of years"). Yes, I'm saying that Maimonides was wrong. The question is: "How can a dead man be the Messiah?" And the answer is: His resurrection. Some, but not all, of Israel missed it; that the Messiah would be divine/Yah Himself. Jesus rose from the dead. No human could do what Jesus did. The Messiah, being Yah incarnate, could not be held by the power of Death; but instead, Jesus looted and emptied Hades, leading the righteous dead, including the Hebrew patriarchs, etc. (those who had looked forward to the Messiah, and the resurrection, and had believed and trusted God during their life-times) into Heaven.

  • The apostle Paul was a major authority within the Jewish-Christian church, but he wasn't the only one. The Jewish leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem (where it was known as "the Way", or as "the Sect of the Nazarene") was led by Jacob (or "James" in English), "the brother of the Lord" (Jesus), as well as by Simon "Peter", and John. But, most importantly, read what Jesus Himself said, and see for yourself if it is incompatible with Messianic Judaism.
  • If Jesus was not even a prophet, then how do you explain His prophecies, and all of the many, and various miraculous signs that He worked? These signs were meant to accompany a true prophet. The prophetic sign that Jesus was the Messiah, is the virgin birth, given to the King Ahaz by the prophet Isaiah. Other signs include: the visit by the Magi (probably the spiritual descendants of Daniel among the Medes); the Star over Bethlehem ("the City of David"), the appearance by the "heavenly host" of angels all at His birth; and the descending of the Holy Spirit "like a dove" upon Jesus, at His baptism by John "the baptist"; the "shining" of Jesus on the mountain, the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah (which Jesus fulfilled); and Jesus Ascenscion into Heaven, which was witnessed by His followers.
  • the objection that "Jesus' Father is YHWH, but the Messiah must descend patrilineally from King David", is explained by the fact that the Messiah would be "the seed of a woman" (Genesis); and that His descendance from David is therefore traced physically through Miriam (Mary), not Joseph. (In most Jewish lines of birth, the mother is not mentioned. This explains the prominence of Mary in the New Testament.) Joseph was Mary's husband, and Jesus as his son inherited from Joseph his "name", titles and property, but not his physical seed. This avoids the curse which Yah had placed upon the line of Jehoiakim. ("No descendant of his would sit upon the throne".)
  • The only other objection mentioned, that the promised Messiah would "lead the Jews to Israel", is slightly distorted; God Himself promised to "restore the captivity of Israel", and to end the Jewish Diaspora by "bringing the remnant back into the land". This is difficult to respond to: of course, one meaning has been fulfilled: Israel has become a nation since 1948, and the Jewish people are once more in the land. But, the Scriptures point out that they would return in un-belief (that Jesus was their Messiah); and that the Messiah would bring "peace on earth, bringing back the dead (Israelites), having all people know God/YHWH, and ruling from His throne in Jerusalem have not happened"; no, not yet. But this does not make a prophecy invalid, simply because it has not been fulfilled: never in the history of modern Israel has the nation been in so much danger, and never have the Jewish people been in more dire need to turn to YHWH with all their hearts, than they are now, and in the years to come. Can anyone deny this? "But, when My people Israel turn to Me with all their hearts; then I will hear them and answer them" I believe was God's answer. Read the Book of Revelation, with an open mind, and look what is coming upon Israel. After God Himself appears to save Israel from her enemies (paralleling the book of Esther), "all people willl know God". 18:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)(Oct.)
Why is this post here? KHM03 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

External links[edit]

We have to many links under this section I'm going to remove the obvious unneccesary links, but I imagine I still will be aways from getting down to 25. So I'm asking everyone which ones they think she be removed ,so that it doesn't get reverted. Newbie222 13:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe mention that Jesus was the firstHippy.He had long unkept hair,was a vegetarian and gave up all worldly possesions. (from an anonymous user)
Lol, well he's not a hippy. We also have no idea if he had unkept hair and he was not likely a vegetarian. Newbie222 22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention that even if he had unkempt hair, was a vegetarian, and gave up all worldly possessions, and even if those were the only requirements for being considered a hippie (or even requirements at all; aren't there plenty of hippies who eat meat, don't almost all of them have worldly possessions, and aren't there even a few who don't have unkempt hair?), he still wasn't the first person to ever do any of those things. Not by a long shot. -Silence 23:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What would be done to Jesus?[edit]

Here's my current chief to-do list for improving the Jesus article:

  1. Fuller range of images. Find some non-Christian images of Jesus for the Religious perspectives section; of the 9 images of Jesus on this page, all 9 are specifically Christian depictions of Jesus the Messiah, Son of God, praised by His Name, amen. Having a majority of the images here be of that subject is fine, since that's how he's best known in the world, but we shouldn't have all of them be from the same viewpoint. In fact, the only non-Christian image I've found of Jesus on all of Wikipedia so far is Image:RFJesus.jpg, which we may want to add to the "Life of Jesus" section to help at least slightly ground that section in secular scholarship.
  2. Trim down the religious perspectives section.. There's a reason we have a whole article on it at religious perspectives on Jesus, and all but the most important information should go there. Specifically, trim down the Christianity section by moving information to religious perspectives on Jesus and Christian views of Jesus, including replacing the Nicene Creed block quotation with the sort of descriptive text any real encyclopedia should provide for the basic Christian views on Jesus. We may also want to move "Ahmadiyya Movement" information to religious perspectives, leaving one paragraph to explain the movement in brief at the end of the Islam section. No other religion on the Jesus page is given subsections for noteworthy branches or offshoots (at least, since I removed the "unitarianism" and "binitarianism" sections as belonging on Trinity), so why is Islam given one? If we give every noteworthy subset of another religion its own section, we'll need dozens of new sections—instead, put stuff like that on the "religious perspectives on Jesus" page, where there's a lot more room to grow than this article has. We may also want to add a bit to "other perspectives" if there are any other noteworthy religious views on Jesus; there are surprisingly few religions mentioned. I also removed a few, such as gnosticism, which didn't even come close to actually touching on Jesus. We may, of course, want to remove a few more, depending on significance. Whatever works best.
  3. Broaden chronology. Move the article chronology of Jesus' birth and death to chronology of Jesus' life so we have somewhere to put other details regarding the dating of events in Jesus' life. Accordingly, rename the "Birth, death, and resurrection chronology" section to just "Chronology", reworking the timeline summary in the process (for example, "Suggested resurrection" should be removed, for obvious reasons!). Additionally, make "Chronology" itself the first subsection of "Life and teachings".
  4. Make sections on Jesus' life more organized and less POV. Either rename "life and teachings" to just "Life" (the course I recommend; we could also possibly make a separate section for "teachings", though really that label is too easily contested and may not be necessary...), or include more of his teachings—or what people think were his teachings—in the section. Do a heavy copyedit on the whole section, adding more important details and removing the less important ones or the ones that work much better on historical Jesus or New Testament view on Jesus' life, and either add more of a historical view to the section or rename the section to "Life according to the Gospels" or something awkward like that. Additionally, I recommend changing how the article is divided, making it divided into the following sections: 1. Chronology (i.e. attempts at dating the events); 2. Birth and early life; 3. Later life (his active period of preaching); 4. Trial and execution (probably include "resurrection and ascension" details here; giving them their own section in "life" makes it sound like Wikipedia is explicitly saying that Jesus came back from the dead and ascended to heaven, so either put them in a section on his death or rename the overall section to "life according to gospels" or that sort of thing); 5. Legacy.
  5. Discuss the analysis and responses to "Jesus' life" after discussing Jesus' life itself. After the "life" section has reached a high enough level of quality, I suggest we consider moving it above "historicity" and "religious perspectives". Newbie222 made a lot of sense when he pointed out that someone unfamiliar with what people believe happened in Jesus' life would find the section on "historicity" (how can you discuss whether events occurred or not before you know what the events are?) and "religious perspectives" (how can you discuss the reactions and responses to an individual before you know what anyone thinks that individual did or was?) meaningless. The introduction solves some of this problem, but when you look at other pages of a similar nature, you'll realize that the vast majority of similar articles would go into a figure's life before anything else—for example, Gautama Buddha starts off with his life and waits until almost the end of the article to address religious perspectives (other than Buddhism, because that religion's association with Gautama's teachings is much less disputed than Jesus' original teachings with Christianity); Abraham too begins with the Biblical accounts of his life before going into things like "historical criticism"; even Santa Claus begins with a section called "the story" before delving into "origins", etc.
  6. Deal with overlong link lists. Consider merging "Interpretations of Jesus by influential leaders" into "See also" or otherwise dealing with the information, as it's currently little more than a list of links.
  7. Fix up references section. Make "Sources and further reading" more consistent and change it to the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite sources—i.e. name the section "References", make them all read like the examples at Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style....
  8. Deal with excess external links by considering other articles they may belong in. An excellent solution to the "link farm" problem some have found with Jesus: if we need to cut down on the number of external links here, but almost all the links are really excellent and helpful, rather than removing them from Wikipedia altogether, consider moving the ones with specific subjects to other articles where they fit better! For example, the sections on "The Mistaken J" and "Missing J" could easily fit in the article names and titles of Jesus. There, isn't that the perfect compromise? ... Though actually, upon checking the article, I see that those two links are already on Names and titles of Jesus anyway. So I guess that gives us more reason to remove them from Jesus to avoid linking redundancy. See, one way or another, keeping the other Jesus articles in minds will be a huge help in trimming down the external links!
  9. Discuss articles to add to or remove from the Jesusbox. And speaking of the other Jesus articles, it may be time to give the {{jesus}} template an updating. There are quite a few large and informative articles directly dealing with Jesus that aren't listed there currently, and several of the ones that are listed there are little more than brief, stubby lists, clearly just overgrown sections that were prematurely given their own article to help shorten the Jesus article—I'm looking at you, relics of Jesus and dramatic portrayals of Jesus! See list of Jesus-related articles or Category:Jesus for some articles we may want to consider adding to the Jesus link-box.
  10. ...
  11. Profit.

That's all I can think of right now, other than going over and copy-editing the last few sections and adding an image or two. -Silence 18:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Excellent points, where do you suggest we start? Newbie222 19:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)