Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• /Archive 75 - I could find no other encyclopedias which denied the existence of Jesus; Forensic reconstruction?; Missing the logic; POV, "Little external documentation" about Jesus according to whom? Also, little is too vague/subjective; Wasn't Jesus Black?
• /Archive 76 - Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus, Christian view, 6th century portrait, Jesus in Japan?, lack of modern historians views, trilemma, New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus, African?
• /Archive 77 - Revision of Christian Views, The Great Mystery link, Inline citations, NPOV proportionality, fact of Jesus, Jesus' family, Jesus was Albanian, Scholarship, Kabbalah vs. logia of Jesus.
• /Archive 78 - Cultural effects, The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection, Supernatural/psychic categories, intro and historicity/myth, "...was handed over by Pilate the Roman governor to be crucified," Sanders on Jesus as a Pharisee
• /Archive 79 - Nietzsche, Family genealogy, Myth, BCE/BC, Islam, Magi, Arrest, Judaism's view
• /Archive 80 - William Lane Craig debate, Non-Christian views of Jesus, scholars and the death and Resurrection of Jesus, islamic view of jesus, Jesus' title and race, error in the article, parables, The Jesus Family Tomb and James Cameron, judgement, cousin, myth, Unnecessarily implied atonement theology in intro
• /Archive 81 - Founders of religions category tag, Jesus's Character, Recent significant changes, Judaism View, Minor Edits Reverted, Featured Article Status, Possible Bias?, Atheist views section, Report for violating 3RR, Atheist views - take 2, LIBERAL BIAS, Vandalism! Help! Someone!
• /Archive 82- Muslim view on Crucifixion, Notes section may need clean up, A Torrent, judgment, slavery, POV tag?, Featured article nomination.... maybe, Sources on Jesus' life, Standardizing references, Historicity or Revisionism?
• /Archive 83
• /Archive 84 Featured Article Canidate?, Virgin Birth, Joseph as father, Convert from Judaism, RfC and more on BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, Rabbi Hillel, incorrect reference regarding mythist/historicity, real face of Jesus, YHWH and pronunciation

Subpage Activity Log

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

Was Jesus „cured“ by the soldier’s spear when he was crucified?

Please discuss and do not remove this article! There is no copyright violation!

(Copyvio from (JAMA 1986; 255:1455-1463) redacted by Jpers36 -- see here and here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.14.231 (talk) 21:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't something for the talk page, maybe more like in the Reference Desk. Even so, it's a pretty weak, last-ditch argument if you ask me. We are supposed to believe that Jesus after suffering severe blood loss from being flogged and crucified was able to breathe better with a spear through the lung? Moreover, we are supposed to believe that the ancient Romans knew about the management of hydrothorax and hemothorax by chest drains? bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't something for the talk page at all, unless it's relevant to some proposed edit to the article. Nor is it suitable for the Reference Desk either, since it's not a free discussion forum. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize what I am about to say is OR, but I think the only thing this article proves is that physicians are as capable as BS as anyone else. I wouldn't want a historian diagnosing my stomach ache (unless of course she has some training and experience in medicine), I also feel better when MDs keep their noses out of history (unless of course she has some training and experience in history)! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical history is a viable field, at least. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, medical and forensic anthropologists do it all the time. When they have evidence. Real research would be to excavae 1st century skeletal remains to establish statistically significant pathologies, and ry to link that to what we know of sanitation and diet based on historical records and archeological remains. That is fine. And I have a lot of respect for Wm. McNeill and his colleagues. But in this case it is just MDs ignorant of history playing at being historians and ill-equiped to do so. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea for Change to a sentence in the "Christian Views of Jesus" intro paragraph, for clarity

An idea:

"Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming"

could read

"Other common Christian beliefs regarding Jesus include belief in his Virgin Birth, performance of miracles, fulfillment of biblical prophecy, ascension into Heaven, and future Second Coming." Emerymat 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with that. Feel free to be bold, and change it.--C.Logan 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian views on gospel's historicity

The intro to the "Jesus' life and teachings, according to the gospels" section states: "Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate;"

I am disinclined to believe that as a blanket statement (and I speak as an ordained Christian clergyperson). Possible ways to edit the sentence that would make it more likely to be true: "Christian scholars are inclined to accept more of the gospels' account as historically accurate" or "Most Christian scholars accept are inclined to accept the general outline of the gospels' accounts as historically accurate", or even at the very least "Many Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate"

There has been so much debate within the circle of Christian scholarship around the historicity of this or that aspect of Jesus' life as told by the biblical accounts that the blanket claim that "Christian scholars" generally believe the accounts to be "historically accurate" is tenuous at best. Plenty of Christian scholars would question the historicity of the virgin birth, for instance. Plenty of Christian scholars acknowledge the difficulty in reconciling the timeline of Jesus' life presented in the synoptic gospels with the timeline presented in John. Plenty of debate has been had, by Christian scholars, about the historicity of various miracles. Emerymat 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We had a similar discussion back in May (top of archive 83), but we never really reached a conclusion that I was satisfied with. I believe it is an overstatement of conservative views to present the universal Christian view on the historicity of the gospels in the manner we do in that sentence. Your suggestions are an improvement.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was a part of this discussion back in May, and I was the one who inserted "Christian" as a modifier for "scholar." The statement is not whether or not such-and-such scholars personally believe that certain events recorded in Scripture are true, or that they are known to be true with 99.99% accuracy. That would be a matter of faith, for we cannot know for sure why the New Testament authors felt compelled to record such events. What the statement is meant to convey is that there are "plenty" of scholars out there who hold that the New Testament documents are historically reliable. The term "Christian" was inserted as an acknowledgment that these scholars also often happen to be Christian. I am not attached to this wording -- we can go back to saying "Many scholars" (or something along those lines) instead of "Christian scholars." BTW, as I mentioned then, the term "Christian" implicitly meant "orthodox Christian" (N.B.: "conservative" is an inaccurate, transient political adjective -- there are many cases where an orthodox Christian might hold views considered politically "liberal" today; orthodox views that are now considered "conservative" may have been liberal in bygone eras). The term "Christian" first appears in the Book of Acts, written by the historian Luke (who, incidentally, provides quite a bit detail on the Virgin Birth), and these individuals suffered persecution and death for bearing the label. LotR 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the Gospels themselves reflect the early Church's view of Jesus. But (as work by Christian scholars like elaine Pagels demonstrates) today they are themselves primary sources that is the object of Christian views. For that reason, I think that there ought to be a section on "Christian views of Jesus" which includes the views of scholars since the effective canonization of the NT. However, if we are also to have a section on "Jesus according to the Gospels" I do not think it should provide the view of any scholar, Christian or non. If we have this section at all it should be as neutral as possible an account of the Gospels. At most, we can begin or end with a note that scholars are divided as to the theological and historical value of these texts with a link to articles on NT scholarship. I have in my mind the idea that there is a difference between a literal account of the Gospels and the claim that the Gospels ae a literal account of the (theological or historical) truth; I am of course advocating the former, and neutral (for present purposes) regarding the latter. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake reference

For the following statement:

the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure

Can someone provide a quote? -- Peter zhou 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The historian Michael Grant states, for example, that, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995) ^rossnixon 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a citation for the statement. Michael Grant's quote merely says that for the years til 1995, there were very few serious scholar had ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus, and this doens't mean the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure. Please provide a real citation. -- Peter zhou 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do scholars really have to keep updated dossiers on their opinions to turn in at the end of every month, verifying that they haven't changed their mind on things? Homestarmy 19:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that citation has nothing to do with the statement. -- Peter zhou 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Grant's quote here doesn't specify that it is only valid at the exact time he said it. Grant says that modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory, modern critical methods in 1995 are pretty much still identical to modern critical methods now, and unless you've got something that says otherwise from people just as authoritative as Grant, I really don't see why Grant cannot be used as a reference any longer here. Homestarmy 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that citation has nothing to do with the statement. For example, does the following statement:

Very few scientist have ventured to postulate the non existance of God.

imply the following?

The great majority of scientists believe God exists

The answer is NO. Note also Earl Doherty published his book "The Jesus Puzzle" in 1999. -- Peter zhou 19:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter z, I think your parsing of this phrase is unreasonable. If you want to stick to your argument, however, maybe we can change the text from "the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure" to "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus", which is incontestably supported by Grant's quote, because it is the quote.The.helping.people.tick 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to change the statement to

Some modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure.

or

Some modern scholars don't believe Jesus was a historical figure.

-- Peter zhou 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moern scholars of a relevant field? I am not asking about German professors or geologists. I am asking about people with PhD.s in Biblical history or Ancient Near Eastern history or Ancient Near Eastern literature, scholars who are active in the fields of Biblical studies or 1st century Palestine history. I have read many and know of none who claim Jesus never existed. To whom are you referring? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Slrub said. The.helping.people.tick 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see WP:UNDUE:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."-Wafulz 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe here we need a citation for the statement, but not your own original research. --Peter zhou 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've used the same citation from the historicity section/article, which says as plainly as possible that modern scholars in the relevant fields agree that Jesus existed as a person.-Wafulz 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, we need a citation for your statement. You want to add that "Some modern scholars don't believe Jesus was a historical figure." Okay, provide your source. The issue here is not "original" versus "appropriate" research, the issue here is "reasearch" versus "no research." I do not think you have done any research. If you have, provide a source to support your claim. Should I do the same? well, guess what: aside from the fact that rossnixon already provided a source right here - don't be afraid, just open your eyes and look at the quote up top, I have added several references for works by modern scholars to this article. Now it is your turn: provide a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We can change it to "Most scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure." This is an NPOV factual statement. The term "modern" is unnecessary, the difficulty surrounding "great majority" is removed, and the term "believe" is replaced with a more accurate adjective -- there simply is agreement among most scholars on this one. BTW, 1995 is a ridiculously recent source. The ratio 1995/2007 is 0.994. To put this in perspective, on a 24 hour clock this source would have been published at 23:51:21. Admittedly, there are certain rare times in certain scholarly fields when developments are rapid and a couple of years can make a big difference. But that is not the case here. And the analogy posed by Peter zhou about scientists and God is completely off -- "God" is outside of the realm of "natural science." A far more accurate analogy would be:

"Very few climate scientists have postulated that global warming is a hoax."

and

"Most climate scientists agree that global warming is a real phenomenon."

The second statement may indeed be inferred from the first. LotR 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your phrasing sounds good to me. I think it's well thought out and portrays what's needed very well. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The vaugeness of the adjective used implies that there are some scholars who agree Jesus is not a historical figure, and in a field with I presume many thousands of scholars, this would imply that at least several hundred are Jesus-mythers, which is not factual. Homestarmy 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be phrased in a way that makes it clear that the statement is true of a wide range of scholars, not just clergy and theologians, not just Christians, not just people of faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are valid points. This was an effort to address the original objection, which was couched as a problem with the reference. However, the problem really stems more from the sentence wording (the reference itself is perfectly legitimate, as my posting implicitly argues). The proposed rewrite is just a means to rectify this -- it is certainly open to iteration. LotR 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence as written is the ambiguity in the word "scholar." Scholars of Christ have a vested interest in portraying him as historically existing, not to mention a financial motivation in book sales given the number of Christian adherents. However, as the article itself states, the primary evidence for the historicity of Christ are the gospels - which few would argue should be regarded as accurate historical texts. It's clear that the intention of this sentence is to perpetuate the proposition that Christ existed, while it is unclear to me based on present evidence, news stories, and books in print that this is true.TheInsomniac 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "scholars" in this sentence refers to the overwhelming majority of modern scholars who study the Bible as any other historical source (meaning simply, text from the past) and who study the history of 1st century Judea and Galalee as they would study any other place at any other time. if this is still unclear to you I suggest you read any of the many books cited in this article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Few would argue" that the Gospels (and the other 23 NT documents) should be regarded as accurate historical texts? Huh? What is the historical reasoning for this? And now that accusations of "vested interest" and "financial motivation" have been leveled, if it were up to me and these were my primary motivations, then I would lean toward publishing/producing the usual anti-Christian drivel we find in the popular culture, given how sensationalism sells, and how I would not be bound by an inconvenient, objective moral code. Fortunately, there is one thing we agree on, and that is the term "scholar" is ambiguous. LotR 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood, I was referring to the sentence that starts this thread, "the great majority of modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure" as well as the one by Michael grant. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Is this talk page automatically archived? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not; currently, it is only archived when done manually. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to archive it this time or would you prefer someone else do it? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is rather large (212 kb), and so it seems to be time...but I'm a relative newcomer. I've archived other TPs before, but I'm also aware each page has its own conventions on which threads to keep on the main talk page, how to link, how to summarize, etc. so I'd prefer to see how it's done before I tackle it this time around. If no one else wants to do it, I suppose I could tackle it, though. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Another (related) question; the RfM tag is still at the top of the page, even though the RfM was rejected. Is there an established procedure for this? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have archived the page. Here is what I did. I first opened a new window to the start an article page for the new archive (#84). I then scanned the current talk page to see what discussions were still open, and decided to archive everything before the 21st of last month (basically everything 10 days or older). I then copy and pasted all of that into the new archive, and added the {{talkarchive}} header. I saved. I then went back to the current talk page, and added a summary and link at the top under "Recent Archive log" for #84. I do this by scanning the topics and headers, and making sure the most important discussions are mentioned. I then saved the talk page. Finally, I added the topic summary entry for #84 (the one I just wrote in the last step) to the bottom of Talk:Jesus/Archive details. If you have any questions about what I did, feel free to ask, and hopefully you will be comfortable archiving the next time!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, and for letting me know what you did. I'll keep this for future reference. Thanks again! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing to keep in mind. In the future, you may find yourself in a situation where you will need to add a link to the new archive to Talk:Jesus/archivebox. I didn't have to do this step because archive 84 was already linked (as a redlink). But we will need to update the archivebox once we get to archive 86 (as you can see, #85 is currently redlinked).-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not too jargony at all (per your edit summary). I appreciate the tip. Thanks again!=David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD

What is the argument in this article about using the BC/AD system as opposed to the BCE/CE system? -- Avi 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, every argument used in the main debate which is archived somewhere has likely taken place on this page as well at some point, since the subject of this article is the ultimate reason for both dating systems. (Since AD/BC was based on the subject, and BCE/CE was created directly in response to it). Homestarmy 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I would think that while articles that are not exclusively Christian have a valid argument using the CE/BCE system, articles about Christianity, and Christ himself, should be using the dating system that directly refers to him. -- Avi 20:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Christianity and is not a Christian article. Therefore the choice of dating convention should be the one that most editors feel works the best, which is why we have the composite dating system. Sophia 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel this debate is very much like the English/American spelling issue. If an article is predominantly about an English subject e.g. the Harry Potter articles, English spelling is used. Thus, if an article is predominantly about Christ, BC/AD should be used. SparrowsWing _(talk) 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that BC/AD should be used as well, but there will never be consensus on that. Anyone who is pro-BCE will often come here to rant about it so that's why we use both systems. Though I do feel strongly that articles should reflect our reading audience's ease of reading rather than Wiki user bickerings. Just shows nothing can truly be neutral — John Stattic (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/Archive_84 and about one in three of all previous archives. The last time people agreed that there was no consensus to change (which, apparently, is different from a consensus not to change, but whatever...), or maybe only that there was a consensus about the fact that there was no consensus to change. Again, whatever ;-). --Stephan Schulz 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The paragraph under life and teachings, as told by the gospels, has been vandalised. Could some-one correct this? 196.203.19.196 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any vandalism. Could you explain or even quote the problematic text?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people seem to think it's funny to add a message on a talk page saying that some rude word has been put in an article, or that there is unspecified vandalism. It happens regularly. They like the idea that editors will scurry off to scour the text in vain. It gives their little minds childlike joy. Paul B 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There was vandalism. It was corrected by CSCWEM. -- Avi 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise to user User:196.203.19.196. Paul B 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But hang on, that was corrected less than a minute after it was made, and it was many many hours before User:196.203.19.196 added the comment. Paul B 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen old versions of an article show instead of the most recent version. I don't know why. Perhaps that is what happened here. Jinxmchue 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the historicity of Jesus ... continued

Some people find it easier to shift debate from this page to linked pages. People who care about this topic, please see this recent edit ... consider reading the section (to get the context) and commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Important claim not supported - claim about disbelief of historicity of Jesus being in vogue at one time

In the beginning of the article the article states and I bold for emphasis: "While disbelief in the historicity of Jesus enjoyed a brief vogue at the turn of the 20th century, modern scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure[5] and that early documents provide at least some historical information concerning his life — though there is much debate over the extent of the accuracy of these accounts" This rather strong claim is not supported. How much, if any, was this view in vogue at the turn of the century? If this view was in vogue, was it in vague as a minority view among scholars at the turn of century? If it was a minority view at that time, how much of a minority view was it? I think these are important questions and the article does not support its contention and gives no specificity if it is true. Mabol 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We had discussed this section back in July. However, the most recent version is not the version that we had agreed on here at talk. So while we are discussing this further, I have reverted to a version that was table for about a month following that discussion. You raise some valid concerns. Also, with a number of publications released in the last decade, the Jesus myth may be back in "vogue" as a minority view, where the previous phrasing didn't account for any of the recent scholarship found in the footnote. Finally, while we are discussing this, does anyone have some sources we could list for authors who hold that gospels as being 100% accurate?-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You've cited Wells and Freke+Gandy among others in the revised refs. To the best of my knowledge Wells has 'recanted' in that he now accepts that there was 'a historical figure from the first-century Palestine'. Freke+Gandy are not suitable refs, as their work has not been 'peer-reviewed' by reputable scholars. The others I do not know, other than to observe that Martin is a well known atheist philosopher and not a historian.

If you are looking for support for the 'historicity of Jesus' you could reinstate the Van Voorst ref you appear to have deleted. I do not know his work but it does at least provide a counter ref! Mercury543210 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't cited anything. If you look closer, footnote #5 in the current revision is identical to footnote #6 in the previous revision (hence, the text of the footnote isn't highlighted in red in the diff). These references have been in the article for basically over a year to represent the minority Jesus myth view. While Wells may have recanted, the book cited is still an example (thought that is interesting if Wells did recant, you got a source for that?). As for the reference I deleted, it wasn't in the version which was discussed and got consensus back in July, and there isn't a place to put it back in, the way things are currently worded (maybe we could move it down to the historicity section?) I'm not opposed to having the reference somewhere in the article by any means.

I just noticved that the Van Voorst ref is already included lower down in the article. Reference #30 in the current revision is verbatum identical to the deleted ref #5 from the previous revision.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment, please accept my apologies - however my basic points stand. Freke+Gandy are not suitable as refs. George Albert Wells'recantation' is documented in 'his' Wikipedia article. Similarly Martin does not appear to be either 'objective' nor a 'scholar in this area'. Also it was you Andrew c who asked for counter balancing refs and I simply suggested van Voorst as it was (previously) there. Hope this clears up my earlier post. Mercury543210 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I believe you misunderstood what I was asking for in regards to references. We say that most scholars neither believe the sources on Jesus to be entirely mythical or entirely accurate. Right now we footnote that a minority does believes them to be entirely mythical. We do not footnote that a minority believes them to be entirely accurate, although that position is implied in the way we phrase it. I was asking if we could get a reference, similar to the one we use for the Jesus myth, of conservative Christian scholars who believe that the accounts on Jesus' life are entirely accurate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me proof that Jesus existed please

There is no solid proof that Jesus actually existed in this article. Does anybody have any??? Shutup999 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question, or if you're just trolling. No Wikipedia article will ever try to "prove" anything to you, as we are here to present a neutral POV, and therefore all views are covered without any slant towards one or another (ideally, though more popular views receive more elaboration than obscure ones. In any case, this is a general article on the subject. If you'd like some encyclopedic elaboration concerning the subject you've brought up, see Historicity of Jesus.--C.Logan 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Solid proof"? As in mathematical proof? Sorry, to disillusion you, but ancient history is not a mathematically tenable problem. Note that there is no "solid proof" in any of the following articles as well Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammad, Pontius Pilate, Mary the Magdalene, Paul the Apostle, etc. LotR 18:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or what? You'll delete the article? There are various Christian apologetics website out there on which you can find answers to your questions. This is not the place for your request. Google it or Yahoo it or something it. Jinxmchue 18:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chill, please. No need to return rude and nasty with more rude and nasty.

User:Shutup999 has been registered for just over a week but, other than some rough edges, is not clearly a troll. I think the question is valid. This article cites a reference (4) that says "Though many historians may have certain reservations about the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing" concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus". Presumably those "basic facts" are the ones listed in the article. The answer to Shutup999's question is provided in Historicity of Jesus. This may not satisfy him but it's the best we have to offer at the moment. --Richard 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)