Talk:Jesus/Archive 20

Attention!!

Why have Bahai so close to the top, Bahai 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)

Catholic view on salvation

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_Creed#Origin_of_the_Creed

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."

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

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).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

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?

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 Bibel 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)

There is also the Christian views of Jesus article - but some of those edits would be disputed there too --JimWae 05:07, 2005 July 22 (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

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)

Further:

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."

with

"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

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

Re:

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....

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.

Thanks,

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

Less is more

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)

Thanks,

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

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

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

In contrast, I maintain the following:

There is no real dispute that the early NT writings date from the mid-1st century
That only a few (or some) scholars say that these writings are therefore of disputable reliability. For ref; see www.probe.org/content/view/678/77 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

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)

Paredōken - to whom was Jesus handed over?

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.

Footnote

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)

from http://www.duke.edu/religion/home/EP/sanders.html

"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."

from http://www.duke.edu/religion/home/EP/Intel%20autobiog%20rev.pdf

"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.

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

--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

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)

Archives