Talk:Jesus

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Talk:Jesus/Archive details, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16, Archive 17, Archive 18, Archive 19, Archive 20, Archive 21

Different accounts of the Ascension

It would seem to me to be deceptive to only present Luke's version of the Ascension, given that the other gospels describe something quite different. A neutral point of view would seem to demand a summary of all four accounts:

• MK 16:14-19 The Ascension took place (presumably from a room) while the disciples were together seated at a table, probably in or near Jerusalem.
• LK 24:50-51 It took place outdoors, after supper, at Bethany (near Jerusalem).
• AC 1:9-12 It took place outdoors, after 40+ days, at Mt. Olivet.
• MT 28:16-20 No mention is made of an ascension, but if it took place at all, it must have been from a mountain in Galilee since MT ends there.)

TrumpetPower! 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sukkot?

I have removed this to talk for discussion; perhaps my skepticism goes further than Jayjg:

, but some scholars point out that details of the entry, such as the Hosanna shout, the waving of palm fronds, and the proclamation of a king, are more consistent with the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkoth, than with Passover.

First, I have never read any scholar make this claim. Second, although there may be some similarities between how Sukkot is celebrated today, that in no way suggests that the entry didn't take place around Pesah. Moreover, the Macabees were holed up in the mountains and missed Sukkot (thus, they created Hannukah as a substitute, when they did return to Jerusalme). And who claimed that Judah Macabee was a messiah? Let's not delete it outright, but let's leave it here until we can find a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hyam Maccoby is one scholar who points out that "details of the entry, such as the Hosanna shout, the waving of palm fronds, and the proclamation of a king, are more consistent with the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkoth, than with Passover." Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another scholar who does so: [1] - other links can be provided if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Does he also suggest that Judas Macabee was greeted as a messiah? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

SLR, I think you're falling into a trap here of Christian construction. The dichotomy between "mashiach" and "hamashiach", not such a big deal in Hebrew, has come to us in English as "annointed" and "the Messiah". Yehuda haMakabi was annointed king, and was, therefore, hamashiach of his day. If the story about the woman who broke the alabaster box and annointed Jesus with its contents is true, then technically, he was annointed as well...whether or not that makes him king or not is really an unrelated matter...the thing is, it is accepted by Christians as Gospel truth that Jesus was annointed and that he's the Messiah (although what they think that means is a matter for further study). That said, I don't know where the idea comes from that waving the lulav and shouting hoshi`a-na is associated with the king entering Jlem riding an ass. Tomer^talk 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus's Secret Message link

Regarding the link Jesus's Secret Message which has been added by User:JoeMystical and removed by others several times today; does anyone else find this link a bit too tangential? There must be thousands of essays floating around about philosphical approaches to Jesus; it seems to be that this one is more about promoting Neo-tech than anything else. Jasmol 05:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I suggest that JoeMystical makes his case here for inclusion and we can get some kind of community consensus. KHM03 19:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The page begins with testimonials. Scrolling wayyyyy down, I still cannot find any clear statement about what I will find there - other than "something historical" about Jesus--JimWae 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking again, I "think" I have some idea about what the site is presenting - but it is not clearly stated - and the prose is hard to read because of syntax & visual presentation/format. I did not think it was worth spending any more time trying to figure out --JimWae 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've asked JoeMystical to make his case here for the inclusion of the link. KHM03 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like it, just delete it. No problem. I'll just put it back later when I get around to it. That's how Wikipedia works. If there's no consensus, things don't stay. JoeMystical 02:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to "Jesus, a historical reconstruction"

I spent seven years developing this website.

It is:

- not a spam

- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything

- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional

- presented only as A reconstruction

- fully researched and utterly documented

- the size of a small book

- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus

- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not

- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity

- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years

- without hate against anyone

- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides).

- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus

Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website selling stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several sites promote a religious faith or atheism (I do not). So I am very perplexed about the criteria used for rejection or acceptance.

---

Now here are excerpts from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)

"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."

"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."

"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."

"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."

"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."

"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"

"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."

"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."

"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."

"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."

"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."

"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."

"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."

"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."

"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"

"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."

"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."

"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."

"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."

"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."

"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."

Best regards, Bernard

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerb (talk • contribs)

It certainly looks like a thoroughly researched link. KHM03 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism (semi-locked)

As soon as we add this to the front page, it will be vandilized 900 times more than it is now. I think when it is MainPag'ed it should be LOCKED for editing. The Fox Man Of Fire 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is locked now by the media hyped semi-protection. If you REALLY have new stuff, post it here Tronicum 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part2)

The link has been deleted again, about the same time, by two anonymous editers, giving no reason whatsoever. I did put it back. On the positive side, I am glad that Andrantus, OwenX, Mr Adequate, KHM03, EI_C, Johann Wolfgang and possibly Izehar are favorable to it. Actually three of the aforementioned put the post back in.

I am new to wikipedia but not too alarmed (yet) of the treatment of the proposed link. Actually, I do believe, on any wikipedia page on controversial issues, like politics and religion, that any addition, deletion or change should be justified in writing, on the relevant talk page, by an accurate and comprehensive article, as long as it takes. That would avoid all this unnecessary activity on the main pages, at least slow it down and render it smarter. If not happy about an alteration, the re-editer should then present counter arguments and reason for further change. More, I propose each editer should make sure he/she can be reached by email.

Now I have to find how to sign off properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerb (talk • contribs)

---

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part3)

One posted website has "Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth". Go figure, this one is not deleted. That one and other posted religious sites are hardly about the historical Jesus, but use wikipedia to propagate their beliefs. Go figure, those are not deleted, but mine is. Maybe it is time to sort out what websites should remain posted on that page and not kick out automatically the last one to come. The later seems to be the major criteria for some deleters. (Mullerb 06:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Who wrote that? Cause it's Craaaap. --Herkman 21:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part4)

I suffered more deletions. Apparently, the rule is to have another person to post your website. Somebody else already did try to post my site (twice) but that was deleted regardless. That does not seem to work either. And I personally think it is a bad policy. This is why:

- Almost anybody can find someone else to do that. So what's the point?

- Religious organizations can find masses of faithfuls to do just that. So what's the point?

- Anyone can go to the library, an internet cafe, a friend's place, from work, and do that from another computer. So what's the point?

- Somebody with money to spare can hire somebody else to do that. So what's the point?

But when somebody, openly, under his own name, proudly proposes his valued and extensive website, oh no, you cannot do that! Instead, you have to sneak around like a low lifer and hope for the best.

By the way, I am not a celeb trying to draw publicity on me.

(Mullerb 06:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia! You may be a tad confused about WP:NOR. It's not that a random stranger, or an original author, or masses of faithful folks aren't allowed to edit... the problem is that *new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople, is generally considered to be not encylopedic. I've actually scanned over some of your stuff, and you might be interested in the works of various authors on the evolution of the gospels based on Q and sayings, and the historical arguments and revisionism suggested by those arguments.

In addition, we have a totally separate pair of articles about historical evidence both for, and against, Jesus. See Historicity_of_Jesus and Historical_Jesus. Those might be better places for links about scholarly arguments based on textual analysis. Ronabop 11:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Links are not subject to WP:NOR or to WP:NPOV --JPotter 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus is generally accepted etc

Could this please be sourced? Saying there is a "scholarly consensus" is not the same thing as sourcing it. "Generally" implies to me that there is general agreement on the life of Jesus. Given the paucity of extra-Gospel evidence for Jesus, I think this is a bit too much.

Remember that the policies of Wikipedia ask that we present views as views, not as facts. Whose view is it? The paragraph as currently given does not say. James James 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The intro should not be filled with details about sources - but anything in intro should be discussed in a section below - and there should be sources for things there. Alternatively, footnotes could be used --JimWae 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the list of scholars so early in the article is intrusive, breaks up the flow - not part of an introduction.

How about just most scholars with a footnote link? RossNixon 09:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Most scholars" would be better. Paul B 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Or "Some Scholars"...

No, most is better. Generally is fine too. May or some scholars is POV as it is generally accepted the Jesus was historical among scholars, even the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus-myth crowd is an extreme minority. --JPotter 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you using "scholars" to mean "Christian scholars" or "Biblical scholars"? One feels you must be.James James 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey...How do I sign with a time and date stamp? --Herkman Oops...Never mind...Newbie ya' know...--Herkman 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Are the scholarship agreement figures true for world-wide scholars or just English speakers? Are we assuming clergy and professors from Christian establishments as one should assume? Could the writers please qualify the statements? Djbell 22:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I believe it to be true, I am not sure how one could verify the claim "most scholars" (although the article could and should have a section on Crossan's "Jesus Seminar" or whatever he calls it, in which a large number of scholars vote - that's quantitative data). Be that as it may, I do believe that the list I edited in constitute the leading scholars in the English-speaking world, at least. I do not have the data, but one way one could verify this is by going to a citation index. The more frequently a scholar is cited (in academic journals or books), the more "leading" they are. Another way one could measure this - but I don't know if the data exists - is a survey of books and articles assigned in University courses. It is possible - I do not know - that if there is a professional association of Bible critics and historians, their newsletter might on occasion do a survey along these lines. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

These scholars that you are talking about seem to be what you might call "Biblical scholars". Frankly, they can hardly be considered to be "general" in this context, can they? What I'm concerned about is that we do not a/ state as a fact that Jesus lived and b/ suggest that the view that he did, although it is very commonly held, is "general", which implies to me a view that is not shared only by cranks or fringists (a comparable view would be that the world is round or that the world consists of a hundred or so elements and not just four). I'm content with Slrubenstein's attributing the view to sources, which is the prescribed method for Wikipedia. We do not state our views; we report those others have stated. That works for me.James James 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But the Jesus-Myth view is such a tiny minority, and serious Biblical scholars / Jesus scholars reject it outright, so that only a very few people affirm it. Mainstream scholarship does consider it fringe. Nothing wrong with maintaining the normative view of scholars. Every article needs some norm; the "Earth" article shouldn't pander to the "world is flat' crowd, when mainstream science affirms a "round" Earth. This doesn't mean we denigrate the fringe views on WP; there are articles about the Flat Earth theory as well as the Jesus-Myth theory. Yes, mainstream scholars denounce or ignore these fringe views, but we still have articles on them (which is fine). By the same token, we need to recognize their fringe status and proceed from an honest position. KHM03 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical scholars, such as the mentioned Jesus Seminar, using historical tools find sufficient evidence for an historical Jesus. These are some of the most (theologically) liberal biblical scholars and discount miracles and the divinity of Jesus, yet find sufficient evidence using redactionay criticism of the New Testament for an historical Jesus. The fact that a body of the most liberal scholars say that Jesus was historical puts the Jesus-myth crowd, Earl Doherty et al in the minority. --JPotter 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus-Myth view is a tiny minority but they are very vocal and quasi fanatic. They can argue anything, including vastly different theories of their own. And they can also introduce links to their personal website, but I can't do it for mine (SOB). Talking of Doherty, here is a critique I did on his book: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html (Mullerb 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Here's an indication of the relative size of the Jesus myth scholarship [2] --JPotter 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what James James means by "These scholars that you are talking about seem to be what you might call "Biblical scholars". Frankly, they can hardly be considered to be "general" in this context, can they?" What is a "general scholar?" Mr. Wizard? Bill Nye, Science Guy? When we make a claim about what scholars generally accept, we should be referring to people who have advanced training in the historical and literary analysis of biblical sources. Not geology, not astronomy, not biology. Who cares what someone with a PhD. in "general science" thinks? The experts are the people who got a PhD. in, and have published in peer-reviewed journals dedicated to, the historical and/or literary analysis of the Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we take a look at the "general public" the cross section would reveal a massive number who believe in the historical existence of a man named something close to Jesus (probably yeshua or some such in the original hebrew), who had diciplines, ran around preaching, and was (apparently, according to canonical Ilsmaic belief) crucified. A couple hundred years later, a significant religion was around.

If we take a look at the cross section of historians, and the specific field of biblical scholars and other relevant experts, we will find that the vast majority of scholars, especially respected ones, believe the existence of a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who was a preacher and likley seen as a prophet or sorceror, later as the Son of God (a term used to describe prophethood and a special relationship) and then later the Son of God, divine himself, child of the virgin mary begotten by God the Father, to be historically factual.

I would then further suggest that by examining these two observations, and recalling that scholars generally respect other scholars, that its perfectly fair to use Generally, Majority, and Vast majority.--Tznkai 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not being biased towards Western scholars and historians? There are a lot of scholars in Asia (China, Japan, India etc). (Heck I even wonder about Russian and other Eastern European scholars) Their opinions matter just as much as scholars in the Western world. Just because scholars in the Western world generally believe something, does not mean scholars elsewhere may believe the same thing. I'm not saying that scholars in Asia, don't believe that Jesus Christ existed. I have no idea although I suspect many of them haven't really considered the matter in that much depth. Some people think because this is an English encylopedia, we should restrict ourselves to the English speaking world. I disagree. For starters that means you should also reject scholars from the Middle East (including Israel) and scholars from much of Europe, such as France, Germany, Italy and even the Vatican and also Latin America. BTW this is quite a different issue from many science issues. Although there are some areas where the tends to be differences in the general thoughts in Asia and the Western world, in most core areas I don't think there is that much disagreement. Few scientists would suggest the world is flat (this was never really a strong theory in Asia anyway), nor would they reject evolution, etc etc where they come from. I think we can all agree with that. But the question for scholars and historians in general is quite a different issue. Without some evidence to support your claim including in most of Asia etc, I would disagree with your suggestion. The vast majority of biblical scholars would probably be acceptable however. BTW, even when it comes to the general population, the same still applies. There are 1.6? billion Muslims and 2? billion Christians. The vast majority of them would believe in Jesus Christ. However there is also about 1 billion each from India and China many of whom are not Christians or Muslims so whether they 'believe' in Jesus Christ or not is not very clear to meNil Einne 13:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't expect a Hindu or a Buddhist (for example) to affirm the divine nature of Christ, which Christians affirm. But his existence is another matter. I have a feeling that the historicity of Jesus isn't exactly a hot issue in Asia; it isn't in the West, either, which is kind of the point. Scholars who are considered experts agree that he existed...they disagree as to his nature, the historicity of miracles and his Resurrection, etc. So, if any user finds significant Asian scholarship which denies the existence of Jesus, let's deal with it (most appropriately at the historicity article), but until then, we'd just be guessing. Merry Christmas...KHM03 13:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether someone is Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist or deist. Nor is the issue whether someone is from the US, Germany, India, China, or Indonesia. When I need surgery for a detached tendon, I do not care whether the surgeon is Jewish or Muslim, Chinese or Austrian. I care that they are good surgeons. Similarly, when I take a University course and study Shakespeare or Confucious, I do not care what the religion or nationality of the professor is: I care that they have a firm grasp of the scholarly literature and have demonstrated that they can contribute to that literature, on the topic. The same goes for a Bible scholar. I have read critical studies of Biblical books written by people I know to be Jewish AND Christian, and the methods of their scholarship is pretty much the same. And not because they were born in "the West." I have no doubt that a Japanese or Kenyan can apply the same methods, and apply them proficiently and artfully. Race, religion, and nationality do not enter into this. Are the people critical scholars or not? have they published books with University presses, or have the published in peer-review journals? Has their work been cited in scholarly books and articles? Are their works assigned in University courses? These to me are the basic criteria of "scholar" and I KNOW that there are people of many different races, religions, and nationalities who fill these criteria. If we have not cited a Thai scholar or an Angolan scholar, it is only because none of us working on the article know of such scholarship. Or it could be that no one from Thailand or Angola has gotten a PhD. and has written in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. So let's just stick to the point: Nil Einne, which Indian or Russian or Chinese scholars should we cite? By the way, I do think that there is a reasonable claim that for the sake of verifiability we should feature people whose work has been published in english - in english Wikipedia. Still, if you can tell us which Chinese, Indian, or Japanses scholars you are referring to? Where did they get their degrees? Where do they teach? Where have they published? Is their work cited in other peer-reviewed journals? These aren't rhetorical questions. if you are going to argue there is another scholar we should refer to, give us relevant information about him or her. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part5)

My link is off for good mostly because of two editers:

- The first one, who cannot be accessed, because, I quote: "If every personal page about Jesus were included, this would be a link farm.". But the links, on the 'Historical ans skeptical views' side, point to mostly personal websites. They are: "The Jewish Roman World of Jesus", "Historical context of Jesus' time", "Jewish sects during Jesus' time", "Christ and the Other Religions", "The Jesus Puzzle", "Skeptic's Guide to Jesus". No wonder so many personal pages appear here, because the author of critical study on the matter usually does not benefit of an umbrella organization, such as, for the other side, Christian organizations, churches, denominations or sects. Therefore, that rule, if applied, would quasi-eliminates the skeptical side of things. Going back to my deleter, it seems he/she therefore follows this: it's OK to have links to personal pages, as long as they are posted early. If done later, too bad! No way, you are too late.

- The second one refers to a wikipedia's rule stating the author of a website cannot himself post it (but somebody else can do it!). I demonstrated already how easy it is to circumvent that policy (see part4). Actually, that rule makes wikipedia rather naive.

PS: recently, a new website has been linked "Jesus Christ at WikiChristian". No problem here, no deletion. More, the site is preliminary, very incomplete. Who cares?

OOPS, I blinked and did not pick up still another entry in the link section (the left side) "Jesus in the Jewish Tradition", a personal website, pointing at 'Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.'. No deletion so far.

(Mullerb 22:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part6)

I want to address this comments:

"Hi, and welcome to wikipedia! You may be a tad confused about WP:NOR. It's not that a random stranger, or an original author, or masses of faithful folks aren't allowed to edit... the problem is that *new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople, is generally considered to be not encyclopedic."

Most links on the right side ("Historical and skeptical views") point to websites which can be argued to have "*new* research on a subject, which hasn't been looked over by many other scholars, experts, and laypeople". Therefore, I do not see why my site should be deleted, while others are in. Also, my site is more popular on Google or Yahoo! than most of the posted others. I also got rave reviews from readers, including scholars. And most sites on the left side cannot be considered encyclopedic either. They are only statement of faith from a denomination or sect.

"I've actually scanned over some of your stuff, and you might be interested in the works of various authors on the evolution of the gospels based on Q and sayings, and the historical arguments and revisionism suggested by those arguments."

I have been interested, and read a lot about it already, on the making of the gospels, "Q", parables, sayings, etc. I commented on that all over my website, and I have special pages dealing with gospel making & dating, "Q", parables, etc.

"In addition, we have a totally separate pair of articles about historical evidence both for, and against, Jesus. See Historicity_of_Jesus and Historical_Jesus. Those might be better places for links about scholarly arguments based on textual analysis."

OK, the first page has links to websites, but my site is not squarely about answering historicity by yes or no. It definitively deals with it, all along, and leads to firm conclusions. But it is a lot more about what kind of historicity we are talking about. You must know by now, by scanning my pages, I stand for a "historical Jesus", with that Jesus not really historic and certainly a huge lot less as described in the gospels. In conclusion, that page does not seem to be right for a posting of my website. The other mentioned "Historical_Jesus" would be appropriate, but has not a link section.

(Mullerb 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Jesus, a historical reconstruction (part7)

First, I want to thank KHM03, OwenX and Johann Wolfgang for their help and appreciation for my work. However, my anonymous opponent, 64.12.116.70, twice within 24 hours, again took off the posting without explanation. I looked into his files and learned a) His main interest on wikipedia is SpongeBob b) He has been accused many times of vandalism, including into the Jesus page (through outrageous insertions: see the evidence for yourself) c) He has been threatened repeatedly to be blocked.

I sent him a message: "To anonymous, Stop taking off the link to my website. Your position cannot be defended, because you allow the posting of new websites and you do not delete the existing ones, except mine. Why mine, and mine only? Explain yourself and be specific."

I looked at the websites which are posted in the link section and I noticed: some of them offer openly things or/and books for sell (I do not know yet about wikipedia policy, but I was accused once to be "commercial"). Many are obviously faith driven, some are not from religious organizations or collectivities, and therefore personal (but so what if they are relevant & of decent quality!). But right now, the section looks like a link farm (and growing), and could use some work. I'll come back to that.

I want to float two ideas here: EITHER we remove the whole link section, which looks certainly not encyclopedic (mainly because of the nature of the topic). There are other pages where the sites can be posted: historical_Jesus, Jesus-Myth, historicity_of_Jesus, etc. Also, it looks that each faith denominations have their own sites (i.e.), such as mormon(ism). OR we organize the postings we have per categories, such as "Christian views", "other religious views", "scholarly views", "skeptical views" and "mythicist views", with a short (10-15 words or less) of presentation for each website. There are many examples of structured link section in wikipedia. But, as I just remember, there is a space problem for the Jesus page!

(Mullerb 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

It would probably be better to just have good quality links for the general subject on this page, pruned to standards of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. I'll go do some pruning. Ronabop 05:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Paragraph Summary of agreed points

I apologize in advance for bringing up what likely has been discussed at length. Being new to this article, I was not a part of that discussion and do not even know where to look in the archives for it.

This paragraph expresses the consensus of both critical and conservative scholars on the life of Jesus. Is there any reason why we can't take the list of scholars into a footnote and add others such as Paul L. Maier, D. A. Carson and other more conservative historians to the list? Since I work in a theological library, I could even look in the works of each of these and provide exact citations for them (after the first of the year, of course) that establishes this. --CTSWyneken 11:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No apologies needed. Read over our relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Cite sources which explains important criteria and lays out the options (I assume most will be familiar to you, but go over it just to be sure) and then do wha you think is best, complying in a reasonable way with that guideline. Also, you are welcome to add more views, both conservative and radical, religious and critical, and so on, just make sure you comply with Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: No original research. From what you wrote, I do not have any reasont o think you would violate those policies - but if you are new here it is worth reading them carefully; it might help you avoid conflicts in the future (and might help you feel more confident about parts of articles you think need to be changed). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, of course I'll follow or exceed the rules. --CTSWyneken 15:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Disciples tortured by Romans for believing in Resurrection?

The following has repeatedly been added to the article:

The disciples, despite extreme torture and gruesome deaths at the hands of Romans, did not relent, even unto death, their claim that Christ was indeed resurrected and who he claimed to be.

Aside from stylistic & continuity problems, is there any evidence that Romans tortured and killed disciples who claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus - and for no other reason than their belief in Jesus' resurrection? My research indicates the Romans considered the disciples still to be Jews (as did many disciples themselves) until Jewish leaders proposed someone else as the possible Messiah, and after several Jewish-Roman wars.

Usage of "Christ" is definitely POV in this paragraph.--JimWae 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you don't like "Christ," then change it to "Jesus" instead of deleting the entire thing.Drewlarson 08:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Jim requested ONE source. The book "Evidence for the Resurrection," by the Josh McDowell Ministry, is written entirely on the subject. This page, http://www.riverpower.org/resurrection.htm, has a specific summary of the book which directly relates to the above quote. Drewlarson 08:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We are not asking for evidence of the Resurrection - but rather HISTORICAL evidence (not just non-historians repeating a legend) that the apostles (or any others who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus) were (1) killed (2)killed for their belief in the Resurrection, and (3) killed for that alone - for those are 3 assertions your insertion makes --JimWae 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • HISTORICAL evidence eh? There's just no appeasing you is there, Jimmy? And just what would you consider historical evidence? Perhaps you would like 1) the video of the courtroom where the judge passed the sentence on the disciples, 2) the eye-witness testimony of someone who was there when it happened, or 3) a time machine to go back and check the facts. Until then, I think we should just go with diminishing the statement with the following: "MANY HISTORIANS state that the disciples, despite extreme torture and gruesome deaths at the hands of Romans, did not relent, even unto death, their claim that JESUS was indeed resurrected and who he claimed to be. However, despite the expertise, Jimbo remains unconvinced."Drewlarson 07:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The most your reference says, which is far from what you wrote, and is mostly legend anyway if it is meant to refer to any "witnesses" to a risen Jesus, is

    In fact, they were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to lions, tortured, and crucified for their preaching.

I think "evidence" for the claims from the aforementioned paragraph is not to be found, that is for most of those disciples. Eusebius, in History of the Church, Bk2,26 & Bk3,1,5, accounted only for two executions among the twelve, the one of Peter & James (John's brother). Nowhere (including 'Acts') it is specified that was because of their belief of the resurrection or about what Jesus had claimed to be. For the others (minus Judas, of course), Eusebius claimed they dispersed outside of Judea in the 60's and preached "in every land". Nothing about persecution, for whatever reasons.

Furthermore the page is about Jesus, not about how & why his disciples died. In other words, it is out of context.

• The statement is made as a supporting argument to the Jesus' resurrection. Therefore, it is clearly not out of context, especially in a section specifically discussing the resurrection. Drewlarson 08:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[large section removed by the author (Mullerb), because its material is re-used under the proper title "After his death numerous followers spread his teachings" (see below) (Mullerb 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

(Mullerb 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

Christ Birth - new data

If you take a look at the link to King Herod's death, there is new data that pinpoints the exact year and possibly the exact day of Christ's Birth. cheers, parkfoto/dan onischuk --Parkfoto 20:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

image

I really liked the Greek image of a living Jesus at the top of the article. Now we have an image of a dead crucified one. I say show a depiction of Jesus the teacher at the top of the page, not of Jesus the dead meat (which could grace the top of Crucifixion. Just my opinion, of course, no offence. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I share your view. Arguably, the crucified Jesus is a POV image. Could we have the living one back? James James 02:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"After his death numerous followers spread his teachings"

Is it exact and proven?

a) What was preached, Christian beliefs or Jesus' teachings?

b) Who propagated whatever in the first decades following Jesus' death?

Answering point a), and assuming their authenticity for argument sake, the Petrine and Johannine epistles are not about the teaching of Jesus, according to the gospels (sayings, parables, etc.). There are no "Jesus said that, and that ..." And Paul, the most successful apostle then, was preaching a gospel he said getting mostly from Above (the heavenly Jesus, God and the Spirit), plus some "deductions" from the OT, and his very own thinking (and very little from what could be directly from Jesus' teachings). 'Acts' worded out some of the (alleged) preaching of Peter and the ones of Stephen & Paul (both non-eyewitness). But it is not about Jesus' teachings. The same for James' epistle and Jude's.

Answering point b), Stephen, Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, (ref: 'Acts', 1-2Cor) were not followers of the earthly Jesus. According to 'Acts', the followers settled in Jerusalem and stayed here up to the alleged dispersion (in the 60's according to Eusebius), too late to be pioneers. Among them, only Peter is described to do any preaching outside Jerusalem, in Samaria and Judea (but after Philip, member of the seven). As known through Paul's epistle (ref: Gal), Peter also went to Antioch (but well after Christianity was founded here) and, very likely, to Corinth (but after Paul) (ref: 1Cor1-3).

Antioch, early on (40's), became a centre from where Christian missionaries were sent out, but 'Acts' tells us the Church here was led by teachers and prophets, who are named, and none of them are Jesus' followers (Ac11:19-28,13:1-3).

The only canonical text to mention a preaching of the disciples all over, and right after the crucifixion, is Mark16:20. But Mark 16:9-20 (when the resurrected Jesus allegedly says "they [believers] will pick up snakes in their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all") is likely a later interpolation (and conflicting with 'Acts', where the followers do not go farther than Jerusalem):

A) Answering Marinus, Eusebius (around 310) wrote: "The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies."

B) "the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" "[Mk16:9-20 verses] are absent from important early manuscripts [such as Vaticanus and Sinaticus] and display certain particularities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His gospel probably ended at 16:8 ..."(The NIV Study Bible)

C) "It [Mk16:9-20] is in a different style, and is little more than a summary of the appearances of the risen Christ, all of which could be derived from other NT writings. One MS gives indeed a shorter ending after v. 8: 'they reported briefly to Peter's companions what they have been told. Then Jesus himself through their agency broadcast from east to west the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation.' Four MSS give the shorter ending and add the longer to it. One MS has the longer ending with the following insertion between vv. 14 and 15: ..." (The New Jerusalem Bible)

---

So I would replace "After his death numerous followers spread his teachings, and within a few decades Christianity emerged as a religion distinct from Judaism." by "After his death apostles propagated their testimonies, and within a few decades Christianity emerged as a religion distinct from Judaism."

I think the change is neutral and more encompassing. It does not deny some of Jesus' message was preached by his own disciples. However, it takes in account the preaching of others, such as Paul, the author of 'Hebrews', etc., which had little to do with Jesus' teachings, as drawn from the gospels. Furthermore, the 'Jesus' being preached then was not necessarily the same (also "spirit" & "gospel"!), according to Paul, 2Cor11:4-6a NKJV "For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it! For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. Even though I [Paul] am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge."

And Paul denounced false apostles in the same epistle (2Cor11:13-15), obviously preaching things Paul rejected.

Therefore "apostles", as a word covering the like of Peter and Paul, is justified. "Testimonies" is also a good compromise, because the teachings were not the same and the inspiration was different: for some, possibly as recalled from the earthly Jesus, for others allegedly from visions, revelations, God, Heavenly Christ, the Spirit, the Scriptures, etc.:

"I [Paul] proclaimed to you the testimony about God" (1Cor2:1b NIV)

"we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden ..." (1Cor2:7)

"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit" (1Cor2:10a NIV)

"... we speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual [things] by spiritual [means]." (1Cor2:13 Darby)

"... I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it." (1Cor3:10)

"I did not receive it [Paul's gospel] from any man [Paul had met Peter & other eyewitnesses], nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal1:11-12)

Therefore the plural for 'testimonies' is justified. I would abstain from "numerous" too, because one dozen active apostles (or less) at any given time, would be enough to spread beliefs, from Jerusalem to Rome.

(Mullerb 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Luke at least mentions 70 followers, or "apostles" whom Jesus sent out to preach during his ministry. Many if not all are alluded to later in the New Testament; Church tradition has these 70 also spreading Jesus' teaching after his death. Acts 2 mentions around 100 people waiting in the upper room when the Holy Spirit came. "Numerous" is not too much of a stretch at all. Other places in the gospels mention people that Jesus told to spread his teachings such as the demoniac in the region of the Gadarenes that he healed, and the Samaritan woman from John 4 who spread the word on her own initiative. Also, why do you make this distinction between the 'earthly' and 'heavenly' Jesus and apply it to the NT as though they were different persons, when the NT makes no such distinction? Wesley 06:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if the 70 were true (suspect because only mentioned in Luke's gospel), there is no evidence they were active after Jesus' death. You are suggesting there is some: please specify. The 120 from Ac2 are not said to go preaching abroad. The Samaritan woman (only in GJohn) and the demoniac are only 2 persons. They allegedly testified about what happened during their brief encounter with Jesus and not very far (a Samaritan town and the Decapolis). That's hardly apostolic work.

As for 'earthly' and 'heavenly' Jesus, the majority of people on this earth makes a distinction. Many accept a certain rural Galilean Jew (Jesus of Nazareth) crucified under Pilate, but a majority does not see him as "heavenly" Son of God.

(Mullerb 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC))