Talk:Jesus/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Islamic view of Jesus in the introduction

I find it strange that the islamic view regarding Jesus is presented in the introduction of this article. There's a section in the article that adequately deals with views of Jesus from the viewpoint of non christian religions. Don't you think it makes more sense to present that information down there? Schicchi (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The introduction introduces the whole article, which is an NPOV article about Jesus. No one questions the importance of Jesus in Christianity, but according to Islam he was an important prophet, and according to many historians he was a man whose life reflected many historical circumstances ... this article should not privilege any one point of view but acknowledge all notable views, in the body but in the introduction as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi SLRubenstein, Why revert without discussing? I am trying to make changes that I believe make the article better, I'm not trying to introduce a POV. Please refrain from reverting without discussing changes first. I understand that the paragraph was decided b consensus, but its last sentence just doesn't make any sense at all. Also, I believe that Christian View should be presented before historical references as Christ is more important as a religious figure. Schicchi (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you have inserted your changes with no consensus. I cannot understand how you claim to not be trying to start an edit war, but you are reverting and editing without consensus multiple times (if that isn't edit warring, then I don't know what is). According to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (which isn't policy, but is a good guide) it is totally fine to make bold edits. HOWEVER, if you look at the flow chart, no where in it does it say it is OK to put the disputed, controversial content back into the article without consensus. The Cycle specifically says "Do not revert a revert" which you have done twice now. When editing a top tier article (and especially the lead) you have to understand that just about every word of the lead has gone through a fine tooth comb (just look at the size of our archives). The lead has been the productive of the community working together, and it simply cannot be changed by one editor without the support of the community. So please, STOP REVERTING, and build a consensus for your proposal. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, the following sentence : "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]" Does not make any sense as it stands and should not be part of an article in Wikipedia. Is there a way to make it into something more reasonable? I read the discussion and I can't believe this is what the entire argument boiled down to. I will not edit again if you're willing to discuss changing it, but it just sticks out like a sore thumb! Schicchi (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, sadly from my stand point you are the one that has been reverting my edits. Seems like the only way to get your attention is to make those edits. Schicchi (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a single revert of your bold changes, and came to talk to discuss those edits (totally in accordance with the BOLD, REVERT cycle). You, on the other hand, have made 3 reverts to attempt to force your way. I find it really had to try to communicate in good faith with someone on the talk page while they are spitting on consensus and trying to force their way though edit warring. If you say the previous wording doesn't make sense, let's discuss how to change it. I said that your proposed wording doesn't make sense either (and if you note above Jstanierm seems to agree with me that the long standing wording makes more sense). I'm open for compromise. I don't like how the discussion has been splintered between this topic and the topic right above, so let's try to keep the conversation in one place (I suggest the topic above because more people have commented there).-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi IFeito, while I can understand you may be attempting to change this article in a positive way, you're acting unilaterally and without consensus. Wikipedia does need contributors eager to positively enhance pages, and you should perhaps look to other less contentious articles. This article is the way it is after many long discussions and debates. Further changes will also undoubtedly require equally long debates. This is an article where it is not okay to simply come and fire and forget. Jstanierm (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you once before, and I will ask you again now. Why does the sentence "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]" make no sense? If you do not explain then I will be forced to assume you are a troll. Jstanierm (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was Not a Jew is the Islamic View

(Because of troll-ish nature of this topic, a majority of the discussion has been removed.)

If user 72.186.213.96 sincerely wishes to improve the article and is not simply trolling (as his lack of user name and dogged persistence might suggest) then I highly encourage him to take advantage of Wikipedia's unique feature which allows anyone to edit it. Until he does so I don't see any need to fan the flames of this thread. The points have been made. Unless he digs up a proper source for his views they will not be included. No amount of argumentation here will change that.Jstanierm (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has shown a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's rules and is clearly interested only in debate. It would be beneficial if someone attempted to ban him as a quick perusal of his user talk page will show he certainly is on that path.Jstanierm (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. He'll be back in 2 weeks. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus not a prophet according to Mormonism

Well the article didn't let me edit it so I thought I would throw this somewhere else. Mormons do not consider Jesus Christ as a prophet, but as a Messiah and a Savior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmackey2 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Request For Genealogy Section

The genealogy recorded by Matthew differs from the one recorded by Luke. The article claims they contradict one another, but many modern Christians and Church leaders claim this is not the case.

First of all, Matthew, a Jew, wrote to a Jewish audience, presenting Jesus as their promised Messiah – their king from the lineage of David who would sit on the throne of David and rule His kingdom forever. In fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, he often referred to Jesus as the Son of David.

On the other hand, Luke, a Gentile believer, wrote to everyone else about the Christ, the Son of Adam and the Son of God, because of his beliefe that God’s plan included the entire human race.

Here are some other comparisons between the genealogies of the two Gospel writers:

• Matthew began his genealogy with Abraham and traced it forward, ending it with Joseph. Luke, instead, launched his account with more recent historical events tracing his account backward from the Son of Joseph to the Son of Adam.
• Matthew wrote of the royal ancestors of Mary, beginning with kings David and Solomon, while Luke recorded the ancestry of Joseph from Nathan, as the Son of David.
• While Matthew wrote the first chapter to bridge between the Old and New Testaments, presenting Jesus as King; Luke began with the ministry of Jesus, revealing His right and legitimacy to serve as the Son of God and High Priest.

Both genealogists provide the reader with historical data from different perspectives. Both traced the bloodline of Jesus to the tribe of Judah and to the lineage of David. However, the most convincing proof that both genealogies were accurate was the silence of the Jewish leaders of the day who did not oppose them.

I refer to a CrossRoads.ca article which details this in greater length.

ESF 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The way we have this article organized is that we discuss what the source material says, then we have sections for various interpretations of the source material. What I think you are proposing is to insert a Christian interpretation outside of the Christian perspectives section. What also struck me as a bit odd is that I've heard the argument before the Luke's genealogy is actually Mary's, but I've never heard Mary attributed to Matthew's (and this just illustrates that if we are going to add interpreations, we'll need to include ALL POV. The best place for that is the Genealogy of Jesus article, not here). So I believe the current wording is fine, or at least we shouldn't use space in this article to go into more detail than necessary. (also, you don't have to use HTML code when typing in wikipedia edit windows, there is quite a bit of auto formatting, and we have wikicode to simplify HTML tags).-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

The claim "Biblical scholars and classical historians generally accept the historical existence of Jesus, with claims against existence regarded as "effectively refuted" ", is not true. The qoute by Robert E. Van Voorst :"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." is used in support of this false claim.

This is obviously nothing but an opinion of one scholar, which is not supported by existing status quo.

To prove that this claim is false (which was questioned by user Akhilleus) I provide short list of scholars who claim that the historicity of Jesus figure is doubtful at the very least.

Robert M. Price - Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies.

John Shelby Spong - retired Bishop - rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Spong, 1994).

Earl Doherty - Ancient History and Classical Languages

Pierre Briant, "Alexander the Great: Man of Action Man of Spirit," Harry N. Abrams, 1996

R. Helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991.

Stephen Jay Gould - "Dinosaur in a Haystack," , Harmony Books, New York, 1995

NOTE: I am not making any claims about historicity of Jesus figure, just trying to prove that claims of Robert E. Van Voorst about Bible scholars and Historians are false.

Yanco (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussions at Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis. Most of the figures you've listed aren't biblical scholars. Price is one, I suppose, but he's in a distinct minority. Doherty doesn't hold an academic position, and as far as I know doesn't have an advanced degree. Stephen Jay Gould is not a scholar in the relevant disciplines. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose these same individuals also reject the historicity of other ancient figures such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammad, Pontius Pilate, Mary Magdalene, Paul the Apostle, etc. LotR (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's far more evidence for a historical Jesus than there is for a historical Homer, so he was probably a bad example. You have to distinguish between doubt and reasonable doubt, also. One can deny the existence of any historical figure, but some denials would be really unreasonable given the quantity and quality of sources. There are very few biblical scholars who outright deny the possibility of a historical Jesus. So few, in fact, I'm genuinely curious if you can find a single scholar who does so. Granted you will find many views that take a middle ground in their attempt to find a historical Jesus. They strip away layers from the 'myth' to find the 'truth', but in these actions there is an assumption that there is a person to be found beneath the 'myth'. Similarly, allowing the possibility of the non-existence of a historical Jesus is not the same as taking a stand for the non-existence of a historical Jesus. Jstanierm (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jstanierm, I believe Yanco has provided you with a list of scholars who believe there is reasonable doubt to question the historical existance of Jesus. I don't think that any conclusions should be presented here as the sentence in question tries to do. I believe both sides should be presented as is Wikipedia's policy with issues like this one. Schicchi (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the request was for a biblical scholar (in the above list, it was stated, there is only one) who "outright denies the possibility of a historical Jesus". I know nothing about Price, but I believe Jstanierm may know what he's asking for and why. Your reference to Yanco's list seemed to misapply Jstanierm's statement, so I thought it was worth noting. Additionally, I believe that the case here with your own belief on the presentation creates a WP:UNDUE problem. If the great majority of biblical scholars accept the historicity of Jesus to some extent, it is against policy to provide a weighty amount of evidence for the extreme minority theory, i.e. to misrepresent the issue by providing a substantial amount of evidence for the "myth" theories, when only 1-2 biblical scholars are shown to adhere to this view (and strongly at that).--C.Logan (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan, you are correct in your observation regarding Jstanierm requesting a Biblical Scholar, and I believe Price to be, perhaps, the only one. However I believe you'll find that few of the scholars who don't believe in an historical Jesus call themselves "Biblical"! Regarding the Undue weight argument, placing the Jesus Myth theory together with the Flat Earthers is certainly exaggerated. There have been extensive and serious arguments and studies presented to support this possibility and I don't believe it should be excluded from this section of the article. Schicchi (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I feel that the Jesus Myth Theory has had its heyday. Obviously, most people were once "Flat Earthers" as well, but we shouldn't necessarily cover their arguments extensively on the Earth page in the present (as that violates WP:UNDUE; the arguments of these individuals can be found on the relevant sub-page). The Myth Theory was very popular for a time, and some reasonably good arguments were put forward, but again, it has lost support by serious scholarship over time. This doesn't make it necessarily "untrue", but it does require us to mind policy on the issue, lest we be stacking on information for our own supported views. Again, I never made the comparison to "Flat Earthers" in the first place, but I think that it's actually a good point of comparison. Once, this belief may have been the majority, but now it has become a tiny minority. As such, I feel that the current coverage of the points and beliefs concerning this theory are sufficient.

As it stands, Biblical scholars don't seem to support the theory. We should be very particular about the nature of scholarship. I can call myself a theologian, but my opinion is not weighty unless that is my actual, certified area of expertise- likewise with the presented scholars; in all honesty, they could know more than the actual scholars, but their lack of real instruction and expertise in the field invalidates their opinion on this particular topic.

It seems true for the cause of conflicting interest that people who don't believe in a historical Jesus wouldn't appear to have good cause to be "Biblical" scholars, but this isn't actually the case- many Biblical scholars (if not most) deviate from orthodox positions at least some of the time. Individuals like those in the Jesus seminar eliminate the vast majority of the Biblical sayings of Jesus, but they still find an historic core (or endeavor to find one). Therefore, it's important to note that one can be a Biblical scholar and not support the claims made by the Bible itself in their entirety. Being that this is the case, we should stick to the individuals who are actual experts in the field.

The expertise of some of the scholars above is at least arguable, but one has to compare relevance; a cnidariologist's statement is much more weighty than the statement of a general biologist when we're discussing jellyfish, in terms of referencing. Likewise, a Biblical scholar's own theories or the support of particular theories is of great relevance, whereas an ancient historian's theory is semi-relevant, but much less weighty, as they are speaking a bit too far beyond their range of study. As Biblical scholars devote their entire career to studying the scriptures, the figures within them, and the historical and cultural elements in relation to these scriptures, it is of much greater relevance (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to the topic when the supported theories of these individuals are expressed because of their expertise in the field. This doesn't make a Biblical scholar more correct on the matter, but for the sake of reference, and keeping an informative and encyclopedic tone, we should hold to the experts, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did mean a biblical scholar. I won't respond further as there is not much more I can add that C. Logan hasn't already addressed.Jstanierm (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe my last edit on this probably reflects this discussion better. I mentioned that all biblical scholars and most historians consider him historical. Is that more precise? Schicchi (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Certain/Most Distinction

Do most ancient texts mention Jesus? Trivially, no. This tells us nothing unless we expect most authors in the world at the time to have known of and thought Jesus to be important and worthy of mentioning in texts despite their relevance. We don't expect to find Jesus in a majority (which is what 'most' means) of texts. This is patently absurd. Why should we find Jesus mentioned in a text on selling slaves or a legal text or the majority of other unrelated texts? The qualifying word must be 'certain' and not 'most' for this reason.Jstanierm (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most is more accurate since we're discussing one author's point of view and that's what Durand's arguments state. Schicchi (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenyon

I'm not sure that this addition to the Sources on Jesus' life section is accurately representing the quotation from Frederic Kenyon. It introduces the quotation by referring to people who "point out that ... the Gospels were written a short time after the events" and infer historical reliability from that, but then quotes Kenyon as saying that "the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence" are close and that therefore "the Sciptures have come down to us substantially as they were written". I haven't read the original work (the article also seems to be quoting it at second hand), but it seems clear to me that Kenyon is talking about textual criticism, and not historical reliability. EALacey (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you raise a subtle, but valid, point here. The point of introducing this particular quote was to provide pithy text supporting the views of scholars and historians that the New Testament canon is historically reliable (countering the rather lengthy section below it that presents the views of critics). He does seem to be speaking to textual criticism, as you say, this being one of the tools of the historical method, but he is not speaking to internal criticism of the NT itself. I am open to suggestions for improvement. LotR (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Life/Death/Rebirth

I think some sort of link ought to be included, because there does seem to be a recurrent theme of such deities throughout human history/mythology, and Jesus certainly belongs in this category. I believe it would be a disservice to the reader if this connection were not noted in the article somehow. The current form which uses the word 'deity' seems to work. Jstanierm 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LotR appears to have a problem with "Life-death-rebirth gods", and I can understand on a personal level. His change to "Life-death-rebirth Deity" has no category article, as well it should not (why would you need a category for a singular concept?). I've changed Deity to "deities", which does lead to a category, and sounds a little better to me as well (although it's essentially the same thing...). I suppose it remains to be seen if LotR's issue is with the term "gods" specifically or with the plurality of the categorization (in which case there wouldn't appear to be a solution that would placate that user's distaste).--C.Logan 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The current version is acceptable -- thanks. I did realize that my last edit (an attempt to compromise) created a dead link, but I was hoping someone would do something like this to fix it. Please note, however, that my objection is not a matter of personal taste -- there is difficulty with categorizing Jesus as a "god" because this is also a term for polytheistic deities. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia page discussing the subject is also titled Life-death-rebirth deities. LotR 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Jesus exist? ORLY?

Jesus' existence is no longer taken as fact. We need to update this article so it's known that he maybe existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.168.218 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Italic text

Incredibly few scholars believe that Jesus did not or might not exist. The overwhelmingly vast historical evidence and scholarly commentary is that he did, in fact, exist. And not only did he exist, but also he was foundational to the founding of Christianity. Lwnf360 10:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But Jesus didn't found the Christian religion. His words were put in the bible, together with the doctrines in the Councils of Nicaea. Other people founded Christianity, in their own view.Iulian28ti (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The teachings and traditions which Christ taught to the Apostles certainly play an enormous hand in the development of Christianity. Holy Tradition, which ultimately derives from the words, deeds and commandments of Christ transmitted through the Apostles, is the foundational element for nearly 1.4-1.7 billion Christians worldwide (and perhaps much more than that). Additionally, I'm fairly certain that Jesus acts as the focal point of the religion, and in fact is the religion in and of itself- whether or not he acted to found the religion is a non-issue.--C.Logan (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The doctrines of the Council of Niceae (c 325) hardly made it into theNT (written c 50-150, IIRC). Leadwind (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is covered elsewhere: Historicity of Jesus, Jesus myth hypothesis, and Historical Jesus.--C.Logan (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should be about who He really was and should not detail Atheist myths. Perhaps it should mention that many people no longer believe in the existence of Jesus; rewriting the article with a doubtful view is retarded.