Talk:Jesus

I took out 'James the brother of Jesus' as not all agree that Jesus had a brother. I took out 'Paul apostle of the gentiles' as it could imply that only Paul preached to gentiles.--ClemMcGann 19:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add both back in, as the New Testament describes James as Jesus' brother, and Paul was indeed the apostle of the gentiles, that was his unique mission. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayjg. Not only does the NT say Jesus had a brother named James, it names 4 other brothers of his. And taking out "Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles" is the wrong solution. The solution would be to change it to "Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles", as that is what he is called, going back as far as the earliest codices of the NT itself. All may not agree that James was Jesus' full brother, since some, notably the RCC, believe that Mary died a virgin, but even those who make this claim hold that James and Jesus' other brothers were his half-brothers, children of Joseph. Tomer ^TALK 20:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and Tomer make compelling arguments. If anyone has a problem with them, let me remind people of the NPOV way to handle this (which is not, as ClemMcGann did, to delete them): state "According to (Mark, Tertulian, E.P. Sanders, whatever) Jesus had five brothers, including one named James. However (Tertulian, E.P. Sanders, whomever) argue that this is metaphorical, or refers to ...(whatever)." Ditto with Paul's mission to the Gentiles. "According to X, Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, although Y and Z argue ..." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it would be "according to the New Testament, James was the brother of Jesus". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not Catholic, but my understanding is that Catholics object to this, and that line is not present in their version of the NT. Could someone comment on this? Given the number of Catholics in the world, it seems such a revision may be necessary. Phantym 21:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you know I am not trying to pick a fight or anything. All I meant was, if there are theologians, clerics, or other scholars who interpret these passages differently, there is a way to handle that without deleting anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The version which I objected to was by User:209.78.18.134 which stated in the intro:

His teachings were initially spread by a group of "Twelve Apostles" and the Jerusalem Church led by James the brother of Jesus and by Paul of Tarsus who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles". (Acts)

Further down in the text the brothers/cousins/half-brothers are discussed,and that is the place for them. There was no reason to put it in the intro --ClemMcGann 23:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a point for everyone, no one has referenced their source for James being the brother properly. There is no concrete evidence in the NT that James is the brother of Jesus. I believe the most you can safely say is "James, who is believed to be the brother of Jesus". If someone can find a biblical reference for James DEFINITELY being Jesus brother, then I will accept it. MyNameIsNotBob 10:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the The Gospel of James ? --ClemMcGann 13:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that is an apocryphal book and not part of the canonical Gospels. Reliable sources would be better in an encylopaedia. MyNameIsNotBob 06:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would refer to it as pseudepigrapha rather than apocryphal. It is not in the Apocrypha as defined by the 1611 KJAV. While it would be better that an encyclopaedia would use ‘reliable sources’, wikipedia is dependant on its editors (such as me and thee) as well as its administrators (such as Jayjg and Slrubenstein).--ClemMcGann 09:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Then it is our responsibility as editors to make sure we use the most reliable sources that are practically available to us, ie, use the canonical Gospels, as they are accredited as trustworthy. MyNameIsNotBob 21:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Then try to correct it. As you can see from the start of this section, an administrator might well have a different opinion. Having said that, despite saying that he would 'add it back in' - he didn't --ClemMcGann 09:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Totally disputed tag

Reading through the article, and setting aside the raging debate on BC vs BCE and AD vs CE, it seems to me that the article itself should describe Jesus as Christians perceive him. Which is to say that the introductory paragraph should simply ask the reader to accept this as a premise for purposes of the article (though not, it must be said, beyond that). If you'll forgive the comparison (and I mean no offense by it), articles on divine figures in paganism don't include twists and turns throughout to qualify the fact that "not all people believe this is true." Indeed, Christians believe that Jesus existed, and that faith is at the core of their religious convictions. I'll let this thought air before being bold. --Leifern 21:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I think this page does a good job discussing in the most broad terms who Jesus is with respect to the broadest possible audience. We have an article about Christian views of Jesus and another about the Historicity of Jesus and others about all manners of things. The primary Jesus article ought to be a quick summery of the tons of specialized articles we have floating around wikipedia on Jesus and try to touch on as many topics and perspectives on Jesus as possible so that it can serve as a branchpoint to jump to all the other information we have on him. -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That might work, too. What I think we have to avoid is trying to create a comprehensive article that is acceptable to all sensibilities. So two choices so far are: 1) Cut the article drastically and let the other articles go into depth on important aspects; or 2) simply write this from a Christian point of view, but making the point of view explicit upfront. At least SocratesJedi and I agree that it isn't going to work in its current form. --Leifern 22:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy doesn't allow presenting things from only a Christian point of view. That is if you could even define one single Christian point of view, which (given thousands of denominations and billions of adherents) is obviously impossible. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe SocratesJedi's suggestion is the right one. But if you look at the entry for Thor (again, forgive the comparison), we don't insert "alleged," etc. in every sentence. Knowing that he was a mythic character upfront allows the reader to suspend disbelief long enough to read the article. --Leifern 22:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern's well studied critical analysis. Here taken from the Introductory paragraphs: "there may exist no other textual references outside of the canonical Christian texts", arguing a negative and inviting the reading to simply dismiss the canon of scripture to deny that Jesus ever existed. Nobs 22:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your general point - however

perhaps we should change that intro slightly, after all Jesus is referred to in non-canonical Christian text, even heritical texts. He is also referred to in the Qur'an --ClemMcGann 23:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the section in question is referring to possibly contemporary references. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly how I read it. It might be that there are contemporary texts that refer to Jesus that I'm just unaware of, but other than the writings of Josephus I thought there we none (and thus the article is correct as it stands). Perhaps however it could be reworded to sound less like a speculation. There may exist no other contemporary references versus There are no known other contemporary textual references. One of them is speculating, the other asserts a fact. -SocratesJedi | Talk 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually implemented this pending community consensus. New text is there are no other known contemporary textual references to Jesus outside of the canonical Christian texts and several non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. -SocratesJedi | Talk 15:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading, I have a concern about "contemporary" (I know, I said it in the first place); the gospels certainly weren't written in 30CE; at the earliest they were written about 30 years later, and possibly as long as 100 years later. Is "contemporary" the right word? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The word historians use is contemporaneous, meaning "at the same time", to distinguish it from the confusing contemporary with the ambiguous meaning "now". Back to the original premise: User Leifern said "the article itself should describe Jesus as Christians perceive him". I pointed out the Intro argues a negative premise. It simply invites the reader to deny the canon of scripture, and they can deny the existence of Jesus. Whereas the canon of scripture has a fourfold corroboration: Matthew is corroborated by 3 other witnesses; Mark is corroborated by 2 other witnesses; Luke is corroborated by John. Pardon me for not being a mathematic whiz, but I beleive this formula can be expressed by a power to x degree, whereas the law only requires 2 witnesses to establish facts. Thus, the article dismisses multiple corroborations by arguing a negative, "the canon of scripture is uncorroborated". Nobs 22:07, 12 May in this Anno Domini 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I see you've written an article about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, contemporary is ambigious. Updated with contemporaneous. With respect to Nobs concerns, I think that the fact that the only information we have on Jesus comes from the Gospels and a handful of references from ancient historians does merit inclusion. The inclusion of such information does not "invite the reader to deny the canon of scripture", it is the facts themselves which some people claim invites that type of denial. Our intro ought not to argue for anything and dispassionately present the facts. Perhaps you can say the phrasing of that specific sentence is biased, but the inclusion itself is not. Indeed, to remove it to prevent people from rejecting the validity of historical claims about Jesus would be a POV move in the article. What the article should basically say is this: "Here's the deal, reader, the Gosples and some other texts present this information. There are some historians who also report this but those texts are controvertial to a degree. There aren't many other contemporaneous references to Jesus that are solidly verified." It would be wrong to imply either that (a) the evidence for Jesus' existance and the validity of the gosples is beyond question or (b) the evidence for Jesus's existance and validity of the gosples is horribly unsupported and ought to be ignored. Report facts, let readers decide. I think it's more or less NPOV as it stands, but please disagree if you feel I'm wrong. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Very good analysis, and you are getting to the heart of the arguement. The canon of scripture (which evidently is an article that soon needs to be written) was not contemporaneous to the event, it was several centuries later that the so-called "canonical texts" were seperated from what biblical scholars call merely "historical texts" (like Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas etc). The reference here is strictly out of place and therefore presents an arguement. Also, the arguement asks to disprove a negative ("since none other exists, therefore..."). Further, it is deceptive, cause it takes what is essentially 4 corroborating witnesses, and presents them as one ("the bible", or "New Testament", or "canonical texts"), even though contemporaneously to Time of Christ (digression:another article which needs to be written, seeing AD and CE are reckoned from the Time of Christ, not from the Birth of Christ) no such canon of scripture existed outside of Hebrew texts, i.e. Torah and the Prophets. Nobs 01:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that Christian pereception of Jesus should drive this article, to the exclusion of other viewpoints. BrandonYusufToropov 15:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Me too, and this is simply a matter of complying with the NPOV policy. About a year ago, in fact, this article was much longer because it included as many different views of Jesus as possible. It was too long, and we spun off linked articles including Historicity of Jesus and Historical and cultural background of Jesus which do not take the Christian view. We agree that the Christian view would dominate this article. But that does not mean that the article should express only the Christian view or even privilege it. The bulk of the article provides the NT view of Jesus, but with small subsections directing readers to linked articles, and the whole thing is writtenin NPOV. Perhaps we can do a better job of this, but this is the job we should be doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article then, should be, abbreviated drastically and make references to other articles that discuss various aspects of the topic, e.g., historicity, religious interpretations, etc. I'll give this idea a couple of days and try my hand at it. Who objects? --Leifern 19:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why ought this to be abbreviated drastically? It seems to be preforming it's function well at the moment. While it's good that we have many articles discussing specialized subjects, it doesn't mean that this main page should be just a way of introducting them. This page does a good job of giving a reader a view of Jesus in just enough detail to satisfy the casual reader with additional information available for the exceedingly diligent ones. A reader shouldn't come away from the page thinking that the information was insufficient and that would probably be the case if we were to scale-down this article. There's something to be said for avoiding overly long articles (because nobody wants to read an article for more than 15 minutes or so), but those cases are not numerous and I feel strongly that this is not one of these cases. The current article gives a concise and NPOV'ed introduction to Jesus and is mostly good as it stands. (Of course, improvement can always be executed, but reduction of the article's information would not be an improvement). -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Accuracy dispute?

The tag on the article says that both the article's "neutrality" and its "accuracy" are in dispute. I gather that the neutrality dispute is about BC vs. BCE and so on for designating years, but what is the accuracy issue? Which statements in the article are disputed or thought to be false? Anyone have a short explanation for latecomers? Wesley 04:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Problems with this article

There are a significant number of problems with this article as it stands. Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, it is clear that Jesus is one of the most influential men ever to have lived. Despite him only having a one-year ministry 2,000 years ago, he is still remembered: his philosophies followed by well over a billion people. His influence today stretches into almost all, if not all, countries.

And yet this article conveys none of this. After a long discursive lead section it moves into a fairly chunky sized section questioning whether he even existed. Then throughout the article there are numerous other references to his maybe not existing. Why? A very small number of people do seriously question whether he existed, and that point is worth making - but briefly and once, not so as to dominate the article.

After questioning his existence there is a long discussion on what he means for various religious faiths. At least Christianity is first, but half of the section discusses small denominations. Do they really need so much airtime in what should be a small (32kb?) discussion on Jesus? However, the bulk of that section (80%) discusses other religions. Why? Jesus is most important to Christianity - and Christianity is the world's leading religion - why are we giving 80% coverage on his impact on the others?

Then there is a discussion on dating his birth and death. Maybe there is some interest here, and it is true that the modern calendar most popularly used worldwide takes an estimate of his date of birth as its reference point. But are all these discussions really more important than what Jesus actually did? It is only after all of this that we have his biography proper. Should this not go at the start?

We then follow the article with a very long list of books and links. These lists are, quite frankly, too long. Wikipedia is not a link directory. These should be cut down.

To try to deal with these issues I have rewritten the article. Anything deleted from the article can be found in articles linked from this page, so no information is lost. But the balance of the article is improved. Although we should boost up the section describing his life - after all, isn't a biographical article meant to describe its subject's life?

Kind regards, jguk 14:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We are an NPOV article. Some people believe Jesus never existed and is a creature of myth; that view must be represented. Many people do believe he existed, and Christians are obviously one of those groups and no one has ever denied that their views should be presented. But Jesus is a figure of importance to Muslims, and of concern to Jews, and their views must be represented. Finally, there is a vast body of scholarship by scholars who accept that Jesus existed, reject all supernatural elements of stories about him, argue that the Gospels relect the views of an emerging Christianity and not an objective, accurate account of his life &mdash in short, that he should be studied as any other historical figure; their views must be represented as well. Long ago we all agreed that there is not room in this article to provide an adequate account of all points of views. We decided that this article would list the various points of view with links to other articles, and provide the Gospel account in an NPOV way. Jguk has already provided ample evidence that he neither understands NPOV or cares about NPOV. All he has done now is to recast this as a "Jguk POV article." I am sure the article can be approved uppon, but this is no improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We definitely should start by mentioning the people who question Jesus' existence, since this is the most fundamental question that needs to be addressed; I see no point in mentioning the issue elsewhere in the article, though. An account of his life would be the reasonable second section; religious views (both Christian and otherwise) should come third, and other material still later, since it is less important. Ben Standeven 06:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a request for comment

Mr Rubenstein, when you wish to be, you are a very offensive man. You know full well that blindly reverting good intentioned edits is a kick in the balls - it means there is nothing meritorious about them and that you have no willingness to discuss them.

My edits were not about hiding views - but about putting them into proportion. The view that Jesus did not exist deserves one small mention. This is because it not a mainstream view, and only a small number of people serious dispute it. It certainly should not be the first thing said in the article proper, and for his existence to be called into doubt many times throughout the article. That is NPOV - not silencing minority views, but not giving them undue prominence either.

I have reasoned my amendments above - but you have not discussed my points. You merely accuse me of being POV - yet all I have done is reorder some sections and removed some of the side issues, which are all discussed in articles clearly linked from this one.

It is clear that you have no intention of discussing how this article can improve anymore. Maybe you should consider taking a break from it. Kind regards, jguk 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you should know that if you are going to make a major change to an article, you should allow for some discussion before doing it. Float the idea, see what people think, you may even get some constructive suggestions. Now, perhaps I misunderstood your changes and if this is the case I sincerely do apologize to you. I have no principle objection to rearranging the material. However, when you claim that the Gospel account is "what Jesus actually did," I think you are violating NPOV.

You say that "after all, isn't a biographical article meant to describe its subject's life" and believe it or not I agree with you. But what critical historians offer as an account of his life diverges considerably from what the Gospel's offer as an account of his life. I have no objection to including the Gospel accounts. But the way you explain yourself, you make it sound like you think they are objective and accurate. This may be a view help by many but it is a POV and must be presented clearly as one, and if you really want to forefront a biography of his life, you should take seriously what critical historians say — not as "the truth" but as another POV. But a POV as worthy of consideration and as important as that in the Gospels.

Well, you reverted my revert. I do not want a war in this case. I do want to see what others have to say, but I will not revert again. However, a majority of people polled on this page prefer BCE/CE over BC/AD. Someone suggested as a compromise using both BCE and BC, CE and AD. Your revision deleted the BCES and CEs. I will not demand that you change all BCs to BCEs and all ADs to CEs, even though this is what the majority believes is right. I do, however, ask you to honor the compromise and put in both sets of terms. I could do it myself, but there is no point if you will just revert it, and especially if you see it as another example of my mucking with your work. I ask you to do it as part of the revision you just did, and ask you to do it in the spirit of compromise and to respect the views of the majority. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim my reordering and amendments are perfect - just an improvement. The article needs further improvement.

My comment that the NT account is what Jesus actually did was on the talk page - it is not in the article. As you are aware almost all of what we know about Jesus' life comes from the NT. It may not be a perfect historical source - but it is the best we have got. So that is what we have to go with. The section is clearly labelled up "according to the NT" - which puts readers on notice that it is an uncritical account taken from a source which may not be historically perfect (depending on your viewpoint). The reader is quite able to decide for himself how much store he puts by the NT.

I read most of the article because there was a request for comment. I think the general tone is fine, but I do think a bit of a broader discussion of how the gospels present Jesus is needed. Saying he was a Jewish preacher and healer is rather an understatement.

Also, Josephus mentions Jesus explicitly, so this should probably be added somewhere in the discussion of historicity.

Hope that helps some. Phantym 22:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying he was a Jewish healer and preacher is not an understatement — for those who accept that Jesus existed (and some do not), this is maybe the one statement everyone agrees on. Yes, there are many other views of Jesus, including views in which he is far, far more than a healer and preacher, and these views must be represented in this article. But those are views, and in an NPOV article we cannot let one view dominate. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

The name of this article

I realize that someone went to painstaking efforts to change every single article on Wikipedia to point to Jesus, and not Jesus Christ, the name of this article needs to be Jesus Christ, not Jesus.

"Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian."
"Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus was a vegetarian."

From a non-Christian's ear, version one sounds right. Version two sounds informal. There are more non-Christians on the planet than Christians. We should not refer to Jesus Christ in an informal way in Wikipedia. Kingturtle 18:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Then you are saying this article should be written from a Christian POV? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

no, i am saying that using Jesus in a sentence is informal - like one would have during a prayer, while Jesus Christ is formal, which is encyclopedic. Kingturtle 18:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wesley has argued that "Christ" should be seen as a title, and I am sympathetic to that argument. On the other hand, it seems to me that "Jesus Christ" refers only to the Christian Jesus, since non Christians do not refer to him as Christ. I respect your view but honestly do not understand it, I mean, I don't think "Jesus" alone is "informal." Many people become so famous that they need only one name (Cher, for example, and I do grant Jesus is more famous than Cher). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling an article "Jesus" is like calling an article "John". Thia article is about a specific Jesus - the one called a Messiah then and now by many. Thus he is disambiguated by the term Jesus called the Christ or (Christ Jesus or Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ for short) because Christ was simply Greek for Messiah (anointed one). But arguing about the title or AD/BC is a waste of time. Who is going to be mislead about the facts? Noone. 4.250.27.228 20:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If there were a John as famous as Jesus, you'd be right. But the reason we could call the article "Jesus" is precisely because he is so well-known. There is no John nearly as well-known as Jesus (thought John Lennon put in a claim). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If this article is about "Jesus Christ", will there be others called "the Muslim Jesus", "the Jewish Jesus", "Jesus for people who do not think he was a saviour", and this page made into a dab called "Jesus"? Perhaps we could move this page to "Jesus Christ the Risen Lord" and put a message "For other uses of Jesus, particularly those for people who don't share the Christian POV, see someone else's encyclopaedia"? Jesus is Jesus. If anyone can make a serious argument that the figure we are all discussing is not known universally by his given name (not even all the people in his own lifetime who met him knew him as "Christ"! I believe it was considered POV even then) they should present it. Perhaps we can have another half a megabyte on another sterile, useless debate that is easily resolved by plain common sense.Grace Note 04:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grace Note here - this article should clearly describe all POV's regarding Jesus with links to other specific articles about him (as opposed to one article for each pov). I do think it should be more clear in the intro why he is such an influential historical figure. User:Tr�del/sig 04:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps thre can be two separate articles: A JESUS article discussing the historical Yeshua, and a JESUS CHRIST article discussing theology and the "Jesus of Faith." The Sword of Solomon.

Ok, here is an idea -- not original, but maybe it may work: call the article Jesus (ben Josef of Nazareth)-- I think that's pretty much what he was called by his contemporaries, many of whom would have rather died than call him Christ or Messiah -- these titles were given to him later on.

However, I found the article by looking for Jesus, just as I found the article on Mohammed (whose proper name was most likely Halabi bin Abdhulla) --Dietwald 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

size of this article....347K ?!?!

This article is ten times the recommended size for an article. It needs to be parsed down dramatically. Sub-articles need to be created. I am happy to help. Kingturtle 18:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is 347 kb (and growing). The article itself is only 45 kb. srs 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

oh oops. it's the TALK page that is 347K. my mistake :) Kingturtle 18:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive it. And let me close with this from Act 10:15: What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Nobs 18:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[T]he most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.<code> El_C 23:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Well, yes.. and of course a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I do believe the most appropriate quote for this talk page would be: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate". Perhaps it should be up the top in bold? --Silversmith 12:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Looking at this talk page, I am reminded of this quote from It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown: "I've learned there are three things you don't discuss with people: religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin." CuteLittleDoggie^{Let's play!} 05:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 Calm Down Everyone 
I would like to recommend that everyone involved in the most heated of debates on this talk page take a 12-24 hour breather.  Re-read everyones contributions, write your responses, and TAKE 23 HOURS and 59:30 MINUTES to CONSIDER them.  Too much bandwidth has already been wasted on this talk-page with people arguing irrelevant points.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion.  This talk-page, on the other hand, is being treated as both, by proponents and opponents on both, each, and every side of this question.  Let the steam off, and then come back and let's try to reach a consensus.  Written this 21st day of the Omer, the Sixth day of the Month of Iyar, in the 5765th Year of the Creation of the One and Only Real God.  (NO POSERS ALLOWED!)  Tomer ^TALK 07:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Having read over this talk page, I don't see how the talk is not related to the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 My comments on the main article 
The third paragraph of the intro contained too much trivia; I've trimmed it a bit.
We shouldn't pretend that the Common Era is something different from the Anno Domini; they're just two different names for the same thing.Ben Standeven 08:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite.  This is precisely the sort of thing Wittgentsein wrote volumes on.  They are two different ways to refer to the same thing, but they are nevertheless different ways used in different contexts and thus have different meanings.  "The United States of America" and "The Great Satan" refer to the same thing, but have vastly different meanings.  "H2O" and "Holy Water" are two different ways of referring tot he same thing, but they have different meanings.  "Sodomy" and "blowjob" and "felatio" are three different ways of refering tot hs ame thing, but they have different meanings.  "Venus," "the evening star," and "the morning star" are three different ways of referring to the same thing, but they mean diffeent things.  Get it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  13:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - if you think sodomy is a blowjob then you are very (sorely?) mistaken! jguk 13:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


well, I admit sodomy means other things besides (but including) blowjob. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for all English dialects, of course, but all the dictionaries that I've checked say that "sodomy" means buggery, and only buggery.  I'm sure that there's a really funny joke about this — it's on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't get to the bottom of it. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Err... at least in the U.S., sodomy is now commonly understood to mean "buggery", since oral sex is now rather common and socially acceptable, and people don't want to call it "sodomy" any more. But historically, so-called "sodomy" laws include both oral and anal sex, since both of these are repellent, deviant acts contrary to nature and the Will of God, etc., etc., which is what "sodomy" really means. The definition has narrowed as mores change. Anyway... Graft 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)



Oral sex is now socially acceptable? Not in the restaurants I frequent, it isn't! jguk 18:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)




To be serious for a moment, the notion that the meaning of "sodomy" is dependent on U.S. law is somewhat startling; I doubt that the compilers of the Collins English Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary were merely following the narrowing of U.S. legislation.  U.S. law might have lumped all sorts of things in under the title "sodomy" (look at what it does to "free speech"), but that's not the point here.
Actually, what is the point here?  We seem to have become slightly side-tracked. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is, I think, the same as your rabbi joke above - we probably all need to lighten up a bit here and allow ourselves the odd light-hearted comment:) Kind regards, jguk 18:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just found it intriguing, as a nerd. I didn't mean to suggest U.S. law was the source of the definition, merely that it reflected the colloquial understanding of the term. Also, the O.E.D. says sodomy is merely "An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.", not necessarily specifically buggery. Anyway! Sorry, sorry. Graft 19:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sodomy was defined in most of the 50 states prior to 1980 as to "carnally know" anyone (or anything) in other than the appropriate orifices.  Nobs 15:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 Comments on the rewrite article 
We have the same trivia problem in the new third paragraph; but now it is even more trivial, since the question of J's existence is no longer being raised. Ben Standeven 08:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


==
Where does this come from?:
"His teachings were initially spread by a group led by 12 followers that were originally disciples but became apostles after the death of Jesus."
You people need to check your facts first. Look at the wikipedia article on Apostles for a start, and it wouldn't hurt to actually read the Bible also.
According to the Bible, Jesus selected 12 of his disciples (Greek for students) and called them the Twelve Apostles (Greek for emissary). Then, according to Acts of the Apostles, the 12 Apostles formed the Church of Jersualem which was led by James the brother of Jesus. Judas Iskariot committed suicide, so another Apostle was appointed to replace him and soon there after 7 Greeks were also appointed. And then of course there is Paul of Tarsus who nominated himself as "Apostle to the Gentiles"
You really should get your facts straight first, with Bible references so they can be verified. It's truly amazing the nonsense that is out there that has absolutely no basis in the Bible. Maybe there should be two articles: Jesus as recorded in the Bible and Jesus according to whoever wants to make up stuff perhaps from a dream last night.

You should get your facts straight, anonymous writer.  The NT mentions more than 12 apostles and there were clearly other people who followed Jesus and spread his teachings. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 

The Gospels don't agree on the names of the twelve, but they agree that Jesus selected twelve. After Jesus' death, the Jerusalem Church was led by James the brother of Jesus, aka James the Just, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles selected by Jesus. Also, the Jerusalem Church was in conflict with Paul of Tarsus who proclaimed himself Apostle to the Gentiles, but again he was not one of the Twelve Apostles selected by Jesus.


 The Gospels also record that Jesus sent out seventy apostles, who were separate from the Twelve, even before his death and resurrection. Also, since the resurrected Jesus sent the myrrh-bearing women to tell the Twelve that he had risen, those women are sometimes called "apostles to the apostles," so the number of apostles continues to grow. There are other examples of Jesus sending individuals or small groups to tell others about Him and the Kingdom of God. Wesley \



 That's because the English word apostle comes from the perfectly ordinary Greek word apostolos which means emissary. In English, the tendency is to give some special meaning to the word apostle, however that distinction does not exist in the original Greek. There are many apostles/apostolos/emissaries, but only one "group of 12 apostles/apostolos/emissaries".




 About the "70": I assume this is in reference to Luke 10:1-10? What English translation translates the Greek as apostle here? The Greek has the *verb* apostello which means to send away. Ref: Greek-English Lexicon of NT, Bauer et al




 Acts 15 records that the Jerusalem church reached a compromise with Paul regarding the status of Gentile converts, while some of Paul's epistles mention his gathering funds from among the Gentile churches to give to destitute Christians in Jerusalem. Any division there was between Paul and the Jerusalem church was relatively minor, at least according to the New Testament. Wesley \



 "Incident at Antioch" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm




2Pet3:16 James 2 ... 

 BTW, there is already a "Jesus as recorded in the Bible" article; it's called New Testament view on Jesus' Life. Wesley 17:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)



[edit]
 SOURCES!!! 
It never ceases to amaze me the number of self-proclaimed Christians who are ignorant of the Bible. These are the facts about Jesus Kata Markon (Greek for According to Mark, known in English as the Gospel of Mark):

Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river by John the Baptist [Mk1.9], he then went out into the wilderness for 40 days [Mk1.12-13].
After John was locked up (for sedition according to Josephus), Jesus returned to Galilee proclaiming the message that the time of God's imperial rule is near, time to change your ways and trust in the good news (presumably of the Bible which was then the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek Septuagint). [Mk1.14-15]
He was called "The Nazarene" [Mk1:24,10:47,14:67,16:6] for reasons that are lost to history. There are many theories, the most common is that he was from Nazareth, Galilee, however it doesn't appear that existed in his time.
He selected a group of twelve to be sent out to speak and drive out demons [Mk3.14-15], the group the other Gospels call the Twelve Apostles (apostolos is Greek for emissary).
He was crucified by Pilate for sedition, the crime was not denying a claim to the title "King of the Judeans" [Mk15.26]. At that time the Romans occupied Judea and appointed a Prefect (Pilate), a High Priest (Caiaphas) and a Tetrarch of Galilee & Perea (Herod). Claiming to be the rightful King of Judea was considered an act of sedition by the Romans and punishable by crucifixion.
Joseph of Arimathea claimed the body and wrapped him in a shroud and placed him in a rock tomb [Mk15.42-47].
Mary of Magdala and Mary mother of James discovered the body missing and a young man told them Jesus had been raised (presumably by God) and had gone to Galilee [Mk16.1-8].
The original Gospel of Mark then ends at Mark 16:8 though other endings were added later.

[edit]
 A formal proposal 
When this vast debate concerning AD and CE began, someone told me that what I really needed to do was to try to change Wikipedia policy, not this article.  Well, OK.  I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So you basically want to enshrine your POV as "NPOV"? Did you not read the discussion above? You are suggesting that Wikipedia should adopt as a policy that it exclude a POV. That is never going to be consonant with the NPOV policy. Grace Note 00:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
No, not at all.  I have explained that BCE and CE is not my POV (my POV is that this is the year 5765).  If you read the proposal, you will see my arguments for why I believe BCE and CE comply with our NPOV policy, and CE and AD do not.  By the way, this in no way means that I want to banish AD and BC from Wikipedia; in fact, I think there is a place for them here.  I think there are occassions when they can be used appropriately and should be used.  I just do not think they should be used as POV terms. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  00:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Yes, and I've explained at very great length why I think that your preferred versions are not "NPOV". Your "argument" simply dismisses all other views as varying degrees of nonsense and seems to stand on the entirely mistaken notion that "NPOV" means "be neutral". The policy explicitly states that this is not so. You do not address the NPOV policy's clear statement that all views must be represented fairly but insist on misrepresenting another piece of the policy.



And you do not accept the BC/BCE compromise. You are trying to have a policy passed that wants BC excluded from Wikipedia! This is not "accepting a compromise".Grace Note 02:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you thick, or just lying?  I ask this in all seriousness because I just wrote that I do not want to ban BC from Wikipedia, I wrote in response to your comment concerning my proposal that I do not want to ban BC from Wikipedia, and in the very proposal, I write that BC and AD should be used appropriately in Wikipedia.  How you can read all of this and say that I want a policy that excludes BC from Wikipedia is beyond me.  Is English your second language? As for accepting the BC/BCE compromise, se my answer to Trodel, below.  It has big words, just read it slowly.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Yes, like everyone who disagrees with you, I am either thick or lying.  While you're reading the NPOV policy once more, in particular the section that suggests that "neutral" does not equal NPOV, you might run your eyes over the policy on personal attacks. You have tactically accepted the compromise here, while you are pursuing a strategy of exclusion for BC. Your argument against it has been in part that it is not "appropriate" in this article. Grace Note 04:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)



hmmm, Slrubenstein, I know you know better.  While I completely support your well-articulated argument, these comments to Grace Note definitely crossed a line and were unnecessary. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)




Perhaps you are right, MPerel.  I no longer know how to respond to "you are pursuing a strategy of exclusion for BC" when I have never stated that BC should be excluded from Wikipedia, and when, on the contrary, I have stated that BC should be used when appropriate several times.  People have a right to disagree with my views and arguments.  But I cannot stand it when they lie about what I have said. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  04:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


"the issue here is which is more appropriate. And we should pick the one that is not affiliated with one religion, one that is non-denominational, as most appropriate to conform with our NPOV policy". So you say here that we should use what is "appropriate", that BC/AD is not "appropriate" here, and in your policy proposal that we should not use BC/AD unless it is "appropriate", and I am thick, lying or mischaracterising you to suggest that you do not think it should be used here and are not really looking to compromise? Well, I may not have a PhD in obfuscation but I think it's quite clear that if A/ you achieved a policy that said that BC could be used only when "appropriate" and B/ then argued that BC was not "appropriate" here, then C/ you cannot claim that you support a compromise here or anywhere else. All you need do is argue against BC's being "appropriate" anywhere and you have excluded it. You do not -- I note -- give suggestions for when it would be "appropriate" in your view. Grace Note 05:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, I really have spelled out where I think it is appropriate -- here, in my proposal, and on the proposal's talk page.  I wish you would read those, but to cut to the chace: BC and AD must be used whenever presenting a Christian POV, or describing a Christian POV.  That is, I have no objections to any sentence like "Christians believe that Jesus was crucified in AD 33" or "Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in AD 1962."  These are prefectly appropriate uses of AD.  BC and AD are not appropriate in non-Christian accounts.  Perhaps you think that because this article is about Jesus, that it is a Christian account?  If that were so, yes, I would agree that BC and Ad would be appropriate.  But I do not agree that because this is Jesus it is a Christian account.  The Jesus article itself should not be written from a Christian point of view but from a neutral point of view.  Of course, within this article Christian points of view may be expressed, and AD and BC would be appropriate.  But non-Christian views must also be expressed, and there BCE and CE are appropriate.  I hope this answers your questions.  If you feel I should state this on the proposal page, I will, although I believe I have already albeit in an abbreviated form. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  05:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


My suggestion is that you simply respond that it is a mischaracterization of what you are proposing (accusations of lying is a little strong and implies purposeful malicious intent) and give a link to where you best articulated your position.  I've seen you respond to people's statements with a link to your counter arguments on the NPOV BCE/CE debate page and that's a good route to go imho.  Other people can read for themselves and make their own judgments. We do all need to remember to respect each other especially in these contentious discussions. And btw, I don't say this to you (or anyone else here) as the paragon of civility since I'm as human as anyone else and need to be reminded myself sometimes. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)



You've shown your true colors in refusing to accept (as I have during the requested layoff) the use of BC/BCE and to avoid the use of AD/CE except when absolutley necessary by trying to impose your POV on all wikiepdia. User:Tr�del/sig 01:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you have lied before, and you are lying now.  As far as this article is concerned, I have accepted the BC/BCE compromise from the moment it was offered.  Just go here [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#.3F.21) and read the second paragraph.  In the section "Problems with this article," I wrote "Someone suggested as a compromise using both BCE and BC, CE and AD. Your revision deleted the BCES and CEs. I will not demand that you change all BCs to BCEs and all ADs to CEs, even though this is what the majority believes is right. I do, however, ask you to honor the compromise and put in both sets of terms." and Jguk replied that he would not honor the compromise.  When the text of the article included both BC/AD and BCE/CE, I never deleted the BC/ADs.  Moreover, in my proposal I make it clear that I believe BC and AD should be used when appropriate — I state this explicitly.  I have said this several times and will say it again: you do not understand our NPOV policy, you do not care about our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  01:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I feel honored to be amongst those you disagree with and call liars User:Tr�del/sig 12:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
You have said on this very page that you do not think BC/AD is "appropriate". It's not helping you to keep talking about the NPOV policy by the way: "We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions." You are insisting that your point of view is "neutral". That is the basis of your argument. But NPOV is not "express views neutrally". It is "express all views without judgment". Grace Note 05:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)



As a contributor who thus far has only contributed on the Talk page and only observed how the main article has taken shape, it is a very good article representing the Jewish POV of Jesus.  Nobs 16:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 Dubious lead section sentence 
I find the following sentence dubious: "A smaller but still predominant portion of Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and one of the persons in the Godhead of the Trinity." Exactly how many Roman Catholics do we have in the world? And how many Protestants who believe that Jesus was the Son of God? And how many Eastern Orthodox Christians beleive this? I think that would be more than the fringe groups that don't beleive that Jesus is the Son of God. I would urge that this sentence be removed or modified. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Further, I also find that this particular text should be modified:
"Some historians, citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed. Other historians, however, maintain that the source documents (see two-source hypothesis, Q document, and Gospel of John), on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime". 
Why oh why is it so impossible for those who write these things to cite who the historians are who cite what externel evidence is available!!!!
Then we have "Some say that the Gospel accounts are neither objective nor accurate, since they were written or compiled by his followers." who again says that? Do we expect our readers to just swallow this without thinking? I thought Wikipedia's no original research coupled with the cite your sources policies were clear that all information should be verifiable from an external source!
As for:
"There are many similarities between stories about Jesus and myths of Pagan Godmen such as Mithras, Apollo, Attis and Osiris Dionysus, leading to conjectures that the pagan myths were adopted by early accounts of Jesus." - well, there are some similarities, but from what I understand they are tenuous at best and really only supported by a few fringe "scholars" (if they can be thought of as this), like Alexander Hislop who wrote The Two Babylons. 
Anyway, these are my $0.02. Take them for what it's worth. I'm going back to editing Windows 2000. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  [RESPONSE]

Citing historians who cite what external evidence is available: I can offer some reputable leads that are indirectly already listed in the biblio of the article. John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus, Religious Studies, DePaul University has written eighteen books on the historical Jesus and earliest Christianity. He was one of the commentators on the FrontLine PBS series, "From Jesus to Christ," a few years back (in the biblio). Three of his most recent books, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991), Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994), and Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (1995. Harper San Francisco published, The Birth of Christianity. which I do not have.  In fact, run over to 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/bios.html#white 
and check all these other people out. They went on record saying the guy (definitely/in so far as we can ever know) existed.
Harold Attridge-Yale Divinity School; Allen Callahan-Harvard Divinity School; Elizabeth Clark-Duke University; Shaye I.D. Cohen-Brown University; John Dominic Crossan-DePaul University; Paula Fredrickson-Boston University;  Holland Lee Hendricks-Union Theological Seminary;  Helmut Koester-Harvard Divinity School;  Wayne Meeks-Yale University;  Eric Meyers-Duke University;  Elaine H. Pagels-Princeton University;  L. Michael White-University Texas at Austin
Others that come to mind
--William Barclay, University of Glagow (deceased)
Barclay did not actually believe that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that he was man and God. But he had no trouble believing that he existed.
--Eberhard Arnold (deceased) wrote a work, "The Early Christians," that provides a good intro with actual translated quotes from first century sources. 
User: Malangthon 29 May 2005. 12:30 SPT

Generally good points, although we don't want to overstuff an article with names, when we can just provide an extensive bibliography.  Anyway, I tried to respond to one of your comments ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk  03:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Excellent! I realise it's in summary form, but we still need to cite the sources of claims. I do appreciate you do doing this Sl. Even if I disagree with the scholars. WARNING parse error! I misread that bit that Slrubenstein clarified... I do in fact agree with the scholars. Oops. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


I've just realised that "Some historians, citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed." still exists in this article. Which historians again? Actually, this might be interesting to see if there really are credible historians who still believe this! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 Let me concur w/Ta bu shi da yu; source information is identified yet "critics" like some historians are aloud to remain anonymous (problem on throughout the entire project).  Nobs 19:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 The two versions 
I was asked by Slrubenstein to comment on this page and the two versions. Firstly, a caveat. I'm an evangelical Christian. However, I do oppose the rewrite of religious perspectives of Jesus. There is nothing wrong with stating what different religions think about Jesus, so long as it is a neutral and factual account. I'll most certainly disagree with them, but it's very useful to know nonetheless, IMO. However, I think it is more logical to put the "Life and teaching according to the New Testament" bit at the top, then followed by "Cultural and historical background". "Religious perspectives should come after historicity... so basically I think that jguk got it right on this one. 
I would like to know why the lead section is so long! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 Picture 
Does anyone dislike the main picture as much as me. I mean the one next to the introductory paragrpahs that is cropped in the "topics related to Jesus" box. Isn't there an alternative that doesn't invoke such a negative response? Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

 I like it fine, personally, though not as much as I like the one from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai shown on Images of Jesus labeled "Christ Pantocrater." We'll never reach universal agreement on which one "looks best," but I think we could do a lot worse than what we have now. Wesley 16:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason that there's Fonzie as the picture?  It threw me off for a second...  Evan, 24 May 2005

[edit]
God
Can I suggest two modifications to the opening paragraph. First, among Christians Jesus is known as Jesus Christ, not Jesus the Christ. I know it's technically wrong, and that Christ is a title not a surname, but that is how he is known. Secondly it's nearly a page down the article before we mention that a billion or so Christians believe that Jesus is God. It's an important fact, and we leave it very late to state it. The "central figure of Christianity", while true, doesn't convey the same information. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed usage of Jesus Christ is more common, I just got reverted when I put in Jesus Christ elsewhere and thought it was because I wasn't following the theological formulation. Even more strongly agree that to not mention that Christians believe the Jesus is the Son of God is even more appalling. It is like the opening paragraphs do all they can to talk about the different views of Jesus Christ other than the most common belief (amongst English speakers anyway). Jesus is the Christ 21:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I added a bit from the Nicene Creed to the intro, which I hope resolves the issues DJ CLayworth and Hesus is the Christ raise.  I am not Christian, so if my assumption that all Christians agree about the Nicene Creed is wrong, I apologize. I also added back mention of the Muslim belief.  Without it, the next sentence, "Because of his significance in these religions ..." makes no sense, so it is either put Muslims back in (and really, why not?  Jesus is of importance to other people besides Christians), or delete the sentence on his influence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)



 Most Christians agree about the Nicene Creed; the notable exceptions are the nontrinitarian ones, who perhaps should be mentioned along with that link to find who at least most of them are. I for one have no problem mentioning the Muslims, and I believe that some Hindu sects believe Jesus was another avatar along the lines of Krishna. Shall we mention that too, or leave it for later since Jesus is clearly less significant in Hinduism overall than he is in Islam? Wesley 16:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)




There are indeed non-trinitarians who take the name 'Christian', and who therefore would not agree that Jesus is the Son of God. The question is certainly worth of further explanation in the article, but for the intro paragraph can I suggest something like "most Christians consider him to be God incarnate". I prefer "God incarnate" over "Son of God" because it takes in a slightly larger number of believers (those who believe that Jesus was God taking the form of flesh) and conveys almost the same sense. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


The wording "Son of God" is ambiguous to any outside of Christian dogma. I could consider myself and everyone else "Sons of God" and still not consider Jesus God incarnate. --metta, The Sunborn 18:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it says "the only son of God" which I think makes it much more specific.   Also, remember that the specifics of Christian beliefs about Jesus can be explored in detail in the appropriate section below.  Introductions cannot explain everything, they can only orient people to what is to come. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


Pardon me for interjecting the canon of scritpure but John 1:12 states: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God", by implication those who have not received him remain sons of Adam.  Thank you. Nobs 19:34, 18 May 2005 Vulgar era (UTC)
Thank you Nobs, that is a great quote.  (By the way, in the Bible King David is described as a son of God too).  Nevertheless I was just going by the Nicene Creed (meaning, the sentence is "Most Christians believe ..." not "According to the Gospel of John ..."  JimWae deleted it anyway, and replaced it with "an incarnation of God."  Jim, how come?  Isn't it NPOV and accurate to say that most Christians believe Jesus was the only son of God? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


"Son of god" is so ambiguous that it gives no info on what the belief is. It is used in many different ways. Most Xians believe Jesus is an incarnation of 2nd person in the Trinity - & that he is & was co-eternal with the 1st person - he is called the son, but most Xians believe he existed/s always - he was the only person of trinity to be incarnated - and the 3rd person seems to have had more to do with being the "father" than the 1st person - I am trying to make as much sense of this as possible - ultimately it cannot be sensibly expressed, so any claim of "literal belief" re trinity usually fail - it all becomes some kind of imperfect metaphor - at least for most Xian churches. Many Xians do think "only begotten son" means there was a time when 2nd god did not exist at all & 1st god created him - but few Xian churches teach that. Anyway, saying he is an incarnation of a person of the trinity is what most Xians believe & is less ambiguous than "son of god". 



 Simple explaination: "unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them" Hebrews 4:2, "them", being "whose carcases fell in the wilderness" referred to in Hebrews 3:17.  Gospel, being a Greek word, nowhere appears in old testament canon, yet Christian doctrine teaches that the Gospel was preached to Isreal in the wilderness. Nobs 20:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)



[edit]
Introduction
The introduction is already a full page long, and it seems to be expanding.  It is no longer an introduction, it is a whole article in its own right.  Please make future edits with an eye to making the introduction shorter, not longer. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)



[edit]
 View of Jesus by different religions. 
In the beginning of the article, it has a statement that states how the Muslims view Jesus. I'm not against having this kind of information in the article, but we already have the "Religious perspectives" section that shows the various point of views by the other faiths. So I don't think we need this info at the beginning of the article if the "Religious perspectives" section already states how the Muslims and other non-Christians view Jesus.--Gramaic 20:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus is an important figure in Islam, a faith with over 1 billion adherents.  He is not a particularly important figure in any other faiths (aside from Christianity of course). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In my limited understanding, Koranic teachings about Jesus are merely of an historical nature, not doctrinal.  In otherwords, the Koran does not dispute whether or not Jesus existed, merely acknowledged what at that time was regarded as historical information, and likewise acknowledged the roots of authenticity of Christian believers of that age's beliefs.  Has no doctrinal significance in Islam, other than denying the divinity of Jesus.  Nobs 21:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Jesus has religious significance in Islam; Islam considers Jesus both a prophet and the Messiah. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)



Yes, but Jayjg, it must be remembered that Islam has nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus does have a religious significance in Islam, but the Muslims don't view him in the same manner as the Christians. As I suggested earlier, let's just keep the POV of Jesus by Islam and other non-Christian beliefs restricted in the "Religious perspectives" section.--Gramaic 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)




Yes, Islam is not Christianity, but how is that relevant? Is this article about Jesus from the Christian POV only, or about Jesus?  I thought it was the latter. Jayjg ^(talk)





 Christians think Jesus is God, Muslims don't.  Big difference. Nobs 22:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)






Yes, it's a big difference, but they both view him as important. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)







Nobs, I want to follow up on what Jayjg wrote and ask you to look at this a different way.  Instead of thinking "Jesus is not as important to Muslims, so the Muslim belief isn't so important to the article," instead try to think "Even people who do not believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God and one with God nevertheless think he is important."  Please try to think more inclusively — Muslims are not trying to belittle Christian belief, they are trying to express their reverence for Jesus in their own way.  By the way, if you cut the Muslim line, you also have to cut this sentence: "Because of his significance in these (emphasis mine) religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time."  It was I who put the line about Muslims back in the opening, and as I explained above (when I made the change) it was so as not to have to delete this sentence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Likewise Jews, Christians and Muslims think Satan is important, yet it doesn't have to be redundent in an article about Jesus.Nobs 23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Nobs, most Jews don't think Satan is that important.  Aside from a demonology fad in the middle ages, I think if Jews think of Satan at all, it is as God's mischievous and cynical side-kick.  Be that as it may, certainly you understand that the way Muslims think Jesus is important is fundamentally different from the way they think demons are important.  Anyway, the argument is NOT that anything Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on has to be in the Jesus article.  The argument is that the Jesus article must be NPOV and represent all views.  No one is suggesting that all views be given equal space — everyone knows the Christian point of view will occupy most of the space in this article.  Nevertheless, the introduction to the article just has to introduce Jesus in an NPOV way. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
To Slrubenstein: about the following statement that comes after the small info about Islam. I suggest we get rid of the Islamic information, and rephrase the statement from;

Because of his significance in these religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time.





to








The significance Jesus has brought to this world, has made many people, including non-Christians, view him as the most influential historical figure of all time.





--Gramaic 02:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you want to get rid of the information about Islam.  Jesus is an important figure in Islam, and Islam is the world's second largest religion.  It's hard to see why this information is not significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this info is significant. The reason I want this info removed is because the "Religious perspectives" section already has this kind of information. I think that we are repeating ourselves when we talk about what Islam thinks about Jesus in the beginning of the article, and then restating Islam's POV about Jesus in the "Religious perspectives" section. Doesn't it look like we are repeating this information twice in the article?--Gramaic 05:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


If we remove the Muslim religious perspective of Jesus from the intro and restrict it only to the "Religious perspectives" section, then we would certainly need to do the same for Christian perspectives, don't you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)




I agree. In that case, let's delete both the Chrisian and Muslim POVs and just keep this info in the "Religious perspectives" section.--Gramaic 05:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)





 The only extent that Jesus is an "important figure" in Islam is the recognition of a large population that identifies itself as Christian, i.e. followerers of Christ; that has really nothing to do with "Jesus".  Similiarly, many atheists view Jesus as "an important" figure, again from the recognition as an historic personage, but reject entirely Christ own claim as to his divinity.   Nobs 14:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
No, Jesus is a prophet and Messiah according to Islam, regardless of what Christians think of him. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)




That is not true, they think he was a prophet of God.  Are you suggesting that the only reason Christians think Isaiah is an "important figure" is in recognition of a large population that identifies itself as Jewish? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  15:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 In addition to believing Jesus was a prophet, they also believe in Jesus' virgin birth. I know the intro is a bit long, but I agree with SLR and Jayig that this bit is worth keeping in the intro. Of course it should stay brief, and other less significant religious perspectives can wait until the religious perspectives section to be covered. 

I also think Because of his significance in these religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time. is better than the alternative Gramaic proposed. It both reads better and is slightly more neutral. Wesley 16:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the wording you quote is better. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Five Pillars of Islam have zero to say about Jesus.  In fact, the First Pillar of Islam: "There is one God, but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet" can be interpreted to denying any significance or importance to the person of Jesus, to whom this article is about.  Again, the importance or significance to Jesus the Koran pays is recognition (noncontemporaneous) to an historical person whom many non-Muslims revere. Nobs 17:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because he's not mentioned in the Five Pillars of Islam doesn't mean he is not important in Islam.  The Qur'an has a fair bit to say about Jesus and his important role, as do the hadith.  In contrast, the Trinity is not mentioned in the New Testament, but all the same I think you'd argue it's pretty important in Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 Having just read the Abraham page, I guess I can see the point now. Nobs 19:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


==
this statement can't possibly be supported by the evidence:

 thus, the majority of Jews accepted Roman rule

it's like saying the majority of Frenchman didn't mind Nazi occupation
I deleted it

[edit]
Weasel words
Because of his significance in these religions, many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time.

This is a weasel sentence because it doesn't say who these "many" are. Beyond that, this sentence is completely unnecessary. What it essentially says is: because of his significance, many consider him significant. That Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, explained in the very first sentence, establishes his significance well enough. Fredrik | talk 11:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think that the use of the passive is too vague, say so — perhaps that can be remedied; the hostile use of the term "weasel words" doesn't help, though.

I am hostile toward the text, not any authors. Fredrik | talk 12:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


Your central point is wrong, however.  The claim isn't that his significance makes him significant, but that his significance in certain religions makes him the most influential historical figure.  The claims in the antecedent and the consequent are entirely different in themselves, as well as in their contexts and their degree. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This part about "many considering" is not a statement of fact, it's someone's personal analysis. It should however still not be included even if you can find a specific survey that shows a certain percentage of people agreeing with the statement, because (I re-iterate that) the fact that Jesus is the central figure in Christianity is far more important and interesting, and also sufficient since its implications are obvious.


There are 100s of people who are "among the most influential historical figures". For every subject covered in an article in Wikipedia, you can find (or validly presume that there exists) a group of people who consider said subject to be significant. Whether something is considered significant isn't interesting, why is. Fredrik | talk 12:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


By the way, this has popped up in the article earlier and was then removed. See Talk:Jesus/Archive 12#Jesus: The most famous person in history? - Fredrik | talk 12:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


"Many consider that p" is true if many consider that p; it expresses a fact, not personal analysis.
The claim that we shouldn't include fact A becase fact B is more interesting is personal analysis, and the claim that fact A obviously implies fact B is also not a reason for omitting fact B.
Your second paragraph again bobs around uncertainly between talking about being historically important and being significant.  The claim that Jesus' religious significance makes him historically important is not trivial, for he could be religiously significant without being historically important, and historically important without being religiously significant. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that religious significance and historical importance are not the same thing; it may not be obvious that one implies the other. I therefore withdraw the argument in my first post.


The primary issue here is one of style and accuracy (which, in fact, the second paragraph in my previous post was about).


The phrase "many think X is the most Y" is someone's speculation wrapped up in a vague reference to the opinion of an undefined group of people. Specify who these people are, if they exist. It is not interesting that an unspecified group of people consider something. It is possibly interesting that some particular group considers something (but questionably relevant for the lead section, in any case). Regardless of whether the information is true, it stands as someone's personal analysis until it can be stated convincingly.


Instead of mentioning this unspecified plurality of people known as "many", which in Wikipedia is referenced more often than all scholars together (!), we should state specific facts. The lead section could thus say something along the lines of "Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, due to whose worldwide influence he has become one of the most important people of all time." But this is still bad, in my opinion, as it no less than before merely offers an inherently vague estimate of how much, that may just as well be done by the reader.


(As an aside, although I could accept the statement "many consider him to be among the most influential..." as truthful (though still not appropriate), this article actually says that "many consider him the most influential historical figure of all time". This formulation is hyperbolic.)  Fredrik | talk 19:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)





This is a typical and ridiculous Christian claim. Islam certainly doesn't consider him to be one of the most influential historical figures of all time. Of course neither do most Chinese or Indians. And neither do athiests in otherwise Christian nations. Really all he did (if the stories are to be believed) was get crucified and then supposedly get resurrected, he didn't even come back as Hercules the strongest man in the world as many of his contemporaries did, his teachings are for the most part just references to the Jewish Bible, even the Golden Rule was known before from Hillel and Confucius. Read your history, there are far more influential people, here's some: Khufu, Gilgamesh, Sargon, Hammurabi, Hattusilis, Akhenaton and Nefertiti, Wen Wang, Nebuchadnezzar, Homer, Sappho of Lesbos, Solon, Zarathushtra, Lao-tzu, Mahavira Jina, Darius, Pythagoras, Buddha, Confucius, Mo-tzu, Herodotus, Tsou Yen, Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Euclid, Asoka the Great, Archimedes, Wudi, Zhang Qian, Caesar, Octavian ... - 63.201.25.224 09:33, 24 May 2005


I can't see how anyone can doubt that Jesus is one of the most influential figures of all time. If the Christian religion had never existed then the world would be a very different place from what it is now. You don't have to believe in a religion to acknowledge it's significance on the world stage. I, for one, would never want to downplay the significance of Mohammed, or Moses, or several others. As for your list of 'more influential' people, I'm afraid not. And even if all of them were as influential as Jesus, it would still make him one of the most influential people of all time. DJ Clayworth 21:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Jesus is one of the most influential figures of all time. But this is my personal opinion, and should not masquerade in the article as the opinion of an unspecified "many", true or not. If it is fact, it should be stated as such, with references. Fredrik | talk 22:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My starting point would be the billion or so Christians, who would certainly rank him pretty high in world influence. Then add in the adherents of Islam. In case we need specific references, here are a few. [2] (http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2355) [3] (http://www.templetons.com/charles/jesus/preface.html) [4] (http://www.twf.org/Library/Prophet.html) [5] (http://www.shema.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109) (Jewish site) [6] (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/features/eyes/index.shtml)

DJ Clayworth 21:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]
 On whether Jesus is the God or a God 
I know that some Christian groups believe that other Gods exist, but that only one God is to be worshipped.  Also, not all Christian groups believe Jesus is their God, but instead a member in the Godhead concept.  This same debate goes into subjects like henotheism, Arianism, Council of Chalcedon, Nicene Creed, Mormonism and Christianity, et al.  But to say that all Christians believe no other Gods exist, and to say that all those who believe other Gods do exist are not Christian, is an on-going debate and to establish it as fact when it has not (and probably never will be) settled is clear POV. - Gilgamesh 12:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The words were "Most Christians believe that Jesus is God".  There is no need to complicate the issue with your "Most (though not all) Christian groups believe that Jesus is the one God".  I am unaware of any Christian group who have multiple gods as a tenent of their faith - do enlighten me.  There are groups, such as the JWs, who deny the deity of Jesus (which is why they use bce/ce to emphaise their pov).  I fail to see why "most" does not satisfy you --ClemMcGann 13:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I could be incorrect, but don't some Latter Day Saints claim that there are multiple gods in the cosmos?  That said, I believe it's still accurate to state that "most Christians believe that Jesus is God".  "Most" may be the key term there.  KHM03 14:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


"Most" implies "but not all".
Secondly, there have been Christians who have treated the Trinity as being three gods, or three distinct divine substances ("tritheists" such as John Ascusnages and John Philoponus [7] (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/)), but this probably isn't the right article in which to discuss that. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree totaly with this "Most, but not all, ..." is redundant Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a fear to use the simple declarations in John regarding the divinity of Christ- that he is the "only beggotten son" the interpretations of this phrase explain the different meanings differing Christian groups ascribe to God (i.e. incarnation of God in Flesh, son of Heavenly Father, non-trinitarian God the Son ideas, etc.). That begotten is not well understood is what needs to be explained later on and we shouldn't avoid words like thes - I doubt scientific articles avoid complex words that explain the concept but instead expect the reader to learn about them. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 16:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, I added this to the intro: "Christians believe that Jesus was "the only-begotten Son of God ... begotten, not made, one in Being wi