Talk:Jesus/Archive 100

Archive 95

←

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Archive 105

Historical Jesus

HORUS AND MITHRAS

We should really add a disclaimer to the part of the article that speaks about the life of Jesus, because clearly it's rubbish. Fiction based on much older fiction, nothing else.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.52.81 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a large amount of text that has been added without(?) any discussion on the talk page. There was much duplication of info that was already in the article. There was original research. There was info that better fits in the 'Historicity of Jesus' (or whatever it's called) article. The Jesus article is already long enough - too long many would say. ^rossnixon 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you made a good call removing the material Rossnixon. It was added quite recently without much discussion, and it is clearly too detailed for inclusion here. There is already a link to the main article Historical Jesus. Summary style should clearly be observed here if possible. A cursory examination reveals that the recently-added section bears little resemblance to the actual article Historical Jesus. Perhaps it is more appropriate to merge into that article as a new section instead of putting it here. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the new text and, with Jossi's support, restored it. This article has done a poor job of explaining who Jesus was. That's what this section does. There are other sections less relevant to who Jesus was that could be cut first. If there are errors, duplications, or irrelevant details, point them out individually. Leadwind (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the length issue, we have recently lost a lot of extra material from Chronology and Possible External Influences, so we have a little space for good information. If the new information's bad, criticize it on that account. If the information's good, make room for it. Leadwind (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point of view for inclusion. However, I continue to have serious reservations about whether it is appropriate to include the section. First of all, it is unclear to what extent this section represents the consensus of all scholars on the field. It relies very heavily on the one work of the Jesus seminar. Is this representative of the vast majority of scholarship in the area? I don't know. Secondly, the other source is the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. This is no doubt a very good source, and is probably quite reliable despite being a tertiary source, but the references to it are astonishingly generalized. Usually when referencing an encyclopedia or dictionary, it is appropriate to reference the specific entry which is being cited. As a lay reader, I am not qualified to make an assessment as to whether the section is accurate or representative of scholarly opinion, however the references do not inspire much confidence. Thirdly, some of the added text is redundant with the first paragraph of the section (which is a reasonable summary of the article Historical Jesus). I really think that, if you feel that more detail is warranted here, you should try to pack it down into as few sentences as possible. The finer details belong in the main article. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit. I'll start naming the articles from ODCC. Jesus Seminar represents over a dozen leading figures in the field, plus dozens more. As far as I know, I'm not including anything controversial, based on my understanding of other scholars' work. If the section has too much ODCC and Jesus Seminar, then add references of your own! None of this represents consensus of all scholars, just a general consensus. I'd be happy to consider ways to compress the text and make it shorter. Leadwind (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ross Nixon, I restored the material you deleted. Much of it is properly cited. Deleting cited information because it contradicts your POV is bad. Please stop. Leadwind (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried taking out some of the weasel words, irrelevant commentary and uncited original research. Leadwind reverted me straight away. I think the whole section should go, as per my deletion yesterday. If it's all from the Jesus Seminar, even more reason to delete it. They are a fringe scholars with a mission to destroy traditional Christian views. Fair enough putting it somewhere, but not in the main Jesus article. ^rossnixon 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not all from the Jesus Seminar, and the Jesus Seminar isn't fringe. It has included a lot of heavy hitters who are respected scholars in the field in their own right. Christians often hate the JS, but that doesn't make it fringe. If you want citations, ask for them. This section is important because it's the only place where a nonsectarian reader can hope to find out who Jesus was. The article describes what the Christians' gospels say, what various manner of Christians say, snd wehat religious people of various stripes say, but the nonsectarian reader deserves to know what nonsectarian scholars say. Was Jesus baptized? Did he preach imminent apocalypse? Why was he killed? These are relevant historical issues that are covered nowhere else in the article (not as historical issues anyway). Leadwind (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ross, how about this deal? You cut anything you want out of the Historical Jesus section, and you paste it here. I won't restore the deletion. We can talk about the material here instead of fighting over it on the page. Leadwind (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar consists of a number of notable scholars. But it does not include all major scholars - Geza Vermes, Paula Fredricksen, and EP Sanders for example have not participated. I think it is fair to replace the generic word "historians" with something more precise, naming "The Jesus Seminar" when appropriate, and also looking to see what Fredricksen and Sanders think (IF the Jesus Seminar AND Sanders, fredricksen and Vermes all agree, then I think one can safely say "Most notable historians" or something like that). Ross Nixon, You write, "They are a fringe scholars ..." What is your evidence? You also write, "... with a mission to destroy traditional Christian views." Um, I am not sure what you mean, I do not think it is possible to destroy a view, although one can reject or ignore or criticize a view. Be that as it may, again, what is your evidence, and also, so what? Can you explain why this is a justifiable basis for removing their views from the article? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

SR, I agree that the JS doesn't speak for all scholars. On the issue of apocalypse, for example, they are firmly on one side of an open issue, with Karen Armstrong, James Tabor, NT Wright, and probably lots of other scholars on the other. But the JS alone amounts to "many" notable scholars, over a dozen that would be notable in their own right (according to a particular critic of the JS, who writes that "only" 14 of them are notable). Plus, on most issues they're in the scholarly mainstream: the ulterior motives of the evangelists, etc. But a fair number of Christians really hate the JS, and I don't blame them. I guess when referring to the JS, it would be fair to phrase it as "Many contemporary scholars..." Leadwind (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The JS are a self-selected group of liberals who start with the assumption that nothing supernatural exists. Thus when they say that only 31 of 503 sayings of Jesus are authentic, this obviously reflects their starting bias. I think WP:AGF is a better starting point. http://www.watchman.org/reltop/slipslop.htm ^rossnixon 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this sounds like they disagree with Christian views, but I do not see how this means they are "destroying" Christian views. Do you think anyone who rejects your beliefs is thus destroying them? It sounds like you are saying that everyone either agrees with you, or they are destructive. Do you really mean that? By the way, I do not understand what you mean about WP:AGF is a better starting point. A better starting point than what other starting point? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to consider whether the JS meets wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. And we should decide their notability and the amount of weight they should be given, in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. If there is also notable criticism of the JS's findings, then we can cite that as well. From what I gather, they JS is notable, and they can be cited as a reliable source, even if we personally disagree with their findings. That's the beauty of NPOV!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the Historical Jesus section, it reads: Biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted".[38] That reference is attributed to Van Voorst, Robert E.: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Uh, Robert Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, a university that "equips men and women for Christ-centered, biblically based, theologically integrated, culturally sensitive, and mission-oriented Christian leadership." http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/history Does Christian faith imply a conflict of interests in a discussion about historical existence of Jesus?163.252.66.238 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a conflict of interests. There are Christians that believe out of Faith, which is believing even if there is no factual proof, and those who believe because thats how they were raised. Studies usually do not effect religions as people go on believing them. As there was very little to no documentation at that time it is very hard to get historical proof of such a figure. Very few things from religions can be proofed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalocalypse (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The To-Do Section

I am not trying to step on any toes here, but the above "To-do" section (that heads this discussion page) does not seem very helpful. Actually it seems to be vandalized.Cublue (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to attention. I've reverted those changes.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove all the ridiculous bias! Start by getting rid of unsubstantiated (impossible to substantiate) claims that "most" scholar/academics/historians believe that Christ existed. Either cough up the impossible evidence or remove this joke.

The rest of the text should then be restructured to reflect that not everyone agrees he even existed. The use of subjunctive grammar would be obvious.

As is stands it read like some Bigfoot watcher's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.212.231 (talk • contribs)

Here we go again... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "here we go again" is how we atheists feel too! Get over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.101 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that attitude explains the POV problems. This artcle should be delisted till it fixes its bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.85.187 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

commenting out instead of deleting

Lonely Marble accuses me of deception because I commented out a paragraph in Historical Jesus. I often comment out sections rather than deleting them outright for two reasons. One, I've had my material deleted outright too many times (Hi, Ross). Two, I want to leave the text on the page so that another editor can easily see what I cut and easily restore it, which LM did. So LM benefited from my commenting out the section and then accuses me of deception. I love this page. If folks would rather that I delete stuff outright and stop commenting-out stuff as an intermediate step, let me know. Leadwind (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is better to cut controversial or poorly cited edits (if there is no obvious fix)onto the talk page and discuss until a consensus is gained. ^rossnixon 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack on you whatsover because I had no idea who commented it out. I just thought it odd that a section would be commented out with an explanation that it would be better to rewrite the paragraph entirely than fix the current one. If the current parapraph is still in the article text, just invisible commented, people will still try to fix it either by not knowing what invisible comments mean or just because the text is still there. So I thought your reasoning for keeping the text there was kind of odd. I completely understand your reasoning as you just explained it, and like I said don't make it personal because I had no idea who made it an invisible comment. My main point was I think most editors, unless very informed about this page, will probably more likely try to fix the invisible comment paragraph rather than create a new one thus making your intentions void. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LM, ah, I see your point. In fact, I had rewritten the paragraph, so no work was still needed, but I can see now how that wouldn't be clear to other editors. Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Islamic movie on Jesus

Where can this go in the article:

• The Messiah (Iranian film) is a 2008 Iranian film from the Islamic Republic of Iran, directed by Nader Talebzadeh on the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. Robert C Prenic (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Jesus in modern media" page? There's about a million things that could go in it, assuming it doesn't exist in some form already. Peter Deer (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. The nearest thing is a category "Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film". Paul B (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like just right. Good find. Peter Deer (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical section/Christian views section

Why is the historical section so long when there are two major articles on the topic. Is it my imagination or did it grow recently. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a lot of that stuff. First, I cut less-relevant material from other sections to make space. Now I'm adding the HJ stuff. I'm adding it here because the perfect article is nearly self-contained, and this stuff seems relevant to Jesus. The Christian views, by the way, are also really thin. The Mormons get their own section but the EO, RCC, and Protestants don't? There's a lot more we can say about Christian views of Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's contained within "Majority Views": "It is possible to describe a general majority Christian view by examining the similarities between specific Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant doctrines found in their catechetical or confessional texts." More specifically, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant churches all follow a Chalcedonian christology; ie, the hypostatic union: that Christ is one person with two natures, both human and divine. I'm more concerned about the exclusion of the Oriental Orthodoxy (They're trinitarian, but Miaphysite: they believe that Christ is one person with one nature, both human and divine).

This is somewhat reductionist, but if I understand correctly, the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches has more to do with pneumatology than Christology; the infamous filioque clause. The difference between the Christology of the Catholic and Protestant churches has to do with theories of atonement and justification--from a traditional Protestant POV, Catholics confuse justification with santification (the joint statement of Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists notwithstanding). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the three mainstream views are summarized in this section, but they should still be called out individually. EOs believe that the incorporation of Jesus' body into the Trinity paves the way for our own theosis. RCCs believe that the Church is Christ made manifest on earth. Protestants emphasize personal faith in Jesus over the saving power of the church. Most of the majority view stuff is also held by the minority: Jesus as divine, as the Son, as judge and savior.

Plus, this section should cover where Christians get their beliefs: the NT, the creeds, and church tradition. The page mentions the gospels, but what about Paul's epistles and Revelation? The historical Jesus section points out where these historical ideas come from (200 years of historical and literary analysis). The Christian views section should have a subsection on "sources of Christology" or something.

Christians' views of Jesus are a big, important topic that deserves more space. I'd say two or three more paragraphs. Leadwind (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a noteworthy division in contemporary Christianity between liberal Christians (many of whom doubt some of Jesus' miracles in the gospels) and traditional Christians (who hold that it's all true). Leadwind (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Paul's epistles and Revelation should be mentioned, as should the difference between liberal and conservative Christians. They were at one time... I'm not sure, though, that the fine details of the EO/RCC/Protestant distinctions belong here or in Christian views of Jesus. As I said, reductionist (Wikipedia:Summary Style). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal)

It doesn't seem right to have a list of authors and books (especially redlinked books) in the myth section. I think just having the authors' names should suffice. But I'm a little concerned because I believe G.A. Wells has backed off his mythist position, and Bob Price has said he is an "agnostic" about the historical Jesus, and I'm not sure his views are nearly as extreme as say Doherty and Freke/Grandy. I also believe Doherty should be listed with the "popular" authors. What do others think? Perhaps something like More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed and to some extent advocated by scholars such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of popular works promoting the non-history hypothesis. Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried researching your claim that G. A. Wells backed off his mythist position and couldn't find it. Would you have a reference handy? 189.138.241.198 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that if you are going to represent different religions viewpoints on Christ then you should have a person from that religoin doing the writing. Many churches now have publisists that would be happy to submit something. I don't mind getting this information if it will truly be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninbrd (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COI. In this case, using third party sources would be best. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Its latin, isnt it?

The article states that "The name Jesus is an anglicization of the Hebrew name that would have more closely been pronounced as spelled Yeshua.", it doesnt name any source though. Isnt "Jesus" a latin form of Yeshua?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwalters8 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources which say so please feel free to cite them. As for Jesus being the latin form of Yeshua, that would make sense in accordance with old latin's bizarre mangling of hebrew words. Peter Deer (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a bit of a jump to say it's an anglicisation of Hebrew. It gives the false impression that it's specifically English, even though many other languages use the identical word. Of course the pronunciation differs between languages, so strictly it could be called an Anglicisation of the Latin, which was a latinization of the Greek, which was a greekisation (if there is such a word) of the Hebrew. But that's a bit of a mouthful. How about "The name Jesus derives via Latin and Greek from a Hebrew name that would have more closely been pronounced as spelled Yeshua."? Paul B (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous." The CE itself is not clear as to whether Jesus' name in his own language was Yeshua or Yehoshua. I bet each of us has a very plausible, reasonable, favorite, but do we have any reliable sources about the etimology of the name/what his name was in Hebrew (or Aramaic)? Since there is no original source, this calls for a reconstruction and for one of us to do it would violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I'm sure that someone else has already done this, I sincerely doubt that we're the first people in 2008 years. It's purely a matter of finding it and verifying it. Peter Deer (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that discuss the Yeshua/Yehoshua/Joshua issue. It's just rather too complicated to easily summarise. Just putting what the Cath Enc says seems reasonable, and a link to Jesus (name). Paul B (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I just did it. And I think it is worth having the etimologies in the intro, given the apparently widespread confusion about his name vs. his title. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is the greek form of the name "eesha". Latin is an Indo-european language. And in indo-european language and even in Indian language of Sanskrit, "eesha" means 'God', or 'Godly'. So there is a theory that his name comes from 'eesha'. I beleive this too can be added. (Niketsundaram1977 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Latin and Greek are IE, for sure, but Hebrew and Aramaic aren't! This seems to be a fringe theory of a very Oak-like variety. Paul B (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting looking at this. It's like a 2000 year old game of 'telephone.' So we have Iēsous/Yehoshua/Yeshua transitioning into Eesha/Isa/Jesus based on which source you hear it from and which culture is pronouncing it. Similarly, Yehoshua is actually the origin of the name Joshua/Josh, so we have that as well, though I don't think most people think of Josh being possibly a version of Jesus' name, at least here in America. Peter Deer (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no such language as "Indo-European." Second, this is not s 2000 year game of telephone. We have manuscripts in Greek that were written at a time when Greek and Aramaic speakers often interacted. We do not know with any certainty Jesu's hebrew or Aramaic name, but we do know for sure that he was called Ieosis by Greek-speakers within two hundred years of his putitive birth. Maybe there is some "telephone" there, but it isn't 2000 years of whispers! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am now proposing the theorum, that all baloney about Jesus eminates from Youtube: [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus - the spelling is a Latin version of Yeshua. In ancient Latin the letter J was pronounced as the English letter Y, and S on the end of a word is silent. (similarly Jehovah J=Y V=W and you get Yehowah) The letters in Latin sounded out the correct sounds, it is because in English the letters are pronounced differently that the confusion enters in. So technically, Jesus is a English pronunciation of a Hebrew word transliterated to Latin.Cool10191 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

what other Latin words have a silent "s?" By the way Hebrew has no "w" sound. Are you just making this up? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No I am telling the truth, I know Hebrew has no Y. It is latin that has the Y. But they Jews call god Yawa, which in Latin was spelt Jehovah, because J=Y V=W, the sound that is. Here Check this out [2]. I fluent in Latin (I admit with embarrassment). Ah, and I apologize I do see your point on the Jesus, it ends is "US", in which case it would be pronounced. But (although I admittedly don't know the answer to this) wouldn't that be considered the "Romanization" of the name, most roman first names end like that (Julius, Augustus, Tacitus, Marcus, Maximus, etc) really, only last names are spelt without the "us". But anyway, As I said, it was when the others languages translated the Latin\Greek bible they left all the name in their Latin spelling, even though the Latin sounds did not match their native language. Here a site that explains it pretty good actually (on this site they use the letter "I" which in these instances would still be prounounced as a and english "Y". J did not develop in Latin until after jesus' death, in that time the sound "Y" was made by the latin constant "I".[3]. This is nothing radical :) Just basic Latin phonetics. Just trying to be helpful. My only point is when you says Jesus in Latin it sounds like "YEES-us", which sounds alot more like the original name than Jesus. Thanks Cool10191 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said Hebrew has no Y. Your misreading a simple statement I made makes me further wonder whether you are telling the truth. In any event, you need to provide a reliable source and your website I think does not count as a reliable source. Be that as it may, it seems you did not even read your website clearly, since, like our article, your aebsite says that Latin came from the Greek, and Jesus' original name was first transcribed into Greek (not Latin). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am really not trying to be controversial. I completely agree with what Paul B says above. and, I know that website i linked is not perfect, but it showed what I was trying to say. Which is "Jesus", as a Latin word, is pronounced quite differently that we say it English - even though it is spelled the same. Thats my only point :) I do not dispute that it was hebrew then greek then latin, that is probably true. But also, Hebrew\Aramaic does have a "W" sound, it is on the end of the vowels "E" and "A" [4]. I think how the article states the origin of the name is accurate and acceptable. I would only suggest perhaps adding a pronunciation for latin, greek, and armaic words to more accurately demonstrate how the word slowly changed. thanksCool10191 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers

this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers. --Emesee (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the issue. Long, unformatted URLs were the culprit.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on archives.

Since this page has such an extensive catalog of archives, I propose creating a separate page to serve as an index of archives. Then this talk page would only need a single line indicating that info about the archives can be found on that index page. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Talk:Jesus/Archive details? I think it's a good idea to list some content in the recent archives at the top of the page just for users looking for past, recent discussions can have easy access to that information. It may help cut down on redundant topic posting. Perhaps we don't need to highlight the last 10 archives (5 could work, or less). However, I'm not fond of the idea of completely removing the recent "Recent Archive log", if that is what you were suggesting.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the Archive details page only goes to #85, and there are #99 archives. I used to maintain the archives, but I got busy. Someone should update the Archive details page (or I will if I have the time). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First Section

Two things:

Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[7] or completely inaccurate.[8]

Critical Scholars wouldn't accept it as accurate. This sentence is misleading, it should be changed to something that encompasses all scholars.

Many Christians revere as an incarnation of God.

What is an example of a Christian that doesn't believe Jesus was God? RJRocket53 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your first point. Critical scholars (such as Ehrman, Meier, Sandards) believe there are at least some if not many historical details preserved in the gospels. Are you saying that critical scholars are in the "completely inaccurate" group? As to your second point, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus was "God". -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, Andrew, that the first point is (1) that the statement inplies that there are a few critical scholars who believe the texts are all inaccurate (which may be true), but also that there are a few critical scholars who believe that all ancient texts are all completely accurate, and (2) in fact you will not find evn one critical scholar who believes all ancient texts are completely accurate. Therefore, the first sentence is incorrect. I think this is a valid point, you just have to read the sentence carefully enough. The key word is "few." I do not think RJR questions that there are critial scholars who accept that the texts are partially accurate. But the sentence suggests that there are a fiew that believe it is completely accurate. Alternative: "Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus life are at least partially accurate" This proposition is in fact different from the one we currently have in the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I support changing the clumsy text to Slrubenstein's proposal above. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support this notion. I see no reason not to, go ahead and be bold. Peter Deer (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speaking strictly logically:
  • "a few X believe Y" becomes "some X believe Y"
  • "few X believe Y" becomes "some X do not believe Y"
• I am not, however, expecting that all readers will be aware of this distinction - and so it could easily be misunderstood --JimWae (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No not all Christians believe Jesus is God. Jehova witnesses believe that Jesus is inferior to God and therefore, being less than God cannot be God, but rather the Archangel Michael. Tourskin (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The historical Jesus

I made some corrections to the summary of how historians view Jesus, and also deleted material that seemed to be expressing a Christian point of view. Of course I have no objection to Christian points of view being in this article, but they should be in the section on Christian points of view. We could build up this section more, drawing on the important historians like Saners and Frederikson, but I think the links to other articles is sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to participate in the editing of this page.

13 millions LDS members beleive that Jesus Christ is the literal living Son of God. He is the God of this Earth but is not his father. They are separate beings each having a body of their own. It is proven in the bible when Christ was baptized and the Son is there in the flesh, his father speaks to us, and the holy ghost descends upon Christ.

Morninbrd (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, would you like to change/add? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)