Talk:Jesus/Archive 104

Archive 100

←

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

→

Archive 110

Black Jesus

There should be information in here about the way some of the African American community pictures Jesus.(black skin, white hair,...)71.188.142.171 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See Race of Jesus. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, listen, Jesus came to save EVERYONE the blacks, the whites, the haspanics, etc. It doesn't matter what color skin he has. Plus, Jesus probably wasn't white. He was Jewish, anyways. Again, though, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that he cam to save ALL OF US! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.4.249 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, ok? I think that all that person was trying to say is that there should be some info about the way some people picture Jesus. Now, whether or not He was black, white, or middle-eastern (He was middle-eastern) has already been solved but has nothing to do with how other people wish to see him.Prussian725 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, black people think jesus had white hair? That's so random, like black people don't even have white hair. --Devil875 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Autobiography" of Jesus

User:Quartermaster insists in adding an "autobiography" of Jesus written in 1894 to the References section. First, I can't imagine we'd accept "autobiographies" written centuries after the death of any other historical figure, and second, the obscure book is not referenced anywhere in the article, so how can it be a "reference"? Camillus 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It has no place here, certainly not labelled as if it were genuinely written by JC! In any case, it's not a source and it's not notable. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy - Via What Father?

An issue to discuss (tactfully) in the genealogy section is how Christian theology frames the "descent" of Jesus from King David, etc. -- presumably via Joseph -- when Joseph is only Mary's husband, not Jesus' father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.149.153 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be that tactful; most Christians openly acknowledge that Jesus's geneology is traced through Joseph even though Joseph is believed to not be his biological father. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Jesus "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born through the Virgin Mary". That is what Christians believe. Hope this helps!Prussian725 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Christians do not believe that Jesus' genealogy was traced through Joseph. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the common explanation in Christian apologetics for the two differing genealogies is that one is Joseph's line of descent and the other is Mary's. As a couple of quick examples see this and this. Vassyana (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but while legally in terms of the Roman Census Jesus' Father was Joseph Christians do not believe Jesus had a biological father. So he may have had a legal father in Joseph and thus formed part of his lineage but in terms of Christian thought his only bloodline came through Mary. Gavin Scott (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two issues here: first, what Christians think; second, what historians think. As for what Christians think, I assume there are authoritative texts from the Church Fathers who could be cited - this is no guessing game, it just calls for some research. As for what historians think, well, I know several historians who think that the first Christians were Jews who believed that the messiah had to be a descendent of David through the father's line and that these first Christians would very much have been concerned with Jesus' geneaology through Joseph (e.g. Sanders, Fredricksen, Vermes). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When doing geneology, the legal or adoptive father is the one who is listed as the father and his bloodline is traced. It might not make much since, but that is how it is done. So whether or not it is believed that Joseph or God was Jesus's father, it makes since that Joseph's bloodline would be incorporated. I hope this clears up some confusion.--Fizzos98 (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition to "Genealogy & Family"

Holy Blood Holy Grail and then the Da Vinci Code esp popularized the idea that Jesus had a family and so descendants. This was prophecized in Isaiah 52:13 and 53:12 "And He shall see his seed" and "And he shall sprinkle his seed over many nations" - and the only real discussion of proof of this Holy prophecy is The Jesus Presidents (2004) Jesus Descendants Down To Today

Yes, there should definitely be some more references for that idea, which is not supported by most doctrines of the Christian faith.(I am not 100% certain however)Prussian725 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there definitely should not be. We should provide notable points of view from reliable sources. There is no need to provide fringe theories that are not taken seriously by any serious scholar. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I mean. If you are going to present an idea that is not widely held then you should have a good amount of references. Also, it would be important to present it as a minority idea too, and not as a commonly held point of view. Or should it just not be included?Prussian725 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection, according to whom?

The previous text to the infobox regarding Jesus' Death said: "According to Christians, he rose two days later." This text has been changed to say "According to The Bible...". The reason behind this initial change was the editor believes Catholics have Easter too clearly implying that Catholics are not Christians. I don't think "According to the Bible" is a good change because we could be more accurate (according to the New Testament, or according to the gospels, or according to Matthew 28:1-10, Luke 24:1-8, and John 20:1-2, etc). Saying "the Bible" is a little vaugue/inaccurate (if it is presumed to the "Hebrew Bible"), and if it is the Christian Bible, then the vast majority of the text has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus, and it would help our readers to narrow down the scope. I don't think we needed to make a change, but if editors do feel a change is needed, then we should be more specific and accurate than saying "The Bible". I suggest restoring the long standing content while this discussion is underway.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that particular bit really requires a cited secondary source, because there's going to be a lot of fighting over it. Peter Deer (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, please be bold and revert the change. I see no need for a change that is both lacking in specificity and unnecessary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it once, and my revert was reverted. Being a fairly strict 1RR sort of person, I decided to start a talk page discussion thread on it instead of risk edit warring ;) I've invited the user who reverted me to join us here and explain further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my edit is I think there are some Christian who don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. But it is undeniably in the Bible. So it would be more accurate to state the Bible as a source of the resurrection than most Christians. Andrew C may have a point- it might be better to say specifically where the resurrection is stated in the Bible rather than just saying 'the Bible'. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to put you on the spot, but can you (or anyone else) name a group of Christians who do not believe in the resurrection? I know there has been debate (i.e. Marcus Borg vs. Tom Wright) regarding a physical or spiritual resurrection, but both the liberal Christian and the more conservative Christian in that debate clearly believe in the resurrection (the details they disagree on). I'm sure there are more liberal Christians than Marcus Borg, but not many, eh? We should be sure that saying "According to Christians, he rose..." is inaccurate before changing it. One way to address the issue is adding a qualifying adjective before Christians such as "vast majority" or "most". I have a tendency to lean towards "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". That said, as I mentioned above, we could work together to come up with a wording that is more specific than just "the Bible". I personally haven't thought of anything that is more specific that isn't too verbose for an infobox.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

here's one source

and another

maybe this one, not sure

Jeffrywith1e (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• None of the links above are about churches; they are all about individuals. Do you know of any Christian church whose doctrine states clearly that Jesus of Nazareth was not resurrected?

Again, we should never use "Christians believe"...anything i.e. take your pick of beliefs. We are capable of identifying what churches teach, but not what individual Christians believe. This is very easy to fall into, but we should strictly avoid using Christians and use Christian churches instead. I am not aware of a single Christian church that teaches Jesus was not resurrected. Does anyone know of one? The scholars from the Jesus Seminar seemed to have a problem with it, but they do not represent any churches. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A good way to find out what churches believe is to look at the Apostle's Creed, which Protestant and Catholic alike recite(the only difference is "Holy Christian Church"/"Holy Catholic Church"). The Creed clearly says "the third day He rose again from the dead".Prussian725 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

In Sanskrit Jesus (Sanskrit: ईसा, translitererated as Easa) and ईसा मसीह Easa Maseeha). Is considered being the son of God born to a virgin and is an Brahmin with two births.

I'm astonished that this ungrammatical assertion has been allowed to stand, attributed to a populist and unscholarly book. I will not revert-war, but leave it to others. Anyone interested can read the relevant article, or the sources. The Bhavishya Purana mentions both Jesus and Muhammad, both in ways which clearly indicate the influence of Islamic doctrine, which is hardly surprising since no manuscript predates the nineteenth century. BTW, the expression 'with two births' refers to the Hindu concept that scholars are both physically and intellectually 'born' - born to the body and born to ideas. The usual phrasing is 'twice born'. As it stands the sentence is unintelligable. Also the idea that Jesus is "considered being the son of God born to a virgin and is an Brahmin" in "Sanskrit" is unsubstantiated. It comes from the BP, and the BP alone. Paul B (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Won't comment (for now) on the sourcing issue, but I can hardly make heads or tails of that sentence. It is gibberish. Random puncuation, capitalization, and very poor grammar leaves me wondering what is the intended meaning. Who ever wants this sentence included, please revise and fix the sentence so it's intelligible to the average reader.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be more accurate,

Jesus Christ appears with the name Easa. He was born when the era of Kali Yuga reached three thousand years in the land of Huna. He is considerd to be the Son of God born in the womb of a virgin. Jesus Christ is known by his well known name as ‘Easa Maseeha’ in the Hindu scriptures. --Veer87 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian history category

I reverted an earlier removal of the "Christian history" category, and that category has recently been removed again. Is the "Christian history" category being deleted? Is there some reason that Jesus doesn't belong there? Much thanks. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Comment

In John 8:58 Jesus is not "...claim[ing] the title of I AM" as stated. He is referring to his prexistance "Before Abraham was, I am" is what is stated (KJV) -- lower case. With an article on Jesus it is difficult to keep opinion out of it, I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.8.149 (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

BC/BCE?

Shouldn't we change this to either BC or BCE? I'd say we should use BC in this particular article, given that it's used in many articles with a lesser Christian connotation such as Ancient Rome and Julius Caesar. WhackyMole (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We are using dual designations due to very protracted discussions of what date format should be used, on many occasions. The current state is an awkward but largely accepted compromise. ^rossnixon 07:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Truth

According to the Bible, Jesus died, and rose THREE days later, not two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arty21782 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He died just before sunset on Friday, and rose after dawn on sunday morning, that is less that 48 hours. Charles Edward 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, he did not die "just before sunset", he died at 3pm on Friday. Nonetheless, he remained dead for less than 72 hours and probably sometime between 72 hours and 48 hours, depending upon what time his ressurection occured..

Where does it say on teh Bible that "Jesus rose three days later?" Thats in the past tense, so it sounds like a spoiler to me and no Gospel writer acually wrote down "Jess rose three days later". The closest we get is "I shall ear down this temple and within three days rebuild the temple." Unfortunately there is an ample amount of poorly translated bibles out there taht replace the words within 3 days to just in 3 days which is a big difference because Jesus rose within three days, on Sunday, which is the Third day from Friday. Friday is day1, Sat day2 and Sun day3. The Niceaen creed says "rose on the third day", not three days later. Tourskin (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to debunk your myth. The jewish day starts and sunset- so the first hour of the day (as opposed to first hour of the night) in the spring would be about 7-8 am. He died the ninth hour of the day which would be about 4-5pm (count nine hours from dawn), and sunset at that time of year (early spring) would be about 6-7pm. Another way to deduce that he had die very close to sunset was that there was only time to carry him to the tomb but no time to embalm his body, that is why mary was coming back first thing sunday morning - to embalm him. (they could not ebalm him satuday because it was the sabbath). So he died just a couple hours before sunset on friday. (sunset started the second day of his death) He was not in his grave very early sunday morning (which was the third day of his death) when mary showed up to embalm him. So let's count, 4pm friday, to about 9am sunday morning = 28 hours. SO he was dead ON three different days, but only for a couple hours on the first day and the third day. The point is, the article is fine, it don't need changed. Here's a good source, you can google some more [1] Charles Edward 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 24 hours of saturday plus 7 hours of sunday morning makes it over 30 hours. Why don't we count shall we? 4pm - 12 midnight friday is 8 hours, saturday is 24 hours and 8 hours of sunday morning makes it a total of 40 hours, not 28. Thats based on your speculation which (a) is irrelevant and (b) cannot be taken for granted. Tourskin (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, 3pm in the afternoon my sound like a myth to you, but if one is to believe in the ressurection, one may as well not get too irritable with the details. No can prove it was a myth, no matter what some scholar says. Tourskin (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I am not counting the twelve hours of the of the evening. But we are agreed in the main point, probably less than 48 hours? and definitely less than 72? :) Charles Edward 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, less than 72 and probably less than 48 too. Tourskin (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Finnish psalm "Isä meidän" which is "The Lord's Prayer" is said that "nousi kolmantena päivänä kuolleista" "rose on the third day from death"(roughly translated). So if he died on friday that would have been the first day and sunday would have been the third day, I would suggest he died between the 36th hour and maybe the 60th hour. Skele (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in any case, it feels strange to read: "According to The Bible, he rose two days later". According to words and phrases in the Bible, he rose "on the third day" or "after three days". According to descriptions of time passed in the Bible (as detailed by all of you here), he rose in actually fewer hours than that required for "two days later". So why don't we change that infobox part to something like: "According to The Bible, he rose on the third day of his death." Otherwise, I think more people might come to this talk page confused. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that. Tourskin (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me too Charles Edward 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, it's good. Skele (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I still take issue with the first half of the sentence, the "Bible" part, as mentioned here. We really need to be more specific (and a citation wouldn't hurt). Once we have a citation, we can be sure that our source is saying "three" instead of "two" as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "According to Matthew 27". That is where it says he died about the ninth hour, yet was not in his tomb early sunday morning. Charles Edward 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Was he any good at his day job?

I was looking at the article in search for more information about Jesus and carpentry. Although it's a somewhat esoteric subject, considering He's one of the biggest historical figures ever, I figured there would have been a bit more substantial info on the topic including a line explaining that the idea that he invented the table is an urban legend.--72.1.222.205 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you stupid? What did the Romans, Celts, Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians... oh you know what this is stupid, the question is as stupid as it gets, but the answer is of course not. - He did not invent the table. Tourskin (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a nice Christian response. I'd be careful to avoid using the word stupid since your response, besides being rude, demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension and is just begging for the use of that epithet. However I will turn the other cheek and simply reiterate that I wanted more information in regards to Jesus and carpentry and that I stated at the end of my two sentence long post (so it wasn't like I was overloading you with too much information) that His invention of the modern table was an urban legend which if you've never heard the term before simply means modern apocrypha.--72.1.222.205 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah, let's not go bashing the Christians now. I think you'd be hard pressed to find out too much about his carpentry work. What sources do we have for that sort of information? It would be interesting to know though. --St.Giga (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, we must use verifiable and reliable sources and not give undue weight to trivia. But I think Jesus did work as a carpenter until He was 30, so I wonder if there were any ads for His carpentry services - who knows? It sounds like a good idea for a novel - the Holy Grail is a miraculous table made by Him? Brisvegas 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

This article should have a In Popular Culture section. I mean it. The perception of Jesus has changed a lot in modern times, and this is shown a lot in TV shows, like Family Guy or South Park, etc. Even The Da Vinci code can be mentioned. Just a thought. Take it or leave it; I'm too afraid to touch the article myself.--Seanpatnaude (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Family Guy and South Park type shows joke about many things. Aren't the Da Vinci theories already mentioned? -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's significant because these shows change the perception of Jesus to a lot of people, especially kids. Jesus isn't treated with much respect nowadays, and how he's viewed in popular culture reflects this, and influences this. I don't mean just a trivia list, but just some mention about the trend of how he is treated by the popular media, and people make jokes about him smoking weed (bong hits 4 jesus) and generally not being the figure that people used to view him as. Also the movies The Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma, and so on.--Seanpatnaude (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one reject those type of sections. It makes what is supposed to be an encyclopedia into something more akin to the National Enquirer or People magazine. What amazes me is the people care about what those shows say; as if it has import in serious articles or topics. Should we also report what the comics said over the last several decades? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you reject it? How does it make it into a People magazine or National Enquirer? It's not gossip, but a discussion about how popular culture treats him, which is with no respect at all. It causes children to not take him serious, and this is a atheistic talking, so I'm not being biased. But I do think its relevant how they treat him in popular culture. It reflects and continues the trend of people not believing in him. Don't you think that is relevant?--Seanpatnaude (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like anything else, if you find credible citations that claim popular culture is causing children to not treat Jesus seriously, then you're welcome to add it. Otherwise, you just have information about animated comedies making fun of Jesus. Compare to the articles on Osama bin Laden, Disability, or Federal government of the United States, all of which have taken blows from South Park or Family Guy. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

jesus picture

I noticed the picture of Jesus. My question is...what does jesus look like and how was this image chosen? Are there any pictures or paintings of Jesus painted by people when jesus was alive. This picture is just a guess of what he looked like. For all we know, this is just some dude posing as jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that you are not the first to make such a comment. Not surprisingly photography did not exist at the time of Jesus; obviously to the consternation of individuals like yourself who seek an exact image of the man known as Jesus. In fact, painting was not as advanced in ancient Jerusalem as you might think; it is rather rough and not reflective of true depiction of individuals. What we do have throughout Christian history are depictions of Jesus and we have chosen to use one of those. We assume that the average reader understands that photography did not exist and the art used is not meant to represent the image of Jesus, but an idealized reflection of him. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified the caption somewhat. --BenBurch (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the best description mentioned in Isaiah 53:2--SkyWalker (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty passage, certainly, but not pictorially descriptive in any way.  :-) --BenBurch (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He did not come here for people to look at him and say how handsome and good looking he was. People should admire his teachings not the how the looks are. Anyways it describes "pictorially descriptive" to me. The passage says it all. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

views on Jesus and Muhammad

ok. I am not a writer here but the way this is written. It is as he never lived..it says alot of "according to" and "noted in" and all that...but if you read the article on Muhammad at states as if he really lived, to me that smells of racisism or at least politics can this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba1500 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Jesus or Muhammad? --Elliskev 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you (User Bubba1500) are talking about the Muhammad article written with an assumption that he really existed and the Jesus article written in such a way so as not offend the almighty atheists and so on. Unfortunately this is a case of

1) Atheism is far stronger in the West, so the Western dominated Christianity article will come under alot more attack in the area of "did Jesus really exist?", since its the major religion in the West and therefore the obvious target.

2) Atheists are far more scared of insulting Islam, than Christianity. When the Danish released cartoons of Muhammad in an offensive manner, which I myself found too far, their were violent riots against Danish embassies. When Pope Benedict quoted the fustrated Byzantine Emperor Manuel Palaeologus, he recieved death threats informally by again, protests. Parodying Christianity on the other hand, is not only acceptable, but I hate to admit it, an integral part of western society: Sister Act, Vicar of Dibley, Father Ted and so on.

Concluding, Christianity is a bigger target in the West and an easier one, unlikely to result in violent demonstrations if insulted, and this is reflected in how Christian articles are in comparison to many other religious articles, where by Christian articles like this one recives excessive trolling, in addition to genuine Atheist and Agnostic comments. This may hurt some people, if it does, get out of your shells and prove me wrong if anyone can. Tourskin (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This makes no sense to me. Atheism is about whether God exists, not whether Jesus or Muhommed existed. Atheists are obviously not afraid to insult Islam, as the Danish cartoons and Pope Benecit's statements prove (as well as the overwhelming discrimination against Muslims in Europe compared to Christianity which in some countries, like the UK, is a state religion). Neither of these explanations explain anyting. The reason this article is more circumspect about whether Jesus existed than the Muhammed article is that historians are more divided over whether Jesus existed than Muhammed. Our articles are guided by our policies and if you think this or the Muhammed articles do not live up to the letter and spirit of our policies, by all means make the appropriate edits. This article states that most historians think Jesus did exist and that the Gospel accounts are at least partially accurate ... this is in fact what most historians do think. What sentence in this article is inaccurate? What sentence in the Muhammed article is inaccurate? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whats the huh for? Its quite unanimous that Christianity is subject to atheistic attacks more than any other religion in the West. Islamaphobia is not Atheistic attacks, do not confuse racists attacking Muslims with Atheists challenging theology. My point is, that there is a connection between the vastly greater ratio of Atheistic criticism of Christianity : Islam and the alledged difference in the two articles, which may or may not exist, I don't know, I was merely making this point.

Now then, if there is something wrong at this slight level, I don't give too much of a damn in "repairing" it because it doesn't threaten my faith, but if it did exist I would like to point out any hypocrisy. I said that Christian articles like this one get a lot of trolling. Thats something that I can do nothing about, in answer to your call for my appropriate editsTourskin (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with both of you... If the OP is asking why the language of this article contains a lot of language referencing references as opposed to being closer to a biographical narrative, then I'd guess it's because the best (and nearly only) references we have for the life of Jesus, the Gospels, were written about 2000 years ago by four different people, none of whom were attempting to write a biography. It would be futile in a forum like Wikipedia to try to reconcile the differences in interpretation among editors. The best we can do is Mark says.. ''Luke says...

I don't know enough about the written history re: Muhammad to comment on why that article may or may not be different, but ultimately, the differences are irrelevant. --Elliskev 01:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Muhammad are much better. There is no serious doubt that he existed as a person. One reason is that we are 600 years and several major cultural breaks closer to Muhammad, but the more significant one is that Jesus (if he existed) probably was a carpenter and itinerant teacher whose religion only took off after he died (or at least vanished from the scene). Muhammad, on the other hand, was a somewhat wealthy merchant and became the leader of a group that conquered a rich and civilized area. i.e. effectively the ruler of Arabia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt that Jesus existed as a person, either. Muhammad himself testified to this simple fact. LotR (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad very likely had worse sources than we have today. So unless you believe he had some supernatural insight, his word on this topic is not very weighty. For our modern view, see Historicity of Jesus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple: either Jesus existed or he didn't.Prussian725 (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Please try to keep things on topic to discussing improvements to the article, as opposed to debating generally the topic of Jesus' historicity. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Occupation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would putting 'God (maybe)' under occupation be considered POV? Or just kinda weird? golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

God is not an occupation. See God the article. --Elliskev 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So He's a process, a relationship, with no form and no gender but animate (an attitude), experienced in both the manifest/-ing realms and named in a non-arbitrary manner. God is pretty much a verb. And since occupations are activities that occupy a person's attention (what they 'do') and verbs are 'doing' words, most verbs constitute occupations. I think Jesus' occupation should be God. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not speak the "Truth" with a capital "t". It is a collection of notes gathered from known sources that people of differing points of view can equally regard. That's why a book written by a scholar or a historian ABOUT a certain theological idea taken from New Testament quotations is NPOV, but the ideas themselves and the quotations themselves are not -- these would be open to disagreement. The kinds of ideas in your paragraph above are beyond the scope of this humble little Wikipedia.Tim (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that article stating that God (or a god) is "a process" or "a relationship" - and certainly nothing to suggest that "God" is a verb, or anything like one. Additionally, I'd dispute your statement that "most verbs constitute occupations" - but I won't argue that further, since it's irrelevant given my first statement. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're having fun, User:Kalindoscopy. I think WP:FRINGE and WP:OR might do a better job responding than anyone here could. --Elliskev 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Yes, it would be considered POV. Now, it is NOT POV to write that Christians consider Jesus to be divine -- but that's not an OCCUPATION. It's a nature. An occupation would be something like, "the gospels indicate that Joseph was a carpenter and Jesus could have taken that up as an occupation before becoming an itinerant preacher. The gospels also record that the apostles and Jesus could have lived off of money donated from women" (and give the verses). Now, even so, quoting the New Testament is not in itself a source of NPOV information. The best one can do is to say that the gospels indicate that something could have happened. Far better (in fact, best by Wiki standards) would be to find a source like "Jesus, the Marginal Jew" that said something similar to what I just wrote. Stick around a while, you'll get the hang of it.Tim (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. 'Marginal Jew' sounds appealing. Might I suggest 'Fringe Jew' as a little more snazzy? 'Tangential' works too. Then there's 'Borderline' (makes me think of Madonna.. whataretheodds??), 'minor', 'circumferential', 'negligible' and 'insignificant'. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bells, if you want to be taken seriously, please consider taking us seriously. Tim was refering to Meier's very well-respected book; your response just makes you look like a silly child. Is that really the effect you were after? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Boredom is the root of all evil. I'll have a nap. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone here who is responding to this troll did not bother to delete the comments. How much more obvious do you want trolling like this to get? In the future, delete such comments first hand and don't feed the trolls with reasoning. This guy is just saying nonesense.Tourskin (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF - although I admit my credence is approaching its limits. MatthewDBA (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We need a "WP:DWT" (don't waste time)... ;-)Tim (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I looked at this users record of edits and he has made many constructive edits - but also has a combattive if not plain obnoxious style on talk pages, and was recently blocked. I am not convinced this user is a troll, but may need mentoring (he is no newbie, has been here more than six months). Tourskin, may I respectfully suggest you look at this person's other edits and decide for yourself? I think you may either own him an apology for calling him a troll - or may want to put a notice at AN/I or somewhere else requesting this person be watched, warned, or mentored. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation,

Apparently a Jewish Tablet from the Dead Sea (dubbed Gabriel's Revelation) has been found which predates the birth of Jesus and predicts that the Messiah must suffer and die and then be resurrected after three days before he is able to bring reconciliation between man and God. This would have two implications for our understanding of Jesus.

1. It adds further legitimacy to the Christian claim that Jesus fulfilled Jewish Messianic Prophecy.
2. It reduces the legitimacy of the Christian claim that the three-day resurrection was unique to Christianity- perhaps the disciples latched onto "Gabriel's Revelation" in order to give the teachings of their master more credibility.

It should be noted that not everyone accepts the validity of this tablet- as the following sources will show. None the less it may be something to keep an eye on for inclusion into the article once more information is made available.

Sources,

1. The Scotsman Newspaper
2. The Daily Star (Lebanon Newspaper
3. TIME Magazine
4. MSNBC

Gavin Scott (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this specific discovery (which occured many years ago) warrents much attention in this article. It is precisely evidence such as this which, as you say, is drawn on both by Christians and by proponents of the "Jesus Myth" denial of Christianity. But my agreeing with Gavin's assessment is neither here nor there. NOR: we editors do not rely on our own views. The issue here is V and NPOV: Which notable points of view make use of this evidence? Have notable Christian authorities used it to support their claims? If so, I think this would belong in the Christology article, not here. Have advocates of the Jesus Myth used it to support their claims? If so, this would belong in the Jesus Myth article. Has it changed the way any historian views the historical Jesus? if so that should go in one of the articles on the historical Jesus. But the newspapers and magazines cited just prove that this was in the news. They aren't the right kinds of sources to support any of the notable views that we are endeavoring to include in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair points, but as your long list demonstrates, the outcome(s) of this re-discovery are impossible to predict accurately, and it might result in something that would be relevant to this article. Because we don't know what the affect is, I say we just wait and see what it could be and then determine if it warrants a word or two in this article. Tourskin (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

1.The sentence "The New Testament, especially the synoptic gospels, were written soon after Jesus' life" is not informative. Please replace "soon" with the range of the estimated dates.

2.The sentence "The earliest extant texts describing Jesus in any detail were the four Gospels" - This is not the view of all scholars. Gospel of Thomas has striking similarities with Q which pre-dates many of the Gospels. Thomas comes from a different line of tradition.

3.In sentence "Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different, and various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies", please explain briefly in the footnote what the theories are. According to (Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, Indiana University Press, 2003, p.1 ): "Matthew's genealogy cannot be harmonized with Luke'... Today they are generally accepted as theological constructs, with some characterizing Matthew's genealogy as "royal" (mentinoing Solomon) and Luke's "priestly" (mentioning Levi)." Link

4.In section "Arrest, trial, and death", there is little mention of Gospel of John's view on this (e.g. that he died when the lambs were slaughtered). It is mostly written according to the synoptics.

--WKPEditor (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Point 1 has been edited to give the dates.
• Point 2 needs a source to proove what your saying.
• Point 3 I don't see the need to do, its all there.
• Point 4 I don't think it its totally necessary to include that line, what would it add. However, I will have a little look over the section and perhaps see what else needs to be included. Perhaps you can do the same.

Gavin Scott (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I've made some edits to your edits. We hadn't addressed the "soon" issue, which I agree with the OP that the word is vague and subjective, and that we should be more specific. The sentence you created "his means the earliest gospel was constructed perhaps only thirty years after Jesus' death making them relevant to historical analysis." was grammatically incorrect, where "them" was referring to a singular antecedent "earliest gospel". Also, if we give the date of 70, and assume Jesus died around 30-32, then we have about forty, not thirty years. Also, scholars don't have an exact date when Mark was written, just an estimate. But besides these minor issues (which my last edit tried to address), I think all concerns should be met. I appreciate the sourcing you added, and your work to address this. Thanks Gavin Scott. As for the remaining issues with the OP, we have specific articles about Jesus' death and Jesus' genealogy, and this article is already really long, so we should be conscious that we aren't adding too many details that can easily be given in the corresponding spinout articles.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your edit was far more comprehensive than my own, I prefer it. Gavin Scott (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for point number 2:

"Thomas research, however, carried out mostly at Harvard Divinity School and at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont, has increasingly cast doubt on the second-century dating of the gospel. A growing number of scholars are now persuaded that the Greek Thomas belongs in the first century, that it even predated the orthodox gospels, and must be dated around 50CE." (Kenneth Keulman, Critical Moments in Religious History, Mercer University Press, p.56)

Another quote from (Andrew F. Gregory, Christopher Mark Tuckett, The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford University Press, p.178):

Among those who argue independence from the synoptic gospels and hence a mid-first century date for composition are S.J.Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonaoma, Calif: Polebridge Press, 1993), H. Koster, 'Q and its Relatives,' in J.E. Goehring C. W. Hendrik, and J. T. Sanders (eds.), Christian Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma Calif: Polebridge Press, 1993), 49-63

See also point 5 below.

On point number 3, here is my suggestion: "Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different. The genealogies cannot be harmonized and contemporary scholars generally view the genealogies as theological constructs." (source (Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, Indiana University Press, 2003, p.1 ). Any objection?

--WKPEditor (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it now. --WKPEditor (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New points:

Point 5: The article reads: "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the gospels." According to Amy-Jill Levine (The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World, p.371) "The four canonical gospels are not the only texts about Jesus that have come down to us from antiquity. Some scholars argue as relevant to the historical Jesus such texts as the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of sayings many of which resemble material in the Synoptic Gospels; the Gospel of Peter, a fragmentary text containing the trial of Jesus, the crucifixion, and the beginning of a resurrection account; and even a text whose antiquity is debated, the 'Secret Gospel of Mark,' which depicts a shamanlike Jesus who practices esteric rites."

Here is my suggestion: "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the gospels" --> "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the gospels though some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus." --WKPEditor (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 6: Does the article anywhere mention that "the evangelists are addressing the concerns of the early Christian communities, most likely outside Palestine. Theological statements written by passionate believers rather than unbiased outsiders' recollections, the Gospels present each in its own way, the story of Jesus adapted to meet the needs of the diverse Christian groups in the early years of the church." (Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World, p.370) --WKPEditor (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this point should be made in the article, although NPOV requires that we make it clear that most Christians question this claim. WKPEditor, have you seen the links to two different articles dealing with the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus? It sounds like you have a lot to contribute to these articles; it is in these articles that the points you raise should be developed in detail. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the details should go to the other article. --WKPEditor (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 7: Possible addition to Jesus#Descriptions:

Jesus has been viewed, by followers and detractors, historians and theologians, in diverse roles: a Jewish reformer anticipating the end of the world and the beginning of the reign of God; a Hellenistically inclined Cynic-sage seeking to subvert conventional expectations; a Pharisaic interpreter of the biblical law; a proponent of the Temple and of ritual practice; an opponent of the Temple and of ritual practice (both conclusions can follow from how one interprets the "cleansing"); a revolutionary preaching a kingdom to replace that of Rome; a priest who sought peaceful coexistence with the occupation forces; a sexual ascetic; a glutton and a drunkard; a proponent of family values; an undermine of precisely those values and the instituter of a new family connected not biologically by by faith. As Albert Schweitzer observed nearly a century ago, portraits of Jesus often reveal as much, if not more, about the painter as about the subject of paining. (Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford Dictionary of the Biblical World, p.370)

--WKPEditor (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This quote seems to summarize the views of eleven other scholars. It would be good to have the eleven actual scholars, i.e the specific sources for each notable view. The result would be a more informative article both in terms of the view and the source of the view. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion but demands a lot of work. --WKPEditor (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are here to do just that work! But I think some of the work is already done for us - we know Crossan sees him as a revolutionary; Smith as a magician; Vermez as a faith healer ... i think if we look more carefully at many of the sources we have already used we will soon find the real scholars and the views they hold fully developed. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 8: I suggest we explain the meaning of the term "synoptic Gospels" in parenthesis when we first mention it. --WKPEditor (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)