Talk:Jesus/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jesus

(Contested - July 13)

I'm not really his biggest fan, but this seems like a worthy article. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update: On second thought, you all might have some points. Oh well, it seemed like a good idea at the time! blankfaze | (беседа!)

Info: previous nominations were Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#Jesus_Christ and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#November_2003 — Matt 23:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Factual nit: Do most Christians really "accept as a basis for their faith the divine authority of the Bible"? Also, do we have an article covering the divine authority of the Bible? Seems like something we'd already have and could link to. anthony (see warning)
- I'm not sure if the answer is most but certainly many do, especially fundamentalist Christian groups. Maybe even the Roman Catholics. The wikipedia article about the concept is biblical inerrancy, and similar is biblical canon. The dates of birth and death could use an emphasis that c. means approximate. Either a link from c. to circa, writing the word out, or a link to the wiktionary entry which is where circa should be. - Taxman 14:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I added a link and changed the text a bit. If anyone has a problem with my changes we can discuss it on the talk page. anthony (see warning)
Object. Where are the references? Also, the section before the table of contents is too long and unattractively laid out. And how about some more pictures? Is that the only kind of representation? Exploding Boy 14:59, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
- There's a passel of pictures at Images of Jesus. Smerdis of Tloen 15:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Object. A little more on those who question the historical existence of Jesus would not go astray. For instance, can we substantiate the 'Most scholars believe...' claim?Bmills 15:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Object. (a) The article should really be called Jesus Christ, as the Jesus alone is a male given name in some culture, and its use by itself for Logos tends to be a hallmark of certain evangelical sects. (b) The term Christian as used throughout the article is difficult, because the various sects have different interpretations of Christology. (c) The Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical interpretations should be labelled as such. (d) In the Western tradition, Catharism, Gnosticism. (e) Nestorianism (f) Wiccan, pagan, etc. references: satanism, perhaps? (g) Alleged relics of Jesus -- 'alleged' is already POV (I'm agnostic, BTW), and in any case the article must be filled in, it's red as I write it. (h) Resurrection must be filled in. (i) On the scholarly side, could do with more detail on the various critical movements. One last comment: it's a pretty good article as it stands, especially on POV in general. But it needs a lot of work: to be featured, this topic

must be really, really well done. General WIKI comment, not merely about the article, and not part of the objection: too many articles spend too much time saying "many historians (scientists, etc.)" instead of specifying the names of the people or movements, possibly with subarticles. A. Shetsen 16:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Object. Current content is good, but prose isn't brilliant; important subarticles don't exist; layout and sectioning is eccentric; intro is long & stilted; needs much more content. Pines for heavy editing; many deep naming, context, and narrative issues need to be resolved. See also A.Shetsen's comments above. - Sj
Object. One sentence sections such as Jesus#Alleged_relics_of_Jesus should not exist. Most others, such as Jesus#Islamic_perspectives_on_Jesus and Jesus#The_resurrection, are short as well. The article needs a massive reorganization so we are not left with huge broad sections such as Jesus#Jesus'_life_and_teaching and then small sections as named above. Consider merging smaller sections. I'm also puzzled by the particular ordering of the sections - why #3 is not grouped with #7-9 and the difference between #1 and #6. #4 and #5 also look like they belong together. --Jia ng 08:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

More Additions

This talk page is already far too long, so I'll keep this short. A few weeks ago I added some info on this page about St. Saul ("Paul") in comparison to Jesus (i.e., what each figure did in relation to Christianity) and some material on the basic teachings of Jesus (Golden Rule, the Sermon on the Mount). They were removed by Jayjg on account of their being opinionated (now that I think about it, a reasonable accusation), adding too much to the article, and not being appropriate. I believe that some emphasis on Jesus's teachings (that is, his lessons, parables, and miracles) is necessary to show what he brought to Christianity and to illustrate how it differed from Judaism. Some is there, but not enough. I believe this is somewhat more important than historical debate concerning him and therefore space priority should be given. A separate page about Jesus's teachings would be fine, but I think more here is necessary, too. Opinions? Brutannica 00:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I posted this about a month ago, and haven't gotten much response. Currently the article has been gutted and even reorganized, to an extent, and I think the time is about ripe for an expansion of the Life and Teachings section (plus the St. Saul thing). If no one posts objections or any sort of opinion, I'll start doing that in September. Brutannica 18:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in favour of a section on the teachings of Jesus- I think we could possibly split into two Jesus' life and teaching- that might make the sections better. I don't think that there should be much on Paul though- surely that belongs on the Christianity or History of Christianity pages? Also, why are you calling Paul, Saul? Yes, I know that was his original name, but he changed it when he became a Christian- and signs all his letters "Paul". --GRutter 20:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Jayjg 06:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On St. Paul

I don't have much respect for name-changers, so I informally refer to people by their original names. I understand that there shouldn't be much about Saul in the main content of the Jesus page, but I think he should be briefly discussed/mentioned in the introduction section to distinguish his accomplishments with Jesus's -- that is, how while Jesus started Christianity, Saul propagated it beyond Palestine and added his own views to what would become the New Testament. Saul's a very important figure, and I think his role in Christianity ought to be clarified in the beginning of the article. (Mentioning Jesus is not that important on Saul's page because I think most people know why Jesus is important.)

Also, Eloquence* brought up the lack of Mithraism earlier (in the Featured Article debates). I don't know that much about Mithraism, but I would think that would be important enough to mention, too. Briefly -- maybe the History of Christianity page is more appropriate. Brutannica 17:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the context of Christianity, the name-changers are those who refer to Paul as "Saul" or "Shaul" or other similar names. He's been called Paul in English for as long as there has been an English language. I think any mention of Paul should be relatively brief, given that this is still an article about Jesus, and that the two never even met, much less interacted in any way that had an impact of the life of Jesus; most of the information about Paul should be restricted to the article on Paul. Jayjg1 17:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of Mithraism to Jesus - a short mention on the History of Christianity page, possibly. --GRutter 22:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jesus and Paul did meet while Paul was on his way to Damascus, according to the book of Acts chapter 9. Many theologians would argue that there is not a huge difference between the teachings of Paul and Jesus, or between Paul and Jesus' other followers. Still, I agree that Paul doesn't need to be discussed extensively here; lengthier discussions should be in articles discussing Christianity or early Christianity. Wesley 16:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Debatable whether that should be considered "meeting". And many, many people have argued that Paul was a severe deviation away from the teachings of Jesus, pulling Christianity into a Hellenistic rather than a Jewish milieu. Graft 17:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But is it O.K. to include a brief mention of Paul/Saul in the intro? Consider my original sentence (placed right after "the central figure in Christianity," where I find it most appropriate, although it can be bumped down): He originated its central ethics, spirituality, and code of conduct, while the apostle Paul added other important doctrines, supplemented his teachings with Epistles, and acted as missionary.(As for Mithraism, I'm a little flexible. I just remembered that objection, and thought it might be a worthwhile inclusion, but as I said, I don't know much about the religion, so if it's not exactly relevant, I'll let it go.) Brutannica 00:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is worth mentioning as one view of what happened, but it is one view, and as such should be presented as a properly attributed POV. Traditional Christianity has not viewed Paul or his writings as a huge deviation from Jesus' life and teachings; even Marcion of Sinope (2d century Gnostic) found Paul's epistles more acceptable than three of the Gospels. Unless I'm mistaken, the notion that the Christianity of Paul was hugely different from the faith taught and practiced by Jesus is a relatively modern one, maybe one or two centuries old at most. Wesley 17:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course Marcion found Paul's writings more acceptable than three of the Gospels; Marcion wanted to jettison the entire Hebrew Bible as well, and anything that smacked at all of Judaism. This is precisely why Paul's writings were more acceptable to him. And the most "Jewish" of the ancient Jewish-Christian sects, such as the Ebionites, saw Paul's writings as, indeed, "hugely different from the faith taught and practiced by Jesus." Jayjg 17:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was tension between the early Hebrew Jewish Christians and Hellenistic Jewish Christians, even before significant numbers of Gentiles got involved! But, Stephen (the first martyr) was a Hellenistic Jew, and Acts 15 records James and the other Jewish Christians welcoming Paul and his Gentile converts. So, the antagonism can be over-stated. I think that a sentence of two about the apostles (focusing on Paul, but mentioning the others) would probably be best as the second sentence in the "Introduction" section. I think the top section is best as it is. --GRutter 21:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who wrote Acts? Wasn't it the head of Paul's fan-club? And even in Acts you can see the tensions between the two groups. Jayjg 21:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Traditionally Acts is attributed to Luke. What side was he on? Brutannica 03:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Side? Saint Luke the Evangelist was a Christian. Luke's Gospel of Luke is the one that Marcion found acceptable, BUT Marcion still had to edit out the parts of it that were too Jewish for him, especially the introductory chapters about Jesus' birth if I recall correctly. Parts of Acts seem to indicate that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul at least some of the time. It's also worth noting that one of St. Peter's epistles indicates that Peter valued Paul's writings highly, while admitting that some were hard to understand. At any rate, if you want to cite Acts to document tension between the groups, you have to also recognize that those tensions were resolved, according to Acts.

Calling the Ebionites a "Jewish-Christian sect" seems like a pretty big stretch; they only used an edited version of the Gospel of Matthew at best. Islam probably has more beliefs about Jesus in common with Christianity, beginning with his virgin birth. Wesley 04:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to some authors the Ebionites were, in fact, the remnants of the original Jerusalem Church that remained after the destruction of the Temple and Bar Kochba revolt, and the various subsequent persecutions by the gentile Pauline church. As such, they would be the most authentic Jewish-Christian sect. As for Islam, Muhammed, of course, adopted all sorts of Christian (and Jewish) material when creating the Qur'an (and Islam), and the Christianity he was familiar with was thoroughly Pauline. Jayjg 00:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, some authors do say that. Enough that their viewpoint ought to be represented in the article with attribution. Wesley 03:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Phew... you guys are getting a bit off topic here. We're supposed to be debating a mention of St. Saul. Since no one seems to really have objected, I'm going to do it. If someone wants to include information about the Ebionites and the Hellenistic-Hebrew tensions, go ahead, since I don't really know about it.

On Jesus's life and teachings

From here on, I think it would be best to switch to the topic of Jesus's life and teachings. I won't be able to edit extensively until next weekend, so until then please debate which episodes of Jesus's life to include. I'm no expert, but off the top of my head:

the Golden Rule
the Sermon on the Mount - basic principles ("Blessed are the meek," "turn the other cheek," "you'll find if you will seek", etc.)
a selection of his various miracles (Lazarus, walking on water, the fish thing, maybe fish-and-loaves, exorcism, leprosy/blindness/cripples)
parables - the Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan, and Seed story come to mind
the temple episode ("THIS IS MY FATHER'S HOUSE, NOT A BANK!")
the Last Supper

Sorry if any of that is in the article already, I didn't bother to check. Maybe there's more of the same at the page for Gospels or something, but I would think inclusion of the most famous and much-loved stories of Jesus would be a good primer for those curious about the fables of the Christian religion.

Also, originally I had included a long sentence about the possible reasons for Jesus's attractiveness as a preacher in his own time. It was removed (too POV), but if someone with more knowledge would like to contribute it... just a suggestion.. Brutannica 06:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one's peeped about this. This is mostly a reminder, because I really wouldn't want to insert this without comments first, and I'm not even the most well-read in the Gospels either, so please discuss this. Perhaps the new Wikiquote link might provide some ideas? Brutannica 04:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hard to know where you're going with all this, so it's hard to comment without seeing something more concrete. Any selection of stories runs the risk of choosing a particular interpretation of the passages, even just in the act of selecting the "most important" ones. I might include John 6 because of how it relates to the Eucharist, for example, but that's a particular way to read that passage that certainly isn't shared by all. Some users have been known to make 'scratch pages' or drafts as subdirectories of their user pages to get comment on specifics before changing an article. Would that be helpful here? Also gives you a chance to polish your submission before committing, if you're so inclined. Me, I usually don't bother, polish can come later if needed; this is a wiki after all. Wesley 06:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just reread the section, and although it makes up a good portion of the article, it's still surprising how much Life and Teaching lacks a good foundation. It describes the Apocalypse, Jesus's disagreements with the Pharisees, discusses the Sadducees and the Essenes, the controversy about Jesus's Messiah status, and (of course) his final days. There's no trace of the points I listed above, it could use more detail on the Nativity (star, shepherds, Magi), the bar mitzvah, and the Baptism, and mentions of Jesus's miracles and teachings are vague and non-specific! Although I understand much is probably stated at the Christianity article, we still need mentions of Jesus's specific teachings, and links to other articles in sections discussing actual details! It doesn't even mention the Disciples!

As for the "scratch page" suggestion, I'm not sure about it, since I'm trying to incite further editing, not ask for permission to do so. And as for the interpretation part, I don't see that as a big deal. The stories can be presented in a NPOV manner (preferably with lots of direct quotes from the New Testament), and editors from various Christian sects/viewpoints can add short interpretations. (That might be better for a separate article on the story in question, though.) Brutannica 20:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'm getting a little cross now. Can't SOMEONE other than Wesley (a week ago!) comment on this? Isn't this a slightly bigger issue than how to phrase when Jesus resurrected? I'm suggesting some major article addition here -- if no one speaks up, I might just do that scratch page thing... although what kind of guarantee do I have that my user page will be as crowded as this talk page? Brutannica 06:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Son of man

Just added a links and apocalyptic POV. Hopefully still neutral. But why is the whole titles of Jesus section repeated twice? --Zeeshanhasan 15:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Duplication of whole article?

Why on earth is the whole article duplicated? This is really bizarre. Why doesn't someone just eliminate the bottom half (sections 13-23, which from the table of contents is obviously a copy of the top half)? Okay, just fixed it. --Zeeshanhasan 15:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jesus taught his disciples to do faith healing?

The article states "Jesus had by the time of his death taught a number of his disciples or apostles to preach his teachings and perform faith healing to both Jews and Gentiles alike." What evidence is there for this? In particular, when did he tell his disciples to minister to gentiles? As far as I know the gospels state the exact opposite. Jayjg 16:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would question use of the term "faith healing" as that particular combination of words is not Biblical nor does it, to my knowledge, exist in any other historical source about Jesus. It has instead some modern connotations that perhaps imply a different nature about what Jesus did. While I'm sure modern-day faith healers would say Jesus practiced and taught faith healing, I'm also sure a significant number of Christians might object to the term, though possibly acknowledging it as applicable in some technical sense.

As for ministering to the Gentiles, during his life Jesus did restrict the disciples to ministering to Jews (though at least once he performed a healing for a Gentile), but in the Great Commission at the end of the Gospels, he instructs them to go preach to everyone, beginning at Jerusalem and extending to the entire world. Jdavidb 16:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I assume the evidence for the "performing faith healing" is that there are several cases of the Apostles doing so in the Acts of the Apostles. However, I too object to the term. Mpolo 17:48, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

That particular sentence in the gospels is one of the more controversial, seeing as it is not found in the oldest manuscripts, and is contradicted by other material in the gospels. I agree that faith healing is an anachronism, and that we have no evidence that Jesus recommended it. Jayjg 18:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was actually refering to Peter healing with his shadow, bringing Dorcas to life, and so on. But these aren't really "taught". Also, when the apostles are sent out two by two, they are told to heal the sick (I believe). I'd recommend just changing the terminology to "healing" or "curing" and leaving out the possibly charged and anachronistic "faith healing". Mpolo 19:13, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Healing was one of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, so, gifts from God, not taught by Jesus. Jesus taught by telling stories that even 'simple' people could understand... some of his teachings seem to parallel the newer ideas in medicine and science that the 'mind' can affect the physical state of both living and non-living matter. Pedant

Personally, I don't think Jesus intended to found a religion, and that the church, built on the-Rock-that-was-Peter was not intended to be a religious (in the sense of having dogma and rulesand restrictions on behavior) institution, but more of an 'opening oneself to the myseries' and 'study of the universe' institution, more like what we might call a university. my own opinion Pedant

btw, I removed:

Jesus Humor

as it was simply preposterous, not merely an alternate viewpoint. I think that nobody believes Jesus was a pimp lord who had lots of wives... except perhaps 'enraged baboon' I post it here because I no longer feel comfortable simply deleting information from controversial articles, not because I think it's important to preserve the link.Pedant 17:12, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus section

The resurrection of Jesus section is now way too long, and needs to be ruthlessly culled. Most of the information should be integrated into the separate Resurrection of Jesus article. The article itself just needs the opening paragraph listing the Christian view, and a second paragraph giving a summary of alternative views. Jayjg 19:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I cut it to one paragraph on Christian beliefs, one on critical objections, and one on more-or-less wild theories. All other information (that wasn't already there) was moved to Resurrection of Jesus. Mpolo 08:40, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm not even sure it's worth listing the names of the theorists and their books in the "wild theories" section, since the information is in the Resurrection of Jesus article. Jayjg 17:19, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Done. --GRutter 19:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed "At the time of the writing of the gospel accounts the soldiers in question could have been found and asked regarding the veracity of this claim.Theories seeking alternative answers to the resurrection often lack empirical evidence, and are widely considered by Christians to be only speculation by those doubting the authenticity of the gospel witnesses." as it is pure speculation and clearly is aiming to prosecute a POV. CheeseDreams 10:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Date of birth and death

I've changed the birth/death date on the intro to c. 6-4 BC ? c. AD 29-33 to reflect on information found on various sources:

Why not encompass the broadest series of estimates? I.E., born c. 8-4 BC, died c. 26-36 AD. ? Jayjg 02:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Herod died in 4 B.C., so Jesus must have been born no later than the year of Herod's death." (World Book). That 8 in Encarta is probably a mistake. Regarding death years, AD 26?36 are the years Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judaea, and not estimate years of Jesus' death. Britannica gives the broadest number of years in the sentence "Some time between AD 29 and 33?possibly AD 30?he went to observe Passover in Jerusalem..." (See below). --Cantus 02:40, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think the logic behind Encarta's 8 (which I've seen in some serious "Life of Christ" at some point or another) is that if Herod died in 4, the massacre of the innocents was some time before that, and Christ's birth was likely two years before that. Also we have evidence of a universal census ordered by Augustus in 8. The prevailing opinion is 6 or 5, though. -- Mpolo 06:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004

Jesus Christ [1]

born c. 6?4 BC, Bethlehem
died c. AD 30, Jerusalem

He was born to Joseph and Mary shortly before the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2; Luke 1:5) in 4 BC. [...] Some time between AD 29 and 33?possibly AD 30?he went to observe Passover in Jerusalem, where his entrance, according to the Gospels, was triumphant and infused with eschatological significance. While there he was arrested, tried, and executed.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2004

Jesus [2]

He was born a Jew in Bethlehem before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, and he died while Pontius Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea (AD 28?30).

World Book Encyclopedia, 2002

Jesus Christ [3]

Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great, who ruled Palestine. Herod died in 4 B.C., so Jesus must have been born no later than the year of Herod's death.

Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2004

Jesus Christ [4]

between 8 and 4 bc-ad 29?

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Jesus (Jesus Christ) [5]

He was born just before the death of King Herod the Great (37 B.C.?4 B.C.) and was crucified after a brief public ministry during Pontius Pilate?s term as prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26?36).

Biography

Jesus Christ [6]

He was apparently born in Bethlehem c. 6-5 BC (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC) [...] The date of death is uncertain, but is usually considered to be in 30 or 33.

--Cantus 23:46, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

On the third day

There's been some back and forth recently about how to express Jesus' resurrection date. The sentence in question is:

According to the New Testament, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God, who served a ministry in Galilee and Judaea, and was ultimately crucified in Jerusalem by order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate before rising from the dead on the third day.

There have been recent edits by anons and by Brutannica which presumably want to make this clearer. Christian usage is certainly "On the third day he rose from the dead". "After three days" is just wrong, since with burial on Friday, "after three days" could mean at the earliest Monday, and more probably Tuesday. But I think that for someone uninformed about Christian culture, the obvious question arising from the quoted sentence is "The third day after what?". (While "two days later" would be accurate, it would probably not be accepted by most Christians, as it is non-traditional.) Yet, "the third day" actually only makes sense if you use Jewish time reckoning -- Jesus was in the tomb on (1) Friday (for a rather short time, based on the Gospel account), (2) the entire Sabbath (sundown to sundown), and (3) an undisclosed amount of time on Sunday. For the average reader, this would be "on the third day after his death", I'm afraid, which would be Monday... All this to say, I don't know how to word this correctly (which is why I let Jayjg make all the reversions there), but think we can improve it.—Mpolo 15:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense no matter how you count it, especially when you compare the different accounts. Nevertheless, the gospels do say "on the third day". Jayjg 16:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All agree that he was crucified the day before the Sabbath, and that the empty tomb was discovered on the day after the Sabbath (the first day of the week). That's why I sad the "third day" refers to (1) Friday (partial) (2) Sabbath (3) Sunday (partial).... Mpolo 16:20, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is sort of a minor issue, but I would probably vote for "two days later," since from the viewpoint of Friday, Saturday would be "tomorrow," and Sunday would be "the day after tomorrow" -- i.e., 2 days later. This English version doesn't use the Jewish calendar, and tradition be darned if it's just a matter of rephrasing. Brutannica 03:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An old comment of mine, back when the article read "before rising from the dead three days later": m.e. 10:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Shouldn't that be two days later? That is what τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ trítēi hēmérāi (usually translated 'on the third day') means, m.e. 10:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about "the following Sunday"? That avoids the confusing "third day" and the non-traditional "after two days", and is contained in all four gospels as the "first day of the week": Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24,1; Jn 20:1 and 20:19—Mpolo 10:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I still prefer "two days later," since it gives a more precise rendering of time than a day of the week (unless the article says he died on Friday, then it could be as much as six days later); but it's fine, and you could always insert that the crucifixion took place on Friday. Brutannica 23:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following Sunday is better; the gospel accounts disagree as to the date of the crucifixion, making the 3 day claim iffy as well, but they all agree that the empty tomb was found on Sunday morning (although they disagree on just about every other detail regarding that). Jayjg 06:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We could simply quote the Apostles' Creed and state the Christian traditional timeline (we have already established that there is no historical record, no?):

According to the Christian Gospels, Jesus' disciples encountered him again on the third day after his death, raised to life. No one was a witness of the actual resurrection event, though all four Gospels report that women who went to anoint the body found the tomb empty. According to the Apostle's Creed, Jesus "...was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (or into Hades or to the dead); the third day he rose again from the dead...". In Christian tradition Jesus was crucified and buried before sundown on Friday (the beginning of the Sabbath) and his tomb was found to be empty on Sunday, "the third day".

comments?Pedant 23:05, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Byzantine image

What happened to the Byzantine image that was on top before? In my opinion, it better showed the halo than the current one. Also, all the current pictures are all from Catholic artists; having a Byzantine one too would be more neutral and acknowledge the various religious currents Jesus Christ has inspired. What do you people think? Luis Rib 19:58 CET, 4 Oct 2004

Christ Pantocrator one of many Images of Jesus

The person who changed it indicated copyright concerns, but personally, as it is a photo of a non-copyrighted 2-D work of art, I think the old photo is uncopyrightable. Another option would be this image of the Pantocrator at Daphne, which is a little better preserved than the icon we had. I have no objection to using a Byzantine image, and agree that it would be more multi-cultural to do so. Mpolo 18:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

would you think that the caption to that pic might be a good place to link to Images of Jesus?Pedant 23:12, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC) Like this?:

Islam View of Jesus

The article states: "the Qur'an narrates that God removed Jesus, and replaced him on the cross." This statement is factually incorrect. The Quran doesn't say God removed Jesus from the cross and replaced someone else. The Quran says, "They did not kill him; they did not crucify him; but it was made to appear to them so." There are many different interpretation of this verse. God removed Jesus and replaced him is one of the interpretation. Some Muslim apologists (like Deedat, Shabir Ally) claim that Jesus was on the cross but he didn't die and was latter ascended into heaven. Shabir Ally made this point in his debate with William Lane Craig. OneGuy 16:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

recent deletions

I am sorry I accidentally deleted new material on the Saducees which I agree is important. I will try to be more careful and specific with my edits. Slrubenstein

It would be helpful it editors suggested major changes here in Talk: first before wholesale edits. Jayjg 20:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SecondedPedant 23:13, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

regarding distinction of Christ and Adoptionism

--eleuthero 21:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The recent change suggesting a distinction between Jesus and Christ suggests it is the principal view of Christianity. It is in reality Adoptionism and is not, to my knowledge, held by many outside of Tubingen. Nestorianism is related. I do apologize for my haste in the edit, not understanding it to be that major of a change as I included most of the text on Adoptionism in the edit. I really don't understand the "human psyche" as God bit. That is just bad scholarship in my opinion to suggest it as a common "essential" Christian viewpoint.

Below is my edit if anyone is interested...

Adoptionism and other evaluations of the nature of Christ

In the early church, the term "Christ" is synonymous with "Jesus". A difference in usage is sometimes for variety of speech, and sometimes a subtlety intended to emphasize the totality of His person and function in salvation. As the need for a systematization of the theology surrounding Christianity developed (with the legalization of the religion came a need to explain it fully to the populace on levels before impossible due to persecution), came several other discussions.

In the early church, a controversy was addressed in various church councils over the nature of Jesus. Was the Christ a spiritual part of the human Jesus or were they identical? This led to the Nestorian faith in which the divine and human aspects of Jesus (both considered Christ) were determined to be separate but coexistent, the divine controlling the human. This was condemned in various church councils as a need for clarity as to the nature of Christ developed.

Among the beliefs rejected was Adoptionism. Elemental to the belief in Adoptionism is the belief or concept that 'Jesus became Christ;' i.e. his 'flesh was transformed to spirit.' By taking a spiritual and good path through life, Jesus was reunited with his true holy nature (redemption) and preserved forever in God.

However in the Adoptionist view, this psychic force is often called 'the Christ,' or sometimes 'Christ consciousness,' etc; drawing a separation between God (whom we cannot fathom or comprehend) and the Holy Spirit, which has experience (through Jesus) and therefore compatibility with our mortal and frail humanity. This separation of spiritual concepts is embodied in the Christian Trinity.

The views upheld in the early church demonstrate Christ to be both fully human and fully God. This view is upheld by most modern Christian traditions. The Monophysite tradition suggests that Jesus was fully human and fully God but in a way that the two were mixed into a new singular being. The modern view held by most traditions is then midway between the Monophysite and the Nestorian traditions.

Aside from capitalizing "He" when referring to Jesus, I think this version gives short shrift to the variety of views in the early church. It wasn't really "the view of the early church" vs many heresies, but rather a number of competing views out of which the "the view of the late 4th century church" eventually emerged victorious. Also, it ignores Gnostic Christian views. Finally, the views of the churches don't "demonstrate" Jesus to be anything at all; rather, they are religious beliefs about Jesus. Jayjg 21:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very well, but the point being made is that the current major category badly misrepresents Christianity in general with regard to its view of Christ. If the current model is kept then there should at the very least be a disclaimer as to its being embraced as essential to Christian belief. The current suggestion may be incomplete but is significantly moreso than the current article

Possessive of Jesus

There are a couple of editors changing "Jesus'" to "Jesus's". Does Wikipedia have a preference here? The rule I learned was that for proper names, you add 's even if it ends in s, unless the name is an ancient name containing at least one other s (Jesus being the most common example). It's kind of an arbitrary rule, but I can certainly say that I've seen Jesus' a lot more than Jesus's, and I read a lot on the subject... Mpolo 07:47, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus' seems to me the correct form. I was educated in the United States, though, and I also thought until this week that "its" in the phrase "wrapped around its circumference" was properly spelled like: "wrapped around it's circumference" (because it is a possessive form...) and I am told that's not correct. I would be happy with either as long as it's consistent. Any expert want to weigh in?Pedant 23:20, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Page move discussion

I moved Jesus page because at least three "Jesus" appears in Bible. Rantaro 15:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I moved it back. Please don't make page moves to highly important pages without discussion first. First of all, not everyone believes that Jesus was the Christ. Second, turning Jesus into a disambig is moronic. Jesus of Nazareth is far more important than other "minor" people named Jesus - we don't even have an article on the others. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 15:24, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to mention only about Jesus Christ in the article "Jesus". Rantaro 15:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation policy is pretty clear on this:

"Primary topic" disambiguation: if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at [name of page], the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "[name of page] (disambiguation)". For example: the page Rome has a link at the top to a page named "Rome (disambiguation)" which lists other cities named Rome. The page Cream has a link to the page Cream (band) at the top.

and this Jesus is pretty clearly the primary Jesus, considering that none of the others listed on the short-lived disambiguation page even have articles. If they did, the way to handle disambiguation would be to create a Jesus (disambiguation) page and add {{otheruses}} to this article. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus Christ is not primary of Jesus. It's ONLY primary for Christians. I think this article must be changed. Added to this, why do Latter-Day Saints belong to other religion(non-Christian)? This article is NOT neutrality. Rantaro 16:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's a user, not an article :) But seriously, nobody can argue that this Jesus was not the primary Jesus. I'm an atheist and I admit that this dude is far more important than any other Jesu. Andre (talk) 16:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

It's only primary for Christians—What arrant nonsense. This Jesus is the central figure of a religion practiced by approximately 2 billion people, a religion which for well over a thousand years was the defining influence of western civilization. There are literally thousands of books written about him. Even non-Christians are far, far more likely to be searching for this Jesus than for any other. This is the primary meaning of Jesus, and this is where this article will stay. End of discussion. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Rantaro: if Jesus Christ isn't the primary Jesus, then what is? It doesn't look like we even have a disambiguation page for Jesus! -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a Christian and I think Jesus Christ is the primary Jesus. But it's POV. And we should stop the expression Alternative views. This statement suggest that Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter-Day Saints are not Chistians. This is obviouly POV. Rantaro 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you think that the article itself is POV then how will moving it somewhere else help? (seeing as moving the page does nothing to its contents) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. The tite Jesus Christ is POV. Jews don't believe he was Christ.

OneGuy 16:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Jesus Christ is POV, we should change Jesus the Nazarite or so. Rantaro 17:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are being obnoxious. There is an article called Muhammad. Should it be moved too? How about Buddha? How about Harun al-Rashid. There are many people with the name Harun Rashid. How about Muhammad Ali? I can post several thousand more examples. Should all of these articles be moved? The Jesus article is fine as it is now. OneGuy 17:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that choosing this Jesus as the primary meaning is POV because it is taking a stand in saying that he is more important than any other of the same name? That's just not so. No more than choosing the Italian capital as the primary meaning of "Rome" is POV just because there are other towns with the same name. This meaning of "Jesus" is the primary one for everyone - no one would presume you were talking about another man of the same name - whatever their religion, culture etc. The disambiguation policy is clear - this article should stay at "Jesus" - if other articles are written about people with the same name then a disambiguation sentence at the top of the article is more appropriate than moving this -- sannse (talk) 17:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I'm a Christian and I think Jesus Christ is the primary Jesus." Rantaro, if you think Jesus is the primary Jesus, what's the problem?! We all agree that he's the primary Jesus - not that he's more important than everyone else named Jesus (although he is, really) but that the meaning of Jesus is most commonly Jesus, the Christian messiah. Your argument holds no water. Andre (talk) 17:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Rantaro, it's clear that the consensus is that the page should stay where it is. Can we unprotect this without worrying that you are going to move the page again? -- sannse (talk) 17:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just leave it at Jesus. It's the most commonly accepted title, and it's what most people will search for when doing reasearch.--Josiah 01:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This issue is similar to mine when being asked about my "religious" beliefs. I am a follower of Jesus' teachings, but believe that no church I have found to date follows his teachings, but instead follows some dogma reconstructed from partly the teachings of Christ, and partly from something that grew form the teachings. So do I call myself Christian? If I do, it makes me seem to be following one of the religions that grew from the teachings. Can I validly claim that I am Christian and that the Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not Christian? Obviously not. So even though I believe that Jesus founded a church, and not a religion, I answer the question "What religion do you practice" with the answer "Christianity" even though I do not practice religion, and do not agree with most Christian dogma. It just makes it simpler without a long explanation... which this is a short version of.Pedant 23:32, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Dis-ambiguation page

In contrast to the vandalism that caused this page to be protected, I recently created a clean dis-ambiguation page at Jesus (disambiguation). When un-protected, feel free to add a link to this new page. 66.245.112.14 17:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A very sensible contribution - thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Section on Paul

The section on Paul in the intro (the last half of the 2nd intro paragraph) seems a bit too lengthy to be on-topic in this article. It's certainly reasonable to say that Paul was his most prominent disciple, and to mention that there is a controversy over whether he merely explained or innovated Jesus's teachings, but the more detailed back-and-forth "some people say this, while others say this" I'd say would fit better in Paul's article rather than here. --Delirium 04:31, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Make the edits and appropriate links. --DannyMuse 04:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sexuality

I wonder why it is so important to speculate about Jesus' sexuality. The theories put forward in this article are ridiculous... Rienzo 13:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that's the modern "thing" -- speculate about everyone's sexuality. I've even seen people speculate that Paul of Tarsus was homosexual -- because he was so outspoken against homosexuality and had several male friends. Mpolo 13:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

And because he put Timothy's adult penis in his mouth. (He did this because he acted as Mohel (without actually having a persuasive reason, other than being the homosexual lover of Timothy, for taking the job) to Timothy, and the Mohel standard at the time was to do this for medical reasons) 81.156.181.197 18:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said when I "neutralized" the paragraph that had been put there, I wouldn't object to its deletion, but I suppose it does reflect theories put forward by some people, so has a place... Mpolo 13:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Part of the article mentions speculation during the mediaeval era, so I am not sure how that counts as only a modern "thing"? --81.157.15.200 18:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

it is often used as example of devotion to god to see the lack of relationships or of his otherworldy nature. In addition many people use it to justify celibacy of the priesthood. Further it is often used to show how much wordly pleasures were resisted (I suppose that the film "the last temptation of christ" carries this through to its furthest extreme). Isn't this a fundamental aspect of Jesus' life?

I think it belongs in the position in the text it is in as three different romantic attachments mentioned in the article all seem to happen roughly around the "final days".

Maybe it should be re-titled "Love life" or something, but that seems a bit of a dumbed down title, perhaps "Romantic attachments"?

--81.156.179.151 18:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is a line of speculation, with a number of the modern sensationalistic books including it, so I suppose we need to include it. I prefer the title Sexuality to the other suggestions so far. --G Rutter 19:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should have some reference to Jesus' bride--the church. Just saying that he had no romantic interests without mentioning the explicit biblical references to this relationship could be considered misleading. Philip J. Rayment 23:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Jesus is considered by more than maybe a few single individuals, that could be counted on one hand, as having ever fallen romantically in love with the church, or of ever having sex with it. I could be wrong? --217.150.114.18 13:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for the article. No modern credible scholar takes the occasional speculation about Jesus' sex-life seriously, and as a couple of people suggest above, the issue of whom or what Jesus' loved and in what way, and the significance of the fact that the Gospels give no indication of his having had sex or been married, is primarily an issue for various Christian churches. I suggest that serious discussion of this issue be signaled briefly in the subsection on "Christian views of Jesus" and then discussed at greater length in the various articles on different forms of Christianity (e.g. what Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc. believe about Jesus' sexuality and love). Slrubenstein

There is a comment in the article about mainstream scholars not backing the speculation up. However, in the example given there is just the name "Wilson" and two dates. Could more detail be given about this disembodied name/reference, or I think it should otherwise be removed. 81.156.177.109 19:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although I stand by my remark above, I won't delete the section on sexuality although I wish there were more discussion. However, I have removed the following text:

Nonetheless, in the Middle Ages, some homosexuals tried to use this description to argue that Jesus was homosexual and it therefore could not be a crime. Advocates of this theory also point to the almost naked youth who is with Jesus when the guards find him at Gethsemene (Mark 14:51-52).

Alternatively, it has been suggested the Jesus married Mary Magdalene, especially as the Gnostic Gospel of Philip states that he kissed her on the mouth. However, none of these alternative theories are supported by mainstream scholars (eg Wilson 1996:87f) or by the Christian churches.

I am suspicious of the first text because the literature I am familiar with questions whether "homosexuality" existed as such in the Middle Ages (what we today call homosexual acts were then called "sodomy" for example). Slrubenstein

the concept of homosexuality certainly probably didn't exist. However, there were equally certainly people whom we would now refer to as "homosexual". That is people who are attracted to and prefer relationships with people of the same gender as themselves. E.g. King James I, Francis Bacon (the playwrite), King Edward II 81.156.181.197 18:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In any event, I wouldn't object to someone restoring this paragraph to the article as long as they make it specific: who, exactly, claimed Jesus was a homosexual, and what did they actually mean? Slrubenstein

The paragraph refers to people claiming that having a relationship with a man was acceptable because Jesus had one with St. John. It was a common belief in mediaeval england (unfortunately I don't have enough documentation on mediaeval england to hand to provide references for this, though I am sure someone else will). Just because no-one actually used the exact phrase "Jesus was homosexual" doesn't mean no-one believed it. Just because there used to be no word for homosexual doesn't mean it never existed or had meaning, e.g. there used to be no word for orange.

I believe the argument was used at the defence of a bishop (who lost his case) in the Reign of Elizabeth I (it may even be the Primate of all Ireland, but I am not sure). It was also used by Archbishop Laud at his trial. I have restored the paragraph. 81.156.181.197 18:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I object completely to the second paragraph. I know of only one person who claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that is a fictional character in a second-rate novel. There is no evidence at all that Jesus was married; this reading of Philip is unclear, and c'mon, what would the world be like if everyone who ever kissed on the mouth got married? Rather than add a reference to the mysterious "Wilson" explaining that no one seriously supports these claims, why not just delete the claims? Slrubenstein

There is a Gnostic Gospel (may be "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene") that says that Jesus kissed Mary full on the lips and the other Apostles complained. This is a fairly late Gnostic Gospel, and so is basically just a literary composition about Jesus and not a reliable source on his life, but that's the source of the claims. If pressed, I could probably find the exact citation -- quite possibly in Wikipedia itself... As such, it's probably going to keep "reappearing"... Mpolo 07:17, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the second para as I've come across the claims several times- this doesn't make it any more plausible, but it probably needs mentioning just so it can be refuted. If you follow the Gospel of Philip links you can find the text, but here it is from Wilson's book (I've also clarified this reference - it's also in the Further Reading section):

...the companion of the [Saviour is] Mary Magdalen. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and asked to kiss her [often] on her [mouth].

Note that the words in brackets are restored and Wilson also describes the whole text as a "Mills and Boon-style fantasy". It's rubbish, but it's a theory... --G Rutter 14:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Im wondering if [mouth] should be "mouth", as a euphamism. I.e asked to kiss her often on her "mouth" 81.156.181.197 19:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "theory" is the right word, but I understand what you (Grutter) mean. Nevertheless, all people are saying is: people with no scholarly credentials are making a claim about Jesus with no evidence, although they present a speculative reconstruction of a partial text as if it were evidence. I don't call this "theory," I call it fiction or fabrication. I just don't see any reason to include fictional claims in an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein

I think claiming things are "fiction" and "fabrication" are not NPOV. If someone postulates something it counts as a "theory", unless it is deliberately a lie, e.g. as part of a deliberately fictional novel. 81.156.181.197

Slrubenstein, I agree, but the problem is that these books have sold millions of copies around the world, so we need to take the claims just seriously enough to say they're nonsense. I've added references to books which make the claim. I hope that this addition is now OK. --G Rutter 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Gospel of Phillip was written by people who probably had no scholarly credentials. That doesn't mean that no-one made the claim, only that the people who made it were not scholars. The Gospel of Phillip whether you like it or not was written. 81.156.181.197 18:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (This is a variable IP)

I think the paragraph you just put in is fine -- good job! By the way, about the "mainstream" vs. "Christian" scholar thing in the intro -- I agree that it is mainstream scholars, but the whole sentence should be cut. It is in a list of different views; obviously advocates of all the other views will disagree with any one view. Each bullet point should present a different view and need not explain that others disagree with it. Slrubenstein

Thanks. I think your edits make things clearer in the different views and historicity sections, although I think we should stick with BC/AD given the topic. --G Rutter 10:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed the phrase "relatively late" as this is a POV. The timings of the Gnostic non-Canonical Gospels vs the Canonical Gospels are not agreed on. Some scholars insist they came first, others that they came second (this is the case with the majority though, especially amongst the religiously biased ones (i.e. those who have a religious reason for their POV)). However, in addition, the phrase seeks to discredit the Gospel of Phillip by implying that it is less relevant, which is a POV. A NPOV would require either removing this phrase or changing it to "relatively late according to some scholars, though early according to others" 81.156.181.197 18:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot more comfortable taking your assertions seriously if you (81.156.181.197) were not an anonymous author.Pedant 18:46, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

The following was added to my Pedant talk page:

(quoted text)"You added a comment that I should not be an anonymous user on the Jesus page. "I'd feel a lot more comfortable taking your assertions seriously if you (81.156.181.197) were not an anonymous author" I do not see why that would should make you take assertions seriously. I am just as anonymous if I invent a nick. Its just that if I have a nick, you can trace my edits, and seek to counter them (which would be non-NPOV).

Could you please replace/add to your comment in the Jesus-sexuality section so that people (myself included) are aware as to which assertions it is that you are uncertain about, and also mention why? Otherwise I will remove the comment as it is somewhat nebulous (i.e. devoid of meaningful (in the context) content)." (end of quoted text)

(My reply has to go here, because the anonymous user has no talk page):

1:You are not quite as anonymous using a nick, I could reply to you if you had one. If I thought you had some interesting contributions in one area, I might be interested in other contributions you have made. I could nominate you for adminship, or ask that your edits be blocked. You are welcome to be anonymous. Please welcome me to be skeptical as well, since as I am sure you are aware, you have proposed some somewhat controversial material without source information. 2:Anonymous contributions are often the work of vandals, not that YOU are one, but your anonnymity is what drew my attention to this discussion in the first place. 3:I don't 'counter edits' just because of who made them, I'm aware that someone else might do so, but there are means of addressing such abuse, which is what it would be, abuse. I'm not an abusive editor. 4:My comment was not devoid of meaning, in it's context it might be obvious that I was specifically referring to the discussion in this section on Jesus' sexuality. If not, I'm saying it plainly. 5:I don't think it's appropriate to edit someone else's comments on talk pages, 'because of nebulousness' at any rate. 6:Comments of the form "Please do this, otherwise I will do that" can be interpreted as a threat, and your comment takes that form. 7:Not 'seeking to counter your edits' is not what is meant by the "NPOV" principle. (end of reply)Pedant

Please provide sources for your assertions or don't expect them to be taken seriously. If you have any comments to make to me, regarding this article, make them on this page, as that is where I will put them if you leave them on my talk page.

"he put Timothy's adult penis in his mouth" references for this?
"Nonetheless, in the Middle Ages, some homosexuals tried to use this description to argue that Jesus was homosexual and it therefore could not be a crime." (weasel word: "some"... who did this? according to whom?
" I don't think Jesus is considered by more than maybe a few single individuals, that could be counted on one hand, as having ever fallen romantically in love with the church, or of ever having sex with it. I could be wrong?" You seem to be deliberately missing the point that if Jesus was the bridegroom of the church that would seem to preclude him being either married to or sexually involved with a person of whatever sex or identity they might be.
"It was a common belief in mediaeval england (unfortunately I don't have enough documentation " More weasel words ("it was a common belief..." is like saying, "everyone knows that..." if it was a common belief, you certainly won't object to my requesting some citation for this assertion? I suspect you have a user account, but edit controversial articles anonymously to keep your user account free from allegations of bad editing, as it is a "a common belief on wikipedia that good editors make good edits, and are willing to have their work scrutinised." see how weasel words work?
"I believe the argument was used at the defence of a bishop (who lost his case) in the Reign of Elizabeth I (it may even be the Primate of all Ireland, but I am not sure)."

First, this article is not about the beliefs of the editors, Second, please be sure, and have sources for assertions.

regarding your assertion that some people claim that Jesus was married, I don't disagree, I have heard that theory, and the passage regarding the Wedding at Cana was used as support for their claims. It was asserted that since there is no mention of who was married there, that it must have been Jesus' wedding, his mother was there, etc... although it seems to me to be a fairly weak case. That's the only one of your wild assertions that I have even heard of before, that "Jesus was married to...(someone)"

All of the above being said, I would have preferred to discuss this directly with you, but you did not allow me that option. I'm not attacking you personally, I'd just like some references, because if there are any, they would be something I would want to read.

Other than that, this is a very well written article, and I feel hesitant to do more than small copyedits to it, in view of the controversial nature of religion in general. I certainly don't want to 'gang up on' anyone, including 'anonymous'. (maybe you could make up a name for me to refer to you by so I don't have to use the generic term anonymous, and don't have to copy and paste your IP address just to say something to you) But I'd be quite willing to read your source material, and equally unwilling to allow unsourced information of a highly speculative nature to tarnish this featured article candidate.Pedant 21:19, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

"Secular perspectives"

I have removed (for the second time) this anonymously-added section. It was added to the section on other religions, and is more related to the "Historicity" section. Information from this addition would be appropriate in that article, but not where it was added. There are a large number of unsupported statements of "fact", such as that "Nazareth didn't exist in the first century", which would require considerable attribution.

Some secular scholars of the bible, historians and skeptics do not think Jesus existed as depicted in the bible.

They hold it as quite likely, but not definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any one historical individual. In other words, that not only is the theological "Christ of Faith" an exaggeration and invention of early christians and theologians, but that the root individual did not actually live in Nazareth in the first century CE.

Their reasoning varies, but the main arguments are:

The story and life of Jesus as depicted in the Bible conforms to an archetype of 'Mythic Heroes,' of which there were many and are many. These stories have recurring themes: The infants birth is divinely/ supernaturally predicted and or conceived; attempts are made on the infant heros life, the child hero is wise far beyond their years, is charged with a task by a divine figure, defeats 'demons,' wins the support of the common people, is hailed as a king/ saviour, is betrayed, loses popular support, is executed (often atop a hill) and ascends, triumphant and vindicated, to heaven.

Myths, epics and legends with these features are found all over the world. Scholars usually conclude that the closer the supposed activities of a character, such as Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, Mithras, correspond with the heroic 'plot formula,' the more likely it is that the character has been transfigured by myth and legend.

In the case of the story of Jesus, there is no additional data, no substantiating evidences in the story, where every part of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, it is held to be arbitrary to claim that there must be a historical figure behind the myth: there MAY be, but it is not particularly probable. In other words, the claim is that there may have been a historical King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so; there may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, but there is no reason to assume so.

The resurrection story is also very similar to other myths dating from before the New Testament, most notably Herakles, Adonis, Baal, Attis, Asclepius, Tammuz and Osiris. All of these figures were believed to have lived on Earth, been killed and then resurrected some time later. Mostly their death and rebirth were celebrated each spring, when the world gave forth new vegetation. The bodies anointment, disappearance and unfruitful search for by holy women, just before its reappearance alive, is also a feature of most of these myths.

Popular novels of contempory times also frequently featured lovers seperated by the apparent death of one, who are then reunited after being entombed, where the lover thinks they are ghosts.

Other reasons given for doubting the veracity of the New Testament is the lack of sources supporting any of the events in it: there are no contempory accounts of any of the supposed events detailled: the census supposedly ordered, the dead rising from their graves, the sky turning black etc. There are neither any accounts by contempory historians of the period which mention Jesus Christ nor any of the miracles, despite mentioning far less important events and peoples. Some debate has resulted on these points, but no authentic work mentioning Jesus Christ by name is known thus far.

The reasoning is that all works mentioning Jesus are at best second or third hand 'hearsay' and not eyewitness reports: Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

Other factors for dismissing the New Testament as a reliable historical are the various errors found in it, from claiming Nazareth existed in the first century (it did not) or for various other errors about geography and such, for which there is no space to go into.

Mpolo 14:23, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

The section has been added again without coming here to discuss it... I'll leave it there until someone else looks at it (so as to avoid 3 reversions in 24 hours). Mpolo 15:04, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think the section in question is actually quite different from the position taken by most historians, and there may be a place for it in the article -- but I am suspicious of the vague attributions. Who actually makes this argument? Do any scholars accept it? I think if this section stays in the article it needs to be edited to express a cogent and identifiable point of view. Slrubenstein

Agreed. It should also go in the "Historicity" subarticle (with possible sketching in this article), rather than where it is. Mpolo 15:55, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

The arguments sound like those made by Earl Doherty. Wesley 17:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nazaratus and the hebrew equivalent can both mean either "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarene", is this what he is on about by claiming Nazareth didn't exist? CheeseDreams 01:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph on "consensus." There are two problems with the earlier version. First, it was poorly written -- one does not "measure" consensus. Second, a majority of non-Christian scholars also accept the existence of Jesus. Slrubenstein

While it is certainly true that a majority of non-Christian scholars assume the existance of Jesus. It is certainly not true that the majority of non-Christian biblical scholars or biblical historians/archaeologists do. CheeseDreams 20:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Early Life section

"The Evangelists do not describe much of Jesus' life between birth and the beginning of his ministry, except that as a young teen he instructed the scholars in the temple. The apocryphal Infancy Gospels describe the child Jesus performing miraculous works."

The Evangelists term not previously defined or referenced, to whom does this refer? We shouldn't use terms that non-christians wouldn't recognise. Evangelist in this context is somewhat ambiguous.

"The apocryphal Infancy Gospels describe ..." apocryphal, not previously defined or referenced, in this context the common meaning is not what is expressed. Should be referenced to apocryphal or preferably explained, as in

"The apocryphal Infancy Gospels (apocrypha, from the Greek απόκρυφος, "hidden", refers in general to religious works that are not considered canonical, or part of officially-accepted scripture) describe ..."

Anyone willing to address these two issues? Comments?Pedant 20:03, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

It is a reference to, for example "The infancy Gospel of Thomas", which is part of the official Apocrypha. In it, Jesus performs many miracles (such as making birds from clay, and bringing back to life the various children he had previously killed, also by magic). 81.156.181.197 20:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right. You and I understand that. But as the comments from FAC say: "This article assumes a lot of knowledge and therefore gives little context..." the word "apocryphal" and "evangelists" occur only once in the article and it's not clear from the context alone what it is referring to. And now you mention the 'Official Apocrypha' which is a specific meaning of the word, so I know you understand me. Uncapitalised, and without enough context, apocryphal could mean any non-canonical scriptural reference. Maybe, since you seem to have a good grip on the subject, you might add a short introductory paragraph describing the difference and distinction between the books included in the 'canonical bible' and the books considered to be a part of the (capital A) Apocrypha. If that were to be included, and linked to Apocrypha -- for anyone wanting a fuller explication -- then it would make sense to change the paragraph to something like

The Apocryphal Infancy Gospels describe...

which would be excellent in my opinion, since at that point the reader would understand what it meant even without any familiarity with the scriptures... otherwise I would think it should be made clearer this way:

"The apocryphal Infancy Gospels (apocrypha, from the Greek απόκρυφος, "hidden", refers in general to religious works that are not considered canonical, or part of officially-accepted scripture) describe ..."

or with an inline link to Apocryphal in this way:

The apocryphal Infancy Gospels describe...

or at the end of the sentence:

The apocryphal Infancy Gospels describe the child Jesus performing miraculous works. (see: Apocrypha)

I think that the simple link to Infancy Gospels doesn't do enough, as a t present that article is a stub that only lists most of them, and does not explain what apocryphal means.

The paragraph:

"The Evangelists do not describe much of Jesus' life between birth and the beginning of his ministry, except that as a young teen he instructed the scholars in the temple. The apocryphal Infancy Gospels describe the child Jesus performing miraculous works."

has a similar issue with the word "Evangelists", solvable in much the same manner. If, by the Evangelists you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it would do well I think to do this:

"The Evangelists do not describe..."

or something along the lines of the italicised portion of the following could be added to:

"... which are presented in the Gospels. The writing of the Gospels is attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who are sometimes referred to as the Four Evangelists or simply, "The Evangelists His teachings were spread by a ..."

then the later reference to The Evangelists has a foundation.Pedant 22:11, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)