Wikipedia

Talk:Jesus/Archive 4

< Talk:Jesus
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Asceticism

What happened? This looked like a nice article yesterday.

Lir, what's your evidence that Jesus is considered an ascetic? Most Christians don't view him like that, at least not in the sense that 'ascetic' is used today (see Matthew 11:18-19) so it seems unlikely that the view is 'general'. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Like the other ascetics, he rejected material posessions, at least according to Christianity and the other religions. He also appears to have been celibate and had no permament home; wandering from place to place preaching. That makes him an ascetic. Lirath Q. Pynnor

First of all, the phrase "generally believed" should not be in the first sentence (or even paragraph) of an article. It's a weak phrase, a vague generalization, and adds nothing of import. Adam's version of the first paragraph explains WHO believes WHAT, which makes it better. He also does not refer to Gnostics as "heretics". The only part of your version I have kept intact was the closing paragraph on Gnostics, before "Other Sources". Adam's proclaiming that many scholars are "bored with" a topic and subsequently focus on another one, is a vague generalization.
Secondly, there is a way to label him as an ascetic (which he was, according to definition) without destroying the flow of the article. The first few sentences of the article are exactly how they should be. -- goatasaur 13:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why did you remove the mention of Jesus as the Messiah? I did not refer to Gnostics as heretics. Lirath Q. Pynnor
The real problem is that Lir wants to use this article as a soapbox for his religious views, rather than participate in finding a mutually acceptable text. I respect his beliefs, but he has to learn what the objective here is. There are plenty of other places he can set out his views on what Jesus was or might have been, but not in the opening paragraph. Adam 13:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh shut up, the hell you respect my beliefs. Just a few paragraphs above, you called my beliefs "rubbish". Lirath Q. Pynnor

I suppose it is reasonable to note that Christians do not typically see Jesus as an ascetic (I have no idea what their problem with the term is); however, Muslims do see him as an ascetic: Nazereneway.com yahoo!. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I think it is fair to say that in comparison with for example John the Baptist, Jeshua was hardly an ascetic. Jeshua did have one experiment with asceticism (in the wilderness, where he was tempted by visions); but mostly we see him in feasts. He ate meat, and drank wine, both things which "the Baptist" did not do. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:06, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to write, Cimon. Also Jesus' followers did not teach asceticism, so I think it reasonable that Jesus didn't teach it to them. I have no trouble with some mention of Jesus' attitude to material posessions (in fact its essential) but surely not in the defining paragraph. DJ Clayworth 14:14, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One should note, however, that drinking wine and eating meat is hardly grounds for disqualification from the ranks of ascetics; although, I do prefer ascetics who engage in neither activity. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I refered to Lir's inserts into the text as rubbish, not his beliefs. This issue here is NOT what people believe about Jesus, the issue is how Christians and secularists achieve an agreed text in the opening paragraph. As I said earlier, Lir's problem is that he has no interest in trying to do that, only in vindicating his beliefs. Adam 14:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Gnosticism

Can you please inform why my new section on Gnostic sources, which if you do any sort of internet search are clearly rather high on the Christian and New Age agenda, and do rather concern Jesus have been deleted. I was not using them as a support for Jesus' historicity which I except only provide weak support upon reflection. But I put the sub-section in to give it the current importance it deserves on the debate about Jesus 

I was quite happy with your new section heading on the problem of Jesus so whats the problem ChrisG
Chris I'm sorry I didn't notice your stuff when I reverted Lir's rubbish out of the opening paragraph. You can rescue it easily enough from the Page History file. Adam 13:19, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adam, how's this for a seb-section on Gnosticism?

Gnostic Sources Gnostic writings had been fragmented and limited in quality owing to the successful campaign of the Orthodox Church to repress so called 'heretical' Christian sects and their writings during the third and fourth centuries. However, a library of over fifty gnostic texts were discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Once it was fully translated in the 1970's it provided a fascinating discovery for anyone interested in early Christianity and the spiritual teachings of Jesus. These non-canonical Christian or Gnostic sources for Jesus have become increasingly cited as historical sources in the life of Jesus.

Dating the Nag Hammadi materials places them in A.D 350-400. However, scholars sharply disagree about dating the original texts. Circumstantial evidence suggest they cannot be later than AD120-150, because the orthodox Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, writing in AD180, informs us that the heretics ‘’"boast that they possess more gospels than there really are,"’’ and complains that in his time such writings already have wide circulation across France, Italy and around the Eastern Mediterrenean.

Debate among scholars and Christians has tended to become more narrowly focused on the reliability of the so called Fifth Gospel of Thomas. A number of scholars have suggested that it is an independent transmission of teaching from Jesus created at approximately the same time as the Biblical Gospels in the mid part of the First Century, while scholars on the other extreme dismiss it as derivative development of the second century AD and therefore fairly irrelevant to the teachings of Jesus. Others have focused more specifically on the question of which - if any - of the 114 sayings can be reliably attributed to Jesus and which are later creations.

Even with the Nag Hammadi library documents it is difficult to know what the Gnostic and other early Christians actually believed, or if there was any consistent core of teachings; but it is clear that at least some of these early Christians fundamentally disagreed with the Orthodox Christianity in their understandig of Jesus Christ. Upholding a far more private and 'Eastern' perspective on Jesus' teachings, which makes the current differentiation between the main Christian denominations seem minimal. These writings have proved attractive to many liberal Christians and New Ageists in the last thirty years and there has been a revival of Gnosticism.: ChrisG 14:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Chris, I like this stuff on Gnostic sources, and I think they should be mentioned, but I don't think all of it belongs in this article. It's mostly about dating documents, not about Jesus. Could it go in the Gnostic article, or maybe a new 'Gnostic documents' article? DJ Clayworth 15:00, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes I agree - this article should say the Gnostic gosepls (in the opinion of some scholars) offer information on Jesus and then give a link to Gnostic gospels. Adam 15:05, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying. However, I did put the extra stuff in to ensure this entry got a fair hearing. But having done it and looked on the Web this is what Christians are really debating. There are lots of sites with various translations of the Gospel and debate about the individual sayings. It is really, really popular among Christians and so for them it is of crucial importance. The article goes into a fair amount of detail about other aspects of Jesus' life, so the discovery a major new source of material on Jesus' spiritual teaching is actually worth more than four paragraphs in current importance. BTW I am not a Christian, though these new writings put a whole new face on Jesus, so I guess I fit in with those New Ageists he find these rediscovered spiritual teachings important.

Indeed if someone came to this page, most of what they would read would not be new, but this is up to date current controversy. : ChrisG 15:12, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think an encyclopedia is about new and controversial information. It has a place, of course, but more prominence should be given to generally agreed information. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To sum up a controversy is not controversial. To say there is a controversy is surely just a fact. : ChrisG 15:43, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Exactly. We shoud sum up the controversy, and put detailed information on it in another article. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay I'll drop a paragraph : ChrisG 15:51, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How's this?

Gnostic Sources Gnostic writings had been fragmented and limited in quality owing to the successful campaign of the Orthodox Church to repress so called 'heretical' Christian sects and their writings during the third and fourth centuries. However, a library of over fifty gnostic texts were rediscovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Once it was fully translated in the 1970's it provided a fascinating discovery for anyone interested in early Christianity and the spiritual teachings of Jesus. These non-canonical Christian or Gnostic sources for Jesus have become increasingly cited as historical sources in the life of Jesus.

Dating the Nag Hammadi material places them in A.D 350-400. However, scholars sharply disagree about dating the original texts. which is vitally important to Christians and historians, because the earlier the dating the more likely the teachings can be attributed to Jesus himself. Debate among scholars and Christians has tended to become more narrowly focused on the reliability of the so called Fifth Gospel of Thomas. A number of scholars have suggested that it is an independent transmission of teaching from Jesus created at approximately the same time as the Biblical Gospels in the mid part of the First Century, while scholars on the other extreme dismiss it as derivative development of the second century AD and therefore fairly irrelevant to the teachings of Jesus. Others have focused more specifically on the question of which - if any - of the 114 sayings can be reliably attributed to Jesus and which are later creations.

Even with the Nag Hammadi library texts it is difficult to know what the Gnostic and other early Christians actually believed, or if there was any consistent core of teachings; but it is clear that at least some of these early Christians fundamentally disagreed with the Orthodox Christianity in their understandig of Jesus Christ. Upholding a far more private and 'Eastern' perspective on Jesus' teachings, which makes the current differentiation between the main Christian denominations seem minimal. These writings have proved attractive to many liberal Christians and New Ageists in the last thirty years and there has been a revival of Gnosticism.: ChrisG 16:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC) (See suggested new paragraph below)

"Heretic" is not necessarily a POV label, for a revived Gnostic. It simply means that he is not Orthodox, and instead chooses for himself what to believe. A "Heretic" is one whose choice is the final reference, for what ought to be believed: and that's quite descriptive of revived gnosticism. In fact, I heard Pagle in an interview once, advise modern Gnostics to wear the label, "heretic" with pride. Of course, the Gnostics are looking more and more like their hobby-horse historians, as time goes on. Mkmcconn 15:21, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Suggested new first paragraph

Suggested new first paragraph. Islam sees Jesus as a prophet other religions see him in much different ways. Also added Lir's sentence about the Gospels because I think it is well written and allows Christian movement with the phrase divinely inspired as to whether it is literally correct.

Jesus Christ (or Jesus of Nazareth, see alternate names below) (c. 4 BC - c. 30) was, according to Christian belief, the Son of God, who brought salvation to man through his crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus is considered to be a major religious figure by several religions, for instance, he is regarded as a prophet in Islam. The primary source of historical knowledge, about Jesus, is contained within the Christian Gospels, which Christians view as the divinely inspired writings of God. Most secular historians accept that the Gospels are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence. : ChrisG 16:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Gnostic sources

I think the Gnostic section is still too long. It's all about the historicity of documents, and it doesn't indicate what these documents actually say about Jesus. Why not write a couple of lines on what these documents say about Jesus, and leave the rest to a Gnostic gospel article? DJ Clayworth 16:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Gnostic Sources Gnostic writings had been fragmented and limited in quality owing to the successful campaign of the Orthodox Church to repress so called 'heretical' Christian sects and their writings during the third and fourth centuries. However, a library of over fifty gnostic texts were rediscovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Once it was fully translated in the 1970's it provided a fascinating discovery for anyone interested in early Christianity and the spiritual teachings of Jesus.
Dating the Nag Hammadi material places them in A.D 350-400. However, scholars sharply disagree about dating the original texts. which is vitally important to Christians and historians, because the earlier the dating the more likely the teachings can be attributed to Jesus himself. Debate among scholars and Christians has tended to become more narrowly focused on the reliability of the so called Fifth Gospel of Thomas. Some scholars have suggested that it is an independent transmission of teaching from Jesus created at approximately the same time as the Biblical Gospels in the mid part of the First Century.
Even with the Nag Hammadi library texts it is difficult to know what the Gnostic and other early Christians actually believed, or if there was any consistent core of teachings; but it is clear that at least some of these early Christians fundamentally disagreed with the Orthodox Christianity in their understandig of Jesus Christ. Upholding a far more private and 'Eastern' perspective on Jesus' teachings, which makes the current differentiation between the main Christian denominations seem minimal. These writings have proved attractive to many liberal Christians and New Ageists in the last thirty years and there has been a revival of Gnosticism.

There is no need for a new Gnostic Gospel page. : ChrisG 17:06, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Most of what you are writing seems to be about the documents. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is already pages on Gnosticism, The Fifth Gospel and Nag Hammadi, which might need tweaking, but we don't need a new page for a detaied discussion on documentation it will be spread across the three in the end I would imagine. Nag Hammadi effectively is the Gnostic Gospel page anyway.: ChrisG 17:12, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If the information is already on Wikipedia, why do we need to duplicate it here? DJ Clayworth 17:17, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are places for a more extended and detailed explanations of these controversies and ideas. However, it is appropriate that there be a short summary of these ideas since these controversies are rather relevant to people's assessment of Jesus. Information bcomes knowledge when it is presented in the appropriate context or relationships.How can we have an article about Jesus which deals in great detail about his teachings as explained in the Bible, without in the same article providing balance from the only other large acknowledged source of his ideas however diluted by time they arguably are. Even more importantly these ideas call into question the presentation of Jesus' teaching by Orthodox Christianity. How can these ideas not be in the article? I would have said that the fact that the Church of Rome burnt all the books of Gnosticism is all the more reason to makes sure we present them as an alternative view. : ChrisG 19:04, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the ideas should be in the article. There should definitely be a summary of what the Gnostics say about Jesus (you still haven't told us what that is, by the way). A line or two about the documents is OK. But if we want to keep the article to manageable size, we need to keep it on subject. Historicity of any documents belongs in an article about those documents. Even the canonical Gospels only get five lines on their historicity. Isn't the whole point of having links in Wikipedia so people can follow them if they are interested?

Does anyone else have anything to say here?

DJ Clayworth 01:17, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This is a page on Jesus; not, about the Gnostics' view of Jesus. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This page needs to be archived. Lirath Q. Pynnor

preface

"Jesus is considered to be a major religious figure by several religions, for instance, he is regarded as a prophet in Islam."

This sentence keeps being restored to the text after I keep deleting it. I ask: which religions, other than Islam, have any particular regard for Jesus? Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism? I don't think so. Would the defenders of this sentence care to explain what it means? Adam 01:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Rastafarianism is arguably not Christianity. Some people believe that Jesus traveled to India, and encountered the religions there; the Gospel of Thomas is often mentioned in such an argument. Im sure the Jews at least acknowledge Jesus as a religious figure. There are also religions such as Sanateria, which are also arguably not Christianity. Furthermore, many Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Well I think that response proves my point. The Dead Sea Scrolls (which are Jewish documents if they are anything) do not mention Jesus at all. Rastafarianism may or may not be a religion, but if it is a religion it is an offshoot of Christianity. So is Mormonism, although I think Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. Of course Jews acknowledge that Jesus was a religious leader, but Judaism as a religion regards him as an apostate. Hinduism and Buddhism have nothing to say about him. So this attempt to portray Jesus as a sort of pan-religious figure is based on nothing much at all and should be deleted. Adam 02:21, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was referring to the Gospel of Thomas. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Eashua M'shikhah is a pan-religious figure --perhaps inspired in some respects by the Far east philosophy and the path of enlightenment, famously espoused by the Buddha, and others. I.e Comparative religion -戴&#30505sv 02:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The Oomoto, I believe, also recognize Jesus as a kamic individual. Lirath Q. Pynnor

First, Lir, DO NOT alter the text of things other people write here. You said Dead Sea scrolls and I replied on that basis. Second, the "Gospel of Thomas" is a Christian document, so it is not relevant to a discussion about non-Christian views of Jesus. I have never heard of the Oomoto. Google tells me it has something to do with Japanese tea ceremonies. I'm not sure what that has to do with Jesus. Adam 03:39, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I WILL EDIT my text at will; if you wish to delete your above statement, feel free to do so. Second, the Gospel of Thomas is relevant because there are people who believe it shows Indian influence. Third, I don't really care what Google tells you -- the Oomoto are members of a Japanese religion, one which loves Jesus. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir you are free to edit your text as much as you like - I said do not alter mine. I wrote Dead Sea scrolls in my reply above, and you changed it to Gospel of Thomas, which had the effect of making me say that the Gospel of Thomas is a Jewish document, which I did not say. This is rude, OK?

No, its not rude. Its an accident, so chill. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'd like to respond to Adam's question about other religions and Jesus. (although I'm not the reverter of the sentence!)

In a way its a misleading question. Jesus claimed to come for all people, . and didn't come to start a religion, he tried to save people from the messes they get themselves into. He argued against the futility of what he saw as the overly rigourous, legalistic religion of his time. And some people's prob;ems are caused by religion, eg he condemned the Pharisees of his time. After his death, people who popularised the Bible were executed - by Christian authorities!

So, religion can be mistaken, and at some stages in its history, Christianity, at least in its western forms, has been contrary to the teachings of its alleged founder, in my view. The Inquisition, witch burning, religious wars and crusades, and church corruption bear witness to all of this.

But this does not undermine the essential message of Jesus, indeed it confirms it in my view. Other faiths do accept Jesus as much as Christianity does, e.g. the Bahai religion, etc. See this link, which taught me much more than some Christian sources about Jesus: [[1]]

I am not someone who saw a blinding light at one stage:I am as much a hardheaded rationalist as anyone, but I was convinced by the secularist evidence when I was persuaded to take time to sit down and look at it. I don't believe there are two kinds of knowledge, I simply think there is one kind of knowledge, some of it more clearly supported than others by empirical evidence.

I hope this helps, and I do not intend it as propaganda, honestly. I regret that some people have been hurt during this discussion, and I admire them for sticking with it

TonyClarke 03:43, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


"Jesus is considered to be a major religious figure by several (other) religions, for instance, he is regarded as a prophet in Islam."
This sentence keeps being restored to the text after I keep deleting it. I ask: which religions, other than Islam, have any particular regard for Jesus? Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism? I don't think so. Would the defenders of this sentence care to explain what it means? Adam 01:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make with this line which obviously may need rephrasing is that Jesus is not just an Orthodox Christian and Islamic figure, which the original first paragraph seemed to suggest. Obviously we have Islam. Then there the various types of Gnosticism which were repressed by the Orthodox Christians. Then there are believers like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses etc. See for example the section lower down on other religions within the Jesus page.: ChrisG 09:30, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article on religious pluralism is relevant here, it suggests that more than the above religions would accept Jesus in the way intended. TonyClarke 11:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just visited the page on Guru Nanak (founder of sikhism), Confucius (founder of confusism), Zoroaster (founder of zoroastrianism), Lao Tse (founder of taoism), Moses (founder of jewdaism) and Muhammad (founder of Islam) and never have I seen such a battleground. The other pages about the founders of the worlds great religeons (sorry if I left yours out, I tried to cover as many as possible) simply get down to the buisiness of stating:

  • Their Life
  • Their Works
  • Their Religeon

phrased as clearly as possible. None of these people have their biography starting with "the problem with <insert name here>" and neither should they. but why should christ be any different?

One billion people in this world believe that Muhammad was called apon by the angel gabriel to start the one true religeon in gods name. I don't believe that myself, but who am I to begrudge Muhammad the right to have that written in his biography, because after all, Muhammad is only known today because he founded a religeon that claimed he was a man of god, not that he is considered by the other 5 billion people in the world to be a crackpot.

In the same way, christ who is believed to be god by 2 billion people on this earth is recognised to even people who do not belong to that religeon because he is known to some as the son of god. He is not known for being "an controversial charactor that we know nothing about" to anyone who is religeosly linked to him, so why should we dwell on it?

Of course we want everyones perspective, so why don't you split the page into multiple documents: Christ: a christian perspective, Christ: an islamic perspective, Christ: a bahai perspective etc. each document could be administered by people who have a connection to that group, there could be a central page with absolutely no contreversial information on it and have links to the other pages which contain the information. Cirtainly you don't want to have the first topic on any page as an ambivalant wrappup because if one has any belief one should get streight to what applies to them without dwelling on the fact that alternate viewpoints exist. For this is like making completely sure that the readers know that einstein could also play the violin before we get onto the fact that he also did physics. If however one is undecided they could read them all without fear of becoming offended.

then the different biographies can just state, christs life, his works and the religeon he founded according to the pages tradition associated with him, just like the other founders of the worlds religeons. If one does not believe this is factual information they can splutter and say "bullshit" just like one can when reading about any profit of a religeon one does not believe in.

I am sorry to add my own views to the allready heated shitfight here and I don't believe it would help the issue to edit it myself, but seriously people, get this issue sorted out. Caleb Moore 14:52, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Scarlet is right. We need to sort it out. Can someone volunteer to do a systematic rewrite of what's there, on the lines suggested? Then we can all look at it, and comment from a positive beginning. TonyClarke 16:53, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thats what the page was protected for. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Suggested compromise

The principal reason this page was protected was over disagreements concerning the initial paragraph, between Adam, Lir and myself; though I think I was mostly an accidental participant which confused the issue still further. Two way fights are so much easier to disentangle!

Talking with Adam we have agreed this compromise which is a mix of contributions Adam, Lir and myself:

"Jesus Christ (or Jesus of Nazareth, see alternate names below) (c. 4 BC - c. 30) was, according to Christian belief, the Son of God, who brought salvation to man through his crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus is considered to be a major religious figure by several other religions, for instance, he is regarded as a prophet in Islam. The primary source of historical knowledge, about Jesus, is contained within the Christian Gospels, which Christians view as the divinely inspired writings of God. Most secular historians accept that the Gospels are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence.

There is no mention of Jesus as an ascetic, because it seems from discussions on this page that it is not considered a sufficiently important matter to raise in the introductory paragraph.

Also I believe Adam has agree to retitle section 1 from 'The Problem of Jesus' to the more innocent 'Introduction'.

I believe that if this compromise is acceptable, we can get the protection from the page removed, and continue as normal. : ChrisG 12:04, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • In order for there to be a compromise, there should be an actual compromise; some kind of "giving of ground" on both sides. The above paragraph, as far as I can tell, does not in any way reflect the information which I was trying to add (and that Carr was trying to delete); those points being A: Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of the Judaic Messainic prophecies B: Jesus is seen, by a significant group, as an ascetic; while the new paragraph does include some of my edits, it does not compromise on those points for which the edit war occurred. I support the below paragraphs, which are a compromise:

(I've divided Lirath's sentences to make argument easier. At least we have identified the critical issue of the edit war. Sentence 1 and 2 are the subject of the debate. Sentence 3 is agreed by all parties. Sentence 4 seems purely a matter of quality not content.ChrisG 13:22, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)) )

  • Either version is acceptable; the first version is better. I'd want evidence that Muslims regarded Jesus as an ascetic though. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • [2]: The widespread Islamic view of Jesus as the ascetic prophet makes him especially popular with Sufism
    • [3] The Muslim Jesus is an ascetic
    • [4] Increasingly Jesus comes to be portrayed as an extra-rigorous ascetic
    • [5] Jesus...a wandering ascetic
    • [www.hup.harvard.edu/reviews/KHAMUS_R.html] Jesus...Ascetic Lord
  • Agreed. DJ Clayworth 19:39, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

By sentence:
1) Personally I think the first sentence is an improvement, I don't have a problem with refering to Jesus as a messiah in the Christian context though it is worthy of discussion.
2) I prefer my version because I don't consider Jesus' asceticism to be important enough to be in the first paragraph.
3) Agreed by all parties. Was Lir's original.
4) This just an argument about which reads best I think. I prefer Lir's.

ChrisG 13:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There seem to be two sticking points in the opening paragraph.

  • The first is Lir's insistence on telling us that Jesus is some sort of pan-religious figure who is highly regarded by non-Christian religions. This is simply false. We agree that Islam regards Jesus as a prophet. But I have yet to see any evidence that any other religion gives Jesus any place in their theology. Mormons and Rastafarians don't count because they are para-Christian sects (Rastafarianism is a cult of the Emperor Haile Selassie, who was a Christian). The Gnostic texts don't count because they are Christian documents. Obscure modern Japanese cults don't count. The other major world religions are Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. None of these give Jesus any place in their theology. Judaism hates him (with good reason) though most Jews are too tactful now to say so. Hinduism and Buddhism had never heard of him until the arrival of Europeans in the East. This statement is just plain false.
  • The second is Lir's obsession with saying that Jesus was "an ascetic." What does this mean? That he led an abstemious liefstyle? Maybe he did, but we have no evidence at all about this. The Catholic Encyclopdeia says "The word asceticism comes from the Greek askesis which means practice, bodily exercise, and more especially, atheletic training. The early Christians adopted it to signify the practice of the spiritual things, or spiritual exercises performed for the purpose of acquiring the habits of virtue." No mention at all of Jesus. Jesus, let me remind you, was not an early Christian, he was a Jew, and ascribing the practices of the early Christians to him is ahistorical nonsense.
  • Therefore, aince both these statements are demonstrably false, and no serious evidence has been produced to support them, and since the only reason we are still debating them at all is Lir's stubbornness, they should be deleted.

Adam 01:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are a number of links above, which adress some of Adam's issues. Hopefully, he takes the time to read them; rather than wasting my time with personal attacks. I do not think it is particularly hard to find information about the Hindi view of Jesus as a guru, nor is it hard to find views that Jesus may have traveled to India, before the time-period desribed in the Gospels. If anyone else is interested, I will be happy to provide more links -- I see no point in giving Adam more links, when he neither reads nor acknowledges them. I disagree with his view that Jews hate Jesus; or that Islam is not a major world religion. I would like to point out that, since most Christians do not believe that Haile Selaisse is the Messiah; then, it is quite arguable that Rastafarianism is not Christianity -- furthermore, Selaisse was Christian and did not endorse Rastafarianism. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Regarding other religions' regard of Jesus... Mohandas Ghandi, a Hindu, is well known to have been influenced by the teachings in the Gospels. I think he said that the main reason he did not become a Christian was that he never met a Christian who practiced what the Gospels taught. In another context, I think that Ghandi referred to himself as a Hindu, and a Christian, and a Muslim... maybe also as a Jew... in typical Hindu pluralistic fashion. To give another data point, though not necessarily representative of many Hindus, my wife once went on a field trip to a Hindu temple in Chicago as part of a Christian seminary class to learn about Hinduism and Buddhism. Actually they visited a handful of different places there, including at least one Hare Krishna place. In one of those locations, the main altar featured icons of Krishna, Jesus Christ, and Mary the mother of Jesus. I think they believed that both Krishna and Jesus were avatars, manifestations or incarnations of deity or of Brahman. At any rate, there's at least one small group of people in Chicago that prays to both Krishna and Jesus Christ.
As far as Jesus being an ascetic, I don't know whether it has to be in the first paragraph or not, but I do think there is ample evidence from the Christian Gospels that Jesus was an ascetic. And most people in this discussion seem to agree that the Gospels are the best historical evidence we have about Jesus. Believe or don't believe in his miracles or his resurrection, but the Gospels do say that he expected his disciples to fast, that he himself prayed a great deal, that he told the 70 apostles he sent out not to be overly concerned with provision for their material needs, that he elsewhere told his followers not to be too concerned with provision for their material needs, that he supported giving to the Temple and the widow with very little to give was praised for her giving, not scolded for her foolishness... that he discouraged some from following him by saying that the Son of Man had no place to lay his head... Again, I don't know whether the word 'ascetic' has to be in the first paragraph, but I'm also surprised that anyone who is at all familiar with the Gospels would argue that Jesus was not an ascetic. If you don't believe a word of the Gospels, then you're probably back to arguing that Jesus didn't exist at all, not arguing about his asceticism or lack of asceticism. Wesley 04:52, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If this was only about the Christian Jesus, then asceticism wouldn't belong in the first paragraph; however, asceticism is a defining aspect of the Muslim Jesus. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Anyone who believes that Jesus could have travelled to India is obviously living in fairyland and not worth arguing with. And I said Judaism not Jews which is an obvious and important distinction. This is about the fifth time Lir has deliberately misquoted me. I conclude that he is malicious as well as a fool. I should have stuck to my resolution to withdraw from participation in editting this page since it is obviously infested with fanatics. Adam 04:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Whats the difference between Judaism and Jews? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Looking on the internet I have found one other religion that considers Jesus to be a manifestation or prophet of God - Bahai. Not a very good site but: [6] They 5-6 million members and were founded in 19th century. Basically every major religious figure is a previous manifestation.: 195.92.67.75 05:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Interesting views on the figure and arguments for and against them. But I do hope fellow Wikipedians could discuss them without ending up insulting each other. Now for some comments:

  • Like many other words originating from the Greek language 'ascetic' has had quite a number of different meanings over the years. Adam is right to point that it originates from 'askesis' which mostly had the meaning of physical exercise. Over time in Greek it has come to be associated with people known for their practice of self-discipline. Indeed since Byzantine times both 'asketes' and 'monachos' primarily have the meaning of 'monk'.
  • Though an atheist myself I have had my share of lessons in theology while in school since it is still considered necessary in Greece. The classic example for an 'asketic' given to us was John the Baptist. Known for strict self-discipline, in possession of only the bare necessities needed for his survival and consuming neither meat nor Alcoholic beverages. And naturaly avoiding the company of others in favor of solitude. That is what first comes to my mind uppon hearing the word 'ascetic'. Jesus hardly seems to fit the profile.
  • Jesus life according to the Gospels seems to have quite a contrast to that of his alleged cousin. He spent forty days in the desert exercising himself in resistance of temptation. But that seems to have been the end of ascetic practice for him. He tends to be depicted as quite a sociable person, more oftenly seeking the company of others rather than avoiding it. Many passages have him enjoying the joys of hospitality and discussing ideas of morality and theology over a dinner table. In Greece his most famous phrase arguably remains "oinos euphrainei kardia anthropou", in English "Wine brings joy to a man's heart". An oftenly quotted phrase used to demonstrate that Jesus was moderate in his self-discipline rather than strict. Hardly an 'ascetic'.
  • I don't realy remember many instances of Jesus praying or fasting. However both practices do not necessary describe ascetics. Daily prayer seems to have been typical of practicioners of Judaism at the time. And the Pharisees are often featured in the Gospels as proud in fasting as appropriate. In a more modern context, the Greek Orthodox Church expects its believers to fast from meat, Dairy products and a number of different Vegetable oils for periods of forty days preceeding great religious holidays like Christmas , Pentecost, etc. Those who do are just following a traditional practice. They are hardly ascetics.
  • In Greek Heretic used to have the meaning that the person described as such helf a belief in common with a minority of others. It could also be used to mean that this view was in error. However ,thanks mainly to Christianity, it tends to have quite a negative meaning over the last two millenia. The various factions of Christianity tended to use it as an accusation against their actual or perceived opponents. And naturaly associated it with their practice of deamonizing said opponents in their religious accounts. I doubt that anyone would choose to describe himself/herself as a Heretic. As for "Orthodox" it literaly means the one helding the right belief. Both terms should be avoided in NPOV text.
  • Since we can only know Jesus through religious views and historical theories about his person, mentioning those significant and relevant enough in the article and when possible mention arguments for and against them should be enough. Arguing in support of them can hardly be expected to lead to a commonly accepted view of the subject matter. As for the minor religions, cults, sects mentioned during the discussion, they possibly need to get their own articles before we start referencing their beliefs.
  • Jesus has on occasion been called the most controversial figure in history and there is no wonder about it. Avoiding mentioning controversies in the article would be neither possible nor constructive. Reporting on the sources of the various controversies when possible should add to the quality of the article. Even "rational, secular" views on the subject tend to originate from ideas introduced by The Enlightenment during the 18th century. Perhaps the process should be mentioned.
  • Offering the "Christian" perspective on Jesus could be very misleading. This perspective tends to change over the centuries along with the ideologies of the societies practicing Christianity. Christian beliefs of the later two or three centuries for example can hardly be seen as the same with those of the 16th century. Societies changed and beliefs followed along.
  • Nestorianism, a version of Christianity had already reached China by the 8th century as already mentioned in the relevant article. According to other texts on the subject I have come across over the years, Nestorianism had reached India even earlier. Much earlier that the Colonial Era. So its contact to the various Asian cultures is not necessarily a recent matter. Hinduism tends to allow its practicioners enough room to addopt their own practice of beliefs. Jesus could problably have found his way into the personal beliefs of Hinduists without necessarrily making them Christians. A similar phenomenon has been observed in recent times and examples have been offered. Perhaps it should be mentioned but in those cases Jesus serves as a recent addition rather than a major figure of their religious system.
  • Adam, theories of Jesus traveling in India are not unheard of. The problem is that there is a chronological gap in the Gospels' account. Jesus is said to have visited the Temple in Jerusalem at the age of twelve. Silence covers the following years. The following accounts describe his celebrated meeting with John the Baptist, that is held to have happened shortly before Jesus started teaching. By that time he would have been in his thirties. From the time of the Gnostics many have speculated of how Jesus spent those Silent Years. Travels to Britain, China, Egypt, Gaul, India and more recently Japan have been suggested but never prooved. Lir seems to just be mentioning them and not defending their validity.

I hope this at least helps in clarification of some terms. The subject is far from being fully discussed. User:Dimadick

I want to respond to a point Adam makes above: Judaism hates him (with good reason) though most Jews are too tactful now to say so. As a Jew, I strongly disagree. I leave it to Danny or RK to quote the Talmudic reference -- it is certainly true that in the early Rabbinic period (when Christian attitudes towards Jews had changed quite a good deal from James' time) there is textual hostility towards Jesus. But I would not say that "Judaism" however conceptualized "hates" Jesus. I also don't think most Jews hate Jesus. I do think Judaism is pretty clear about rejecting claims that he was a messiah. I also think "Judaism" and most Jews are fairly hostile to Paul and John, whom we see as misrepresenting and smearing our beliefs as well as our relationship with God. I also think most or at least many Jews fear that most Christians are in some ways closet anti-Semites, and it is this that perhaps Jews are "too tactful now to say so" -- but I do not think this fear or suspicion is a source of hatred. I also think most Jews are deeply disturbed -- and perhaps even hate, Christianity's exclusivity -- viz. that one must be a Christian to go to heaven; that it is only through a relationship with Christ that one may experience a full relationship with God. But to be frank, I think most Jews don't even think about Jesus. I also think there are many Jews who like Jesus -- but not the Jesus that is represented by Christianity (see the works of Geza Vermes, for example, and others, which present Jesus as a Pharisee or as an ambulatory healer who had some wise things to say but who only after his death was elevated to "messiah"). Slrubenstein
This reminds me of the person who asked "Why do you hate God" because of a separation of church and state bumper sticker. Of course I don't hate nonexistent things. One pleasant side effect of being an atheist is that all religious sects are seen as equally bogus and can be rated purely in terms of their power and violence. We don't have to split hairs about personal feelings toward Jesus, Moses, Abraham, God, Buddha, or Brahma. Muhammed, John Smith, and Hubbard are exceptions, but we know they are all frauds and hardly anyone is concerned with them rather than their sects. Fairandbalanced 15:18, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
With all due respect to your point of view, I am not sure how this contributes to the article. Adam was not claiming that atheists hate Jesus, but he was claiming that other religions do (or at least, Judaism). I think one of the things that has been an issue recently on this talk page is how much the article is about Jesus, and how much about Christianity. The point you make above -- about religious sects (but I am assuming you mean religions as well) -- might be valuable on the religion or Christianity talk page, but this is an article about Jesus. There are a good many scholars who believe that Jesus existed irregardless of their own religious views (i.e., it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or do not, or are Jewish or Christian or anything else). Slrubenstein

As the point keeps being overlooked, I am not calling Jesus a "Christian ascetic" -- he is a Muslim ascetic. The Islamic religion views Jesus as an ascetic; when we note that Jesus is a figure in Islam, we must also note that they view him as an ascetic. The Muslim view of Jesus deserves to be properly recognized; thus, quotes from the "Catholic Dictionary" are not particularly helpful in arguing that Jesus is not considered to have been an ascetic prophet of Islam. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Wrong. Muslims view him as a Prophet to the Children of Israel (Jacob) and as the Messiah. Ascetism is not part of orthodox Islaam, and is in fact forbidden when it approaches the extent of Christian Monks. Muslim's believe he kept the Laws given to the Prophet Moses, and argued against the Jews at the time, who while living under foreign occupation, had been neglecting the important social laws given to Prophet Moses. So, he kept the Laws given to Prophet Moses - which is not ascetic. If by ascetic you mean he never married and gave his wealth away, you may be partially correct. He will, according to Islaam, get married when he returns at his appointed time. As for giving his wealth to the poor, that was an important part of his mission to the Jews - to remind them of the social Laws given to Prophet Moses and to have them stop exploiting the weak and poor because of their need. Wealth is given to some people so that they, 1. may be tested and 2. so they will use it to benefit their community. -Ibrahim Abdullah


Found and interesting review of 'The Muslim Jesus' 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2002/002/2.8.html

Should read the web page, I quote one paragraph: "The Muslim Jesus is a very good book. Khalidi writes in eloquent yet never pompous English (which he modestly attributes to his son's help with the translation), always striving to be comprehensible to the nonspecialist. Moreover, he has done valuable work simply in collecting, annotating, and translating this material. Thereafter, he lets the material about Jesus speak for itself, in order (I think) to make an important point: that the Jesus of Islam is a creation of Islam. In Khalidi's words, the Muslim Jesus is "a compound image," a figure "resurrected in an environment where he becomes a Muslim prophet." Thus, Khalidi explains, a wide range of Muslim authors used the figure of Jesus as a spokesman for their cause, be it asceticism, quietism, Shi'ism, or anti-Christian polemic." I don't think the argument from this recent book that Jesus is viewed particularly as an Ascetic in the Muslim tradition is as cut and dried as Lir argues.: ChrisG 16:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- Lir, - Enough ascetic. I don't know enough about Islam to argue with you detail at the moment. - - Adam has at least for now withdrawn - see his user page - from the debate; no doubt to concentrate on more productive topics I would imagine. So I believe that means you can request a SysOp to release the page and put your version of the First paragraph in place. - - I still think the second sentence could be better worded but it is more important to work on the rest of the article than to quibble over how much of an ascetic Jesus was. Hopefully all this debate will lead to a much better article.: ChrisG 17:16, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While I would not call Jesus an ascetic, it's a fact that his example is the principal model of Christian ascetics. I suppose that this makes it POV to assert that he was one, but it is NPOV to note, as a matter of fact, that Christian ascetics believe themselves to be conforming to his example in their ascetic manner of life. Mkmcconn 18:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Im simply trying to get it across that Im not stating that the first paragraph should declare Jesus to be an ascetic, I am merely asserting that (when it refers to Jesus as a muslim prophet), it should note that muslims see him as an ascetic. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Having read through the above, I'd like to remind everybody that, as NPOV encyclopedists, we're not concerned with the truth about Jesus, but rather with the various beliefs about Jesus. It doesn't matter that Jesus never went to India; what matters is that many Gnostic and New Age Christians believe that he did. And it doesn't matter that Jesus was hardly an ascetic; what matters is that many Muslims belive that he was. This does not resolve all matters, of course -- especially since the "many"s aren't "all"s. But I hope that people can keep the focus in mind. -- Toby Bartels 18:52, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_4&oldid=974908446"