Talk:Jesus/Archive 54

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 50

←

Archive 52

→

Peer Review

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks like our latest peer review is over. We got one comment, in response to which I separated the "Pauline Christian views" section between trinitarian and nontrinitarian views. Are there any further comments? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Name section (continued)

Latest comment: 18 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Previous discussion in Talk:Jesus/Archive 49.

I'm not sure if I'm missing the discussion on the name section. If not, I feel that 95% of the information can be cut (and moved to the main articles if it isn't already there). I mean, what do we really have to say here?

The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since Jesus was an Aramaic Jew living in Galilee around 30CE, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a Greek name. Further examination of the septuagint finds that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of a couple of possible Hebrew names: Yehoshua (יהושוע) or the shortened Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.

Case closed, right? Why is there so much detail going into one small section?--Andrew c 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, but there was a long argument between Haldrik and Jayjg over the derivation of the name. That's why I think a qualified liguist should look it over. Definitely most of the details could be moved to subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have Steve's changes been made to the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament article? If so, than I believe we can replace our long name section with Andrew c's proposal. Anyone disagree? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been so busy I almost missed this :-) Yes the changes have been made and we're all set to replace. --Steve Caruso 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty good, but slightly inaccurate. I would write it this way:

The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since most Jews living in the Galilee at the time spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a primary Greek name. The Septuagint transliterates two names as (Ἰησοῦς); the Hebrew Yehoshua (יהושוע), and the shortened (or possibly Aramaic) Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement (mine was just a rough cut anyway :P). One thing I would change, the pronoun "he" in the second sentence doesn't have an antecedent. And do we have sources for the final statement about what scholars believe? Otherwise, I think we should update the article after unprotection.--Andrew c 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. But don't forget the "o" (Iēsus → Iēsous). » MonkeeSage « 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the Latin didn't have an "o" in the middle of it. --Steve Caruso 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has a diagram suggesting the greek had the o, not the latin. I tried going to the vulgate for a source, but the only images I could find online had the nomina sacra IHS.--Andrew c 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

??? [1] cum ergo natus esset Iesus in Bethleem Iudaeae in diebus Herodis regis ecce magi ab oriente venerunt Hierosolymam

I've had a revised version of the shortened version posted over at Requests For Page Protection for a while now, and nothing has been altered. --Steve Caruso 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim said he'd ask the admins to move the page to semi-protect if we had 5 votes that agreed. We now have eight. Maybe I should let him know? Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a go :-) אמר Steve Caruso 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Galileans commonly did not pronounce ע , hence Y'shu. "But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b)."[2] Technically, the Ayin doesn't exist in English, so an "a" is generally used in it's place but this is still not the correct pronounciation.

If you want to get technical, originally only Capital letters were used, hence Greek: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ and Latin: IESVS (u was invented in the middle ages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.98 (talk • contribs)

Steve: The Latin had an "o" but not an "ou" diphthong (which in Greek was similar to the French and English "ou" [like in you]), so they transliterated Ἰησοῦς as Iesv[=u]s. The standard English transliteration is Iēsous or Iêsous. » MonkeeSage « 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very aware that Latin had the letter "o." :-) What I've never seen was the Latin iesvs/iesus translitterated as "iêsous," where I've seen the Greek Ἰησοῦς translitterated as "iêsous" all the time. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ΟΥ in Koine Greek was not pronounced as a dipthong, rather it was the Close back rounded vowel. The Latin symbol for the same sound was V, later changed to U,u. In French, the sound is spelled ou, presumably English borrowed this spelling from French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.98 (talk • contribs)

You're right, omicron-epsilon was technically a digraph by the time of Koine, having become monophthongised some time before then. Some call it a "false" diphthong. I usually use "diphthong" somewhat less technically to mean two vowels included in a single syllable. Thank you for clarifying. » MonkeeSage « 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Name section updated. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And I made the edits to the Ministry section that I've been wanting to make. Now it's Aiden's turn ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the linguistics are, like, wrong -- not that it matters or anything. Jim62sch 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. I'd ask what is wrong, but I fear you may talk over my head. ;) You and Steve Thadman are the linguists, so I'll let you two hash it out between you. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is fine; I meant on the talk page. ου was a long u like we know it (oo), hence ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Ιηςους) and IESVS are phonetic equivalents. The upsilon by itself (which was borrowed into Latin as a Y) had a sound roughly equivalent to the u in the French "sur" or an umlauted u in German. There's more, but I'm too lazy to type it all out. Jim62sch 12:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Messiah

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a good Cathloic boy of 14 years, but I have always wondered. Jesus was Jewish. Their Messiah has not yet come. But Jesus called himself the Messiah. Can someone please explain this? TommyBoy76 16:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Short answer: there are either two Messiahs (a priestly Messiah (ben Joseph) and a kingly Messiah (ben David)), or the prophecies of the Messiah are conditional, or there is one Messiah who will come twice. Modern Judaism does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, because he did not fulfill all the messianic prophecies in the first century. Christianity believes the Messiah is to come twice, which is why we await the Second Coming of Jesus to fulfill the remainder of the prophecies.

Long answer: available from the Christian Think Tank. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fleur de lys

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Maybe I'm missing something but why is this page linked from the New Testament Jesus bit of Jesus#See also. It's a good page and obviously has Christianity links but I don't think it sits well here. Any objections if I remove it? Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An odd link. Jesus and the Kings of France again? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh - the Da Vinci Code strikes again! I'm taking it out and if anyone objects I'll putit back. Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Geneology of Jesus

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Church Father's view

Hey - I would have just added this myself but the page is frozen. But I think we should add a section on the Fathers' view of Jesus' genealogy (specifically the view in Augustine's Retractions 2:7; St. Jerome's Commentary on Matthew 1:16; Eusebius of Caesarea's view in the Ecclesiastical History 1:7; and John Damascene's view in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14. That tradition says:

Heli son of Matthat was descended from David's son Solomon; Jacob son of Matthan from David's son Nathan. The Fathers claim that Heli and Jacob were in fact half-brothers. According to tradition, their mother Estha first married Matthat and had Heli; then after Matthat died, she married Matthan and had Jacob.

Now, when Heli grows up, he marries a woman (tradition doesn't assign her a name as far as I can tell) but dies before they have any children. Then, in accordance with the levirate law in Deuteronomy 25:5, Jacob married Heli's widow, and "raised up seed for his brother." Thus, Jacob was physically Joseph's father, but Heli was accounted his father in accordance with the Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam sk (talk • contribs)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page so that people will actually see it. It also helps to sign your posts. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the geneology section is pretty big as is. Perhaps there is a subpage better suited for this particular historic apology? There is a page on Genealogy of Jesus that I believe even mentions this position already.--Andrew c 14:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It might fit better into the Christian Views section, although that section is also getting a bit long. Perhaps a short mention in Christian views of Jesus might be appropriate. There is also the Brethren of Jesus redirect (I can never remember the article name--despy-sometyhing) to consider. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree of Jesus

Hi, can anyone tell me why the family tree of Jesus I added on 19 April was excised? I cited my sources, and did'nt think it was either long or contraversial. Fergananim 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was several hundred edits ago, so it took me a while to find.

Here's the diff: [3]. It was removed after eight minutes by anon IP 64.12.117.6 with the edit summary "This is not a factual family tree." For the record, here is the proposed family tree:

                              Matthat bar Levi   
                                   |
             Eleazar               |
             |                 Heli/Eliakim
             |                     |
             Matthan       ________|_________
             |             |               |
             |             |               |
  Pantera? + Mary   =(1st) Joseph  = (2nd) Clophas
           |      no issue?    |
           |              _________|________________________
           Jesus          |      |     |      |      |     |
        5 B.C.- A.D. 28.  |      |     |      |      |     |
                          James  Jose  Judas  Simon  Mary  Salome
                         d.A.D. 62     |   d.A.D. 101
                                   ____|____
                                  |         |
                                  |         |
                              Zechariah   James
                            alive in the reign of Dominitan

Source - "The Jesus Dynasty", James D. Tabor, Simon & Schuster, 2006.

BTW, The Jesus Dynasty is somewhat controversial. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Desposyni "From Jesus to Christ: Jesus' Family Tree" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.24.167 (talk • contribs)

Main differences: "Pantera" possibly comes from the Yeshu ben Pandera references in the Talmud. Tabor also assumes that Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clophas are the same woman, possibly through Levirate Marriage (Catholic tradition holds that Joseph and Clophas were brothers). Also Tabor assumes that (another) Mary and Salome were the sisters of Jesus; I don't know what source Tabor used for that. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This family tree is certainly not generally accepted. If it's a significant part of The Jesus Dynasty then probably it would be best to create an article for that and add the tree to it. DJ Clayworth 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not sure if it represents a minority school of thought, or if it's just Tabor's own opinion. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. Anyway it serves me right for putting in the main Jesus article instead of historical Jesus, where I doubt it would cause half as much trouble! Thanks! Fergananim 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and the family tree is already in the Desposyni article (although the Brethren of Jesus redirect is easier to remember). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Descendants

This subject can immediately cause apolexy in some religious persons who feel without thinking that it is blaspemy. What is meant is not that Jesus didnt ascend to heaven but that before he was crucified he was married and had children. And his wife was Mary Magdalene and there is considerable evidence for that.

(Mary Magdalene was trashed by the early church to have been a prostitute but careful review of the facts shows that whole story was made up.)

The question of whether or not Jesus had a family and so also had children and esp then descendants down to today has been around for 1000 or more years but was highlighted in 1982-84 TV programs in Britain and then the best seller Holy Blood Holy Grail. And most recently again that same idea, that Jesus had descendants is found to be the final solution to the puzzle being chased about Europe to solve in the mega best seller, Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

In addition, the Bible PREDICTS in its Isaiah prophecies that Jesus will have children, a clear prophecy that is ignored by those yelling blasphemy.

He shall see his Seed - Isaiah 53: 10

He shall sprinkle his Seed across many nations - Isaiah 52:15

Twisted about in the middle of this descendants discussion is the weakly understood idea of Holy Grail, ... that when understood better means simply a person, including Jesus descendants, who are filled with the Holy Spirit (as Jesus and as his disciples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.10 (talk • contribs)

But the Da Vinci Code is fiction. Besides, you know that whole "children of God" concept that gets repeated through the Bible? I mean, Jesus is God, and we are God's children, there's no need for nonsense about Jesus being married to Mary Magdoline. Homestarmy 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"And his wife was Mary Magdalene and there is considerable evidence for that" — since no early writing (of whatever flavor; Gnostic, orthodox, or anything else) claims that Jesus was married, or was married to Mary Magdalene (the closest thing being inferences based on the Gospel of Philip), and since almost no serious scholarship accepts the idea, I have to wonder what the "considerable evidence" is beyond mere claims of secret societies and conspiracy theories and spurious documents from the 16th century and later. Who are Jesus' "seed"? Rom. 9:8 ". . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." Gal. 3:26, 29 ". . .in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. . . . And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (ESV). » MonkeeSage « 06:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable Quality of the Muslim views section

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

It was unbelievable to see the unfactual and unneutral quality of the Muslim POV in such an important article. --Aminz 07:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's wrong with it? There's not much point saying it is "unfactual and unneutral" without explaining how. Paul B 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The doctorine of Tahrif was unfactually stated. Some sentences were pov. Please see my current edits to the article. Moreover, that was not a good representation of Muslim POV. I tried to make it better. --Aminz 07:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, the following link shows your changes to the article.

[4]

Can you please explain what your meant by your above comment. Simply stating that it's "unfactual" and "unneutral" is a waste of talk page space, meaning you might as well not have commented at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, how were you able to show all my edits together!! I'll explain in a bit why I think the article as it stood was both "unfactual" and "unneutral" but please let me know how you were you able to show all my edits together. Thanks --Aminz 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aminz, when you go to the history page, you will see 2 links in front of every edit, (cur) and (last) - if you click on the (clur) link in the line preceding your first edit, it will give you the diff between that version and the current version. As long as there has been no edits after yours, it serves as a compliation of your edits. I don't know whether the link above will change when new edits are added or whether it will stay the same, but at least right now it works. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, when you go to the history page, you will see for each version from left to right:

(cur) (last) a little circle, the time of the edit, the name of the editor

The two top circles will each have a little dot in the middle. If you click on one of the other circles, a dot will go in that one, and will be removed from one of the top two. Make sure that there's a dot in each of the two versions you want to compare, and then click on "compare selected versions". AnnH ♫ 09:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WONDERFUL! Thanks AnnH. --Aminz 09:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much Str1977. Here are my reasons (hope they are logical enough :/

Why I think it was not a good representation of Muslim POV:

1. It didn’t say Muslim believe Jesus was the Messiah (though the intro says that but this should be here as well).

2. Allah (God) was fine but if you could have a look at the Allah article, you’ll see that Allah is just the Arabic name for God. Arab Christians and Jews use Allah to refer to God. Arabic Bibles use the word “Allah”.

3. but with help from God --> by the leave of God. Since the latter is the exact quote from Qur’an, it is more proper.

4. “Islam greatly separates the status of creatures from the status of the creator and warns against believing that Jesus was divine. (Qu'ran, 3:59; 4:171; 5:116-117). See Isa for futher information.” Was a proper addition to the article since in Islam the most possible imaginable distance is the distance between creator and creature.

5. Added Muslims belief on sacrificial rule of Jesus + view on salvation.

6. Specified which part of belief comes from Qur’an and which from quotes attributed to Muhammad. Qur’an alone Muslims, a small sect, reject all quotes attributed to Muhammad.

Alleged Factual problems:

1. Doctrine of Tahrif was misrepresented. If you look at the relevant Qur’anic verses (^{[Quran 3:78]}, ^{[Quran 4:46]}, ^{[Quran 5:13]}, ^{[Quran 2:75]}, ^{[Quran 2:58]} ) one can see the doctrine of Tahrif is much about misinterpreting, misrepresenting and passing over the text rather than textual distortion.

2. Doctrine of Tahrif talks only about some parts of the scripture.

3. “He also abstained from alcohol and from animal flesh, according to these traditions.”- unreferenced and it was also in the Isa article but was later removed.

4. “They, too, believe he was the only man ever to abstain completely from sin.”- “They, too, believe” not very encyclopedic. Moreover, this is not true in all views. Shia Muslims have the doctrine of fourteen infallibles. See Islamic views of Muhammad.

Alleged Neutral problems:

1. “God would not subject his beloved prophet to any form of persecution at the Cross.” Is unreferenced. This is not true in logic. There were many prophets who were tortured and killed according to Qur’an. Another theory for example is that God was testing Jesus to see if he is really obedient or not (like Abraham who was tested by God). But when Jesus showed his obedient and passed the test, God really didn’t want for Jesus to be killed on the cross, so he saved him in a similar way that God provided a lamb for Abraham.

2. Old Testament --> Hebrew Bible. (removed Christian POV).

Hope they make sense. Thanks --Aminz 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmph, I didn't think it was that bad, I did bother to find the references for the section awhile ago....if stuff is missing, that's not a factual innacuracy, that's just less facts. Though I do not remember specifically writing anything about "God would not subject his beloved prophet to any form of persecution at the Cross", did somebody change the section alot? And the Hebrew Bible doesn't necessarily have to be the same as the OT, some Torah's made these days I hear remove some prophecy from Isaiah or something prophecying Christ's coming. Im not sure where your doctrine of Tarif thing came into the section myself however. Homestarmy 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"if stuff is missing, that's not a factual innacuracy"; I think if a sentence is not 100% true then it is not a fact and it is a factual innacuracy. What do you think? Also, using "Old" Testament may be offensive to Jews. --Aminz 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"some Torah's made these days I hear remove some prophecy from Isaiah..." Do you have a source for this? I don't know of any passages removed from the Tanakh (the Torah refers to the Law, and not to the Prophets (Nevi'im) or the Writings {Ketuvim). The Tanakh is the whole thing.) AFAIK all versions have Isaiah 53 (the "Suffering Servant" passage), but Jews and Christians interpret this differently. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if its Isaiah 53 or not, from what I remember when I read about it it wasn't a universally printed deletion. Homestarmy 12:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you read that? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Im trying to look something up now, but I just thought i'd say, my user talk page appears on page 5 of a google search heh.....I don't know if it's Isaiah 53 though because I don't see anything much on it, I really can't remember the verse, if I remember correctly whatever was removed was nowhere near enough to compleatly delete OT references to Jesus though. Homestarmy 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My memory of it may of embellished it in my own head, but I think this is what im remembering (It may not of been Isaiah, I only remember this thing from a very long time ago): 42 Homestarmy 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a translation dispute over Zechariah 12:10. We certainly have enough translation disputes as it is. Okay, now it's time to hear the Jewish rebuttal. ;)Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about Islam? You know, thinking about the Islam section, hasn't it been changed a good bit since I got all those references for it, its possible the dispute is over something new I haven't really looked at :/. Homestarmy 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz's edits were poorly written and caused several redundancies in the section. They also threw the section out of chronological order. I kept his edits but reorganized the section, correcting numerous grammatical errors. Aminz, please read over it and let us know if you are satisfied. —Aiden 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds Great! Thanks Aiden! I am sorry about grammar (my grammar is poor). I am especially sorry for misspelling of one word. I don’t know why I didn’t notice about that when editing in the Microsoft Word. THANKS SO MUCH AIDEN. Great Job! --Aminz 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy I could help. :) Thanks for helping us bring this section to a higher quality. —Aiden 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I especially like the links to the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. I've been looking for a Qur'anGateway (Muslim equivalent of BibleGateway) for a while now. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Page blanking vs. archiving.

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for the revert, Aiden. Fergananim, it's poor etiquite to archive current discussions (and now I have to sort /Archive 54)! I have been archiving old discussions that are a week old, I can move that up if people wish. At one point, I was archiving discussions that were only three days old. I was also still filling out /Archive 52 and /Archive 53 with the article dispute and life and teachings discussions, respectively. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver}

Yeah I recommend everyone just letting Arch take care of the archiving. He's one of the few ones who can be trusted not to mess something up. —Aiden

Well, Deskana has been known to do a good job as well. Although things are complicated somewhat by the various subject subpage/archives. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Awwww.... how nice of you! :-D I'm happy to leave it to you if you wish... but am also happy to archive it if I feel I need to sometime. Your choice, really. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arch; truely sorry about that. No malice intended. Was in a rush and *$!*%£ it up. Is mise, Fergananim 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm trying to find the family tree edit for you as well, but that was several hundred revs ago. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the page was getting a bit long, so I stepped it up to a five-day archiving schedule. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Impressive

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The progress that has been since I was here is incredible. I looked for a group effort barn start, but couldn’t find one. Congrats editors! I do have one suggestion. A section on how “early Christians” , Jews, and Romans during that time would be useful. I noticed a lot of the minority groups during that period are talked about but the Romans, Greeks, Jews, and other thinkers were far more influential than those fringe groups on our image of Christ. Perhaps a small section could be written about what people thought of Christ early on. Anyways, I think this article is pretty good, and if it was possible to get it stable it may have potential as a featured article. Newbie222 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, you have a point about the Jewish and Roman thing, they are a whole lot more important than all those other POVs in the context of developing various concepts of Jesus.....Should we make a roman section, or since it was actually in Jesus' time period, could it go right into the biography? Homestarmy 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus/Archive 54

Contents

Peer Review

Name section (continued)

Question about the Messiah

Related article needing sources.

Fleur de lys

Geneology of Jesus

Church Father's view

Family Tree of Jesus

Jesus Descendants

Unbelievable Quality of the Muslim views section

Page blanking vs. archiving.

Impressive