Talk:Jesus/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

→

Archive 80

Proposed Edit

Please discuss for a vote.

changes in italics

... agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee (then part of Iudaea) who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, claimed he was the Son of God, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. ...

Neutralaccounting 22:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which scholars agree to that? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I share Mperel's concern. And those scholars who do accept that jesus - or his followers -- identified himsefl as son of God suggest that the phrase probably di dnot mean what later Christians took it to mean. It opens up a huge can of worms. We really don't "know" what Jesus did and didn't say, I think however we did succeed in crafting a good concise summary of what most scholars do agree on, let's not screw with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Voting on something without prior discussion again? Voting on whether most scholars agree without providing any at all? The call for a vote needs to be stricken --JimWae 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The passage should certainly be in the article. There are absolutly scholars who accept this as factual - a great many. He didn't just claim to be the Son of God, but even equal to God. Lostcaesar 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This section represents what just about every scholar can agree upon. Sure there are other details that less scholars agree upon, but do they belong in this section? The key point here is that we put a lot of research into every single clause in that sentence, and we need a great many number of sources to back up the son of God claim. So does anybody have some sources? (when I get home, I can check Ehrman and Meier). For some reason, I have a feeling the Jesus Seminar, while accepting every point in the current sentence, may not agree with the son of God claim being authentic. (I'll check that as well when I get home).--Andrew c 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how central the theme of "Son of God" is to Mark, I would think there would agreement on the matter, though I am no expert on the JS. The claim of "equal to God" comes from John, and so that will make some people jump, but "Son of God" - I don't see a difficulty there. Mark wouldn't make sense without it. Lostcaesar 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Mark woulodn't make sense .." ... to Christians. Scholars who are not Christians, or who braket their Christianity, have other ways of making sense of Marx. The point is, "scholars" is too general a term. We can't lump Geza Vermes and Thomis Aquinas in the same dategory even if they are both scholars. Doing so would subvert our NPOV policy because we need to distinguish different points of view. The sentence in question refers to modern scholars who are at the least neutral on any supernatural claims in the NT. I think it provides an accurate account of what they agree on. These scholars are different from clerics and theologians who are certainly scholars but of a very different sort. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The source and their supporting sources support a text that asserts that he claimed he was the Son of God.

The opinion on the truthfulness of that varies, but a large number of scholars have put their name down at the Jesus Conference that he wasn't the Son of God. There really isn't a list of same number of scholars or more that would support that he is the Son of God. But this research isn't the issue. What we have in the primary, secondary, and oral sources are. Neutralaccounting 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actaully Mark wouldn't make sense to non Christian scholars either. Lostcaesar 10:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark makes sense to me, but I doubt that he makes sense to me in the same way as he makes sense to you. You seem to be missing the point here. Some people believe that a text allows for only one interpretation. But this is just one point of view. Others believe texts allow for multiple interpretations. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not at all, rather I am making a statement about the structure and plot of Mark and the relevant scholarship. I am not talking about an interpretation. Its like saying that Hamlet's distaste for his mother's hastly marriage is central to the play. Lostcaesar 11:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddy, in the real world "a statement about the structure and plot" is called "an interpretation." Please stop pushing your POV here. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that we are buddies, I will speak more frankly. You wrote "Some people believe that a text allows for only one interpretation", I am not proposing a commentary on the text. I am observing the fact that the text says X. Do you disagree with that? Is it an "interpretation" to simply say what a text actually says? Lostcaesar 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the text (Mark, for example) says many things and this is not the place even to summarize what Mark says about Jesus. Perhaps we could have an article on the book of Mark which can go into the history of the text and different interpretations as well as a straightforward summary. In the meantime, to single out one thing of the many many things Mark says is to make a claim about its relative importance and that is an interpretive act. if it is an interpretive act many scholars have made then it is certainly allowable in Wikipedia, we just need to find the right place, as long as the point of view is clearly established. If it is your interpretive act (from what you have said, it isn't. you have said that there are scholars who say this) you know it would be disallowed as a violation of NOR. But the important issue is the second one, that the paragraph and sentence in question is not about "what the text says" it is about what "most scholars in biblical studies and history" believe about Jesus. This phrase has changed a lot of the past year, is used to say "critical scholars" and other things, but everyone involved in working on it understand it to refer not to clerics or theologicans, not because they are not scholars but because their scholarship is informed by religious beliefs or concerns. This sentence address the beliefs of scholars whose work is not informed by their religious beliefs or concerns, and by scholars who may be of faith but who bracket their faith to employ methods used by secular scholars. As such the sentence is an accurate account of what most of them say. The proposed edit would be a distortion of this account of this point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, we agree on all main points. The only difference is I think the claim is well enough supported by scholarship to warrant inclusion. The claim is that Jesus' followers asserted that he was the Son of God during his lifetime. I have seen few scholars doubt that (since it is so central to Mark), though many argue that it meant something different in its historical setting than it does today, though that part of the claim is not relevant to the sentence in question. Lostcaesar 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a primary source or something close. It's truthfulness is questioned, however let's disregard that and focus on their status as primary sources. The truth of whether Jesus was the Son of God is not the question. The question is the status of these documents and the oral tradition of them as primary (or secondary, etc...) sources. The original research that we rely on came much later. Neutralaccounting 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If we agree that (1) you are referring primarily to scholars who are also clerics or theologians and (2) scholars who are commenting as much on the texts of the Gospels as on Jesus as such, I have a suggestion: The section, "Life and Teaching according to the Gospels" is currently introduced by a two sentence paragraph (before the geneology and family subsection). My suggestion is to add to this too-brief introductory paragraph a brief summary of the main claims made by such scholars about the Gospel account of Jesus. Be sure that you are providing an account not of what the Gospels "say" but rather about what a set of scholars say about the Gospels. If you have read secular studies of the Gospels by literary critics by all means add their views too - I assume they exist, i just do not know them. Include links to related articles (e.g. Christology). You might want to present the paragraph here on this talk page to get feedback before putting it in, but it seems to me that if you follow my advice you will succeed in adding to the article what you consider an important point, and will do so in a way that will meet little or no objection. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What we agree on is the following. Because this claim is held by many scholars, then it is certainly allowable in Wikipedia. This is not my interpretive act (I don’t think it is an interpretation at all, but I am listing agreement). The paragraph is question is about what most scholars in biblical studies and history believe about Jesus. I am not referring to merely clerics or theologians. The problem (and our disagreement) is that the paragraph at present misrepresents its material by not including the sentence in question. Lostcaesar 14:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to add the blurb that scholars agree Jesus "claimed he was the Son of God", you'll need to gain consensus by 1) putting forth some actual sources by scholars that say this, and 2) demonstrate that this is the majority opinion of scholars. I for one am not convinced as no one has brought forth any sources to support this. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone can give me the verses in Mark in question, it will help me in my research. I have been unable to find any claims Jesus makes of himself about being God's son in Mark. However, this the JS take on Matthew 27:43: "Once again we observe hearsay evidence turned into direct quotation. The language is actually Matthew's; he did not get it from Mark, as the parallel in Luke demonstrates (23:35... "anointed"...) Matthew is here advancing a claim on Jesus' behalf rather than reproting something Jesus said." I think the son of God claim is not one of the big points that should be included in this list. But I guess more research is pending?--Andrew c 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You all must realise that what you handful decide for this article, regardless of length of discussion and consensus, is just a tentative change. People coming after you may bring in whole new evidence and lines of reasoning to perhaps completely upset it. So that you don't waste time now, you must treat the books of the New Testament, as first hand testimony where it is obviously first hand testimony - what their eyes and ears saw and heard. If you don't grant this as first hand testimony, you might as well quit Wikipedia because that is considered the highest form of verifiable source there is. Unless you can find actual equal first hand testimony on a particular point that goes contrary, you must accept it. The testimony of belief by all Christians since it was written, and for generations, reveals how the first hand testimony was understood. The "I Am Who Am" by Jesus Christ is one such public testimony and the Jews took it to mean He was claiming to be God and sought to stone him by their law for it as blasphemy. There are others. --Glossando 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

These documents are probably primary sources. Maybe secondary. Or tertiary. The original research questioning their truth that we are probably talking about came over a millennia later. Some say, he is the Son of God. Some say, he is not the Son of God. A more neutral POV could be that he claimed he was the son of God. These seven words neither confirms nor denies who he was. Neutralaccounting 00:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the major modern scholars I know of consider the Gospels to be first hand eye-witness accounts. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How about their perspective on them being secondary(+) source documents? Neutralaccounting 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just some comments:

• The gospels are certainly primary sources, regardless of their reliability.
• "Claim" BTW is a weasel word.
• Gallilee was not part of Iudaea
• "was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire" cannot stand simply like this. Sources report a number of accusations and accusers. Scholarly interpretation must be properly attributed and not simply stated as fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the Gospels are primary sources. that is not the same things as eye-witness sources. Claim is not a weasel word, look it up in the dictionary. Scholars claim things all the time, and most major modern historians of this period claim that Jesus was tried for sedition. The preceeding statement is a fact. It is a factual summary of what a number of people claim. I have provided the sources in the past and they are in the bibliography. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

• Whether this or that gospel is an eye-witness account is another matter but someone here termed them "not primary sources" and to this is reacted.
• I don't have to look up the word "claim" in the dictionary - I know the meaning. "Weasel world" is a term common here on WP in reference to various words that carry unwanted, POV implications. "Claim" is possibly the ultimate weasel word.
• I don't dispute that many scholars hold that view and in essence agree with it (though it highlights only one case of the crucifixion). But havin read the proposal above I was under the impression that is was to be simply stated as fact. So no reason to argue about sources if we don't disagree on this.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if you lean more towards the POV that they are primary sources then how about a neutral POV that primary sources state that he said he was the Son of God.

This has been one of the more important things about Jesus, more so then the exact date of his birth, death, and so on. This has also been part a source of many reactions against Jesus in the abstract.

It's no use anymore for me or anyone to be anti-christan if there's no Christ left once everyone gets done with him. Neutralaccounting 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Birth

Wasn't Jesus born in 1 B.C.E.C.E., not 2 B.C.E.C.E.? Before the Common Era Common Era starts when Jesus was born, which would've been 1 BCE CE, not 2 BCECE.--Richard 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the date was created quite awhile after Jesus was born, and they didn't exactly keep birth certificates on tape backup back then, it's inaccurate. We don't know exactly when Jesus was born, but it's somewhere between 8 and 2 BC. Peyna 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You also may want to review our very detailed source list Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. --Andrew c 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw a recent article that gave reasons for a possible error (in translation?) of Josephus. If so, the date of 1BC is more likely than 4BC for the death of Herod. I will see if I can find the article. ^rossnixon 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ross, could you link that source please here, I would be interested.

Richard, the common era is based exactly on the traditonal date of Jesus' birth, so any info on that will be directly relevant to your question. CE is just secularized AD; there is nothing "common" about it. Lostcaesar 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ross, could you link that source please here, I would be interested.

"Ross, could you link that source please here, I would be interested". Ditto! --Haldrik 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops I meant to say CE. Still, CE starts RIGHT when Jesus was born. 1 BCE was the year before Jesus, and 1 CE was the year Jesus was born. I doesn't make sense to say that he was born in 2 CE at all.--Richard 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It does when you consider the person who created the dating system didn't know exactly the year Jesus was born and was estimating based on historical writings and other historical events. Peyna 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I might have to trawl the browser history on my other computer to find the link. But here is one that makes a similar (but not identical) point. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=3648&&start=70 ^rossnixon 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The commonly accepted date (not 2 BC but before 4 BC) derives from the calculations of Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, who didn't want to create a universal chronology but wanted to use it merely for practical calculation purposes. Since Jesus was born during Herod the Great's lifetime he chose Herod's death as the year of Jesus' birth. This year he calculated by synchronozing it with other chronologies, most importantly the Roman one. His mistake was to misinterpret the note that Herod died in the 27th year of Emperor Augustus. He thought that reign started in 27 BC while the source he was using (I think it was Josephus) had Augustus' reign begin in 31 BC, after his victory over Marc Anthony. The missing four years 31-27 BC are the same four years of difference between the "logical" date 1 BC and the commonly accepted "before 4 BC". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I saw a documentary on Jesus's birth that he was actually born on the 17th of April, not December. Can't remember the date though. Why? Because December's way too cold for sheeps to be there during Jesus's birth- and he was already a child (about two years old) when he was adored by the magis- maybe someone should correct the sentence about magis adoring the infant Jesus? Besides, the man filming the documentary managed to get experts for the North Star to find the real date and a dream book to know what the three wise men actually thought of their "dreams". The north star was engraved in an ancient coin which gives alot of information. Cool, right? Dionysus was a poor mathematician too- probably why there are many mistakes of when he was born. 9693 22:45 PM, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally favor the month of Nissan. At that time the general population there did not celebrate their birthdays although they were aware of them. The Sheep Herders arrived at the birth, the Magi arrived some time later. However nativity scenes (St. Francis) depict them together. Depictions of this followed suit. The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy authoritatively put the celebration of his birthday in December. The history of why they did this can be found elsewhere. Neutralaccounting 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we cannot base our article on original research. And since no one (except a handful of scholars) actually claims that Jesus was born in December (25 December or 6 January is the celebration of the birth, but not necessarily the actual anniversary), I don't see the relevance of above remark.

BTW, Dionysus was a Greek god. Dionysius was not a poor mathematician. He simply mistook a source (as I explained above), which didn't make much of a difference for his purpose. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Jesus was born in Dec; it claims that was the time of the liturgical feast in antiquity. And Dionysius' calculations were, in my view, amazing - and if you were familiar with the dating systems in use before him, and even had the burden of actually figuring out when something happened based on such dating systems, then I think you would appreciate his contribution. Lostcaesar 07:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I thought Dionysus was a mathematician- I didn't know he was a wine god. I'm totally confused. Bty thanks for the contribution. Yikes I shouldn't have relied on one source... 9693 11:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about the monk Dionysius, whose name is one letter different from the God Dionysus Lostcaesar 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

9693, there are many notable persons going by the name Dionysius (or Dionysios), ranging from tyrants to saints to bishops to monks) but only one Dionysus (or Dionysos), who is the Greek god of wine.

Dionysius Exiguus of course was (in a way) a mathematician, but he wasn't poor in his undertakings. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus

José or "something like that" is claiming to be Jesus Christ. According to CBS, this man claims to be Christ's 2nd Coming. He is 60 years old, Former Heroin Addict. There are several problems with his claim. He is Hispanic. I am not racist, if you read my thoughts under Black Jesus Section, but Jesus is Israeli. He has sinned, heroin addict, he claims the Devil is destroyed, and was destroyed 1000 years ago. The Bible specifically states, from the mouth of Jesus, that in the end times, there will be people who claim to be the Messiah, God Himself, God's Son. I warn you, before and if you get involved with this false testament, there are words in the Bible saying this is a lie. If this New Jèsus says ANYTHING against the Bible, you have even more proof he isn't real. --66.218.17.183 03:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really notable for the real Jesus article, I think there's a List of people who claimed to be Jesus or something article like that though. Homestarmy 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I remembering listening to the Howard Stern show, when he invited three guests, each claiming to be Jesus. They were so annoyed with each other. LOL! --Haldrik 03:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember there was a comedy sketch about someone definitely not being the messiah. LOL. Now if only I could remember who it was. this sounds close. Neutralaccounting 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

archiving

this page needs archiving now. Jpe|ob 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

personal data

I think the personal data is controversial and inherently POV. I for one believe he was born in Nazareth; some think he wasn't born at all. We express all these views or none at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Which part in particular is this? Homestarmy 15:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are primary, secondary, and other sources near after that support them. Jesus both as a article and as a concept is based on sources- primary, secondary, historic, but also current original research. Neutralaccounting 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the personal data we need not take account of the loony fringe claiming that he wasn't born at all. This would be a case of undue weight. Bethlehem is the birthplace given by the sources, so we can use that with a proper attribution (e.g. "traditionally", "commonly", "according to the sources") Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian view

I think we can improve the Christ views on Jesus passage. Currently it begins with trinitarian and non-trinitarian beliefs, and later adds the common ground only in passing, almost glossing over the resurrection. IMHO the passage should state first that Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and believe that he rose again after being crucified. All the other things can than be listed. Thoughts? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! First and foremost, that Jesus was viewed as the Christ, the Messiah, and the Savior of the world. That he was crucified and rose on the third day. Str, do you think the virgin birth should be mentioned initially also? I have always felt that it was of significant import; although there are groups that question it, I think we should stick to orthodox thought here. Your suggestion will improve the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It should begin with Christology rather than the Trinity; Messiah, resurrection, saviour - all of that makes sense only within a Christological framework. Lostcaesar 07:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Storm, the virgin birth should IMHO be listed, as it currently is (not because it is unimportant or I don't believe it) but because the central things should be mentioned first: Jesus' Messiahship (as this is the central claim of Christianity) and his resurrection (as this is essential to that claim and to Christianity itself). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have tried to implement what I had in mind. If you disagree, please pillor me here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

6th century portrait

Jesus may be making the sign of " a priest" but it is nothing like the sign of a Jewish priest, which is a little remarkable given that Jesus and his initial followers were Jewish. I don't think we need to dwell on this, but I do think we should be specific that he is making a sign of a Christian priest. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well it seemed obvious from the context that the priest would be a Christian priest, since the image is of Jesus Christ making a sign of the cross, but ok. Lostcaesar 11:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Slrubenstein on this. Practising Jews and Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican Christians might be clear on ritual gestures, but many other people would not.

I would also recommend restoring the words Jesus is portrayed... This is not wordiness, but a stylistically acceptable way of indicating that it is a later age's take on Jesus doing something that Jesus historically would not have done.

6th c should be expanded to 6th century.

And I would recommend replacing gesturing the sign of the cross with making the sign of the cross, as the verb to gesture does not normally take a direct object. Copey 2 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize this would be such a big deal, as I saw the change just a minor removal of excess words, since the caption is so long. I assume that a reader will realize that a 6th century mosaic is a portrayal, but if you want then put back the words. P.S., Just because Jesus and his followers were ethnically Jewish does not mean they did everything exactly as first century Jews did; indeed, from history it would seem obvious they did not, since they got into conflict with Jewish authorities. Is there a source that identifies when the sign of the cross can be historically dated as originating? I have seen it mentioned in very ancient texts - are we sure it did not exist in the first century?Lostcaesar 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, even Jewish authorities got into conflicts with Jewish authorities, so that doesn't mean much. But no one has claimed that all Jews did things the same way in the first century, or that Jesus did. But it is just as wrong to assume that Jesus did things the way 6th century Christians did. I see no problem with specifying that Jesus is making a gesture similar to one made by Christian priests. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Me either, dude, but I just wondered if we actually know when the sign of the cross started, and that it originated after the first century. Lostcaesar 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The sign of the cross comes into existence in the 2nd century, and it only refers to making the cross on one's forehead with one's thumb. --Haldrik 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Just because Jesus and his followers were ethnically Jewish does not mean they did everything exactly as first century Jews did". Except they did. (within the diversity within the 1c Jews). --Haldrik 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And you know that how? Lostcaesar 16:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mother Church in Jerusalem was only Jewish. It was founded by Jesus's own Jewish students (and Jewish mother), and had Jesus's own Jewish brother as its first Jewish bishop. The Jerusalem Church remained a Jewish community until the Bar Kokhba Revolt, when the Romans murdered everybody in year 135. After the blood bath, the pagan Romans compelled the Christians to install only non-Jewish bishops in Jerusalem. That's how Jesus's own Jewish Church ceased to exist. In blood. Ultimately, only Paul's non-Jewish churches survived. When the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, Christianity converted to Roman Imperialism. The pagan hatred and bloodthirst toward Jesus's (and God's) own Jewish people continued. --Haldrik 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to answer the question of how you know that Jesus did everything exactly as a first century Jew did. Please, I don't need another condescending history summaryLostcaesar 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is, Jesus accepted Pharisaic law. --Haldrik 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking an ontological question, I am asking an epistemological question, i.e. how to you know? Lostcaesar 17:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the Dead Sea Scrolls before Jesus, the Mishna and other Rabbinic works after Jesus, and Josephus being contemporaneous with many of Jesus's students, there is a reasonable sense of what Judaism was like when Jesus was alive. The Gospels then recount Jesus's actions and words, and they fit well within his Jewish society. There's no reason to believe Jesus himself rejected Judaism. He died a pious Jew. --Haldrik 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well articulated. However, surely some of Jesus' comments do not fit well with Judaism. He claimed to be the Messiah, he called God father, and said that he and the father were one; he talked about his followers drinking his blood, he accepted unclean things such as rejecting the ritual hand washing before a meal, dined with unclean people like prostitutes, and conversed with Samaritans. Those things don't fit, even with the essenes. Lostcaesar 17:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a sin to claim to be the Messiah: if one is wrong, one is irresponsible. All Jews call God Father (Hebrew: Avinu/Aba), and it is a very important concept in Jewish spirituality. "I and the Father are one" = "I can of mine own self do nothing; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me". All Jews should be doing the Father's will (Tora!). Unwashed hands is no big deal. (Notably, Jesus himself washed his hands, but gave his students the leniency of not washing their hands if they did not wish too.) Dined with unclean people like prostitutes - but didnt eat their unclean food. And conversed with Samaritans - and so? --Haldrik 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Drinking human blood is a problem, but Jesus's use of it relates to the concept of Kidush Ha-Shem, which arose during the Hasmonean Period, where the blood of the martyrs who offer their lives rather than reject God, brought blessings. Many biblical passages were used to describe this, including the blood from the sacrifices at the Temple. With Jesus, there is a mixing of metaphors where there is the blood of the sacrifice of the Pesakh lamb, the "blood of the grapes", and the blood of the martyrs. I'll have to research it, but Jesus is clearly using Judaic concepts. (It's the kind of language one would find in the Zohar!) --Haldrik 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 23:1–4: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

• Jesus commands his students to obey the Judaic authority of the Scribes and Pharisees.
• Jesus commands all the crowds of Jews to obey their Judaic authority.
• The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in the Judgment Seat of Moses (refers to Exodus 18:17–27), meaning they have the authority to interpret the Tora and decide Jewish law.
• Notably, despite the fact that Jesus criticizes them, he still accept their authority.
• Funny enough, the Talmud too criticizes these same "Shoulder Pharisees", who interpret all kinds of unbearable obligations for everybody else, yet maneuver all kinds of leniencies for themselves. The Talmud believes that some Pharisees were righteous, but perhaps most were not. According to Jesus, whether they abused their Jewish authority or not, they still have the authority. (Kinda like politicians.) --Haldrik 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So your assertion comes from your interpretation of a Biblical passage - ok, that's what I wanted to know, thanks Haldrick, I appreciate the exchange. Lostcaesar 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"I appreciate the exchange". I doubt it. --Haldrik 18:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the caption should be drastically shortened. The picture shows Jesus in blessing gesture. Whether he is using the sign of the cross is not only questionable - it is also irrelevant to 'this article. And even more irrelevant it is that there was no sign of the cross in the 1st century, quite aside that the sign of the cross is no "ritual". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is very bizarre to me, since this is just an attempt to clear up wording. I will explain my changes as follows. The caption is too long. I took out Christian, the adjective modifying priest, since it is obvious from the image. It is Jesus Christ, making a sign of the cross, in the position of et filii, with a halo and a cross on it. Slrubenstein thinks this is not enough to distinguish the priest as non-Jewish. The caption also said that it was "a portrayal" of Jesus gesturing, I think it should be obvious that an image is a portrayal, but Haldrik disagrees. I would prefer not to insult the intelligence of our reader. It is a minor edit, not a world ending crisis. Lostcaesar 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not obvious at all that it is Christian. Jesus was not Christian himself, so it is very conceivable that someone might think that if Jesus were making a priestly gesture it would be the gesture of a Hebrew priest. Were there any "Christian" priests during his lifetime? It is interesting, however, that Jesus is depicted making a gesture that could only have cropped up after his own death. Lets not just assume that things are "obvious" and give the readers as much information as possible without overburdening them.PelleSmith 18:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not just about Jesus in his lifetime, but also about what "cropped up" about him afterwards: there are more specific articles for the former. That said, if you don't think it is obvious, and Slrub doesn't, then I will drop it, strange as that seems to me, and defer to your opinion. The claim that Jesus was not Christian is obviously controversial. There is a historical case to be made that the office of presbyter, like the Church itself, stems directly from Jesus' actions, and the acceptance of this case subsequently in history is highly significant, indeed perhaps the most significant fact concerning Jesus. Lostcaesar 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I was trying to make a point by presenting it in such a manner. There are endless theological reasons why someone may wish to argue for or against seeing Jesus as a "Christian" himself, not to mention a host of non-theological reasons. However the basic problem isn't with the kind of logistical minutia required of such arguments (pro and con). Everyone would agree that Jesus is depicted performing actions he would most likely not have performed for meaningful reasons during in his own lifetime. Its best to be specific and not leave confusion about such matters since there were priests, Hebrew priests, around during his lifetime. That's all.PelleSmith 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the current caption shoots cannonballs at sparrows. The picture simply shows Jesus giving a blessing. It does so by applying the forms known both to the painters and the "audience" of the time. Hence, arguments like "Jesus never would have done this" is utterly spurious. Jesus is depicted in contemporary forms doing something that he may well have done. Also spurious is talking about Christian priests and Jewish priests, as Jesus was neither. His priesthood, as a theological concept, is of a different kind, related but still different to either kind. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and you've just illustrated the point and problem with the caption. Readers of wikipedia are of all levels of education and general knowledge. The fact that those forms are familiar to the painter and the audience is not a "no duh" idea to many or most readers. Hence the point of clarity. BTW is it a "contemporary form" or "something Jesus may well have done"? Are you clear on what you think? It is not "spurious" to talk about various kinds of priests because the caption read "priest" and that was identified as a problem. Again someone reads "priest", so what are they to understand by priest? Why not be clear.PelleSmith 19:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What point am I supposed to have illustrated?

The picture shows Jesus (who is the topic here) giving a blessing. Everything else is circumstantial information, as this article does not deal with the sign of the cross, or priests, or blessing gestures. We need no point of clarity making many words about it. I don't there is any other picture on WP that includes such a wordy caption.

It is the whole priest thing that is spurious. Simplify the caption and we won't have this silly discussion.

Also I am perfectly clear on what I am thinking, though you might not have understood me: Jesus on the picture is depticted in forms contemporary to the painters and the original audience - otherwise the picture would not have been understood. He is doing something that he may well have done, i.e. give a blessing. Or do have any reason to claim that Jesus never gave a blessing?

"Why not be clear?" Why not include the whole WP in this caption. Let's stay focused on the topic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say, this does seem like much ado about nothing. Are we going to add that the historical Jesus probably would not have had a jewel-studded gold cross stuck to the back of his head, with a disk surrounding it, and also probably wouldn't have carried a royal scepter in his hand? Everything in the image - from his throne to his clothing - is designed to communicate his royal status to viewers in the 6th century. I can't imaging that anyone would seriously believe that this image is intended to be a realistic historical reconstruction of Jesus's appearence. Even viewers of the time would have known that. Yes, we can't be certain that he would not have adopted such gestures. From a Christian POV Jesus could do whatever he liked. But I think the best caption would be one that explained what the image is intended to communicate, not one that treats it as though it's an historically questionable reconstruction of events. How about something like: "Jesus is portrayed as an enthroned priest and king, carrying a royal scepter and making a gesture of blessing in the manner established within Byzantine court culture". Paul B 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track, Paul, but I think this still too wordy.

For the record I am not sure that Jesus is here portrayed as a priest and king. Is that red thing a sceptre. Certainly the gesture has little to do with "Byzantine court culture" if it is actually the sign of the cross, which to my knowledge hasn't been established here.

Why not simply state that it shows Jesus and is taken from there and there. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

According to this page, it's a sceptre. [1] The gesture in itself is not specific to "court culture", but would, one assumes, have been used within it. The monarchical imagery is specific to court culture. His dress is Tyrian purple. Paul B 12:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The type of statment Paul put forth is really all that I was lobbying for. Identifying the gesture (e.g. "blessing"), and contextualizing the depiction (e.g. "Byzantine court culture"--which evidently may not be correct but that's the idea). I'm pretty sure this was the objection with removing "Christian" as the adjective before "priest" in the first place ... because the removal made the context fuzzier. For the record I do NOT wish to put anything about what Jesus would or would not have been doing during his lifetime underneath that caption ... that was just put forth here to argue for appropriate contextualization. But I'm done because it probably was much ado about nothing.PelleSmith 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul, for providing the link with a fuller depiction of the image.

How about: "Jesus in a 6th century mosaic in Ravenna, portrayed as an enthroned priest and king, in 6th century attire, making a gesture of blessing".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, this is even shorter:

6th c. mosaic in Ravenna; Jesus, enthroned Priest and King, giving a blessing in contemporary regal attire.

Lostcaesar 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well phrased. Paul B 23:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this is now too short, how about:

"Jesus as an enthroned priest and king in a 6th century mosaic in Ravenna, in contemporary regal attire, giving a blessing".

There is especially no reason to abbreviate century as "c." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems many people dont know what a "blessing" means. For example, here is a Lutheran minister performing a "blessing". (That is, he's making a sign of the cross.) As many people arent familiar with this terminology, "blessing", the description needs to be clearer. --Haldrik 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in Japan?

Perhaps this deserves a sentence or two in the article, like in a trivia section or something. --172.132.243.219 06:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (See also: Shingo, Aomori, [2], and [3])

There is a localized Japanese legend that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross but made his way to Aomori, Japan where he became a rice farmer, married, and had a family. The legend owes its existence to a supposed 1930s discovery, "the discovery of what were claimed to be ancient Hebrew documents detailing Jesus' life and death in Japan" [4]; the local legend also posits that his grave is located in in Shingo, Aomori.

The article goes on to say that the Hebrew documents (of which no details are given) have disappeared. How convenient. Not really suitable for an encyclopedic article about Jesus. ^rossnixon 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bond Extreme 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC) That doesn't mean that the Japan legend is true. Most people do not believe that the Japan legend is true, which Jesus was married, and had a family. Not many believe that. I say that can stay out of the article. The Christian Bible, which is the right Bible says that Jesus died on the cross, and rose again. Bond Extreme 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"The right Bible"? Peyna 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right or not, there's no way this is notable enough, and the article is too far developed to be using trivia at this point. Homestarmy 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks the modern historians views about the teachings of the "historical" Jesus

The article discusses the Historicity of Jesus, however it doesn't even touch the teachings of the "historical" Jesus, and its similiarities and differences with Christianity as most Christians have historically professed. --Aminz 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like enough material for three articles. Let's call them something like Jesus, Christianity, and History of Christianity. LOL.

We'll... more seriously that POV would be good up until about maybe the late nineteenth century when theories that The Early Christians (and the four gospel writers ) were conspiring to hide/misinterpret/make up who Jesus was. And once you go there, well then, what use is to talk about what it is claimed he said and what the historical record of people who called himself his followers did?

If Jesus never really happened, what good is it?

And once we go there, what's left. Maybe the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe the the Parable of the Goats and Sheep about the Final Judgement. Depends on what the Jesus Conference has left to us of Jesus.

The Parable of the Goats and Sheep... That's pretty relevent I think. There's a lot of preachers talking about self help topics or how bad it is to break one of the ten commandments.

You know what? There's a record of Jesus saying what the judgement at the end will be. You know. Judgement Day. There's a record. Of what he is going to say. And this record is accepted by all the Churches.

It is claimed that he said that he will say that the failure to cloth the naked, failure to feed the hungry, failure to give drink to the thirsty, failure to visit those sick or in prison is a failure against him. And they damn themselves for their failure to do so.

Is that a popular message inside this religion of Christianity today? Do they even know the heart of the merciful God they claim to worship? Does he even get a word in edgewise in their self help sermons? Is their name or his name bigger on the name of their ministry? Does this person even know all these people? This sort of stuff is controversial.

There's so many churches who have made their own religion apart from their supposed founder... Jesus isn't wanted there. Now if we started getting into the claims of what Jesus said... there's going to be controversy. Because even with the stuff he's said, well, lots of people don't like it. And the stuff he never did say, well, lots of people believe in it. It's easier and less controversial to stick more with historical data excluding who he was and focusing more on when he was and peoples responses to the christian perspective of him.

Neutralaccounting 06:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

trilemma

This line about the Christian trilemma is in the Trinitarian section. "They combine this with the classic proof based on the two rational alternatives in the face of Jesus' repeated claims that he is the one God of Israel (e.g. Jn 8:58): either he is truly God or a bad man (a liar or a lunatic), the latter being dismissed on the basis of Jesus's perceived coherence. [42]" This line takes as a given Jesus' repeated claims to be God, but there's no hard evidence that he ever made these claims. It assumes that there are only two rational alternatives and ignores a third (that Jesus never made these claims in the first place). In any event, I'm not sure that this article could bear the weight of explaining how different people argue for their respective positions on Jesus. Instead of bringing up an argument where there isn't room to address it fairly or even point out that its premises are questionable, let's just say what trinitarians believe and leave out the argument about the trilemma. Jonathan Tweet 13:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unneeded. That section is soon to be rewritten, or at least was so proposed, so I would think such changes are perhaps better taken up at that time. I will say the following in defense of the statement. (1)It is a referencable argument since it comes from C.S. Lewis. (2)In the context (Christian views), all parties accept that Jesus claimed to be God, and the "evidence" is really taking the Gospels seriously. The "third approach" you mention is beside the point in the context. All that said, I understand your point about its being unneeded.Lostcaesar 13:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, if you and I agree on something, it's probably legit. I'll cut out the sentence. Jonathan Tweet 15:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma is apologetics. Sure it comes up if you study CS Lewis but I've never seen any research that the Trilemma is a important part of how anyone came to their particular belief Jesus.

How about this though. The Jelimma. Christians have stated lots of things about Jesus since the beginning. Now either these christians were correct, or were bad men and lied and conspired to support that, or were deluded. Lunatics. Neutralaccounting 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear sirs: May I propose a compromise? I do agree with the two points raised by Lost Caesar: (1) it is a referencable argument, i.e. it follows NOR and NPOV, (2) it is proper to its context under Trinitarian views. I do believe in Wikipedia policy that editors not evaluate the evidence as such, but merely report what prominent writers assert. I believe this is part of NOR-- of not producing a new synthesis, but instead present existing synthesis.

Thus, the compromise statement would be: "Some apologists also state that there are but two to three alternatives (a dilemma or trilemma) in the face of what they they see as Jesus' repeated claims that he is the one God of Israel (e.g. Jn 8:58): either he is truly God or a bad man (a liar or a lunatic), the latter being dismissed on the basis of Jesus's perceived coherence. [42]"

With this compromise, we: (1) enlighten people about the existence of a trilemma (BTW, thanks to Jonathan Tweet for this information on the trilemma; I never heard of it until I read it here. :), (2) the statement is attributed to apologists, making the reader wary of its innate value, (3) the Jesus' claim of divinity is not attributed to Wikipedia but to the apologists, (4) the encyclopedia explains further to the reader why some intelligent people find it reasonable to believe Jesus is God, despite the rise of the secular society. Thank you for considering this compromise. Marax 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus

Discuss. Neutralaccounting 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Discuss what? The Da Vini Code? No thanks. Paul B 11:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

African?

I'm at a loss to understand how this image shows Jesus with "distinctively African features". He seems to be as white as they come with a thin, straight nose. The latter feature is also common in Ethiopia, but apart from the curly black hair, which is also commonplace in southern Europe, I see nothing distinctively "African" here at all. I've no objection at all to including an image of an African-looking Jesus, but we shouldn't claim something about a specific image that's demonstrably wishful-thinking. Paul B 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they are North African - people there are "white looking", I guess - Mediterranean really. - Its not a great picture of the image. Lostcaesar 08:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture is from Ethiopia, so I would assume they were trying to make him look somewhat Ethiopian. It's hard to tell, but it looks like they might have somewhat broad noses. If we do replace it, it would be nice to replace it with some artwork native to an African country rather than a "revisionist" painting. Peyna 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please let us avoid the suggestion that all Africans - even all sub-Saharan Africans - look alike, okay? As benedict anderson and I am sure many other have pointed out, graphic representations of Jesus and others (e.g. Mary, the Apostles) commonly took very very very localized forms (e.g., not even "European" but say "Tuscan" or "Silesian"). Most likely (this would be in issue for discussion in an article on graphic representations of Jesus) people were depicting images of Jesus that looked like themselves, without thinking they were making historical claims about what jesus "really" looked like let alone what race he belonged to. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the image shows what the caption says: "distinctively African features". The assertion takes as a given that there are such things. Of course the actual population of Africa is vast and varied. Ethiopia in particular has a diverse population, having had long contacts with with cultures on the Arabian peninsular and diverse internal African populations. However, I can't see any evidence that this image indicates distinctively African features. As regards skin-colour the characters as portrayed are clearly several shades lighter than the Ethiopian average. There may be many reasons for this - common pictorian conventions adopted and repeated among the various Orthodox communities being one. I have no idea whether or not Ethiopian artists made a conscious decision to portray the holy family as "paler" than the Ethiopian norm or not. Paul B 10:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, this issue of how so many different culture and sub-cultures depicted Jesus's physical characteristics doesn't seem like its a small enough subject to warrent compleate inclusion in this particular article. Homestarmy 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)