Talk:Jesus/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

question

Why does it show BC and BCE, or AD and CE after each year in the article? An example: Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE), also known as ....

It's a long story, which would take....a very long time to explain compleatly. Homestarmy 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A long story indeed. CF, for example, /Archive 14, /Archive 15, /Archive 16, /Archive 17, /Archive 18, /Archive 21, /Archive 72, and perhaps other archives. It's been a recurrent issue. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The simple explanation is that there are a variety of different groups of editors who feel strongly that one or the other dating system is appropriate, and the easiest compromise which satisfied the greatest number of people was to employ both systems. Basically, people who favor BCE/CE either claim that this is an emerging scholarly norm or that these terms are more neutral than AD/BC which they see as necessarily reflecting a Christian POV. People who favor AD/BC either are Christian and think that since this article is about Jesus the terms are appropriate, or believe that these terms no longer carry a Christian connotation and in fact represent an established convention that should be followed in all articles and that there is no POV problem. Our style-guide allows both sets of terms, and using both offends the fewest number of people. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My answer is that "common era" is simply an example of the secularization, i.e. de-culturization of western society. Lostcaesar 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I should be offended by the implication that Jews do not belong to Western society, or can be recognized as belonging to Western society only by accepting the dominance of Christian conventions. Jews lived in Western Europe long before Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think most uses of CE and BCE these days are trying to replace a more Christian influenced western society with a Jewish one :/. Homestarmy 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews have their own calendar. I believe it is the year 5767 atm. If we want to be fair to Jews, and acknowledge their culture, we should use their calendar. That would mean that we say AD 2006 / Kislev 5767 in respective settings. CE is not an attempt to be respectful of Jewish culture. It is an attempt to secularize Christian culture, and its contributions to the world. In other words, it is a product of a secular attitude that religious contributions to mankind are only beneficial once stripped of their religious nature. That attitude is as much a threat to Judaism as to Christianity. The attempt to say that CE is "tolerant" of Judaism is simply the secular myth that de-sacralizing public matters is a step toward tolerance, i.e. that secularism is the utopian solution to strife rather than God (and religion). In this sense secularism is neither tolerant of Christianity nor Judaism, and I think you can well observe that secular movements within the West have hurt Jewish culture as much as Christian. And, SL, to just speak of the West, Judaism did contribute much to western culture, but it did not contribute a calendar - that's the only reason my comments above were framed as such. Lostcaesar 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. BCE/CE emerged because the Western numbering system is now used throughout the world, most of which is non-Christian. Yes, others still persist locally, but it is the standard in business and scholarship. Remember the internatonal celebrations of the year 2000? Chrstianity did not contribute a calendar, just a start date - not much of an "achevement". In English, the names of months derive from Roman deities and of days from Germanic pagan ones. We still persist with these names even though the beliefs are long long gone. The CE notation is not about "tolerance" of Judaism, but about recognising non-Christian sensitivities. Paul B 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Asia and the Middle East have their own calendars. Christianity contriubted the notion that history should be counted from the Incarnation, i.e. that time itself changed with the birth of Christ. In (previously) Christian cultures some wish to employ BCE/CE because they don't want Christianity (or any religion) to be publically expressed. In this way they deny, and insult, what Christianity is about: that Christ is the source of unity of mankind. Respect for other cultures would be employing their calendars in relevant situations, not asking them to take up a dating system that counts form the Incarnation of the Lord and acting like, if we don't say "lord", it will be respectful of who they are and what they believe. Its like celebrating that certain holiday on December 25 without so much as whispering just what that day is - there is no culture here, just a ghost of a culture. There is a difference between respecting cultures and destroying cultures. Lostcaesar 09:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have passionate reasons why BCE is the devil (or the best new thing). But maybe we should keep that to ourselves. This is a talk page, not a discussion forum. Was the vote that took place only 3 months ago (which upheld the vote from the year before to include both era notations) not good enough?--Andrew c 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My most recent point had nothing to do with BCE/CE. It had to do only with the suggestion that the de-Christianization of Western society is tantamount to its de-culturalization. Lostceaser's response to me at the end of his 23:38, 1 December 2006 comment fully satisfies me and I thank him for it. He understood what I meant, and responded appropriately and effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lostcaesar. Celebrating a holiday on December 25 but calling it "Winter Holiday" is a perfect example of why CE is ridiculous. 2nd Piston Honda 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, given that Jesus was almost certainly not born on December 24th or 25th, and that he was certainly not born in 1 BC/BCE (or even 1 AD/CE), why is that so ridiculous? --Stephan Schulz 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Lostcaesar, who I must say made some of the best points I've heard in such a debate. Nonetheless, I have no intention of advocating a change to the dual system we currently have in this article, although I too disagree with need and stated purpose of the 'Common Era' system. —Aiden 16:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out to Slrubenstein that Lostcaesar used the term 'secularization', not 'de-Christianization', in his first comment regarding the 'de-culturalization of westen culture.' —Aiden 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Jesus

Nietzsche regarded the character of Jesus as being worthy only of contempt, and saw nothing worthwhile in his teachings.

I would seriously challenge the notion that Nietzsche was opposed to Jesus himself. In The Antichrist, Nietzsche draws a sharp distinction between Jesus himself and the religion which centers around him. Nietzsche considered the real villian of Christianity to be Paul. He believed that Paul corrupted Christianity through a lust for power. He believed that Jesus, along with Buddha, were essentially good men.

I disagree; I think a cursory reading of the genealogy of morals would make it clear that Nietzsche wrote Jesus's message off as inherently life-negating, and a cursory reading of the Bible would have made it clear that he was right - e.g. anyone who tries to save his life will lose it. Either way, I'm still with Jesus on this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.179.101.192 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

The quote on this page is an extreme oversimplification and inaccurate. --Redfarmer 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since that line is unsourced, feel free to change it, I dunno who would challenge you. Homestarmy 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ETHNICITY OF JESUS

holy crap, you still have jesus as a white dude on the main page. i would edit the article but im sure the wikipedia nazis would ban my ip address like they always do when i try to fix factual errors.

this is just, you know, proving yet again that wikipedia is controlled not by the masses but by a cabal of nicompoops who care nothing about the truth.

the ethnicity of jesus is a major, huge, historical controversy, and yet it is not mentioned at all. this is truly pathetic to think wikipedia is some kind of 'intellectual mecca' when idiocy like this ccensorship is practiced by the bufoons that run the site.

it's likely jesus was middle eastern. right? (in fact almost definitely.)

Whoa, my friend, calm down. Here's the thing - Christ is to be portrayed on Wikipedia in the manner by which He's most well known - which, in the 21st century, is almost exclusively as he is pictured in the mosaic that is used. Now, should there be a discussion of His ethnicity on this page? That's something to discuss. But civilly. I'd suggest that the reason your IP address is banned continually when you fix errors is because the edits you're making are going against discussions being made on the talk page about the same thing. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which runs on consensus - if you go against consensus, you're not helping the encyclopedia, but hurting it. Just keep that in mind. David 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the result, but not with the reason. We present a sample of representations of Jesus, not to "portray him in the manner in which he is most well-known", but because it is a representative sample of available art. It has a systemic bias due to the history of Christianity, but we do not claim that any of the images is a realistic portrait anyways.--Stephan Schulz 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was middle eastern- Mattmonk412

Family & Genealogy Section Addition ?

While many so called experts feel that the Dan Brown book Da Vinci Code's idea that Jesus had children via Mary Magdalene is preposterous , this idea has been carefully explored in detail for anyone to consider ... including the many many proofs down through time that he did in fact have children; and unlike the Da Vinci Code's fictional claim Jesus has only one descendant today, the number would be very large 80 generations later or today.

See discussion in ISBN 0595333001. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.22.103 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

And it has also been heavily discredited by actual historians and biblical scholars.128.211.175.239 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

small minority?

The article states that

a small minority of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus.

I havn't researched the subject myself, but "small minority" seems a contrast with the historicity of Jesus being "a question of significant interdisciplinary debate". It seems that the only thing we can say, based on our listed sources, is "some scholars and...". Any terms like "a small minority", "an increasing minority", "many respected" surely need to be cited. Could someone please cite a proper source on the fraction of scholars that question the existence? I would also argue against soft terms like "question". To be accurate and blunt, they don't believe he existed. To say that few even bother to question the belief seems absurd. –M^T 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Both statements are true. There is a difference between "historical existence" and "historicity." The nonexistence hypothesis is a small minority because it's an extreme view (that Jesus is 0% historical and 100% mythological). The opposite extreme is the fundamentalist Christian view (that everything said about Jesus in the NT is 100% historical and 0% mythological). In between is a wide range of scholarly opinion.

To repeat an analogy I made earlier: Davy Crockett really existed, but he probably did not kill himself a bear when he was only three.

For most scholars, the question is how much myth and legend has acrued to the historical figure of Jesus--NOT whether or not there was a historical Jesus. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you haven't researched the subject, I strongly suggest you read the talk archives (27-36) and Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios#Comments_on_the_Scholarly_Opinion_of_the_Non-Existence_Hypothesis. We have been over this for months with a fine tooth comb and this is the consensus at which we have arrived. The quote from the historicity of Jesus artice has only been recently added, and I criticized it on that talk page. My question is, why are you asking for a citation for the "small minority" part but not that claim that this is a "significant current debate". As for question, this sentence is constructed to be more inclusive, to cover the skeptics and questioners and 'agnostics', and to cover the Jesus-mythers. It is a broad spectrum, not simply a black and white issue. Hope this helps some.,--Andrew c 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If the discussion spanned 9 archives, then surely you've come up with a reference to a meta-analysis on the subject by now (that wasn't written by a Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary - I'd prefer a non-biased historian), and I ask you to please provide it. I question the ability of wikipedia editors to decide this factual matter themselves. –M^T 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase has stood since February after long discussion. Cf Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate and its nine archives (and before that, the archives that Andrew mentioned). believe that User: CTSWyneken and User:Slrubenstein did the most work in finding citations. I'd suggest asking one of them. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: EVERY phrase in that paragraph has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb, so I'd expecy spme controversy... Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you support the inclusion of that information, you should be prepared to provide a citation. I shouldn't be expected to ask around or search through archives on your behalf. I think that this is reasonable. Consider the situation as if our roles were reversed. But I see that someone has edited that sentence, so my request may no longer be relevant. –M^T 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a bit of RTFM in my response, but my role here has largely been to bring people together. Thus, I invited CTS to comment--and he did. ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove all reference to the non-existance hypothesis entirely, since no one has produced a citation to a historian that maintains that opinion and that the few scholars who maintain this position have been firmly rejected by that community. By the standards of WP:NPOV we do not have to mention it at all, especially since it comes up in a sub-article. Our comprimise was to reflect what the field says by citing the very few non-historians who want to go this way. So, friends, which is it? Remove the reference to the hypothesis entirely or just leave well enough alone. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I'm not here to argue that Jesus never existed - I saw a controversial point that I thought should be cited. Doing so increases our credibility and avoids disputes. You seem to be asking me to drop the subject, or you'll remove mention of the non-existance hypothesis. I don't mind if you do, but what I do mind is uncited controversial statements. I would accept "Some scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with a small minority arguing for a completely mythological Jesus". Note the semantic difference. The current version implies "nearly all historians think that questioning the evidence for a historical Jesus is an unworthy persuit (they find the evidence overwhelming)". I don't think it's right of us to say that without providing a citation. –M^T 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if we misunderstood. We have had some rather vocal advocates of the nonexistence hypothesis here from time to time ( see below, as well as others who only want to be fair. It is good to know where we stand. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that this paragraph took months of intense negotiation to achieve. I had to read enough to write a scholarly article to answer all the criticisms. The citations already in the article say repeatedly that very few people, scholars generally agree, etc. So, in fact, it is already cited. The sources cited for the hypothesis are almost all that exist. It would take hours to find a source that literally states this in a way that will not offend those pushing this point. To what end? When you come into this article and challenge the phrase simply because it does not have a footnote number right after the words, how do you expect people are going to react?

The fact is the phrase is accurate, the substance of it is contained in multiple passages in the sources already cited in the paragraph and we do not need to represent the view at all. It is simply an act of good faith to state the view. So, yes, I want it left alone. If you want to continue on here about it, that's your right. Just don't expect me to reply again unless you are ready to find a source that contends the view is not a small minority or some indication that you have read all these sources and did not find the substance of that characterization in them. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

G.A. Wells did not say that Jesus definitively did not exist. Instead, he said that Jesus lived an uneventful life, and that he even may have not existed at all. That's not really what people seem to be saying, or how he is referenced. Lostcaesar 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against "a small minority believe he didn't exist", I'm against the implication that few find the matter worth any consideration. How about this latest edit? –M^T 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It still overstated their importance and hence violated undue weight. Few indeed find that view worth any consideration, for methodological reasons to start with. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the recent change more agreeable? –M^T 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks good but I have changed "minority" to "number" as it is more factual and makes no allusion to whether ther majority of scholars have even thought of this. CTS - I have mentioned this guy before but he is a scholar and doubts the historical existence of Jesus of the NT [1][2]. I have the book if you want page numbers and quotes. Sophia 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "very small number", in the interest of accuracy.

Lostcaesar 09:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to see your sig again, Sophia! Yes, the precise reference would be helpful. I went though Thompson earlier this year and did not find a definitive statement of Thompson's own opinion. The book is by and large a summary of the whole discussion. Anyway, if he makes such a statement, he would represent one Biblical scholar who believes in the non-existence hypothesis. I would then modify my rhetoric a bit. It still does not change what I've said above. There is no question that a small minority of scholars hold this view -- small to the point of less than a dozen verified, none of whom are historians by discipline and only possibly one who is a Biblical scholar. I can support either a "small minority" or "small number." This is accurate and neutral (we do not call it a "fringe" view or "extreme" view, although that is what much of the literature I've read labels it). --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:thompson: Thompson specializes in the OT, so I'm not sure how much work he has done on the NT. I do know that he has been idenified with the Copenhagen school, we might check some of their other members. Cf Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios#Thomas_L._Thompson for a list of names and a link to Thompson's faculty webpage. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I can accept either "a very small number", or "a very small minority", or even "a small minority". I think we should also mention that these are not historians. Lostcaesar 10:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "minority" is definitely accurate but I can live with the current wording. I agree that a note about them not (or few) being historians would be informative. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the "very" is needed. To me that crosses the POV line as a small number is just that - a small number. To add "very" starts to look like a POV point is being made rather than an issue being reported on. We then get back to the problem that the vast majority of scholars and historians have never published an opinion on this subject and of those that have a HUGE majority are trained and funded by religious universities (I thought a Christian was never supposed to bracket their beliefs). Leave it as "a small number" and these problems go away. The sentence ends with "but these are not well supported" or something like that so there is not danger that the reader will see this as anything other than a marginal area. Sophia 10:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we should change it back to "a small minority". We are not talking about historians and scholars who have never published an opinion on this subject. Concerning historians and biblical scholars who have published on this subject, the (vast) majority hold that Jesus existed and a (very) small minority, none of whom are historians, hold that he did not. Lostcaesar 12:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A minority could be 49%. I think it is necessary for context to describe the size of this group in greater detail. I honestly don't see it as a matter of POV. If it is a small minority, it's not just a minority, but a small minority. It's simply more accurate than the 1-49% ambiguity associated with minority alone. Of the proposed solutions, I favor 'a small number' as it implies a minority and describes the size of the group without appearing to convey a POV. —Aiden 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as as a myth???

The following was correct by Homestarmy after WaiteDavid137 ("the editor") edited it. However, I feel the following is a good discussion on why WaiteDavid137's edit is inappropriate.

The opening line of the article has been edited to say that the article "alleges" that Jesus is a "hystorical" figure and then references the article entitled, "Jesus as a Myth". There are some problems here.

First, the author of line has misspelled the word historical. This doesn't meet wikipedia's standards of quality. It needs to be corrected.

Secondly, the location of the edit is poorly placed and grammatically incorrect. The article should not start with a sentence fragment, particularly one dealing with "other views" of the person of Jesus. That is better placed in one of the subsections of the article, not as the article's opening line.

Third, the editor states that the article indicates that Jesus was an actual historical figure, making it "biased". However, this is the opinion of the majority of historians and researchers about the character of Jesus Christ. By the editor's standard, an article about the earth could be considered biased because it indicates that the earth is roughly spherical and not flat. Or, an article on Elvis Presley is biased because it indicates that he is deceased due to suicide, rather than hiding out in New Mexico. These views can be expressed in the article, but would not be considered generally appropriate for the opening of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

you've conflated two seperate things Third, the editor states that the article indicates that Jesus was an actual historical figure, making it "biased". However, this is the opinion of the majority of historians and researchers about the character of Jesus Christ.

The majority of historians and researchers are pretty sure that there was a living person that the Jesus we see in bible is based upon. The majority of historians DO NOT believe that the Jesus presented in the people did the things claimed within that religious text or existed as a person. --Charlesknight 00:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(The would-be editor who posted this keeps creating a new section every time he adds his latest thought on this topic, i.e., JC man or myth. Please, please, stop it, we have enough sections already, just post here, ok? Anyway, here's what he says:) To think that the dying rising sun god was an actual historical person is as absolutely ridiculous as asserting that Thor was an actual historical person. There is absolutely no evidence of his actual historical existence and as soon as you assign an actual historical date right at the intro for his lifetime without a disclaimer that he was only alleged to actually have existed in such a time you are not being neutral. There was no historical baby slayings of Herod. There was no historical demand for Jews to return to their fathers region for any such tax. All of the significant events in Jesus life corresponded to gods of prior mythos, and as such it is insane to assert that he actually historically existed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.226.238 (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There's no historical record of almost anything the Roman provincial governors and puppet rulers did - no one in Rome cared. What you've used is a very poor complaint akin to denying evolution because we don't have the body of EVERY creature that has ever died. As for being a sun god? He's not, and nowhere in the Bible or any Christian document does it indicate he is.128.211.175.239 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because as we all know, as long as you call the other side insane and insult another religions beliefs by comparing their concept of God to deities they certainly don't believe in, they'll certainly surrender themselves over to your argument -_____-. Homestarmy 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete footnote 6

Footnote 6 is a reference supporting the statement that some scholars believe Jesus is non-historical/mytholigical. It's a reference to a speech given by a graduate student from Columbia (I think) University, as reported in the local newspaper. This is not, repeat not, a scholarly reference, no matter how good a scholar the drad student might be. I propose deleting it on this ground. (Footnote 5,, referencing the same subject, i.e. the assertion that some scholars question the historicity of Jesus, is more solid and can stay). PiCo 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, your right, the reference specifically refers to him as a graduate student of ancient history. I would support removing it then. Homestarmy 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed; Lostcaesar 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Neutral

It is as insane to assert that Jesus was an actual historical person as it is to assert any other mythological character like Thor for example was an actual historical person. Historically there was no mass baby slayings by Herod. There was no such tax that demanded Jews to return to their homelands, every major event of Jesus life comes right out of prior dying rising sun god religions and you Christians deleting my talk and removing references placed where appropriate and not being neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaiteDavid137 (talk • contribs)

I would like to correct the above paragraph. First of all, if you were to look up Jesus in the Jewish records, you would find that there was a man named Jesus and he did latter die on the cross. The documents do exist and they have been proven true on countles ocasions. Also concering the prase, "mythological character", I would like to say that is the wrong wording. You should have said something like "aleged phropet". Another thing I would like to say is that a mass baby slaying would have looked very bad on the king's record would it not? So, killing a few babys in a small town would not have been written in gold. That is all that I would like to add to this discusion. Thank you for your time! (unsigned anon)

Were you also the anon who made that comment above? Because my response still applies, if you think calling the rest of us lunatics and insulting Christianity is going to make us just switch sides and trust you, i'm afraid you're going to have to try a different form of debate here. Homestarmy 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is as insane to assert that Jesus was an actual historical person as it is to assert any other mythological character like Thor for example was an actual historical person."

Who knows, maybe the myth of Thor was based on some prehistoric Norse tribal warrior or chieftan, or perhaps Thor was an alien. :) We can really only speculate on the origins of the Thor myth, but the origins of Christianity are much more firmly established, Cf Cultural and historical background of Jesus. To state that Jesus is 100% myth and 0% historical is as (mathematically) extreme as the fundamentalist Christian position that Jesus was 100% historical and 0% historical. Scholarly opinion tends to fall somewhere in the middle--cf Normal distribution. (How I hate binary thinking!)

"Historically there was no mass baby slayings by Herod."

None outside the NT, I'll grant you thst.

"There was no such tax that demanded Jews to return to their homelands."

This was a census, not a tax. Granted, the census was in 6 AD/CE, long after King Herod the Great was dead, but some speculate that the author of the Gospel of Luke was referring to an earlier census.

"every major event of Jesus life comes right out of prior dying rising sun god religions"

In which sun god religion was the sun god crucified by Roman authorities? Pontius Pilate was a known historical figure, as were Caiaphas and many other people mentioned in the Gospels. To single out Jesus as a mythical figure is simply selection bias. There were many rebellions and attempted rebellions by Jews against the Roman occupation. Many Jews of the time looked to the coming of the Messiah to overthow the Romans and restablish the Davidic dynasty. It's only logical that if someone achieved enough of a following as a Messiah figure, he would run afoul of the Romans.

Consider the criterion of embarrassment. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Why include a reference to Jesus dying a criminal's death unless it was true? Surely the Romans would have edited it out were it not true!

It is possible that Constantine the Great identified Jesus with Sol Invictus. How much of an influence Constantine had on later Christianity is a matter of debate. However, it's not the same thing as saying that there was no historical Jesus, to whom myths later accrued. History does tend to fade into legend. Consider this: Davy Crockett really existed. Crockett probably did not kill himself a bear when he was only three.

"and you Christians deleting my talk and removing references placed where appropriate and not being neutral. "

Well, I cannot answer to that, since I don't know what happened. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some accounts in the Gospels are almost certainly false (such as Herod's baby slaying) and some accounts are also highly questionable (how did the Gospels' authors know what kind of conversation Yeshua had with Pilate?). But the bulk of the scholarship supports the existence of Yeshua the man, although we will probably never know for sure how the actual life details match up to the Gospels. We can have a link to Historical Jesus if that will improve the neutrality.Saltyseaweed 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed the "BCE" and "CE" date designations

It just looks clumsy and unencyclopedic. Furthermore, as I noted in the edit summary, I couldn't find a single instance of these designations being used in other Wiki articles, so why was it added here and only here? (That was a rhetorical question, mind you.)Jinxmchue 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants support to drop the double AD/CE system, in favour of a sigle system (preferably AD), write a message to my talkpage.--RedMC 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Historians would prefer a single date system CE/BCE for historical dates, and YA (years ago) or BP (before present) for events in prehistory, or it would seem so from recent historical books I have read, (History and pre-history are differentiated by the existence of contemporaneous writing that can be deciphered by modern scholars.) I see the dual dating system in this article as a courtesy to those Christians who would prefer to date years Anno Domini, and in spite of the fact that we know that Christ was most likely not born in the year 1 CE. --BenBurch 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But this is the only article I've found with such date designations. BC/AD is still used for articles on Julius Caesar, Plato, Socrates, etc. Why is that? Why haven't "BCE/CE" advocates changed those articles, too? Why has just the article on Jesus been targeted? Or is it just that - the Jesus article is being targeted? Jinxmchue 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that CE/BCE should be on those other articles! Will you help me do that? It's a big job and I have been putting it off. As for the present article, there was a LONG consensus process for the present dating scheme detailed in a comment above. --BenBurch 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that BCE/CE should be used for the reasons I've given here and elsewhere. Besides that, it appears that such changes are against Wiki policy (see RedMC's note on my talk page). Jinxmchue 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• If one article on the Wikipedia should use solely the "AD/BC" article, it is this one. I agree completely. But many, many people will disagree with the changes, especially User:JimWae and User:Slrubenstein, two users I've dealt with in the past. I believe there have already been two votes for the use of AD or CE or both, and both votes resulted in no apparent consensus. So, I doubt the AD/BC system used alone here will be let through by those (and other) users. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Jinxmchue is ignoring a major, major discussion that occured here over a year ago, and then again 3 months ago. It has been a major point of contention whether we use AD or CE, so the working compromise for the past year and a half was to use both. Yes it is clunky, but it keeps the peace. We just voted on this not too long ago, so I really don't think it is time to ask this question again. Please refer to Talk:Jesus/Archive 72 and archives 14-17. Next, while you may personally have been unable to find a single instance of CE in use, I offer Kingdom of Israel, History of ancient Israel and Judah, History of South America, Agrippa I, Upanishad, Medlar, Muhammad, Zen, Sufism, History of Tamil Nadu (a FA), just to name a few. But more important than examples is the guidelines: Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article. WP:MoS#Eras.--Andrew c 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To Ben, I highly recommend against going around changing all the date notation, as it has led to....conflicts. Homestarmy 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You think it would be a tough sell? I would have assumed not. --BenBurch 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one item which is definently not supposed to be on the menu :/. Homestarmy 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Historians would prefer a single date system CE/BCE for historical dates...or it would seem so from recent historical books I have read' — my reading experience has been the exact opposite. The history books I read are medieval history, but I have actually never in my life seen BCE/CE used in them. I did see it in a book on the Reformation that I just read. Perhaps medievalists just like Latin. Lostcaesar 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Not as universal as I had supposed, clearly, perhaps it matters what region we are considering and what cultural background the authors stem from? Clearly a book about a part of Christendom would have a strong AD bias? --BenBurch 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alas, Ben has secretly uncovered the Christian Fundamentalist monopoly on all historical works concerning Christianity, retreat my bretherin! :D Homestarmy 00:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Ben, I think most current academics that I have read are using the new dating nomenclature. I have enough years on me that I prefer the AD/BC out of habit and given my religious convictions only further emphasizes my preference. I dislike using both, but feel it is the easiest way to keep constant reversions regarding dates to a minimum. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a book about a part of Christendom would have a strong AD bias? Well, I will simply remind you that BCE/CE is just as biased as any other dating system - its just a different kind of bias. Lostcaesar 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said a earlier this year - I so don't care which we use as long as it's consistent throughout the article. If CE/BCE is becoming more common then our transition compromise of both systems is the best one to use at the moment. The whole point of this wiki is that it should change over time but it should reflect the world outside - not drive the changes. Most people (in the UK at least) will understand AD/BC but CE/BCE is becoming increasingly recognised. With conventions that are so widely used we need to put aside our religious agendas and just be honest about the common usage of these terms Sophia 11:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not ignoring any discussion because I didn't know such discussion existed and I certainly don't have the time or inclination to search through materials to find something that happened an entire year ago. I would thank you not to assume things like that. As for your examples of BCE/CE being used on Wiki, I thank you for producing those, but I find it highly amusing that the Wiki links for the dates with the BCE designation (such as those in the Kingdom of Israel article) go to pages that use the BC designation. Silly, inconsistent, confusing, unencyclopedic, and proves my point quite well. Jinxmchue 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but isn't that the definition of ignorant? You come off sounding cocky by saying that a) you simply didn't know that perhaps your concerns had been raised in the past (in fact 1 week ago, look at the top of the page) and that b) you have no interest in learning the history of this debate, and the consensus process that got us to where we are today. This is wikipedia. We work as a community. So please, try not to spit in the face of past discussion. You are more than welcome to disagree with or outright ignore the consensus, but don't get upset if I become frustrated with this attitude. Reading up on policy and past discussions is one way for me to take you more seriously. Saying you have no desire to do these things is upsetting to me. Sorry for being blunt, I do wish you the best.--Andrew c 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

One or the other system ought to be chosen. It hardly matters which from a cultural standpoint, because the difference is superficial. Those who object to AD may not wish to measure time by "Our Lord;" the newer system removes the reference to Christ but does not cease measuring time by Christ's life (as arbitrary as the date may be). A new system of measurement would have to hinge on some other history-making or -breaking Event; would indeed require a new state of mind. As a Christian, I am comfortable with a lot of the fabric of our society being intertwined with Christian references, as surely as it is natural for a Southeast Asian nation to have references to Buddhism in its architecture, in its language, on its money. As an example on this very webpage, the icon chosen to represent the idea of keeing peace during a discussion (a practice disregarded by some I have noticed) is a dove -- which comes straight from the Bible. Those who want to change this have centuries of work ahead of them. At the very least, as someone else pointed out, it is interesting that the entry about Christ is singled out to make the point.Yours etc. 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well in my view if we were to use two dating systems here it would be the Christian and Islamic dates, parallel, since Jesus is an important figure in both religions, and we would of course drop the CE/BCE. The current use was not exactly a consensus. It was a compromise because there was no consensus, and as such it never made even so much as a majority happy. The point of the compromise was to prevent people from editing the article mercilessly, though in this respect it has not been very successful, as edits happen every week or two. But it at least it does present two views, and does not make the mistake of assuming that BCE/CE is neutral, which I am glad for. I would much prefer AD 2006/ AH 1427 to 2006 AD/CE. Lostcaesar 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was at Chicago's Field Museum today and noticed that all of the date cards in the the King Tut and Egyptian rooms use BCE for their dates. I did not have time to examine the other parts of the museum where historical dating might have been used as we looked at the Evolution exhibit as our only other foray and all dates there were MYA or BYA. --BenBurch 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kinding me—if there is one page above all other pages in Wikipedia that should use BC/AD —it is this one. To use anything else is just disrespectful. I don't think editors of the Muhammad article would like it if someone was to place BC and AD next to their BCE/CE. Try it see how long this would last. Political correctness gone crazy. Besides this hybrid format goes against the MOS. —MJCdetroit 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the intense discussions here and my work as a theological librarian, I have read a great deal of the scholarly literature on the life and times of Jesus. Both era notations are used extensively. If anyone would care to move from the article here into the literature, they will be confronted by both. We should maintain both, not only for the sake of peace but to keep confusion to a minimum. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

criticism and controversy

Seriously, did this man do NOTHING bad in his WHOLE life??? I mean C'MON now. and if he did, we are going to slab a big fat "criticism and controversy" section in here, since there soo many articles on this site that have one, but that don't really deserve it. 71.117.209.109 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by bad and bad to whom :/. There is some criticism in the "other views" section, but the stuff there is pretty much all there is (or at least a pretty good representation of it) notably speaking, and we are supposed to be using summary style already. Homestarmy 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, Jesus is perfect. Any other questions? User:Spock 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's...kind of the whole point. If he HAD sinned, then his incarnation would be pointless. I mean, he did argue with people, and he got arrested, but according to documentation, those were 1) about theology, and 2) a setup.

Jesus and Islam

The article recognises, eventually, that Jesus is a major prophet of Islam. However, I think it would be pertinent to make a reference to his importance to Islam in the introduction. I thus propose one of the following: 1) The first sentence be changed to say something like, "Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity and a major prophet of Islam." 2) A sentence be added to the introduction, saying something along the lines of "Jesus is also a major prophet of Islam, in which he holds a non-divine status." (not very well worded, but you get the idea) 3) Or the article stays as it is. I don't think this is satisfactory as we get no mention of Jesus' position in Islam, which is significant both for that religion and for comparisons between religions, until waaay down the page.

What do people think? Polocrunch 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What you're really saying is that the section on Views of Jesus, which is down at the end of the articler, be reflected in the introduction. I have no problem with that, but since Jesus is far more important to Christianity than to any other religion, I'd put it last. Possibly a separate paragraph, saying that Jews believe the Christians are mistaken about identifying Jesus as the Christ, and that Muslims accept him as a major prophet but reject the idea that he was the son of God? PiCo 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look through the history, you'll find that there was a fourth paragraph in the introduction for the Islamic view, but it was removed per concerns about prominence, typified by WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The introduction is meant to summarize the major points of the article. The two largest sections are the Gospel/Christian view and the historical view. Less 'prominent' views of Jesus are confined to the 'other views' section and thus are not necessary required to be summarized in the introduction. However, I personally am indifferent to the inclusion of such a paragraph in the introduction. —Aiden 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When I read the original post, I was confused because I was thinking about that fourth paragraph. I must have been asleep when it was removed. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it re-instated, but I also wouldn't mind reading the past discussions first. Do you know by chance what archive its in? Thanks.-Andrew c 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was discussed on talk. If I remember correctly an editor removed the summary when the introduction was reworked. —Aiden 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extremely pertinent to at least mention his status in Islam in the introduction. For instance, "...also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity and a major prophet in Islam." The vast majority of the introduction still focuses on his role in Christianity, but I think it's important to establish that his "paranormal" status, shall we say, is not exclusive to Christian adherents. Ombligotron 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can mention Islam in the intro. I have thought for some time also that we should be using Christian and Islamic dates, parallel, rather than Chritian and secular western dating as we do now. Lostcaesar 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We can mention islam in the intro but have to be careful that it is NPOV. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to use islamic dates at all, as this article (except for the fact that muslims count Jesus as one of their prophets - along with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc) has nothing to do with Islam. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the fourth paragraph removed? IMHO, Islam should definitely be mentioned in the intro. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with adding the Islamic view to the first sentence, as I think everyone can agree the most prominent view of Jesus is as Christianity's central figure and I prefer a short and sweet introduction. However, the re addition of the fourth paragraph would seem to address the issue adequately. —Aiden 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to our Books Jesus(Esa (A.S))had Dua(Prayer) to be Eumati(Fallower) of Muhammad(PBUH). what do not you add that too? Khalidkhoso 12:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal father

I removed the phrase "legal father". Stating this in a NPOV article is like saying "He no longer beat his wife after he became Christ". Saying "legal father" is presupposing that there is some issue with his paternity which must be solved, here, by an editor claiming to know the situation and then applying a solution. Jews, Muslims, adoptionists, atheists, and others would not claim Joseph was his "legal father" but rather just his "father". To make it NPOV I've just removed the entire phrase so it now just says "Joseph". Wjhonson 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is some issue that needs to be solved, caused by the claims of Christians and the Gospels, whether you agree with them or not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying "legal father" is presupposing that there is some issue with his paternity which must be solved

Saying "legal father" expresses a statement that includes all relevant pov's, which is exactly what we want.

To make it NPOV I've just removed the entire phrase so it now just says "Joseph".

How does that make it nopv?

Lostcaesar 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LC, I agree with what you wrote above. However I somewhat disagree with your stance on the Mary lineage. Luke's text clearly gives a lineage from Joseph back to Adam. That it actually means Mary is an interpretation aiming at the appearent contradiction and as such it can be included. However, it cannot be put on equal footing with the plain reading of the actual text. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what you wrote was fine. Lostcaesar 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And it's not our job to attempt to "solve" the issue with argumentation like "legal father". That's why its POV. Wjhonson 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That didn't make sense to me, care to try again? Lostcaesar 02:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And, Wj, we don't solve the issue that way - we state it. That Joseph was according to the law Jesus' father is undisputed and hence the term is perfectly accurate and NPOV. If we ommit it, someone might rightfully ask: why should Joseph be of importance here? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you review this section of the article there is no mention of why Joseph is important at any rate. He just appears in the article. Stating "legal father" is a problem-solution all wrapped up in a neat package, while others will see no problem to be solved here whatosever. That there is a problem is a Christian POV. Muslims do not see a problem, to non-Christians and even to some Christians, Joseph was Jesus' father, plain and simple. Calling him the "legal father" only highlights an issue that is an issue with those who believe in the Virgin Birth. I.E. it gives undue weight to the opinion that the Virgin Birth expresses what actually occured. Wjhonson 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it is your POV that is showing. It is an issue whether you like it or not. Joseph is important because he is Jesus' legal father at least. Ommitting this makes him unimportant. Undue weight cannot be taken seriously, since those accepting the Virgin Birth include half of mankind. Finally, are you numbering Muslims among those who don't believe in the Virgin Birth. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see any point of agreement here, mostly because I don't understand your position. If we say "legal father", then no one has a problem. If we leave it out, then some people have a problem. Why force the latter? And by the way, muslims do see a problem - you're dead wrong about that, and that would make a total of 3 billion people (muslims and Christians), hence its hardly undue weight. Lostcaesar 03:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no POV on whether the Virgin Birth expresses reality or not. It's not our place to *tell* Christians what their issues should or shouldn't be. You are more than welcome to supply a reliable source that discusses the issue. Matthew and Luke however do not discuss the discrepancy and so we cannot merely cite them and then point out that there is a discrepancy that we then *solve* with Christological language. Although you and I, may have heard the solution a hundred times from the pulpit, our own personal experience is not a subsitute for a source-citation. Omiting the phrase "legal father" does not make Joseph unimportant. He was Jesus' guardian, and Mary's husband, that's why he's important. Not because it was legal, illegal, extralegal, or nonlegal. Undue weight must always be taken seriously because in this case, it's pushing a solution that "half of mankind" doesn't accept. Only a few scholars and theologians think it *might* be this way, but the best of them are unsure of whether it actually *is* this way. That's why it's POV to simply state it here, unsourced. The detailed discussion should go to the Genealogy of Jesus page, with quoted sources. Wjhonson 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"If we say legal father than no one has a problem". That line is untrue. Please cite your source that Muslims see a problem here. Wjhonson 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just say through Joseph - there's no need to use this phrase "legal father," which sounds peculiar (and what does that make the Holy Spirit - his illegal father?). Also, what's this about an interpretation that one of the two genealogies shows descent through Mary? - I've never heard of it, who's interpretation is it? PiCo 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wj, you say Joseph was Jesus' guardian etc. True but he was so because, as far as the law was concerned, he was Jesus' father. Just as simple as that. If they had ID cards back in the day, it would have said "Jesus, son of Joseph".

Mentioning it does not push a solution (as it is no solution) that half of mankind doesn't accept: you asked for references, maybe you can provide some evidence that anyone disputes the status of Joseph as legal father. I don't think you will find one. If you we affirmed the Virgin Birth you might have a point, but a) we are not doing this, and b) it is hardly believed by "Only a few scholars and theologians".

Muslims, in case you didn't know, believe in the Virgin Birth. They do not care at all about Joseph.

Also, Wj and Pico are (intentionally or not) posting nonsense about "illegal" fathers - the counterpart of a legal father is not an illegal father but the natural or biological father. And that is the contentious issue, not that Joseph was the legal father. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When we use the word "legal" we can be referring only to either Roman or Jewish law. I do not know what roman law was concerning paternity, nor do I think we have any evidence about the status of Jesus' paternity in Roman law. What Jewish law was at that time is by no means clear. In any event, the question here is not what was Joseph's status, but what are the major views from relevant, reliable, verifiable sources, concerning Joseph's status. Do the Gospel's say "legal father" or "guardian?" Do any major historians, Catholic (Meier or Crossan) or non-religious (Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen) say "legal father" or "guardian?" Let's not violate NOR. We report what verifiable sources say, and if they say nothing, we do not jump in any make up stuff. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for your thoughtgul comment. Let me address your points:

• Roman law has nothing to say on Jesus' paternity, since Jesus, nor Joseph nor Mary were not Roman citizens but Jews (Roman law only really cared about the connubium, i.e. the right of a Roman citizen and his spouse to be married under Roman law which would result in their children being Roman citizens as well. Marriages and children outside of this were unregulated and could not produce Roman citizens.
• Jewish law, I think (though I am no expert), rules that the husband of the mother is the father unless someone contests it. When reading the Gospel of Matthew, we see that Joseph first though there was another man but decided not to put his fiance to shame and to silently accept the child. His protest would have resulted in Mary being stoned as an adulteress.
• As for Joseph in the Gospels, he is nowhere called Jesus' guardian. He is called the father in Luke 2,48 (explicitely), Luke 3,23 (Jesus thought to be the son of Joseph) and Matthew 13,55 (Jesus referrred to as the son of the carpenter). That these verses can only intend to refer to a legal fatherhood is clear from the fact that Matthew and Luke clearly state the virgin birth. And of course, the genealogies imply this legal fatherhood. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, to repeat a point I made above, what jewish law was at that time is not at all clear. If the sources available say "father" then I have no objection to this article saying "father." However, the phrase "can only intend to refer to" strikes me as original research. It is not for us to add the adjective "legal" unless we can say that scholar x has made a certain claim about the legality of Joseph's paternity. Unless a verifiable source discusses the specifically leagal status of the paternity, it seems to me that we cannot use the word "legal" without violating NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Slr, to repeat my point note that I toned down my statements. The sources say "father" but they also refer to God as father and sometimes avoid calling Joseph father (as in Marks "son of Mary"). My "can only intend" is not OR, as it is not research at all, but merely putting two and two together. Matthew and Luke clearly state that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph. Hence his being called father can only relate to the legal relationship not to a biological one that (at least in the context of these two texts) doesn't exist. So I ahve to say that your statement about what we cannot add is pure and utter nonsense. Sorry about the harsh words but I only tell it like it is. NOR was never intended in such a way, IMHO. And any addition of merely father would be POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that 1st century Galileans had a conception of two types of father: biological or (and) legal. I am not convinced that this is so (indeed, since Matthew and Luke do not say that Joseph was Jesus's "legal father" it seems reasonable for us to infer either that (1) they did not consider him Jesus' father at all or (2) they did not think it was necessary to distinguish between God and Joseph in terms of two distinct kinds of fathers). Other society exists that classify fathers differently, or where there are more than three kinds of father. So this does not go without saying. In order not to violate NOR, we need a historian who argues that they distinguished between two types of fathers and that Joseph was the "legal" type. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming only what is clearly visible: you will not dispute that 1st century Jews knew where children came from and hence they knew about biological fatherhood, right? You will also not dispute that they distinguished one another by names and patronyms, so they also had a concept of legal (or whatever you want to call it) fatherhood, right? Of couse, normally they are one and the same. However, there were adoptions, and as the Gospels show, at least some Jews considered Jesus to not having been the biological son of his legal father. You statements about OR are making less sense than the ones before. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I make no assumptions whatsoever about what 1st century Jews believed about fatherhood. To do so would be to violate NPOV and NOR. Historians and anthropologists have proven that people with different cultures - non-Western people living today, and people (including people in Europe and the Near East) had different beliefs about the body and the family and, accordingly, about paternity - so it is simply unreasonble to assume that people from aother time and place necessarily share my beliefs about the body and the family. Perhaps Mary nd Joseph and their neighbors did share my beliefs about the body and the family. But that is for historians to demontrate, not for you to guess. For you to put your own guess into the article violates NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Slr, there is absolutely no reason for such hyperskepticism, especially when we have the sources telling us a little about those people's views. I have demonstrated above what the sources tell us. For crying out loud, we are not talking about aliens, or about a culture completely different from ours but about one of the root branches of Western Civilisation. Such an extreme interpretation of NOR (actually not NPOV, because no one has shown how it was even hypothetically affected) is simply plain obscurantism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not obscurantism it is simply respect for good scholarship. What are you afraid of? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is. And your remark about me being afraid is IMHO a bad faith insult! Do I ask you what you are afraid of, what fear drives to post such strange things? I have told you what the sources tell us (and not my own guess). Scholarship can build on this. But why is this strange view that WP can only be the parrot of published statements (yes, parrot, as you are asking for someone to have used the exact same words before you want to allow them here). This take on the NOR policy is ridiculous. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just state my opinion and not join in this discusion any more, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere: I don't like the term 'legal father,' as it sems to me to imply some doubt about Jesus' legitimacy - I'm sure the editors never intended to raise this doubt, but rather intended to make a distinction betwen Jesus as the Son of God and His earthly parrentage as given in the Gospel genealogies. The more traditional way of making this distinction is by calling Joseph Jesus' earthly father, and God His heavenly father. This would be what I'd like to se in this article. PiCo 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that this section is describing the plot of the NT. It is not giving interpretations (those go in the other sections). So if we have a citation in the NT saying "legal" father, then we can use that. If we have "earthly" father, we can use that. If have "heavenly" father, throw that in as well. But please stick to our source material. If some Christians believe Joseph was only Jesus' 'legal father', and that his Y chromosome came from the Holy Ghost, (and if that is a notable view) we can stick that in the Christian views section, but not in the Life according to the Gospels section. --Andrew c 07:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Origen: Contra Celsus Book 1 CHAP. XXVIII: ""For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."" See also: The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives, Expanded Twentieth Anniversary Edition (Paperback) by Jane, Schaberg, Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd (October 17, 2006), ISBN: 190504884X

However posted the late bit, may not be aware that Celsus is historically completely worthless, as he writes what could be called a parody, based on the existing sources, either incorporating them directly or twisting them around: that Mary earned her subsistence by spinning is taken directly from the Protogospel of James where she is spinning and weaving the temple curtain; her being turned out of the house for adultery twists the information given in the Gospel of Matthew (and is of course completely nonsense: if that would have happened, she would have been stoned to death). Why a so-called "Feminist" "Theological" Interpretation would concern itself with a century old libelous book tells probably more about "Feminist" "Theology" than about the book.

As for the more sensible posting above. We cannot rely on the primary sources for terminology: Luke for instance has no problem in using the word "father" both in regard to God and to Joseph, though he makes it clear that Joseph was not the biological father. If that's what is meant by the reference to be Y cromosom, then yes, the sources take that view, and yes, of course it is a notable view as millions of Christian believe this.

Having said that, I do not object to the wording "earthly father". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nlu deleted my original response here [3] [4]. Perhaps he or she isn't aware that editing others talk responses is not allowed. Str1977 was kind enough to restore some, what he didn't restore is here: [Book description removed by Nlu (talk · contribs) since he believes it to be advertising]. 75.14.212.55 10:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the lengthy "book description" since I judge it to be advertising, which is violative of WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and of course the story of the woman who was not stoned to death even though she committed adultery: Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. As for the claim that "Celsus is historically completely worthless", that's nonsense, see John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew for details. 75.14.212.55 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Some remarks:

• I am not aware of any deletions and I did not intentionally restore anything. So put neither praise or blame on me when by some coincidence my name is associated with any (partial) restoration of talk page comments.
• Your "of course the story" is not actually relevant because that is one exception in which the condemned woman found some one who saved her (not from the condemnation but from the execution). Quite possibly there were other cases but you cannot deduce from that any particular case if you don't have any sources for it. There are no sources for such an event in Mary's life and there are sources to the contrary. In any case, Celsus is worthless historically in regard to Jesus' life - he is valuable as he reflects ideas that were current in his time.
• You might not be suprised that I, as respectfully as possible, disagree about the Schaberg book. Impeccable scholarship is indeed a surreal label for phantasizing about Mary being raped -zero evidence in the sources for that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all this aside, the point of the phrasing was to come up with a way that we avoid saying that Joseph was Jesus' biological father, thereby excluding the Incarnation (or at least the Virgin Birth). I think we should just focus on how to get that done, rather than worry about this other stuff. Lostcaesar 11:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful - a few months ago someone started a thread about whether Jesus was illegitimate or not and I think you can guess where they were trying to lead with that one. Sophia 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the published conclusion of the Jesus Seminar is a notable opinion: "His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph." 64.149.83.148 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

At last someone provides a verifiable source from actual scholars! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the Jesus Seminar, a very controversial body of scholars. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using controversial sources as long as their POV is provided and there is room to provide well-sourced alternate views. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the note in one of my Bibles, on Matthew's genealogy:

''Joseph's, not Mary's, descent is given here, as the Jews did not usually reckon descent through the mother. Joseph was the legal and presumed father, and it was this fact that conferred rights of inheritance, in this case, the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies."

In my understanding, we do indeed know a good deal about Roman and Jewish law of the period, so I don't understand why one would insist that this is a great mystery. Lostcaesar 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not know much about Jewish law from that period. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine that depends on everyone's definition of "much"..... Homestarmy 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough. I make this claim because I know of no authoritative study of Jewish legal practice between 100 BCE and 100 CE. We do have a sample of legal positions from that period, but we have no idea about how representative that sample is or to what extent if any it was enforced. What does Lostcaesar or Str1977 consider "much" or "a good deal of" knowledge about Jewish law at that time? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." Also, Mark 12:35–37 has Jesus argue that the Messiah does not have to be a descendant of David. 64.149.82.69 20:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See also E. P. Sanders Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah 1990 SCM Press ISBN 0-334-02102-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.82.69 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the verse from Mark does not say this. It simply criticizes the title of "Son of David", probably because it can be seen as limiting.

As for the development of Jewish law, the question would be whether this issue was in any way controversial. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there is any controversy, at least among non-Orthodox historians, about the following facts: what is now known as "halakha" was nascent at the time of Jesus; we have few and fragmentary reliable sources concerning conflicting legal opinions among Pharisees from the time of Jesus, and the Pharisees and their laws were not hegemonic (i.e. universally - among Jews I mean - considered authoritative or even legitimate) at the time of Jesus. One thing that does seem clear in both the bible and the body of halakha that developed (over a hundred years after Jesus' death) is that a child born out of wedlock was not considered legitimate ... but what one can infer from this fact about "legal father" is not clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you wrote in your last posting. However, seen from the perspective of the contemporaries, who had no clue about a virginal conception, Jesus was just plainly the son of Joseph and Mary and "legally" went by the name of Jesus, son of Joseph. The Gospel of Luke, as I have shown, repeatedly calls them father and son. The biological fatherhood is disputed because of the claim of virginal, supernatural conception but the legal one isn't. I do not know where the problem lies. (And the state of a "child born out of wedlock" is irrelevant, as Jesus was not born out of wedlock.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the definition of "legal father," or legal (halackic) definition of "father," in 1st century Galilee, and what is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know halacha. What I know is what I quoted from the sources. Also I have read the term "legal father" or "father according to the law" in some scholar, but I can't remember where. The content is certainly there. I really do not understand your opoosition. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Please believe me I am taking you in good faith. If you say you have read a reliable and verifiable source that says "legal father" please, please, just provide the source. If the source uses the word "legal" it can be referring only either to Jewish or Roman law. You seem to believe it is referring to Jewish law (Halakha) - yet, I do not know what sources if any exist from Halakha concerning paternity at that time. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Jesus was born out of wedlock is unclear, however it is clear that his mother Mary was pregnant before she was married to Joseph (Matt 1:18–19, Luke 2:4–5) but it is unknown what his legal status (Roman or Jewish) would have been in Iudaea Province. 75.15.202.164 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not it is not clear. Quite the opposite. Mary and Joseph were betrothed but the marriage had not yet been consummated. This cannot be equated with modern notions of when marriage starts. In any case, the legal status (under Jewish law, Roman law applies to Romans) is not unknown at least so far that Joseph accepted Jesus as his son according to the sources. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Law applied to the Roman Empire and Iudaea Province was part of that empire. Jewish Law wasn't really formalized till around the time of the Council of Jamnia. 75.15.202.164 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Romans did not get involved in such legal matters of different peoples unless their supremacy was affected. They certainly did not get involved in other people's marriages etc. Jewish law, though not yet definitely formalised, existed at any point of time since the exodus. Or are you saying the Jews lived without laws until Jamnia? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

?Are you saying there was no Roman Law regarding marriage and paternity? And prior to roughly Jamnia (the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism), Jewish Law was highly disputed, for example between Sadducees, Essenes, Pharisees and Herodians, not to mention Samaritans and even disputed among Pharisees such as Hillel and Shammai. An example of one such dispute of many was between John the Baptist and Herod Antipas— John did not approve of Herod's marriage, Herod cut John's head off. 75.15.202.164 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

75, sure the Romans had laws on marriage and paternity but they were applicable for Romans and not for non-Romans. That all I said. The Romans did not come to Judaea and meddled with Jewish marriages. Sure there were disputes - I never denied this. Your example about John and Herod however is completely out of place, as it has nothing to do with interpretations of the law but with abuse of power. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, are you deliberately misreading what 75.15... wrote? S/he wrote that Jewish law was not formallized until the Council of Jamnia. Not only did this anonymous editor NOT say that it did not exist, to say that it was "formalized" at a certain time implies that it existed prior to that time. So what purpose is served by your asking if s/he means that Jews lived "without laws" before Jamnia? Let me be clear: the question is not, not, not whether Jews did or did not live with laws in the first century. The question is, do we know what those laws were? You act as if you know, yet refuse to provide a source. I say that we do not know what those laws were. If you want a source, for the moment, let's say Jacob Neusner's There we sat down. But I am actually going to the primary sources (I know, can't be used directly in the article, but if there are no primary sources it is irrelevant). I cannot find any primary sources on what laws concerning "legal" paternity Jews observed in the first century. if you know of a source, please, please, please tell us. If you have no source, just drop your source-less arguments. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that very well. However, how far does the fact that Jewish was not formalized (supposedly until Jamnia) help us in this issue? Not at all.

Precisely my point. Since Jewish law was not yet formalized, there is no basis for making claims about many legal (i.e. pertaining to law) matters, including the definition of "legal father" Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your query: are you ignoring the quotes I gave you that talked about Jesus as son of Joseph and Joseph as father of Jesus? And since the same source tells something else about Jesus' "biological" father, it is clear that a legal fatherhood is meant.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nu? So the sources say "father." Fine. No challenges or questions on my part. But it is you who are not satisfied with the sources and keep insisting on adding the adjective "legal." Your second sentence is a non-sequitor. There are many societies in which a biological father is not a "legal father." You keep introducing a word for which there is no basis. Unless you can provide a reliable and verifiable source, we cannot add the word "legal" to the article as it would violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I request is that the passage not take a pov against the belief that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus not the biological son of Joseph. If the adjective "legal" is removed then some sufficient supplement should be found. Lostcaesar 15:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lostceaser, whatever the supplement is, it should not violate NOR. And I donot see why NPOV cannot guide us here. The issue is not whether the article claims that Jesus was or was not the biological son of Jesus because articles should never claim anything on these kinds of matters - our standard is verifiability, not truth. If there are verifiable sources that have the POV that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and was instead the biological son of Joseph, we must include that POV but we make it clear that it is one POV, identify the POV, and provide the source. If there are verifiable sources that have the POV that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus not the biological son of Joseph, the same rule applies - we must include that POV but we make it clear that it is a POV and provide the source. There is nothing wrong with providing multiple POVs, indeed, we ought to do so. Now, to specifics: if a Gospel identifies Joseph as the father and says nothing about conception by the Holy Spirit, we need to report that. If another Gospel says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and never identifies Joseph as the father, we need to report that too. And if another Gospel says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that Joseph was Jesus' father, we have to report that too. Remember, we are talking about a section of the article on Gospel accounts of Jesus - if the Gospels differ, we should report that. Now, I understand that there is a long tradition of Christian clerics and theologians interpreting the Gospels. This article is not the appropriate place to go into those interpretations (or interpretation, if all Christians agree). This article is already too long. We have links to other articles that focus on different themes (e.g. we have a link to an article on the historical Jesus) - we have a link to the article on Christology and it seems to me that that is the appropriate place to go into detail on differeing interpretations or debates among theologicans, although you may already know of a more appropriate article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels with genealogies say that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that Mary was a virgin throughout, excluding Joseph in the biological sense. Lostcaesar 15:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you - surely you see my point that this information can be included in the article without violating NPOV. The question is, do the geneological Gospels ever label "Joseph" as "father?" If so, it is reasonable to infer that for the authors of those Gospels, "father" is not necessarily biological. It is not reasonable to infer anything else about what they meant by "father." But the question remains: do those specific Gospels also specifically identify Joseph as Jesus's father? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, editor, translation note on Mark 12:35-37: "With the crowds now properly impressed, Jesus poses his own riddle. He quotes the opening lines of Psalm 110, used in the coronation rituals of ancient Israelite and Judean kings. The (anointed) king referred to is taken by Jesus to mean the Messiah (the Hebrew word meaning "anointed"). This little story suggests that Mark does not agree with the tradition that Jesus was a son of David (a descendant of David's line), since otherwise Jesus' words mean that he is denying his own legitimacy to be considered God's Anointed."

Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: Legends Concerning His Birth: "Some legends, however, are artificial rather than the natural product of popular fancy. To this category belong those concerning Jesus' birthplace. The fact that Nazareth was his native town—where as the oldest son he followed his father's trade of carpenter (Mark i. 9, vi. 3; comp. Matt. xiii. 55; John vii. 41)—seemed to be in conflict with the claim to the Messiahship, which, according to Micah v. 1 (A. V. 2) (comp. John vii. 42; Yer. Ber. ii. 5a; Lam. R. i. 15), called for Beth-lehem of Judah as the place of his origin; hence, the two different legends, one in Luke i. 26, ii. 4, and the other in Matt. ii. 1-22, where the parallel to Moses (comp. Ex. iv. 19) is characteristic. In support of the Messianic claim, also, the two different genealogies were compiled: the one, in Matt. i. 1-16, tracing Joseph's pedigree through forty-two generations back to Abraham, with a singular emphasis upon sinners and heathen ancestresses of the house of David (comp. Gen. R. xxiii., li., lxxxv.; Ruth R. iv. 7; Naz. 23b; Hor. 10b; Meg. 14b); the other, in Luke iii. 23-38, tracing it back to Adam as "the son of God" in order to include also the non-Abrahamic world. Incompatible with these genealogies, and of pagan origin (see Boeklen, "Die Verwandtschaft der Jüdisch-Christlichen mit der Parsichen Eschatologie," 1902, pp. 91-94; Holtzmann, "Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament," 1889, p. 32; Soltau, in "Vierteljahrschrift für Bibelkunde," 1903, pp. 36-40), is the story representing Jesus as the son of the Virgin Mary and of the Holy Ghost (taken as masculine, Matt. i. 20-23; Luke i. 27-35). So also the story of the angels and shepherds hailing the babe in the manger (Luke ii. 8-20) betrays the influence of the Mithra legend (Cumont, "Die Mysterien des Mithra," 1903, pp. 97, 147; "Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft," 1902, p. 190), whereas the legend concerning the prophecy of the two Essene saints, Simeon and Anna, and the bar miẓwah story (Luke ii. 22-39, 40-50) have a decidedly Jewish character."

Christian views of Jesus

The Christian views of Jesus just had a major addition/overhaul, thanks to LostCaesar. Hopefully editors here could review these changes. LC has also requested help in expanding the non-traditional, non-Catholic sections. --Andrew c 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes please review - its always better to have many hands involved lest contribution by merely the stamp of one editor. I tried to include various views but am of course restricted by my own knowledge. Lostcaesar 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest taking a chronologically-based approach to the structure of this section - begin with the views of the very earliest followers, those who actually knew Christ, so far as these views can be known (and they can, from the Gospels and other NT texts), then the views of the early Fathers up to the establishment of the Church under Constantine, then the battles between orthodox and heretical views up to the time of the split between the Orthodox and Latin churches (and my first use of the word orthodox has a small letter, please note), and then the emergence of the Protestant movement, right up to the present day. (Incidentally, I don't think LC's text needs this sentence: In defense of Jesus' divinity, some apologists argue that there is a trilemma, or three possibilities, resulting from Jesus' reported claims that he is the one God of Israel: either he is truly God, a liar, or a lunatic — the latter two dismissed on the basis of Jesus's coherence. I think we can take it as granted that anyone who doesn't believe in the Divinity of Christ (Jesus) simply isn't a Christian, and therefore doesn't hold a Christian view.)

2 additions

I know this article is already long, but I made two little additions to the plot summary of the Gospels section that I thought needed to be mentioned because of their significance. I added a little sentence on the transfiguration, and another on Jesus' teaching concerning repentance and damnation. Lostcaesar 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

the Magi

One of the most common errors made in the birth of Jesus is the inclusion of the Magi (Wise Men) at the actual Nativity, or birth, scene. This is a HUGE error and one which is quite needless and is proved to be wrong by a very simple reading of some basic text and a little logic. The Magi are mentioned in Matthew 2:1-12. When they arrive at the house that the family is at, Matthew 2:14 specifically states, “…they saw the child with his mother…”. The word for child here is just that, a child, not an infant. Also, when Herod orders the Massacre of the Innocents, he orders the execution of all male children up to 2 years old. This is quite unnecessary if Jesus was still an infant. Logic and Scripture both attest that Jesus was approximately 2 years old at the time of the arrival of the Magi. Bkholm2 03:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your logic hinges on a few things which you have not made apparent. The Gospel of Matthew was writen in Greek, not English. Are you quite sure the underlying Greek word meant "child" and that there was *another* Greek word, then used, which meant "infant"? Secondly, are you quite sure that the Massacre followed immediately upon the Magi leaving, and not some unspecified time later? Wjhonson 03:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all, I think calling it a HUGE (and capitalized) error is a big overstatement. Also keep in mind that artistic depictions do fuse events happening over time (e.g. think of depictions of a Saint which cover the Saint's entire life side by side).

Secondly, Bkholm's argument is indeed partly reasonable. The "child" vs. "infant" is nonsense, as even if the difference exists in Greek (I have no clue), it assumes that an infant is not a child, which is wrong. All infants are children but not all children are infants. However, his point about the age of two years is reasonable, has been made before. Also, that the massacre was close upon the Magis' heels is quite obvious, of course reckoning some for Herod realising that he has been duped. But that doesn't allow for two years.

Thirdly and most importantly, how to include this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Better not to include it at all - not here on the main article. Maybe in the Nativity article. PiCo 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can say this without taking sides, I think the "HUGE" mistake referred to is huge not due to some sort of importance scale, but rather due to the widely used picture of the nativity scene which includes the magi. If you think that the magi were present about 2 years after Christ's birth, then the fact that most nativity scenes have the magi present would seem like an incorrectable error (or a "HUGE" error).

I would repeat Editor STR, what to do about? PiCo has suggested including the detail in the Nativity article and I concur. In the scheme of things this is insignificant having more to do with culture than anything else. These types of things are relatively common within Christianity. For example, the names of the Magi were not known until the 9th century. Could they be the correct names or are they simply the result of the imagination of a creative, well-meaning Christian? I don't think it really matters. How does everyone else feel about just including the information in the Nativity article? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth

I don't understand. If BC means before Christ, and AD is in the year of our lord, then Jesus must have been born either in 1 BC or AD 1...I don't understand how it could be any different. In other words, if the calender is based on his birth, why was he not born when he was supposed to be? It totally makes no sense! → JARED ^(t)  14:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into specifics, the Anno Domini system was adopted many centuries after Jesus' birth, and based its dating on the birth of Jesus as calculated by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century. However, the methods Dionysius used to calculate the exact year of Jesus' birth, while impressive for their time, are now widely considered by historians to have been off by a few years, hence the range of possible dates of Jesus' birth in this article. —Aiden 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bible itself gives info about the year of Jesus' birth! In Luke 3:1 it refers to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar as the setting for the events described in the chapter. In verse 23 it describes Jesus as being about thirty years old at the time! So just work backwards, and there you have it! Regards .. --217.205.244.161 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Read a bit more and you will see why that data is problematic. Don't we all wish it were that simple. Wjhonson 00:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

217, it is not that easy. What does "about thirty years old" mean? When was Tiberius' 15th year? (there are indeed two differing views on this.) Is Luke accurate or is he working backwards from the crucifixion, assuming a one-year ministry as opposed to John's three (actually two) year ministry? Things are just not that simple. We have to take all evidence into account and not jump on a simple note.

As for Dioynsius, he placed Christ's birth in the year Herod died, which he know from a source (I think Josephus) was in the 27th year of the reign of Augustus. He calculated from the year in which Octavius adopted the name Augustus and arrived at what we call now the border between 1 BC and 1 AD. However, what Dionysius forgot was that Josephus counted Augustus' reign not from 27 BC but from 31 BC, when Octavius had defeated his rival Marcus Antonius and gained control of the entire Empire. This four-year-gap results in our anomaly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that, Str. I had not known where the gap originated. —Aiden 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A new dissertation on when Jesus was born; for those who are interested. http://pursiful.com/?p=176 (and 6 subsequent pages, also covering the census and Star of Bethlehem and similar issues). ^rossnixon 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrest, trial, death sources.

The assertion that Jesus was arrested by Roman centurions in unthinkable. The Sanhedrin had no power to command Roman soldiers, but instead maintained its own quasi-military force as relegated to it under Roman provincial law.The source quoted never says "Roman soldiers".

The assertion that Pilate washed his hands to show Jesus was innocent is also an assumption, as there is no statement concerning this in the source. The washing of hands to deny jurisdiction over a provincial was a standard Roman governorial practiced, that was practiced not to show innocence, but to relegate jurisdiction to provincial councils, such as the sanhedrin.

The assertion about Christ being arrested because of magician suspicions is supported by records of superstitions of the day. Also, the charge leveled that Christ was a "malefactor" in the KJV is more correctly translated as "magician".

For more information on this, see the writings of prominent Roman historian Dr. John F. Hall.

To address only one item: Pilate washing his hands does not mean that he thinks Jesus is innocent. It is a Roman practice symbolizing that the Judge in a trial is innocent of the accused's death because the latter is executing because of his crimes according to the law. And Pilate actually says in the Gospels: "I am innocent" (Matthew 27,24). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I understood of the Bible and other sources, the Romans did not arrest him on the Sanhedin's command, but for disturbing the peace. Furthermore, it's also possible that the Sanhedrin, or other dissenting Jews, could have bought Jesus' arrest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.175.239 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Worlview needs rep

Jesus is also important in Islam, he is part of the central prophets and hence this needs a serious inclusion in the intro. Jesus the person is not only a figure of one religion but two religions. Jesus is mentioned in the Bible and the Qu'ran. 2.1 billion Christians and 1.7 billion Muslims love Jesus (esa).--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

i Have added thumb|right|An Ethiopian depiction of Jesus and Mary. to also show a worldview of Jesus.

Judaism's view of Jesus

As has been explained and agreed to many times before, this article summarizes Judaism's view of Jesus, not what random individual Jews think. There are 14 millions Jews, who have 14 million different opinions of Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In medieval times, Jews had an steriotyped view with regard to Jesus. It was only in modern times that some have studied New Testament and subsequently have appreciated and praised Jesus without agreeing with Christian dogmas. There is an academic article on that and thus it is an encyclopedic topic and I believe only intellectuals of the 14 million Jews matter. We can start a new subsection under Judaism's view of Jesus to cover this. It definitely belongs to somewhere in this article. --Aminz 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not about "intellectuals" among Jews. This is about Judaism, the religion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

....a religion which, like any others, is made up of adherants of varying notabilities. I'm not saying Jayjg is wrong, because he isn't, but in many of these views sections feature views from various highly notable people within each religion :/. Homestarmy 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no indication that the people Aminz mentioned were "highly notable" in any way. Furthermore, what makes a person notable may have nothing to do with his notability in a particular religion; for example, Einstein was highly hotable, but he has no standing as a thinker within Judaism - that wasn't his area of expertise. There are hundreds of thousands of highly notable Christians who are in an identical position regarding Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about a new section. How is Non-Christian views of Jesus? --Aminz 08:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you plan to list the views of tens of thousands of non-Christians who have written about Jesus? How would you pick and choose which ones to include; would it only be the views of random Jews you have happened to find via searching books.google.com? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

We have an scholarly article: Recent Jewish Interpretation of Jesus, Eugene S. Tanner, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 8, No. 2 who has done all the research for us. We can simply use secondary sources on the views of Jews. Of course, I don't want to do WP:OR. --Aminz 02:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you did a google search and found an article on "Recent Jewish Interpretations of Jesus"; good for you. However, Wikipedia's Jesus article is itself a summary article, it contains a subsection containing a brief summary of Judaism's view of Jesus, and the fact that Tanner managed to get an article published on some recent Jewish views is not really notable enough for a summary article like this, nor particularly relevant for an article on Judaism's views. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't think you can find that article through google. Even if you could, I don't see it to be wrong to use google. You are bringing this google issue over and over again and I don't understand what it is supposed to mean. And that article is an scholarly article summerizes the views of *Jews* (not Judaism) with regard to Jesus. Of course we can have a section including the views of *people* of other religions about Jesus. Let's discuss this in a new section. I'll create a section for this. --Aminz 10:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Judaism is the Jewish religion, your attempts to include "the views of *people* of other religions" do not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT JESUS NOT CHRISTIANITY worldview is needed

Islam and Christianity share this person, Do not lump a section called NOn-Christain views, because this is a POV, Islam could equally say non-Islamic views. This article is part of the section titled Islamic topics. It cannot be lumped in with teh world faiths if Islam holds a significant belief in Jesus. I have politically correctly renamed this section to World Religious Views, to name it non-Christian is a POV and a Bias, see NPOV discuss here!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Islam is not Christianity, hence it is a non-Christian view. Quite apart from the fact that Jesus' central role in Islam is mostly empty words. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I will give you a warning about your tone, and it is in clear violation of WIKI policy. I have sent you a polite message which you have ignored. Jesus is not Chritianity that is the point, this is not A Christian article or site, it is a enyclopedia on JESUS, and he is central to two faiths. Your opinion of hatred is a POV, please respect the is an encyclopedia and cool off and think about it. No one opinion without proof carries any weight here! Might i add in my own POV Jesus was not a Christian he was A JEWISH MAN--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that often it is difficult to control your temper, especially when dealing with issues that may well affect ones deepest held beliefs. Furthermore, my suspicion is that you may well come from a non-western culture where these kinds of tones are more normal or acceptable. Obviously, Wikipedia is not supposed to be as western-centric as it is, but it is nonetheless worth bearing in mind that this kind of tone is unlikely to help other people, especially if your "warning" was intended to suggest that you may soon contact the moderators.

However, regardless of whether that is true or not, it is worth noting that the best thing to do on wikipedia if someone reverts your work is simply to calmly and unemotionally explain your reasoning on the talk page. Doing things like SHOUTING or criticisng your fellow editors is unlikely to make them listen to you. Wikipedia is based upon consensus so you should try to convince your fellow editors gently at first. I have had to leave what I perceieve as being POV edits in wikipedia because of this policy, but it is right that wikipedia has it nonetheless.

Str1977 was clearly correct that Islam is a non-Christian religion. Therefore, regardless of whether the article was structured correctly, given that structuring of the article, it is not appropriate for Islam to be outside of non-Christian views. I note that you have changed the name of "non-Christian" religions, which makes it make more sense (although I'm not sure the adjective "worldwide" is correct, when both Islam and Christianity are worldwide religions.)

I do want to throw in one comment, that I don't think makes me want to change the article as it stands. Regardless of the centrality or not of Jesus for Islam, I'm sure you'll agree that Jesus is more central to Christianity than it is to Islam? As in, none of the Christian faith makes any sense at all if one does not hold certain truths about Jesus to be true. This may, in your view, serve only to show the flaws within Christianity, but it is nonetheless true. On the other hand, I have studied Islam at university level, and I am not aware of a single Islamic doctrine that would be affected were the ayas about Jesus removed from the Qur'an (other than the status of Jesus and perhaps Islam's relationship with Christianity).

Furthermore, Christianity contains more information about Jesus (with an entire new testament written about Him), and is slightly larger and therefore more notable by Wikipedian policies anyway.TheologyJohn 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying Christianity shouldnt be a lead but it is a POV to say he is more Christian property than Islamic. Muslims believe they love and follow Jesus more. So we cannot be bias and lunmp Islamic opinion in with Buddah and others, its needs the respect. I would think this should be clear agreement dont we all want a world of tolerance and united in what we share? report the truth Jesus is all over the Quran, to slander Jesus in Islam is a major sin. and it is a POV , i would say the New Testament is versions of Jesus, there is more Paul in the NT than Jesus, so i could say its more about Paul, but that is just a POV.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require wikipedia to aim for neutrality in emphasis in the sense, it requires wikipedia to aim for absolute neutrality in reporting the emphasis of relevant published literature. Wikipedian policies reflect the fact that objectivity is impossible and thus unenforcable, and thus aim at a form of objectivity in reporting other peoples opinions, which is easier to enforce and agree upon.

Jesus is in maybe a hundred odd aya's of the Qur'an - that's a sizeable amount, but not as much, and it wouldn't affect Islamic doctrine. I don't deny that Muslims have strong feelings about their version of jesus.

While Paul wrote a lot of the New Testament (though his wordcount is less than that of the gospels), most of the content of his letters is things about Jesus. Regardless of whether or not you hold them to be accurate things about Jesus is somewhat of a moot point, given the policies of wikipedia.TheologyJohn 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is stressed above all things, not Religious ownership of certain spaces. I have no problem with the focus being from Christianity but it must be more Worldview and respectful to Muslims, they can be no lumping of Islamic belief as some side show, of no value. I wouldnt even get into Paul but he is the main reason for Christian perception of Jesus, more than JESUS! the Quran isnt like the Bible it doesnt have in many words so that not a fair statment about volume. And the African Christian perspective is really low in this article as well. Just show a worldview thats all i am saying. Is that wrong?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with NPOV, or promoting a religious ownership of certain spaces, I'm stating what NPOV actually requires. I don't think the article as it stands lumps "Islamic belief as some side show, of no value" - it has two sections, one devoted to Christian POV's and one to Islamic POV's, and both are covered in the lead. The rest covers historical theories of various scholars and the like. If anything, I think the requirements of WP:NPOV would require us to reduce (relatively) the amount of stuff on Islam, and increase (relatively) the amount of stuff on Christianity.

I am familiar with both the Qur'an and the Bible, and Islam and Christianity, having studied both of them at university. It is absolutely clear to me that Jesus is much more central in Christianity. I am familiar with arguments that Paul invented the Christian Jesus, and I find them quite unconvincing. Regardless of how convincing the two of us might find them, though, the requirements of WP:NPOV state that we shouldn't impose our own viewpoints on the page, but rather seek to present a balanced account of the scholarly and other relevant viewpoints.TheologyJohn 12:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hala, what are you proposing specifically? I agree that WP:NPOV is strongly stressed on Wikipedia and we strive to achieve that quality in articles. As TJohn points out, we all have biases, opinions, and personal POV; however, admitting it does not mean that we can completely strip their impact on articles. BUT we should attempt to do. We are generally sufficently self-aware to know some of our shortcomings, but there are areas when we do not see our own shortcomings and the effects of our POV. This may be one of the for some Christians. We Christians like to claim Jesus for our own because He is central to our faith. It makes it difficult to accept that others also acknowledge Him in their own religions. Please make a proposal and let us go from there. Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

'Jesus was Jewish' should be in the lead

Wasnt Jesus an open Jew? so why isnt that in the lead, i mean if people dont like truth that is one thing but this is not a romantic fiction this is an article about the living Jesus. And Jesus was a Jewish person who obeyed the laws of old, he reformed the faith POV. I think his ethnicity and religion are important regardless of who doesnt like it.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(as well most people often fail to see that reality that all Jews are half Christian and all Christian are half Jewish) --216.211.4.75 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any Christian denies that Jesus was a Jew. I don't know why it isn't in the lead.

That said, there are a number of opinions about what significance his Jewishness has, particularly for modern Christianity, which I suspect is what you are concerned about. According to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, the task of wikipedia is simply to report what different scholars etc, have said on those issues (giving appropriate prominence to those who are more common etc), not to judge for ourselves what is correct. And on this issue there are a number of different opinions.TheologyJohn 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it is impossible to deny then it should be in the lead, yet we find it almost nowhere in this article. Jesus was a Jewish person, the real living Jesus was from the Middle East these are facts. His religion was clear. So this POV not to add this content means this article is bias, and not a worldview or encyclopedic in nature but religious driven, also the low station of islam and the language point to this POV. 1.5 billion Muslims love Jesus, and maybe 2.0 billion Christians yet this artcile is a Christian discussion on Jesus.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's like putting "Tom Cruise is a Scientologist actor" or "George W. Bush is a Christian leader of the United States". We write what the person is famous for in the opening lead, not random useless adherence information. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` (merry C–mas)} 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's right though that it should be somewhere in the article - if it isn't, as he says, (and he's probably right - I haven't checked) that needs to be changed. I suspect, though, that the reason it isn't is simply that people thought it was too obvious to think of mentioning it. It's not quite "Jesus was a human being" territory, but it's getting there! I definitely don't think it was anything malicious or biased about it, and suggest that Halaqah read WP:Assume good faith.TheologyJohn 02:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Theogolgy John you should be fair and warn the other parties, i have been very civil.Jesus is not a pop star so i dont like the grouping, further more he is famous in two faiths, there is no arguing there, I would warn against your civilities as they border on bigotry. "random useless adherence" and it reflects poorly on a site which is discussing our blessed Jesus. as i have said most of the world loves Jesus and 1/5 of the world is Muslim, that is a lot of love, show a worldview please. Jesus is not property of one group. And we are fully aware of the politics of Jesus being a Jew and we know it would be removed if added because of the tension in such assertions.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think his jewishness is central to his historical identity. can we add it to the lead please?I know if i add it all war would break loose--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "Judaism"?. Anyway, no, it would not be appropriate for you to add that information in the opening paragraph until consensus at this talk page is reached, which it so far has not. Adding it into "Judaism's view of Jesus" would be more appropriate, at least for now. We need to be very careful and precise when we decide what to put in the opening sentences/paragraphs. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` (merry C–mas)} 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the manual of style. Somewhere in there it describes opening paragraphs. There is no need to mention that Jesus was a Jew in the opening paragraphs. The opening paragraph is essentially (and I quote the manual of style here) to establish "why should I care?" and "why are they notable?". Jesus is notable because he is the central figure of Christianity. Jesus is not notable because he was Jewish. I hope this explains it. and please try to not WRITE IN CAPS. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, would you please turn off the ALL CAPS? We don't like being yelled at even when we deserve it. Are you serious that it doesn't say Jesus was Jewish in the lead section? What was he? Buddhist? Zoroastrian? Not only was Jesus Jewish, he is not comprehensible outside his Jewish identity. When he talked about the law and the prophets, he was talking about the Jewish law and the Jewish prophets. He frequently quoted and interpreted Jewish scripture. He fulfilled Jewish prophecy. He's the new Moses, not the new Buddha. That Jesus was Jewish is not "random." I mean, help me out here if I'm lost in left field. Jesus was Jewish and a description of him that intentionally leaves this out is POV. Jonathan Tweet 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead states Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee. What is everyone arguing about here? Are people editing and debating the article without reading it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha! It's quite ironic that we all missed that! I think that kind of solves the problem really.TheologyJohn 12:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In a sense we can say that Jesus was Jewish. God had instituted the religion practiced by the Jews, and Jesus was the Messiah who brought this religion to its fulfillment: Christianity. Jesus was not in conflict with Judaism, only with those who wished to prevent God from finishing the work that he had started. Thus Christianity is, in a sense, true Judaism.

The very first Christians understood this. They continued to go to synagogue. While there, they preached that Jesus was God. On Sunday, the day of the resurrection, they said mass (in a primitive liturgical form, granted, but still a eucharistic feast). It was the Jewish authorities who rejected Christ and then expelled the Christians from the synagogues.

The rejection of the Messiah, the destruction of the temple (AD 70), and subsequent expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem (AD 120) were all formative in constructing what we call "Judaism". Jesus did not belong to this group of Messiah-rejecting, post-temple destruction Jews. Thus it is perfectly fitting to talk of Jesus as Jewish in the sense that he followed and upheld the religion founded by God, worked through the patriarchs and prophets. But this does not mean he was Jewish (religion) in the modern sense.

All of that, of course, is a point of view (well two, since Muslims say something similar). And here it should only be expressed as such. But it is equally relevant as views like these: "Not only was Jesus Jewish, he is not comprehensible outside his Jewish identity," and, "Jesus was a Jewish person, the real living Jesus was from the Middle East these are facts. His religion was clear."

Lostcaesar 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it; I find that to be a very anti-semetic comment. --BenBurch 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

.

So it's anti-semetic to think that Jesus was God? Lostcaesar 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No it's Anti-Semetic saying Christianity is "true" Judaism.

What does anti-semetic mean? I never knew that word. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a POV, but it is not necessarily antisemitic, unless it involves hostility or prejudice against Jews or Judaism. To say "Christianity is, in a sense, true Judaism" is antisemitic because it misrepresents and attempts to supersede Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not anti-semitic - it merely gives a certain religious viewpoint, the Christian viewpoint. Would you say that Judaism is necessarily anti-Christian? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Jewishness is central to his historical identity, as i have said before this is an account of Jesus, not Christian perception of Jesus, or Europe’s perception of Jesus. (my African photo Jesus was deleted by someone) Popular culture about Jesus, though relevant must be balanced against obvious facts. In my POV Jesus was a full Jew, he was a reformer, the religion today called Christianity was created after the fact of his "death". It is more the work of Paul that created this. I really doubt Jesus would recognize the Catholic Church if he came back to day as something to do with his ministry, I think honestly he would see traditional Judaism as his faith, that’s my POV. This is an encyclopedia not a religious school. that’s all I am saying.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be very much surprised to see Jesus feel at home among a groups rejecting him as Messiah and associated with a book containing not very tasteful things about him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that a comment is anti-semitic just because it's saying that the current Jews are basically traitors to their own religious tradition. If that's what someone's religion teaches them, then they should be able to state it without a motive of bigotry being ascribed to them. Jonathan Tweet 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

U know the word anti-semitic is so used it actually carries no water, I support the Jewish identify of Jesus, and i get called antisemitic everyday on wiki. One thing some Jewish people need to understand is words and the power of words lose meaning if applied of easily to everything they dont like.to disagree with Islam doesnt mean you hate Isalm, I dont agree with the trinity or the catholic church, but that doesnt make me anti-christ, imagin if we used the term anti-christ for everyone that argues against Christianity?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether "Jesus was Jewish" is accurate depends on the question what is meant by Jewish. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was born into a jewish family. His last meal was the Passover Seder.Goalie1998 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Last Supper was a Seder meal (whatever that meant prior to the year 70) is very questionable. And it has no bearing at all on the issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

by every def he was Jewish, what type of Jew he was is another issue, why was he in the temple, i am sure he prayed there. If anything he was a Jewish reformer, or a liberal Jew. He most def wasnt a Christian (POV) Paul was the Christian as i said b4 he created the "Christ" after the fact, but lets no play semantics, Jesus was a Jewish man 100%--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, as usual. Jesus was no adherent to the religion of Judaism as defined by Pharisees/Rabbis and the Talmud after the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 - a religion that defined itself as rejecting Jesus. It is this Judaism that is commonly understood.

Who is playing semantics but you? What else is your "he was a Jew and not a Christian"? The two are not mutually exclusive in the first century.

Jesus was a Jew as he was born from a Jewish mother and because he lived the Jewish religion, which at his time encompassed many competing branches. And so did the first Christians. After the year 70 only two branches survived: the Rabbinical Judaism (dominated by the Pharisees) and Christianity (which had a lot of converts among the gentiles).

So Jesus was not a Christian? This is true because Christian means follower of Christ and Christ can hardly be a follower of himself. But the implication usually meant by this statement, that Jesus was somehow opposed to Christianity or that he adhered to Rabbinical Judaism, is at best an extreme POV.

I take it that you think "liberal Jew" as something positive and hence will not complain about it except for saying that it is extremely anachronistic.

Paul BTW was a Jewish man as well. And that he created the Christ is your extreme POV with not basis in reality.

So please stop your semantic play. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to the above user to read WP:Assume good faith, its funny no one is telling HiM/HER to behave. The argument for paul as the author of the Christian faith is a serious discussion, may be you should go to university and listen to this discussion. It is part of learning theology. Jesus cannot be for or against something after he is gone, The works of many people come into light post humous, and people long gone become heroes, do you think Malcolm X could see his face on a US stamp? Or Che see his face on a tshirt? Jesus came did his thing and left, he was made into a god after the fact, he was trinitized 300 years after his death, these are the historical facts. Yes Paul was a Jewish convert who converted to his own religion--Christianity. hence paul followed paul's opinion of Christ, dont follow the laws of old, all Paul's belief.Ask yourself would Jesus look at the Catholic church and recognize it as derived from his ministry? I really dont think so @ all!--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, these are not the historical facts but simply your POV.

As for your question: yes, he would.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish view section

The section ends with "Even if Jesus had produced such a sign, Judaism states that no prophet or dreamer can contradict the laws already stated in the Torah." First, I have a question: What laws did Jesus contradict? As far as I know, the Expounding of the Law was more guidelines for how to keep the law, both letter and spirit, than a contradiction ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."). Secondly, I'm not sure about the wording here, because it implies that Jesus did in fact contradict the Torah, something Christians would vehemently disagree with. Perhaps more neutral wording would be to indicate that Jews do believe Jesus contradicted the Torah without stating it as fact? —Aiden 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A VERY sensitive area of discussion.

Well, Rabbi Yeshua never made it into the Talmud, so it's hard to say. ;) What do you mean by Torah? Written or oral? My own opinion is that Jesus kept the written Torah but had a slightly different interpretation of the oral Torah than his contemporaries, or the version that appears in the Talmuds. Even this isn't 100% true: it's been pointed out before thst there are points of both agreement and disagreement between Jesus' teachings and the House of Hillel, for example. IMHO, the Expounding of the Law is simply Jesus' version of the oral torah. OTHOH, Jesus' interpretation of the Sabbath laws seems to have been significantly different than many of his contemporaries.

I know that Rabbinic Judaism holds that the Oral Torah was handed down from God to Moses alongside the written Torah. As a Christian, I would have to disagree; for that matter, so would Karaite Jews. My own opinion is the Oral Torah was largely a creation of the Pharisees (and was still in flux in the first Century AD/CE). However, I know that this is OR, and cannot be used in the article; but it might facilitate discussion. I wonder, though, what the Karaite Jewish view of Jesus would be.

I hope I have not offended anybody here. I have tried to respect other people's beliefs even when I don't agree with them. I'm simply stating my own opinion. I pray that we can keep this civil....

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

the oral torah was given to moses before the written torah was written. im pretty sure that the written torah was actually written 40 years later, just before moses died. the reason the oral torah was given to moses was so that there would be no room for interpretation. the idea was that if the student had a question when he was being taught, he would have to ask.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan explains in his "Handbook of Jewish Thought" (Moznaim 1979)

The Oral Torah was originally meant to be transmitted by word of mouth. It was transmitted from master to student in such a manner that if the student had any question, he would be able to ask, and thus avoid ambiguity. A written text, on the other hand, no matter how perfect, is always subject to misinterpretation.

Furthermore, the Oral Torah was meant to cover the infinitude of cases which would arise in the course of time. It could never have been written in its entirety. It is thus written (Ecclesiastes 12:12), "Of making many books there is no end." God therefore gave Moses a set of rules through which the Torah could be applied to every possible case.

If the entire Torah would have been given in writing, everyone would be able to interpret it as he desired. This would lead to division and discord among people who followed the Torah in different ways. The Oral Torah, on the other hand, would require a central authority to preserve it, thus assuring the unity of Israel...

the Written Torah is necessary to provide the basics. If everything was by heart, then you'd have no reference point at all. There has to be a shell from which to extract the vast Torah teachings.

just a clarification of the purpose of the two torot. Goalie1998 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)