Talk:Jesus/Archive 113

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

Request

I think the lead looks fine except that theres too much coverage on islam in the lead of article about the founder of Christianity. Judaism is a biblical religion but gets only two sentences in the lead, whereas islam is non-biblical and gets 5 sentences, which is undue weight in my opinion. There are enough passages about Jesus and Islam in several other articles: Jesus in Islam, Isa (name), Disciples of Jesus in Islam, Religious perspectives on Jesus, Islamic eschatology, Christianity and Islam, Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, Islamic view of Jesus' death, Jesus through Shia Narrations, etc. Even though i agree its inclusion in this page is valid, i think this is too much. As an example, if you look at Moses page, you won't see this much coverage on other religions. Nor do we see a whole paragraph devoted to buddhism on a Krishna article. Also, Jesus is not so important in Islam as is evident here Template:Prophets in the Qur'an where he is an ordinary prophet and one of many. Matter fact, the Quran makes much more coverage of other prophets such as Moses and arguably gives more reverence to Noah and Abraham. On tis page theres a heading called religious perspectives and three of those two islamic sentences should be moved there instead to balance it out. Everything has it's right place and i'm simply asking for this islam paragraph to be reduced and/or partly moved to religious perpectives part. Thoughts? Someone65 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Also, i want somebody to mention what language Jesus spoke. I think it was greek, or aramaic right? Someone65 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It already does "Jesus lived in Galilee for most of his life and spoke Aramaic and possibly Hebrew and some Greek." The bit in the lead on Islamic views doesn't seem to bad to me. It is true that the lead does not really summarize the article very well, but it does do a fairly decent job (I think) of giving a broad perspective and hitting the most important points, even if it doesn't give coverage in the same proportions as the article. Getting a broad perspective is more important than giving proportionate coverage. ^BE_Critical__Talk 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont mean in the article. I mean in the infobox template. Could somebody add this to the infobox Jesus template please that he spoke greek, aramaic and hebrew? I tried to do it but its just not showing. Someone65 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But we do not know that. Most historians agree that he would have spoken Aramaic, I do not think this is controversial. It is very likely he spoke Hebrew, and likely he spoke Greek or some Greek, but even from the Gospels do we have real evidence of this? Is this enough to change the infobox? (In articles, we can explain sources and uncertainties; in infoboxes we cannot) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. theres different, gospels, canons, manuscripts and other books accepted by some and not by others. Therefore we should go by what the historians say. Since they mostly agree Jesus spoke Aramaic, greek and hebrew it should be reflected in the template, especially since it says so in the article. I doubt there's any controversy here, but if you insist we could wait it out for any opposition and make the edit in 2 days. Do you agree? Someone65 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I missed the part where you established, through citations, that Jesus spoke Greek. Meier, in A Marginal Jew argues that if Jesus spoke any Greek, it would have been rudimentary phrases used in commerce, and he would not have been fluent, and that none of the Greek phrases attributed to him in the NT can go back to him untranslated. If this is the case, would it be fair to say that he spoke Greek in the same manner he spoke Aramaic? His Hebrew is similarly disputed, and goes along, to a degree, with the question on whether he was literate or not.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Someone, your proposal for two day's discussion is fine by me. But Andrew C's point is well-taken. Meier is well-respected and clearly there is some range of opinion, and this should give us reason to be very cautious about changing the template. My point was not to veto, but to call for more discussion. This is a controversial topic - many historical topics are - and in my view there is a world of difference between saying that "Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" and saying "Most historians believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek." I am not trying to be difficult or play a semantics game. The reason I believe there is an important difference is: those historians may not be uniform in the degree to which they are sure Jesus spoke a particular language, and they may have different arguments. When we say this in an article, we can explain what the different arguments are and where and why there is room for doubt. But when people see it in a template, they just conclude that it is a fact, as much a fact as other information commonly found in templates like, the anthem of Ecuador is "Salve, Oh Patria." or Barack Obama is the "44th President of the United States." it just seems to me that information in templates is virtually never speculative or controversial. And I think we should be careful that it not be speculative or controversial, even if most scholars would agree that a degree of controversy is unavoidable, or that they are as confident in this bit of speculation as anyone can be. I see a threshold and I am very concerned about readers scanning these templates and assuming that they are, if you forgive the pun, gospel. In the case of what number president Obama is or what the national anthem of Ecuador is, in fact people can treat what Wikipedia says as if it were "the truth" (even though we are officially agnostic about the truth). Such is not the case here. So, this is my concern. I hope enough people take it seriously that there is some healthy discussion for two days. Whatever the consensus emerges by say Tuesday night, or Wed. morning, is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the addition to be phrased like this... Language; Aramaic, (some greek and hebrew) Someone65 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, have you guys read my concerns about the lead above? Someone65 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Jesus is more important to Muslims than to jes, I think it is reasonable and in fact necessary that the lead say more about Muslim views of Jesus than about Jewish views. I certainly do not think there is anything more about Jewish views of Jesus that can be said in the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I likewise how no issue with the coverage of Islam in the lead, or in the article. You mention other Islamic prophet's articles, such as Moses, but I don't think that is a fair comparison because the lead is too short as is (and there is significant coverage of Islam in the body of that, and other articles). Just saying that I don't find an issue currently, and think part of NPOV is including multicultural coverage.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey two days have passed and there have been no objections to addding a language section to the Jesus template. So lets do it. Someone65 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If Andrew C has no objection then i won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was Language; Aramaic, (some greek and hebrew) ? I'd feel more comfortable with (possibly some Greek and Hebrew). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we waiting for Christmas to make this edit or what ? Someone65 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I promise to do it for you as a Christmas present. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It should have been done a week ago but still nothing. Didn't we come to a consensus to add Jesus' language? Someone65 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Andrew c's wording is reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, make the edit then! Someone65 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. Here is why. I was about to make the change, but asked myself, where in the template should one's language go? Si I looked that the article for Karl Marx and discovered ... it does not list his language. Then I loked af Charles Darwin ... again no lonaguage! I looked at Simund Freud, Albert Einstein, Henry Ford,, Claude Monet, and Pablo Picasso. And Ghandi. No languages. These are mong the most important people of recent years. I figure, if we do not have a convention of enternig people's languages, and if language is not included in comparable important articles, I am not going to start now. It seems we have no strong convention. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Needed copy edit

Someone needs to fix this. I'm not sure how to do it:

Not all groups that identify with Christianity are Trinitarian. or Nicene-based believe that he is the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead. Only a few do not.

It's inside a ref tag. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it by removing the ref, which has inserted the text, and have added a cite tag. I know the statement is factually correct, but it ought to be reference. If on the other hand people think it is an excessive addition to the lede, please feel free to delete - it wasn't my text to start with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Historicity, legend, myth, etc.

We can't define the topic of this article as the Christian Messiah, and then claim the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most scholars. The historicity of someone who was the son of God, conceived immaculately, performed miracles, and was resurrected is not accepted by most classical scholars. That figure is a legend, mythic in the same sense that Odysseus or Rama are mythic. They may very well be based on individuals who really existed, but those real individuals didn't battle cyclops or winged monkeys. We could not say scholars agree that they did. This article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine: from a secular perspective, Jesus (as Messiah) is a legendary, mythic figure. Noloop (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edit (actually it seems Ari and I did it at the same time, and he got there first). Please wait for consensus before reintroducing the unsourced assertion that Jesus is a legendary (in the sense of 'not historical') figure, particularly as the article now contains more than adequate sourcing that many scholars are happy to work from a point that there was a historical Jesus. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) (1) The claim that the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most scholars is cited. In fact, most scholars do not know of any scholar in the field that doubts the historicity of Jesus. Your edit misrepresents this cited fact. (2) Your opinion that the "figure is a legend" is your opinion, your opinion does not dictate the scholarly consensus. (3) I agree, this article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine, but more to the contentious edits - it doesn't exist to promote your own personal opinions. --Ari (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no historic Jesus. I said there was no historic figure who walked on water, etc., and that is not a point of contention among classical scholars. Noloop (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point does the article say that the historical Jesus most definately did perform those miricles? IIRC, it says that Christians, Muslims, and a few others believe that, but where does it say that this means it's true? It doesn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many historical figures to whom supernatural events have been ascribed including all saints. All the people in the List of people beatified by Pope John Paul II were considered to have performed at least one miracle after their deaths, but no one argues that Pope John XXIII (d. 1963) was not an historical figure - there are pictures of him! TFD (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the proper response to Noloop's reasonable concern is: this article does not discuss ANY activity of the resurrected (i.e. crucified) Christ. The historical Jesus - who is also known as Jesus Christ, but perhaps not when he was alive - is the proper subject of this article. And the fact that many believe he peformed miracles does not mean that he is the real messiah (Elisha and Honi the Circle Drawer performed miracles just like Jesus, and were not messiahs). In fact, there is a lot of material on the Christ part of Jesus' identity that is not included in this article and that goes into the article on Christology. I think having these two distinct articles is the best solution we will ever come up with to this matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how we do that since the only source for Jesus assumes that he did all those miracles. There are many semi-mythological characters like this, like King Arthur and Odysseus. The difference with the last two is that archeological evidence may be found that provides an independent source of information. We of course do not know if Jesus lived, some scholars claim he did not, in which case separating the real from the mythological Jesus would not make sense. TFD (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what The Four Deuces is referring to, but I too believe that Jesus and Christology should be different articles, and that the bulk of the material on the "Christ"-like material related to Jesus be included in the latter article. It is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that we might, at some point, find contemporary sources from the time of Jesus attesting to these miracles, just as we might about King Arthur/Riothemus and Odysseus and the other figures of the Trojan War. Also, the fact that individuals claimed he performed these miracles doesn't necessarily mean that they were all "miracles." I remember having read a few works which indicated that many of these miracles could be ascribed, potentially, to Jesus having "charismatically" cured people of what may have been psychosomatic illnesses. Such cures would not, necessarily, be "miraculous" by our standards today, although they probably would have been described as such by contemporaries at that time. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the important thing is that there is enough consensus among scholars that there was a historical character who started a bit of a religious movement in Galilee. The religious movement snowballed remarkably, based (and here TFD is right) on the legend who walked on water, raised the dead etc, but also based on a religious or philosophical creed which the first generation of the movement believed were passed to them by the historical character. An article which attempts to pick the historical character out from the "legend" (as in "Mick Jagger is a legendary rock star", not "King Arthur is a myth without historical grounding") is a good thing. Noloop is right in that we should ensure that this article only refers to the 'legend' side incidentally - detailed interpretation of the parables, miracles etc belongs in the Christology article. The focus here should be on the scholarship surrounding the prospect of Jesus as a historical figure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that we know nothing of the historical Jesus except what is in the New Testament. Even if he did live, we do not know if he spoke the words ascribed to him. Some writers believe that his words were changed in order to conform with Pauline doctrine, and there are a variety of interpretations of Judas Iscariot. Many of the things ascribed to him, which fulfilled Jewish prophesies, may have been added later: his birth in Bethlehem, descent from David, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, his riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, the crucifiction. Then again, the miracles may have happened, but had natural causes, just as modern magicians can pull a rabbit out of a hat. I just do not see how we are to determine what is and is not historical. And there will never be any contemporaneous evidence. TFD (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the Messiah. I say that because the lead defines the subject, and that is the essence of the lead. The suggestion that this article is about the historic Jesus makes no sense, because there is already Historical Jesus, as well as Quest for the historical Jesus. The gist of my edits was simply to clarify that classical scholars tend to believe there was a Historical Jesus, not a Messiah. It was to clarify that Wikipedia views the Messiah as a legendary figure, which is as NPOV as Wikipedia viewing the Earth as being 4 billion years old, or Hercules as a mythical figure. It is not a violation of NPOV to stick to science and reason, and conclusion of science and reason is that the Messiah is as mythical as Shiva or Zeus. Noloop (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Noloop has a good point here. Why do we have an article on Christian Jesus, Historical Jesus and this one? What's this one supposed to be about? Is this the 'outline of Jesus' article? Are we able to clarify on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not, and should not, because it would be a POV fork, which is against WP policy. It seems to me at this point that Noloop simply misunderstands out NPOV policy and also has misread the article. NPOV is premisedon "verifiability, not truth." We are not claiming that this article is about the messiah. it is about a Jesus who is refered to in, or reconstructed in people's minds based on, the Gospels. Now, people have different views of that Jesus, and this article has to represent all significant views. One view is that he was God incarnate. There is a wide range of views that he was just a human being. When some say Jesus was messiah, they could mean he was God incarnate or purely human, depending on what they mean by messiah. In any case, this article should present all significant views. To fork views as if there are two different Jesuses is just to mislead our readers and to undermine the very idea of NPOV. The subject of this article is not the Messiah. It is a person called Jesus, and the introduction presents multiple views of him including a few views that he was not the messiah, so the only way Noloop can claim that this article is about "the messiah" is by ignoring all the views we include that he is not messiah. To create a POV fork would be to make his hallucination real, which is not a good idea. Let's just keep the views that he was not messiah in this article, and remind readers that Christians and non-devout historians are talking about the same person but have different views of him. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a POV fork. It is recognizing that there are different topics: historical Jesus and mythic Jesus. The Jesus who (presumably) was a real man, conceived by a human sperm fertilizing a human egg, and the other One. It is recognition that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles need to have well-defined topics, not be mish-mashed overviews of how a term is used. As for the view that Jesus was not the messiah, I might be more convinced that it is an equally important part of the article if it had a significant portion of the lead. But none of that actually addresses the point of my edit, which was simply to clarify that scholars generally support the existence of a guy named Jesus conceived in the usual way, not the other One. Noloop (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. As I look into this topic further, I am increasingly disturbed that most of the sources for the historicity of Jesus are 1) Christian, and 2) not identified as such.

OK so this is the Outline of Jesus article. I'm just grateful no-one has yet suggested that he has fjords. Srsly, in that case it needs to tie together an introduction to Jesus-in-the-Bible, Jesus-in-history, Jesus-in-Christianity, Jesus-as-seen-by-other-religions etc. So it must refer to the accounts in the bible of walking on water, raising the dead etc, along with the extent to which scholars consider there was a historical Jesus (more than a historical King Arthur, at any rate), together with what Jesus means for Christianity. Can't see any reason to use the word 'legendary' (which is kind of an inflammatory word in the way that it is used), but the article should clearly cover that scholars recognise a historical possibility in some of the stories, which can be extrapolated to work towards a historical Jesus, while at the same time acknowledging that some of the stories can only really be analysed in a faith context (there used to be a popular talk given at Christian Unions 30-odd years ago "A lawyer discusses the case for Jesus", which was supposed to be an evangelistic tool. Seemed pretty dumb to me - you can't make faith in a court of law - but there you go.)Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the Jesus article and it does a pretty damn good job of compling with our NPOV policy in providing all significant views from verifiable sources. It correctly distinguishes between diferent fiews, and the introduction has one of the best summaries of what critical scholars suggest about Jesus, as well as a very fine short account of Christian belief, and the jewish view and other views. Noloop seems intent on casting every view in this article as Christian. Sorry, that won'e fly. Please reread our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Jesus any different from the Pope, who is claimed to be God's representative on Earth, or the Queen of the U. K., the "Defender of the Faith" who rules "by the grace of God". In both cases supernatural forces are are ascribed by followers, but we do not split the articles. TFD (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what Slrubenstein is talking about. The characterizations of my edits and my intent fly in the face of my own statements about my intentions and what any common-sensical person could possibly glean from my edits. We all agree that there are different versions of "Jesus" in play in the article. The intent of my edits was to clarify that the historicity of Jesus is not concerned with the historicity of the Messiah, or an entity immaculately conceived, etc. That was the main point of my edits. I further note that there is nothing controversial at all, from a neutral scientific standpoint, in referring to Jesus as a legend--that's the mythic/divine/messianic Jesus. It is no different for encylcopedic purposes than referring to the legend of King Arthur or from rejecting Creationism as a neutral scientific description of anything. There is an additional problem that is starting to surface: most of the sources used to assert "scholars" agree that a historic Jesus existed are Christians. Somehow, I don't think Christians are going to investigate the matter and conclude that, no, it turns out Jesus never existed. There is a conflict of interest and bias in the sourcing. Noloop (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're also not going to get many non-Christians who disagreed that Jesus existed, so the point is moot. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How so? I don't disagree that there was a person on whom some of the Jesus legend derives, i.e. a historic Jesus. I'm not Christian. Likewise, I believe there was a real Troy from which the legendary one derives (this is fact). Yet, I don't believe in Zeus. I believe there was an historic King Arthur, yet I'm not a druid. Legends are commonly accepted to have some connection to an actual event, place, or individual. That's what we're talking about here when we distinguish the historic and divine Jesus. Of course it is controversial because Christians object to that distinction just as they object to distinguishing the origin of the Earth from creationism. So? Noloop (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there was a person on whom some of the Jesus legend derives, i.e. a historic Jesus. Then what was the point of your edit? The sources we used happened to be Christian, but since there is scholarly consensus, there is no need for the change. Soxwon (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit didn't imply there was no historic Jesus, so I don't understand your question. I've explained the purpose my edit repeatedly. Noloop (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Noloop, your edits have been reverted. For example, why is "Critical Biblical scholars and historians believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life" changed into "Christian scholars believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life." Other than your personal misgivings, what verifiable basis is there for this change? --Ari (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of the hateful way you express yourself to me. Hating in the name Jesus. Now that's a miracle. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My above post was so overwhelmingly hateful, right? Is that really the best justification you could bring for objections to your clearly POV disruptive edits? --Ari (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue is not what is the religion of the historian. Have we stooped to asking university professors about their personal beliefs? When it coms to history, any historian can recognize a bias like "The Bible is the revealed word of God" or "The Bible is historically accurate." We do not need anyone to tell us what their religion is. Conersely, it is easy to see when a historian rejects those assumptions. What is important is whether a historian applies to all 1st and 2nd century sources (including the NT) the same methods they apply to any historical source. The views described in the paragraph in question are those of critical historians. Their religion is irrelevant. But Noloop just wants people to think that this article is only about what Christians think. Sorry, Noloop, we include all significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the edits for the reasons I've explained a million times. When you use a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian as a source for a neutral factual claim about Christianity, readers should know. Slrubenstein, your characterization of the issue is a strawman. Nobody is saying all Christian historians are biased on all topics. Christians are biased about Christianity. Ultimately, Christians are harming their own cause. Non-believers who read this article, and notice that Evangelicals are being used as sources for historical claims, will just stop taking the article seriously. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A million times? Hah, hah. The paragraph that follows draws on the scholarship of over ten different authors. It does not matter whenther one of them is Jewish or Christian, Protestant or Carholic. The views in the paragraph are those held by critical historians. There is nothing "Christian" about the views in that paragraph. If a "non-believer" is too stupid to accept good scholarship from whatever source, it is that person's loss. Surely i tis not our fault if some of our readers are idiots. What is our fault however is the acts of our editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing Christian about the view that Jesus existed, huh? I'm not sure which paragraph you mean, since I edited two. One of my edits concerned a statement that was sourced to a single "scholar" (described by his Wikipedia article as a fundamentalist Evangelical). The other had two books (three authors). Not ten. You're arguing as if I am challenging reliability and trying to remove sources. That's wrong. I'm noting potential conflicts of interest, and trying to explicitly identify sources for readers. There's a big difference. Noloop (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer is not described as "a fundamentalist Evangelical". Please get your facts right. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective." [1] Noloop (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're citing the article. Where is Schaeffer described as "a fundamentalist Evangelical"? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The part that describes him as "Evangelical" and the part that describes him as "(promoting) a more fundamentalist Protestant faith" as well as the part that associates him with the religious Right and the part that associates him with "a conservative Puritan and Reformed persepctive." Maybe you could give a little, and explain your objection with some specifics. It seems rather obvious that, regardless of how we describe him, he is far from neutral and that should be mentioned to the reader. Noloop (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

These citations don't make him "a fundamentalist Evangelical" as you've stated. Maybe you should consider editing articles that don't challenge one's ability to remain neutral. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, we are also having very similar problems on the Historical Jesus article with certain editors from above. For example, most recently, the lead was changed to:

"Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all" Scholars Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy share the view, and argue that Jesus is just a derivative of pagan gods like Dionysus. The renowned scholar Joseph Campbell also compared the Jesus myth to the myth of Osiris." (emph. mine)

It seems that only sources of certain religious persuasion are being selectively prejudiced with epithets. All input appreciated. --Ari (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is canvassing, and is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Noloop (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a user who accuses everyone else for being Christian biased and citing sources selectively. I note that this user edits from an apparent anti-Christian point of view. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, Ari, I think you've been doing a great job on the Historical Jesus article. The funny thing about that Islamic guy is that according to Islamic beliefs, Jesus WAS a prophet (hence a real, historical person). So, his bias really doesn't make any sense. I guess he could be a young, recent convert to Islam, who hasn't yet learned this from his religious teachers. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased Sourcing

Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"

• 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
• 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [2]. Dunn is a theologian.
• 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". [3] (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
• 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[4]. NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)

• 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [5]
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [6]
• 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"[7]
• 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above. Noloop (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia policies. This is nothing short of bigotry. It's like saying we can't cite Cornel West on topics of African American studies due to racial bias. If you have valid criticisms and specifics, please get into them, but please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling people "bigots" is antogonistic. In the enxt step, I start calling you a "Christian bigot/zealot etc." and then you escalate, and so on. I've taken this to the reliable sourcing noticeboard: [8] Noloop (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c is quite right. Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest. This talk is for improving the article, and you have done nothing towards that goal. Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. Nothing you have posted here says that these scholars are bad scholars, or that what they have written takes a non scholarly view; you have shown nothing that says that their scholarship furthers a specifically Christian point of view. All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: to believe that a Christian historian, or the historian who has authored a book read by Christians, is not capable of adhering to the exact same standards and methodological principles as any other historian. In a few cases you correctly identify a scholar who is writing from a Christian point of view - but in the article itself, these sources are used to identify that view which opposes the "historical Jesus" view!! Of course devout or orthodox Christians are likely to reject the historical Jesus view held by most historians. But this is nevertheless a view we need to include in the article. Now, are you going to call me a Christian bigot/zealot? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was thoughtful. I guess we should just start calling each other names. You're right, claiming it's a fact that Jesus existed does nothing to "further a specifically Christian point of view". There is no connection between Jesus and "a specifically Christian point of view." If it's a historical fact that Jesus existed, why does the consensus about this fact exist only among Christians? Can you cite some peer-reviewed, non-theological sources that treat the existence of Jesus as fact? Noloop (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So, are we to only cite Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Neopagan, and Scientologist authors in the articles Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris (author), and Christopher Hitchens? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your assertion Noloop is that scholars really haven't questioned the existence of Jesus save for G.A. Wells and his small group. Most scholars don't talk about something that isn't up for debate. I scoured EBSCOhost and couldn't find any sources that really disputed Jesus' existence save for G.A. Wells. Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious what Noloop has to say about Bart Ehrman... -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If Noloop thinks I am just calling him a name, it is because he di dnot read my post. I made substantive points which he refuses to respond to. Besides Ehrman, this article presents the views of Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen. There is no doubt that the mainstream scholarly view is accurately presented. Noloop's test - if you think Jesus existed, therefore you are a Christian - shows such an incredible ignorance of both Christianity and history, that I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling. It is an attempt to defend this article from a POV pusher who rejects mainstream academic historical research, and who rejects our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, the problem is that the non-Christian historian community hasn't supported the existence of Jesus either. Editors are declaring that Christianity is right, and citing 90% Christians in support. Because, non-Christians don't agree (or disagree) that Christianity is right. That is wrongly represented as a mainstream consensus, and it is not a basis for excluding skepticism on the grounds that it's a fringe theory. Recently, on the Fringe Theories noticeboard, I demanded some peer-reviewed secular sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. User:Andrew c cited a priest. Noloop (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I bleive that Islam bleives in the exsistance of Jesus the man not Christ the son of god, mthe the christianity argument is a red herring. Asl ocan we have a source that says that the majority of non-chrsitna historian do not bleive in the exsistance of Jesus? Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They cannot just be any historian. A historian of medieval England is no authority on 1st century Roman occupied Palestine. The standard for historians is an bility to read original sources in the original language. We would want a survey of historians who know koine Greek and Aramaic, and are also knowledgable in the archeology of the region. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.161.70.55, 29 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

This entire Jesus wiki doesn't even mention Jesus leading a tax rebellion, or forbidding paying taxes. It only briefly mentions Matthew, and that Jesus sought tax collectors to heal them.

But, Just look at how much more is missing:

1. Jesus was publicly charged with the crime of "forbidding paying taxes." Luke 23:2.
2. Jesus was teaching that taxes belong upon "foreigners". And, "the subjects [children, sons] are exempt." Matthew 17:25-27
3. Jesus was completely surrounded by tax collectors who "were everywhere in the habit of coming close ... to listen to Him." Luke 15:1
4. Jesus was disrupting tax collections by taking tax collectors away from their jobs. Luke 19:8 , Matthew 9:9
5. Jesus was publicly tested over the subject of "taxes", by "hypocrites" who possessed and used the Caesar-is-god coin. Matthew 22:15-21
6. Jesus disrupted the moneychangers operations in the temple, thus disrupting the banking industry. He even called them thieves. Mark 11:15, John 2:15, Matthew 21:12 .... Notice, less banking = less money = less taxes.
7. Jesus taught, rich men don't get into heaven (since a camel will never fit through a needle's eye), and taught against the accumulation of money, and against the Caesar-god's money system... "With men this is not possible." Matthew 19:23-26, This would also mean less taxes, and would have resulted in a reduction or even the destruction of the moneychanger's (banker's) tax-money-slave system.
8. Jesus insulted the chief priests and elders (i.e. local authorities, local government, crime partners of moneychangers) by telling them "tax collectors and prostitutes will get into God's kingdom ahead of you!" - Matthew 21:31 And, Jesus taught; priests weren't necessary; hypocrites frequent church; and praying should be done at home, in secret. This would have also insulted all those other tax collectors, those who were perfectly happy taking other people's money (stealing).

Why does this Jesus wiki avoid Jesus on taxation? Jesus died for our sins, which was worshiping Mammon, another god, but none of that is even mentioned.

75.161.70.55 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:OR--Cube lurker (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "render unto Caesar" when asked about paying taxes in Mt. 22? But that really doesn't matter. We cannot publish your original interpretation of biblical verses. We should take care when presenting primary sources, and instead rely on published, notable interpretations by scholars. Do you have any sources regarding this you think meet our editorial standards? What section of the article do you think this is best presented in? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to historical section

I'm working on something like the following. I think we should give the reader an idea of the interesting contours of the debate. Right now, the section presents a facade of unanimity that doesn't even exist within the theological community, much less the mainstream historical community. This is just a rough start. Please make constructive suggestions, collaborations, etc.

Scholars agree on the existence of a wide range of teachings attributed to Jesus, and on historical evidence for the nature of early Christian movements. They disagree on the validity of a historically reconstructed Jesus. Princeton University professor of religion Elaine Pagels comments:

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more.” --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University.

William Arnal also argues that Jesus scholarship tends to be incomplete: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates".Noloop (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the citation for the Pagels' quote? Is it peer reviewed? Also, we normally don't give a laundry list of awards after someone's name, and I feel like you are presenting Pagels personal opinion as if representative of the whole of scholarship. Your first two sentences are not supported by the citation. And if we are going to start introducing quotes critical of historical Jesus reconstructions, what is stopping us from including quotes from the other side of the debate, who say studies of the historical Jesus work to discredit faith, and take too much away from Christ? I don't think we really need that sort of balance in this article, because in the lead we already state "Academic debate continues..." and "Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus..." and I feel that is enough. That said, I actually wouldn't mind having Pagels opinion in the historical Jesus article if it was sourced to something other than an online magazine's interview. You know something that is vetted by a publisher in some way (though not necessarily peer-reviewed, but I'm sure you'd agree that wouldn't hurt).-Andrew c

(reset) There seems to be a bug in Wikiepdia. I don't see your comment rendered on the page, although I see it in the history and edit box. Apologies for the list of awards. That whas accidentally included, via a hasty cut/paste. I will remove it. Noloop

I think its fixed..Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No one questions Pagel's expertise on the New Testament and Gospels that were rejected by th Church as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another ANI

Edds might like to comment here [9]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edds? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors.Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The first sentence is wrong: "Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE),[3] also known as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament."

Jesus of Nazareth is the historical figure, who is not considered to have walked on water, or had God as a dad. Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ are different ideas. From a neutral, scientific, encyclopedic persepctive, Jesus of Nazareth was probably real; Jesus Christ is a legend from a sacred text. Noloop (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While not agreeing with Noloop's reasoning, the term Christ means Messiah and of course He would mostly be known by this name by Christians and Muslims. TFD (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus is known as Jesus Christ. Even if you don't agree with the beliefs behind the title Christ, he is still known as that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the character, Jesus, in the Bible is known as "Jesus Christ." Jesus of Nazareth is the historical figure. Jesus Christ is the son of a god; he performed miracles. Jesus of Nazareth, as an actual historic human being, did not (from a scientific, encyclopedic perspective) do any of those things. They are different. Noloop (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being tendentious. Every one realizes that when a person says "Jesus" they mean the same person as "Jesus Christ". Find RS before you pursue this. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The two names are often used interchangeably. Without an RS saying otherwise let's not change this.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sorry Noloop, I think you're onto a non-starter here, and you would definitely need support from sources for your take on things. To me, JC and JoN are completely interchangeable. Maybe the historical Jesus wasn't even from Nazareth, who knows? --FormerIP (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)When people refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" they often do NOT mean "Jesus Christ". As for RS, look at the Jesus articles, e.g. "The Historical Jesus is a scholarly reconstruction of the first-century figure Jesus of Nazareth....The Historical Jesus is conceptually different than the Christ of Faith. The former is physical, while the latter metaphysical. " And "scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith". So which is this article about? the physical or the metaphysical? The Jesus of history or the Christ of faith? They are not same, they are not considered the same by scholars. Noloop (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus articles aren't RS, though. In any event, what you quote doesn't support the idea that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ should be considered different people. "The Historical Jesus is conceptually different than the Christ of Faith" is what it says. The historical Cary Grant was conceptually different from his persona in the public media. Does this mean we should state in the intro to his article that there were two of him? --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally: "different than"?? --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"So which is this article about?" Short answer. Both. This is the top level, Jesus article. Per NPOV, we cover all notable views. We have a section on the Gospels. A section on the historical view. A section on various Christian denominations. A section on Islam (and other religions). A cultural inpact section. If we were to make any changes based on your comments, it would change the scope of this article, and we'd have to delete entire section (and thus probably create a POV fork, as opposed to the content fork of an article like historical Jesus). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We provide all significant views on a particular thing, not a word. The correct way to do it is to decide what the most common intent is when people search 'Jesus", choose that topic, and have a reference to a disambiguation page for the others. Shoving all meanings into an omnibus article is not per policy; disambiguation is per policy. This is obviously not something that is going to change, due to certain dogmas among certain editors. However, what does need to happen is that the topic needs to be clarified in particular contexts in the article. Sometimes it is not clear which Jesus is being referred to. Noloop (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. And pretty much all views about "the Christ" in Christian theology are excluded from this article and instead placed in our Christology article. As for the title and object of this article's attention, all of our knowledge about a historical Jesus or a mythic Jesus starts with the same source material, the synoptic Gospels, and it is convenient to use this article as an omnibus for both views of Jesus. Anyone who writes about the historical Jesus knows that they are actually making an argument, that the person others consider Christ, was really a person and this (x y z) is what we know about him. So we have two views of a named person. To create a disambiguation page would be to create a POV fork, which is strictly forbidden by policy. In fact, we do have separate articles on Christ (Christology) and on the historical Jesus (Historicity of Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus) but the reason these are separate articles is that if they were ALL in here this would be one of the longest articles in Wikipedia and too long; the decision was pragmatic.

Besides, Noloop, you are making a tremendous historical error. You are using your own definition of "Christ." Surely you took the time to read the rest of our introduction and learn that "Christ" just comes from the Greek for "messiah" which is Hebrew for "annointed." But in the year 30 CE, a messiah was someone annointed in God's service - priests were messiahs and so were kings. Since Jesus was crucified, and Romans crucified people for sedition, we can infer that Jesus either claimed to be king or there were followers of Jesus who claimed that he should be king. But a king is a human being who is soveriegn over a kingdom. David was a king and thus a messiah; accordig to the Bible Cyrus the Great (king of Persia) was a messiah. A hundred years after Jesus, Simon Bar Kozeba was a messiah - he actually ruled over a small Kingdom in Jerusalem before the Romans finally defeated him .. and he was a mortal man. So in the year 30, to call Jesus "messiah" did not mean any of the things you claim. Back then, a messiah WAS a mortal man. You also misunderstand "son of God," I think - according to the Bible, King David was the son of God. For Jews, back then "son of God" meant an especially righteous person (today, many Jews just think all humans are children of God). So a son of God certain WAS also a mortal man. By the way, many mortal men were believed to have performed miracles. Pretty much everything Jesus did, Elisha and Honni the Circle Drawer did, and they were both mortal men (although you may not believe that they really performed the miracles attributed to them!). So I really have a lot of trouble making any logical sense of what you are saying. You keep using the word "science" but I am not sure you know what this word means. You certainly seem to be woefully ignorant about what mortal men in 1st century galilee or Roman-occupied Palestine were like, or what they believed. Do you know anything about this topic at all? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed a couple of photo images

Just removed two photos taken from ??inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?? No offence intended to the creator, but one was actually a photo of someone in the church, not a photo of the church, and the other was a not very clear photo of a slab of stone. The third photo image uploaded File:Christ after death,photo Jerusalam.JPG is lovely, and I've left it, but it could possibly do with a better caption. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 9 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias, means "anointed." ..jeho (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe your current phrasing in the Etymology section is superior.

"Jesus" (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšûă‘), meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".[25][26] "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Messiah).[27][28]:274-275

. Are you suggesting we replace out text with your text? Can you explain why you want this change? It seems to be less precise and less accurate than our current text. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewc, so I've cancelled the request for now; please discuss, and if there is consensus to change, use another {{editsemiprotected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I not intended to replace, but I just mentioned it would be useful for a general reader who know the name Jehovah when comparing to Yahweh.And as you know Jehovah is the anglicized form of Yahweh.So it would be good to also use the name Jehovah as in the catholic Encyclopedia to make the meaning more clearer.I have added like this "Yahweh(or Jehovah)" with a reference to the definition at catholic Encyclopedia(where it is given "Jehovah is salvation") in the web..Thanks for reply..jeho 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehonathan (talk • contribs)

 Not done

Rfc against Slrubenstein

Noloop has posted a request for comment concerning my behavior, in part at this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Religiously Biased Sourcing (again)

Again, here is the basis for my last edit (which was immediately reverted):

Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"

• 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
• 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [10]. Dunn is a theologian.
• 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". [11] (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
• 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[12]. NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)

• 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [13]
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [14]
• 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"[15]
• 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above.

The last time I presented this for discussion, I was promptly accused of bigotry. Let's see if we can have a more civil discussion the second time around. Noloop (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The real problem with the article is inconsistent use of sources, no doubt because many different peopel wrote this article over a long time. But there are critical historians who are cited in one part of the article (e.g. Vermes, Sanders, Fredriksen) who are not cited in this section. Why not?

As to Noloop's questions, for each source he mentions, I would ask him to provide a quotefrom the book or article itself saying that it is forwarding a Christian point of view. Or i would like a reliable secondary source that says that this book forwards a Christian point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, how long is going to take to get through to you that sources don't for one second have to be secular? Your objections are completely without merit. Wikipedia does not care about the faith of the source. It does not care if the publisher is exclusively religious, or if it is in a religious publication, or if the author is a theologian. You are objecting to the use of sources for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever.Farsight001 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, Farsight. A glance at WP:NPOV shows that WP does indeed care about the provenence of sources, and if it is the case that sources used in the examples quoted by Noloop are exclusively geared towards a Christian POV, then this ought to be at least acknowledged in the text of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No. NPOV dictates that the tone of the article be neutral, not the sources themselves. And even if it did, demanding irreligious sources as Noloop is would bias it in the other direction anyway.Farsight001 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not productive. It is disruptive to copy and paste archived topics that you have brought up before. You can link to the discussion if you have something NEW to contribute. You have not made any case that any of these sources don't meet WP:RS or WP:V (except possibly 118). And saying something sarcastically "sounds secular, huh" doesn't help us improve this article. Snide comments aimed at someone's religion is offensive, and has no place here at Wikipedia. SLR has explained to you why you cannot look at where a person went to school, or where they teach, and assume the things you are assuming. IMO, if you don't like the sources, you should find ones that meet your standard. Yes, YOU should do it yourself! I don't think this is a matter of us happening to have poor quality sources. I think you are disputing the content itself in a round about manner. You don't believe that historical Jesus research uses the historical method. You don't believe that a "great majority of biblical scholars accept a historical Jesus". Is this not true? Let's find a way to move forward, not backwards (repeating something over and over is moving backwards). Stating the religious nature of someone's background has NO BEARING on their ability to do secular scholarship, or our ability to use them as sources under our policies. If you have sourced problems with the specific sources (i.e. a reliable source disputing something found in one of our cited sources), then present that information. But your criticism of our sources above doesn't mean anything in terms of our policies on Wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Farsight: What "other direction" do you mean? Are you conceding that the text as it stands is indeed biased?

WP policy obviously can't do anything to alter the bias in sources. What it can do, though, is ensure that POV is not represented as fact. The most relevant policies, I think, are WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:PROVEIT. In this case we have the following text:

Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.

Which is presented as fact. However, two elements of it appear to be opinion: (1) that the historical method has been used; (2) that the reconstructions are "probable reconstructions". Per the policy, the statement should be properly attributed. This attribution won't be necessary, I think, if the contents of the statement can be shown to be undisputed or disputed only by a fringe, but the burden of evidence to show this lies with those who want the statement to be unattributed. --FormerIP (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS:

Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community...

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.[1]

So, according to WP:RS, the preferred sources are secular and peer-reviewed. All the sources, with the possible exception of Arnal, are predisposed to "promote a particular point of view". Few, with the possible exception of Arnal, have been vetted by a secular scholarly community; the Arnal source doesn't seem to support the text. Christians are biased on the existence of Jesus. We need to either alert the reader to lack of neutrality in sourcing, or improve the balance in sourcing.Noloop (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, Noloop, but think it is important to stress that nothing in policy indicates that a source is unreliable or a statement needs attributing just because the writer is of a particular religious viewpoint. The only question is whether the source or sources may tend to "promote a particular point of view", which would be the same question if the writers were all communists, vegetarians, Liberal Democrats or chess enthusiasts. --FormerIP (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Wikipedia doesn't single out religion. If all the sources in an article on public school were liberals and socialists, the same principles would apply. Balanced sourcing would be required, even if all those liberal and socialist sources were reputable and scholarly. So, my basic point is not religion-specific, despite certain accusations to the contrary. However, it is an interesting and relevant point that religion is uniquely biased. Only religion rejects fact and reason as the bases for belief. Refusal to be open-minded--to hold falsifiable positions--is the definition of bias. Left-wingers don't claim they are right simply because they have faith. Neither do atheists. Christians do. Noloop (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I have covered this multiple times before. It is extremely frustrating to deal with your repetitive arguments when you ignore anything I say. The policy you quote says or by well-regarded academic presses. Peer review is not a requirement, and there is NO way to construe "secular" from the text, in the way you use the term (codeword for atheist, as you do not count a source as secular if the author is Christian). Please stop repeating demonstratively false sourcing requirements. "Secular, peer reviewed... Secular, peer reviewed" saying it over and over does not make it true. If we can't get past this contrived requirement you are stuck on, then we can't move forward.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew I don't think "secular" is necessarily a codeword for atheist and (although I may be wrong about this) I can't see where Noloop has said that secular sources cannot be written by Christians. But let's forget the term "secular", since I don't think we need it here. What Noloop seems to be saying, as far as I can tell, is that we require sources that are neutral or evidence that the same views are held across the spectrum of belief (providing atheist sources would be an example of how this could be done). The sources he highlights (although there might be some discussion to be had about them) do not appear to be written by people who "just happen" to be Christians. They appear instead to be written from an explicitly Christian POV. WP should not present that POV as if it were fact.

What would be so bad, in any case, about giving some sort of attribution? --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am more cynical than you when it comes to Noloop's intentions, based on his criticism of John Meier, Bart Ehrman, and Helmut Koester, among others, stemming from discussions we had over the past few weeks (try to get Noloop to concede that Meier can do secular scholarship related to Jesus!) As to the ones we reference here, among them, Borg and Wright are big names in historical Jesus studies (one quite liberal, and one a bit more conservative). Dunn and Van Voorst are on the conservative side of the fence for sure, but they are still published, professional, notable scholars. As to what you said above, the conclusion I draw from your support of "attribution" would result in a sentence that says something along the lines of Christians believe the historical Jesus is a probable reconstruction using the historical method. Is this really the case? I'm also concerned about dragging out discusses all over again, ones which were already handled on other talk pages and noticeboards (specifically concerning the "majority view" stuff related to acceptance of a historical Jesus). I don't want to enable forum shopping.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of attribution, "Christians..." wouldn't be appropriate simply because many Christians will never have attempted to use any historical method or reconstruct the life of Jesus. Finding the wording that is just-so will require consideration of the source material, but if that is too much work for us, why are we here in the first place? (On Wikipedia, I mean).

Let's look at the source material for the statement: Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.

1. Schaeffer. I am not able to access this text. From information I am able to find on the internet, though, it seems clear that this book is evangelical and not scholarly in its character, and that the author is a fundamentalist. I would suggest that this book should not be used to support anything in the article other than the views of Schaeffer, if they are considered notable.

2. Dunn. The author is clearly a Christian and is writing for a (thoughtful) predominantly Christian audience, but his book looks very much worth paying attention to. The pages cited, however, seem to give a message which contradicts the text that they are cited in support of. He talks of a "hermeneutical tension between faith and history" and of the "quest for a historical Jesus" as being a "false goal". He says: "The 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a 19th and 20th century reconstruction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history".

3. Arnal et al. This looks like a very good source, but is difficult to be sure as to whether this supports the statement or not, since the cite gives no page reference. A cursory flick through, though, provides additional support for what is indicated by Dunn - ie that there is a body of opinion amongst theologians etc that the search for an historical Jesus is problematic in various ways or even a sort of fool's errand.

So, out of the three sources, we do not seem to have any support for the statement in the article. But we do have support for a quite different view which seems to be prominent amongst scholars. Perhaps the text should not only be attributed, but completely changed. --FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, based on the best available sources, not necessarily the ones that happen to be in the article now, if you were to have a one sentence summary of what the historical Jesus is, please propose a new text. One sentence introduction to the "historical view" section. Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What bothers me (and not sure why it doesn't bother anyone else here) is the last sentence of the first paragraph: Other scholars hold that the figure presented in the gospels is the real Jesus and that his life and influence only make sense if the gospel stories are accurate. which sites the Pope twice and a 1925 source. I mean, I understand some believing Christians have a hard time with historical Jesus scholarship, and maybe we do need to balance that, but the way we present the text seems very misleading, and probably has weight issues. Why did Noloop skip sources 115-117? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it incomprehensible that one single, apparently POV pushing, user is allowed to edit this and other Jesus-related articles. The user doesn't consider any arguments but his own, and refuses to listen to reason. Is this a favourable editing climate? I don't think so. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 06:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is ridiculous. Noloop has been going from article to article for some time now advocating for either the removal of all Christian sources as unable to work scholarly on the subject, or identifying all Christian sources as such, which, frankly, reminds me a lot of forcing Jews to wear a star of David on their clothes during WW2. There is no reason to listen to this ridiculous "suggestions." They have absolutely no merit in policy and they never will.Farsight001 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to concentrate on the content rather than the editor. Think you just demonstrated Godwin's Law a bit, Farsight. ;) --FormerIP (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So? Godwin's Law is not a logical fallacy. Demonstration of the law does not invalidate the analogy.Farsight001 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew: I wouldn't presume to say what the best sources are. However, from what I have read, it looks like two important things are missing from this section. Firstly, there seems to be a significant body of opinion within the field that views the quest for a historical Jesus as a form of literary exegesis (or hermeneutics), rather than a search for a historically authentic biography of Jesus. I hesitate only slightly, but it looks to me as if this may be the predominant scholarly view.

Secondly, from outside the field there seems to be some scepticism as to the scholarly value of at least some of the work done within the field.

At the moment, the section seems based on a false premise - that there is little controversy over the idea that it is possible to reconstruct the "real" Jesus using the available data. So I think the section needs some work overall. As for the first sentence, it does not appear to be supported by sources, so it should be deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew c that there are problems. Let's just ignore this Noloop ideological saga and work on improving the article. First, I have problems with the first line of the third paragraph in the introduction. This is how it rea a year ago:

Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life,

I do not know who changed it, but I prefer the older version which I think is more precise and accurate. It is not "Critical scholars," which implies all, it is most, not all. And not all sections of the NT have value, only parts.

As to the section later on in the Historical section, this section has major problems. first of all, any critical historian cited in the introduction must be cited in this historical section too. I think we then need to reorganize the presentation of views. It is fine to begin with the earliest moves towards a critical view of the NT. But once we reach the 20th century we need to divide up the different points of view and clealy identify them. I would also limit this section to views of historians. I do not care whether they are Christian or not, but they must be writing as historians that is to say grappling with certain historical questions rather than theological ones, and trying to reconstruct the history or put the text in its historical context and not further Christian views. If this means some of the sources must be removed from the section, I propose that there is a section on Christian views to which they should be moved. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sluberstein, think you need to be clear about how the sources you give support the statement you are proposing. Do any of the sources make a claim about "most critical scholars in the fields of history and bible studies", or is this your own assessment?

More importantly, though, it seems clear that most scholars who compose reconstructions of the life of Jesus do not hold these to be historically accurate (per the quote I gave from Dunn above), and this is really what is lacking in the text at present.

And it should be recognised that we are dealing with a branch of theology here, not history, so I do not think the idea of limiting discussions to sources written by historians makes sense, and I think it would be very hard to achieve (note that the sources you cite just above would all be arguably disqualified under this criterion). --FormerIP (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your source that "all" historians claim these things? Your statement "And it should be recognised that we are dealing with a branch of theology here, not history" is a blatant violation of NPOV. This article must contain all significant views, that means the views of historians as well as theologicans. You have no right to restrict this articel only to the views of theologicans. Section four is for historical views, and section five is for religious views. You have no right to delete section four, or to insist that we use it for theological views, when there is already another section just for those views. You are just trying to eliminate a view you do not like. Forget about that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've read what I wrote properly. I was objecting to the idea that only the views of historians should be considered, which you suggested in your last post. The topic is theological in nature, and it would be an error to see it as a matter of reconstructing the past as we might do in the case of Roman emperors, for example (an error which I think the section makes at present). That does not mean I think that the views of historians should be excluded. I also didn't use the word "all" at any point, so I don't understand why you are challeging me about this.

Whatever goes in the section needs to be properly sourced, and I think attention also needs to be paid to WP:RS/AC. --FormerIP (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be a mountain/mole hill situation. Ehrman, "I should emphasize that with respect to Jesus, or indeed any historical person, the historian can do no more than establish probabilities. In no case can we reconstruct the past with absolute certitude. All that we can do is take the evidence that happens to survive and determine to the best of our abilities what probably happened. Thus, scholars will always disagree about the end results of their labors. But nothing can be done about this: the past cannot ever be empirically proved, it can only be reconstructed". To Ehrman, the fact that there are many different reconstructions of a historical Jesus isn't problematic, and isn't unique to HJ studies. It plagues all historical studies to some degree or another. Ehrman discusses strict historical methodology, and doesn't go into any theological methods. But maybe the issue is that there are theological methods claiming to be historical Jesus studies?? Meier defines the historical Jesus as "the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research". He then goes on to say "Granted the fragmentary state of our sources and the often indirect nature of the arguments we must use, this "historical Jesus" will always remain a scientific construct, a theoretical abstraction that does not and cannot coincide with the full reality of Jesus of Nazareth as he actually live and worked in Palestine during the 1st century of our era." He goes on to give a hypothetical scenario where a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic have to come to a consensus statement regarding Jesus, "based on purely historical sources and arguments". I have no problem with the way our first sentence is phrased, though maybe we want to add a clause that historical constructs do not equate to an actual person? or mention that scholars don't agree on all the details in their reconstructions? The lead discusses this in this sentence Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement., but we don't go into details on the differences further down in the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've nailed the core issue there, Andrew, and, yes, the actual implications to Jesus studies are probably unproblematic. The implication for the article is just that the issue should be clarified, as you suggest. As it stands, the text may be taken as implying that scholarship has given some sort of independent validation to the contents of the NT. This isn't the case and, moreover, the idea that this would be a worthwhile endevour does not seem to be a prominent one (ie it is wrong to cast the issue as being something about Christianity versus atheism).

The problem goes slightly deeper, though, because the idea of "validation by historians" runs through the section, and this needs ironing out. It even slips into language like "The gospels demonstrate that...". To the possible objection "but that material is sourced" I would say that perhaps we need to scratch the surface a little. --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So you working on any proposals? Want to suggest how we should amend the first sentence? And would you agree that at least the parts I quoted from Meier support the ideas behind our current text, even if the wording needs tweaking: "Many Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life." Ehrman, likewise supports this text, but discusses methodology in an earlier section that I didn't quote. What are they missing that perhaps is found in Dunn or our currently cited sources? And what are they saying that we aren't saying. How should we phrase our sentence....-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP: I do not understand your point about Roman Emperors, above. All Roman emperors were pontiffs (before Roman Catholicism, I mean - they were heads of the sacrificial cults of the empire) and many of them were also gods, so I do not understand why you write, "The topic is theological in nature, and it would be an error to see it as a matter of reconstructing the past as we might do in the case of Roman emperors, for example" - it doesn't make sense to me. My point is simple: we have a section on historians' views and a section on religious views. It seems obvious to me that theological views belong in the section on religious views. My point was that any and all religious views currently in the historyical views section shouold be moved to the section on religious views. You seem to object. I still do not understand why.

The article currently states that "Critical Bible scholars ...." implying "all." I think we should change it to "many" since we cannot prove that all believe this. You objected to my proposal, so you must have some source that supports "all." otherwise, why would you object to my proposal? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is dodging the problem that 1) most of the scholars being mentioned are from the Christian community, while the article--which is supposed to be a secular treatment--claims that the consensus is widespread outside that community, and 2) the historical uncertainty isn't merely confined to whether Jesus was apocalyptic or educational, but extends to whether he is truly historical. Noloop (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You have only mentioned two sentences. Please consider inline POV templates, as opposed to tagging the whole article (or better yet, don't tag and run, but fix it yourself, or discuss it further). I don't think anyone agrees that there is much controversy over whether he is truly historical or most of the scholars being mentioned are from the Christian community. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew's concerns. You have not come even close to demonstrating your assertion that "most of the scholars being mentioned are from the Christian community," and you haven't provided any sources that support the contention that there's significant uncertainty about Jesus' historicity. So I've reverted the POV tag. Try focusing on smaller bits of the article text, and try to supply some sources that support your arguments. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The demonstration that most of the scholars are come from the Christian community is here. [16] The POV tag says neutrality is in dispute, which it obviously is, on this article and many other related ones. The Talk pages are full of editors disputing the neutrality of these articles. Noloop (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're simply repeating yourself, which is not the same as discussing things or supplying sources. You've objected to the sources in one section of the article, which is not a reason to tag the entire article. You might want to try {{POV-section}} instead. But, before you do, it would be nice if you could address the following points. Your assertion that the article requires "secular" sources is not supported by Wikipedia policy; nor have you provided a clear definition of secular, despite many users' requests for you to do so. It would be helpful if you would. Nor have you demonstrated that the scholars you've objected to "are from the Christian community"—what is the "Christian community", anyway, and how is it different from what you've been calling secular academia? Why does publishing a book with Eerdmans or Trinity Press mean that one is Christian, and not secular? And why is it that when someone belongs to this "Christian community", his/her scholarship is of only limited validity, such that it only relates to the views of the "Christian community"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." I've answered your other questions a million times. When I do so, they are promptly restated in distorted form for the purpose of calling me an ignorant POV-pushing bigot. So, I've lost faith that certain editors really care about what I think. If you do care, you can just look at my previous comments. Noloop (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at your previous comments, thanks. Your last comment is basically a repeat of stuff you've said before, and you should know by now that I don't find what you're saying convincing—you also don't respond to a bunch of my questions. Whoopee, Eerdmans publishes resources for pastors and churches. They also publish academic books—look here. There are books by James D. G. Dunn, Martin Hengel, James Charlesworth, Larry Hurtado, and other well-known scholars. The particular book you've objected to, Jesus Outside the New Testament by Robert Van Voorst, has been favorably reviewed in a number of journals, and is cited in several subsequent works of scholarship. So, the question is, why are books by this press only representative of the views of the "Christian community"? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. It's all about "convincing" you. Every time you characterize what I'm supposed to convince you of, you get it wrong. You have no understanding of what I think. Your general behavior suggests you have no interest in knowing what I think. Noloop (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are experiencing repeated difficulties in getting people to understand you, I would have to assume that at least part of the problem might be in your presentation. So far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing that individuals who are in any way Christian (including Muslim, presumably) should not be considered reliable sources on this topic. Why do you continue to assert that? I can see no good reason for such a claim. Like in most other religious subjects, the people who write about it most frequently will be, of course, individuals who have an interest in it, like, for instance, a religious interest. Nowhere in wikipedia, however, do we count "religious bias" as being grounds for alteration of content, unless it is content which clearly is soapboxing a particular viewpoint, and/or has received less than positive reception. If that is your concern, then, sorry, we go with reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. In some cases, like this one, the majority academic opinion does once in a while agree with a certain religious opinion. When that does happen, then it counts as the "mainstream" opinion, even if it does agree with a religious opinion. We really can't prevent religious opinions once in a while agreeing with academic opinions, you know. If you believe that your point is not getting through, then I would urge you to perhaps assemble a very clear and coherent statement in either userspace or offline and then come back and post it. However, it is not our obligation to make extraordinary efforts to try to come to understand statements which are not clear in and of themselves. Like in article space, effectively, the burden is on the person making the statement, not on the reader. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Sluberstein, I think the distinction between "historical" and "religious" here is the wrong one. A number of the sources (Meier, Dunn, a number of the contributors to Arnal and Ehrman, although less clearly) seem to be at pains to point out that Jesus they are reconstructing is not a historical figure. This doesn't mean that they don't believe that Jesus existed, just that their picture is, properly speaking, exegetical rather than historical. On the other hand, most of the writers are Christians, so it wouldn't make sense to put them in a category that implies that they are irreligious.

A better distinction might be "revealed" versus "rational" (I got this from the wikipedia page on exegesis). Some writers give a primarily faith-based interpretation of Jesus, and some attempt an examination which employs modern academic methods.

If the Roman example is unclear, take instead the example of Queen Victoria. There is a wealth of data about her and it is possible to put together a biography of her life and call it historically accurate. The same is not the case with Jesus, and writers in the field do not seem to be trying to claim otherwise. This is what needs to be clear in the article.

Turning to the first sentence, I think the way it is worded should be based on the sources. There are no sources for the sentence as it stands so it should not even be there. Your proposal may be better. I cannot access the sources, although I can tell from the fact that the page references are not specific that no particular statement about "most critical scholars in the fields of history and bible studies" is in there. Or "many..." by the same token. I may be able to tell you what I think the wording should be if you explain to me how the sources support the proposal you made. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop: I think if the issues I'm seeing in the article were addressed then your issue of whether the sources are Christian or not would go away (or, at least, be greatly reduced), because the clarifying information would show the limits to the implications of their work (ie the reader would not be misled in the way the text (IMO) misleads them at the moment). I'm not sure what you mean by the last bit, but if you mean that it may also be the case that Jesus never existed, then okay, but I think that's a slightly different matter from whether or not the sources are biased or properly reflected. --FormerIP (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are gravely mistaken regarding the "historical Jesus" being an exegetical construction. Ehrman and Meier clearly disagree, and say the historical Jesus is a secular, scholarly, historical, probablyprobable reconstruction. The only caveats are the ones that stem from general philosophy of history problems related to stuff like epistemological issues (how do we know for sure that anything actually happened like it was described in the past...) I don't believe either author is saying this is uniquely Jesus related, and I think the conclusions you are drawing above are way off base (which makes me think I have described Ehrman and Meier poorly, and I'm curious to know what you have been reading). Are you saying that there is no such thing as a "historical view" of Jesus (i.e. one derived from... umm... historical methods, ahem), and that maybe we should consider deleting it outright, and merging any relevant data in with the various religious views? I'd not support that! -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting merging information or doing away with the section at all, and I'm not claiming that the work of Ehrman etc is not secular, scholarly or historical (although I think "secular" and "historical" come with caveats, and I think "probably" is slippery here and I am unclear who has said this). There may be sliding scale between the different writers as to how they view their own work, but I think that it is obvious that there comes a point, in terms of epistemology, where you pass into exegesis if your only source material is scripture (this is my view, and I am not saying it needs to go in the article, but I think it is, like I say, obvious). The scholarship in question is of course historical to the extent that it benefits from the work of historians regarding the culture and environment of the time, but this is supplementary and interpretive, rather than corroborative, with regards to the life of Jesus.

What I am suggesting is that we could have a formulation that (1) does not deny the validity of the scholarship in question but (2) acknowledges the epistemological limits of this scholarship (thereby, hopefully (although it is not clear), going some way to satisfying Noloop) - again, I am not suggesting this means deriding it or undermining it or using the word "exegesis" - we may struggle a little over how to describe the limits, but it is clear that they are there and (3) does away with the thematic repetition implying that the world of academia validates the contents of the NT (thereby satisfying me). Potentially, everyone goes home happy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Meier, Sanders, and Fredricksen are most definitely trying to reconstruct a historical Jesus. The epistemological limitations are not specific to Jesus, they apply to any history. look at debates about African American hitory, and the speculation as to what cultural features were preserved from Africa or created in the US. This is only two hundred years ago and we have lots of historical records and historians admit they can try to do their best about what is most likely and not prove anything. But then again, the same is true for the structure of the atom, it has never been proven, physicists say it is the most they know based on incomplete information and they will never be sure. I do not see any epistempological issues facing Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, and Meier that do not face any other scientist or historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inb any event this whole discussion is BS and a massive waste of time bcause so far Noloop and FormerIP have not provided a single reliable source to support their views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What sort of sources would you be looking for? --FormerIP (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inb any event this whole discussion is BS and a massive waste of time bcause so far Noloop and FormerIP have not provided a single reliable source to support their views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So where do we stand here. Should we use the Meier and Ehrman citations since I don't have Arnal, and some objections have been raised to Arnal? Should we keep our same wording, or does anyone have proposed modifications or rephrasings? To me, I don't see why this is an issue. It's like defining the "yellow brick road" as a "pathways paved with yellow bricks", and really don't see why this needs a citation in the first place, let alone has caused all this trouble. Noloop, can you describe your concern. Do you believe the sentence is false? Do you think "Historical Jesus" is a misnomer, or that scholars are lying when they use that term or what? Or do you just not like Arnal, and would be ok with Meier and Ehrman (or do you have new sources to suggestion?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to rectify the inconsistency between the sources used in the introduction (that introduce all major views) and the subsections.

• When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, I think that the crafting of the accounts of the major views, and the sourcing, in the introduction is superior to that in the historicity.
• I think that among critical scholars we should consistantly be sure to include the views of Sanders, Fredricksen and Vermes who are at least as well-respected as Meier and Ehrman
• In the historicity section, I think we have to be much clearer in distinguishing between critical scholars and religious scholars. I do not agree that all Christians (or scholars who were trained or teach at seminaries or divinity schools) are "religious scholars." But some are and right now the section is not clear who. We do have to make the distinction clear. Books or articles in which the author speaks as a believer to an audience of believers should be distinguished by books in which the author speaks as an historian to other historians or students of history.
• I think it is reasonable to provide a summary of how historians themselves distinguish between a properly historical argument and a theological argument. There should be a way to do this without inflaming anyone on any particular side.
• Also, when it comes to historicity there are several distinct debates: debates among non-specialists starting with the Enlightenment, that might reasonably extend to include Bertrand Russell; debates among critical historians; and debates among Christian theologians who are reacting against or responding to the work of historians. I think an account of each of these debates belongs in the historicity section, but I think each one merits a separate paragraph and should be kept distinct.

I regret that I have no time to work on this right now but I know that Andrew and Leadwind know most of these sources and perhaps have access to all of them. I am pretty proud of the introduction, but the section on the debate over a historical Jesus, and the section on Jesus in his historical context, are by comparison pretty messy.

• I think the section on Jesus in his cultural and historical context really should (1) be clear that it is more about Jewish history than about Jesus ... and (2) be clear that the point is that historians read sources in their historical context, so that written texts like the gospels are one kind of "source" (which we describe at length) but all information - from written or material artefacts - about Jewish life in 1st century Judea and Galilea is another kind of source, used to interpret the first kind of source. I think this needs to be clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see I've missed quite the controversy. Lucky me. Here's my take: the historical existence of Jesus represents mainstream scholarship. See the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article, for example. That article also conveniently lists the top authors on the topic. For your convenience, I'll list them: Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, C.H. Dodd, Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, Raymond E. Brown, Morton Smith, Paula Fredriksen. Since WP articles are based on mainstream scholarship, it's appropriate to treat Jesus as (most probably) historical, even if some of the sources are Christians. As an atheist with little patience for religious bias, I'm impressed by the neutrality of this article (though the four-gospels section still seems to make sense only from a Christian POV). Leadwind (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue here isn't the mainstream-ness of the scholarship. Various sources (including writings by some of the scholars you list) are keen to distinguish between an "historical" Jesus reconstructed through examination and consideration of scripture and what most people would understand as an "historical Jesus" (ie an authentically drawn human being who actually walked about 2000 or so years ago). This is far more than regular epistemological doubt - we don't find the same sort of distinction made in biographies of Winston Churchill, for example.

Our article fails to draw this distinction, and so it misrepresents the scholarship and quite significantly misleads the reader and inclines the article at certain points to a non-neutral POV. Statements like "The Gospel tradition has certainly preserved several authentic fragments of Jesus' teaching" and "The gospels demonstrate that Jesus ... was executed on political charges" are (IMO) ludicrous. We even have a whole section on the teachings as Jesus written as if it is factual.

Completely ignored, as well, are the sources that criticise the enterprise of trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus. It is not at all clear why the article takes a controversial area of academic study, presents it without mentioning any controversy and then goes still further by markedly overstating its claim to historical authenticity. --FormerIP (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. Noloop (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The same issues apply to the article Historical Jesus. I've added a proposal to the Talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@FromerIP, you mention "historical Jesus" twice as if you were talking about two different things rather than the same thing; I do not understand, can you explain? Also, what do you mean by "regular epistemological doubt?" Also, Winston Churchill is a bad conversation as there are people alive who remember his funeral. A better example would be Pythagoras. If we really must make comparisons, lets pick reasonable ones like Pythagoras. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction I am making is between an "historical Jesus" who lived and beathed and carried out (un)certain activities during the early part of the first century and the "historical Jesus" of New Testament scholars who, in spite of the name often given to him, is, in Dunn's words "not a figure in history". Various sources make a similar distinction. Moxnes in Arnal et al (p135) distinguishes between the "historical Jesus" (who "we cannot reach") and the "historian's Jesus" (who we contstruct). I think this is a useful way of desctribing the distinction.

"regular epistemological doubt" - The idea that scholars are "always cautious", so their caution in this case in unremarkable would be a red herring. Sources do not normally draw attention to their lack of certainty without good reason. Normally, if sources express caution, this caution should be noted in the relevant WP article. This article should be no different.

As for Pythagoras, what I would note is the second sentence of his WP article: "Most of our information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, thus very little reliable information is known about him". The Jesus article, in contrast, strikes far too confident a tone, even to the point of certainty, regarding certain details of the life of Jesus. This isn't in conformance with NPOV and it doesn't properly reflect the epistemological position of the sources on which it is based. --FormerIP (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the way you describe it now, it sounds a lot more like William Shakespeare - all historians agree he existed, but many point to the dearth of sources on his life and a recent biography of his was harshy criticized for presenting a reconstruction based largely on information about the lives of other people of his time, and speculation, the point being that one can try to reconstruct his life but that is all historians can do and there will always be a gulf between that reconstruction and Shakespear's actual life. I suppose the same thing can be said about Socrates. It sounds like, the further one goes back in time, the more this is true about anyone. Sanders points out that the quality of sources concening Alexander the Great's life are comparable to what we have for Jesus' life. Perhaps this should be quoted - but I think it belongs more in the Historicity of Jesus article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One big difference between Jesus and Alexander the Great is that the Gospels are prima facie not credible. If the only sources for Alexander the Great said he was the son of Zeus, walked on water, practiced exorcism, and rose from the dead--in other words, made him sound very much like a mythical figure--it would be a lot more natural to doubt the existence of Alexander. Likewise, if the bulk of scholars who believed Alexander existed were worshippers, that would be a tad dubious too. Why don't we believe there was a historical Dionysus? Also, the evidence for Alexander seems a tad better: there are known contemporaneous sources, which, even though lost, are not doubted. That's not true of Jesus. (The Q is doubted.) Noloop (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually Plutarch does suggest tht Alexander's father was Zeus. The fact is, historical sources from that period - a little earlier, like Heroditus, but even later - report the most bizarre claims that, if made by any history book today, would lead everyone to reject the books as fundamentally discredited. Yet we rely on them for everything we know about the classical world. The fact, any historian of ancient Greece and even Ancient Rome needs to learn how to read the sources critically, and distinguich between what is confirmed by archeological evidence, what is credible because it is consistent with everything we really do believe about the time, what is possible but dubious, and what simply must be rejected. I find it interesting that the Jesus articles include discussions of the sources, their limitations, and how they are used by historians, whereas WP articles by Alexander - where modern historians also have to be critical and discerning and skeptical - actually tell us nothing about the sources, their limits, and how modern historians deal with them. I think this is a real flaw in our articles on Alexander and Socrates and other figures from the past where we have even less certain evidence of their lives. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to veer off into a discussion about Alexander, it is not correct to say that we have "even less certain evidence" of his life. We actually have a fairly healthy amount of contemporaneous data on him spread over a wide geographic area, including coins with his head on, paintings of him, dedications to him and even letters and orders composed by him, as well as biographical fragments written during his lifetime. We have no contemporaneous data about Jesus, so the two cases are really quite different in that respect. Where they may be similar is in that in both cases there is a body of literature written some time later with the intention of propagating myths about their respective subjects, which historians ought to be sceptical about. Here is what a historian says:

It has been said that the search for the historical Alexander is something like the search for the historical Jesus. Many contemporaries had an interest in preserving a version of what he said and did [but] those writers whose words have survived all had an interest in recording, or creating, a particular image of their hero or villain...In other words, although the surviving evidence is quite ample in quantity, it is poor in quality, being contradictory, tendentious and mainly non-contemporary. In this respect we can dismiss at once the Alexander Romance. - Paul Cartledge, Alexander the Great, pp 244-5

If there is indeed a valid comparison between the two cases, then this is roughly the equivalent of dismissing the New Testament out-of-hand as inherently unreliable. So the comparison undermines the case for proclaiming an "authentic" historical Jesus, rather than supporting it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Socrates has been mentioned, here is a question: I don't have access to a copy of Saunders, but assuming he does make a comparison, and assuming this comparison has led you into a false impression that the data available about Alexander is comparable to that available about Jesus, why do you think a writer might do this? --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Former IP, you misinterpreted me in good faith. When I wrote, "I think this is a real flaw in our articles on Alexander and Socrates and other figures from the past where we have even less certain evidence of their lives," the word "and" was meant to mark a nominal phrase, apart from "Alexander" and "Socrates." I maybe should have written "and other figures from the past, for whom we have less certain evidence of their lives." By "less" I meant, less than Alexander, even less than Socrates. I also note that you misinterpret the general sense of what I wrote, which is not about whether or not there was an authetic historical jesus, but that ny historical research from antiquity involves a good deal of discussion concerning the limits and unreliabilities of the sources and how then a modern historian must use them. My point was that including coverage of this discussion is good. That we include coverage of this discussion for Jesus is good. Of course the sources for Alexander, Socrates, and Pythagoras are different than the sources for Jesus, but they are limited, have unreliable elements, and must therefore be used with care by modern historians too - yet our articles on these characters lacks any coverage of such isues, and that I say is a weakness of those articles. otherwise, I stand by what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe I have been misinterpreting your position. Here is approximately what my position would be...

1) The article at present makes certain claims about the life of Jesus as if they were "official" and validated by academia. My view is that it is okay to report these things (subject to them being properly supported by sources), but we should be clear that they are the constructions of biblical scholars and not established "fact". This could be done in a number of ways, and I would suggest that including an overview of different attitudes to the scholarship would be the best way.

2) Claims that scripture "demonstrates" anything should be excised. We can say that something is the case according to scriptural accounts, for example.

3) The structure of the article may (or may not) be problematical, but there are NPOV issues that ought to be dealt with as a priority, and I think it will only be possible to see the best structure after this is done.

4) There are legitimate issues about maintaining respect for religious belief. Serious Christian scholars do not get embarrassed about an inability to conclusively prove facts about Jesus, and we should not get embarrassed on their behalf. At the same time, I make no case for an atheistic rubbishing of the scholarship. In fact, I think a good test of any example of scholarship in this area is the extent to which it is immune from atheist objections. I am opposed, however, to an exclusively Christian reading of the scholarship. Further, there are legitimate Jewish and Muslim interests in this area of study which should not be resisted in the way the article is constructed and expressed.

5) In the longer term, perhaps, there may be a case for constructing the article so that it is about multiple Jesuses. At present, I think it labours under the assumption that we are obliged to consider a core Jesus and then various differences of opinion about him (which are not even properly represented, I might add). This may be a little ambitious as an immediate objective though.

How far do you agree or disagree with these points. --FormerIP (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few New Agers who wouldn't necessarily be called Christian also accepted the historical existence of Jesus, such as the Church Universal and Triumphant. He couldn't have travelled to India and learned from the teachers there if he never actually existed. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop and SR

I cannot in good consience retract my assertion that Noloop has made bigoted comments. However, it was unnecessary and wrong to personalize it by saying that Noloop himself is bigoted. For what it is worth, I apologize for that and through this statement retract comments about Noloop him/herself. I will strive in the future to limit myself to addressing editors' comments, rather than editors themselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On Yahweh (or Jehovah)

Aren't they really the same thing? Don't they both derive from YHWH and JHVH, which both derive from יהוה? Given that Latin does not have a J or a W (and that Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek have none of those 5 letters), how is Jehovah any more an invented spelling than Yahweh? JimWae (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that Hebrew is typically associated with the Jews who typically use Yahweh to refer to God, where as the use of Jehovah may more often be associated with Jehovah's witnesses who use that term exclusively.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard Mormons and your standard run-of-the-mill Christians refer to their god as Jehovah. For whatever that's worth. Jess_talk|_edits 06:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It gets used in popular culture a fair bit ("Life of Brian" anyone?), but why does it need to be used in this particular place in the article? We're talking about a statement that explains the etymology of the name of Jesus, which means "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)" according to the article. Someone wants to change this to "Yahweh (or Jehovah) delivers (or rescues)." This may have been done from an intention to make the article more accessible, on the theory that English speakers know the form Jehovah better, but edits that introduce alternative forms, additional parenthetical statements, etc. generally make text more confusing. What's more, if you read the article on Jehovah with careful attention to the footnotes, especially footnote 6, you'll see that the Jehovah pronunciation developed long after Jesus' time (and obviously didn't enter English until long after Jesus' time); it's a bit weird to have an etymology explaining the name of an ancient person with a pronunciation that wasn't used until centuries after his death, when a more accurate pronunciation is already used. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I was actually typing out something similar and got the edit conflict. There is no reason to have Jehovah in the etymology section. Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The name Jehovah is in the King James Bible. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And the King James bible is an atrociously and notoriously innaccurate translation. So I have to wonder why it matters.Farsight001 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is, beyond reasonable dispute, the most influential work of literature in the history of the English-speaking world. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That still isn't a reason to include it parenthetically in the etymology section of this page; I agree with Akhilleus that it would make it more confusing. Nor would it add value to the etymology. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong view on this, but Jehovah seems to be a familiar form to many people. Why would we seek to exclude it? What is the basis for preferring Yaweh or something else? --FormerIP (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see a need for both to be included there. Yahweh or Jehovah, just not both. I don't have an ideological reason for including Yahweh and excluding Jehovah, but in google scholar Yahweh has 30.9k results, and Jehovah, excluding references to JWs, has only 24.6k. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's not an overwhelming difference, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We still don't need both, I say. We've argued it more than I care about it at this point though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' purpose

Will anyone object if this section is removed? It has no secondary sources. It's only sourced to scripture. It is too confessional for WP, I think. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Islamic family tree

Family Tree of Jesus amongst 6 Islamic Nabi

Adam1
Noah2
Ibrahim(Abraham)3
Ishmael		Ishac (Issac)
Adnan (b.122 BC)		Yaqub(Jacob)
Abdul Muttalib		Eysa( Jesus)5	Musa(Moses)4
Abadullah(d.570 AD)	Abu Talib (d.620AD)
Muhammad(d.632AD)6
Fatima(d.11 AH)	Ali (d.661 AD)
Hasan, Husain(d.680AD)
Islam

I agree with Andrew's reasoning that it needn't be included here if it is already at Jesus in Islam. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd also like to note that the revert was an abuse of "rollback" and would ask an uninvolved editor to issue a warning or take whatever further actions they feel necessary.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Roll back is done with specific reasoning ,clearly explained , the mass viewer of Jesus do not refer Jesus in Islam and they would never know the fact that Jesus, Mohammad and Moses are basically from same root and this makes lot of difference. The table is included in islamic section of main page Jesus and I feel it can be considered for inclusion,pl.cooperate .--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't even have a source. I would consider removing your family tree tables from all articles on the grounds of being original research. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear,It is not a original research, It is from facts narrated in all history and religious books ,unaccountable sources.--Md iet (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's not original research, then provide the research. But without a proper source, we can't really include it in an article.Farsight001 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The table contains many of patriach and their family tree already exist in article Patriarchs (Bible),most of member has articles on their name( already linked)which further clarify their Genesis link. These articles further have their own source details,and hence table is linked to all proper sources please.--Md iet (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above the table is informative to all & having reliable sources.Hope, there is consensus to add it to article.--Md iet (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You say it has reliable sources, but you do not provide them. So far I see no consensus. The Gospels provide two diferent lineages and these are the subject of much interpretation by Christians and by historians, I do not see how we can include lineages without providing summaries of the debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I confess I have no clear idea what this 'family tree' is actually supposed to show. Why are these specific individusals picked out? What does the box structure mean? As far as I can see it says that both Jesus and Moses are descended from Jacob, which tells nothing more than that they are both Israelites. The others are descended from Adam and Noah. But then, so is everyone else - in Biblical terms - so this tells us next to nothing. You might as well include Julius Caesar as one of Jesus's relatives. The only significant point is that the Arab/Ismaelites and the Israelites are linked via Abraham, but we don't need a big box to tell us that. Paul B (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable sources ,I have clarified the matter, Do you think that Wikipedia present articles are not reliable source? then which encyclopedia to accept?Article Patriarchs (Bible),section "Family Tree of Certain Patriarchs Mentioned in the Book of Genesis' clearly give lineage from Adam to Jacob,Ishmael and Issac.Islamic linkeage very much clarified in individual person's page.Muhammad,Abdul-matalib ,Ali,and Ishmael page clearly spell link down upto Husain.Jacob Issac, Jesus,Mary and Moses article further link each other. Each article clearly speaks of their link and all are supported by reliable sources,otherwise how come they got space in Wiki.Which other reliable sources you further require? There can be different view on lineage,but this is also one of view acceptable and WIki accept all point of view .Please to have Consensus,we have to think in broader respective and decide.--Md iet (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No one disputes that Jesus and Moses are both, according to the Bible, descended from Jacob. I've no reason to doubt that your Islamic figures also descend in the way you describe, but this is useless information. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Md iet, you ask if a Wikipedia article is a reliable source. This question is evidence that you actually do not know our policies. If your edits do not comply ith policies, they will be deleted. Do not ask us what is a reliable source. Instead, read WP:RS and comply with it. Do not say you are not doing original research when you are. Read WP:NOR and comply with it. You should not try to change this encyclopedia when you have not reviewed the basic policies for editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a problem of reliable sources. All this chart shows is undisputed biblical genealogy combined with traditional Islamic genealogy. So we have Adam - Noah - Abraham, splitting to Ismael and Jacob, then Moses and Jesus as descendents of Jacob on the right, with Mohammad's ancestor Adnan, then his grandfather & father on the left, as descendents of Ismael. Mohammad himself, his daughter and grandsons then follow on the left. The problem is that this is obvious and irrelevant once you work out what it shows, but the chart is condensed, it's not at first obvious to reader what it's intended to tell us. Its connection to Jesus is minimal. Paul B (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dear Paul for kind understanding of table and its undisputed genealogy.This table has nothing new but it has condensed information placed at one place ,which corelate three religion and help make understand that they are generated from same source. As time elapsed, god created one prophet after another to enlighten human,whenever there is additional need he felt,and all is for betterment of human kind. Islam believe in this policy ,and take things in broader perspective,and treat Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad in a sequence and feel part of their belief.They proudly accept Moses,Jesus as part of them.Many people take it otherwise due to ignorance and give them different shape,they claim proprioty over them and creat dispute. This I want to avoid through this table and make understand all that all religion are generated from common, creatred for betterment of human kind, we should accept all better things told by one after another and respect all.

Dear Paul, you are correct pointing out why such a big box to tell a simple thing you correctly understood and summarised. But problem with all of us is that simple things are always made and expressed in such a fashion that we all get confused and start fighting to show which one is correct. Same has happened with religion and we are fighting amongst ourselves.

The table is headlined as 'Jesus amongst Six Islamic Prophet',hence all 6 prophets are to be enterlinked and for Muhammad it was made further two stage down to give it more impact for islamic fellow as Ali,Hasan & Husain carry equal significance to them.These stages can be removed but linking 6 prophets hence 3 religion is important. The table can also be more better presented in form of tree,which I would further try . The table is to be included in all the Prophets article ,let it be under section of Islamic view, as Islam follow 6 Nabi'Prophet" principle, and we do not want to do any original research as per Wiki policy ,correctly pointed by dear Slrubenstein.

Dear Slrubenstein,thanks for your kind suggestion and guidelines given. I tried to point out the reliable sources only,which I suppose you want to list it again from the article pointed out by me. But as pointed out by Paul, they are obvious.

Hope, we may agree of inclusion with my above point of view ,any further suggestion is welcome.--Md iet (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Modified tree is as follows;

Jesus amongst 6 Islamic Nabi Adam, Noah, Ibrahim(Abraham),Musa(Moses), Isa( Jesus)& Muhammad along with Ishmael, Ishac,(Issac),Yaqub(Jacob), Abadullah and Abdul Muttalib

--Md iet (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope now everybody agree for inclusion of this new Tree of Nabi(Prophets) in the article with heading 'Isa( Jesus) amongst 6 Islamic prophets' as sub section of Islamic view. If there is no further suggestion, it may treated for consensus now?--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would treat this now as acceptable,and in next step it will be included in the article please. --Md iet (talk) 06

05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeshu

User:Hearfourmewesique has added the following:

"Some religious Jews interpret the commonly abbreviated name Yeshu יֵשׁוּ as the acronym for Yimakh sh'mo u'shem zikhro יִּמַח שְׁמוֹ וּשֵם זִכְרוֹ (meaning "be his name and memory erased").<r>"Ariel Cohen Alvero – Jesus and The Promised Land". Dr. Zvi Sadan. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)</r>"(diff)

I've removed it as its relevance is limited. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain "its relevance is limited?" Isn't the relevance of anything in Wikipedia "limited?" Why do you think it is limited in a way that justifies removal? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hearfour.. has reinstated the passage with more sources. The relevance of the passage is limited because it gets into a controversial, speculative and specialistic definition of "Yeshu" without first treating the matter that "Yeshu" is the common Hebrew name for Jesus. The name Yeshu is not quite the same in historical Hebrew as it is in modern Hebrew, and thus there are quite separate issues. And anyway what Hebrew-speaking Jews call Jesus currently isn't all that relevant, especially without first treating the variance: Jesus had a Hebrew name, and its not quite the same name used in modern Hebrew. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have re-added the statement, but I have also reworded it so that the primary piece of information will be (justly) that Yeshu is the commonly known name in today's Israel. While I personally strongly disagree with the definition of Jesus being the enemy of Judaism for trying to change it around, mentioning it seems fairly relevant since Jesus was from the land of Israel. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I do not understand is why it matters what word is popular in Israel today? There is no evidence at all that Yeshu was a name any Jew used for Jesus at the time of Jesus -isn't this relevant? "the enemy of Judaism" is not a definition, it is a view, and not really relevant here either, we are discussing the view that Jesus is the enemy of Israel - that is why Jews would wish his memory erased. In fact, this is a view Jews held for a long time and I do not see why this view should be erased from the article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was challenging Judaism for "going astray". This was frowned upon by the Sanhedrin, who issued a Pulsa diNura against him. He was proclaimed as the enemy of Judaism, which indirectly makes him the enemy of Israel. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The view that Jesus was challenging "Judaism" as "going astray" is a Christian view. Most historians do not see Jesus as very different from any number of preachers; moreover, Jews have a long and hallowed tradition of accusing one another of going astray - any Lubavitch on the nearest streetcorner will tell you that it is a shande how many Jews have gone astray, no one looks down on any Jew who chastizes Jews for going astray or for encouraging them to return to God.

Most historians do not believe that Jesus was accused of "going astray" from Judaism during his life - this is a specifically Christian point of view. Without a doubt, Christian who broke away from Judaism are seen by Jews as having gone astray, and any Jew who thinks Jesus was the founder of Christianity understandably blames Jesus.

In any event, none of this explains your edit. Yes, Yeshu is Yeshua minus one letter - this does not make them etymologically connected. "Ill" is "Bill" minus one letter but they are not etymologically connected. "Henr" is "Henry" minus one letter and it is unsure what if anything it means. That is how linguists treat Yeshu. At the time Jesus lived, there was a good Hebrew and a good Aramaic word for Joshua, and we find both in the Talmud and in other more contemporary sources. "Yeshu" is limited to a small number of related stories and is not found anywhere else. Some people do claim that it is meant to refer to Yehoshua or to Yeshua and they have to provide their own little drashes as to why the termination is dropped, but they have no linguistic evidence to support this. And there are citations at the end of the sentence that say so. moreover, the Toledot Yeshu, the principle source for stories about Yeshu, provide the explanation that Yeshu means "may he be forgotten," so this is a meaning known to anyone who knows the stories. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfour.., the point here being, the etymology section of this article is not the place to mention yemach.. and if we were to, it would have be put in a kind of context - the kind of context which the Yeshu article does have, and which this article does not. I support the idea of mentioning "Yeshua" as Jesus' historical Hebrew name, and that (by the way) in modern Hebrew is it "Yeshu," but even that mention is particular as the way modern Jews regard Jesus is of limited relevance. I support linking to the Yeshu article only for its etymological relevance, and do not support getting into its particulars here. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeshu is not Jesus' biblical name and there is no evidence to suggest this. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading what I wrote. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! I did misread what you wrote. I obviously agree with you that Yemach does not belong in the etymology section (I do believe it is appropriate in the Jewish views section). I also do think that linking to the Yeshu article addresses most issues. By the way I think we shoul dlook at modern Israeli historians before making any flat-out statements about Jesus' name in modern Hebrew .... I have heard people refert o Jesus as Yehoshua which is of course Hebrew for Joshua. I believe Hearfour when he says Israeli's call him Yeshu, but we have to ask, "which Israelis?" I would not be surprised in Haredi Israeli's who read the Toledot Yeshu call him Yeshu, or if some secular Israelis call him Yeshu transliterating from the latin ... but I would be pretty surprised in Israeli historians and other academics called the historical/Gospel Jesus "Yeshu." Anyway, sorry I misread you Steve. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your straightforward approach. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Note, the he:Talk:ישו has some interesting discussion along the same lines. How much difference a little "ע" makes, I dunno. I suppose it depends on what exactly is meant by excluding it. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Excluding" is a loaded word, it describes a deliberate act. In English there is a word "pot" and a word "post." Is the letter "s" excluded from the word "pot?" No, because if the leter "s" is included, then it is no longer the word "pot." All we can say is two words are different. One can always ask, what difference does the letter (or phoneme) make? I think all linguists would answer: one can only know the answer to this question by knowing the rules of grammar and the history of the particular language in question. There are no general principles that apply to all languages, so there is no basis for answering these questions unless one really knows the history and grammar of the language. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And that would be improper, wouldn't it, to argue that Jews refuse to call Jesus by his actual name ("Yeshua") for political reasons.. In any case it makes sense to use Yeshua/Yehoshua to avoid any possible associations with either the Toledoth or yimach.. To that purpose, I note that the Hebrew article allows for both ישו and ישוע, ostensibly to accommodate both of the divergent.. phonologies. There are "no general principles that apply to all languages? Eh? See linguistic universal and Greenberg's linguistic universals.

-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Those "universals" are more like statistical probabilities. In any case, I do not understand the rest of your comment. Jews do not refuse to call Jesus "Yehoshua." That is why some Jews claim that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus. The person whose memory is to be blotted out is not, some say, Jesus. There are other views about Yeshu, my point is simply that Yeshu is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic for Yehoshua, which is why so many scholars have hypothsized and spculated as to what it means. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's why current scholars speculate about why some people use "Yeshu" at all. Hence the issue that brought us here, namely the idea that Jewish perspectives, including Yemach, are relevant. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I moved them to "Jewish views," on this I think we agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we do. Passages in articles always require proper context. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy regarding his existance

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3767487358149440770 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a conspiracy. That's the Zeitgeist video. About a tenth the accuracy and scholarship were put into that "documentary" as was put into Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed, which is saying something, because Expelled was quite shite too. 45 errors in the first 5 minutes does not a documentary make.Farsight001 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian Christmas Celebration on January 7

The article says Armenia is the only country that celebrates Jesus' birth on the 6th of January. Ethiopians follow the Coptic calendar, making his birth-day fall on the 7th of January.

Check http://www.selamta.net/Ethiopian%20Calendar.htm or any Google search for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.153.25 (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization: "He" vs. "he"

There is no reason to capitalize "he" or "his" when refering to Jesus. Other articles, namely that of Buddha, Krishna, or Moses do not use the irregular capitalization when referring to other deities. Putting the undue emphasis with reference to Jesus implies a Christo-centric (and possibly Islamocetric) worldview which further implies a POV on the part of editors. As neutrality is requrired the irregular capitalization should be removed. JewishLeftist (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Along this line, I'll point out that not even the bible typically capitalizes "he" or "his" when referring to God.Farsight001 (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that, then why would some do? Bamtelim (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of Jesus mythology was based on older mythology

Why is there no mention here of the fact that Jesus is based off of other gods? It is very well documented in RS like this: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/bull_killer/

There really should be at least one section detailing the origins of the Jesus myths e.g.: born of a virgin, died and came back to life after emerging from a cave, miracles etc ... and then perhaps a link to an article that goes into more detail.

Also see Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#History_and_Interpretation

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please look through the many many discussions that we've had on this same subject. The "Jesus-is-a-copy-of-other-religions" thing is a myth. It is not found in credible scholarship. Oddly, not even the link you provided. You might want to read it more closely.Farsight001 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a myth it is an historical fact - read Cicero, Josephus, histories of Constantine, and the vrious ecumenical councils for the cobbling toigether of Christianity. There is nothing mythologucal about this viewpoint and "scholarship", as you call it, is not required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.110.132 (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And Carly Silver is a Junior at Barnard College. Yup, just the sort of "reliable source" the whole encyclopedia should be based on! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If mentioned, it should also mention that most Christians believe these other myths to be based off Jesus. Yes, almost most cultures have a messiah with a virgin birth, but I believe Horus was a Christ-figure, etc.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most of these pagan myths are older than Christianity and if anything Christian myth must be the copy with pagan myth the original. If I'm not mistaken Justin Martyr explained this away by assuming the devil had planted these myths before the birth of Jesus, a hypothesis that will strike the modern mind (and perhaps ancient minds as well) as absurd. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

However, while imagery remains similar (there are pyramids in Egypt and Mexico, no reasonable person claims anyone is ripping off anyone there, because the human mind actually has a limited imagination), the theology is different. The pre-Christian saviours weren't personal salvic figures against personal sin but cosmic saviours against a broken universe in which humanity was having trouble growing crops. The concept of moral sins that are just wrong wasn't present the other religions (instead, impurities that cause trouble). Christian theology does not hold that the sun rises and sets or that the seasons change because of the virgin birth, crucifixion, or resurrection. "Christ died to prevent global warming and stop oil shortages" would be a modern version of the pre-Christian saviours. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is true, but it still raises the suspicion that pagan elements were introduced into Christianity and were simply adapted to Christian theology. The Jesus myth page states that this opinion is no longer taken seriously, but I personally doubt that. We're having quite a discussion about consensus and impartiality over there, which may also be relevant to the discussion here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the historicity of Jesus

From the Historical Views section: "The Gospels are not ideal sources historical research because the authors wrote decades after Jesus lived..."

First, "historical research" should be removed from the sentence because it is confusing and unnecessary. Second, perhaps it should be acknowledged at some point in the article that, although writing about a historical person decades after that person lived is not ideal, it is still a better standard than that found in relation to other ancient religious figures who instead were first written about centuries after they lived. My point is that in ancient times it was common for the words and deeds of influential individuals to be memorized and transmitted orally by their followers for quite some time before being committed to writing, and although not ideal in any case, Jesus was written about earlier after his death than other religious figures, such as Mahavira and Gautama Buddha, whose historicity ironically has been questioned by few (if any) scholars.

76.123.177.103 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)InDefenseoftheHistoricalJesus

I don't know that there's really a way to include a comparison of Jesus with other historical figures in that way and still meet WP:NPOV. If this is a notable view commonly expressed in literature, we could include it that way. Do you have any reliable sources which talk about this issue specifically? Jess_talk|_edits 04:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem IS the flat out judgement, that the Gospels are not ideal sources because they were written later. This is a problem because any skilled trained historian would tell yo that there are problems with virtually every historical source. Caeser's book on the wars in Gaul were written by someone who was there - but he had a Roman bias and was writing in part to influence his political base back home, so this means that his books are not "ideal" sources either. No source is ideal. It would be better to rephrase it as: historians have to deal with a variety of challenges (or problems or limits) with the sources. We can then provide a brief list, and there are citations for each one. That they were written after Jesus died is only one problem and I think from what I have read not the main problem. The big problem according to the books I have read is that their authors - like many back then - did not distinguish between historical accuracy and theological truth. They thus produced documents that mix examples of both, so the big challenge for historians is untangling the two. And there are other challenges. We should properly source what historians actually say, but we do not need ANY comparative perspective. If we want to make comparisons, let's not compare people, let's compare sources. Let's say a bit about the challenges facing historians today who wish to rely on Cesar. Or Tacitus, or Livy. There are challenges in interpreting Heroditus and Thucides and Livy. The challenges are not because of Jesus, the challenges have to do with the limitations of all historical sources from antiquity.

That said, if we were to make comparisons with people, while the Buddha is a great example from the religious point of view, we could pick more local examples. The extraordinary thing about jesus is: we have every reason to believe that there were lots of itinerant and charismatic healers/preachers in 1st century Galilee, but since Livy or Pliny couldn't care less about them, we know NOTHING about them. We know about Jesus ONLY because sometime later some people thought he was either God or a prophet on the order of Elijah. If it were not for Christianity, who would Jesus be? A carpenter's son who claimed that the kingdom of God was at hand and healed people who were posessed by demons. Lots of such people existed and what do we know about them? So let's compare Jesus with for example, Honi the Circle-maker - did he really exist? What did he believe? What was his life like? Or take the rabbinic hero par excellance, Akiva. Did he really exist? Did he really say all the things ascribed to him? Did the stories about him really come true? The challenges facing historians who wish to write about these guys are MUCH greater than the challenges facing historians of Jesus. My point is that picking specific comparisons misses the point. The point is that if you lived in the 1st century we only have detailed information about you, detailed enough to believe you really existed, if you were a Roman official or a very wealthy man, or an extremely notable enemy of Rome. This is a tiny minority of the people who lived in the Roman world in the 1st century. When it comes to everyone else we know nothing. So here is Jesus, not a Roman official, not a wealthy merchant. Why would we know anything about him? That there are any sources at all about him is pretty stunning, it is what makes him so important to historians because if they can discern from the Gospels a human life, they can gain insight into poor Jews that you do not find in Livy and not even really from Josephus. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said Slrubenstein. The problem with this article is that there is too much POV pushing. We must let the sources do the talking. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are then any sources about the life/ existance of Jesus other than the New Testament?

Perhaps a small addition based on the original comment - while the Gospels are considered to have been written decades after the original events, the rest of the sentence is the historically activist part. If we removed "were not eyewitnesses," I'm sure it would resolve much of this man's concern. Whether the authors of MML&J were MML&J or not is the source of a huge amount of debate. Anyone who casually asserts that there is an answer or even a majority opinion on the topic went to an activist school. So my point relative to the sentence is, the gospels are not academically sound sources for the reasons given, disclaiming that the authors may have been known Jesus and been eyewitnesses, as the book claims. That is a HUGE disclaimer, and should be worked in to preserver NPOV in my opinion.--Mrcolj (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph - Descriptive Word Considerations

...which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

...which BY FAITH, views him as the Messiah foretold in MULTIPLE PASSAGES in the Old Testament.

provide humankind with salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins.[6][7]

provide humankind with PURPOSE OF LIFE, salvation and reconciliation with God by his SACRIFICIAL death for THE SIN OF MANKIND.[6][7]

Note however that not all groups that identify with Christianity are Trinitarian,

Note however that not all groups that identify with JESUS OF NAZARETH are Trinitarian, AWiseGuy (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna' voice my No based on NPOV for most of those. The trick here is to write an article that talks about Jesus without giving implicit tacit approval to Christianity. Plus half these changes are peculiar to specific types of Christianity. "which by faith" is a NTism. "with purpose of life" is not true with perhaps most Christian churches, which do not discuss a purpose to life. I'm ambivalent about the third sentence, but you get where I'm going in the first points.--Mrcolj (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fulfillment of Prophecies

Christians believe that ALL the old testament prophecies were fulfilled, not just many.

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Luke 24:25-26

I would like the last line of the 5th paragraph to be change from "Fulfilled many" to "Fulfilled all" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.171.147 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They believe he will fulfil all prophesies, not that he has. See Jesus and Messianic prophecy. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, to be more specific, he has fulfilled all prophecies regarding the one who was to come.

Christians do not believe that the Old Testament predictions of the end of the world have been fulfilled yet. TFD (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

In the Judaism's views section it states: "Judaism states that no prophet or dreamer can contradict the laws already stated in the Torah, which Jesus did." I added a clarification needed tag because it states that Jesus 'contradicted' the 'laws stated in the Torah,' but does not indicate which laws or how Jesus is claimed to have 'contradicted' them. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 193.194.132.70, 15 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please find a picture that does not depict Jesus innacurately as a white western person but rather as the eastern most likely arabic looking person he was. You're being biased by relating a catholic like picture to Jesus! I'm sure if he were alive he would like an accurate picture of himself in a wiki entry =)

193.194.132.70 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a specific enough request. I cannot implement it because you didn't list an image with which to replace it. That said, the top level image has been the focus of discussion in the past, so you may want to check our archives to read up on that. You are welcome to discuss your issues further here, and work with other editors to try to find a better image. We have a disclaimer under the image which sort of addresses your concerns. Furthermore, this image is relatively early and Byzantine (so not "catholic"), though it clearly isn't a photograph (and thus any depiction of Jesus will be problematic). We also have to balance the idea of what Jesus probably actually looked like with the clear iconic representations that are so dominant in the world. Just some thoughts. Feel free to discuss further, and propose specific images you feel are superior. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, there is scientific consensus that Jesus would have been a Nazarene Jew (an idea supported in the Bible). This means that jesus would most closely resemble a modern day Jew, not an individual of Arabic descent. Ronk01 talk 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

By which I'm presuming you mean a modern day Ashkenazy Jew? So he might have looked like Woody Allen? </jk. Srsly, you're right that the research on population movement suggests that he wouldn't have looked Arabic, but the (I believe fairly well supported) proposition that his immediate family may have been Egyptian offers the possibility that he may have looked North African. The trouble is - who knows. Early pictures are all iconic not portraiture - I can't just lay my hands on my copy of John Romer's "Seven Wonders", but I recall he draws attention to the similarity of Byzantine Jesus icons to earlier pagan art. As I recall, Romer references what is believed to be the earliest depiction, from the Roman catacombs. If that could be found, it could perhaps be used in the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Christians he was the son of god, born to a virgin by a miracle. Muslims also believe he was born to a virgin by a miracle. On this view God could give him any skin, hair eye colour that he chose. For this reason images of Jesus are based on aesthetic convention and theological ideas, not genetics. Only in the 19th century did artists start to think in terms of race and ethnicity. Paul B (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

An idea I came up with a few years ago was to, instead of choosing a single image, present multiple images in the infobox, i.e. User:Andrew_c/test#Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That might work, since there are so many interpretations. (By the way, I had to laugh at Woody Allen Jesus) Ronk01 talk 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jesus2saves, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Jesus did not die. He rose 3 days after His death.

Jesus2saves (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly an edit request, but a statement of a belief. Also, you admit that He did in fact die, otherwise there would be no death to rise from. Regardless, He left a bit after the resurrection. So there really is nothing to work with in your request. The article already states that the New Testament says He rose up 3 days later. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per above. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus called by The name "Isa" , by Hindu/south asea

"Jesus is also known by the name "Isa " by Hindu all over the world and other cast in south Asea.

Sources:

" title=Catholic priest in saffron robe called 'Isai Baba'" , http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Catholic-priest-in-saffron-robe-called---Isai-Baba--/402458/ , work=The Indian Express |date=December 24, 2008,

"title=Bishops of India| CBCI Commissions | Dioceses of India,News Updates |", http://www.cbcisite.com/cbcinews2840.htm/

This is a important aspect on Jesus.He is called by that name by a group of about more than 800 million people,and to be mentioned in lede para.

The edition is undone on the pretext of "not a name page" is not correct. This is as important as mention of name done for Islam. This is a separate information and important ,pl. permit to incorporate. --Md iet (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus is called ईसा or Iisa in Hindi, sure. ישו or Yishu in Hebrew, يسوع or Yasu/Isa in Arabic, イエス or Iesu in Japanese, İsa in Turkish, Jezus in Polish/Dutch/Slovene, Íosa in Irish, Gesù in Italian, Иисус or Iisus in Russian, etc. We could go on and on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a translating dictionary. We have interwiki links on the left hand side of the page for this. Check it out, we have over 150 languages listed. I feel strongly that, except for basic etymology information (Aramaic->Greek->Latin->English), we should avoid listing what people call Jesus in other languages. I mean, that list could include hundreds of entries. This sort of information is NOT appropriate for the lead. We have the interwikilinks already included for just that. I don't see a valid rational for singling out one or two languages (although I see we already do this for Arabic, but I guess that is because we discuss the importance of Jesus in Islam in the lead...) are we discussing the importance of Jesus in India in the lead? Or Italy, or Brazil, or any other country? I think we should keep the translations and transliterations to a bare minimal, as it is easy to get out of hand. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, agreed. In place of Interwikilinks ,Source available at a glance for this type of basic information can be more useful. A template showing most popular few names 'Jesus' is known presented sideby, can be thoughtoff.--Md iet (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you think this information is important. This isn't Wiktionary, or a translating dictionary, and we have many, many different language versions of this article already. Surely, this issue isn't unique to Jesus. Can you point to any other article in Wikipedia which is currently doing what you propose? Maybe it is common, or part of our style guide, and I just don't know about it. But otherwise, I wouldn't support adding too much translation information if this isn't what we are doing already in other articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sinafirouzi, 26 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please modify this statement, as it is not accurate: " Islam and the Baha'i Faith use the title "Messiah" for Jesus,[24][25] but do not teach that he was divine." The Baha'i Faith recognizes the divine nature of Jesus and consider him a Manifestation of God. See links below for verification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifestation_of_God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_(Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD) Thank you.

Sinafirouzi (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed "divine" to "God incarnate," since I understand the Baha'i view of a manifestation of God is different from that (a mirror reflecting sunlight was the analogy I heard for the Baha'i view). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dating system?

I saw someone asked Jimbo to settle a dispute about the dating system here with a coin toss, and I got curious. What seems odd to me is that no dates are given for the most obvious dates that are needed - the dates according to the Roman and Jewish calendars!

As for AD vs. CE, I don't see what the difference is, except that to American readers "CE" seems unfamiliar therefore confusing. Anno Domini is a named unit of measurement, yes, but I don't think it is POV. Just because I measure a magnetic field in teslas doesn't mean I want to sleep with the guy. And it would seem oddly appropriate to date an article about Jesus in BC and AD, all things considered. (see WP:TIES)

But there is a coin toss available, as used in the American versus British spelling issue. Just go back to the first version of the article with a date, and use that. (see WP:RETAIN). (Note: the oldest version I can find (apparently older revisions were lost during a move back and forth to Jesus Christ) is [17] which uses A.D. and B.C.)

So TIES and RETAIN and common sense all say that an article about Jesus should use AD and BC as the preferred system. Just don't forget to give one conversion that AD = CE, and whatever other calendars were in use in Judea at the time. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. —Noisalt (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As of now it uses 'AD/CE' which seems silly. I vote for CE, but i am biased against religion. I would also disagree that 'CE' is unfamiliar to americans and is a 'British spelling', as liberal parts of America have converted to the CE system and it is common place.

Alek2407 (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an agnostic Canadian. I'm not aware of anyone in this country using BCE/CE.

No other language that I read regularly or occasionally is using an equivalent for BCE/CE.

I personally find it obnoxious and pushy, especially in the context of this article.

Changing "Christ" into "Common". Wow, if there is an historical figure who would not be described as common and ordinary, we certainly have one here. Jesus, that is in bad taste.

BC/AD. I vote for this exclusively.

Varlaam (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This comes down to common vs. academic use. If this were an article on some aspect of popular culture, then common terminology would be best. However, I would like to imagine that this article is scholarly. Given this, which convention is followed in scholarly writings? That's what we should do, regardless of our personal preferences. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Varlaam, I guess you do not know that it is the Catholic Church that first used the term "common era" in place of "in the year of our Lord." "Common" is not replacing Jesus, it is replacing "Lord" because many people do not consider him their Lord. And you seem not to know that one of the meanings of "common" is "widely used." The point is that this calendar is widely used. Surely you would agree that people commonly agree that this is the year 2010. Saying that this is commonly used is not an insult to anyone. As to your not being familiar with CE/BCE, well, what can I say? You learn something new every day. Isn't this why we come to encyclopedias, to learn stuff we didn't know? The fact is a great many scholars use BCE and CE and I have heard it used on BBC programmes.

In response to everyone else, the system used at this article is a compromise reached by longstanding editors. It is neither inaccurate nor misleading. That some find it ungainly is a pretty trivial matter. What is important at Wikipedia is stability and avoiding edit wars that waste time and this compromise has been an astounding success. Now, if people wish to improve this article I see lots of places for improvement - there are many mainstream books by notable historians on Jesus that we do not use, nor have e taken advantage of anything in the Anchor bible commentary on the Gospels. Shouldn't we be spending our time doing real research to improve the article in substantive ways? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' Purpose?

What does this even mean? I see no point to having such a section. A quote is provided, from John, so at most we can say, "Jesus' purpose according to John" or really "Jesus' purpose according to the authors of the book now known as John." Doesn't this just belong in the Jesus according to the Gospels section? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

However...

The lede contains a strong caveat:

"However, not all groups that identify themselves as Christian are Trinitarian, and not all Nicene-based groups believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead.."

..but it fails to mention these concepts in the positive sense first - ie. 'most Christians are trinitarian, and subscribe to the Nicene creed.' It should be rewritten in the positive sense, as it was before. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gesü in Wikipedia EML

Good morning everybody!!!

I just made the page of jesus in Wiki.eml, but in English I'm not able to put the ..., because the page it's closed. Please, do someone help me? Thank you very much!!!

it:Rei Momo pt:Rei Momo fr:Rei Momo

65.222.182.195 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gospel authorship

"The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. The Gospels are not ideal sources historical research because the authors wrote decades after Jesus lived, were not eyewitnesses, were not neutral reporters, and based their work on some of the same sources.[120] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus"

Three of the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, I believe that would qualify them for eyewitness status. Also, the part about them writing decades after his life is true for Luke, John and Matthew. Mark ,however, was written within 15-20 years of Christ's life.

Regardless them being written decades later is relatively accurate, the first partial copy of the Iliad is a few fragments and it was written five-hundred years after Homer died, the first complete copy was written fifteen-hundred years after his death. Who doubts Homers authorship of the Iliad? Onestopsnackshop (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We are citing a source here. We can check the source to see if we are not accurately presenting the source. While you have made claims contrary to our source, you have not provided another source to back up your claims. Before we even consider changing the article, we'd need to have sources in line first. That said, from my reading and understanding of the literature, this presentation of facts is the majority/consensus view. However, there are minority positions, such as those conservative, Christian scholars who support the "traditional view" which you describe above. We need to consider WP:WEIGHT. How prevalent are the views? Should we present both of them, or just summarize the majority view, keeping in mind that there are articles that discuss authorship issues in much more detail. Is this the proper article to go into all the varying positions?

My opinion would be that we only briefly discuss the most dominant view, however, I think we should rephrase it. Because the way it is phrased now, it is written as if it were a fact, and not simply the majority position among scholars. Finally, your comparison to the Iliad is not appropriate, because you are talking about surviving manuscripts, not when the work was originally written. We don't have any surviving manuscripts of the gospels that date within decades of Jesus' death. The earliest fragment, which is just a single ripped piece of paper the size of a businesscard is roughly a century after Jesus, and the first complete manuscripts of the gospels are nearly 300 years after Jesus lived. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

separate section

I believe that at the begining of the article should include that he alledgedly existed because it has never been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryder Trinke (talk • contribs) 07:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It has never been proven that Julius Caesar or Plato or Aristotle existed either. Should we include like disclaimers in those articles?Farsight001 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so, yes. I know you meant the question to be a rhetorical conterstance to the suggestion, but , in an encyclopedia that requires citation, all three articles should acknowledge the the unsubstantiation. Pollythewasp (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Flagrant, Unsubstantiated Error

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, not for discussing the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Although Jesus' teachings were first addressed to the Jewish people, Judaism gives Jesus no distinctive status and categorically rejects the claim that Jesus is the messiah..." This statement is flagrant, and quite possibly anti-semetic. It is a fact that Messianic Judaism is a growing demographic among Jewish people, in Israel and around the world. Admittedly, the Jews among this movement do not represent the majority within Judaism, but to say Judaism categorically rejects Jesus in this way is absolutely false. In fact, the Jewish people have never categorically rejected Jesus. Not to begin with. Not presently. There has always been a demographic of Jews that do not reject Jesus. Firstly, the Gospel began in Jerusalem. The book of Acts records that "myriads" (μυριάς) of Jews initially believed that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew Scriptures (see Acts 21:20). This Greek word means ten of thousands. In other words, potentially half or more of the population of Jerusalem (see the "Old City"), let alone the rest of Israel, believed in Jesus to begin with, and the verse continues "and they are all zealous of the law" (KJV), and this is more to the point; Jewish people largely reject the (un)Christian notion (see Mt. 5:17-20) that the Messiah was sent to abolish the law (the Torah a.k.a. the Law of Moses), which, in fact, Jesus told his followers to keep and to teach (v.19). More to the point, though perhaps difficult to recognize, Judaism rejects the prevailing unbiblical (even as far as the "New Testament" is concerned, see NT references below) Christian (I.e. of "denominational", rather than the teaching of Christ) doctrines rather than "categorically" rejecting Jesus. Presently, according to the counter-missionary group Jews for Judaism (the primary opponents of Messianic Judaism), there are an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Messianic Jews in Israel alone: "There are between 15,000 and 20,000 self-identified “Messianic Jews” currently living in Israel, and more than 130 identified “Messianic Jewish” churches and groups in Israel." (Jews for Judaism 2008 statistics) Ref. http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=375&Itemid=1 The slant of the organization above quoted should not detract from the facts. There is indeed a minority of Jews that believe Jesus is the Messiah in Israel. The rest of the world, where there are even greater populations of Jews, is another story; there are even greater numbers. Schoeman, Roy H. (2003). Salvation is from the Jews: the role of Judaism in salvation history from Abraham to the Second Coming. San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press. p. 351. LCCN 2003-105176. ISBN 089870975X. "By the mid 1970s, Time magazine placed the number of Messianic Jews in the U.S. at over 50,000; by 1993 this number had grown to 160,000 in the U.S. and about 350,000 worldwide (1989 estimate).…There are currently over 400 Messianic synagogues worldwide, with at least 150 in the U.S." All things considered, it would be more accurate to say Judaism rejects Christianity as a false religion than to say Judaism rejects Jesus. Historically, this is the case. As the gentile "church" (I.e. the majority), initially schooled in Torah by the earliest disciples of Christ (see NT references below), rejected faithfulness to the Torah beyond the first century, Jews that were faithful to the Torah did not participate, therefore rejecting "Christianity", but NOT "categorically" rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. The above quoted statement, therefore, needs to change. The following would be more appropriate: "Jesus' teachings were first addressed to the Jewish people living in Israel in the first century C.E. The book of Acts records that "myriads" (μυριάς) of Jews in Jerusalem, let alone the rest of Israel, initially believed that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew Scriptures (see Acts 21:20). While there has always been a demographic of Jewish people that believe that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew Scriptures, this demographic has represented a small minority of Jews since beyond the first century. Today, this minority of Jews in Israel and around the world is growing." NT REFERENCES (KJV), et al: Matthew 5:17-20 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 7:21-23 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Iniquity above is translated from the Greek word ἀνομία (anomia), which means lawlessness. Matthew 13:36-43 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (anomia, as above) 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matthew 15:3-9 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Note: 4b above is Torah, not merely "10 commandments". This is contrasted against the hypocrisy of rejecting God's instructions for man's traditions. Acts 21:18-24 18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 25:8 8 While [Paul] answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. Note: "the law of the Jews" should not be misunderstood as necessarily referring to the written Hebrew Torah contained within the Pentateuch, but this verse is important for understanding Paul in context. The verse below demonstrates the same: Acts 28:17 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Romans 2:6-13 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Romans 3:27-31 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. establish above is translated from the Greek word ἵστημι (histēmi), which means, for example, to stand by or near (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2476&t=KJV). Romans 7:7 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7:12 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Romans 7:22 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: Romans 7:25 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Romans 8:7 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Romans 10:4 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Note: end above is translated from the Greek word τέλος (telos), which would be more contextually accurate translated GOAL. See also: 1 Corinthians 7:19 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Note: The only way this makes sense is with the understanding that circumcision was used in Paul's day to refer to "being Jewish". Circumcision is a commandment and, therefore, cannot be "nothing" if the next thing Paul says is keeping the commandment (from the Greek entole, which means commandment, as in the singular and indivisible commandment of God) is what matters. Paul is saying here that being Jewish is nothing, and being "uncircumcision" (a slam against Gentiles) is nothing, the important thing is obeying God's instructions; the commandment. Ephesians 2:10-13 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; Colossians 2:8 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Note: Paul contrasts the traditions of men against Christ. He does not contrast the commandment of God against Christ. Colossians 2:14 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Note: The word ordinances above is translated from the Greek word δόγμα (dogma), which is universally used to refer to man's rules in the NT. 1 John 2:3-7 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. 7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. 1 John 3:4-6 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 1 John 5:3 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 2 Peter 3:14-17 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. Note: wicked in verse 17 above is translated from the Greek word ἄθεσμος (athesmos), which means "one who breaks through the restraint of law and gratifies his lusts" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G113&t=KJV) 1 Timothy 1:8 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 1 Timothy 6:11-14 11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 Timothy 2:5 5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. 2 Timothy 2:19 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Hebrews 12:4 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Note: sin above is translated from the Greek word ἁμαρτία (hamartia), which means to miss the mark. The root of the word Torah is yarah, which means to point to, I.e. to the mark. The writer of Hebrews is challenging the reader to resist missing the mark even to the point of their blood being shed. Hebrews 13:8 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Note: His doctrine did not change after the cross. James 1:22 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. Note: The word "parallels" the law in Isaiah 2... "2 And it shall come to pass in the last days... for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." The word and the law are the same. James 1:25 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. Note: "the perfect law of liberty" is a reference to the Torah. See Psalm 119:44-45, for example, which says, "So shall I keep thy law (Torah) continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts." James 2:10-12 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James 2:17-26 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Revelation 14:12 2 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Revelation 22:14 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I.love.words2006 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Part of the problem is that Messianic Jews are pretty much the only religious Jews that recognize Messianic Judaism as actually Jewish. The rest of the religious Jews tend to view it as a Christian attempt to co-opt their religion. Note that your presentation of Bible verses, while applicable in a Sunday school class, isn't applicable here as personal interpretation of primary sources is considered original research. No Jewish group has given Him any sort of status one way or another, but the rabbis categorically reject the claim that Jesus was the messiah on various grounds, from the place and nature of His birth, to the Crucifixion, to the destruction of the temple, to the lack of liberation of the Jewish people. Some Jews do see Jesus as a kind teacher, and believe claims of Messiah-hood are elements added by Christians, but this is still rejecting the idea of Jesus as the messiah. You may wish to review our neutral point of view policy, as well as the essay WP:TL;DR. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC) More to the point, this is not a chatroom and should not be used to preach. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, only. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I agree. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, only. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)