Talk:Jesus/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Proposed alteration in opening paragraph

As some of you may know, this article was originally titled "Jesus Christ"—evidence of the fact that many consider the term Christ as a surname, or at the very least a term that is associated with Jesus' name rather than a term asserting Jesus as a Messiah. The branding of Jesus as "Jesus Christ" on all kinds of secular media and even within Jewish or other non-Christian communities asserts this fact. Recently, I made an alteration in the first paragraph that addressed this issue. I believe it should be placed to casually and nonchalantly inform the general public (perhaps even those who typed "Jesus Christ" and were redirected to Jesus) that "Christ" is not a surname or other permanent fixture, but is in fact a title asserting the divinity of Jesus. User:Aiden reverted my edits and I'm certainly not going to re-revert until there is discussion about my proposal. Here is the requested alteration (you can suggest grammatical changes to it if you like)

---

Current:

"...also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. In this context, he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah"."

Proposal:

"...also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ. Though the term "Christ" is commonly malinterpreted as a surname, it is actually a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah"."

---

Please discuss. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the current version clearly states Christ is a title not a surname in better wording. For one, we don't have any information to assert the claim that most people regard Christ as a surname and honestly I don't see the need to assert it when we clearly define it as a title. —Aiden 04:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a better word than "mailinterpreted" to put there, that seems pretty high level :/. Homestarmy 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "misinterpreted" a better word? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find malinterpreted in a dictionary (or on line.) The prefix 'mal' implies malicious rather than a mistake. Misinterpreted is probably the right word Johnmarkh 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really true that "Christ" is not a name. It obviously originated as a title, but as early as Tacitus' time, it was being used as a surname (he knows Jesus only as "Christ," which he apparently thinks is a name). Furthermore, the term "Christian" clearly means "followers of an individual named Jesus Christ," and not "believers in the existence of an annointed one." While Christ originally was a title, I think it pretty quickly gained all the attributes of a name. It was not a name which Jesus was known by in life, and it is a name which imputes to Jesus certain characteristics (that he is the Messiah, most notably), but that doesn't mean it's not a name. john k 16:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Which raises an interesting question: at what point does a title become a name? Even allowing for that, it's still not necessarily a surname. As early as Paul, Christians have addressed Jesus as "Christ Jesus" as often as "Jesus Christ." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend just avoiding the issue by leaving the paragraph in its current form. No need to make sweeping generalizations we can't support with references. —Aiden 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianous could mean Messianics as well as followers of the Christ/Messiah. Then there is the name Chrestus. 209.78.18.233 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point, John K. Early English surnames were often based on one's title or job, "Farmer", "Baker", "Earl", "Duke" and so on. A similar phenomenon seems to have taken place in the case of "Jesus Christ". » MonkeeSage « 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

cult leader

I deleted the recent category addition which I think is inappropriate. We have no evidence that when Jesus was alife he and his followers were considered a "cult" in the contemporary sense of the word. That there are Christian cults today I do not doubt, but they ar enot led by Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Aiden 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that during the lifetime of Jesus his followers were accused of being members of a cult. Later, Christianity was definitely identified as being a cult. Who does the leading of which religious organizations is left for someone else to identify; not us. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity was identified early on as a "faction" [αἵρεσις (lit. "heresy")] or "schism" [σχίσμα] of Judaism; and many scholars of Judaism and Christianity, as well as sociologists of religion, use the term cultus to refer to the religious practice and body of a culture or sub-culture; however, a common modern English use of "cult" has the negative connotations of extreemism and totalitarian leadership which those other terms do not necessarily/usually have. So the term "cult" would likely be misleading, I think. » MonkeeSage « 02:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't jesus killed because he was devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considered to be far outside the mainstream? And that is exactly the definition of a cult as defined in the Cult article, and obviously jesus was considered the leader of his movement by his followers. I suggest reinstating the cult leader categorisation.--62.251.90.73 14:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. Drogo Underburrow 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The amount of vandalism going on is seriously outrageous. This is why the article should not have been unprotected, or better yet, only registered users should be able to edit Wikipedia. —Aiden 22:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Permanent semiprotection is against the protection policy, I believe. Preventing IPs would kind of defeat the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" theme (I say kind of because anyone can register an account and then edit, so technically, anyone can edit). I can't imagine there ever being a concensus to block all IPs... perhaps you should try proposing it? Either way, I sprotected the article. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but as you said anyone can register an account. I realize it'd be a major change in Wikipedia policy and it probably won't happen, but it continues to be my wish. None-the-less, thanks for the sprotect. —Aiden 22:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess Jesus is just a really popular figure. Can't say im surprised, I mean, the promise of eternal salvation for sins (which everyone has commited) is certainly quite a prominent one, made all the more prominent by Him being God and sacrificing Himself for the world. Homestarmy 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Why isn't this article in the islam series but only in the christianity series? Jesus is one of the most important figures in the islam. I think that's very biased. --62.251.90.73 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the first three paragraphs are only about jesus in christianity, why not change the introduction to something like this:

Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, a central figure in two world religions, christianity and the islam.--62.251.90.73 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Third, how can jesus have died 36 years after his own death? Isn't that a contradictio in termus? Maybe make it Jesus (8-2 BCE– 29-36 CE).--62.251.90.73 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AD isn't "After Death", it's Anno domini - "the year of our Lord".--Oscillate 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's really a cultural thing and a matter of priorities, Jesus certainly influenced Islam, but nowhere near as much as He influenced Christanity and the whole western world. Furthermore, in Islam, im pretty sure Muhammad is far more important to people than Jesus. I think it could easily be argued that Jesus primarily influenced Christianity since, you know, without Him, it wouldn't of existed, therefore, the priority would seem to me more leaning towareds Christianity. Nextly, the perspective on who Jesus is to Islam was in Isa before this really weird edit war over his name broke out, most of the information is in that article. And the dates are supposed to be saying first when He was born, and then when He died, as estimates. Homestarmy 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in the islam is the messiah (just like in christianity) and he will come back to earth to defeat the antichrist, i wouldn't discard that as unessential. I'm not saying this article should only about the islam view. I'm just saying both should be incorporated equally, or it should be a disambig to pages about the christian view, islamic view and historical view.

I see the Jesus (prophet in Islam) article but i don't understand why is it devided over two articles this way. If this article is supposed to be only about the christian belief then move out the historical and other religious perspective sections. If it's not only about the christian belief then cover both religions equally. --62.251.90.73 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Its because this article is too long. I don't understand your objection. Only so much information about Jesus's life exists in the Qur'an and a good overview of that already exists in the article. The section on Christian's views isn't that much longer. There is also a lot more information about Jesus in Christianity becasuse there are so many signficant splinter views which is the only reason for the longer section. Newbie222 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is a jew did you know that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.123.209 (talk • contribs)

Of course, but most Jews today don't believe that He is the messiah. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is the central figure in Christianity as Christians believe he is God. While he as Isa is an important prophet in Islam, he is but one of many prophets such as Moses, Abraham, Muhammad, etc. and has nowhere near the importance placed on him in Christianity. This is similair to asking why Muhammad is part of the series on Islam when he is a manifestation of God in the Baha'i Faith. —Aiden 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Some responses:

• "Jesus is the central figure in two world religions." Not really: he's important in Islam, but not the central figure. We do note that he's important to Islam at the beginning of the Religious Views section, and I so no reason not to (briefly) note in the first paragraph that he's important to Islam as well.
• "The first three paragraphs are only about jesus in christianity." Not really: the first paragraph is the introduction to the introduction (so I see no reason not to mention that He's important to Islam), the second paragraph is about historical views, and the third paragraph is specifically about Christian views (just as the fourth is specifically about Islamic views).
• "Jesus in the islam is the messiah." While true, this is somewhat misleading. The concept of "messiah" is different in Christianity and Islam, just as it's different between Christianity and Judaism. It gets even more complicated when you consider what the term "Christ" means in Christianity. Originally, "Christ" was the Greek translation of "Messiah," but the varying Christologys redefined the word "Christ." Technically speaking, "Christ" is a broader term than "Messiah" even in Christianity, but most people don't make this distinction.
• As others have pointed out, Jesus is more important to Christianity than to Islam. Most Christians (with some notable exceptions such as Jehovah's Witnesses and those Unitarians with an adoptionist view) believe that Jesus is God incarnate. Unless I'm mistaken, in Islam Jesus is one of the five great prophets, but is a lesser figure than Mohammed. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What should section Life and teachings based on the Gospels include and exclude?

It seems some discussion is needed on what to include or exclude from this section. I have taken it to exclude events not presented in gospels, but rather in other non-canonical works, Book of Mormon, etc. Should it include ONLY information in the gospels, or should it be BASED on events covered in the gospels, with well supported context added and sourced? I would rather read one article that NPOV presented the events, rather than have to hunt for several articles and then sort out the POV in each one. While it may not be possible to present every POV in this article, I see no down side to short insertions of context to make whatever is here more informative. Some have said space is an issue - I say that without context, much of the text (if it is to be ONLY what is in the gospels) can be omitted & instead have links to the articles on gospel views. --JimWae 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a discussion of whether to have a section like this at all. If the article insists on using primary sources, then each should be dealt with in a separate section of the article. There is no primary source called "The Gospels". Drogo Underburrow 20:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a set of primary sources called gospels. "Gospels" is a plural word. Perhaps we can resolve the issue by renaming the section "Jesus in the primary sources" or something similar. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My own view of a section drawing on the Gospels, which has evolved largely in the preceeding section but which I think is shared by others, now leads me to prefer a section on the gospels as texts rather than a section on "life and teachings" as such which I now believe will require synthetic statements that will violate NOR. (in other words, I still think we should have one section on the four canonical gospels, but for different reasons that means I think it should have a different function and character than previously). Moreover, it raises NPOV issues as people reconstruct Jesus's life differently and focus on different teachings. I think our task now should be to deliniate the major different points of view/reconstructions of Jesus' life and teachings. One article, Cultural and historical background, already provides a partial example of this drawing on the work of historians. I suspect we could use another article or two on how non-Christians and athiests have reconstructed Jesus' life and teachings. I am not competent to address Christology and whether we need three separate articles for RC, Protestant, and Greek Orthodox, or one article pre-liberation theology and another that is on liveration theologians reconstruction/teachings etc. I propose we first try to deliniate the major distinct views first. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Which texts? We've been saying that the Gospels canonical to Christianity are the main sources, but there are other sources. In the last few weeks I've learned that the Jesus Seminar included the Gospel of Thomas in their Five Gospels, and Crossan's book on early Christianity referenced the Gospel of Peter. Then there are works like the Protevangeleon of James that are not canonical, but nonetheless had an effect on Catholic and Orthodox beliefs (although Protestants tend to avoid them, in the spirit of Sola Scriptura). If this section is to be truly neutral, and not biased toward any particular theological or historical school of thought, then how are we to decide which primary sources to use? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see the purpose of abandoning this section to the gospel POV. I do not think it serves readers well to simply summarize exactly what gospels say and make them hunt through other articles for any commentary or explanation. If we follow this suggestion to its extreme conclusion, graphics too could be eliminated from this section - particularly the map, since it relies on outside sources & purports to be factual (unlike artisitc images). --JimWae 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My own view is that widely accepted details such as the map and the dates of Pilate's reign, which complement the Gospel accounts, can still be included in this section. Where the details are debated or interpreted differently between or among theologians and historians, those views should be explained in their appropriate (other) sections.

As for the burial, some would say that the account of Pilate allowing the burial is unhistorical, but that Torah observant Jews would have taken it upon themselves to bury the crucified regardless of Roman permission. They'd simply be following Deuteronomy (or Devarim) Deuteronomy 21:22–23. Of course, very few of the crucified would have been buried in a tomb, but archaeologists found at least one other example: Jehohanan of Giv'at ha-Mivtar.] Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think the Romans would just stand by and permit Jews to just take the bodies away - perhaps even before being sure they were dead? I am inclined to think that the only accomodation Pilate might have made to Jewish custom that day was to permit the removals after breaking their legs. Surely there were many crucifixions near the Sabbath - but perhaps the Sabbath of the Passover was extra special. Pilate might even have insisted on a tribute for permitting this. Perhaps further tribute even persuaded him to allow one of those crucified, Jesus, to be buried instead of being put in nearby Gehenna. I agree that well-supported context is needed in this section to prevent its being just another version of other NT summaries. --JimWae 04:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not "stand by and permit," I'm sure it was more complicated than that. Even in the Gospels, two of the crucified had their legs broken. According to the Gospels, Jesus was already dead, and they lanced his side to make sure. AFAIK, any concession by the Romans would have been to prevent civil unrest, and not out of any respect for Jewish customs. This is certainly something worth looking into—citing appropriate sources, of course. It seems reasonable that tribute may also have played a role, although I honestly have no idea what the scholarly consensus is. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

race of jesus

in what the hell was jesus was he black or muslim or just a plain jew looker tell me--206.176.124.227 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the article. —Aiden 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Or try reading Race of Jesus Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Perhaps it needs another page, but some mention of Jesus' sexual orientation ought to be made. There seem to be four major view points on the subject:

1. He was heterosexual, possibly married and had childen

2. He was homosexual, as evidenced by living with men and various quotes in the bible (see link below)

3. He was bisexual

4. He was not remantically involved with anyone (seemingly unlikely)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm has some basic info. I feel this is an important, if controversial topic and deserves mention. Mojo-chan 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite bluntly, I sort of think its silly. But then, it would be an excellent opportunity to answer a common wisecrack at Jesus, that simply because Jesus didn't "hang out" with women more that it somehow made Him gay. We'd need better citations from religioustolerance.org however, in my experience, its notorious for glossing over important parts of Christianity and being pretty bad at generalizing in other instances. Homestarmy 18:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the subject of a related article, Sexuality of Jesus. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll have see if we're still debating whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Very long. 82kb

Move them to other articles. Skinnyweed 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not entirely certain what we could possibly cut out :/. Homestarmy 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the historicity section delves too much into history of canon then of Jesus. —Aiden 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why pick on the historicity section? To be balanced we'd have to trim all the sections. We already do have the subarticles for them. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC) PS: Condensing the article is already #3 on the todo list. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks! What about moving the details of the date of Christmas to the Chronology of Jesus article? --CTSWyneken 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, im not so sure that Jesus's exact birthdate really helps readers understand Jesus more myself. Homestarmy 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

the cross is black

How come the cross is black in all the articles about Christianity and about this one about Jesus? Dot Bitch

I think someone changed the template symbol thing. Homestarmy 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Jesus a bastard?

Or was Joseph, "God in disguise"? In either case we should mention it in the article.--Greasysteve13 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If we were to mention this in the article, we would call it "illegitimacy" not "bastardy". With all the politically-correct garbage against Christianity, there definitely shall be some in defense of Christianity. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we conduct a vote as to whether or not we add Jesus's name to the "list" of people in the illegitimacy article?--Greasysteve13 06:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We all got a little drunk on voting a couple of months ago. But, if you think it will help… Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jews do not consider a child born out of wedlock illegitimate. Not now, not then. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that it is possible he "was" illegitimate. It is possible he had a human father not married to his mother. That does not make him illegitimate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should it matter what the Jews think? Jesus isn't mentioned in the old testiment. Isn't that the only testiment Jews belive? Besides this is an English encyclopedia.--Greasysteve13 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, as Martin Luther said, Christ was born a Jew. As were most of the people he came in contact with while he walked the Earth, including his disciples. Religiously, I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully human (hypostatic union.) That "fully human" nature of Jesus was a Jew. True, most of Jesus' followers today are not ethnic Jews, and those who are (such as Messianic Jews) are seen as non-Judaic by other Jews. However, your question is rather like asking, why should it matter what Americans think of an American expatriate? Answer: because that expatriate was born an American, just as Jesus was born a Jew. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I relise Jesus was Jewish. I'm just asking if Jesus was illegitimate in the modern sense of the word. And if he was... why do Christians look down on illegitimacy? Although I suppose technically Adam and Eve were illegitimate too.--Greasysteve13 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Applying "the modern sense of the word" to past events before there even was such a word, is simply anachronistic. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter?--Greasysteve13 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be: Did other first-century Jews consider Jesus to be a mamzer? I do not know the answer to this. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Illegitimacy%20of%20Jesus%22

"Illegitimate" in this context is just an English word that means "born out of wedlock." I don't understand how Jewish beliefs come into it at all. john k 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say - Jewish belief cannot negate the English language. If Jesus was "born out of wedlock," then he was also "illegitimate," because the two terms are synonymous. john k 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Google links all seem to be pointing to the same Jane Schaberg book, ISBN 1850755337 (for a recent edition). Any other sources?Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Raymond E. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, Appendix V, pg 534-542 The Charge of Illegitimacy

Origen Contra Celsus 1.32: "But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;""

Gospel of Thomas 105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus of Nazareth "Birth of Jesus. The Jews, who are represented as inimical to Jesus in the canonical Gospels also, took him to be legitimate and born in an entirely natural manner. A contrary statement as to their attitude is expressed for the first time in the "Acts of Pilate" ("Gospel of Nicodemus," ed. Thilo, in "Codex Apoc. Novi Testamenti," i. 526, Leipsic, 1832; comp. Origen, "Contra Celsum," i. 28). Celsus makes the same statement in another passage, where he refers even to a written source (ἀναγέγραπται), adding that the seducer was a soldier by the name of Panthera (l.c. i. 32). The name "Panthera" occurs here for the first time; two centuries later it occurs in Epiphanius ("Hæres." lxxviii. 7), who ascribes the surname "Panther" to Jacob, an ancestor of Jesus; and John of Damascus ("De Orthod. Fide." iv., § 15) includes the names "Panther" and "Barpanther" in the genealogy of Mary. It is certain, in any case, that the rabbinical sources also regard Jesus as the "son of Pandera" (), although it is noteworthy that he is called also "Ben Sṭada" () (Shab. 104b; Sanh. 67a). It appears from this passage that, aside from Pandera and Sṭada, the couple Pappus b. Judah and Miriam the hairdresser were taken to be the parents of Jesus. Pappus has nothing to do with the story of Jesus, and was only connected with it because his wife happened to be called "Miriam" (= "Mary"), and was known to be an adulteress. The one statement in which all these confused legends agree is that relating to the birth of Jesus. Although this is ascribed only to the Jews, even in Celsus, the Jews need not necessarily be regarded as its authors, for it is possible that it originated among heretics inimical to Jesus, as the Ophites and Cainites, of whom Origen says "they uttered such hateful accusations against Jesus as Celsus himself did" ("Contra Celsum," iii. 13). It is probable, furthermore, that the accusation of illegitimacy was not originally considered so serious; it was ascribed to the most prominent personages, and is a standing motive in folk-lore (Krauss, "Leben Jesu," p. 214). The incident of Jesus concerning the dispute with the Scribes was copied by the rabbinical sources (Kallah 18b [ed. Venice, 1528, fol. 41c]; comp. N. Coronel, "Comment. Quinque," p. 3b, Vienna, 1864, and "Batte Midrashot," ed. Wertheimer, iii. 23, Jerusalem, 1895). All the "Toledot" editions contain a similar story of a dispute which Jesus carried on with the Scribes, who, on the ground of that dispute, declared him to be a bastard. Analogous to this story are numerous tales of predictions by precocious boys."Pericope Adulteræ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.25.231 (talk • contribs)

A mamzer is the offspring of an incestuous or adulterous relationship, although according to the Shulchan Aruch if the adulterous union is with a gentile (as would have been the case with a Roman soldier) the offspring is not a mamzer. As to John K's point, many people translate mamzer as illegitimate, so I think clarity is important. And I maintain my point about anachronism and add to it cultural difference. Why say that Jesus was a bastard (or illegitimate - I fail to see how saying someone lacks "legitimacy" is any kinder or more polite than saying someone is a bastard), if niether he, his companions, and opponents did not think he was a bastard or illegitimate? He wasn't a Democrat (or republican) either - but so waht? "Democrat" and "Republican" are terms meaningful only in the context of American politics from the late 18th century on. A historian would tell a student that it is silly to ask whether Jefferson was a Democrat or a Republican because those parties did not exist when Jefferson was president. Well, being a "bastard" is a social status too. For a period of time it had serious legal consequences (far more serious than the consequences of being a Democrat or republican); then it had social stigma. People seldom use the word today not because they have decided "bastard" is a rude word; people seldom use the word today because it just isn't important to us anyomre. At least, in many parts of the world. I have a friend whose child was born out of wedlock. If anyone called the kid a bastard, her response, and that of her friends, would not be "you are being rude" it would be "Huh? Do you think we are living in the 19th century?" My point is, no one cares.

I don't want to get into a long discussion of illegitimacy in the USA, i understand that being born out of wedlock still does have some legal consequences, and in some places social ones too. But any reasonable person should agree with me that the consequences aare not as great as they used to be, and the word is not applied as much as it used to be. In 1830, perhaps being a bastard mattered and thus must be included as an important biographical note. In 2000, in NY or LA, it doesn't matter and is just irrelevant. To insist that someone is a bastard here and now is to push an eccentric point of view.

So what about the Galilee 2000 years ago. Even if Jesus were born out of wedlock, would people have considered there to be something wrong with him? No. To use a stigmatizing label, whether bastard or illegitimate, that was meaningful in Europe and the US (and perhaps other places) seventy years ago (and earlier) to describe someone in a very different time and place just seems weird to me. Why use it? It seems POV to me, saying we should view Jesus from our own cultural point of view. I hope it is clear my point is NOT about what word to use. I know illegitimate is the English word for child born out of wedlock. I am questioning why the category, child born out of wedlock, is appropriate for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the UK he husband of a married woman is the father of any child born to her unless the legal courts get involved. I don't know why (ie I can't give quotes) but I always assumed Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Jesus' birth (otherwise why would he have taken her with him to Bethlehem?) so if that were the case "born out of wedlock" would not strictly apply anyway. Sophia 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me this might just be an attempt to get the phrase "Jesus was a bastard" into the article. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are right but it would be nice to defeat this attempt with logic. Sophia 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia have anything to do with logic? ;) Of course, as Slrubenstein has pointed out, Jesus does not count as a mamzer; and terms such as "illegitimate" or the b-word are anachronistic. So, in light of countering systemic bias, we should not be chronocentric. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the logical approach is, to follow our NPOV and NOR policies. We need to distinguish between major and fringe views, and try to represent all major views. Is there anyone of these views for whom Jesus being "a bastard" or "illegitimate" is important? If so, let's report it - as a particular point of view. As for a neutral account of the facts, however, I just do not see the point if it woul dnot have mattered to Jesus, his family, friends, or opponents - if it didn't matter to them, why should it matter to us? Articles on historical subjects MUST avoid anachronisms. Look at the history of the Copernicus article, which, a long time ago, was torn apart over arguments over (1) he was Polish (2) he was German (3) he was neither, these identities that are meaningful today were not meaningful back then, or did not have the same meaning as they do today. Let's avoid anachronisms. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

article name: Jesus or Jesus Christ?

I'm going to ask in all ignorance: why is this article Jesus, and not Jesus Christ? Stevage 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Because "Christ" is a title used by Christians. This article covers all perspectives on Jesus of Nazareth, both Christian and nonChristian. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)