Talk:Jesus/Archive 61

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

→

Quotes from Jesus - Old English?

Hey all: I noticed that throughout this article direct quotes from Jesus are given in Old English (King James Version). Obviously, Jesus did not use Thees and Thous when speaking; rather He spoke in Aramaic, which was the common "street language" of the day. Of course, He would have used Hebrew when reading the Torah/Prophets, but this is a minor detail. I was wondering if we could use a different Bible version than the KJV for quotes from Jesus ... it would be more historically accurate and would help dispel the myth/common belief that all prayers and "official Biblical communication" were historically given using 17th Century English. Thoughts, anyone? standonbible 18:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many world languages still use the more personal form of speech. I use the KJV most often; however, if you are recommending another translation, then please do so. My only recommendation is to use the same translation throughout the article.

The NIV is often used, but it is not my favorite translatoin. If the KJV is unacceptable, my recommendation would be the NRSV if you are asking for another translation.

The NRSV should not be used since it is controversial (it adjusts grammar to make the language inclusive). However, the RSV should be fine. PS. The KJV is not written in Old English. If you want Old English, eat this: [[1]]. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the KJV is early Modern English (much like the works of William Shakespeare). Beowulf was written in Old English aka Anglo-Saxon; The Canterbury Tales were written in Middle English. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RSV works for me. Is everyone okay with that? I noticed many of the new scripture references are using the NIV. There is a new admin (can't remember their handle) who was going around changing bible references to WIKISOURCE. They seemed to feel that we should intergrate the use of other WIKI resources. I am ambivalent about it. I find outside sources, those without a lot of advertising, to be better. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Condensing article

The pending tasks for this article demand that the content be reduced, without compromising quality. I have a great revision to this article that solves this problem. It goes as follows:

"A common name used in Mexico, pronounced 'hey-sous' "

I appreciate any feedback anybody has on my revision, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.98.115 (talk • contribs)

Dear friend: Welcome! Thanks for the idea. I'll take a look. In the mean time, would you take a moment to establish an account and sign your posts? You do not have to reveal any personal information at all when you do this, if you do not wish. It helps in a number of ways. One, you can develop a relationship of sorts if you do this. We will be able to work better with you, since we will have some context to go on and a record of the kind of posts you make. As it is, you could be one of any of the folks using the same computer network with you. Two, this page is heavily vandalized and is sometimes semi-protected. If you do not have a user id, you are not able to edit at those times. --CTSWyneken 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

stupid question

Hello everyone, I didn't come here to fight with people, I just can't seem to find the answer to this question. Why is Jesus Christ always listed as being born "before christ?" Sorry, Very confused. --Julien Deveraux 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"BC" is an arbitrary designation based on some early guess of when Christ was born. Modern historical estimates propose a different date that happens to be outside that. David L Rattigan 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Messiah's Mendacity

Looking for a spot in the article to reference Jesus's lie in John 7:1–53. Lestrade 18:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Great point (NOT)!

1.Jesus says, "I am not going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come."

2.However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also.

3.Conclusion

Jesus did not go with his brothers because it was not the right time for a public appearance. After his brothers left it was the right time for him to go because it prevented a public appearance

Apparent Contradiction / Lie: Nonexistent

I always love it when I tell my friends I am not going to the party now and then when I show up later I am accused of being a liar.

Spicynugget 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then all I can say is that your friends don't have a good grasp of grammer, "Now" indicates that you are leaving in the present, whereas if you show up later, it most certainly does not negate the possibility that you simply started leaving later than the aforementioned "now". Homestarmy 19:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly - "Now" indicates leaving in the present. Not leaving "Now" means leaving later than the reference point in time at which now was spoken. These two events are non-contradictory from a logic standpoint. Jesus said, "I am not going now". As a consequence he went later.

Spicynugget 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, were you being sarcastic? I didn't notice if you were heh, I kinda get a knee-jerk reaction to this sort of thing..... Homestarmy 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was making fun of Lestrades post. Spicynugget 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nugget, you can make fun all you want. However, the New Testament verses that I cited show Jesus exhibiting deceit and telling an untruth. Can you deny that?Lestrade 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It looks like he already did :D. Homestarmy 01:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, we have now descended into the realm of subjectivity where words have different meanings for different people. "I go not up yet" means, to Nugget, "I go not up at this moment, but within a few minutes of your leaving, I will go up." To me, it means, "I go not up for quite a while yet, so you go on ahead." This is then followed by Christ leaving "when his brethren were gone up." How much later is later? Two minutes? Two hours? Let's face it. He deceived the apostles.Lestrade 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

folks, this space is for discussion as to how to improve the article. Any improvement must comply with our NOR and NPOV policies. Nothing in this discussion does. Please take it off-page, or try to make serious points compliant with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As an attempt to improve the article, I would like to include this example of Jesus's human failing. This would contribute to an understanding of his characteristics. Since the example is taken from the Gospel of St. John, it shouldn't be understood as reflecting my point of view.Lestrade 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

If you can find a reliable source that discusses this, it would be fair game. Your interpretation versus that of other editors, on the other hand, falls under WP:NOR. Guettarda 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda is spot-on. We do not put our own opinions (or interpretations) into articles. Moreover, your reading of John is an interpretation. It may be a plausible one, but thee are others. If we were to put in one POV of this passage, we would need to balance it with other POVs. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Major European Philosopher Claims Jesus Told Lie:

...finally, there is Jesus Christ, who on one occasion intentionally told an untruth (John 7:8)....
— Schopenhauer,On the Basis Of Morality §17

Lestrade 20:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

FYI: On the Basis of Morality by Arthur Schopenhauer.–RHolton ≡– 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Schopenhauer does not classify as a reliable source because the claim that Jesus told a lie is an exceptional claim. Taken from the reliable source document,

"Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

Let us get beyond reliable source, however and simply look at common sense. This is probably the most difficult-to-support scripture that Jesus was indeed a liar. Could there be another example of Jesus supposedly telling a lie that would support this argument because the current scripture given seems to show that Jesus told the truth.Spicynugget 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Isnt the Cristian views given to much space compared to the other religions, specialy considering that they have a sub article dedicated to their views?--Striver 08:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, Jehovas Witnesses dont belive he was killed on a cross, rather on a stake or something. --Striver 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If this can be verified, it can be added to the Jehovah's Witnesses paragraph of the Christian Views section. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you it very much is true [2]. Stauros primarily means just a stake or tree, and the usage of that meaning is attested to in Acts 5:30 ("by hanging him on a tree"), Galatians 3:13, etc. Xylon was also used to describe what Jesus died on, as well as wood in general and the weapons carried by the mob who arrested Jesus. This is, of course, in addition to the issue of the presence of the cross in pagan worship as well. --Oscillate 18:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough space for all points of view. As each point of view presented in the article grows, it gets spun off as a linked article. Please review the linked articles. Perhaps you feel that there is need for another linked article. or perhaps you know of additional material that belongs in one of the linked articles? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, a major prophet in Islam, and a lesser figure to other religions. This isn't undue weight, it is the very definition of due weight. The "Christian views" section is also a bit longer because of the diversity of views within Christianity (including a number of what Bart Ehrman refers to as "Lost Christianities.").

I've been wondering for a while if the "Cristian (sic) views given to (sic) much space" argument is based in part on the long Gospel summary. Yet the Gospels can be read different ways; they can be read theologically (the basis of Christian views), or they can be read as cultural documents (part of the basis of historical views). Thus the Gospel summary is not included in the Christian Views section, but is a separate section. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Gospels be the basis for pretty much everyone's view of Jesus? Everything ever written about Jesus - including what's in the Koran, and what's in the Talmud - is based, ultimately, on the four Canonical Gospels. Treating much later Islamic or Jewish accounts of Jesus' life as though they are equivalent to the Gospels, written much earlier, and, in fact, the source of those later accounts, is irresponsible. john k 11:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, for this to work, we need to present the canonical Gospel account as neutrally as possible i.e. with no interpretation. Indeed, it would help if it were written in a way that called attention to elements of the acount that have generated the greatest amount of interpretation, wither by theologians, clerics, literary critics, or historians, with links to appropriate articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' brothers?

There seems to be a lot of controversy on the main article about adelphoi and whether to render it "brothers" or "relatives". Rather than have an edit war, I would be happy to join in a discussion of the issues. David L Rattigan 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, it would help if we just complied with NPOV. As someone ignorant of the issue, let me assume that there are different people who hold different views as to how to translate this word. Why not list them and identify them. Is there argument among linguists and philologists who specialize in Greek? Or scholars who specialize in the NT? Is the dispute between theologians and critical historians? Or are theologians divided, and critical historians divided? It is not for us to say what the word means, but let us try to be more precise about who claims it means what. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While different Christian denominations have different views on the significance of the Greek word adelphos, the vast majority translate is as brother. Even the Roman Catholic Douai Bible translates it as "brother": See here. Is there any widely-used translation of the Bible into English that uses "relative" to translate adelphoi? Every single one of the multitude of translations at Bible Gateway translates it as "brother". Given this, surely it is better to use the standard translation as "brother" and to add a note about the controversy over the true significance of the word (which is explained further in the article on the perpetual virginity of Mary). Grover cleveland 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would seem the most sensible thing to me, which is apparently what the article originally did. However, someone disagrees and keeps changing it to "relatives", which is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here. David L Rattigan 16:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Even the Vulgate of Jerome uses "frater" (Latin for "brother": see scroll down for translation). Here's a link (look at verse 3). So we have

the official Roman Catholic bible for centuries,
translated by one of the most influential exponents of the dogma of the perpetual virginity
hosted on the Vatican's official website!

saying that this word should be translated "brother". That should settle the matter. Grover cleveland 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then... Let's have a poll!

Seems pretty cut and dry here that we should have "brother", which is the standard translation, and a note about differences in interpretation. Shall we have a straw poll, for and against? That way there's a record of the consensus in case of later disputes. For "brother" or against? David L Rattigan 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For David L Rattigan 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of us on this page think polls are evil. The best solution is to discuss the issue until we can acheive a consensus. I think the current compromise wording is best, however. —Aiden 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me we've discussed this...the standard translation is indeed "brothers," although Catholics (and only Catholics) make an argument for "relatives." The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that they are stepbrothers, but this is based on the extrabiblical Protoevangelion of James. The notes in the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV), written mostly by Baptists and conservative Presbyterians, refer to the traditional authors of the epistles of James and Jude as half-brothers of Christ; however, apparently some Protestants reject this term because it implies a genetic relationship. It's difficult to see how anyone could say that James et al were full brothers of Jesus unless they deny the Virgin Birth. Of course, all of the above except the Catholic view support the standard translation as "brothers of Jesus." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that at least part of the issue here is one of translation versus interpretation. What is the best translation of the Greek? Apparently, the vast majority of recent English translations use brother. The question then becomes, how do people interpret this word? Even in contemporary English culture, the word brother is sometimes used to refer to someone who is not a blood relative. Experts in how the Greek word was used at the time of writing may differ on how the word might be used. So, we docomument this disagreement. Of course, any translation involves some interpretation, but it's best to keep them as separate as possible. If there was ambiguity in the original word usage, it's best to pick a translation that retains a similar degree of ambiguity. In this case, there seems to be a word that has a primary meaning, with possible alternate meanings. Brother retains that degree of ambiguity, while relative has much greater ambiguity. –RHolton ≡– 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a discussion of all the different interpretations belongs in the Christology article or another article. As far as this article goes, I suggest rewriting the "According to the Gospels" section this way: organize it in a way that calls attention to where the Gospels agree, where they differ, and where there are gaps. Then have a section on "interpretations of the Gospels," most of which will be motivated by gaps or differences between Gospels, but also as in this case the meaning of a word. I think this section should simply lay out what elements of the Gospel have provoked (or produced) the most discussion - among clergy, theologicans, and historians. We should then summarize each major point of view. And then we should have links to specific articles that will go into all the details about the questions and debates over the answers. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I moved the different interpretations that I mentioned to the "Christian views" section some time ago. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But aren't there interpretations that ae the views of historians that are not working within a Christian framework? To suggest that all interpretations are Christian to me seems to violate NPOV. I hope i am not misunderstanding you, Arch - perhaps you mean you have moved only those interpretations that are explicitly Christian. I am not criticizing that - I just think NPOV also means being even-handed. A "Gospels" section that helps people see where Christians and non-Christians have found cause to interpret is what I am talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I moved the explicitly Christian (Catholic and Orthodox Christian) interpretations to the Christian views section and added the Protestant views (which garnered some debate over the definition of "half brother.") I left Josephus in the Life & Teachings section. We can certainly include more recent historians' opinion in the historicity section, but there don't seem to be any in this article yet ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

pov

The article is pov if it contains only the christian template. Please follow the discussion here--Striver 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I initially agreed with your point, but on thinking about it, I don't think it is POV to have the Christianity template alone. The figure of Jesus is the sine qua non of Christianity in a way that it is not of Islam. However, I'll take a look at the discussion you mentioned and see what I can learn. David L Rattigan 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus (pbuh) is maybe not God in my Islamic view, but he is the awaited Savior. The article gives undue weight to the Christian view. --Striver 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The christian sections gets from twice to three times as much space, and it gets the only religious template. Clearly pov, Jesus is higly respected in Islam.--Striver 17:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Honeslty, on a person level of preference, the entire argument going on over there with Isa really is, in my opinion, pretty ridiculous. I mean does the Qu'ran ever say "And lo, behold Mary, giving birth to the Islamic view of Jesus...."? But anyway, I was under the impression that Islam had 2 saviors or something, and besides, the Isa, Islamic view of Jesus, Jesus in Islam, Islam + Jesus FTW, or whatever name y'all finally settle on should probably have the template as opposed to both articles since it would probably eventually lead to just more copy and pasting from each other. Homestarmy 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"And lo, behold Mary, giving birth to the Islamic view of Jesus...."? I was going to answer that, but then again, i have a hard time seeing how to... eehh.... what?... --Striver 07:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just move {{Christianity}} down to the "Christian views" section and let {{Jesus}} float to the top? Melchoir 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Homestarmy 04:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, done! Melchoir 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I also added the Islam template.--Striver 07:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be added to the template, then? Melchoir 08:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as Muhammad is an important figure in Islam (hence the Islam template in that article), Jesus is the central figure of Christianity and is thus part of a series of articles related to Christianity. This fact has no bearing on whether or not the article maintains a neutral point of view, as if you read it, it clearly does. —Aiden 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?

1, i added POV tag, 2 Christianity template was moved down to Chritian view, 3 i added Islam template to Islamic view, 4 i came now and everything is as before step 1. Why? --Striver 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, there's alot of vandalism in the way of the history. Homestarmy 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because this article is about the central figure in Christianity and is thus part of a series of articles related to Christianity. This follows much the same rule as is used in the Muhammad article where an Islam template is included. Having this template (which itself follows WP:NPOV) has no bearing on the neutral point of view of the article's content. For much the same reason it is not a violation of WP:NPOV to include the Islam template in the Muhammad article. If it were, you would have to move that template down to the Islamic traditions section and also include a Baha'i template, which I don't see you doing. —Aiden 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This stuff about templates is silly. These templates are just lists of links. Links do not have anything to do with POV. An article on Fascism that has a link to Naziism does not mean that the article has a NAZI POV - and the analogous "solution" - add a link for "democracy" or something like that - would be absurd. We are talking about lionks here, folks, nothing more. Slrubenstein | Talk

Trinitarian context

Does this section belong under the heading 'Trinitarian'?

"Paul of Tarsus wrote that just as sin entered the world through Adam (known as The Fall of Man), so salvation from sin comes through Jesus, the second Adam (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). ... and it continues

Most Christians accept the New Testament presentation of the Resurrection as a historical account of an actual event central to faith. Belief in the resurrection is one of the most distinctive elements of Christian faith; and defending the historicity of the resurrection is usually a central ...and it continues

Because they are not seemingly relayed in anyway to mark them as a belief peculiar to trinitarians vs non-trinitarians also it isn't shown there how a trinitarian views this issue differently.

Just a question, any thoughts? Lsjzl 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My fault; this happened when I subdivided "Pauline Christian" views between Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian views. I'll try to be more careful in the future. BTW, does anyone know if Messianic Jews are trinitarian or nontrinitarian? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think all common beliefs should be placed in the main Christian views section and that the differences should be placed in a single section which discusses them. —Aiden 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the thought Aiden, I moved both paragraphs into their own subsection of Christian ideas. (Both deal with what Christian views usually are) If someone doesn't agree with where I placed them, knows a better place then that's cool, I just was trying to get them out of the heading of Trinitarian. Lsjzl 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Some other editors may have an issue with the additional subsections, but I happen to think it organizes Christian views better. —Aiden 19:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses

As of now, the Mormon view of Jesus is listed in both the Nontrinitarian Christian views section as well as the Other views of Jesus section. The Jehovah's Witness view is listed in the Nontrinitarian section. Aside from my person biases, I'm not sure where these views belong. Certainly we do not need the LDS view in two sections. I know a wide range of Christians do not regard Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, though I believe these groups self-identify as such. So either way I think we may have claims of POV arise from the simple placement of these views. —Aiden 19:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I only see the LDS views in the Nontrinitarian views section. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in the Other views arising from early Christianity section, but in the Other views of Jesus section at the bottom. —Aiden 20:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The LDS views in the second section is essentially a duplication (but slightly different phrasing) of the LDS views in the Christian views section! When did that happen? I removed the duplication. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)