Talk:Jesus/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Non-Christian religious views

Other Views section

From the way people are editing (and reverting) the other views section it would appear that the views have to be positive to merit inclusion, the section should be labeled as such or its simply blatant POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.81.32 (talk • contribs)

Eastern religion section

It doesn't appear to me that we have any citations or references beyond those 2 things in that paragraph, I thought i'd find some websites for some of it so we can either reference or cite it more:

| 1 | 2 (I think that second one might be what our article gets everything from) | 3 these all seem to be be good for citing everything before the Swami part. I can't find anything about Ayyavahzi or whatever, a google search of "Ayyavahzi and Jesus" yielded I think 720 results, and none of the first ones seemed helpful. Is this even a notable religion? | 4 | 5 (This one has a list of books on the subject) these 2 seem to be helpful for the Buudhist sentence, the first one especially for the gospel of Thomas thing. Im not so sure the Bahai sentence is correct, alot of the websites im seeing seem to say that Jesus was Bahaulla or that Jesus was God, | 6 | 7while some apologetics sites claim Bahai says He wasn't much of anything, | 8 so im a bit confused there. Are any of these links helpful source-wise? Homestarmy 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may prettify, but don't kill my babies! Please? ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this to me? I was careful with your babies : ) Go look, I converted to exactly what you had, it's just linking differently. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooops-sie! This belonged in the section above. Yes, its for you and you put baby to sleep very gently. ;-) --CTSWyneken 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not good at scholarly reference standards, i'll just add in a few as numbered links so that they can be reference-ified in the future. I'll try to see if I can change the Bah'ai sentence without making it too long as well. Homestarmy 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I was just going to convert your latest links to the new style, but I'm not sure that first one is an appropriate link. It's better to cite Hindu beliefs from an authoritive Hindu source, rather than from a site that's targeting Hindus to convert them to another religion. Do you want to replace that with a better source?

I did think about that when I was citing it, but you know, I just plain trust apologetics sites :/. I'll go try to find a different citation though. Homestarmy 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These might count almost like blogs but im not sure, once again from beliefnet.com, it has 3 sections concerning stuff in this article including the yogi and journey to india things: 42 Homestarmy 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindu views on Jesus christ could include

1. Fable of Saint Peter's arrival to india in early christian era.
2. Syrian christians coming to south india as asylum seekers
3. Colonian period and conversion. Infamous Goa inquisition.
4. Spread of Gospel in regional languages - through the missionaries of Germany, Spain, Portugues etc.
5. English education and renaissance period
6. Keshavachandra Sen and brahmo get influenced by Christianity
7. Life and teachings of Jesus christ on leaders and saints like Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi etc
8. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as divine personality while rejection of Churchianity by hindu leaders
9. Christian separatist movements of North-East India
10. Role christian missionaries in the field of health, education and evangelism
11. Missing years of Christ, Jesus in India
12. No hindu religious leader ever making derogatory statements against Jesus Christ though colonial masters were christians

Ramashray 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:"Hindu beliefs in Jesus vary…to those who believe that he was an avatar of God."

Which god? Vishnu? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Vishnu, usually, though in Smarta Hinduism Vishnu is himself seen as personality/emanation of God, not as one of several discrete gods.Paul B 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would very much prefer we find some sources for the Hindu claims beyond religioustolerance.org, in my experience, it often glosses over issues in its articles and although I admit the apologetics site link might of been a bit off for citing, the hindu citations were not off at all, we should find some citations from Hindu sources. Homestarmy 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now someone removed them so I put the old one's back in, what are we gonna do about these? I replaced the apologetics citation with a different one.... Homestarmy 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would take religioustolerance.org with a grain of salt...they are not the most accurate source of information. For example, in a discussion of abortion and OT passages they say that the Jews were given to ritually sacrificing children, but in a different context they say that such accusations arise from hate and anti-semitism and are simply a "Blood Libal" invented by people who do not understand Judaism! Now I'm not saying not to trust them, I'm just saying to be on the lookout for talking out of both sides of the mouth when you're there. --MonkeeSage 22:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction between the two passages you cite. The first one says that "the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children". This is a widely held view, and is completely different from saying that "Jews were given to ritually sacrificing children". In fact, that is a totally distorted account of what the site says. The second passage refers to medieval Judaism, and to the famous blood libel stories about sacrificing Christian children. Obviously it correectly states that such accusations were, as you put it "invented by people who do not understand Judaism". I don't know why you feel such a need to discredit this site with such transparently spurious arguments. Paul B 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org is a reputed and popular site afterall. Also, the two articles which i linked here are not product of religioustolerance.org but they are only publishing what religious scholars of India and elsewhere have found. The articles are only giving FACTS of similarities and Linkages between life history of Krishna and Christ which anyone who is familier with both religions can't deny. Holy Ganga 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic section

More references:

Jesus as prophet, 1 similiarities, (virgin birth, miracle capability) 2 return to earth stuff in Islam 3 Injil stuff 4 and I might look up the life of Jesus claims and that last sentence when I get home. Homestarmy 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are there so many fact tags in the Islamic view section? Are the articles on Isa and Yuz Asaf not reference enough? I believe all, if not most of this information is repeated in these articles which are referenced themselves.--Andrew c 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just it, the Isa article didn't have references when I looked, wikilinking to other articles doesn't cut it, we're aiming for FA status. I was going to finish looking up that section, but im a bit busy with school :/. Homestarmy 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the first fact tag is covered by source #14. The part about Yuz Asaf is just a statement of belief of one small sect. This belief is stated in an article on the offical webpage of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [1]. As for the second fact tag, I haven't found anything yet to back that up, but i'm still looking--Andrew c 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

that first sentence seemed to go more into specifics than source 14 could cover, and i'll try to add in what you found. Homestarmy 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I could have added the source I found, sorry. Anyway, this is what the first fact tag is referencing Muslims believe he will return to the world in the flesh following Imam Mahdi to defeat the Dajjal (an Antichrist-like figure, translated as "Deceiver") once the world has become filled with sin, deception and injustice, and then live out the rest of his natural life. Source 14 says " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will have two flexible swords and one shield with him and with these he will kill Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd. " and "It will be time for Fajr prayers, and Imam Mahdi will be the Amir (leader) ... at the time of Fajr, Isa (A.S.) will descend. " and "After his descension on earth, Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat and bury him net to Rasulullah ". The only part of that sentence that isn't sourced by 14 is the "once the world has become filled with sin, deception, and injustice" but it does mention the Day of Judgement and the "last era of the Ummat". I would say source 14 covers that sentence, but I could be missing something.--Andrew c 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I must of not noticed it there or something, I was just skimming over the stuff I found to see if I could see the information, I guess 14 does apply then, which just leaves that last thing, which im pretty sure is backed up somewhere by something. Homestarmy 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslims do indeed recognize the crucifixion of Christ, and the event is even related in the Koran. The important difference, however, is that Jesus ascended directly from the cross to Heaven according to the Koran. Hence Muslims believe in the crucifixion but not the resurrection of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.249.47 (talk • contribs)

Interesting. Do you have a sura we can cite? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sura 4:157, "they said 'We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God,’ but they killed Him not, nor crucified Him. It was made to appear to them so and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no certain knowledge. They follow only conjecture for assurity. They killed Him not. God raised Him up to Himself". Thus, the statement by anon appears to be incorrect. Additionally, see the initial comments by Dr. Jamal Badawi, here [2]. See this too, although I'd probably not use it as a reference in the article [3], and yet more, [4]. Enjoy.  :) Jim62sch 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are now a couple of suras quoted in the Isa section already. I was asking for citations, not quotes, but we have what we have. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the quran, it was made to appear to the people that Jesus was crucified, but really he wasnt. In his place was someone else, possibly judas, but was there to fool people into thinking it was Jesus. You then have to ask yourself, if God ( or allah) really did this, then not only is he a deceiver of people, but by doing this he has accidentaly started a new "false" religion which would become the biggest world religion, which christianity still is. But apart from this, he is now having to condemn billions of people to hell because they believed in his deceitfullness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.55.101 (talk • contribs)

Jesus Seminar, part 2

Is anyone even considering them? Here's Robsteadman's proposal again:

In 1998, however, the Jesus Seminar, a research group of about one hundred academic New Testament scholars, published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (ISBN 0060629789).[5] By a system of votes they decided which events from the New testament happened, which might have happened, which were doubtful and which were highly unlikely to be true. The Jesus Seminar biography of Jesus is somewhat different than the New Testament version: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. A virgin birth was unlikely. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene and the reality of a physical resurrection is doubtful.

This is probably too long for this article, but I do believe we need to say something about them in the historicity section. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^Talk PS Peter and Mary: for that, you have to cite the proper page of the TCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the first proposal. I think that this is good information about the JS's POV. I personally don't find it too long or too short, but just right. But perhaps the summary of their bio is a little excessive. Are we going to also recap other historical Jesus bios for all the different theories? Or is the JS's the biggest and therefore deserving of the most attention?--Andrew c 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice I said for this article, which is already starting to get a bit long. I also posted it to Talk:Historicity of Jesus. This paragraph was first put in this article (not the talk page) and was quickly reverted. Many people may not even have seen it. Ergo, we need to (continue to) talk about this: the last discussion (above) went off-topic. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good stuff. Maybe it could be included here under the "other views" section - that was an area especially mentioned in the last FA assessment. In the historicity/historical articles it would be nice to have a little more detail on why they came to the decisions they did. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have been interested in expanding the "other views" section. Look at how we expanded the Ebionites to include other early "lost" Christianities. I'll leave the "additional details" to others. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, it should have a qualification about "alleged visionary experiences," ala the suggestion of Archie's friend above regarding the wording of current article. --MonkeeSage 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul definitely said that he had divine visions. Whether or not to believe Paul is another matter. Of course, I do believe him, but that's my POV. Best to just say that Paul wrote such in his epistles, especially since we already cite Galatians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC) PS Peter and Mary: for that, we'll have to cite the proper page of the Acts of Jesus. and make clear that it's according to the Jesus Seminar. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My main thing was to make sure that it was clear that the Peter/Mary visions were recorded in pseudepigraphical material, not directly asserted in the NT. So I think some sort of qualification is in order. Mabye something like "Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul recorded in his epistles, Peter, and Mary Magdalene recorded in other contemporary literature..." ...could probably be said better, but mabye something along those lines? --MonkeeSage 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If we can cite which other contemporary literature, it would work. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Been awhile since I read anything from the JS, but I think they used Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Mary Magdalene. --MonkeeSage 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about, mabye they mean the visions recorded in Acts about eating unclean foods? Also, is the statement that "Belief in the resurrection is based..." a reflection of a JS statement, or is it supposed to be a factual account of why Christians believe in the resurrection? If the latter, its not entirely accurate, 1 Cor. 15:4-8 presents at least three lines of evidence: scriptures, physical appearence, and visionary experience. Possibly a fourth, if you add testimony. --MonkeeSage 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, No, No. It's in the Bible. Check the Gospels for who the resurrected Jesus appeared to. These of course would be visions.

"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons." Mark 16:9

"Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen." Mark 16:14

Paul's vision is his Road to Damascus experience.

"And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day ... His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep." Matthew 28:13-15

"In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. ... It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Luke 24

"Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her." John 20

For reference, here are the red actions of Jesus: Birth: parts of Mt1:18-25; Beelzebul: Lk11:15-17; Baptized by John: Mk1:1-11; Good news: Mk1:14-16; Dining with sinners: Mk2:15-17; Herod beheads John: Mk6:14-29; Crucifixion: core event but not accurately recorded; 1st list of appearances: 1Cor15:3-5;

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." 1Cor15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.86 (talk • contribs)

I currently have the JS book out from the library. If we need to cite references for this section, if we ever agree on a version, I'd be glad to look up the page numbers.--Andrew c 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That Paul had a vision is obvious enough: he said as much. The experiences of Peter and Mary are open to interpretation. If nothing else, we can simply say that the Jesus Seminar supports the vision hypothesis. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

64.169.5.86: You should really make an account a log in, and sign your posts (using 4 ~'s). Regarding Paul and Peter, the NT makes it clear that they claimed to be party to visionary experiences (Acts 10:17, 16:9, 18:9, &c). Regarding Mary Magdalene, there is no such indication, the word vision is never used and the circumstances never indicate that she perceived something that the others around here didn't. The apostles actually make it clear that when Jesus "appeared" to the disciples, he was not an incorporeal vision, but had a body and flesh into which Thomas could thrust his finger to see his wounds (John 20), and which could consume broiled fish (Luke 24). Whether you believe them or not, the canonical gospels don't mention anything about Mary seeing visions. --MonkeeSage 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a VISION OF ANGELS, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see." Luke 24:22-24

Just in case you're wondering who "the women" are: "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them ..." Luke 24:10

/*Sheepish grin*/ I stand corrected! --MonkeeSage 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please register as a user and sign your comments. It's hard to take someone seriously that posts anonymously. --CTSWyneken 12:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that a vision of angels at the Ressurection does not mean that the Ressurection itself was a vision, although that's certainly what the vision hypothesis states. Also, even an anonymous IP can sign with ~~~~. The problem with anon IP's is that many such IPs are rotated among several users, for example if they attend the same college, work for the same employerer or are signed up for the same ISP. It is important to know who was talking! Before I registered, though, I would always sign with my name and a link to my website. Since I registered last August, I haven't had to do that. Registration is free and makes things so much simpler ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Archie. But the statement "Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene..." would be justified indirectly, by Paul claiming to see Jesus in a vision, Peter claiming to hear him speaking in a vision, and angels claiming he was alive in Mary's vision. My main question now is whether the statement is accurate (i.e., whether it represents a JS statement, or is an attempt to described why Christians believe in the resurrection). --MonkeeSage 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is an accurate Jesus Seminar statement. You can preview the book at amazon: link It's right off the front flap: "Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary." 64.169.2.219 19:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone cares, the complete quote from amazon:

"According to The Jesus Seminar:

   * Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
   * His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
   * Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
   * Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
   * Jesus practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic,
     relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
   * He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes,
     change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
   * Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
   * He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
   * The empty tomb is a fiction -- Jesus did not raise bodily from the dead.
   * Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary."

64.169.2.219 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, getting into the profound stuff now. Excellent! Jim62sch 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. To me it sounds as if the JS uses the vision hypothesis to explain why Christians believe in the ressurection. It is, of course, only one hypothesis. See also stolen body hypothesis, swoon hypothesis and, well, faith in a literal ressurection. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with faith in a literal ressurection? :D Homestarmy 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Because that has scary implications? Maybe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life? ^rossnixon 20:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 64.169.2.219. That clears up that issue. I just wanted to make we were accurate. :) Christians would claim to believe in the resurrection for more reasons than just those visionary experiences (by necessity, at least one other reason -- testimony -- since we are not the ones who had the experiences), so I wanted to be sure that the JS folks actually said it and it wasn't an inaccurate attempt to state facts about Christians. --MonkeeSage 22:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The Online Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The church and its history > The history of Christianity > The primitive church > The relation of the early church to the career and intentions of Jesus

The prime sources for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth are the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament. Only a few probably authentic sayings ...." (my italics)

Wikipedia:

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, generally dated after 65 AD/CE. Most scholars in the fields...

These sentences are too similar in my opinion, and constitute plagiarism. Wikipedia must change its article in an expeditious manner. Drogo Underburrow 03:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There aren't too many nice looking ways to say that sentence..... Homestarmy 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. We can't copy a sentence and put it here. I'm deleting it from the article. Drogo Underburrow 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's kind of a stretch to say it's plagiarism. It's a basic piece of information that's widely known, and the sentence had many hands involved in it. That it remotely resembles what Brittanica says is as Homestarmy says, that there just aren't that many ways to state the fact that the four canonical gospels provide the basic source of information regarding Jesus' life. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You've reverted my deletion. I've done my duty; I say its plagiarism, and I guess the community will decide. Drogo Underburrow 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're senstitive to plagiarism, we certainly don't want to plagiarize. I disagree with you, however, that this constitutes plagiarism, and as you say, we can await further feedback from the community on this one. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there you go, someone prefers to start a revert war on it now instead of discussing here. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's an original statement that, by coincidence, resembles another encyclopedia. Drogo would have to find more evidence if he's going to build a case for plaigarism. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not plaigarism. There are a limeted number of ways to present this fact in concise English prose; it won't surprise anyone that they are similar sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not plagiarism or copyright violation. The latter requires the text to be an exact quote, which it is not. (I know that was not the question, just want it on the record and off the table).

For the words to be plagiarism, we would need to be passing off the words or ideas of another as our own. Obviously, we are not passing off the words of another as our own. When it comes to ideas, the requirement would be that the ideas were unique or nearly so. Since the content of the words is the common opinion of the whole scholarly community, they are definitely not ideas first thought up by this encyclopia, hence, not plagiarism. I'll bet that encyclpedia does not cite any other source for its comments either. --CTSWyneken 12:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia: "The principle sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels..." --CTSWyneken 12:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. It makes the EB fertile ground for massive ripping-off. Just don't use their exact words, and make sure what you rip-off is "common opinion of the whole scholarly community", which consists of a lot of good content to steal. Drogo Underburrow 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, the sarcasm is not warranted. No one has suggested that we copy the articles out of the EB word for word (which would be stealing their "intellectual property.") But when they have summarized the opinion of others (which is what they do. They are an encyclopia, after all, we are welcome to summarize the same info. If you look at the Funk and Wagnalls quote above (source for Encarta by the way), it is closer to what we say. If it concerns you so much, why not footnote it, which would fix the problem, were it plagiarism, which it is not. How do I know? I am an academic librarian at a graduate school, the go-to guy on copyright and plagiarism and I teach research and documentation for a college adult education program. Now, can we move on? --CTSWyneken 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not a summary of scholarly opinion, its written by E.P. Sanders, and he is stating his own opinion, and has signed the article at the end. As for sarcasm, all I did was repeat what you said, along with my conclusion that it makes the EB fertile ground for a lot of copying. I didn't say to copy entire articles word for word. I stand by what I said. Applying your rules as to what is permissible, there is a bunch of good information in the EB that can be transfered here, such as the above sentence on Jesus. There are a lot more sentences of a similar nature in EB. Drogo Underburrow 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Drogo, the article is a summary of scholarly opinion. Your point that it was written by E.P. Sanders is a non sequitor. That he wrote the article is in no way inconsistent with the article being a summary of cholarly opinion. On the contrary, it makes it all the more likely, since Sanders has an extensive knowledge of the scholarly literature and debates on the matter. Who do you think writes encyclopedia articles? Good encyclopedias seek out leading scholars in their fields to write these articles, because leading scholars are competent to write authoritative summaries of scholarly opinion.

The reason we should not draw on EB as a source of information is simple: it is ridiculous to use one encyclopedia as a source for another encyclopedia. If people want to read the EB article on Jesus, they can turn to EB. An encyclopedia that is just derivative of another encyclopedia is pointless. Moreover, and more importantly, people who write encyclopedia articles, whether E.P. Sanders or you, have an obligation to do serious research. An encyclopedia can be an appropriate source for hgih school students. It can even be a good starting point for undergraduates writing research papers. But even undergraudates are expected to read real books and real articles. Writers of an encyclopedia should, if anything, hold themselves to a higher standard. It does make sense for us to consult other encyclopedias to get ideas for other topics or aspects of a topic worth covering, and as a kind of external check on our own progress. This, however, cannot be a substitute for research. The major limitation of encyclopedias is that they slowly go out of date as soon as they are written. One of the main advantages of Wikipedia is that, as a work forever in progress, editors can incorporate the results of cutting edge research as soon as it is published. Instead of reading EB, Drogo, I urge you to look at recent books published by academic presses, and recent articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as valuable sources for our article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice dissertation, SL. Now can we get back on topic? The sentence I deleted, is word for word, the same as in the EB, with slight differences in the words, but no change in meaning. Its not just the same idea; its the same sentence.

" The main sources of information (The prime sources for knowledge)....regarding Jesus' life and teachings (of Jesus of Nazareth) are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament (are the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament.)generally dated after 65 AD/CE .::

There...I put them together. They are identical, to the point that you can interchange their parts and they still make sense. But hey, if you guys think that copying the EB is ok, there's nothing more I can say here. Drogo Underburrow 14:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I like that: "word for word the same, but different words." Much of the article contains the same information one would find in an encyclopedia, but worded differently. That doesn't mean it's all plagarism. If you want to succinctly summarize the sources of information about Jesus, how would you put it? If you want to say all the finite number of things things that sentence does (and what we have here even has more information than EB), then it's naturally going to say the same thing, in an interchangeable order. One sentence that states the same common knowledge in a different way - that's not much of a case for plagarism. --Oscillate 15:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we could change it to A good starting point for knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth are the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament. Another way of knowing Jesus is to ask him to reveal himself., but that would be considered POV? ;)
Blubberbrein2 14:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, with all respect, if you want to be trusted with Bilbo's silver spoons, you need to listen to the advice others have given you. Rick Norwood 15:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The spoons went to Lobelia (Bracegirdle) Sackville-Baggins and Otho Baggins -- Drogo Underburrow 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a common construction. The passage isn't even long enough to qualify as plagarism. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the sentence is not helpful, because this information should be included in the article. If you have a problem with the current wording, perhaps you could try to rephrase it?--Andrew c 16:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly not plagiarism, and Drogo's insistence that it is becoming seriously disruptive. john k 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

One thinks Drogo is just on a mission to be disruptive. Don't feed the troll. Jim62sch 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My assertions of plagiarism are legitimate posts. This talk page is an appropriate forum to discuss this issue. Posting my concern is not disruption. I am not engaging in an edit war or doing anything to disrupt Wikipedia. Expressing an opinion that is in the minority is not being disruptive. I have not gotten personal, not accused any specific person of anything, but have simply asserted and attempted to prove that a sentence in the article shouldn't be there. However, your post has nothing to do with the issue, and is simply a personal attack. You, sir, Jim62sch, are the only one who is violating Wikipedia rules by calling me a disparaging name. Keep your personal attacks off this page.Drogo Underburrow 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look the saying up -- it's pretty common here. The point is, that multiple editors have shown you why it is not plagiarism, and you persist with your argument, which is causing disruption. That, you see, is the Wiki definition of a troll. Jim62sch 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting a concern is legitimate, of course, but when faced with a pretty universal opinion that what you have shown is not plagiarism, it is disruptive to continue pushing the issue. john k 06:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting a concern is legitimate, and replying to posts other people make is legitimate. That is all I did. Real disruption is making personal attacks accusing other people of being disruptive. Now, I'm willing to end the matter...unless people continue to make new posts about it, in which case I'm going to reply to every post. So whoever wants me to shut up, refrain yourself from making new posts about me. Drogo Underburrow 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I have no problem with Drogo posting his opinion, sticking to his guns and not bending, even where his is not correct. And he is right that making him the issue does not help. Nor does he making Jim the issue, right or not. There isn't an editor here who hasn't held up movement on a point they felt important, even when everyone else thought them annoying. The only thing I wish he would have done differently was discussed before he deleted. If I had gotten there first, I would have reverted for that very reason. Any change in the 2nd paragraph will get a strong response, so it is wise to talk it out, even though people are allowed to edit as they please.

So, folks, let's just drop this, OK?

On the point itself: Drogo, it is not a word-for-word quotation of EB. Only one phrase is the same and it is a fairly common one at that. On the information itself, the Funk and Wagnalls is closer. I also have checked several others, all of which make the same point in differing words. I'd be happy to put them here to document the point. --CTSWyneken 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is partially a word for word copy, and partially a paraphrasing, and has exactly the same sentence structure such that they are identical sentences.

However, I am not an expert on copyright. I was reading the EB, came across a passage that was extremely familiar to me from the wikipedia, compared the two, and found they were identical in structure and almost identical in exact wording. To me, that means someone copied the passage and put it in the wikipedia. I did not accuse anyone of doing so, however, but simply reported what I found on the talk page, that a sentence was copied from the EB, and then deleted it from the article. This was proper of me, and I would do it again. To my understanding, the sentence was plagiarised and had to go immediately, such material is not to be debated for days.

I deleted the passage from the article exactly one time. It was soon reverted, and I let it stand. I wrote posts on this talk page defending my views, and will not back down. This is not being disruptive.

However, if it makes some people happy, I will "officially concede" that I accept the will of the majority on this issue, and take CTSWyneken at his word as to being an authority on copyright issues due to his professional work.

I really hope this is the last posting on this matter, but as I said before, I will continue to reply to posts if others feel the need to continue to beat this dead horse. Drogo Underburrow 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but what do you mean by "officially concede" in quotes? What is the difference between this, and just saying, I will concede (no quotes)? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that use similar wording:

The only reliable sources of information regarding the life of Christ on earth are the Gospels, which present in historical detail the words and the work of Christ in so many different aspects. (Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897, s.v., Jesus).

The principal, and practically the only sources for our knowledge of Jesus Christ are the four Canonical Gospels. . . (ISBE, 1939, s.v., Jesus Christ,2).

Looks to me like this is a case of linguistic convergence not plagiarism. Unless all of the sources that people have posted have been plagiarizing each other! Mabye there is a hypothetical Q document that all of these sources have been using! More likely, I think, is that it is coincidental, and best explained by the finite range of English language, grammar and syntax for stating the same facts. --MonkeeSage 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! There are only so many ways to say "the sun is yellow", or "the sky is blue". This is essentially the same thing. Jim62sch 00:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Let us say he lived from c.6 BC to c.30-User:Agoodperson

I like the idea of using "circa," but some people like to dispute the dates. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And don't use "BC" everyone know that means "Believe in Christ you horrible heathen!", and that's mean, POV-pushing! Use BCE, which means "Believe in Christ, Everyone else does"...much more PC. ;D --MonkeeSage 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

^ please dont make a joke again --Jibran1 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --MonkeeSage 22:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, circa would be better. Do the dates really matter all that much? Jim62sch 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, there is a subpage dealing with this topic Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. We have been compiling dates from scholarly sources. --Andrew c 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Evern though they are, well, incorrect. Nonetheless, the exact dates are irrelevant. Jim62sch 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the comment? What is incorrect? And how should we correct it? I think the point is not to give the exact dates (which no body knows) but instead give a range or rough idea that nearly everyone can agree on.--Andrew c 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Among historians and Biblical scholars, there are a range of dates proposed for both the birth and death dates of Jesus. My impression, although not yet fully investigated, is that most, we're talking a plurality I think, go with 5 or 6 BC/BCE for the birth and 30 or 30 AD/CE for the death. We would be fully justified to say ca. 6 BC/BCE for the birth, and ca. 30 AD/CE for the death. So far, so good.

But the catch: people feel VERY strongly about dates as early as 12 BC/BCE and 1 BC/BCE (although very few go out to these edges) and dates in the 20s and 30s for the death. When one of these folks stumble on to the page we will have all kinds of... emotionally laden... text... that will grnd this page to a stop again.

One way to prevent this, and the needed revert unpleasentness, is to set the extremes among scholars in the field and document to the hilt. This has been the path we've taken. I think it is wise. --CTSWyneken 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The time of birth is also "circa" in biblical prophecy and not an exact date, see Messianic prophecies concerning the time of birth
Blubberbrein2 13:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not especially relevant to how we should express the dates in this article. --CTSWyneken 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well depends, if (1) the date of the decree mentioned in the book of Daniel can be set on 457 BC (2) the public ministry of Jesus started his 30rd year (3) plus the 490 years then we have -457+490-30 = 3. Lets add some margins of 4 years and we have 1BC - 7AD. If people want a broader range, then we could enlarge it to 6BC-10AD or something like that. For me, it is not of any real significant importance. The point I was trying to make above, it that the date of birth/advent had been rather well prophecied and that some conditions are set (e.g. before the destruction of the temple in 70AD). I do agree with CTS to take the (majority of) extremes among scholars in field.
Blubberbrein2 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, to get that kind of calculation means making an definite ID of the figures in Daniel's prophecy, and, even if you do that, agreeing on when the prophecy was triggered, and that it is messianic, and... We should stick with what evidence we have for the fulfillment, and the scholars who have weighed that evidence, rather than getting into a game of Bible Algebra. (I'll bet you can't tell what my POV is here! 8-) ) --CTSWyneken 15:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm... using Biblical Prophecies to date Jesus' birth is HIGHLY POV. While perhaps there could be a reference to this under Christian perspectives, it does not belong in the first sentence (where the dates currently are).--Andrew c 18:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jim62sch 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do use it somewhere, make sure you source it and note that not all Christians agree with that interpretation. If you check Google, there's a range of different interpretations given for the Daniel passage (from seeing it as fulfilled, to seeing it as partially fulfilled, to seeing it as yet future), and not all of them accept "Bible Algebra." --MonkeeSage 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that a) Jesus is God because He fulfills prophesy and b) Jesus must fulfill prophesy because He is God is a circular argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs)

Indeed. All it means is that, if true, God kept his promises. Which is what we Christians say anyway, but it is not proof of what we believe. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If a person's faith is secure, proof is unnecessary. Only those who fear that their faith may be incorrect require proof -- hence the YECs, and the IDists, etc. Jim62sch 00:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the Thomistic view of "faith" -- the Augustinian view is crede ut intelligas" ("believe that you may understand"). Roughly, the one says that faith is blind and takes over where reasoning stops, the other says that all reasoning presupposes faith. In brief, Fideism vs Foundationalism. --MonkeeSage 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm an agnostic, I was trying to be nice. Anyway, in the US, the Thomistic view holds sway, the Augustinian view is partially why I'm an agnostic (it's a long explanation). Jim62sch 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See also faith and reason. It helps to explain why Atheism is not faith...at least, not by one definition of faith. A while ago, SOPHIA and I had to explain this to KHM03. I actually agree with the view that faith is complementary to reason, but (after reading the article!) I can understand where others are coming from. BTW, my faith is secure (so far at least!) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Since Jim62sch brought up Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design, let me just say that I accept Theistic evolution. Same science, different metaphysics ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need proof to know God created the earth exactly how the Bible says He did, (Which is Creationism) but I don't see how a little bit of proof is unwarrented in order to attempt to show others the truth. Since when did trying to quantify the truth in more rational terms qualify under the heading of "weak faith"? But back on topic, I think the circa thing is a bit vauge, we should just stick with the scholarly idea since CTSW did after all spend quite a while finding all those citations for us :D. Homestarmy 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor flaw: supernatural explanations of "creation/origins" are neither provable nor disprovable, so "a little bit of proof" will never happen...that's why it's called faith, and not science. And, no, I'm not disparaging your beliefs -- whatever makes you happy, and makes you a good person is fine, so long as that belief is not forced upon others using disengenuous means (see Intelligent design, Wedge strategy, and Answers in Genesis. •Jim62sch• 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Jesus ever say anything about evolution, good or bad? If not, then this is quickly getting off topic. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A proof doesn't have to prove things when the systems of thought being looked at are so diametically opposed that a proof from one perspective is not proof for another, like if I made a proof in base 10 it wouldn't mean a thing in base 7, and when you've got creationism and evolution, I think it's safe to say neither side really recognized the other's proofs as, well, proofs. But are you saying trying to advocate that God created the universe is forcing someone's belief on someone? because if so, I should be hauled off by the intolerance police for 15 cumulative life sentences by now.... Homestarmy 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the universe had to come from somewhere. Science says the universe went bang, religion says who banged. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the "big bang" has been modified a bit like a real scientific theory. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to explain, plus this isn't the place. •Jim62sch• 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, maybe God clapped his hands. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A proof expressed in base 10 will relate to a proof expressed in base 7 by a clear mathematical link (couldn't let that one go - I'm just about to train as a maths teacher!). And if God made the universe - who made God? Well off topic - sorry! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Who made God? Actually, God is either self-caused or the uncaused first cause. However, this is neither math nor religion, but rather philosophy. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone altered the dates again. I put them back, pending discussion. Is there anything we haven't considered? I know we've made some progress on documentation on the talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death page, but I don't think we settled on a final strategy for it all. The options I've seen are:

1. No dates at all.
2. Move to second paragraph.

I think we've agreed not to do those...

3. Represent the earliest and latest dates suggested by qualified scholars for both birth and death dates (what we have now)
4. Use cira and the most agreed upon dates. (best I can tell, 5 BCE/BC to 33 AD/CE.

Did I miss anything? --CTSWyneken 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I like #3 with the 5-33 range, as circa with dates that old allow for a wide range of deviation; either that or just a range with the lower and upper bounds (12-36 about?) --MonkeeSage 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I like what we have now, but I recognize that the price of a good article is constant vigilance. Thanks, CTSWyneken, for taking on the job. Rick Norwood 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the "circa" solution, only we should make the range 7-33 (as 7 BC is quite a widespread view, especially since it corresponds with the astronomical findings of Johann Kepler. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought Kepler said 6 BC? (He might have said 6 BCE, except BCE wasn't invented yet ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was mistaken. Still, 7 is quite "popular". I myself not don't mind much whether we put in 7 or 6 - only 5 seems too late and too little for a "circa". An alternative is always to say "before 4", but I guess that will not please those arguing for 2 BC. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed the dates again before achieving agreement here. Please! Doing this is very likely to set off an edit war. Let's agree first here. So far, I see some on #3, some on #4. Can the #4 folk convince us that circa isn't edit war bait? --CTSWyneken 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a Bible,a "special" one with a Biblical timeline in it.The timeline says that he MOST LIKELY was born in about 6 or 5 BC.-Agoodperson 03:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I think we'll find most scholars saying something like that. But there are a substantial number of folk who will go much earlier and somewhat later. Some, like Jack Finnegan, are very highly respected in their discipline. The risk we take is that fans of those scholars will... vigorously... engage in debate and near edit war to insist that if we cira a date it be theirs. --CTSWyneken 11:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)