Talk:Rejection of Jesus: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Signing comment by 98.223.104.222 - "" |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Jewish or Musism?== |
==Jewish or Musism?== |
||
Is this article supposed to be a rejection of jesus from the jewish or the muslim persective? Becuase both religiions have different reasons for rejecting Jesus, might consider clarifying the title to something like "Rejection of Jesus (Jewish POV)" and then have a seperate article "Rejection of Jesus (Muslim POV)" |
Is this article supposed to be a rejection of jesus from the jewish or the muslim persective? Becuase both religiions have different reasons for rejecting Jesus, might consider clarifying the title to something like "Rejection of Jesus (Jewish POV)" and then have a seperate article "Rejection of Jesus (Muslim POV)" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.223.104.222|98.223.104.222]] ([[User talk:98.223.104.222|talk]]) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 04:57, 5 January 2009
 | Christianity: Jesus Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Rejection?
I'm not sure that the Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum episode really deserves to be described as a "rejection". Matthew says that they "did not reform", but it's not clear that this means that they actively rejected Jesus (as in the rejection at Nazareth), or that they merely ignored him. In any case I've removed the reference to Luke (which only contains the curses and not the reason for them). Grover cleveland 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Gospel of Thomas
I removed the referances to the Gospel of Thomas from the Snoptic Gospels section, Christians dont hold the Gospel of Thomas as true scripture. It shouldnt be referaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have read that I believe this is neutral to not incude that information. Unless you can show somewhere that the majority Jewish view includes using the Gospel of Thomas to discredit Jesus, but if it is added back it in might be inportant to note then that that arguement is invalid for Christians since the vast majority dot use the G of Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about the historical Rejection of Jesus. For the Jewish view of Jesus, see Jewish view of Jesus. For the New Testament view of Jesus, see New Testament view on Jesus' life. The Gospel of Thomas is a primary source on the Historical Jesus and is used by such Wikipedia reliable source groups as the Jesus Seminar. It would not be a neutral point of view to restrict this article to canonical books only. If you wanted a restricted article, you could create Rejection of Jesus in the New Testament. 64.149.82.253 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
(Same person as above, different computer) But my contention isnt that you cant use that or the aprochiphal book to diprove Jesus (if the Jews use them as their reasoning) but it should be in a differnt section then under a section label Snopic Gospels. If you want to include with the Luke and other Gospel quotes the term Snopic Gospel should be used since the Gospel of THomas isnt a snoptic gospel. I dont have a problem using it, just the way it is being used. Either rename the section or have seperate section.
Jewish or Musism?
Is this article supposed to be a rejection of jesus from the jewish or the muslim persective? Becuase both religiions have different reasons for rejecting Jesus, might consider clarifying the title to something like "Rejection of Jesus (Jewish POV)" and then have a seperate article "Rejection of Jesus (Muslim POV)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)