Examine individual changes

[ 0 => '==Neutrality of images of Jesus==', 1 => 'It can be justly considered POV on my part but, I have a problem with pictures of Jesus in an article that is supposed to provide "neutral" information about him. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]] 17:15 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)', 2 => false, 3 => 'These images don't say this ''is'' him, merely that this is a widely used one. It is clearly categorised to indicate which branch of christianity use this image. It does not suggest this ''is'' him, just that this is how billions of christians see him as. Just because we have no definitive image is no justification for not using ''some'' image. We don't have a ''live'' picture of George Washington, Elizabeth I, Napoleon, St. Peter, all popes before Pius IX, all US presidents before the 1850s, the Irish Famine, the Black Death, etc. but sourcebooks, textbooks, etc still use drawings, paintings, representations, etc. Sometimes we have images made during their lifetime. In many cases, we have artworks that are pure speculation. ', 4 => false, 5 => 'One problem with many articles on wiki is that we have few images. We have vast texts which as anyone who has ever laid out a page in a publication knows are an instant turnoff to readers. Creating a reader-friendly layout involves using headings, definitions, a reader-friendly typeset ''and'' images that break up the text and give a context. All this image does is remind people that this man had a facey. It reminds people that most christian religions have images of him which they use in their churches and prayer-houses. It contextualises ''this'' image by saying which branch of christianity it comes from. There is nothing to stop people adding in alternative images of Christ from Orthodox soures, various protestant sources, etc. Creating a special ''images of Christ'' page would run contrary to the basic rule of laying out main text pages, which is ''always'' if at all possible use images ''in the text'' to break up the text and make it more userfriendly. This image (and the others used) just happen to be from a website with states its images are free of copyright and are free to be used in any context. But I find the argument that in a page on Jesus Christ you should not use images of Jesus Christ strange. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 21:31 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)', 6 => false, 7 => ':Please calm down JT. It is not "absurd in the extreme" to suggest the number and content of the images on this page is excessive. Each of the images is ''not'', as you say, an image of JC - they are only interpretations of how certain artists ''thought'' he looked like (all following a common set of themes). These images were created for religious purposes and advancing a religious purpose was the goal of the artists and religious institutions that commissioned the work (they are designed to evoke certain emotions in the viewers &#8211; this is highly POV). Also, more current historical and ethnological evidence casts serious doubts on the popular picture of how JC looked. For example, the skin color is too light, the hair too straight, the face too long, and the nose is both too long and thin. Now an image showing what experts think JC might have looked like would be far more appropriate - esp since the whole purpose of having images of people is to illustrate how the person looked. Therefore the images are only tangentially associated to the subject of this article - JC. The popular depiction of JC in art is another subject. As it is, this article gives a strong religious-focused impression that is not in conformance with our NPOV policy. There is also a technical issue that the number of images in this article is not at all friendly to people with dial-up modems. In short most, if not all, of the current images should be removed. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]', 8 => false, 9 => ': I'm just suggesting that there are all sorts of ethnological, aesthetic and religious arguments that can be avoided if images are not used. Personally, I think that the images chosen are more than a tad too sentimental for my taste. And, besides, I'm not sure that "traditional" is the right label to apply to Rennaissance and Romantic portraits of a blond Jesus. If your intention is to portray "tradition", St. Luke's icon of Christ is widely admired, how about using that instead (if my taste matters in this regard)? Anyway, I'm not going to delete these images; but I am understating my dislike for them, and that's regrettable if the article evokes such an immediate subjective response, even before it is read. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]] 00:27 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 10 => false, 11 => 'I disagree. All the images say is - this is how some religious believers in Jesus Christ perceive him, ''not'' this is how he looked. In addition, these images have been used for centuries, which is by definition ''tradition''. That does not mean they are right or wrong images, just that they have been used for centuries, hence they ''are'' traditional images. As to dial-up modems, I'm on a dial-up modem & it caused no problems. Nor did it cause any problems on another person's computer when I used a dial-up modem there earlier tonight. If you want a problem, look at articles with vast amounts of text and ''no'' images. As anyone who has ever laid out a document knows, that is something you should never do, not for a general readership (academic texts are another matter). Visually contextualising an article is a basic rule of laying out text, because it makes the text more visually friendly. ', 12 => false, 13 => 'I think it is irrelevant that Christ didn't look as these images suggest. For a start there is no image anywhere of how he looked. Most pictures of Queen Elizabeth I are doctored. Many middle-ages images of monarchs are false. Many images of modern film stars are phoney. (I can think of one top actress whose face looks like the surface of the moon but with proper makeup, lighting and severely doctored pictures, she is made to look like one of the great Hollywood beauties.) Billions of christians across the denominations perceive Christ as in these pictures. It would be absurd for wiki to say that it will only show ''real'' likenesses; does that mean that wiki will only carry images of George Burns and Frank Sinatra if they show them minus their toupees? George Hamilton without the hair-dye? Princess Diana before her nose job? We are dealing with a figure who has been represented in the forms shown for two millenia. You can't simply say 'sorry, billions of people, your images of Christ are wrong therefore we won't show images you use on wikipedia'. You can say in the article 'of course Christ didn't actually look as christian art suggested.' But we don't ''know'' how he looked. We do however know how billions, albeit wrongly perceive him to have looked. ', 14 => false, 15 => 'Of course art is generates up emotions. Are you saying then that art shouldn't be on wiki pages, other than those devoted to art? I think that is preposterous. If they had captions that said 'Jesus Christ', 'Jesus's birth', 'Jesus on the Cross' etc then you would be right to complain. But they ''very deliberately'' don't. They have NPOV captions - a Greek Orthodox Icon of Christ, a Catholic image of Christ. A traditional image of the Nativity, etc. The captions do not say these are ''accurate'' images, just ''commonly used'' images to illustrate the stories in Christ's life. The captions form ''no'' judgments as to the accuracy of the pictures and doesn't ask the reader to do so. ''All'' they do is visually highlight common impressions about Christ. You are talking about the crucifixion - here's a common image used of the crucifixion. Christ's birth in Bethlehem - here's a common image used by billions of people of that event. And here is how Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers perceive Christ. They do nothing more than highlight ''commonly held perceptions''. They form no judgments, express no opinions, give no analysis. All they do is use commonly held images with deliberately neutral POV captions to make a long article less daunting and more user-friendly. And I simply do not for the life of me see what the problem is or how there could be a problem. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 02:35 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 16 => false, 17 => '::I think having pictures is a good idea, but given the fact that we can only present a small number of images, we need to make sure that the images do not favor one POV over another; we need to make sure that images are not used to push someone's POV. For instance, see the [[Rachel Corrie]] article, which certain people tried to use to create a cyber-shrine to one individual, effectively violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. (No one makes such cyber-shrines for Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist victims of terrorism. Why did Rachel Corrie deserve more space in this encyclopedia that most serious historical topics? Hmm...sounds like POV pushing.) [[User:RK|RK]]', 18 => false, 19 => '::: (cutting in) [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wiki is not paper]] - we're unlikely to run out of "space". And by all means add photos to, say, [[Netanel Ozeri]] if you want to and can find them.', 20 => '::: Note that [[Rachel Corrie]] includes a photo of her burning the US flag, thus complimenting the POV that she was "anti-American". [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]]', 21 => false, 22 => ':In this case, mainstream Christianity has always held that it is permissible to make pictures of Jesus, and historically we see that the use of Jesus in art is a big part of Christianity. Since we can only have a few images per article (otherwise they will be too slow to load for most people, and waste bandwidth) we need to maintain NPOV. Solution: Give a few popular images of Jesus that are accepted as valid by large Christian denominations, and then explain this topic new section: We need a serious new section on '''Jesus in Art''', or '''Christianity in Art''' or something like that. We could explain the development of how Christian artists portrayed Jesus in different times and places. BTW, the early pictures showed him ''without'' a beard. In regards to beards, I wonder what the general practice of Jews in this era was? (I have no idea.) [[User:RK|RK]]', 23 => false, 24 => 'A fair point, RK. I chose the images of the nativity, death and resurrection because they tend to be commonly accepted aspects of christ's life, rather than images that are specifically identifiable with one faith. As to the two earlier pictures, I captioned them to highlight that they are the views of specific branches of christianity (Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic), rather than implying they were acepted by all christians. There were other images available which I judged too denominational to use, such as of the Last Supper, which different faiths interpret differently, etc. But his birth, crucifixion and resurrection seemed sufficiently non-denominational. (I even made a point of not choosing a crucifixion scene that had Mary in it, for fear of it being perceived as overly Roman Catholic, given that church's particular 'devotion' to Mary.) [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 02:35 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 25 => '----', 26 => 'We seem to be rehashng an old argument -- I agree with everyone above except JTDIRL. The representation of Jesus Christ in art is a very complex issue and deserves its own article; conversely, to include images here would require too much tangential discussion on art history. Put it in another article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]', 27 => false, 28 => 'Number 1: If you read RK's comments you'd see that he too believed there should be some images used in this article. The issue is simply which ones. <br>', 29 => 'Number 2: ''to include images here would require too much tangential discussion on art history''. T Explain. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 05:00 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 30 => false, 31 => ':This is an article on Jesus Christ. It tries -- as it should -- to distinguish between what most scholars agree on about Jesus as an historical figure, versus what they do not, versus his (His) meaning for various religious communities -- this is a complex issue that requires some nuanced presentations of how critical and religious scholars read texts. Images are texts too, and the process of reading them is no les complicated than reading a written text. No one on this page claims that an image could innocently "represent" Jesus -- the implication is that ay image reflects an artist's conception of Jesus in a particular period, as a well as a tradition of how people have experienced that image. An encyclopedia has an obligation to represent scholarship, and believe me, there is considerable scholarship on this matter. I think we obviously cannot include one image or two or three to represent "Jesus;" including any images must be to represent changing ways of imagining Jesus. To do this well -- we ll want to do well, don't we? This is a serious project, isn't it? -- we should provide as many major examples of changing images, as well as a good discussion of how these images have ben read. I just think this would be more appropriate to another article; if we did it here too many servers are too slow and it will screw people up. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]', 32 => false, 33 => '::Just to add another opinion to the mix: I think the first two images work quite well for the article. They are varied enough to show that there is no fixed view and having images from different denominations evens out the POV. The other images don't feel quite right to me, somehow showing images of the crucifixion and nativity seems to be making too much of a statement. I agree they would be better as part of a "Jesus in art" article. ', 34 => false, 35 => '::Using the first two images would give versions from two of the three main branches of Christianity, how about using them plus a traditional image from a Protestant denomination? -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 09:14 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 36 => false, 37 => ':::::I have been searching for a protestant image but so far I have not been able to find one. I agree the article should feature one. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]]', 38 => false, 39 => '::: Is there's really any such thing? Although there are certainly Protestants who have created images of Jesus, I'm not sure that that there is a "protestant tradition" of religious art, or of Jesus-portraiture. Roman Catholic and eastern orthodox art, backward from the 17th century, is the tradition in which Protestants partially share. As I say that, I can think of a few works that have a distinctly Protestant point of view - but, I'm not sure that this constitutes a tradition which Protestants of various and all stripes would recognize if they saw it. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]]', 40 => false, 41 => '::::I was vaguely thinking of the images in stained-glass windows in churches. Would an image from one of them be suitable? I know there isn't the same tradition of religious art as in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 18:15 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 42 => false, 43 => 'If there are going to be pictures shown, I like seeing pictures from the various traditions, personally. Would it be possible to give the year or at least the century that each one is believed to be from? Also, regarding the captions that say the picture is "traditional", it would really be appropriate to identify the tradition you're talking about; they're certainly not traditional Orthodox icons.', 44 => false, 45 => 'Regarding the Greek Orthodox icon, I have some technical nits to pick. It appears that it has been cropped on all sides, and thereby distorted. In the upper left, there ought to be a large "I" with a circumflex over it, to match the "X" in the upper right corner; the initials I.X. signifiy Jesus Christ in Greek. His right hand is mostly visible, but his left hand should be holding a book, either open or closed, but it has been entirely cropped. If that were shown, it would be possible to identify the proper title for the icon, and the book itself is really part of the icon and is part of what it is meant to communicate. (Typically it represents the Gospel or the Law and Gospel if open (not entirely sure which), or the Book of Life if closed.) In Orthodoxy, icons are written as carefully as any doctrinal treatise; cropping it and presenting it as Orthodox is almost like omitting a paragraph from one of the creeds.', 46 => '[[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 17:59 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 47 => false, 48 => '::It is a fair point. Unfortunately it was already cropped to lose these elements before I found it. I cropped it to make it the same scale as the picture of the Sacred Heart. If anyone can find a better full icon, by all means use it. ', 49 => false, 50 => '::: Since I made my earlier comment, I've learned that cropped versions like the one here aren't that uncommon. I personally still don't like to see them cropped, but perhaps that's just my personal feeling more than anything. So, I withdraw that objection. I certainly understand the desire to make similar images the same size, for aesthetic reasons :-) [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 22:22 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)', 51 => false, 52 => 'I think the other pictures are useful because they are associated in general with christian imagery. If they are not used in orthodox churches, perhaps they should be described as traditional western christian images. The nativity scene, for example, is used in millions of christmas cards. I do disagree with Sirubenstrein. Yes encyclopædias need to be encyclopædic. But ''all'' encyclopædias use general images like these to create a visually attractive page. They do not treat such images as themselves encyclopædic - I know, I have designed a page on Christ for one major encyclopædia and they ''specifically requested'' images like these, ones that weren't official artwork associated with one faith (eg, famous catholic mosaics, etc) but were generic images of the life of Christ, as believed in across the denominations. These images ''are'' non-denominational; I deliberately left out any pictures that did have denominational content, such as showing Mary at the foot of the cross, pentecost, the Last Supper, etc. If they ''are'' to big for some servers (though I am on an exceptionally slow one and have no difficulty) they can always be cropped or made smaller. But I think as a matter of design principle, I think it is crucial that ''some'' images be used to contextualise the page. I think it would be left pretty unfriendly reader-wise without some images. Yes there should be a page on christian artwork, but given that Christ's image is ''the'' most copied one in history, it makes no sense not to use some images on the page itself. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 21:12 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)', 53 => false, 54 => ': If you are looking for "protestant" images, then I suppose you're looking for something like Rembrandt's ''Christ''. Protestantism turned sharply away from the liturgical and devotional use of portraits. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]]', 55 => false, 56 => ': The style of second and following images feels very Roman Catholic to me. One might be OK, especially when counterbalanced with the first one, but a whole set of them creates quite a different impression. The scenes may be non-denominational but the style of art is not. [[User:Stephen C. Carlson|SCCarlson]] 03:13 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 57 => false, 58 => 'I still feel that the images beyond the first two don't work. Many people flicking through an article will read the first paragraph or so and look at the pictures. So the tone of the article is set more by the images than by the text. I feel the tone the later pictures are setting is one of proselytising (I know this isn't your intention STÓD/ÉÍRE, it's just the "atmosphere" I get from the page in its current form). ', 59 => false, 60 => 'I can see that they don't feel that way to STÓD/ÉÍRE and that the first two images ''do'' feel that way to Mkmcconn, mav and Slrubenstein (I think RK is somewhere in the middle of those views?)', 61 => false, 62 => 'Is there a compromise possible here? Or does everyone feel too strongly about it? -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 08:00 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)', 63 => false, 64 => ':This is an acceptable compromise. The first two images can stay but the others need to go. I feel like I'm back in church seeing the second two - their content definitely gives a feeling of proselytization to me. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]', 65 => false, 66 => ':: I think that proselytization may be in the eye of the beholder as much as beauty. The Orthodox picture "feels" more like church to me, the Catholic one probably "feels" more like church to Catholics and ex-Catholics. Historically, Christian artwork was intended to convey the Christian message or parts of it, among other purposes. Just treat the pictures as POV statements or representations, with appropriate captions and disclaimers like any other POV that gets presented. That way they can be presented neutrally. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]', 67 => false, 68 => ':: My feeling is that the article is too busy with pictures (besides the particular pictures being not to my personal liking). Would you consider trying to embrace the largest number of perspectives in one image, rather than trying to find diverse images? Most early icons of '''Christ pantocrator''' are acceptable to both, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, and are (speaking subjectively, of course) the least offensive to Protestant sensibilities - avoiding the romanticism, sentimentalism and effeminacy of more recent Roman depictions. Mormons also have expressed appreciation of this tradition of icons of Christ, because these "depictions" tend to fit the LDS conception of a "muscular Jesus". But, as I've said before, I'm determined to leave it to someone else to make these decisions; I'm just registering my own preferences for your consideration. [[User:Mkmcconn|Mkmcconn]] 01:29 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 69 => false, 70 => 'the 'effeminacy' of Jesus??? The mind boggles. I still can't see any logic to the argument. (Sorry guys, not being rude!). The central core of christian belief is that he was born, crucified and rose from the bed. Three widely used non denominational pictures show him . . . em . . . being born, being crucified and rising from the dead in an article that mentions him being . . . born, being crucified and rising from the dead. Where is the proselytizating in that? As to the suggestion of using early icons, the trouble is ''most'' christians of all denominations don't recognise them? (ie, they aren't familiar with them). Such images undoubtedly belong on a page on christian art. The images here are widely used, certainly in the western tradition. The Orthodox Christ is ''immediately recognisable'' to Orthodox believers. The Catholic one recognisable to billions of Catholic believers. The Nativity scene is used on millions of christmas cards worldwide, bought by, sold to and sent to catholics, anglicans, protestants and non christians alike. (I got one from a Muslim friend last year!) The death on the cross is used across the denominations, and almost all Christians believe he rose from the dead. None of the captions suggests 'this is what would have been seen if CNN had had live coverage'. All are ''simply'' commonly shown images used across the denominations to show the three major stages in Christ's life; birth, death and resurrection. As to the reference to 'Roman depictions' which I presume means Roman Catholic, these three images (all uncopyright) are to be found on Roman Catholic, Anglican and protestant sites. I don't know if the RC had them first and then they were copied to the other, or whether they originated on the Anglican and protestant sites, and then were copied by the RC site. But they are most definitely not exclusively RC depictions. I am still at a loss to understand how three common images of three key stages in Christ's life, mentioned in the article itself and believed in across the denominations, is somehow POV. If the images are POV, then so is the article's mention of the events they show. All they show in commonly used pictorial form things mentioned in the article, ie 'this is how christians across the denominations imagine those events'. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 04:08 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 71 => false, 72 => ':So this article is supposed to be focused on Jesus as a religious figure (that is the feeling I get from the last two images)? That is only one POV about him. The last two images may look fine to you but several people now have said that they are too romanticized and unnecessarily emotion-provoking to be appropriate. If images of Jesus' alledged crucification and resurrection are needed and are commented on, then other images that do not have the above described problems should be used (taking the 'technical problem' argument off the table for the moment). We have had similar problems with excessive images at [[Rachel Corrie]] and [[Kosovo War]] where excessive images from only one POV ''distract'' from the article. Overdoing it is also a very important thing to consider in web design. You are right that not having any images in an article is boring but having too many or ones that are designed to evoke certain emotions (as the last two are) is ''distracting''. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] ', 73 => false, 74 => 'I don't think we are going to reach a consensus here. STÓD/ÉÍRE, would you agree to a compromise in the name of Wikilove? -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] 08:55 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 75 => false, 76 => ': Without trying to be argumentative, I want to try to explain how seemingly neutral pictures can be POV. The first "Orthodox" picture shows Jesus with a fairly serious expression. This is intended to indicate that he is "passionless", not controlled by his passions or emotions; saints are similarly shown with serious facial expressions for the same reason. This is clearly an opinion about Jesus, based on a theological/religious belief about him; I won't pretend that it's neutral. The later western pictures show a Jesus that is more clearly touched by emotion, perhaps based on the idea that Jesus must have experienced all the emotions we do in order to sympathize with us, or simply because he was human like us, without the idea of passionlessness being one of his attributes as God, and without the idea of passionlessness being one of the objectives of a Christian life. The picture of the resurrection shows Christ looking up towards heaven, seemingly leaving earth and earthly scenes behind him. By contrast, the typical Orthodox icon of the resurrection shows Christ rising out of the grave, but looking downward as he grasps Adam with one hand and Eve with the other, pulling both of them out of the grave as well, symbolically showing that his resurrection was not just a personal triumph but that by it he rescued all of humanity. ', 77 => false, 78 => ': I once saw a picture of the resurrection similar to the one shown here that showed an angel opening the tomb, and Christ rising from it looking heavenward. It seemed to give the impression that Christ could not have risen had not the angel come to rescue him; clearly a religious idea that I'm sure has been advanced by someone somewhere. I saw this picture (a rather large one) behind the altar in the sanctuary of an Orthodox church in Chicago while visiting there almost a year ago; the priest told me how very offended he was by it (I don't recall how it came to be there), and how happy he was that day to have just received a genuine icon to replace it. To sum up, I really don't think there's such a thing as a "nondemonominational" picture of Jesus, unless by nondenominational you mean a picture that most Western Protestants who don't affiliate themselves with a specific well-known denomination would feel comfortable with.', 79 => false, 80 => ': As far as recognizability goes, I wonder what the statistics are concerning number of Protestants worldwide compared to the number of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worldwide? From a global perspective, I think the older icons might be as recognizable as any, even if most Americans are unfamiliar with them. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 17:34 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 81 => false, 82 => '::Wesley, thank you for a very thoughtful comment. I want to register that I am still opposed to the inclusion of pictures in this article -- the pictures do not illustrate the article, which is about Jesus; they illustrate an article on Christianity (the primary consequence of/response to Jesus' life) or an article on representations of Jesus. In the context of this article, they seem to me to be anachronistic. Frankly, I do not understand STÓD/ÉÍRE's investment in this matter. As far as I can tell, his argument is that it would make the article prettier. Personally, for me it doesn't -- but I am not arguing with his asthetics. I am, rather, asking why he cares so much about this asthetic issue when most other contributors to this article are opposed? I am not saying we should put this to a vote -- I am saying that I often give up on a point when I see that no one else agrees with me -- unless I think it is a point absolutely crucial to ensureing that the article is NPOV or accurate. STÓD/ÉÍRE, do you really think these pictures have to be included to make the article NPOV or accurate? If not, why are you so committed to this issue? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]', 83 => false, 84 => 'Might I suggest that a link be placed (if still possible on a locked page) to an article on the iconoclast movement in the early church... or would that be covered in a link to Christianity?', 85 => '--[[User:Eleuthero|eleuthero]] 04:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)', 86 => false, 87 => '----', 88 => false, 89 => '==Genealogy of Jesus==', 90 => false, 91 => 'Removed these links: ', 92 => false, 93 => '*The ancestry of Jesus according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html', 94 => '*A geneological tree of Jesus focusing in his ancestry:http://www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/persons/per02851.htm#0', 95 => false, 96 => 'The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give incompatible genealogies (note spelling) of Jesus: a detailed description of how people have tried to synthesize these into a single genealogy, and attempted to harmonize them with Old Testament genealogies with which they conflict might be useful, but a link to any particular genealogy (such as those above) is an endorsement of a particular point of view. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 23:18 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)', 97 => false, 98 => 'I actualy added them as four very different interpretations of Jesus family tree.Matthew and Luke give two very different accounts.The first tree accepts Luke and disqualifies Matthew.The second, if you removed it, is a combination of various recent geneological theories that include alleged descedants.I think the only point of view given is that his geneology is a matter of debate.As is anything else about him it seems.Any ideas of adding a mention to the various points of view about his origin? User: Dimadick', 99 => false, 100 => ':Well, that his genealogy is debated is a fact, not a point of view! It seems to me a simple statement that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke give incompatible genealogies for Jesus, and that there is no other documentation of his lineage (and for that matter decendants!), is preferable to linking to speculative genealogies. If anyone wanted to get into the various ways people have tried to reconcile the conflicting genealogies, that could be added, too. -- [[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 00:29 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 101 => false, 102 => 'Actualy the theory that Jesus had descedants is a recent one but ,at least in Greece where I live, it has been gaining popularity and is presented in various books by greek authors.The previous geneology is the only one I could find in an English page that had a similar theory. But the simple statements you propose would work fine for me. User: Dimadick', 103 => false, 104 => ': I think it would be accurate and objective to say that Matthew and Luke give genealogies which are not identical to each other. To conclude that they are also incompatible with each other is one Point Of View. It's possible that the Infancy Gospel of James has some info about his lineage as well, but I would have to look. Some of the Epistles and other NT books probably make passing references to it without going into any great detail. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]', 105 => false, 106 => '::They give Christ two different paternal grandparents: since humans have only one, they are incompatible. They become more divergent the further back they go. The approach of most who claim that the Bible contains no errors is to say what neither Matthew nor Luke say: that one is Christ's genealogy through Joseph and the other his genealogy through Mary. They are that different. --[[User:Someone else|Someone else]] 18:09 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 107 => false, 108 => '::: They are incompatible if you assume he had the usual human sort of parentage of one human father and one human mother; given the premise of both Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born of a Virgin, and Matthew's explicit declaration that he was giving Joseph's genealogy, one is only left to wonder why Joseph's is given at all. [[John Chrysostom]] discusses this at length in his first four homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, as well as many other writers. See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-07.htm#TopOfPage. I think it's at least fair to acknowledge that the explanation is internally consistent, though you're welcome to question the premise of the Virgin birth. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 22:39 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)', 109 => false, 110 => ':::: "Some of the Epistles and other NT books probably make passing references to [the genealogy of Jesus]". I cannot find any such references. The epistolary writers, especially Paul, display no interest in that question. Such interest is late (around AD 90?) and attested only in Matthew and Luke. -- Sebastjan', 111 => false, 112 => 'One such reference is in Romans 1:3-4 (NKJV): "... 3concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." A reference to his lack of genealogy is in Hebrews 7:14 (NKJV): " 14For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." In Hebrews 7 much is made of his genealogy, including a comparison with Melchizidek who has no recorded genealogy. I was guessing when I made the comment initially; these are just two references I found via a short Google search. :-) [[User:Wesley|Wesley]]' ]