Talk:Jesus/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

"Me!"

A user appears to have vandalised this page, and has not been corrected. I do not have the ability to correct it, please revert it back to its previous state.

76.19.215.204 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph dies

I removed this from the section on the Gospel account:

John's account of Jesus commending Mary into the care of the beloved disciple during his crucifixion (John 19:25–27) suggests that Joseph had died by that time.

for two reasons. First, in principle I think that the section on "according to the Gospels" shoule be just that, what the Gosepels say. So John doesn't explicitly say Joseph died. Hmmm. Curious. Why not? i do not know. What I do know is, John doesn't say he died. Any further discussion is interpretation, and doesn't belong in this section. Second, the reason given is one POV and a specifically Christian one. here is another interpretation: by the time John wrote his book, Christians stopped thinking of Jesus as a human and son of two humans and were starting to assert his divine nature. Maybe John couldn't write "Joseph died ..." because there were still accounts circulating that made more mention of Joseph, who knows? But maybe John did put in this line in order to call attention to the importance and authority of jesus' disciples. I realize this is a view Christians will reject out of hand. So what are we going to do, get into a revert war? I suggest that we put what the Gospels say in the Gospels section, what historians think in the historians section, and what Christians think in the Christian section. "Undue weight" is not just about one hundred sentences as opposed to one sentence. it is also about presenting one point of view and not mentioning any other possible views. This article has a structure that provides space for various views, let's honor that. And I also continue to believe that interpretations about joseph belong in the Joseph article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just the other day I was thinking that sentence didn't seem to fit in the gospel summary section.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A biography of Jesus has to include discussion of his parents or alleged parents. Otherwise it wouldn't be a biography ("life story"). One sentence, with supporting source, stating that Joseph might have already died, seems perfectly apt. It would not bother me if you moved it to another section of this article. But completely ignoring whether his father was yet living in his own article seems a bit too far.Wjhonson (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"A biography of Jesus has to include discussion of his parents or alleged parents. Otherwise it wouldn't be a biography ("life story")" is a silly sentence for two reasons. First, it is a little silly because this is an article on Jesus, not specifically a "biography." Second, it is very silly because it calls for a cookie cutter approach (all articles must follow the same format, contain the same kinds of information) using circular reasoning (a biography has to include x because all biographies include x and if this doesn't include x it is not a biography ... good grief! Thank god Picasso didn't follow your rules for portraiture!). Wjhonson, let's stick to reality, shall we, and Wikipedia policies? Wikipedia articles reflect the current state of research. They provide accounts of all notable views, from reliable sources. The Gospels do not state that Joseph "might have died" and I know of no notable historian who has a notable view on this. Do you? If there is a reliable source with a notable view, by all means, we put it in. But if there are no notable views we don't just go about making things up because it suits our fancy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good cut, SLR. I'm embarrassed that I missed it. Leadwind (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

Shouldn't it be from 7-4 BC, since Herod died in 4 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.199.102 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Peace Be Upon Him"

I insist that Peace Be Upon Him or PBUH be added after every reference to Jesus (PBUH) on this page and on every page which mentions Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) in Wikipedia. In many articles on Islam and Muhammad, this is done. If Wikipedia is allowing the Muslims to put this phrase after every mention of their "prophet," then I think it is only fair that Christians should get to do this for Jesus Peace Be Upon Him.

Please take care of this promptly so that Wikipedia can stop endorsing Islam and start endorsing all religions equally.

Praise be to Jesus Peace Be Upon Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.141.32.117 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

At least in the Muslim tradition, PBUH is a common phrase. That phrase is not used traditionally in Christianity. That said, we shouldn't be using honorifics for people, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Islamic_honorifics and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. I also get a sense that this isn't a serious suggestion, so you may also want to read WP:POINT. The best solution to take care of POV is not to add opposite POV in other article, but to correct the improper POV in the first place. Could you perhaps name some of the offending article on Islam?-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To anonymous editor: Your request is denied, per WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. Just because other articles contain a phrase characteristic of Muslim bias, doesn't mean this article should. =Axlq (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What you write, O original poster, is not true. The name of Muhammed is not followed by PBUH. See Muhammed for details. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaah... I'm pretty sure the guy was just joking with you! Atleast I hope I'm right about this :-). --PureRumble (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other religions"

Currently the article says "Jesus...was a 1st century Jewish teacher who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."

The word "religions" is linked to Abrahamic religion. While many religions have views, to some degree or another, on Jesus, which religion, besides Christianity, considers Jesus "an important figure"?

Islam is one, and the Bahaism would be another. If there are only two, then why not just mention them by name, instead of using a more vague term "other religions"?Bless sins (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because there are other groups such as the Latter-Day Saints whose status as Christian groups is controversial but for whom Jesus is undeniably important. Heck, the Latter-Day Saints even put Jesus's name into the name of their church! By saying "other" religions" we avoid having to take sides on which religions are CHristian and which aren't.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Jehovah's Witnesses. These groups are named-- but lower down in the article.--Carlaude (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

This is screwed up:

In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI referred to Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a believing Jew, who concluded from his analysis of the Gospel texts that Jesus claimed to be God by asserting himself to be a higher authority than the Jewish Law which was given to the Jews by God through Moses.

Now, Neusner is a credible authority on 1st century Judaism. And Benedict XVI is an authority on Cathololic views. But let's not mix them up. Let's not cite Benedict's citing Neusner (unless they were having lunch together and just chatting). If benedict cites neusner, let's find the book or article where Neusner said what he said, nmake sure that is what he said, and cite it. in short, cite Neusner for Neusner's view, and Benedict for Benedict's view. Whoever put this in, if you have the Benedict book, can you find the source for Neusner's view? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh you this that is "screwed up"? At least there is a citation (something many srticles do not have.

• This is screwed up. Rbreen claims "Historians of the period ... conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity..." and then cites four people and NONE of them are historians-- but three of them are Anglicans.

--Carlaude (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"oh you think ...?" Yes, I think. So you think other articles are worse? Make 'em better. This citation is screwed up! Let's fix it. Are there other problems? Let's fix them! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is screwed up here? The reference to 'historians' is by John Hick, who cites several major Biblical scholars in support of his view, and makes clear that he believes this is a widespread view. Rbreen (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If so then go and cite those historians, not authors that cite them in their book if we were to go find those books.--Carlaude (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How does it matter what religious denomination they belong to, as they are writing as scholars, not Anglicans? Rbreen (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Which denomination does not mater per say, but the fact that you reference leaders of only one denomination casts dought on the view that this is the/a Christian Majority view as you/it claims. Majority Christian View is the section name(s) that you want to put this under. --Carlaude (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On what basis has this mainstream scholarly view been simply removed from the article, despite being comprehensively cited?

It is not removed -- it was moved to the section just below: Alternative views. It also so a well known statistic that the so-called mainstream denominations are a numerical minority (and becoming all the more so).--Carlaude (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On Neusner, I agree with Slrubenstein - if Neusner says this, he should be cited directly. Rbreen (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree also and in retrospect I should have not commented. My point was only that it is not that big a deal compared to some things--Carlaude (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies: I had not noticed that the reference was moved, not deleted. I have added detailed citations for this view - there are certainly enough for this to be cited as the view of many New Testament scholars (although the cited source implies that all or at least most agree); I have moved it back to the 'majority view' section where it belongs (firstly because it is balancing a point already in that section, and secondly because the majority view section clearly refers to majority view in the sense of 'the view of mainstream denominations', and this is certainly part of the debate taking place within mainstream New Testament scholarship); finally, these are not 'leaders of only one denomination' - they are leading New Testament scholars, and the days are long past when scholars of different denominations do not talk to one another. The fact that many are Anglicans is irrelevant. If any editor can cite views of other NT scholars who disagree with this view, please do so. --Rbreen (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This section-- "Christian" "Majority View" is not about balancing points of view, what I think, or you think. This section is not about what many/some/most New Testament scholars think, or what mainstream denominations Christians think -- it is about the majority view of Christians as a whole. This is the only was to keep this section coherent. I do not object to putting your views in but these views do not belong here in this section of this article. --Carlaude (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The "alternative views" section is also inappropriate. That section is for non-mainstream Christian views. The citations are from secular and/or non-Christian scholars. Therefore, if we are to pigeon hole this content into a section, it needs to go under "historical Jesus". Another option may be just to have a footnote after the mainstream claim pointing to the scholarly view. But moving this content to the alternative views section disrupts the flow of introduction of that paragraph, and is clearly also the wrong place for the content.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Move to "historical Jesus" or put in a footnote only.--Carlaude (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you base your assumption that this is not the view of Christians as a whole? Can you provide any references to show that the other view is held by Christians as a whole, or even a majority? Is there any statement of faith of any major denomination that supports the view that Jesus claimed to be God? --Rbreen (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all we do not need any evidence about a non-belief in this view. It is the new non-classic Christianity view that would need evidence. I think the was it is being stated in such an exact hair-slitting way (even if Jesus is God did he claim to be so or make it otherwise clear) such data would be very difficult either way. The very way it is stated in these texts makes clear (to themselves) that they are advancing a new view.

Yes, it's a new view, but it's not that new. (One of the references is from 1963) Theology moves on, though popular understanding of it may not catch up with it.

I think it is being stated in such an exact hair-slitting way (even if Jesus is God did he claim to be so or make it otherwise clear) such data would be very difficult either way." What does this sentence mean? It's not clear.

Second, C.S. Lewis's trilemma reference in the article is a key element of his book Mere Christianity —and before publication it was read without objection from people of four Christian denominations Lewis knew. None objected to this.--Carlaude (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lewis's book was published over 50 years ago, and even then did not reflect the trends of Biblical scholarship of his time. He was neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar.

Lewis was a language scholar (which I suspect you are not), did draw input from numerous denominations (which I see you have not), and did reflect Biblical scholarship of his time. That book sells in large number even today (I suspect that none you reference sell in large number even today) -- but you are missing the point!--Carlaude (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should his opinions carry any more weight than those of anyone else?

Many reasons — but more important (for our purposes) than why it should is the fact that it does. More important (for our purposes) than its weight on others options is the fact that it reflects others options. --Carlaude (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who predominantly influences the views of Christian denominations if not theologians? --Rbreen (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Parents, local pastors, priests, preachers, Sunday school teachers, church fathers, creeds, counsels, Greek scholars, and oh yah, the Bible.--Carlaude (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bible? Predominantly? I sincerely doubt that, given how many different opinions can be and are being read out of that one book. In my experience, the effect of tradition on selecting and interpreting some parts is much more important than the actual words of the book itself. "If English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me. I don't need this new-fangled languages like Greek and Aramaic". ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly. How do you know what these people believe, and is the majority view the correct one? Ordinary people's views are often suprisingly unorthodox. The Barna group in 2007 found that only 37 per cent of the American population believed strongly that Jesus never sinned - does that mean it's no longer orthodox Christian belief?

This is unorthodox but not suprisingly. I bet the number is even lower if you polled China or in the Harvard theology department -— so what?

See below! --Carlaude (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, we have two sides within mainstream Christianity on this view - the Pope on one side (allegedly), an Archbishop of Canterbury on the other; so there is evidently a diversity of opinion within the mainstream on this point. It's certainly wrong to put it in with the 'minority view' section, which as Andrew c has pointed out is inappropriate. I'm not averse to this section being moved elsewhere in the article, but it needs to be the entire section (including Benedict / trilemma etc). --Rbreen (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First if there really were major splits on this issue (and thus no majority view) the solution is to deal with the issues elsewhere and be silent on it here.

Well then, the whole section should go elsewhere until this is resolved.

Second this is not being questioned or answered as you saw by the majority of Christians. Tell you what-- I'll be generous. Just as a soon as a third or more of Nicene Christianity denominations (by size) pass binding documents on this opinion (that Jesus did not claim or indicate status as God) I'll consider Christianity to have no majority view for the purposes here. --Carlaude (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, how do you know that it is not being questioned? On what basis do you believe you speak for the majority of Christians? Can you provide any evidence that this is anything more than your opinion?

Read Christian_views (note-63) This section (Christian views) is based largely on "similarities between specific Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant doctrines as found in their catechetical or confessional texts."

• You have not shown that even an Anglican denomination expresses this view in their confessional texts.
• You have not shown that even one small denomination or regional church body expresses this view in a binding resolution vote on by more than one person.
• Scholars write all sorts of thing trying to get books published and we have others places in this very article for that. But it is not a what this section is about. --Carlaude (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That Jesus claimed to be God is a central point of Christian theology. --Carlaude (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try a constructive approach here. The idea that Jesus claimed to be God is not a central point of Christian theology; therefore it does not belong under Majority views. I am going to move the whole debate to somewhere else in the article--Rbreen (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

I deleted the Neusner quote. Please do not revert. Revert again and i will delete again. i explained my reasons above. Also note, I did this only after Carlaude and Rbreen registered agreement with me. There are two good reasons for the deletion: first, Neusner's view arguably goes under jewish views, and not in a section on Christian views - please do not offend by suggesting Rabbi neusner is a Christian. Second, do not quote Benedict speaking for Neusner. When someone has neusner's book, they can quote it directly ... and do so in the proper section. But with all due respect for the pope, he does not speak for Jacob Neusner. Rabbis and Talmud professors are erfectly capable of speaking for themselves thank you very much and they do not need papal intervention of sanction. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This text needs to be corrected or deleted, I have looked over a few of the sources used for it and they are grossly misrepresented - especial the text in the footnotes. "Many New Testament scholars argue that these statements do not represent claims to divinity, and doubt that Jesus himself made any claims to be God.[86][87][88][89][90][91][92]" Just one example "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" note page 650. Hardyplants (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the point at issue here. Hurtado clearly believes, as the others do, that there is no evidence that Jesus claimed, either directly or indirectly, to be God. There is nothing on the page you refer to that suggests otherwise. What it does state is that "devotion to Jesus as divine erupted suddenly and quickly ... among first century circles of followers. More specifically, the origins lie in Jewish Christian circles of the earliest years." In other words, the followers of Jesus came to the conclusion that he was divine; but in the comment on page 5 of the book, cited here, he makes clear that he believes the view that Jesus made his divinity clear to his disciples during his ministry is 'naive and ahistorical'. The same is true of the other references. They are not arguing about the divinity of Jesus per se; only about whether Jesus claimed to be. --Rbreen (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the better topic?

I was just wondering something here. Is there any way to have this article to be the main article on Wikipedia? Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles are presented on the front page, and represent the highest-quality content created by the Wikipedia community. There are strict criteria for quality which must be met for an article to be considered, for neutrality, completeness, accuracy, and formatting among other things. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this article to meet these qualities? Can we make it so it can be the main article, or a featured article? How do we do this? Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Presently, the article is rated as a Good article, which is more than can be said for most articles on Wikipedia. This means that this article has met the quality standards of a somewhat looser set of guidelines. As Wikipedia is a collaborative project, everyone is allowed to make edits to improve the article. I would advise you to look through the list of conditions which featured articles must meet. If this article has improved to the point where it meets these high standards, it may be considered for featured article status. The article must first undergo peer review before it can be nominated for featured status, though. For more information, I would recommend that you drop a note on Raul654's talk page. He is a Wikipedia admin and the present Featured Article Director, and I'm certain he could answer any questions you have more thoroughly than I could. Best of luck. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for being so nice and answering my questions so thoughtfully! You're a credit to what Wikipedia can and should be :) Take care! Colleenthegreat (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review is compulsory now? Chensiyuan (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alos this article is painful to read. Could it be made written in a less academic style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.52.219 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's always the (very) plain-english version [1] ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the plain English version painful to read - can't we make that one more, well, interesting? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also have had difficulty with both english wikipedias. The normal english version is too hard to read and the simple english version is just too trivial and doesnt tell much. Couldnt anyone make a wikipedia where the english would be easy to read by the middle-ranked (normal) people?Skele (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider this article indicitive of what a "normal" native english speaker can understand. Are there any words or sentences that confuse you in this article? If this is a general issue you have with the English Wikipedia, you could propose a new Wikipedia but I doubt a "moderate English" Wikipedia will pass, and I seem to recall such an attempt already failing. Gathering support for such a wikipedia would be difficult. Instead, I would suggest being bold and trying to simplify any overly complicated sentences you encounter on this wikipedia. Or, you could always ask someone to do it for you. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know what "arrogated" meant? I just changed it. ^rossnixon 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a good example of a word that may be confusing. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)