Talk:Jesus/Archive 1

From Jesus Christ: "The Islamic faith recognizes Jesus as a wise man and a prophet"

-- suggest we find out the Arabic/Muslim term for "prophet" and include it in parentheses here as clarification. (27 September 2001)

Would you mind terribly to give this article some kind of structure? ;-) No, honestly: I guess this entry is going to be difficult, so I guess it would be better to clearly separate the different layers. I would propose a structure like this:

historical facts: the stuff currently located in the last paragraph (BTW, do you think it is a good idea to write he was born in the year 4 B.C.? I think BCE would be more appropriate here...)
biblical accounts: i.e. what the gospels have to say
other accounts: what the Talmud and Roman sources claim to know
later discussion: the discussions about Jesus, e.g. the councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon etc. This would be a convenient place to relate the different interpretations of the relation Godfather - Jesus.

What do you think about it?

I'm all for this sort of structure. So, go ahead and add it! --LMS

Re this wording--

was [miraculously caused to conceive]? him through union with the god of Judaism

I have to say that it sets my teeth on edge. I'm not a Christian, so maybe I shouldn't care about this sort of thing, but it sounds somewhat like saying "God and Mary had sex." What Christian doctrine would require us to describe the Immaculate Conception as the "union" of God and Mary? I am very far from being a theologian, so I'm asking you, because you seem to insist on this. I trust you have a good reason for doing so.

The other problem I have is with the phrase "the god of Judaism." If the Immaculate Conception happened, then the God that made Mary pregnant with Jesus would best be described as the God (capitalized in proper English, whether you're a believer or not) of Christianity. Of course, the reason you describe the thing as "the god of Judaism" is in order to emphasize that Jesus' birth was supposed to be a fulfillment of Jewish prophesy--and that's all very well and good, that needs to be said.

I would simply change these things back, but I thought I would give you a chance to explain why I shouldn't. --LMS

Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary lived all her life without sin, beginning from her conception. It refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus's.

You're right to point out that there's been a lot of confusion on this point; anyway, I know that "immaculate conception" refers to Mary's purity (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm ) but the implication is very often taken to be that Mary didn't have sex in order to become pregnant (sex would make her impure). --LMS

Okay this disagreement about the immaculate conception in the article reflects a very old split between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics do believe that the immaculate conception refers to Mary's sinlessness. Protestants believe that it refers to the miraculous way Christ was conceived.
Ok, here's a two minute theology lesson from the Protestant perspective(I'll let a Catholic explain their beliefs). In the beginning GOD created Adam and Eve who were creatures with free will and were sinless and were to be the progenitors of a race of sinless beings. But when Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying the one and only rule GOD gave them(by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) the human race became flawed. All of Adam and Eve's children inherited their flawed sinful nature, a doctrine called original sin. The only way to redeem mankind was to offer a blood sacrifice but according to the Torah the sacrificial lamb needed to be "without spot or blemish", in other words perfect, lacking original sin. When GOD incarnated into the person of Jesus Christ he became that perfect sacrifice, a "new" sinless Adam who could become the 'father' of a new sinless humanity. The protestant idea of the Immaculate Conception is that Jesus was conceived without Original Sin. Protestants do not believe that Mary was sinless or that she remained a virgin forever as Catholics believe. The disagreement stems largely from the fact that the Catholic Bible contains several books that Protestants reject as apocryphal.
Larry: "Mary didn't have sex in order to become pregnant (sex would make her impure)"
Christians don't believe that sex inside of marriage is sinful. Mary needed to be a virgin so Christ's birth would be perceived as a miraculous sign that fufilled old prophecies and so there would be no doubt of his parentage. No human man could be his father because they would all pass on 'original sin'. The conception needed to take place without sex not so she[Mary] would be 'pure' but so that he[Jesus] would be(again admittedly from a Protestant perspective). Shalom --MemoryHole.com

MemoryHole, if that's 'what Protestants believe', then they're misinformed. The theology of the Catholic Church from WELL before the Reformation had developed 2 separate events - the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception - but had not come to a definitive decision about the second. The Virgin Birth is the bit about no-sex-for-the-conception-of-Christ. Any Protestant who says otherwise isn't correct. It's a matter of terminology. Calvin, for one, understood the difference and was sure about the Virgin Birth and dismissive about the Immaculate Conception. The I.C. was a hot issue in theological debate from the 14th through the 19th century, when it was finally defined authoritatively. The Protestants missed out on the second doctrine because they left before it was defined. Some of them more or less believe it, but in an undogmatic way.

On protestantism and the perpetuation of Virginity -- The Virgin Birth is fiercely defended by all the Reformers against attacks. Calvin believed that she remained a Virgin, some did not (I'm basing that on memory, but he had a pretty high regard for the status of the Virginity of Mary). Luther I'm not so sure about. --MichaelTinkler

LOL, well I'm not about to step into the bear trap of whether or not Protestants are right when they use the term. I only assert that (at least some sects) do use the term that way. Its my understanding that the Immaculate Conception didn't become official Catholic dogma until 1854, after the Reformation. Perhaps the term existed in a more nebulous form when the split happened and the two meanings evolved seperately(?) A Google search for "Immaculate Conception of Mary"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22immaculate+conception+of+mary%22&btnG=Google+Search]] shows 1,980 hits, the "Immaculate Conception of Jesus"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22immaculate+conception+of+Jesus%22&btnG=Google+Search shows 224 hits, so while people seem to use the term more often when referring to Mary they certainly don't exclusively use it for her. Thomas Jefferson uses the term "Immaculate Conception of Jesus" in a letter dated 1819 so the usage of the term is at least that old.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

--MemoryHole.com

Hmmm. Thomas Jefferson. Not the best witness for any kind of orthodox protestantism. HE sure was a Humpty Dumpty of the spirit - cut up scripture to match his preconceptions of what it SHOULD have said. :) --MichaelTinkler

I only mentioned him to prove that the term "Immaculate conception of Jesus" was in use hundreds of years ago. For the record he mentions it only in a footnote and he is in opposition to it.
Here's the letter: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl259.htm
While trolling around Google I found something interesting, Muslims believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Jesus. --MemoryHole.com

Someone should also check up on the Jewish beliefs about the Messiah at that time. Isaiah does say that "a virgin shall conceive", but was that the primary sign they were looking for? Does "virgin" in the OT verse even definitely refer to the sexual sense and not just the "young woman" sense?

The Jewish beliefs about the messiah at the time are well documented by historical scholars. Their views of the messiah have *nothing* to do with what Christians call the messiah. It may be the same word, but their meanins are totally divergent. The Israelites expected a descendent of King David to restore Israel. This person would be the messiah. There was nothing supernatural about him, he was not considered to be the son of God, part of the God Himself, or anything like that. RK

The interpretation given by Marcello Craveri in "The Life of Jesus" of this passage is that the prophet meant to say, roughly (i don't have the book with me) that a virgin will give conceive (a girl will get pregnant), give birth, and name the kid Immanuel, i.e., a happy name, for a happy time, when the kid will be eating butter and honey. Furthermore, before such a time as the kid gets old enough to tell good from bad, the two kings that are causing Ahaz trouble will go kaput. I think that RK is pretty much spot-on about the messiah - the Jews mean it as a sort of national liberator of the Jews (the way J. Edgar Hoover used the term "black messiah"), a sort of Spartacus, or Emiliano Zapata not as the savior of all humanity.Graft 16:19 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

This is not a simple open and shut case. The first Jews to become Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ, and that he fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies concerning the Messiah.

I have no doubt that a number of Jews during Jesus' lifetime believed that he was the messiah (in the strictly Jewish sense)-- although he may not have been an ideal or strong candidate for messiah, as he was more of a miracle-worker and healer than a warrior. The crisis that led to the emergence of Christianity came when he was crucified, which would not happen to a real messiah. But for whatever reasons (the disappearance of Jesus' body from his tomb; visions of Jesus after his death; maybe the very fact that he was a miracle worker and healer) his followers redefined what a messiah is, based on a belief in the resurrection and second coming. Now, at this point many of his followers may still be Jews, but it is not just a matter of whether they believe that Jesus was the messiah or not; it is a matter of Jews redefining what they mean by the very word, "messiah." With this redefinition, a literal virgin birth may have begun to make sense. Slrubenstein

I agree that accepting Jesus as Messiah did involve a change in how certain prophecies were understood. However, they continued to find support for their new understanding in the Psalms and prophets. Justin the Martyr saw two comings of the Messiah clearly predicted. Passages such as Psalm 21 (I may be off by a chapter either way) and Isaiah in the mid-50's point to a suffering messiah, others point to a conquering one. Justin also demonstrated why it was actually necessary for the messiah to be crucified. Christians still look forward to Christ's "second and glorious coming", but at the same time thank God for it as something that has already happened in the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom. But you're right when you say it's a matter of Jews redefining what they mean by "messiah". And from that perspective, I find myself more inclined to agree with RK's original statement at the top of this sub-thread. Wesley

Yes, you are quite right to point out that the redefinition of "messiah" was based not only on contemporary experiences or needs, but also on an alternative interpretation of older texts. I think it is important that the article make clear both that Christians redefined "messiah," but also that they legitimized this new definition based on an interpretation of traditional texts. Do you think the article does this adequately, or do you think more needs to be said? Slrubenstein

I don't think the article is inaccurate as it stands, but it may benefit from the addition of your statement. Feel free to add this if you like. Wesley

The Jews of that time period who did not become Christians, did not. The same debate has continued from then until now. For example, Tertullian and others quote Isaiah 7:14 to say that the Messiah being born of a virgin would be a sign to them, and observe that a girl getting pregnant would not be any kind of sign, since girls get pregnant all the time. An actual virgin getting pregnant would be a sign. (The Septuagint makes her virginity explicit.) Isaiah 8:4 reads, "For before the child shall know how to call his father or his mother, one shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria before the king of the Assyrians." [1]Tertullian interpreted this to mean that the child would take the power and spoils while still an infant, that this clearly did NOT point to a military victory, but it was fulfilled by Jesus when he received gold, incense and myrrh from the three kings of the East. So, the Christian position is and has been that Jesus was exactly the sort of Messiah foretold by the Jewish prophets; and that were a number of Jews who did hold this belief from the beginning of Christianity. That Jews at the time believed this is also a matter of historical record. Wesley

The Christian attempt to find justification in the Tanakh of their belief in Jesus' divinity or his Messianic nature does not mean that the Jews perceived these prophecies as relating to the Messiah. In fact, the Virgin Birth is in direct contradiction to Jesus' claim to being the Messiah according to the Jewish reckoning, since according to the Jews, the Messiah would be descended from David. Since Joseph was not Jesus' father (except in a very weak sense), and Jews reckon family patrilineally, Jesus does NOT fulfill the Jewish view of what the Messiah should be. There may have been Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but they were a minority, and I think it's more than fair to say that the Christian view of Jesus' divinity does not conform to Jewish ideas about the Messiah. Graft 20:28 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

Regarding his lineage, Jesus was descended from David through Mary; but there is no need to recapitulate all of these arguments again. It is clear that even early Christians such as Tertullian and Justin the Martyr relied on the prophets of the Old Testament themselves to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and did not necessarily rely on even contemporary Jewish teachings on the subject. The real point of contention, where Christians and Jews differ, is not whether he fulfilled the expectations of any particular interpreters of the prophets, but that he fulfilled the prophecies themselves. Whether he did or not depends on how the prophets are to be interpreted. I know that the Zealots of the 1st century were expecting a national leader, but I'm not sure whether their view was shared by the Pharisees, Sadducees and other Jewish groups at or before the appearance of Jesus. Justin the Martyr claims in his Dialogue with Trypho that the prophets foretell not one but two advents of the messiah, one as suffering servant, and the second one as a glorious appearance. Wesley

Three Comments.

First I agree, there's some serious need for structure on this page...

Second, I don't think Christ should simply redirect to Jesus Christ since christ is simply the Greek word for messiah. Some historical Jesus scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Sanders, make a strong distinction between the Jesus of history, and the Christ of Faith, and I think simply redirecting christ to Jesus Christ therefore makes an unattributed, unsupported statement on a controversial issue.

Many people make a distinction between "Jesus Christ", worshipped by Christians, and "the historical Jesus", the actual person who lived.

Second, My understanding is that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah is in fact translated both as virgin and "young woman" in various contexts. I can get references for this, though I don't think this is important, as it is commonly believed that the contemporary Jewish Messianic view of the messiah had more to do with Daniel than Isaiah. It's my understanding that the figure in Isaiah is associated with "servant of the Lord" terminology, which is not associated with messianic themes in any records before the time of Jesus.

To the best of my knowledge, this word is *never* translated as virgin by Jews or by serious Biblical scholars. It is only translated this way by people who want to prove that the Tanach was not a Jewish Bible, but was really a long list of prophecies "proving" that Jesus was the messiah. But these claims about the text in Isaiah didn't appear until _after_ Jesus died. RK

Technically, christ is the Greek word for "anointed one". A king, a priest, or a prophet might be anointed. Christian belief is that Jesus Christ was all three.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah is Almah, the greek word translating that in the Septuagint is parthenos. Later Jewish scholars have claimed Almah includes the meaning of young woman, but early jewish scholars (at the time) apparently thought they were synonymous. Probably a changing meaning based on changing society, with 'virgin' being a good translation of the word when originally written.

Not at all. Please provide sources for this claim.

As to the meaning of messiah among first century jewish speakers, I would be surprised if Jesus Christ didn't fulfill their understanding of the term, otherwise, the power of his message would have been diluted or ignored.

This is absolutely incorrect. OBVIOUSLY Jesus totally failed to fit the Jewish definition of the messiah. He failed in every way possible. The only conditions that he filled were LATER conditions that were created after his death. But it is an indisputable historical fact that Jesus never proved that he was a descendent of King David, he never became King of Israel, and he absolutely failed to kick out the Romans. In fact, things just kepting get and worse, until the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE and mass-murdered Jews by the tens of thousands. RK

There is also the Moshiach ben Joseph versus Mochiach ben David issues extent in the scriptural understanding and interpretation of the time, too. (Messiah son of Joseph, the Righteous Patriach versus Messiah son of David the King)

Nope. These are later additions to the Jewish faith. They are not Biblical.

I have included a bit from Josephus, from an online record of his works at http://www.studylight.org/his/bc/wfj/antiquities/view.cgi?book=18&chapter=3

I quote from the bottom of the page:

Copyright Statement

These files are public domain.

Most of the quote from Josephus is bogus, however. Josephus could only have written that if he himself were a Christian, which he wasn't. There have been attempts to reconstruct what Josephus actually said, but the only source other than the ones with Christian interpolations is an Arabic text which is also pretty dubious. See, for example http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html and various other web-pages. --Zundark

Whether you feel the quote is bogus or not, I don't think it is appropriate to delete it. I did put some effort into finding a copy of it on the net, and in a copy-able format. I certainly have no problem with including the quote from the web address you quote as well. That will provide an alternate view, that would provide some balance.

If I found (and spoke) a copy of Josephus' works in Latin, I would favour including it as well.

The goal of an encyclopedia, in my opinion, is to offer information to those who may not be able to find it. If the quote I found is NOT that which has appeared in printed copies of Josephus's Antiquities, I'd like to hear it, because then it would NOT be appropriate to include in this page.

If the quote I included is the one that most people will find in a collection of Josephus's works, then I think it should be available in the encyclopedia article. A neutral point of view does not mean denying what is the historical record. Such denial is blatant manipulation of facts for the point of view that doesn't like what has historically been known.

The quote in question, which Zundark excised is:

Josephus in his work Antiquities of the Jews in Book 18, chapter 3, Item 3 says:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The page Zundark mentions says this : (I don't know about its copyright status)

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

I am not trying to build up a controversy, but was trying to follow up on the request in the main page for more details about the extra-biblical mention of Jesus by Josephus... -BenBaker

I excised the quote you put in only because it is very misleading if given without any additional comment, as I don't think anyone seriously believes Josephus wrote it like that. I did consider moving it to the Talk page before excising it, but since it's easy to retrieve from the "View other revisions" page I decided there was no need. I think that if we want to cover this, then it needs to be on a separate page, because any serious treatment of it would overwhelm the Jesus Christ page. You could call the page Josephus on Jesus or something similar, and link it from the Jesus Christ page. (The Tacitus quote could also have a separate page.) --Zundark

I have seen changes disappear from the View other revisions page too quickly in my short time involved in wikipedia. I don't know why, as it is reasonably easy to set the number of days that versions are are retained to a big number like 999999 to keep from losing any.

The idea of putting the quote on a separate page is good. I'll put the link on the main page. Should it be a subpage since it only makes sense in a limited context? or should it be a top level page?

It should be a top-level page, as Larry doesn't like subpages. We would also want to link it from the Flavius Josephus page (when there is one), so it makes sense at top level. --Zundark

Should we really call this page "Jesus Christ"? Calling him Jesus Christ, implies he was/is the Christ (i.e. the annointed one, the Messiah), and a lot of people who don't think he is the Christ wouldn't want to call him that. Wouldn't "Jesus of Nazareth" be a more neutral name for him? -- SJK

Hmm, Jesus "the Christ"? That looks really goofy. :-) The way-NPOV name would be Yeshua benYousef or Yeshua benMiriyam. I don't think that'll work either.

I'd say put the history in Jesus of Nazareth and the Jesus-as-Christ discussion in Jesus Christ. --Damian Yerrick

But did he really come from Nazareth? I've seen it suggested this was just an early confusion between Nazarite and Nazarene, although I don't know how likely that is. I think "Jesus Christ" is OK, because most people just take it as a name, not as an assertion that he was the messiah. But why not simply call the article "Jesus" - no one would expect an article called "Jesus" to be about any other Jesus, would they? --Zundark, 2001 Nov 3

I've heard it put the other way. That early depictions of Jesus with long hair came from confusing Nazirite (see Numbers 6). But the Gospels are extremely clear that Jesus came from Nazareth. The references to the town in Galilee are explicit. <>< tbc 5Nov01

Yes, I know there are explicit references in the gospels. But when I said an "early" confusion I meant really early, pre-gospel. It doesn't sound too likely though, I admit. I don't really care what the article is called - all three possible names are OK. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 5

The translation of the verse in Isaiah as "virgin" is no longer controversial. No professional academic Bible scholar translates it this way. The majority of Christian scholarship in the last century has agreed that it was a totally erroneous translation, and is unsupportable by the text. Many Churches have actaully revoked their claims on this issue! While many Evangelical Christians and all Jehuvah's Witnesses still claim that this word means "virgin", it is indisputable that they are wrong. Why? Because while belief in Jesus (or anyone else) is a religious issue, the mistranslation of a word with a known meaning is a scientific and historical issue; theology has no claim here. Today, the consensus of Christians, Jews and "others" is that this verse has nothing to do with a virgin. RK

Well, many Christians still believe it means "virgin", so in that sense at least it is controversial. It isn't a modern mistranslation either -- the Septugaint translates it as virgin (parthenos), as do the Gospels. And it is always possible that the Septugaint's use of parthenos may be based on a different Hebrew text from the MT. -- SJK

RK, are you referring to the Masoretic text? I'm certainly not a scholar of Hebrew or Greek, but I have done a small amount of background reading concerning the early Church's use of the Septuagint. The most obvious reason of course was that Greek was more widely understood than Hebrew at that time, even among many Jews. The less obvious reason is that in many places, prophecies concerning the coming Christ in the Septuagint are more obviously referring to Jesus Christ, than are the corresponding passages in the Hebrew Masoretic text. I think the most recent Masoretic text we still have only dates to about the ninth century A.D., although it has been at least partially corroborated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

While most English language Bible translations to date have tended to rely on the Masoretic text, there is an effort now underway by an Eastern Orthodox seminary in the United States to produce an Old Testament translation based entirely on the Septuagint. Details can be found at http://www.lxx.org. --Wesley

the Septuagint text is certainly an issue above and beyond whatever the Hebrew says. One of the problems is the (typically Semitic) rather limited vocabulary of Hebrew as opposed to Greek, which has at least two words in play here - parthenos and kore. Kore means "young woman" in a general sense - unmarried, youngish, etc., with the implied virginity of that station, though not necessarily verified, since the term could also be applied to a newly-wed woman. Parthenos is considerably more specific. It means "virgin." Just think of Athena Parthenos and her temple the Parthenon. It is interesting that the word Kore could be personified and applied as a name to Persephone, daughter of Demeter. Why is this lexical distinction important? Because the Septuagint has 'parthenos'. Now unless the contemporary scholarship has successfully challenged the Septuagint manuscripts (and I haven't read that they have), this is a problem, not a settled issue. The Hebrew may say '(generic) young woman' (though, by the way, the idea that young women in ancient Hebrew society weren't assumed to be virgins unless proved otherwise before marriage is, to say the least, surprising), but the Greek doesn't. The Greek was produced by Jewish translators well before the life of Jesus. --MichaelTinkler

Yes, but is that the Greek version we have today. Impossible to know. There are various codex versions of the Septuagint, but all of them postdate Jesus, even the earliest by almost 70 years (and all these versions were found in monasteries, where they were identifiably copied, redacted, and edited). Nor should we ignore the Aramaic translations made at the time too (though these suffer from the same problems). Additionally, though the Dead Sea Scrolls are incomplete, one of the few Scrolls that is nearly complete is Isaiah, which has alma not betulah. One can also look at parallel (though not necessarily contemporary) verses that use both or similar phrases in the Hebrew (eg. Gen. 24:7, naarah betulah, i.e., a young girl, a version, translated in Aramaic as almata betulata), clearly distinguishing the two. Basically, the debate is theological. It is impossible to start quoting texts, because all of the texts we have are later. Danny

There is a Hebrew word that specifically means "virgin", betulah. -phma

Article currently says one of the tribes of Israel are the Native Americans... is that true? (Long time since I read much on Mormonism...) I thought there were two or three peoples in the Book of Mormon, the good ones who died out... the one's who the Amerinds are descended from are the bad guys... (is it just me who detects the spirit of racism and colonialism in Joseph Smith? :-) Now I thought only the good guys came from Israel, and the bad guys were already there... But I'm not too sure... someone needs to check up on this. -- SJK

He is often held by Christians to be the Messiah and Savior, as well as the physical incarnation of God, the Son of God, and according to some theologies, one of the three persons of the Trinity, along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Surely this understates the centrality of Jesus' divinity to the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations. --Robert Merkel

"The question of whether Islam has the potential to explicate Trinity is being explored as an open question."

Does anybody have *anything* to support this? AFAIK the idea of the Trinity (non-Unity) of God is against the most central beliefs of Islam.

Some Shiite sects, possibly the Alawites, have the concept of a Trinity of God, Muhammad, and Ali. Danny

Eastern Christians, who account for just about as many Christians as Western Christians, seem to depend on the "Translation of the Seventy" from which the "virgin" text comes. The earliest Roman Catholic translations (Jerome included) also rely on this translation. Whereas Luther and beyond tend to go back to the original Jewish. Seeing that both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches derive their translations and subsequent traditions from these texts it is perhaps worthwhile to look more deeply into into the greco-jewish translatiuon - on which the Christian religion was based--- most early Christians were Hellenized (Greek) Jews.

I'd like to query the change from:

the birth and life of Jesus has had such profound significance to Western civilization that years are counted from the originally alleged birth year of Jesus.

to:

the birth and life of Jesus had a significantly high importance to religious men of the Dark Ages that years are now generally counted from the originally alleged birth year of Jesus

I would support the inclusion of something such as 'generally counted' in order to indicate that this is not the only convention for numbering years. However, the change from referring to 'Western civilization' to 'religious men of the Dark Ages' seems to me to be replacing one potential source of bias with another and rather unnecessary. I also prefer the phrase 'profound significance' to the use of 'had a significantly high importance' which sounds stilted to me.

Would it not simply be sufficient to assert something along the lines of:

in many parts of the world dates are now counted from the originally alleged birth year of Jesus

Agree, there is no way that statement is NPOV.

I took this out:

A small of group of Jewish converts to Christianity believe Jesus is the Christian Messiah (see Jews for Jesus).

For one thing, it is out of place where it was -- a transition for a discussion of Christian beliefs about Jesus to non-Christian beliefs about Jesus.

But why single out Jewish converts -- the only meaning I can see is in the old Christian anti-semetic screed that Christianity is the real heir to the covenant with David, and smart Jews know that.

If we were to read this line independent of this anti-semetic screed (for I am sure that the intention was not at all anti-semetic), then it really just reduces to this: some Jews have converted to Christianity. By the way, if they have converted to Christianity, they are not (as far as the Jewish community is concerned) Jewish. That's okay -- they can leave Judaism for Christianity if they want, they are just no longer Jewish.

But what is the point of adding a line, "Some Jews have converted to Christianity?" In fact, many people have converted to Christianity, especially historically. Are we going to have a long list of peoples who have converted to Christianity (Arabs, Armenians, Andalusians...)? What is the point?

Perhaps "Jews For Jesus" is an organization of sufficient importance or interest that it merits its own article. But honestly, I do not see how mention of this organization adds to our knowledge of Jesus, or belongs in an article of Jesus. We already know that Jesus had lots of Jewish followers, and that the religions established in his name has found followers all over the world. Genug! An article on Jesus should be about Jesus. Slrubenstein

For what it's worth, I agree that the "Jews for Jesus" movement isn't worth mentioning here. Perhaps it could be included in the lists of Christian organizations or denominations (is it its own denomination??), but it doesn't add anything to this article, as you said.

I am curious though, as to your statement that converts to Christianity would no longer be Jewish. Certainly, such converts would not be part of Judaism, but would they not still be racially or ethnically Jewish? Would it be any different for Jews who converted to Islam or Buddhism, to pick two random examples? Wesley

basically, I see a Jew as a member of the Jewish community. Thee are specific ways to bea member -- having a Jewish mother, or converting. Other than that there is not much to it. To leave the community requires an explicit act, and converting (whether to Islam or Christianity) is one way. Slrubenstein

Thanks for explaining why you took out Jews for Jesus. --Ed Poor

Any references or attributions for Jesus being at a Christian temple in India? Couldn't have been a "Christian temple" during or before his earthly ministry, since there were no Christian temples anywhere at that time. Any evidence there were Jewish temples in India at the time?

Also, any specific references or attributions about the virgin birth=out of wedlock birth claim? Who makes the claim? Any records of other people claiming virgin births in Palestine during that century or so? Wesley

Actually there were. Manicheism, which had a large following, particularly among Roman soldiers.

I was just wondering the latter myself. The text says:

It has been claimed that women around the time and place of Jesus's birth who became pregnant from someone other than the husband would frequently expain the pregnancy as being the result of a visit from God or from an angel.

This is just poor style. The claim is provokative; as such, simply to say "it has been claimed" gives the reader no clues about the provenance and therefore of the credibility of the claim. If "it has been claimed" by a dozen major theologians and historians, that's one thing. If it's been claimed by a random Wikipedian in a college essay, it's another. --Larry Sanger

I deleted the text referenced above, for the reasons given above. Wesley

About this sentence I removed:

The question of whether Islam has the potential to explicate Trinity? is being explored as an open question.

it looks to me like Trinity is a point where Islam explicitly opposes Christianity. "Allah" is unique and muslims see Trinity as a breakage of God's unicity. So why should Islam "explain" Trinity ?

It looks like this sentence was written by a Christian and says or implies Islam is inferior because it cannot explain a Christian dogma that makes no sense outside of Christian faith. If that is the case, the sentence should be simply removed.

So I eventually removed it.

BTW, is there a way to know, for a particular sentence, _who_ introduced it with _which_ revision ? That would help clarify the intent of the author and what (s)he really means. In this case, perhaps I'm wrong in interpreting the "open question" as an apologetic subterfuge, and perhaps I missed an interesting point of view. Hard to tell.

FvdP

You can look at the "History" link to see previous versions of any article. On the History page you can click on the "Diff" link to see a side-by-side comparison of a version and the previous (or current) version. --Ed Poor

Yes, I know that. But there are so many revisions for this page, I wanted to know whether there was a direct path to the right revision. --FvdP

So I made the hard-way search: the sentence about Trinity was there from the start on (first revision from automatic translation), and I'm the second person to question its relevance (see revision history of this talk page). --FvdP

I am going to try to add some more nuance to the discussion of "messiah." In the meantime, I have three questions concerning the first paragraph. I amnot personally invested in the answers to the first two questions, but I am curious to know what Christians think

1) is it right to characterize Jesus as an "object?" I understand that grammatically there is nothing wrong with this, but it does suggest a particular way of thinking about something. Maybe I identify "object" with what Buber called I-it...

2) is it right to characterize Jesus as one of three "persons" of the trinity? Certainly God (the father) is not a person, although we might speak, and try to listen, to him as if he were one. Also, I thought Christians thought of Jesus as God made flesh -- does the word "person" really do justice to this? I myself do believe there was a "person" Jesus, but when I say that I also imply my own distinction between that person and the "Jesus Christ" who is an "object" of Christian theology and adoration, and the subject of this article...

I do have more of an investment in the third question: 3) What exactly are Messianic Jews? Why are they not Christians? How is this different from "Jews for Jesus?" I believe I or someone else deleted the reference to Jews for Jesus without objection -- could we do the same thing here? Slrubenstein

I'll take a stab at (2), and hope someone else answers the other questions. The early church fathers spoke of three hypostases in one essence (homo ousios). The most common translation of hypostasis into English appears to be "person"; although it is probably not a perfect translation; it appears to be the best we have. Of course, any words we use to describe God are bound to be inadequate or misleading if pressed too far; hence the use of apophatic theology to say that God the Father is a person, but not exactly a person in the same way you or I are persons. Similarly, we might say that God exists, but not in quite the same way that the chair I'm sitting on exists, as one "thing" among many.

Also, talking about the three persons of the Trinity has historically been a way to distinguish the doctrine from variations such as Modalism. You might be interested in this icon and surrounding discussion: [2]. If you don't have time for all of it, the last two or three paragraphs are worthwhile.

Wesley

Thanks -- I will check the link (when I have time); I really was just curious and appreciate the answer.

Following Wesley's suggestion, I have revised the paragraph on Jesus as messiah. My intention was to add more precision and nuance to this paragraph. I hope that this revision is acceptable both to Jews and Christians. I also hope people do not consider it too tangential for this article -- perhaps someone else can edit it to make it more elegant or straightforward, Slrubenstein

Finally had a chance to look at the changes. SR, I think you've done a good job summarizing our discussion. There is one sentence that I wonder about:

Nevertheless, many of Jesus' followers -- perhaps inspired by visions of Jesus after his apparent death, but also drawing on alternative interpretations of Biblical verses -- redefined the concept of messiah to encompass the resurrection and the promise of a second coming.

Had I written it, I might have changed the italicized portion to "...perhaps inspired by seeing, touching and eating with Jesus after his death, but also...". But that would also be a bit biased and perhaps speculative. The rest of that paragraph seems fine, aside from possibly a typo or two. Is there a more neutral way to phrase that without Wikipedia saying either that he did or did not die, and without Wikipedia saying that the disciples either really saw and touched him or saw only visions of him? Wesley

I am glad that in ther respects the changes are acceptable. I take it you find the word "vision" to be too ethereal? How about "encounter?"

Exactly. "Vision" sounds very ethereal; combined with "apparent" death, sounds a bit like docetism (IIRC what docetism is). Changing "vision" to "encounter" would be an improvement from my point of view; it does seem to leave open to question whether the encounter was physical or ethereal. Wesley

Here is my concern, in the spirit of NPOV: I personally do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and at best consider this a matter of faith. But I personally do not doubt that the disciples and others had some sort of powerful experience. As far as I am concerned the exact nature and causes of this experience are a matter of debate. What is not a matter of debate is the accounts people provided of these experiences, in which they claimed that they had some sort of encounter with Jesis in the flesh (am I right?). So I do not mind making this passage more specific as long as it distinguishes between what did happen (which might be desccribed and explained in a variety of ways) versus a particular account of what happened (which is described and expleained in a versy specific way).

If you see an easy way to effect this in the article, give it a shot! In any case, I do not mind your changing the word "vision" if it is not precise. But if the most precise description comes from a set of Christian texts, than what we are really describing is not what happened, but what certain texts tell us happened... Slrubenstein

My problem with "vision" is that it is too precise, yet insufficiently accurate. Often in Wikipedia, it seems that the best way to remain neutral or accomodate multiple points of view is to make the language more vague. I think "encounter" does this, and fits the situation. Could we also change "apparent death" to just "death", or is his death as debatable as his resurrection? I know historically there are some who claimed he only seemed to die. If that view needs to be acknowledged, then perhaps we need to back up and just say something like "Here is what appears to be the operative set of assumptions/beliefs held by the Christians who wrote the NT." Wesley

SR -- good job. Thanks. Wesley

Separate subject, separate modification: who exactly suggests that stories of Isis and Horus influenced the writing of the Gospels? Or what group of people or school of thought? I'm going to add a counter-claim made by Justin Martyr in around the second century or so. Wesley

Earlier I added a reference to Frege and Gandy who are writers for the lay audience who have taken the position that "Jesus as a confluence of esoteric traditions." I'm going to add a little more detail on that position in a bit, because I think it's interesting and would add something of the currently absentee Gnostic view of who Jesus was. It's obvious though that it's not a new claim, given the fact that Justin Martyr wrote an apology dealing with it. I'm curious though, I've been thinking that the reference to Mithras should be removed or qualified in some way. Horus and Isis is one thing, but Mithraism is a contemporary faith of first century Rome that most serious scholars agree sprung up right around the same time Christianity did, so questions of who borrowed what from whom are probably not very valuable and rely almost entirely on speculation.JFQ

All the people I've met who consider themselves Messianic Jews also considered themselves Christians. Some Googling turned up Jews for Jesus using both terms for themselves ([3] [4]). Therefore, it isn't right to say "Both Christians and Messianic Jews believe ...". That would imply that they aren't a kind of Christian.

Right. And since they are a kind of Christian, I'm not sure why they need to be singled out for special mention in the opening paragraph. Wesley

Since they are a kind of Christian, I will delete this phrase from the first paragraph. Slrubenstein

Reference for my claim that the original meaning of "C.E." is unknown, this post from an English professor:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v05/0281.html

--Larry Sanger

Sorry, SLR, but you should know better than to blithely assume that your term "redefined" is not pejoritive: it clearly implies that the foundation concepts of Christianity were man-made. While you and I might agree that's true, many Christian's obviously don't, and would be offended at the suggestion. You also made a change to Larry's note about "CE" that adds no enlightenment to the issue and is needlessly provocative. I don't think either change improves the article. --LDC

God made man, but man made religion. Whether Jesus was he "messiah" or not is a matter of faith and I see nothing in the article that requires that one accept him as such, or that denegrates such a belief. Nevertheless, "messiah" is a hebrew word -- Hebrew being a human language -- and how human beings use the word "messiah" is a matter of historical record. Before a certain time people used it one way, after a certain time they used it another way. I really do not see this as a criticism of Christianity.

As for the reference to CE, I fail to see what is gained by the italics, except a churlish tone. Slrubenstein

I'm still not quite convinced that "redefined" would not offend some; many Christians I know in particular rankle at even the slightest hint of man-madeness in scripture or dogma; perhaps something like "interpreted" would be even better? Yes, removing the italics is fine; I was referring to the "domination" remark (and I'm sure you knew that). --LDC

Personally, I feel very strongly that the redefinition of "messiah" is well- documented by historians, and important to understanding both Jesus' disciples and early Christianity. I am not even sure that "reinterpret" the word would be accurate -- a hundred years ago the word "consumption" meant tuberculosis, today it means buying cheeseburgers -- I do not think this is a mater of a new "interpretation" of the word, it is a new definition. In any case, it really seems to me like the difference between redefining a word and reinterpreting it is fine indeedWould it matter, to put in something like "According to historians?" (we could even name people, like Vermes and Fredricksen.) I certainly wouldn't be oppesed to adding such a phrase, if you thought it would be an improvement -- I am just not sure whether that would satisfy the Christians to whom you refer. I certainly would welcome some more discussion on the phrasing among Wikipedians -- I assume that practicing/devout Christian Wikipedians follow this page regularly. Since I am committed to NPOV I would certainly take their sensibilities seriously. Nevertheless, it seems like you are raising issues that have been hashed out before, concerning articles about people or events that are of importance both to religious communities and historians. Jesus is -- among all other things -- a literary and historical character, and has been an object of literary and historical study. I do not see how an article on Jesus can ignore that scholarship.

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with SLR on the Messiah question. Christianity interpets a lot of things different than Judaism does. If we stated that Christians "reinterpeted" the concept of God to be trinitarian, would that offend some Christians simply because they happen to think that their interpretation is the correct one? Is there any historical basis for suggesting that Christians didn't reinterpret the concept of a Messiah? Are there any biblical scholars, Christian theologians, or historians who say otherwise? If so, let's see some citations. soulpatch

But, soulpatch, it doesn't matter who is right; happily, we don't have to settle that question. But we ought to be clear that lots of Christians would deny that they "reinterpreted" the concept. (It's certainly not an issue that they would be offended, which incidentally they might, but that they'd disagree.) They might be wrong, but that's what they think, and it's not our job on Wikipedia to insist otherwise, but instead to try to accommodate all relevant (significant, published) views fairly. --Larry Sanger

Fair enough, but I would be interested to know if there are indeed any relevant (significant and published) views by Christians that would disagree with the view that Christian perspective on the Messiah is different than the Jewish one was. After all, this encyclopedia labels creationism as pseudoscience, as it well should do, and that is also something that a lot of Christians subscribe to. soulpatch

As for "domination" -- yes, I see why you say it is provocative (and I made the change, and my reversion, before seeing your comment on this page). But again, like it or not, people in the United States, Israel, China, and Ecuador all use the Gregorian calendar because 1)after the fall of Rome Christianity came to dominate Europe, and 2) after Columbus, Europe came to dominate much of the world -- dominate often through direct military force, other times through economic hegemony. I rather thought that Christians at various times in their history wanted to dominate the world (motivated by good intentions). Perhaps this point belongs in a different article -- but then again, Jesus himself did not use the Gregorian or even the Julian calendar, nor did the first Christians, so an explanation of why the "BC/AD" system developed seems reasonable in an article on Jesus... Slrubenstein

Hopefully not to belabor an obvious point, at issue is not that it is or isn't accurate to use the word "redefine" (as an agnostic, I couldn't really care less, myself) but that plenty of (informed, well-meaning) Christians would disagree with the use of it. That can't really seriously be disputed; therefore, to adhere to the nonbias policy, we must find a more neutral way of putting it. Given that, the only question before us is how to fairly word the difference of opinion. If worse comes to worse, you can simply make the difference of opinion explicit, something like (I don't know if this is quite right), "Jewish scholars generally say that Christians redefined the concept of the Messiah; Christian scholars say, rather, that they interpreted the original intent." (I actually don't know if that's precisely true, so I'll leave it up to others...) --Larry Sanger

Yes, I think that's about right. I don't think there's really much difference between the two ways of stating it, except that saying that they "interpreted the original intent" emphasizes their continued reliance on the same Jewish scriptures. I really think this issue might be a tempest in a teapot. Wesley 05:11 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

I deleted "(since European domination often coincided with Christian domination)." SR, before you add this back in, let me explain why I don't think it belongs. You have added what is in fact a very controversial and apparently unprovable assertion, to wit, that the reason that "C.E." is sometimes taken to mean "Christian Era" and sometimes instead "Common Era" is simply that "European domination often coincided with Christian domination." I don't see that at all. If you'll see the link I posted above (and please do), I hope this will be clear.

Also, I readded something SR deleted without explanation: "(It is presently unknown what this abbreviation was originally coined to mean.)" See the link I posted above, again, if you doubt this; or if you can supply evidence that it originally meant one thing or another, that would be very welcome. --Larry Sanger

Larry, the reason I deleted this paranthetical is because I think it is awkward prose and unnecessary -- not because I reject the claim. Please reread the paragraph as it stands pp I believe that it you cut the paranthetical, the paragraph still communicates clearly that we aren't sure what the abbreviation originally meant. I am going to delete it agian -- only because it is redundant.

Oops, you're right. I didn't read the amended version from beginning to end. --LMS

As for the redefinition of "Messiah" your way of framing the issue is inflammatory -- you suggest contrasting the views of "Christian scholars" and "Jewish Scholars" as if this were a sectarian issue. It is not. One need not be a Christian scholar to know that today, Christians think that the messiah is "the son of God and savior." Similarly, one need not be a Jewish scholar to know that in the first century Jews thought that the messiah was a descendant of David who would restore the Davidic kingdom. This is a matter of historical record. If you must make a contrast, please make the right contrast, between modern critical historical scholarship (MOST of which, by the way, is by Christians) and religious doctrine. --SLR

I don't understand what is inflammatory about saying, "Christians believe one thing and Jews believe another." Wikipedia is all about describing, rather than engaging in, disputes. That's the essence of the NPOV policy. I am also puzzled why you say it isn't a sectarian issue. If you and other Jews do insist that the concept of the Messiah was redefined, I can assure you Christians will want to disagree with you. If that's not a sectarian dispute, what is? I'm not saying they'd be right or wrong (or that they're "historically inaccurate": wouldn't they want to disagree?). I'm saying that the wording is (now, was!) clearly biased. It's no excuse to say, "But the facts are on my side." Of course they're on your side (we'll say). You ought to know by now that the nonbias policy will always favor characterizing a dispute about what the facts are over a straightforward statement of the facts! --LMS

I would add that it is at best misleading to say that most "modern critical historical scholarship" is by "Christians"; it implies all or most Christian scholars agree with that strand of scholarship and its conclusions. There is a diversity of opinion among both Christian and Jewish scholars on a number of topics, from the literal resurrection of Jesus and accuracy of the Gospels, to whether Moses really parted the Red Sea and led the Israelites out of Egypt. Of course one's theology will help determine whether one believes in miracles, which will affect the way any historian studies such accounts. Wesley

There is a difference between saying most critical historical scholarship is Christian, and most Christians believe in modern critical historical scholarship. I think that the first statement is probably true; I don't doubt that the second statement isn't. A lot of Christians reject modern scientific scholarship because their religious dogma doesn't permit any attempt at examining the historical veracity of any individual bibilical passage; instead, they start from the assumption that these passages are unquestioningly true, thus ruling out certain lines of inquiry a priori. This might be fine for their dogmas, but it isn't scientific. In any case, I think it is likely that most of the scientific scholarship comes out of the Christian community. And the question is whether we should put scientific scholarship and unscientific scholarship on equal footing in this encyclopedia. soulpatch

If by "scientific" you mean to include empiricist/rationalist approaches, then that approach rules out the possibility of miracles or of a God who interacts with humans or the world at large. Such an approach is no more objective than the religious dogmatic approach. As for such scientific scholars coming from the Christian community, I suspect it can be shown that they come from only a small subset of the Christian community which has already rejected many traditional Christian claims for other reasons. Also, even modern critical history isn't the same kind of science that something like chemistry is. You can't test your hypotheses via repeatable experiments; historians almost have to speculate based on the information available, and hopefully hedge their speculations the more limited the information. Wesley 17:36 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

By "scientific" I mean the willingness to examine any biblical passage for authenticity, rather than blocking certain lines of inquiry because they might contradict one's religious dogma. If you start from the premise that certain lines of inquiry are off limits for examination, then you are not being scientific. And objective approach makes no assumption about the validity or non-validity of any individual biblical passage, and for that reason conservative Christian "scholars" are no scientific, since they assume from the beginning that the bible is true in its entirety. As for the comparison with chemistry, I would point out that there are plenty of other disciplines where you can't test your hypotheses in the same way that you can with chemistry--astronomy is mostly observational, for example, rather than experimental. The same goes for physical anthropology, where you dig up old prehistoric bones of pre-human species and make conclusions about your findings. soulpatch

As for the issue of the calendar, I have read and reread the research note for which you provided a link. I see nothing in that note that even calls into question the fact that people use the Gregorian calandar (designated by AD/BC) because of Christian hegemony in Europe, and European hegemony in the world. I do not find this a controversial claim at all. What other reason could there possibly be for people throughout Europe and then around the world using a calander that begins (or so it claims) with the birth of Jesus? Slrubenstein

I'm not disputing that point, but I am disputing what you wrote: "...although today it is taken to mean either the Common Era or Christian Era (since European domination often coincided with Christian domination)." This implies, as I said, that the reason "C.E." is taken to mean either one or the other is that "European domination often coincided with Christian domination." Again, I don't see that at all. How do you know that? People might have all sorts of reasons for interpreting it one way or the other.

Anyway, if you simply want to make the point that the calendar reflects Christian domination in Europe, part of the point is already made earlier in the paragraph: "Regardless, Christianity was of such importance to medieval Europe that the presumed birth of Jesus was used to mark the first year of the calendar." If you want to go further to say, "And it remains the most common way of counting years to this day because Christians have dominated Europe," perhaps the point would be better made (maybe it already is) under calendar, or perhaps Christianity (or history of Christianity) not Jesus Christ. Besides, the point itself is debatable; it's at least as plausible to say that it's sheer habit that led us to continue on the medieval tradition, not any ongoing special reverence for the Christian religion, or desire to continue its hegemony, or any such thing. Suppose someone were to say, "The popularity of romance languages, French, Italian, and Spanish, in Europe indicates the ongoing hegemony of Rome," or "The ongoing popularity of inches and feet in the United States indicates a continuing American sexism that measures things according to the width of men's thumbs and the length of men's feet."

Sorry for the long reply... --Larry Sanger

---

Not supposed to be there, but...
Is it a good idea to replace an explicite convention such as AD by a rather ambiguous one, such as BC ? If the significance widely understood is "christian", nothing is gained in term of neutrality toward christian claims. And if the significance understood is "common", what does it change to the fact it still considering the central point of human civilisation to be at Jesus birth ? Rather it's "using up" the word "common" that cannot be used anymore by others. The other datation modes existing in other nations can't even pretend to be defining the "common era" anymore since the BC system has been officially proposed and accepted by the NC (Neutrally Correct).
BC rather than AD looks like cosmetics.