Talk:Jesus

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Key to archives, Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45.

	Subject-specific:	Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus

	ACTIVE sub-pages	/Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus

---

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

/Archive 40 sorted, here's the key: Archive and subpage logs. Discussion of first three paragraphs, including date issues (range and notation). Skeptic's view of Jesus, including philosophy of ethics and literary analysis. Other stuff: Help with Miracles of Jesus article, Rick Norwood's copyedit, and calm talk.

/Archive 41 is a long debate over the use of Hebrew in the first paragraph (etymology of the name "Jesus").

/Archive 42: Life, the universe, and everything; Ecumenical councils and Biblical canon; New NIV Template; Dates of Jesus; Led Zeppelin and Jesus; Gnosticism; sources controversy and a picture; Assessing the FA Drive.

/Archive 43: March 9 archive; Translation of Mishneh Torah; Proposal to rename this article "Jesus Christ"; Referencing (new footnoting system); SOPHIA's revision of the intro; Redundant sections on Christian views; etombment vs. burial; Andrew c's recent changes.

/Archive 44 - Life and teachings or biography of Jesus?, Date Notation Sillyness, Wikinfo on Jesus, Alternate Antenicene Christianities, Jesus Seminar

/Archive 45 - Biography, Geography/map, Congrats from Rick Norwood, Wikiethics, Jesus Christ redirect.

Subpage Activity Log

Judaism's views of Jesus

To save space, this section has been moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.

Sockpuppet issue, Kdbuffalo's proposed revision

Discussion of recent sockpuppet allegations against Robsteadman and Kdbuffalo have been moved to Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets. Discussion of Robsteadman's draft has been moved to Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA.

Paragraph 3 (Christian views in intro)

Discussion archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.

Non-Christian religious views

Other Views section

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

Eastern religion section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hindu views on Jesus christ could include

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

Ramashray 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic section

More references:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The omnicontroversial second paragraph

We have been debating the second paragraph for nearly two months, and it remains controversial. We created the subpage /2nd Paragraph Debate so that we could continue the discussion withoout stifling discussion on other parts of the article. I just moved 66 kilobytes to that subpage. I, for one, do not mind having some discussion on this page, because many editors will be more likely to notice it here. However, please keep any discussion of paragraph 2 within this section, and not in other sections of this page. Also keep in mind that any comments may be moved to the subpage at any time.

Among the items currently being discussed:

1. Clarification of the identity and reasoning and range of positions of the "majority" and the "minority"
2. The reason for the minority position
3. How to accurately represent the variety of views.

Further discussion should be undertaken under /2nd Paragraph Debate or below with a new subsection (use == to start a new subheader). Again, any discussion on this main talk page may be moved to the subpage at any time. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Historicity section

Not quite a peer review, but I received the following from an agnostic friend:

1. "the time when Jesus was purported to live" -- this seems to be bending over backward for the Jesus-mythers. You already mentioned that they exist, but are a small group.
2. "Although some critical scholars, including archeologists, continue to use them as points of reference in the study of ancient Near Eastern history[9] some have come to view the texts as cultural and literary document" (emphasis added). -- and some don't give a damn? "Some" is too weasely. Are there any percetages available? Do more argree with statement one, or with statement two?
3. Since you link to hagiography, do you really need this explanation? "Hagiography has a principal aim of the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus."
4. This indicates that there is proof that Paul had visions: "Paul saw Jesus only in visions, but he claimed that they were divine revelations and hence authoritative (Galatians 1:11-12)."
5. Develop this a bit more? Admit that they may not exist because they may have been intentionally destroyed? "Questions of existence of earlier texts" (I would change the title to "Earlier texts" or "Possible earlier texts" as "questions" carries a certain implication that the documents never existed).
6. The footnote doesn't exactly support this, in addition, there is no indication of potential bias on the part of the scholars. "However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives"
7. Is the many and some true in this section, "External influences on gospel development"? Also, are these historical scholars (i.e., non-reliously inspired) or Biblical scholars?

Please remember that I am merely the messenger and do not deserve to be shot. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul having visions. I agree with the reviewer, but I cannot figure an appropriate rewording. "Allegedly" or "According to the bible" both could work, but I wanted to get other's imput.--Andrew c 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"According the Bible" is good, reference to specific verses is better. It's in Acts at least 3 times and all over the Pauline epistles. It shouldn't be too hard to cite. In fact, we alreadty cite Galatians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the suggestions sound good. I only request that if we include something about the possibility of "intentionally destroyed" older texts, we attribute it specifically and source it. --MonkeeSage 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed this to a numbered list. Please let me know when you've taken these steps so I'll know when to archive this section. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar, part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul's vision is his Road to Damascus experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"According to The Jesus Seminar:

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

64.169.2.219 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Plagiarism

The Online Encyclopedia Britannica:

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

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

Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some more sources that use similar wording:

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

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

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

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

Dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Jesus related article

I just found Divinity of Jesus. Since it is related to Jesus and only has one editor, I thought some of the editors here could look it over. It seems like a POV-fork (that should be deleted?). Perhaps it also redundent with some of the other existing Jesus articles?--Andrew c

My vote (if someone nominated it) would be Speedy Delete. It's rather hard to follow, highly POV, and not written very well (no offence to the author). Jim62sch 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

""Perhaps, if the points in the article are properly attributed to Christian Theology and redundnacies eliminated, it can be merged with Christian views of Jesus? Some of this stuff is a little, well, odd even for many Christians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of scholarly discussion among Christian theologians arguing that the Bible and Early Christianity saw Jesus as God. The argument could go quite long and be well-documented. This article, as is, is a kind of an outline. Much would have to be done to:

1 -- Make it clear that it is the view of orthodox Christianity that is being presented in the article 2 -- Cite classical Christian Theologians

and other things.--CTSWyneken 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There ya go -- a new task for someone. (The bit about light duality has to go, though). Jim62sch 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It actually sounds familar, although not really Christian. I'm not too far from the Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What in Hades is that doing in Iowa? •Jim62sch• 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe because we're in the middle of nowhere? But Maharishi University of Management is a stub, so it doesn't tell me anything. All I know is that it is there. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But there's a whole internet out there! [6]. •Jim62sch• 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And John Hagelin has a podcast. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I Would Love Anyone's Help!

Slrubenstein is right, this is off-topic. As a CKB admin, though, I don't mind discussing this in my user space. Please leave comments, concerns et al at User:Archola/CKB. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology (again!)

Sorry people, I know the horse has long ago been beaten to death, but the issue of etymology seems to be on the plate again. Someone inserted the Hebrew etymology into the intro again, and I reverted it twice, and called it "defacing" (the consensus seemed to be to leave it out of the intro when I last checked that discussion). I personally like it in the intro and have no qualms about it being there, but to prevent edit wars, episode four, the prequil, where the Siths go around chopping everyone's limbs off...I'm bringing the issue to attention here (again!). I'm happy with it in or out. --MonkeeSage 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to have the Hebrew in the intro even more than Greek, since surely nobody ever addressed him by his name in Greek. But since the Greek is culturally significant in later times, being the language of the NT, having both looks to me like a good compromise... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it because I'm interested in linguistics. The Greek is derived from the Hebrew, regardless of any other issues, so I favor inclusion in the intro, but like I said, I am oksy with it being excluded too, since it is already in the Names and titles of Jesus article which is linked from this one. For reference, here are the discussions on languages spoken by Jesus and etymology. --MonkeeSage 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just, please, keep the Hebrew and the Greek together wherever you decide to put them. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it in the intro....I mean, it is accurate from what I know. Usage of it is a whole other debate.... Homestarmy 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was against it in the intro, especially in the form it's in now without any qualifications. I don't want to repeat all the arguments again. Just read Talk:Jesus/Archive_41 --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the anon ip 66.176.209.190 who made the change may be Haldrik since Haldrik has edited under 66.176.195.123. If so, he should know that editing the same article under multiple identities (including anon ips) is very frowned upon. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not mine! --Haldrik 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not think there was a consensus at all on this. It just got buried in another discussion.

Here's the issue as I see it. Am I being fair?

Halrik and other argue for inclusion because the scholarly consensus is that Jesus' Aramaic name was a form of Y'shua. He has amply demonstrated that. We're supposed to reflect scholarly opion, so it should be in.

Jayg and others argue there is no absolute proof that Jesus went by that name. Because we can't prove it, it should not go in. Simply because it is scholarly opinion neither makes it right nor requires it to be in the article's introduction.

I and others agree with Halrik et Al. concerning the etomology but dislike etomologies in opening paragraphs.

An added note: there is good reason to believe that Jesus was called both Jesous and Y'Shua -- the former away from home and the latter at home. There is very convincing evidence that most Palestinian Jews of the time were bilingual Koine and Aramaic at least. We've begun to document scholarly opinion of this in the languages Jesus spoke subpage. --CTSWyneken 11:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it is such a complex issue can we not just leave the Greek in the intro with a note that this is the earliest known form of his name and a link to the section on other language variations that were probably more relevant at the time. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 12:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed Haldrik tried to slip that this is his real name nonsense back into the intro, and in such a duplicitous way, when he's well aware there is no consensus for that (and, in fact, considerable opposition to it). Most historians/scholars believe that "Yeshua" was Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name - that's a far cry from "this was his real name!!!". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be a very important issue to some, because he is reported to have said "In my name only" can you do these things... In many cultures, there is a belief that when you change someones name to someone else, it is no longer their name, but someone else's name... No one in his life time ever called him Geee-zus or even "Iesous", that's for sure... I have even seen claims that these forms are impurely pagan... When he said "in my name only", he meant something similar to the Hebrew / Aramaic form (Which might be spelled slightly differently, but are scarcely different in pronunciation)... Yeshua or Yehoshua... There's no earthly reason to exclude valid data like this from an encyclopedia... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of any good reason to leave the Hebrew out. I can think of good reasons to add Aramaic. Rick Norwood 20:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. To begin with, religious notions about what Jesus meant when he allegedly said "in my name only" are not relevant for an encyclopedia. Nor, for that matter, are cultural views about the meaning of "name changes". And again, we only have record of his Greek name. All the stuff about his Hebrew or Aramaic names is a scholarly reconstruction. We're not even sure what language he used day to day, much less what he was regularly called. No-one is advocating removing information about various scholarly speculations from the article, but the introduction should stick as much as possible to known facts, rather than speculation. We've been through all this before at great length. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have, and the one linguist involved (me, okay) supported the inclusion of at least the Hebrew for a variety of linguistic and cultural reasons. •Jim62sch• 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To recapitulate the previous discussion on this issue:

• No one (or hardly anyone) denies that the Greek is derived from the Hebrew.
• There is some dispute over exactly what path this etymology took (i.e., if it came through an Aramaic cognate, &c).
• There is dispute about where the etymology should be placed in the article.
• There is no dispute that we don't have any Hebrew/Aramaic documents that directly use the Hebrew/Aramaic form of the name.
• There is all kinds of dispute on what language(s) Jesus spoke/what version(s) of his name he went by (which, I must say, is an unrelated issue to etymology, but people seem to want the given etymology to reflect their views on this issue, apparently not understanding what an etymology is/means).

--MonkeeSage 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by a specious argument. Your using the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic are ever so slightly different as an excuse to keep both completely out of the article, which makes so little sense that the issue is bound to keep returning again and again until it is not suppressed or censored. I already see vast support for some mention somewhere in the article, but at present there is none. Maybe the best compromise is the one already suggested whereby a section is devoted to explaining exactly what the nature of the difference between the Hebrew and Aramaic variants is, and all the surrounding issues, while the intro merely notes that Greek is the earliest attested one. This doesn't sound unreasonable to me at all; I for one would like to see a lucid discussion somewhere in this article of what the actual name is thought to have been, instead of pretending or misleading that it was originally Greek when it wasn't. Most biographical entries will do this somewhere, if not in the intro. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Err...me? As I said above "I personally like it in the intro and have no qualms about it being there." The last time this issue was discussed I argued for having the Hebrew in the intro, and failing that suggested a separate etymology section (like the Isa article). I compromised on having a mention of the etymology in the "Historical Reconstructions" section with a link to the Names and titles of Jesus article, which gives a fuller etymology and makes reference to Aramaic cognates and so forth. --MonkeeSage 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This issue is getting really tiring. I concurr with Monkey and recall that the agreement was to put every name for Jesus that every editor thinks is important in the third paragraph under the section entitled, "Forensic reconstructions of Jesus's life". It is not censureship, it is simply keeping the introductory paragraphs to a concise, understandable statement of the value of the topic of the article. Unless the readership is conversant in numerous ancient languages its value in the introductory paragraphs is nil and serves only to make the contributing editor gratified in their expertise. I dare say, that 99.99% of the readership could not recognize, read, understand, or value ces noms de guerre; therefore put all the names you like for Jesus in the third paragraph and move on. BTW, I am glad to be back after a two week haitus. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Storm Rider. :) --MonkeeSage 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty sensible to me to limit the introduction to what known texts actually call him, and then in the article on the names and titles of Jesus provide an ample review of the literature that seeks to reconstruct the name Jesus actually went by - and have something brief in the body of this article saying what most scholars believe and providing a link to the other article that goes into all the debates and reviews all the evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one don't see why we should have Greek in the intro if we don't have the Hebrew. It seems misleading to me. I'd prefer to keep the Greek and Hebrew names together, in the body of the article if that's the consensus, but still together. BTW, why are we still debating this? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the earliest text that uses Jesu's name is in Greek. Everyone today who uses the word "Jesus" knows about him because of a text written in Greek. I think this is the same principle that is employed in all other articles that provide non-English spelling (which is not the same as etimology). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

True, which is why Haldrik and Mperel came up with "reconstructed from the Hebrew." I just don't like the implication that Jesus was Greek! Remember our discussion on Galilee? Besides, didn't the Septugint also translate "Joshua" as "Jesus," or am I off-base here? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the implication that Jesus was Greek either. But, for what it is worth, I do not think that we really need to worry about this. It is clear from the current introduction that Jesus was Jewish. There is another reason to stick with the Greek in the introduction: it is something everyone can agree on because whether Jesus was a real person, or a literary character, the earliest texts we have (which could be read either way) give him a Greek name. I have to admit that I do not know how the LXX translated Joshua, but I think even if it did that in and of itself does not mean Jesus was Joshua. You are making a synthetic argument. It may be a logical and strong argument, but it is still an argument. Because of our NOR rule, you can't edit the article based on your own argument - neither can I. The real question is, have any scholars made this argument. I think Haldrik's point is that there is in fact a good deal of scholarship on this topic, making all the arguments. I agree that this should be signaled in the article. I think that it is not appropriate for the first paragraph. If you want, you can add to paragraph two that he spoke Aramaic. I say this not because I know that he spoke Aramaic, but because most scholars say so and the second paragraph is about what most shcolars think. Would adding this resolve any qualms you have about providing the Greek in the first paragraph? Then in the body of the article, it would be easy to say, If he spoke Aramaic, it is highly unlikely that he used the Greek form of Jesus (but not impossible; several Pharisees had Greek names) and here is what scholars think his Aramaic or even Hebrew name was ... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite OR, I do remember reading it somewhere but of course my memory may be faulty. I don't exactly carry around a list of citations in my head. ;) Your solution sounds good to me. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, it's simply asthetics. I wish neither Greek nor Hebrew were in the intro. I've mever liked etomology in an encyclopdia article intro. It's a cluttering effect.

On the other hand, the argument that, simply because a person's name is not extant in a particular form doesn't mean we cannot know he was called by that name. After all, we have precious few texts for any ancient figure. Prior to the Caesarea dig, we did not have the form of Pilate's name in Latin. If we didn't have the plaque, would there be any doubt that he had a Latin name?

So, I'll remain neutral here. Let's just please settle? I'm getting tired of ground hog day (the movie) --CTSWyneken 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially since that was two months ago ! Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But... but... the TV says that Phil comes out today to see if he can see his shadow! But.. that was yesterday... and the day before... eeee-AHHHH! ;-) --CTSWyneken 11:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something, but I didn't notice any discussion or mention of reconstruction of his Hebrew or Aramaic name in the third paragraph, or anywhere else in the article, and that seems wrong. The only form mentioned by the article is the Greek one. Someone needs to correct this, if not in the intro, then somewhere, maybe a special section where all the various scholarship can be addressed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed but, unfortunately, not implemented. See Archive 41, it's all about the name/language controversy. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a section to discuss his Name, which is at least as important as to discuss his Chronology. I removed the Greek etymology from the intro because it is unacceptable to mention the Greek without mentioning the Hebrew. --Haldrik 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in the correct spot, historical reconstruction of Jesus' life, removed the most obvious POV pushing, and asked for citations for the rest, as it looks pretty much like unvarnished original research at this point. Citations would be welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding some citations to the Name section. Feel free to add more. --Haldrik 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any citations yet. Meanwhile, I've added some cited fact; unfortunately, it contradicts the uncited information you have inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, this is a serious question; have you ever read the WP:NPOV policy? I'm going to assume good faith for now, and believe that you've simply missed reading it; otherwise it would be almost impossible to explain how you keep inserting various POV statements without any sources, or assuming that the sources you prefer are "truth". This may also be the source of your continued assertions that you know Jesus' "real" name (POV), as opposed to knowing what various scholars believe his real name to have been (NPOV). Can you shed any light on this? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K., Haldrik, it's sentences like this latest POV you inserted that I'm referring to: The English name "Jesus" stands for the Late Biblical Hebrew name Yēshûa‘. This name derives from Hebrew and cannot derive from Aramaic. If you won't take Wikipedia policy seriously, I'm just going to start rolling back your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Haldrik persists in complex reverts of his POV. Enough. Any further change not discussed here first will simply be reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, everything you have done in this article seems motivated by your hatred for Christianity. Your POV seems extremist. Please be more flexible and take into account what NPOV means. --Haldrik 21:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Jayjg, you seem to lack a knowledge of linguistics and etymology, and seem unqualified to delete any information. Please resort to citing scholars, instead of reactively deleting anything that doesn't agree with your POV. --Haldrik 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to remind Haldrick to "Assume good faith." The subject is a scholarly one, and everyone can present their case on its merits, without trying to analyze the motives of the other. Rick Norwood 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget about WP:NPA... some people might benefit from a reminder. --DLand 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask everyone to calm down. Certainly we can work on the language of new text on the name without assuming agendas, etc. Unless it's deliberate, and I don't think Halrik is doing so deliberately, then we can't assume NPOV text right from the keyboard, every time from any one of us. It is very difficult to write clean, balanced text from the get go. If we don't like what each other is doing, that's OK. We can modify it. If that seems to get juices going, we can take the step, which Jayg is suggesting, of hashing out changes here. No need to throw around accusations that is likely to let loose a flood of passions here.

So, can we just copy the new text here, ask Halrik nicely to document any proposition we think needs it and give him time to do so. Please? --CTSWyneken 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Here is what Wikipedia's No Original Research policy says:

Here is what Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy says:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

These are Wikipedia's 3 inviolable content policies. Is that clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

And if people delete citations from reputable sources, they are sabotaging Wikipedia's inviolable policy of NPOV. Where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to delete conflicting views. --Haldrik 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I want to remind editors:

Etymology is the study of the origins of words. Some words have been derived from other languages, possibly in a changed form (the source words are called etymons). Through old texts and comparisons with other languages, etymologists try to reconstruct the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning changed. (s.v., etymology).

The Greek without dispute comes from the Hebrew (by some path or other). All etymological sources claim that the Greek is from the Hebrew. That is a settled issue of scholarly consensus.

It is a completely different issue whether Jesus was ever called by a Hebrew name, an Aramaic name, a Coptic name, a Chinese name, &c. It is a completely different issue whether Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic, Chinese, &c.

So please keep these issues distinct. Please don't try to use the etymology to push for a certain view on any of the other issues -- it has nothing to do with them. Discuss the other issues all you like, but please keep them separate from the etymology. --MonkeeSage 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Biography or Life and Teachings or whatever we call the section these days

I'd still like to see more history in the biography section to complement the Gospel accounts. I prefer sola scriptura for my theology and prima scriptura for my biography. If all we do is retell the plot outline of the Gospels, we might as well merge the section into "Christian views." Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Before we start deciding to add different branches of content, I would personally prefer a peer review at this point, I mean, think about all the work this article has been through since the last peer review :/. Homestarmy 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some things we are working on, but I for one think this will help. I wouldn't mind a peer review. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Muhammad article. They do a really good job of giving a detailed, but not too long biography, then discussing other things in latter areas. I think in terms of a biography, we have none. Perhaps we should expand the 'biography' section be actually be a 'biography'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiden (talk • contribs)

Wow, I'm impressed. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but they also are not a featured article :D. And Muhammad was born like 600 years or something after Jesus and led some sort of army trapeizing all over the place building that empire, far more people would probably notice him and make records immedietly simply through the whole "This guy is like taking over the country" sort of thing. Homestarmy 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well regardless we have a lot of information in the four canonical Gospels alone that we are basically ignoring. You can really learn a lot about Muhammad reading that article, while I think someone who knew nothing about Jesus would probably either come away from this article knowing only very little, possibly confused, and probably doubting whether he even existed at all. —Aiden 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think our article is at least decent so far, i'd like more mention about the eternal salvation thing though. Homestarmy 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Names section

Haldrik, here's the place for you to propose changes to the current "Names" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Haldrik, but I'm wondering: peer review or RFC? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What we really need is a real linguist, without an agenda, and then someone who can write. As it is, the prose is almost completely unreadable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I studied Linguistics and Hebrew is one of my languages. Is there something I can look at and verify its plausibility? I must say that I think it should include the words in Hebrew script and not just transliterations. —Adityanath 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The editors who are linguists have already corroborated the etymology. What we really need are contributors who do not reactively delete the scholarly consensus because it contradicts their POV. --Haldrik 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You might have missed it above. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(Archola leaves to let Jayjg and Haldrik duke it out.) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote Peer review, its just been so long :). Homestarmy 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The English naming convention of the King James Version of the Bible uses the English names "Joshua" and "Jeshua" to represent the names Yĕhôshūa‘ and Yēshûa‘, respectively, in the Hebrew Bible, but uses the English name "Jesus" to represent the Greek name Iēsous in the Apocrypha and the New Testament."

Except for Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8 (depends on translation).

Peer review sounds good to me - as long as we focus on the text and don't use it as a forum for more grief against individuals. Do we need a peer review to get it to FA status? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it, but from what I can tell, they normally provide all the suggestions articles need to get wherever they should get to. From what I read of the process you have to ask readers what you want to know about the article I think. Homestarmy 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it enough to ask, "what do we need to do to bring this article to FA status?" Also see the minireview above. I've been busy elsewhere, so I haven't had time to check whether or not these suggestions have been implemented. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Im no expert on peer review policy, but that question seems to be just vauge enough to work. Homestarmy 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Should not the article state what the name "Jesus" means? The New Compact Bible Dictionary Edited by Alton Bryant says it means, "Jehovah is Salvation". If one wants to avoid the name "Jehovah" this can be done. It could say Jehwah or another form. However we should be consistent since this is an article on "Jesus" not "Yeshua". Regardless names are and were very important and the meaning should be brought out as it is in dictionaries and other scholarly work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanneum (talk • contribs)

• Just looking over what is on the main page. It says "The Hebrew name Yĕhôshūa‘, is a compound of the words יָהוּ שׁוּעַ, Yāhû Shûa‘.[13] It literally means, “God (is) a saving-cry”, or in other words, when someone needs help they shout, “God”, and God responds." This is not accurate. "Yahu" is a shorten form of the Divine Name it is not "EL" or the pl. "Elhoim" which mean "Ggod". Thus it can say at the least, "Yahweh" or "Yahoweh" is .... We need to be accurate wheter we like the conclusion or not.Johanneum 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly source for this? It's the first I've heard it. --CTSWyneken 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

??? יהו is a contraction of יהוה , see BDB Lexicon (H3068-3069), cited as the name of God by Theodoret and Epiphanius, also the name of a Babylonian diety. The name of God is not the same as the Hebrew word for God.

Elohim (gods)

The quote of Philo in the current article needs to be corrected. This is what it says[7]: "Joshua means "the salvation of the Lord"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.160 (talk)

STOP TROLLING!!! --MonkeeSage 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus'

I think that Strunk and White's Elements of Style recommends "Jesus'" over "Jesus's". I foolishly lent my copy, would someone please check theirs. Rick Norwood 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to get into a revert war over this, but I will make my case on the talk page and hope the proper use is reinstated.

• First, look at the Apostrophe article: "As a special case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's, even by people who would otherwise add 's e.g. James's, Chris's."
• "Some words sound awkward when an apostrophe 's' is added: Jesus's disciples. The accepted form here is to just use the 's' apostrophe: Jesus' disciples. N.B. This only applies to names of Biblical or historical significance e.g. Jesus, Moses, Zeus, Demosthenes, Ramses ... the rest of us whack in the apostrophe and add an 's.'" [8]
• " The following names traditionally do not use the s after the apostrophe to show possession: Examples Jesus' followers were first called Christians at Antioch. Moses' leadership was not always respected by the wandering Israelites." [9]
• "The Continuous S The rule of grammar states that if a name has more than one syllable and ends in an s, and the last syllable makes an /ez/ sound (like in Texas), then only an apostrophe is needed. Ex.: Jesus' glass " [10]

etc--Andrew c 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that view. This is Ross's (one of Jesus' servants) understanding. ^rossnixon 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

_ _ I erred in supposing it's an open-and-closed question, and i'm more surprised to find that it isn't, than i would have been to just find (as my preferred expert professional-writer maintains) i was on the wrong side of an open-and-closed question! I'm confident i was never taught that any S other than a pluralizing one makes a difference; as is usual with grammar, YMMV depending on your teachers' favorite grammar oracles.

_ _ There's a substantial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (punctuation). (That's a page in the namespace WP talk:, that apparently never had a corresponding Wikipedia:Manual of Style archive (punctuation), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (punctuation), or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (punctuation) page, but rather was cut & pasted from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.) My impression is that it's as close as we come to having a policy. (Note that article content is does not convert to policy!) While i haven't read that thru, based on this page, here's my revised justification for the approach i took:

1. The appearance of consistency of style is pretty important, bcz otherwise we convince people we're flipping coins. That calls for as straightforward as possible a criterion: something that can be remembered easily by editors, and inferrred readily by readers who see several examples. IMO, "Biblical or historical significance" is about as far from that as you can imagine: there's no logical justification for "people of the past should be talked about one way and others in another". If whoever said it meant "ancient people" that's a little more specific, but still not logical. And can we tolerate both "James' brother John" and "Henry James's novels"? "Moses' tablets" and "Robert Moses's public works projects"?
2. How it sounds is irrelevant, bcz WP is not a set of lectures or sermons. How it looks is key, irrespective of common oral usage or of rules tailored to deal with sound.
3. The rule given in the 'graph above that begins "The Continuous S..." reads like a clearcut one, but how can it possibly be, since it gets explained in terms of "Jesus" and "Texas" being described as having "-ez" sounds, when they both clearly have S consonants and no Z ones?
4. There's mention on the talk page i cite of catch phrases like "Achilles' heel", which i'd probably never have written before today even tho i'd never say "Achilles's heel". Likewise, i am used to hearing "in Jesus' name", tho my reaction when i consider writing it is that it's what i think of as a KJV-ism (because the translation committee for the KJV were working preachers, and the style of the work reflects their well-trained ear for wordings that sound good as part of a service): it looks to me like a grammatical error, justified perhaps by poetic license, but wrong except as an account of what the celebrant uttered.
5. IMO (and it's no more than that, bcz to me it's now become silly to suggest there's an uncontestable right answer):

   In the long term, no approach can be defended without a better justifying summary than

   improper use of "Jesus's"

   -- and for that matter, better than my

   proper English grammar "Jesus's" - Jesus is not a plural, and the possessive of that, like those of horse or Ross, has -EHZ as final syllable, spelled 's

   -- which means an MoS guideline is needed, in contrast to the presumably inconclusive archive i cited, or something arrived at on this talk page, which risks both the reality and the perception of being disproportionately influenced by (far from encyclopedic) liturgical poetic usage.

   On the short term(until that can be accomplished), a viable long-term candidate, probably the one needing the least intuiting of subjective arguments, and the one embodying the most quickly grasped principle, is this:

   With the exception of catch phases as indisputable as "Achilles' heel" ("in Jesus' name" may (or not) be that widespread; check your favorite concordance for KJV-derived candidates), treat the issue as one of grammar (syntactic roles), not as anything that makes pronunciation relevant.

--Jerzy•t 18:03, 30 March 2006

---

I would also like to ask the anon not to change the spellings that will break wikilinks. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

agape

i think it is odd phrasing to say that Jesus introduced and preached "agape" because agape was a Greek word. Jesus would have never said it, since he didn't speak Greek. Authors and translators of the Bible used the word agape. The word was in existence before Jesus, but after being used in the Bible, the word was slightly redefined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.140.254 (talk)

Please register and sign your comments! --CTSWyneken 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, who says Jesus didn't know any Greek? That's a very hard thing to say so definitively...Whether he used the actual word or not, the Bible writers saw fit to use that word to describe his teachings, so there should be no problem here. --Oscillate 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Greek has many more words to describe love than the English language. To simply put Jesus taught "love" would not be accurate. "Agape" represents a 'God-like love' through which man and God reconciled. While he may not have used the actual word, there's nothing wrong with using this context to describe it. —Aiden 01:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

well you can add god-like to the sentence, but i think self-sacrificing is a good description of the type of love he was talking about. osc.- it is a pretty sure thing that Jesus spoke Aramaic when teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.140.254 (talk)

Please register and sign your comments! --CTSWyneken 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not too hard to check the page history for signing. I can't help with registering, though. 24.x will have to take care of that for the sake of 24.x. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How was the word supposedly "slightly redefined"? Homestarmy 04:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See agape. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We have begun to gather scholarly opinion on the subject of Jesus' Greek knowledge at talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus There are many convinced that it would be odder for Jesus not to have known Greek than to have known it.

On ἡ ἀγάπη (agape), I don't think this belongs in the Jesus article. The plan that most of us see for this article is that it be a summary, perhaps and abstract, of the dozens of sub-articles on Jesus. I suggest we leave it out here and pick it up in a subarticle on Jesus' teachings.

Here we can qualify what love means by using adjectives -- self-sacrificing, servant, etc. or love that seeks no return or some such thing. --CTSWyneken 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Forensic

The section on "forensic reconstructions of Jesus' life" has absolutely nothing in it relating to forensics. How about "historians'?" Anyway, "forensics" is just wrong, and needs to go. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The old reading was "Historical"...not sure why it was changed to "Forensic." I don't think the crime lab has anything to do with this article. ;) --MonkeeSage 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest FORENSIC is possibly accurate - definition 3 on this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forensic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsteadman (talk • contribs)

Actually I think Rob might be right, doesn't Forensics also have to do with conceptualizations not necessarily based on compleatly physical evidence? Homestarmy 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this isn't a court of law, but the rest of the definition applies. I'm not sure who it was, but this was changed some time ago as a reference to the historical method, both here and at the disclaimer at Historical Jesus. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The denotations of "forensic" are correct, but not the connotations (which conjure ideas of Quincy M.E. looking for post-mortem contusions on a murder victim). Also, "forensics" in the sense intended, are included under the broader category of historical studies, as a means to the end of reconstructing history. "Historical" seems better to me. --MonkeeSage 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The denotations of forensics are inappropriate for this article. We are not talking about points made by a debating team, nor are we talking about research relevant to a legal procedure (and no, you can't say this is forensics if you just ignore the part about a court of law. That is like saying, a car would be a bicycle if it had two wheels instead of four). Homestarmy's understanding of forensics is not only completely (nb) wrong, it is even ignorant of the perfectly fine definition Rob provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I kept out of this one as I'm unsure of the usage. The only thing I would say is I've never seen it described that way anywhere else and that should always ring alarm bells that the terminology is suspect. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Forensic" comes from the latin word "forum," the market/meetingplace where people would debate. In English it refers specifically to debates (a debating team at a university if often called a forensics team) and also to court-related investigations (e.g. forensic medicine, forensic anthropology, forensic chemistry - they all use scientific techniques to examine physical evidence for the purpose of criminal or other legal proceedings). Forensics is never used for general scholarly research whether by philologists or historians aor literary critics. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't really live up to my namesake do I? My excuse is that you don't get "forensic astrophysics" (even when someone is killed by a metorite strike!!) so I'm not used to the term other than applied to "Quincy"! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom always begins with questions and an open mind. I'd say you live up to your namesake just fine! (And, god help us if we ever need a forensic astrophysicist! Imagine what crimes could be committed if one could move planets and stars!) Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the other sense of forensic, I wonder what they called it when the Big Bang folk were debating the Steady State folk. In the legal sense, I think the life of Jesus qualifies as a cold case. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 10:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protect

I've semi protected the page. Let me know when you would like to lift it.Gator (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction; some minor changes which might ruffle feathers.

Hey, all. Hurtstotalktoyou here. If you would all take a moment to compare the history of the Jesus edits, you'll find a temporary illustration of some changes I'd like to make to the introductory paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=46696853 Ordinarily, these would all be simple changes that I wouldn't think twice about. However, due to strong feelings and short tempers--and also to comply with wiki policy--I changed it right back to the way it was. But now my edit is logged in the history and can be viewed with a simple click. Anyhoo, on to the nasty...

The first and most important change I'd like to make is the bit about the Gospels being "generally dated after 65." While that is true, very strictly speaking, it is very misleading. The fact is, we have a very wide range of dates to play with regarding the Gospels. Narrowing down that range is generally the product of speculation, not hard evidence. I'd like to change it to the more flexible date of c. 48 (which is, if I remember correctly, the earliest plausible date for Paul's first epistle, and thus for anyone writing under the direction of Paul) through c. 140 (Marcion's time). If you guys don't like those exact numbers, something near there would be acceptable, anywhere between, say, 45 and 55 for the early cutoff and between 125 and 150 for the late cutoff. The "after 65" remark is pretty sloppy and imprecise.

The second change I'd like to make is in the third paragraph. It seems to me that the Nicene Creed discussion is off-topic for an introduction to Jesus. This is easily sidestepped with some condensation. Instead of this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed; believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets Scripture." ...try this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe in that Trinitarian doctrine, instead adopting various other interpretations of Jesus' divinity." Not only does this revision eliminate topic straying, it makes clearer the diversity of Christian beliefs. I highly recommend it!

The third change is also for the third paragraph, but is relatively basic. I propose adding a "mainstream" clarification before the fourth and fifth sentences of the current version. The logic behind this is simple: Although most Christians agree on both points, there is a minority who do not.

The fourth change is similarly mundane: Instead of using AD/CE and BC/BCE, I propose we just use AD and BC. Trying to accomodate both is redundant and therefore undesirable. We should therefore choose between one notation or the other. Considering that, I believe we should default to the traditional AD and BC in order to minimize the appearance of anti-Christian bias, which is a major concern for Christians and non-Christians alike.

The fifth change I'd like to make is editing "Biblical prophecy" in the third paragraph to "Old Testament Messianic prophecy," "Old Testament prophecy" or "Jewish prophecy" (or something to that effect). Saying that Jesus might have fulfilled "Biblical prophecy" is misleading due to the fact that the Bible did not exist until long after his death.

In my final proposal, I'd like to make a simple sentence structure alteration: Change "8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE" to "born c. 8-2 BC/BCE, died c. 29-36 AD/CE". The former has too many dashes, and reads poorly.

Maybe also change "the second coming" to "his second coming."

So, that's it. Any thoughts? Good ideas? Bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtstotalktoyou (talk • contribs)

You proposals sound fine to me, with the exception of the fourth, since giving both notations was a compromise by both parties (the ones who wanted AD/BC and the ones who wanted CE/BCE). See Archives 15, 16 and 17 (and a few others) for lots of discussion on the issue. Ps. Don't forget to sign your edits on talk pages (~~~~). --MonkeeSage 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

...or else someone will sign for you. I generally agree with MonkeeSage. Mention of the Nicene Creed (a particular trinitarian formula) was also the result of a compromise, and now that we mention Trinitarianism more directly, it may be redundant. As paragraph 3 has also been the subject of long discussion, I'd like to hear what others have to say first. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Short tempers - never! We're a friendly bunch really. The "after 65" was used this was the most cmmonly accepted earliest date. I would have no problem being more precise with the date ranges as long as we give the full range not just the earliest but the intro is very inclined to get too wordy with too many qualifiers so we have to be careful as this is just the intro. As for the Nicene creed - as others have said that is a carefully crafted sentence and others involve with that should give their thoughts. I personally like the reference to "other interpretations of scripture" - it seems NPOV as it does not claim any one group to be the authority on the bible. The third change - no problem to me. The forth change - nooooo - please we have so many pointless arguments about this and the version we have seems to be stable - so please leave it be (pretty please). Fifth change - good point - no problems for me. Final proposal - looks very good - nice one. Second coming - again no problems. Welcome to the page - it's nice to have thoughtful input. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being kind to us all by not leaving these changes live. I think the AD/CE notation is sensible. Both notations are used in the scholarly literature. Also, I have no stomach for the Era Wars returning.

I'll start a Nicene Creed section. I do think it sensible to drop it, since some Christians affirm the Creed and the Doctrine, some the Doctrine but not the Creed and others whom most of us would not consider Christian, but claim the label, neither the creed nor the doctrine.

On the date of the Gospels, I'm with Sophia. Earliest and latest dates. I'd add, with documentation. Would someone 'please' help with that? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if we include the uppermost and lowermost possible dates, we are no longer speaking "generally" and the wording of the sentence would need to change to reflect that. "[Meier] accept[s] the standard view in NT reasearch today: Mark... composed his Gospel somewhere around A.D. 70. Both Mattew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 periord (most likely between 80 and 90)." pg. 43 A Marginal Jew. and "70+ C.E. first narrative gospel (Mark) 90+ C.E. derivative gospels (Matthew, Luke, John)" p. 8 The Acts of Jesus. I see no reason to cover fringe views in a 'generally dated' section. If we go with a range of dates, we'd have to out generally, and I feel its important to at least somewhere convey the scholarly consensus.--Andrew c 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What does Metzger say about the Gospel dates, exactly? Anyone know? If not, we could just delete the reference to dates. It's not necessary, I wouldn't say. Unfortunately, there's no real "scholarly consensus," here. Like I said, dating the Gospels relies on a great deal of speculation. So we should probably keep that in mind. And that's a shame about the AD/CE arguments. I can't imagine anyone being so childish about insisting on the newer notation. What's the big deal, seriously? --hurtstotalktoyou

Nicene Creed in Third paragraph

I have no problem deleting it. Any comments? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to accuse any editors or anything, however I believe that the inclusion of the Creed references was an attempt to exclude certain 'Christian' groups that do not accept the Creed. The question is, how important to the majority of Christians is the Creed, and who exactly are we excluding by mentioning it? I can see a case for leaving it in and for excluding it.--Andrew c 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was the other way around: there was a dispute over how to word the Christian views subparagraph (not yet a full paragraph) and whether to include nontrinitarian views. My proposed (and accepted) compromise was to attribute the views that were already there to those Christians who affirm the Nicene Creed, while also acknowledging that there were other Christians who believe the creed misinterprets scipture. This was all discussed at the beginning of Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 1. However, as I said earlier, I see no real need to mention both Trinitarianism and the creed itself. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the whole point of including the creed is to indicate Trinitarianism, and since that is now explicitly mentioned, the creed reference can go. I mean, apart from the Trinity, I think that everything else in the creed is affirmed by all the various "flavors" of people who take the title "Christian." So I see no problem with getting rid of the mention of the creed. --MonkeeSage 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, especially since we moved the "Nicene bracket" back a couple of sentences. I suggested the creed last January because we were discussing the historical roots of trinitarian beliefs, and also because Aiden's summary quite frankly sounded to me like a paraphrase of the second article of the creed. We kept the creed reference later because it provided a transition from the previous paragraph about historicity. Now, however, direct reference to the creed sounds redundant even to me. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)