Talk:Jesus - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DigDeep4Truth (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 31 January 2014 (→Given the length of the header…: Wouldn't it be useful to have a Table of Contents on this Talk page? ~ There is a Table of Contents, Deleting this question. Because the table is automatic, the table of contents must have been too low for his eyes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:29, 31 January 2014 by DigDeep4Truth (talk | contribs) (→Given the length of the header…: Wouldn't it be useful to have a Table of Contents on this Talk page? ~ There is a Table of Contents, Deleting this question. Because the table is automatic, the table of contents must have been too low for his eyes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ.The FAQ provides links to archived talk page discussions.
Please read the FAQ.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 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, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 21 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages.
The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?: Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.
Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?: The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 3, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 15, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 14, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 27, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 21, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 21, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
July 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
May 28, 2013	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
August 15, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bahá'í Faith High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

AD Placement

if we're using AD, which is a Latin phrase, should it not precede the date to be in line with proper usage? (i.e. A.D. 30-33 rather than 30-33 AD)

--Aquahelper (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ERA for style. Editor2020 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

criticism of jesus/plucking eyeballs out/slavery

~~Jesus has been criticized as vindictive, intolerant, prudish, and unkind. Several scholars have noted that he appears to condone slavery.~~

− − The cardinal Avery Robert Dulles stated that Jesus “said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In his paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that Jesus often encountered slavery, "but not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery,” and argues that Jesus must have then condoned it.

−

How come the Catholic removed this section in his words "because it didn't appear to be criticism" is this a joke? − Friedrich Nietsche argued that “a war was declared on passion” in the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says of sexual temptation: "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out." According to Nietsche, “Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity, today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who "pluck out" teeth so that they will not hurt any more…. the Christian who follows that advice and believes he has killed his sensuality is deceiving himself: it lives on in an uncanny vampire form and torments in repulsive disguises.” Cluelesswonder (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what many websites claim, I haven't seen a single evidence where Jesus explicitly condons slavery. Check Luke 4:16-20 or John 8:31-36 for instance. Jesus merely used slavery in the parables for better understanding (like Luke 12:35-48 to exemplify himself as the one who will return in the Second Coming or the Parable of the Master and Servant). Even if the assumption that Jesus didn't actually say anything in opposition to slavery is true, that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus condoned slavery. Brandmeister 14:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::I know that it's a difficult concept for some to get their head around, so focus very hard on what I'm about to say SOME PEOPLE (the Cardinal that was referenced included) HAVE CRITICIZED JESUS FOR NOT CONDEMNING SLAVERY. Do you get it now? It's complicated for some, I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluelesswonder (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And why do you think this is a big enough detail to include in the article? some people have criticized Jesus for all sorts of odd things. We simply can't include everything ever said about Jesus here. The article would be gigabytes long. Why do you think this particular issue is important enough?Farsight001 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cardinal Dulles doesn't "criticize Jesus" in that article. First, it's a book review. So he's summarizing what someone else has written. Second, he merely states that Jesus didn't explicitly criticize slavery. A mere statement like that can't be taken for criticism of Jesus without more. And there's no more. Not having the book Cardinal Dulles was reviewing, I can't speak to what the book's author has to say. Dmvjjvmd (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Farsight/Brand. Cluelesswonder - your citation is a voice in the wilderness and should rightly be considered "trivia". You don't seem to understand that just because it is "a" voice, doesn't mean it is a significant one... Ckruschke (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Another note having just read the Giles article you linked to. That also doesn't criticize Jesus for anything. It, too, merely notes that Jesus didn't utter any criticism of slavery. The article itself is, in fact, a criticism of fundamentalists who read the Bible literally. Giles is saying, "If you read the Bible literally, you'll end up thinking slavery is ok, and slavery isn't ok, so don't read the Bible literally." Note that Giles does not say that Jesus endorsed slavery. There's no criticism of Jesus in that article. Sorry, friend. Dmvjjvmd (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are any number of things that Jesus didn't directly criticise - the use of torture; rape; sexual abuse of children; terrorism. If we complain that there are no recorded criticisms of one thing, why not list all the others anyone can think of, including those in the future he could have divinely predicted? Paul B (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluelesswonder has now been indef'd as a sock.Marauder40 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholars agree there was a Jesus.

Please please please, they do not. All the sources quoted here are from "New Testamnent Historians." Scholars do not all agree on Jesus at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q_3:_Did_Jesus_exist.3F and then come back if you have any concrete suggestions on how to improve the article. --NeilN 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly been discussed before, but rational, open and honest discussion on the matter is difficult. It's a big POV problem for Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Most scholars do agree on the historical existence of a man named Jesus. If you have citations proclaiming otherwise then list them instead of disagreeing. Otherwise your comment is a opinion and one without evidence. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Are those scholars Christian? If so, their opinion is of no value. A Christian could not possibly declare that Jesus did not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: That's a bit silly. Muslims and Jews couldn't declare it either by your logic (and both acknowledge Jesus as a prophet). It's like saying a Muslim couldn't study Jesus. Regardless, we don't choose sources based on the writer's religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me what it's "like saying". Stick to the words I actually said. Tell me how on earth a Christian scholar can be considered a reliable source on the existence of Jesus? HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Because scholarship is assessed per WP:RS. If the scholar is properly accredited, and their books have been peer reviewed we take the system that affirms their scholarship as the yardstick to judge it. And by the was, analogies are a perfectly valid way of drawing attention to weaknesses in an argument. However, it's worth noting that Jews do not "acknowledge Jesus as a prophet". Paul B (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've delved into that stuff. Thought some Jews acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, just not the messiah. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way would being a Christian invalidate their scholarship? That sounds like a text-book ad hominem to me, saying, basically, "they're Christian, so they're wrong." Would you also suggest that an atheist scholar claiming Jesus never existed could likewise not be considered a reliable source on the existence of Jesus? I'd bet not. As Paul said, and I will say more bluntly,[REDACTED] does not give a shit about your or their sources' religious persuasions, and neither should we.Farsight001 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

NO!!!! it is NOT LIKE saying "they're Christian, so they're wrong.". That is a false analogy. If you cannot see my point, and want to argue against a false analogy, feel free, but you will be wasting your time. If you CAN see my point, don't like it, and still want to argue against a false analogy, you're STILL wasting your time. Try discussing what I actually said. I shall return to your first sentence, which was "In what way would being a Christian invalidate their scholarship?" The answer is that a Christian MUST say that Jesus existed. Their conclusion could not possibly be any different. It would be of no use to us. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see your point just fine, HiLo - Christians are untrustworthy in producing proper scholarship in regards to the person of Jesus, which is a fancy way of wording the same damn ad hominem attack. I did, in fact, discuss what you actually said by pointing out the logical conclusion of your words. You are reacting with incredulity because you find my conclusion ridiculous, but you fail to grasp that my conclusion is based on YOUR reasoning, thus making YOUR reasoning ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that some of these scholars BECAME Christians after extensive research?

And again,[REDACTED] could not give less of a shit what religion its sources are. Your objection is based on absolutely nothing that[REDACTED] cares about. You've been around long enough to know that by now, so how about you stop wasting everyone's time and let them get on with something productive?Farsight001 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages MUST give such a shit. Find me a Christian who says Jesus didn't exist and I will change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think[REDACTED] should care, then go to the relevant policy pages and fight to change them so that it matters. Until you do, you're just wasting everyone's time.Farsight001 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I am used to taking non-mainstream positions and being told such things by those with conservative views. It will not convince me I am wrong. That will occur when you find me a Christian who says Jesus didn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservative views? What the hell does that have to do with this? This issue is 100% about[REDACTED] policy, which says, VERY CLEARLY, that things like the religion of the scholars we use matters exactly 0%. Misplaced Pages policy says one thing. You say another. You are, BY DEFINITION, wrong. Again, if you have a problem with the way[REDACTED] works, go fight to have the relevant policies changed, or go start your own wiki. Stop wasting talk page space with a pursuit you full well know is a fruitless endeavor.Farsight001 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't make me wrong at all. It simply but perfectly demonstrates Misplaced Pages's systemic bias. I won't try to fight policy (it's obviously part of the systemic bias too), but I will continue to highlight the stupidity of sourcing a claim to people whose religious beliefs mean they cannot say otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And the scholars who didn't agree lost their jobs. Just like how the Catholic Church was pissed at Jewish scholars for not having written about Jesus in their Talmud by 521 CE. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, what is this focus on finding a Christian who says that Jesus doesn't exist? How is that relevant to any argument? Of course no Christian says that Jesus didn't exist. But how does that fact say anything about whether Christians can be reliable sources here? The same is true about those who hold the theory that Jesus was an apocalypticist (e.g., Bart Ehrman): None of these people say that Jesus didn't exist either. The same with the Jesus Seminar view. The same with the political revolutionary view

Your logic has failed completely. It is stupid to source a claim to people whose religious beliefs mean they cannot say otherwise. If the logical extensions of that obvious point are a problem to you, go away and think about it for a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not true that they cannot say otherwise. Ehrman, John P. Meier, etc., can say otherwise, it's just that they don't say otherwise, because they stick to their judgements. So I agree it would be stupid to source people who cannot possibly say anything other than what they do; but no one is suggesting doing so, because the scholars being cited have free will to make their judgements. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course they have free will, and as part of that have chosen to believe in Jesus. That's fine, but having made that choice, I cannot respect their judgement on his existence. Have you thought how this discussion must look to someone who has never had much at all to do with Christianity, someone from, say, India or China? It's a bad look for Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, don't your arguments assume that the following statements by a hypothetical scholar of antiquity are inherently contradictory? "There is insufficient historical evidence from Elbonian archaeology that Verdigris IV existed" and "I personally believe that Verdigris IV existed". I think they are compatible: one is an expression of what the historical evidence known to date can support; the other is a statement of belief (and it doesn't matter whether that belief is founded on religion, mysticism, a professional hunch, etc.). If you allow that statements like these can be made in full intellectual honesty, then you should recognize that there is room for a Christian scholar of antiquity to believe in Jesus and yet to make a professional statement against the historical conclusion of Jesus' existence. alanyst 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously Verdigris IV is irrelevant to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's just being tendentious. The parallel is easily understood. Your complaints do not deserve to be addressed if you will not engage good-faith rebuttals. alanyst 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious? I just find it amusing, and reinforcing to my view, that those who disagree with me seem to want to talk about anything but the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your fundamental premise is that a scholar who personally believes in the existence of A is necessarily constrained to argue professionally for the historical existence of A. I argued against that premise using a parallel construct to highlight the implications of your logic without the distracting baggage of actual belief systems. If you cannot or will not mentally substitute "Jesus" for "Verdigris IV" in my comment then there's no point continuing to engage in this discussion. alanyst 01:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

HiL, do you respect the judgment of Reza Aslan, author of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, who is a Muslim, yet reached conclusions that contradict both Christian and Muslim views of Jesus? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My point earlier Robin. This is going nowhere. HiLo48 - Your standards are not in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines about reliable sources. Religious people can be scholars about religion. Atheists can be scholars about atheism. Feminists can be scholars about feminism. Please stop being argumentative and rehashing the same biased opinion over and over. Discuss improving the article or stop talking. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made my point about Misplaced Pages's standards. If they really allow us to source a "fact" on Jesus' existence to Christian scholars, those "standards" are simply wrong. It's a classic example of Misplaced Pages's systemic bias. As for my opinion being biased, we are all biased. Your bias just happens to more closely match Misplaced Pages's systemic one than mine does. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it was said that my logic has "failed completely", I thought I would formalise it: H: accepting that Jesus existed (historicism); M: not accepting that Jesus existed (mythicism); R: being a relible source; Domain of discourse: sources for the historicity of Jesus; 1) ∀x.(H(x)∨M(x)) 2) ∀x.H(x)→∀x.¬R(x) 3) ∀x.H(x) ∴ 4. ∀x.(R(x)→M(x)). I did an analytic tableau, and it turned out valid for me. Can you show me why this argument is invalid? To be clear: This is the argument I say is unsound because I reject premise 2 (that is, if no one in the group rejects that Jesus exists, then the group is not reliable); I'm saying that the argument shows that the premisses end up begging the question at hand (which is exactly what 3 does). So, I guess, to answer the question, I'd imagine that someone from e.g. India or China would either show a relevant, open tableau, or agree, or give some other argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Per HiLo's admission above, he is here to "highlight systematic bias", not contribute to article quality. Since talk pages are for discussing article improvement only, this entire thread should be hatted or deleted, which I will do in a day or two. This is a giant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anyway.Farsight001 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Map on this Article is Historically Inaccurate and Contrary to Reality / Removal or Replacement?

The maps was drawn by a religious theologian on top of a modern map. His reference for naming places was an abstract of how the bible translated those names into its stories. rather than based on independent Historical documents. I say this because Palestine has been made to appear near non-existent. Even though Greek said it made up all of what was between Phoenicia and Egypt.

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.

Here is a Much older map from the United Nations, The Holy Land or Promised Land (Formerly Palestine), Recently Depicted and Published by Nicolaes Visscher 1659 CE --> http://www.wdl.org/en/item/210/#q=Palestine&time_periods=-8000-499&qla=en ~ The General point being the currant map should be removed. It is not based academic history. It is a map of what the bible described to a Theologian, not map maker. Because Palestine does not occur in Bible as a land mass, the author of the map penciled it in along the edge. We know for a fact that it reached from the coast to the Dead Sea. Before Jesus. and I have a map from 400 Years After Jesus. http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/ So the current Jesus map is wrong or at least not academically accurate, because it ignore history from multiple books, and uses a single book as he complete source. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a map from about 43 CE https://en.wikipedia.org/Pomponius_Mela But I honestly think they drew in the names. So I did not originally include it. But academically it is probably not less the the current chosen map. Misplaced Pages is an impartial encyclpedia. Not a place that operates on religious dogma. We believe in facts that can be known.

Reader feedback: Looking for/found language r...

Cramyourspam posted this comment on 22 March 2012 (view all feedback).

Looking for/found language root meanings for Jesus and Christ. Article needs more information on Christ's claims to be the "son of man", a title used often in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Any thoughts? I might be able to find the Theological meaning of Jesus the Christ. But the "son of man", may have been Jesus digging at the priests for impregnating his mother while she was a Temple Maiden of the Jewish Priests from 3-12. She Gave Birth to Jesus at 12 years 6 months old, and was told by the priests that it was a virgin birth. But they ordered Joseph to sleep with her before she went into labor. This comes from a chapter of James the Lesser's book named Protevangelion. The priests insisted Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus insisted now he was the child of men. And preached a practical faith his whole life.

DigDeep4Truth (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The protevangelion of James was written in 145, long after James' death. Its not exactly a useful or credible source.Farsight001 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Jacobson, David M. (1999). Weinstein, James M. (ed.). "Palestine and Israel". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (313). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 65–74. ISSN 0003-097X. JSTOR 1357617. The earliest occurrence of this name in a Greek text is in the mid-fifth century b.c., Histories of Herodotus, where it is applied to the area of the Levant between Phoenicia and Egypt."..."The first known occurrence of the Greek word Palaistine is in the Histories of Herodotus, written near the mid-fifth century B.C. Palaistine Syria, or simply Palaistine, is applied to what may be identified as the southern part of Syria, comprising the region between Phoenicia and Egypt. Although some of Herodotus' references to Palestine are compatible with a narrow definition of the coastal strip of the Land of Israel, it is clear that Herodotus does call the "whole land by the name of the coastal strip."..."It is believed that Herodotus visited Palestine in the fifth decade of the fifth century B.C."..."In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) and David Jacobson (May/Jun 2001). "When Palestine Meant Israel". BAR 27:03. Retrieved 2 March 2012. As early as the Histories of Herodotus, written in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., the term Palaistinê is used to describe not just the geographical area where the Philistines lived, but the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt—in other words, the Land of Israel. Herodotus, who had traveled through the area, would have had firsthand knowledge of the land and its people. Yet he used Palaistinê to refer not to the Land of the Philistines, but to the Land of Israel {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Jacobson, David M., Palestine and Israel, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 313 (Feb., 1999), pp. 65–74
The Southern and Eastern Borders of Abar-Nahara Steven S. Tuell Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 284 (Nov., 1991), pp. 51–57
Herodotus' Description of the East Mediterranean Coast Anson F. Rainey Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 321 (Feb., 2001), pp. 57–63
In his work, Herodotus referred to the practice of male circumcision associated with the Hebrew people: "the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians.... Now these are the only nations who use circumcision." The History of Herodotus
Beloe, W., Rev., Herodotus, (tr. from Greek), with notes, Vol.II, London, 1821, p.269 "It should be remembered that Syria is always regarded by Herodotus as synonymous with Assyria. What the Greeks called Palestine the Arabs call Falastin, which is the Philistines of Scripture."
Elyahu Green, Geographic names of places in Israel in Herodotos This is confirmed by George Rawlinson in the third book (Thalia) of The Histories where Palaestinian Syrians are part of the fifth tax district spanning the territory from Phoenicia to the borders of Egypt, but excludes the kingdom of Arabs who were exempt from tax for providing the Assyrian army with water on its march to Egypt. These people had a large city called Cadytis, identified as Jerusalem.
"Meteorology By Aristotle". Classics.mit.edu. Retrieved 2011-12-11.

Categories: