Talk:Jesus/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 20

What externally verified events?

Give a reply before reverting, please.


suggested to add section on Jesus's Family / Descendants either as part of this section on life of Jesus or new major subsection

to include ref to Wikipedia' pages

that suggestion was in the main article, i'm moving it here where it belongs. 01:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture of George W. Bush

I am going to delete the link to the picture of George W. Bush in 1 week, unless someone can give me a good reason not too. It's not that I'm offended--far from it--it's just that it's one of the most asinine attempts at humor I've ever seen, and is a distraction, not least of all for it's atrocious English. So yeah...I guess I WAS a bit offended by how stupid it was.


This article is garbage. It is presenting as scientific facts a set of far fetched speculations (recognized in the cited source as a pure slightly possible alternative) from the weblink "Nizrael". The active users delete all mentions and arguments about the historical references. Given the huge set of reverts and deletions, and the nerve with which they are done, it is expected that peace cannot be done (at least not more than in Jerusalem). Moreover, the page contains sacrilegious text that repulse readers from large classes of people (perhaps meant to keep them away and allow exclusivity to a set of people with an agenda).

I recommend to transform this page into a really neutral page (i.e, containing only links to original sources, i.e., gospels, etc...). The interpretations of different groups will then go into corresponding pages (so that one no longer needs to delete each other with no explanation and such bitterly). I already copied the current content into Jesus: the Jewish POV. User:I834

I strongly object to the changes you are trying to make. You have not indicated which specific statements in the article you dispute; "a set of far fetched speculations" and "sacrilegious text" do nothing to identify what your actual concerns are. Which past reverts and deletions do you find objectionable? What aspects of the article are not neutral, in your opinion? Please give concrete reasons for wanting to restructure this article, and you might overcome my objections. Also, you seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy, lingo, etc. despite your recently created user account. What other user accounts have you edited under? (I'm not necessarily accusing you of being a sockpuppet; I know sometimes people have legitimate reasons for switching to a different account.) Alanyst 23:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Please discuss deletions before doing so. They may contain valuable information which needs to be cleaned up or expanded instead. - Amgine 21:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reiterate above - Amgine 19:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine

Misleading edit summary

I just wanted to note that a recent edit by CheeseDreams carried an edit summary which implied, I think, that all the edit did was remove vandalism from the article. CD did in fact remove the vandalism -- I'm quite pleased about that, btw -- but also reintroduced the sentence about koans to the article. I haven't been involved here enough to know where the discussion went on koans, but when I saw the diff I thought it was strange that no mention was made in the edit summary, and I can see there is a large dispute about the inclusion of the word "koan" on this talk page, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. If it's just an edit war, then I guess I'd say the misleading edit summary is underhanded...perhaps even a "dirty trick" if intentional. If, however, consensus was to remove the word, then I think it's more serious than that. Anyhow, I thought it needed noting. Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries only have so much room
P.s. that is not an NPOV observation. Why criticise my edit summaries when you do not criticise those of others? CheeseDreams 19:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Edit summaries provide quite a reasonable amount of room; I've seen summaries on history pages that are pretty long. Anyhow, 'rv vandalism; re-insert koan phrase' is pretty concise and would have communicated what you really did, and is shorter than a lot of existing edit summaries. Alanyst 20:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Alanyst -- and CD, if I'd noticed the edit summary by anyone, I would have commented here, I promise you. I have no real interest in the koan argument, but if anyone had edited the page inserting or removing it with an edit summary such as the one you gave, I would have left a note here. Edit summaries are important, particularly when you are making an important (i.e., not correcting spelling or grammar) change. If people don't get in the habit of accurately describing their edits, it creates problems. I just want us to be honest with each other. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I have been following this recent spout and I think it was a pretty damn shady thing for CD to do. --Alterego 00:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: CheeseDreams

I see you are determined, as per your latest edit, to put in this nonsense about Koans. Is it absolutely necessary that you use "some" though, and not be specific? It seems to me like you are trying to write your little POV as official history, to be honest. --Alterego 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I am getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of seeing you try to insert this Koan crap with misleading edit reasons. YOU CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY. --Alterego 00:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego, I have added the two edits with misleading edit summaries to the request for arbitration against CheeseDreams -- hopefully there will be consequences for this sort of thing very soon. Jwrosenzweig 00:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you *calms down* :p --Alterego 19:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't you mean Achtung?CheeseDreams 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Oh, I've just noticed you swore. CheeseDreams 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why can't I rewrite history? The church did. The pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus), together with 2 Thessalonians, are widely considered by most scholars to be fakes. Remove them, and Paul suddenly takes on a whole new light. CheeseDreams 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While this is irrelevant, could you leave information - or links about this - on my talk page? I've never heard this, and I'm genuinely interested. thanks.--Josiah 00:34, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

P.s. to those who do not know, Christos Pantocrator is supposed to look annoyed. CheeseDreams 22:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, I am sure, but is it my imagination or is Jesus (in the picture on the top of the page) starting to look annoyed? Slrubenstein 22:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am really trying to be serious and sincere here -- Explanation for CheeseDreams

Okay, CheeseDreams, I just reverted and want to explain why and perhaps lay the basis for some constructive dialogue. One reason I reverted is that the record of this article and its talk page [Now in Archive 12 -- added by ABCD at 16:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)] fore the past several days reveals that you are the only one who thinks mention of koans should be included, and many people feel strongly it should not. At Wikipedia we try to build a consensus and that can be difficult, but there is no need for a poll here -- you simply haven't convinced anyone the sentence should be included. And if you cannot convince people who care about the article, you really should ask yourself if your point is that important, or valid. The people who reject your wanting to include this point int he article do so in good faith. You are right, that if "some people" think so we usually include it in an article. But I don't think you have convinced anyone here that anyone really thinks Jesus used koans. At best, some people make an analogy that might help explain things to people who are really familiar with koans, but that is not applicable to this encyclopedia article. Can you try to explain, as calmly and as reasonably as possible, why you think this sentence is so important that it has to be added to the article? Why do you care so much about this? I can explain to you why I revert it -- I really think that to make mention of this is to suggest a similarity between Jesus and Zen thought where no such similarity exists, and I think to make this suggestion misleads people about Jesus (forget the question of whether he existed or not -- a red herring -- I just mean the character in the Gospels) and how he taught. Okay, why is it so important to you? Slrubenstein

Perhaps there is a compromise possible here. There ought to be an article specifically about Jesus' teachings where various theories about what he might have meant, how he presented his teachings, and their relation to similar literature could be presented. The theory of "Jesus koans" could be appropriately mentioned on such a page, I think. There is a category on his doctrine and teachings already, but apparently no main article. We could create such an article and link this disputed section to it. In any case, I will continue to object to the mention of koans in the main Jesus article. Alanyst 23:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any compromise should be based on good reasons. I would have no objections to the claim being made on this page, if it were valid. But the question is, who has claimed that Jesus used koans, and what is the nature of this claim? What does it mean? We don't create compromises by creating new pages. By the way, compromise is usually for matters of style; when it comes to content what matters are basic policies: no original research and NPOV, and above all else this is an encyclopedia. So I repeat: what is behind this claim, and why does CheeseDreams really think it is so important? Slrubenstein

I understand your point, Slrubenstein, but differ with you a bit on this. In my opinion, it's not so much a question of who is making the claim (although that is not wholly unimportant), but more a matter of how appropriate it is for this particular article. In an article devoted to how Buddhists interpret Jesus' teachings, it might be very suitable, even if the equating of koans to his teachings is still a minority view. For this reason I proposed creating a new article, because adequately treating the subject of his teachings while including perspectives such as CheeseDreams's would seem to require more space and have a different focus than the current article can accommodate. Alanyst 23:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Slruenstein never tolerates the existence of views opposed to his. See Talk:Cultural and historical background to Jesus, pay particular attention to the archives (and their summaries) CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From what I've read so far just about descriptions of some of the books mentioned, people have drawn analogies between some of Jesus' sayings and koans, or have composed koans that Jesus might have said had he been familiar with them. I haven't found anyone who says Jesus actually, deliberately used koans as a teaching guide. This doesn't mean no one has by any means, but it does mean that finding lots of google hits or book titles that include "Jesus" and "koan" in the title by itself does not establish the point. Koans are intended to help the listener towards 'enlightenment', a concept and goal that as far as I know was foreign to any of the religions or sects in the Roman Empire in the first century. I welcome further education on this subject. In other words, I have no problem with presenting minority views, provided that they are in fact the views of a real minority and not just the pet theory of one or two wikipedians. Wesley 01:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I really doubt Zen Buddhists would equate Jesus' parables with koans. They really aren't anything alike. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀]] 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course not, thats why they would say "parables AND koans". Koans are tiny little phrases like "you must die to live" and "he who is first is last" not "there was once a Samartan and he crossed the road one day when someone was suffering...." CheeseDreams 14:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Those are paradoxical statements, not koans. There are substantial differences between paradox and koan; a Buddhist would most likely consider these statements irrelevant. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀]] 18:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wesley—I agree, and for the sake of fairness I would observe that CheeseDreams's phrase (at least in its latest incarnation—no pun intended) does not appear to state that Jesus used koans in his teachings, but rather draws an analogy between some of his teachings (specificity regarding which teachings would be nice) and koans. If there are others besides CheeseDreams who perceive a similar relationship, and we have references to what those people have written, then perhaps this idea has a place somewhere on Wikipedia. Just not in this article. Alanyst 02:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice to do it where the idea could be fleshed out a little more. If some Buddhists have written about a similarity, maybe it could go in Religious perspectives on Jesus in the Buddhist section, for instance? Wesley 04:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you'd need to be very careful about breaking the no original research rule. Also, I am particularly wary since CheeseDreams has said it is her intention to rewrite history. I still haven't seen anything quoted from reliable scholarly sources drawing any serious analogy between koans and Jesus' sayings. jguk 14:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I googled on Jesus and Koans, and three of the five sites I looked at were Christians drawing the link. Furthermore, the Buddhist site didn't say that Jesus used koans; it only identified him with the Buddha. (The fifth site was just the I-K page of a religious glossary.) Ben Standeven 22:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus

Since I last visited this article it has sharply declined in intellectual clarity. In particular the section on the historicity of Jesus has been reduced to meaningless cliches. There is now no clear discussion on the historical sources (or lack thereof) for the existence and biography of Jesus. Sloppy and misleading statements have been allowed to proliferate, such as "The main account of his life is the four Gospels" (in fact the Gospels are the only account) and "Debates concerning Jesus as a historical figure center on three issues [the first of which is] the role of God in natural and human history" (they certainly do not centre on this "issue", which presupposes the existence of God and is thus a theological debate rather than a historical one). This article must contain an accurate statement about the attitude of secular scholarship towards the textual evidence for the existence and biography of Jesus. I inserted an attempt at such a statement at one point, but it has been completely emasculated, presumably by Christians. Next time I feel like an argument I will resurrect it (!) and put it back in the article. Adam 08:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the kind of statement I believe needs to be restored to this article:

The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which Christians believe to be the word of God. Most secular historians agree that the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death. They take the view, however, that since there is absolutely no evidence for any aspect of Jesus's life and work outside the Gospels, which were written or compiled by his followers, no detailed account of his life can be accepted as historically verifiable. This applies in particular, of course, to events such as the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, which contradict the scientifically accepted laws of biology and physics and thus require a higher standard of proof. Belief that such events occurred must remain a matter of faith and not a matter of history. Adam 09:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For other sources, see Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Jesus, the Gospel of James, and others. Also, calling into question the miracles solely because they contradict the laws of biology and physics is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Science assumes that it can explain all via science, but it makes no attempt to prove this; indeed, by definition it is incapable of doing so. Once you say that only science is "real", you are stepping outside of science and into philosophy. Hence, this widely held philosophy of materialism is important and deserves prominent mention, but as one POV among others. Wesley 06:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. You present a scientific argument for the existence of Jesus (evidence from non-Gospel sources) and then claim that science is not a valid method of establishing his existence (or non-existence). Trying to have it both ways I think.

Exile 19:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to me that science is the only way to prove whether or not Jesus actually existed as a living human being. Nothing that I know of has been "dug up" to show Jesus walked the Earth. Thus, relying on the Gospels (which really is a POV account of Jesus' life) is a matter of faith. Further, to prove the miracles is definitely beyond current science, and can only be taken on faith. Belief in beautiful things and stories can inspire people to do good works, but in an encyclopedia, we of course need to deal with facts. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 16:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may seem this way to you, but that is precisely why this view does not belong in the article. We don't put our own views in articles. It is a fact that some believe Jesus never lived and of course the article should acknowledge it. But it is not a fact that the only people who believe he existed because of their faith. It is a fact that historians and critical (meaning, not religious or Christian) scholars of the Bible believe Jesus existed. This fact must also be in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On that point, we could also mention the possibility of historians having their lives and livelihoods imperiled if they dare suggested otherwise. There's a certain pressure Christians put on the rest of us to stay in lockstep with their views... I think this is obvious. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No proof?

I ve seen proof. I ve seen people healed like Jesus did. I ve seen People speaking in tongues like Jesus disciples did. I ve seen people laying hands on others and speaking prophecies, like Jesus followers did. I ve seen people reciving visions just like so many people throughout the bible did.

Of course you can decide not to believe in Jesus and continue living your senseless life, but I assure that it will lead to destruction.

Jesus lives and he offers you salvation. It is up to you.

btw: somebody shoud fix this detestable display, which is shown as the word Jesus is typed in.

Perhaps you can get Him to teach you about punctuation. Adam 06:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I apologise if you are incapable of readidng my gramaticly incorrect comment. I ve only been speaking english for 2 years.

- Perhaps, if you focus more on the content then on the spelling you might be able to understand the actual message.

Actually, I'm curious about the "speaking in tongues" - when the Apostles did it, it was a tongue that was universally intelligible by all, regardless of their native tongue. Is this what you observed? Or was it someone merely babbling? Graft 07:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-Speaking in tongues is not neccesarily a gift used as a translation tool and it is not simply a language that everybody understands. Hence the Bible says "they began speaking in different languages" ..."they were bewildered to hear their own languages spoken by the believers". I point out that it says "languages" and therefore means that the apostels were speaking in a multitude of languages rather than in only one.

Nevertheless, the more importnat point about this occurance is the reason why it happened. According to the bible, the holy spirit came over them and thats exactly what I believe to have witnessed. During my visits in different churches I witnessed four unrelated people speaking in tongues. All were very faithfull and committed Christians. Though I could not understand what they were saying, I could make out clear patterns in their speeches. Furthermore, I noticed that these differnt people, who probably never met each other seemed to be speaking in the same patterns, which is a sufficient amount of evidence for me to believe that speaking in tongues is far more than merely "babbling".

By the way, I have heared that, in a church in america, where worship was practiced quite intensly and people regulary spoke in tongues, that the speaking of tongues was recorded and analysed. It turned out to be arameic. The language that Jesus spoke.

Actually it usually turns out to be gibberish. Talking gibberish is a well-known sign of hysteria, and religious hysteria is easily induced in the credulous, gullible and stupid. Adam 23:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- If you want to believe that, that's your problem. I personally think that you neither have the experinece nor the knowledge to make such a judgement.

You should go re-read Acts chapter 2. The whole point of speaking in tongues was that it was universally intelligible to the listeners, who came from many nations, and thus was miraculous, not that it was unintelligible nonsense that had to be translated. What you are describing, which could be understood by nobody (or, in some dubious cases, only intelligible after "analysis"),is wholly different than the "speaking in tongues" described in the Bible. It is babbling. Graft 03:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, you know nothing about what experience or knowledge I possess, so you can't make that judgement. Secondly, I am not a Christian so instructing me to read bits of your holy texts is not a method of argument I recognise. I am not talking about people alleged in old books to have spoken in tongues in the first century AD, a matter about which (like the life of Jesus) nothing can be known, but about members of modern Christian cults who claim to speak in tongues. They are invariably found to be in the grip of religious mania and talking gibberish. Adam 08:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err. You should reread my text. It was addressed to the unattributed anon, and it agrees with you; it merely argues from a position that s/he might find more convincing. Also, I am not a Christian and it is not my holy text. Graft 14:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, sorry about that. Adam 01:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adam, please do not use AD. You shouldn't impose your Christian views on the rest of us. Slrubenstein 18:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am an atheist, but it is a Christian calendar whether we like it or not. BC and AD are the standard term of reference, and I have seen "CE" and "BCE" deleted from Wikipedia articles as non-standard. Is there a rule about this? Adam 01:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CE and BCE are the academic standard, and we are academic, no? The rule goes that AD and BC are just as good as CE and BCE and vice versa. Except... Christian-based articles should always be done in AD and BC. ---The Sunborn

To Graft: Perhaps you should go and re-read (or read) 1 Corintians 12 to 14. I think it would might give you a clearer view on the gift of speaking in tongues. Besides, the people who were listening to the disciples as they first spoke in tongues were not simply people from many nations but jews from many nations. The disciples could simply have spoken in heberew and everyone of them would have understood them anyway. (they heared them speaking in their native tongues)

Acts is quite clear. This from the KJV:
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Also, Paul is quite clearly discouraging of the practice of speaking in tongues unless it is intelligible. E.g.:
27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
So, in any event, the modern-day babblers are at odds with the instructions of Paul, even if they DO have the gift of tongues (which is at odds with the miracle accounted in Acts). Graft 03:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- I totally agree with that. Nevertheless, there are cases when there is a person who appears to be able to understand what is said in tongues.

Christianity's basic teachings

I don't mean to be TOO facetious, but isn't this:

Jesus's acts and words, as presented in the Gospels, constitute Christianity's basic teachings.

a matter of considerable POV? I don't find most of modern Christianity to be in line with Jesus's acts and words at all. (insert Nietzsche quote here). Graft 20:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your observation about modern Christianity doesn't seem to address what the quoted statement says. First of all, the statement is about Christianity in general, and does not distinguish between modern and ancient Christianity. Secondly, it only speaks to the basic teachings of Christianity, and does not offer any judgments about how well Christians adhere to those teachings. In that regard, I find the statement to be very NPOV, and unless you are trying to say that the basic teachings of Christianity are in fact not largely constituted by Jesus' acts and words (which I would find to be a ridiculous assertion), I fail to see how you can find fault with the statement, notwithstanding your apparent cynicism about modern Christianity. Alanyst 22:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Does this belong in the intro? Or even in this article at all? No mention of other alternative Gospels...

According to the recently discovered Gospel of Barnabas, Barnabas (who was one of the 12 original disciples of Jesus), said that Jesus is a prophet (not the son of God) and he calls Paul "the deceived". Furthermore, he notified and explained in details that Jesus was not crucified but raised alive to the heaven while the one who got crucified instead was Judas Iscariot the traitor. This belief (that Jesus is a prophet of God, and he was not crucified but raised alive) confirms with the Muslim belief.

Graft 20:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. This is just too ridiculous to be even regarded as a comment. (Barnabas was not one of the 12 disciples) Instead I will go straight to the real issue. Islam. If you read the bible carefully you will see that it clearly predicts and explains why the Islamic religion exists. Jesus states that a false Prophet will come, who would deny that Jesus was the son of God and cause war on earth. The Quoran, which was written by the "Prophet" Mohammed does say that Jesus is not the son of God. And think about it: How many wars wouldn't have taken place if there wouldn't have been Islam. So it becomes rather clear who Jesus was talking about.

-Is that right? I suspect your thinking abilities when you say "think about it."

The two most desastrous and horrific wars (WW I and WW II)that mankind has ever seen have
transpired in Christian Europe and waged by Christian nations not by Islam.

-The colonialization and exploitation of the World, and the ensuing multitudinous wars were caused by Christian Europeans. How many religious wars were carried on by the Christians. So please, give me a break, and read a little bit of history, not fairy tales, okay. -Serkan Z.

-Jesus was speaking of false prophets like St. Paul who interpolated things such as the godhead of Christ, the original sin and the Trinity into the teachings! If believing in Christ as the savior is what is needed to be saved as you Christians always say, Jesus would not have said the following. If you read your "gospels" once again you will see that Jesus will say to people like you: "On that day, many will come to me saying 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, didn't we cast out devils in your name and did wonderful works in your name?', I will say to them: 'GET AWAY FROM ME! I NEVER KNEW YOU, YOU EVIL DOERS'" Serkan

Jesus also states that this false prophet would be send by the Antichrist. So I warn you, do not belive the people that deny Christ. In the end of revelation it clearly states that nothing should be neither added or subtracted from the bible. It is finished as it is.

There was and is no need for another book.
Must we have a religious flame-fest here? I agree with Graft that the quoted paragraph does not belong (and it has been removed since he posted about it), but the statements made immediately above are not consistent with the qualities of mercy, meekness, peacemaking, and loving one another that Jesus taught, and moreover have nothing to do with improving the quality of this article. Alanyst 22:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- If we all would follow Jesus teachings then we would have peace.

 There was no need for Mohammed, ergo he was the false Prophet who was predicted by Jesus.

- For 2000 years, Christians have followed without any doubt the supposed teaching of Christ and what came out of it is allowing even homosexuals to be priests! This is how they have been changing the dictates of their religion to suit themselves!

 Muhammad did not claim to be God, but a humble servant of God. 

- If there is anybody who is a false prophet nobody would fit this definition better than St. Paul!

I wonder which scholarly history books would call Jesus Christ to be "God on Earth"?!!


+Do Not make the mistake of thinking that everybody who calls himself a Christian is a Christian. The Bible is strictly against homosexual activities just like any other sexual immorality. The people you are talking abouts are hypocrites, not priests. Dont loose your faith just because some people dont undersatnd their own religion. -Jan

-Yeah but, for God's sake, you always bring forth this excuse and then after 50 years later one sees that now it has become mainstream Christianity. How many times Christianity have changed its positions on controversial matters? Earth being flat, birth control, conraception, abortion, now homosexuality? Please don't try to fool yourselves. What is being done is to change the religion to suit your own desires. And one will always find a way of explaining it (that is not a difficulty, neither is it an issue). The problem is: it does happen.

-You change your religion by hook or by crook. And this is what is going on for 2000 years. Other (however trivial it might seem) examples are, for example: Christ never ate pork, you do, he was circumcised, your are not, he did pray by falling on his forehead (at least three times a day as other Jews did, remember the garden of Gethsamane?) like Abraham, Moses etc. you don't, and on and on. It is amazing how you sometimes misunderstand and misuse Christ's teachings. For example, for he not eating pork you bring the argument that Jesus said "what comes out of you makes you filthy, not what gets in", well, if he meant what you claim then why didn't he eat pork? Or another very similar example is: when he saved the prostitute from getting stoned, does he imply you can do prostitution? no of course. The issue is you don't understand his point. When he points at the Moon, you look at his fingers. -Serkan

This is the wrong place for this debate. Article talk pages are not here for people to try and convert each other, they're here to discuss how best to improve the associated article, including how to best make it NPOV. Haven't looked at the article yet, but no alternative gospels belong anywhere near the intro. Any claims about Barnabas being one of the twelve had better be well documented, to say the very least. Wesley 03:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-Yeah but this you should tell people who without reason attack and vilify Islam in this page!!- Serkan

-Why do you care if a few Christians change their positions. The more importnant fact is that God did not. And he never said that the earth is flat, nor that killing of children could be seen as a good action. Furthermore, through out the bible he tells us to turn a way from sexual immorality. So you may go to the people who practice homosexual actions, while calling themselves christians, and call the hypocrites.

Well, I agree that it does happen too often that some of the so called Christians bend the laws which they are meant to follow. But that does not allow you to make judgements on a religious community that is present in the entire world.

I apolgise if my statement about Islam seemed like an atack to you, but think about this: what was first, the truth or the abnegation. - Jan

If your "truth" claims that a man was God Almighty, I am sorry, I cannot agree with you. Also, remember, in addition to truth and abnegation, there is also self-deception! -Serkan

In order to take the sin of man, he had to become a man. Of course Jesus was more like a part of God, rather than actually God the father, or as we say: a part of the trinity. and yes, there is self-deception, and people can have wrong perceptions about God. The only way to find understanding and wisdom is by receiving it from God and he gives to those who ask for it. No simplistic mind, like ours can figure out truth about God on its own.


Edits by I834 and reverts by Alanyst

I want to explain my recent reverts to this article so people know where I'm coming from.

I noticed this morning that the Jesus article had been completely rewritten and most of the informative content had disappeared. In its place was this text:

Jesus is a very controversial figure (and this site had a strong history of reverts and deletes). Here one should keep only links to copylefted first century original source documents. The different POVs should be described in the corresponding sites:

There followed a list of links to such articles as Jesus: the Christian POV, Jesus: the Jewish POV, and so forth. Then there was a Documents section that seemed to be intended as a gateway to copylefted excerpts and/or full-text versions of the books of the Bible, together with articles about debates regarding their authenticity. Finally, there was a section titled "Statements accepted by everybody" with a single paragraph below it (perhaps the author intended to add more).

These edits had been made by User:I834, which is a brand-new account, and I have no reason to believe at this point that this user is any other than a new contributor to Wikipedia who's trying to be bold and doesn't yet grasp some of the important Wikipedia conventions or Wikiquette. However, I think that this user's edits changed a pretty good article into something much less so, both in terms of substance and in style. (The wiki syntax and link naming convention were just plain wrong.)

I also saw that the edits made before this user changed the article included POV edits, and in fact only one edit (made by User:Cburnett) between the current revision and the latest one by User:Jayjg appeared to be worth preserving. That one edit, a change of the Ben Hur link to Ben-Hur (book), was also slightly off-target, since the more appropriate destination would be Ben-Hur.

So, I reverted back to the last version by Jayjg and left a note on I834's talk page to explain my revert. Concurrent with my revert, I changed the Ben Hur link to Ben-Hur in order to preserve the intent of Cburnett's edit.

My first revert to Jayjg's version had an incorrect edit summary link to Jayjg's user page, which I tried (and failed) to correct by making a dummy edit—hence the two apparently consecutive reverts.

Now it appears that we have a revert war on our hands. I do not intend to violate the 3-revert rule, so I will refrain from touching the article for a little while and hope that somebody else will step in to restore order.

I834, please stop insisting on preserving your rewrites since they are wrecking the article. If you feel like the article needs major revisions, let's talk about it here before you do it. Otherwise, you'll probably keep getting reverted. Alanyst 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who did/does Jesus say he was/is?

I am a follower of Jesus. By language, it is apparent that some of the editors of this article have been christian, while others have not been. I have no qualms with those who disagree with my faith in Jesus Christ. He needs no justification that my lips can bring. Some of the posts that were clearly made by those who believe in jesus were unkind. On behalf of Jesus Christ I apologize.
Some disagree with the logic of believing in Jesus based upon the fact that he substantiates himself. I believe that the best solution to some of the struggle here would be to have a section that is about "Who Jesus says he is". This could be done using actual blocks of NT Text, particularly in the area of the gospels.
Placed promonately at the top of the page, the article could sumarize Jesus's story and key points historicaly from Jesus's own perspective as recorded in the gospels. Presemted in this fashion, it should please both christian and non-christian.
A. As a christian this would please me, because it would present jesus's words in an arranged fashion, that would allow people to draw there own conclusions. For me, as a believer in christ, I sufficiently trust God to be able to work through such. (In fact I am more interested in smoothing ruffled feathers here, than getting "the kind of jesus page I want").
B. For non-christians, because the title would be: "Who does Jesus say he is?", it would be unnecessary to disagree with certain historical accuracies as to his resurrection, etc. If you disagree with the realities of Jesus, or disagree with anything that Jesus said, it would be a non-issue in this section. Such disagreemants are understandable and could be confined logically to a different section like: "My gripe with Jesus's teachings".
I understand that there will continue to be disagreement here. I ask that those who are followers of Jesus would submit to God in whatever manner is appropriate (i.e. prayer, contemplation of scripture, etc...) before they become involved in debates here. Lets stick to Jesus here and let the peripherals get taken care of in person. Believe me, this is not the battle, but a means for us to relate to others and love them.
I love you all, without knowing you. And because of this I know that God loves you.
This has been my first post. If I have erred in any way I ask that you bear with me graciously.
Jonathan Kibler
I think something a little like what you describe is at New Testament view on Jesus' life. Wesley 04:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate Jon Kibler's effort to propose an NPOV approach to the article. I must, however, point out that many people are not convinced that Jesus said everything the NT claims he said -- and surely, he said things that were not preserved in the NT. Thus, as Wesley observes, the relevant article is on what the NT claims. Slrubenstein 19:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

explanation for deletion

I deleted this:

Jesus of Nazareth is uniquely polarizing as a figure in history, as a reader's opinion of the historicity of Jesus is inextricably intertwined with the reader's perception of the relevance and merit of his message to the individual.

because it is not true (even if it is true for some people) and I don't think it is necessary for the article. There are people who accept that Jesus existed but, because they do not trust the Gospels, do not even now what "his message" was. And many historians study him because even if it isn't literally accurate, the NT is a very important source from and about the culture of late antiquity Roman Palestine -- regardless of Jesus' message. Slrubenstein 21:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lunisolar trivia

Jews use a lunisolar calendar, true. But this calendar was established by Hillel II in 359 C.E. Are we sure that they used a lunisolar calendar at the time of Jesus?

Hillel II fixed the calendar, but it was lunisolar long before that; the Sanhedrin declared the months and holidays, and added leap months when required. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image of Jesus

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|right]]Why is this not the image used at the top of the article, or not even at all on the Jesus article? It seems the most worthy candidate to me, considering it's the only intepretation that relies on science. --Christiaan 00:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be included inside the article somewhere, but with proper context, i.e. don't replace it with the intro image. Regarding the intro image, I would say it is a strange looking depiction of Jesus, slightly tyrannical, evil-looking. Not what most (Christians?) would expect. —Cantus 08:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Tyrannical? Haha, okay. I thought he looks rather like a "friendly builder" who's a little worried about paying his next rent bill. Maybe this is a better angle? I'd like to see it given some prominence; I'd prefer replacing the 'anglo halo' image but if people have a problem with that at least have it toward the top of the page. This page is worth a gander too. —Christiaan - 11:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The image used of Jesus makes Jesus seem very angry and they should have a nicer, softer Jesus to conform with wikipedia's NPOV policy. I do not want young children to stumble upon this evil looking Jesus and become atheists because of it!!! --Iconoclast 06:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's going to happen. Anyway, I agree that this image should be placed in the article somewhere. It is probably best suited for the historical/cultural section of the article as the image is really just a depiction of what a Jew from the area looked like during that time. It's actually more likely to be an image of someone Jesus met than to be Jesus himself.

--Will2k 14:39, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Whilst no doubt the visual image of Jesus like many subjects has been romantacized throughout European history and art, I don't know if that image is a particularly useful representation. I seem to recall something like this on that BBC documentary a couple of years back.

I think it is difficult to put that image forward on the basis of science alone (as someone mentioned) because you are then infering it is somehow authoratitive, or the most authoratitive document on the subject. At least that is how I think it could be interpreted without some explanation of the science (and art) that went into it.

just my 2c

That visual image is just a general sketch of a random person, it doesn't really claim to be what Jesus in particular looked like. While controversial, the Shroud of Turin offers a specific image that is claimed to be of Jesus' face. Scientific arguments have been made both for and against its authenticity, but if we're going to include speculative images, a photographic negative of the Shroud might perhaps be worth including as well. Or the article could just avoid speculative images. Wesley 04:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that it would be good to remind people that Jesus wasn't a blue-eyed blonde, that he may have looked more like Arabs do. --Goethean 23:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Or, well, you know ... like Jews do. Slrubenstein 18:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the near-certainty that that picture does NOT represent an accurate depiction of the historical Jesus (assuming he existed), there's the fact that the mythical Jesus depicted in Christian art has far more cultural significance than the historical Jesus. In other words, Jesus IS a blue-eyed blonde, because Christians imagine him that way. The Jesus page should just show a typical image taken from Christian art. We created Images of Jesus precisely to settle the "Jesus-is-blond/Jesus-is-a-hook-nosed-Palestinian" controversy; this image ought to stay there. (Is this even seriously in dispute?) Graft 18:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cultural significance doesn't trump historical significance, and an enclycopedia doesn't exist to prop one up at the expense of the other. This is an important image because it's the only one that uses science to portray what many men looked like where and when Jesus may have lived, and hence gives people a better overall understanding of Jesus as the historical figure many believe him to be. —Christiaan 11:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
possible addition as follows:

---True Image of Jesus--- The true face of Jesus is on the Maitreya statute at Mulbekh, Ladakh, India AND is the same face as face of the Sphinx if YOU CAN imagine it / the Sphinx as it looked before all the damage.

As for his looks, Jesus was blue eyed and red headed as most descendants of David who had the same look. The myth of how Israel Royals looked as hooked nosed and dark skinned and "Arabs" is just that myth.

JC,ens - PS Nautonnier

Referring back to the question why the picture at the top of this article is not used to display Jesus:

1. The person in the picture seems to have slightly grey hair. Jesus did merely reach the age of 30. which makes it unlikely that his hair would look like that

2. the person in the picture looks confused. Since Jesus inherited infinite wisdom from his father, I think that it is unlikely that he ever looked confused.

3. The person in the picture doesn't have a torso.

I don't like the Picture used by Wikipedia either.

I think a picture that is fit to display Jesus must be a Materpiece, and it should make obvious that it is him by his expression. It must display his character, which is far more important than his looks. Something like this perhaps:

- Jan

Page move

Today, Mindwiz moved Jesus to Jesus Christ, which I just moved back. My reasons:

  • The user moved the page on his 2nd edit
  • The talk page archive links were broken (they don't go with a move)
  • A double redirect was created which was not resolved

I'm not familiar with this page's history, but I suspect it's been moved back and forth and resides at Jesus, now, for a reason. Cburnett 03:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/Archive_9 for one such debate. Cburnett 03:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the issue was debated and settled long ago. Some wanted Jesus of Nazareth, some wanted Jesus Christ, some wanted Jesus. His name was Jesus, Christ is a title, and he is famous enough that people know who he is. Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it's only a matter of time before we move Julius Caesar to Julius, since Caesar was his title and not his name? All the other names at Julius would of course go somewhere like Julius (disambiguation). (and please don't delete my comment on this subject this time) Wesley 05:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jesus is by far the most famous of all the Jesus's of history; Julius is much more ambiguous. A more apt example would be "Moses", which is at Moses, and not Moshe Rabbeinu (i.e. Moses our Rabbi), as Jews refer to him. By the way, which commebt of yours was deleted, and who deleted it? Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible Citations re Witnesses

Along with refinement of many dreadfully neglected lks, & various improvements described in my edit summary, i removed from the second 'graph

(Acts 1:15 and 1st Corinthians 15:6)

which was offered as an inline citation re the 500 witnesses to state of resurrection. This may be valuable elsewhere, but here it is overly detailed and tendentious in tone: the purpose of the article is to describe essentials, not establish the strength or weakness of the evidence that believers cite. --Jerzy(t) 16:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Meaning of "3rd day"

  • I found "crucified ... before rising ... on the third day", which is ambiguous.
  • I rewrote "[executed and rose] two days later".
  • A colleague rewrote in turn "...on the third day following] and summarized (unhelpfully) "we've been through this before; it doesn't say two days later. See old Talk:".

If there is evidence that the sequence is day of x'n, another day, yet another day, day of res'n, i'm not interested in contesting it, but if that's it, it needs to be presented in an article in light of the implication of how easy it is to misunderstand.

My understanding is

  • Friday: X'n (commemorated on Good Friday) on the first day
  • Saturday: (Shabbat) the second day
  • Sunday: Res'n (commemorated on Easter Sunday) on the third day

This is consistent with the reasoning that

  • In a culture with no concept of zero as a number, you make the earliest event's day the base ("the first day"), and thereby avoid having to describe the base day each time you want to refer to it, by having called it the first day. Thus you never interpret "third day" as "third day following", bcz if you do, you have no good way of answering "Wait a minute, following which day?".
  • The style would likely follow that of Genesis, where the creation is described along the lines of starting "and that happened on the morning and the evening of the first day", and ending with the 7th day.

The first day following Friday is Sat, so third day following means either Res'n on Tuesday (leaving x'n on Friday) or X'n on Wed (leaving res'n on Sunday).

Say what you think it means in one article, in terms no less clear than my Fr/Sa/Su account, and link the various accounts like [[The Passion#Chronology|three days later]] or you've got [[garbage|something unencyclopedic]].
--Jerzy(t) 19:58, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

It's all quite confusing; the synoptic gospels all say he was crucified on the first day of Passover, but John says he was crucified the day before Passover. They all say he was resurrected on the first day of the week. Perhaps the wording should be "on the first day of the week", which is what they all agree on. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In other words, "we've been through this before" means that words were left in the article despite the fact that those who may be better informed than the reader couldn't decide what those words meant?

The attractiveness of "the third day" is not its info content, but just the strength of tradition the phrase carries. Arguably resurrection after being dead for 24 hours is more impressive than after being "mostly dead", and arguably resurrection within the week is less unverifiable than, say, the notion of Jesus as the prophet Isaiah reincarnated centuries later. But the exact number of days serves no purpose here unless it is clear and uncontested enough to shorten the language on the subject. I was tempted to explain the imprecision with

(The apparent inconsistency between John's account and the others, and various responses to that, are outside the scope of this article.)

But where it is germane (maybe Resurrection of Jesus or elsewhere on the Web) is the place to discuss it. "Why don't they talk about the exact number of days?" The first step to wisdom about that is firmly grasping the obvious: if it were in the scope of the article, it would be there; case closed.
--Jerzy(t) 03:38, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

I did not know that Jesus' was well-endowed. The things you can learn on Wikipedia!

This is a very strange thing. When I open the article, the second paragraph reads like this:

While almost nothing is known of his life except from the four Gospels, most secular scholars accept the historical fact that he had a 12 inch dong, and calculate the birth and death dates given above based on independently known events implied in those scriptural documents. ...

But when I hesitantly and resentfully go to edit the page (so that it says that Jesus had a 3 inch dong) it reads like this:

While almost nothing is known of his life except from the four Gospels, most secular scholars accept his existence, and calculate the birth and death dates given above based on independently known events implied in those scriptural documents. ...

Looks like somebody hacked into it.

removed about 30k from the history of Jesus section

This article looked very much like a featured article until all the additions by came on march 5'th. I don't know why it hasn't been deleted before, so I'm somewhat nervous about deleting it all now two days later and in such a prominent article. But I really think it's way too much and shouldn't be here. My appologies if I've been deleteing something that everyone but me thought looked good. Just revert me if that's the case, and I'll leave it alone. Shanes 18:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with your edit. The article was unreadable before, and the historicity of Jesus can be further discussed in the appropriate page. Luis rib 18:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I liked - learned a lot ( will try to fix) By George

I removed this. Whoever added this, you need to give a reference for this, as I've certainly not heard it before.

<< suggested addition - In these End Times (time just before Second Coming of Jesus , a time that experts agree is NOW) , the Bible refers to Jesus as an "Ensign" (or flag) for the People(s)- See Bible-Isaiah.

DJ Clayworth 16:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Support

I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers, and for unrelenting Anti-Arab and Anti-Islamic bias. This link [[1]] will take you to the Arbitration page. I think that you too have been subject to similar treatment with biased edits and reverts of your contributions to Wikipedia, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide in this case. A.Khalil 04:57, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles

VERY rough draft for addition.

Although debated, the book "A Course in Miracles" is purported to have been "written" by Jesus in modern times. It is a first person account of his teachings, and has a large following. The book was 'dictated' to Helen Schucman, Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia University. The book is available at Amazon for about $25.......

Comment: This is really a great book imo, and gives a clarification of what Jesus's message truly was. I mean even the Apostles misunderstood a lot of what he are we supposed to understand what he meant from the Bible, a book that was written hundreds of years after his death......Zardiw 14:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This really isn't an appropriate comment for an editor of an encyclopedia committed to NPOV (please review our NPOV policy). After all, how can you -- Zardiw -- know what Jesus' message "really was," especially if you didn't meet him? If the Apostles, who did know him, misunderstood him, then how do you know that you haven't misunderstood him? I do not expect you to answer these questions. My point is, it is precisely because anyone can raise these objections to your opinion that we have an NPOV policy! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The New Age text A Course in Miracles already has a good article in Wikipedia. As it's a fairly obscure minority POV I don't think it really needs discussing in this article. --G Rutter 13:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • You both should read it, or about it anyway. This is a really GOOD book, and I myself didn't realize it was written (dictated) by Jesus Christ, until I came to some parts which read:

1. p. 86: "My brothers slept during the 'agony in the garden,' but I could not be angry with them because I knew I could not BE abandoned".

2. p. 87: "These are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is really only the message of love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, 'I come not to bring peace but a sword.' This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught."

3. p. 87: "I could not have said, 'Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?' unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifiction was simply that I did not."

4. p. 39: " 'Many are called but few are chosen' should be, 'All are called but few choose to listen' ".

5. p.39: "I was a man who remembered spirit and its knowledge. As a man I did not attempt to counteract error with knowledge, but to correct error from the bottom up. I demonstrated both the powerlessness of the body and the power of the mind. By uniting my will with that of my Creator, I naturally remembered spirit and its real purpose. I cannot unite your will with God's for you, but I can erase all misperceptions from your mind if you will bring it under my guidance."

Those are some of the ones I found off hand, there are more.

Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.

My point is that if we have something from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, let's at LEAST make people aware that it exists. They can make up their own mind whether it's the real deal or not. I have an IQ of 148, and it convinced me without question.

Zardiw 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the "Other Perspectives" section which reads "The New Age movement has reinterpreted the life and teaching of Jesus in a large variety of ways (For example, see A Course in Miracles)." I'd be strongly opposed to any further additions, as I think it's a minority POV and doesn't warrant any more space in this article. --G Rutter 19:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zardiw writes, "My point is that if we have something from "the horse's mouth" so to speak, let's at LEAST make people aware that it exists." You can do this through your own website, or a blog. Or you can write a book review, or pay for advertisements for the book. But this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)