Talk:Jesus/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

→

Archive 115

Copyedit of this article

I am currently copyediting this whole article. I am going to list any sentences I have problems with here. This is the first sentence I have a problem with, what is this supposed to mean exactly, it needs to be reworded:

• The Gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus name Pontius Pilate as the Roman prefect who had Jesus crucified, and Pilate was prefect of Judea between 26 and 36 AD/CE.
  • Okay, I get the point of this sentence, I'll try to reword it. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I will list others as I come across them. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is going to need more citations, probably from references already in the article. Another big problem is the reference formats are a complete mess. It is not "required" that references use a citation template but it is a huge help because references should be in a consistent format. All the listings in the references section should be put into the Template:Cite book format. All the books need to have accurate and linked ISBN numbers. All the citations need to be in a consistent format. This is going to take some work, and I am willing to help, but the editors familiar with most of the references can probably do a better job than me. I want to get this article to featured because I think the content is mostly there, it's just extremely sloppy from a copyediting and formating perspective, which I intend to help with. Any editors that are familiar with the references, we need to get them in a consistent format. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This article also contains way too many subsubsections. For example, in historical views - religious groups, there are a bunch of stubs. This can easily be combined into one nice section. I plan on doing this tomorrow. The content of this article looks good to me, the prose is presented in a very less than ideal way, and that's what I hope to help with. I hope the editors familiar with the references can help make the format consistent, because that would be a huge help in the path to make this article featured. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of "gospel"

Currently about half the instances capitalize the word and half don't. My understanding is that if you are referring to a specific gospel, like "Gospel of Mark", it would be capitalized. If you are not referring to specific one, it can be lowercase, however a lot of times in this article it is capitalized still. Are there any definite rules for this because it needs to be standardized in the whole article. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, "gospel" on its own is not a proper noun, hence there is no reason to capitalize it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the phrases "canonical gospels" and "synoptic gospels" be capitalized? In the lead for example synoptic is capitalized and canonical is not. To further the confusion, the synoptic article is at Synoptic Gospels but the bolded title in the lead of that article does not capitalize synoptic but it does capitalize Gospels. What is the deal there? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think it looks a little weird, it does make sense to always capitalize it. Otherwise you get sentences like (e.g.) "The Gospel of Mark was written before the gospels of Matthew and Luke", which just looks inconsistent. If you're talking about four specific books and no others, it's not really a common noun. Most dictionaries say "Gospel" is capitalized when referring to the books ("three of the four Gospels") and lowercase when referring abstractly to Jesus's message ("the gospel of Christ").

I'm not sure about "synoptic". That article is only capitalized because the first letter of an article is capitalized automatically, "synoptic Gospels" was their intent.

Google gives incredibly mixed results, though, for all of these. I think as long as we're relatively consistent it's fine. —Noisalt (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To oversimplify...
If the message is one of generic "good news", it's lowercase "gospel". If the message is "Good News", it's "Gospel" capitalized.
The titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are literally, "Good News According to [Writer]" or "Gospel According to [Writer]".
Otherwise, a help to decide capitalization of "gospel" or "Gospel" is mentally substituting the words "Book" and "book" alternately and judge which fits best. For example, you might refer to the "books of the Bible" since no specific bible book is specifically understood; by contrast you'd write "Books of Paul" or "Books of Moses" (the latter might be a special case since several languages refer to Genesis through Deuteronomy as "1st Moses" through "5th Moses"). --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Who Is Jesus?

This off-topic discussion has been archived, please do not modify it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How can you edit this article on Jesus if you don't understand His message, which is recorded in the Holy Bible? Ronewirl (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I'll make this simple. Wikipedia is striving to be an encyclopedia. This means proper sourcing, neutral tone, adequate representation of notable perspectives, and no need to be a believer to edit this article. I highly suggest you check up on the policies around here because it doesn't seem that you get how things function around here.Farsight001 (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Come on. Let's be honest! You know I was referring to the terrorist bombings of two American owned hotels in Jakarta. You know with absolutely certainty I was referring to the perpetuators who sacrificed the lives of innocent people without any regards to Jesus's message that He [Jesus] came to SAVE the world, not to destory it. We as Christian believers are not suppose to be neutral and sit on the side-line while we watch the opportunity to share the message of Jesus being snatched away; stolen. Ronewirl (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Accuracy of Christian View Your statement is not accurate. There is no variation of the Christian view. Ronewirl (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC) First of all, who is "your"? You posted this as a new section, which makes it completely unknowable who you are replying to. Second, you say there is no variation of the Christian view. I would agree that there is only one truly correct view, but there are still over 35,000 different Christian denominations, which is quite a lot of variation. Lastly, you obviously think something is wrong with this argument, but you have not said exactly what this issue is. This talk page is only for article improvement. If you are not going to suggest improvement, there is no reason to post here - especially since your ultimate goal seems to be saving people and we're mostly Christians already anyway.Farsight001 (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

For WP:ACCESSIBILITY to visually-impaired readers, this article should have alt text for every image (other than purely-decorative images). The topic of alt text for the Jesus article recently came up in WT:ALT #An obvious question so I am following up by starting the ball rolling here. I've tried to help out by adding alt text for first two images; could someone else please take a stab at the rest? Please keep the WP:ALT guidelines in mind: for example, alt text should describe only visual appearance, and should not say anything that a non-expert reader cannot immediately verify simply by looking at the image. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Flavius Josephus

I think Flavius Josephus could be put in a new section for proof of Jesus', that is if anyone thinks if it's a need. User:BennyK95 21:59, October 2 2009 (UTC)

Flavius Josephus is not useful to prove anything about Jesus. St.Trond (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Appearance and relationship to other religous denominations

I do not understand why Jesus is portrayed as a Caucasian, when it is quite clear that would not be what he looked like, and I am aware that the image comes from the 6th century. Also many aspects of this article are very POV, which I'm pretty sure makes it not an encyclopedia article but a piece of propaganda. Historical evidence is being taken out of books full of metaphor, It's like trying to nextract historical Evidnece from The Lord of The Rings. There is also no mention of the relationship between Jesus and other gods of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterowens (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1 That he looks white is simply a result of artistic representation of him. Everyone knows he was most likely olive skinned, and there are even some depictions of him like that in the article. But for the most part, we simply display the popular depictions of him. This issue has been discussed before. I suggest checking through the last couple of pages of archives and looking for previous discussion on the subject. 2 If you think that many aspects of this article are POV, then pick one and specify. Simply calling them POV does not help us, especially since this article has seen tons of edits by tons of editors who overall agree that it is generally neutral. Pick a sentence you see as POV and expound on the issue and a possible solution for it. We'll go over it and once it's fixed, we can move onto the next one. It's slow and tedious, but it's the only way to get things done. 3 It is true that historical evidence is being taken out of books full of metaphor, but the bible is still a historical book. Many people seem to forget that. Historians fully accept it as an authentic historical text and extract some of the events of history from the scriptures. It takes a lot of thinking and studying to figure out exactly what is literal history and what is not, but they do a pretty good job of it. For example - that Jesus existed and was tried for sedition is pretty much obvious history. That he performed miracles is not.

Historians fully accept the bible as an authentic historical text? Many fictional texts contain event references, place names, and the names of important historical figures, but are not considered "historical documents." Jesus existed and was tried for sedition is pretty much obvious history? I can find no definitive statements on this, just arguments. Can you site your references for either statement? Akuvar (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

4 There is no mention of the relationship between Jesus and other gods of the time simply because there exists no relationship between Jesus and other gods of the time. I know the Zeitgeist video and Religulous say otherwise, but it is an unfortunately common mass of misinformation. There are several big similarities between Mithra and Jesus, actually. However, all mention of Mithra before the NT was written tells us nothing about him and the documents about Mithra that do imply similarities were written after the NT was, suggesting that it is Mithra that is a clone of Jesus and not the other way around. Either way, it would be pointless, as this article is about Jesus himself. There are other articles about the supposed similarities between Jesus and other ancient Gods, and that information would belong there instead anyways.Farsight001 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My main concern would be during the "Constructing a historical view". "Scholars of historical Jesus distinguish their subject from the "Jesus Christ" of Christianity.[7] Other scholars hold that Jesus as presented in the gospels is the real Jesus and that his life and influence only make sense if the gospel stories are accurate." I find this method of referring to "Scholars" without naming examples, even if they are referenced misleading. I mean if the practice of generalising with evidence is unacceptable for a ninth grade level then shouldn't we set a higher standard here.

Speaking of Zeitgeist i found that all over the place, as if it could have been three separate films. By the way sorry about my earlier post it was mostly ramble. Chesterowens (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is someone trying to tell me that Religulous is not the enlightened work of the intellectual elite and that Frodo really did not touch the one ring that binds us all? I am stunned. I know for a fact that Bill Maher is the most intelligent man that ever was and his film is only based upon complete, total truth and fact. In addition, I am almost positive I saw Frodo this past March 17...but I don't recall seeing the ring with my own eyes at that time. :)--^StormRider 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries the mysteries of Mithra started around 1 AD. This seems to be at odds with information on the Jesus page and the Mithra page stating Mithra is "Thousands" of years old. Is there a piece of clear evidence to support this? If not, I think an admin should strike the remark from the two pages and replace it with "about 2000 years old". If Mithra is indeed related to Zoroastrianism, there should be something from the archeological record to support this claim.-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"House of Unas" gibberish

Just wanted to comment that I am baffled as to how that "House of Unas" wound up in there under my name. The edit I intended to make was in response to an anon IP who challenged the historicity of Jesus. The text that wound up being inserted and that Afaprof1 reverted was some gibberish (as she correctly identified it) that had been originally inserted by another anon IP about 26 days ago. I don't know if it was some error on my part in trying to revert in the deletion of the section by Ohnoitsjamie but, in any event, my "real" edit was lost and that gibberish was inserted instead. Afaprof1 right in reverting it out. I just wanted you declare that the reinsertion of the gibberish wasn't intentional on my part and that I am NOT a kook, at least not intentionally. --Richard (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what all the kooks say! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is okay Richard and we know that you really don't see little blue men that sing and dance on your bed at night. Just stay calm and we will have some nice men come to assist you. :)--^StormRider 16:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The House of Unas will crush you all HAH HAH HAH!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

There are many articles on Jesus, as can be seen at Jesus and History. Much of the content overlaps. Would it not be a good idea to merge these sites, with brief and focused fork articles to expand on certain points without repeating all the detail over again? Wdford (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all of those articles used to be sections of this article i.e. we had one article. That was too long. So we broke it up into these distinct articles. My recollection is one (good faith) editor did the creation of new articles by himself without much discussion. So if you afe saying that this could have been done better, and we now need to reorganize linked articles, merging some, okay, I would love to hear the plan but this time let's discuss it.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone please explain why it is POV to mention Jesus' crucifixion in the infobox? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's POV because of Islamic view of Jesus' death. This article is not about Christian views of Jesus and it's not about Jesus in Islam either. This article is about a man who is important for Christians and Muslims. The latter don't believe that he was crucified; they don't believe he died at all. His death deserves more than one word. Insisting on mentioning Christian belief and ignoring Islamic belief is a POV. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why the Christian belief in crucifixion cannot be mentioned in the infobox. It is biased POV only if it is the only belief that is expressed. Including the Islamic belief that Jesus' body did not die, but instead was raised into heaven (please note that Christians also believe that his body was gone from the the sepulcher and had risen into heaven, alive again) bypassing the crucifixion, erases the bias and makes the infobox neutral.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Cause of death" seems like an odd parameter for infobox person in the first place. What other articles include that parameter in the infobox? I'm just curious. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestion of Jesus being raised to heaven or arising from the dead pushes a religious POV (as opposed to atheist). However, the fact that Jesus was crucified is well documented beyond the religious arena so I see no reason to bring the views of any religion into it. It seems a little unnecessary to clutter the infobox with citations when it's well documented in the adjacent article, but I guess we can if necessary. Jminthorne (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Parallels in pre-Christian mythology...

There are many, many, academic sources discussing parallels in the mythology surrounding Jesus to that of pre-Christian deities (dying-god archetype). A section explaining this should be added to the article.24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That research is reelevant to Christology, not this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death.

Don’t any other groups of people have a view on how Jesus of Nazareth died? I mean allot of non-Religious people think Jesus was a real person… --Frank Fontaine (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that most people who think he was historical also think he died on the cross - and those who think he is an amalgamation of various persons think that aspect comes from someone who died on the cross. Where it becomes iffy is in the details and after the crucification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See this article: Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"most" used in the opening sentence, but not again after that

Saying "most Christian denominations" venerate Jesus Christ as the Son of God handles an important issue -- that some groups that have historical roots in Christianity or call themselves Christian don't do this. But unless everywhere where a comment is made about what Christians believe, we intend to use "most," it might be better to find another solution. I suggest: "...commonly venerated within Christian denominations as the Son of God..." Jacor2 (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't the first part of the clause, which you quoted here, but the second part: "most Christian denominations he is venerated as the Son of God and as God incarnate." the problematic section being as God incarnate. And accordingly, we have a section on "Nontrinitarian views", where we explain, for example, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus to be God's (or Jehovah's) son, rather than being God himself", "Jesus is not worshiped as God", and "Christadelphians believe that Jesus is literally God's son, hence the Biblical title son of God,[234] not God the Son." So I believe that we already do explain why most, but not all, believe Jesus is god incarnate (and possibly even some Christian denominations not accepting Jesus as Son of God, Oneness and Unity for instance). But your criticism may be important. Do you think there is a way we could highlight these aspects more prominently so that other readers don't experiences the disconnect of content that you did?-A

==

Headline text

==

ndrew c ^[talk] 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that that was what was at stake. Makes sense though -- you make a good point. I think I would still make the same suggestion though. Isn't the issue the question of deciding which groups are classified as Christian and which are not? Or rather, isn't that the issue that calls the "most" phrasing into question? I suggested phrasing with "commonly," because it seems to me to be more neutral. Saying "most" is implicitly saying "but not all," which is, in this case, saying that some Christian denominations do not venerate Christ as such. Saying commonly avoids this assertion, but doesn't deny it -- it preserves neutrality, which serves the reader by not distracting him/her from the subject at hand. Jacor2 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a neutrality issue - it is a hard fact that not all Christian groups consider Jesus to have been God Incarnate. To imply otherwise would be misleading. I am happy to say "most" in this context, as it is more accurate. Wdford (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

false references

Hi. Ive spotted something that makes me think someone is deliberately lying. The article says:

"During the fourth century the birth of Jesus came to be celebrated on December 25, the same day[citation needed] ascribed to the birth of Mithras. Mithras, from the Persian god Mithra thousands of years prior", ^[31].

The reference says "Cumont, Franz, The Mysteries of Mithra (1956) pp. 1-2". According to Amazon.com

Franz Cumont is a scholar who spent his entire life studying Mithras, and one which students of the New Age have been trying to "refute," debunk and reinterpret for a generation. However, Cumont remains the towering figure in the field of Mithraic research.

This 1956 work is a copy of a 1903 Dover book, which itself was a boiled-down English translation of a far larger, 2-volume French-language work published decades before in Cumont's native Belgium. Cumont surveyed literally thousands of fragments from Mithraea, the ancient worship centers of the Mithraic religion.

So I search with Google and find that the book in question (Now in public domain) is freely aviable in http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/index.htm After that I went to pages 1 and 2, which can be found here; and guess what? Yes, There is nothing like Mithra's birthday being December 25. Moreover, the refence number 33 actully says that the Mithraic cult changed the rite to december 25 because it had been established as the Day of the Undefeated Sun by a Roman Emperor... 200 years after christ.

To sum up, the paragraph is at the very least poorly referenced, if not completely invented. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

I propose to add the following paragraph under the Chronology paragraph:

Alvar Ellegård finds the existence of Jesus, at the time of Paul the Apostle, disproved by the fact that: Paul knew nothing of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary,

(May optionally be added:)

and that the following texts, (p. 31) believed to be contemporary to Paul: the Pastor of Hermas, Didache, The first letter of Clemens Romanus, The letter of Barnabas, The Letter to the Hebrews and The Revelation of John, all mentions apostles (missionaries, like Paul), but none of them mentions disciples. St.Trond (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that paragraph is appropriate for the Chronology section. It already existed in the historicity article, and we really shouldn't be expanding content here that is covered 100% in a spinout article. Not too long ago there is a big fuss on this page about how long it is already. I think a good compromise might be to add Alvar Ellegård's name among the list at Jesus#Mythical_view, if you believe is is as notable and prominent as Wells and Price, or list one of his books amoung The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries, assuming there aren't weight issues. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would add beyond that that we should not suggest that it is a "fact" that Paul "knew nothing of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary," as this is something which, so far as I know, is basically only believed by those who question the historical existence of Jesus. john k (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the vast majority of humankind. Wdford (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean to suggest that "the vast majority of mankind" deny the historical existence of Jesus you are certainly wrong. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Jews did not kill Jesus, Scientologists did. L Hubbard p 342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.130.223 (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean: "In other words, the vast majority of the Christians of the humankind"? Please provide a contemporary source which says that Paul knew Jesus was his contemporary. St.Trond (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the vast majority of mankind, which includes Christians and Muslims do by definition, but there is no tradition of denying his existence within Judaism, and it is irrelevant to Buddhism and Hinduism. Even atheists on the whole don't deny he existed, any more than they deny that Mohammed existed. Paul B (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A majority of people in the world do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. But most people do accept that he existed and was executed by Pontius Pilate. And whether or not Galatians 1:19 "really" indicates that Paul knew of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary, there are certainly many scholars who argue that it does. As such, it is completely inappropriate to present it as a "fact" that Paul does not recognize Jesus as a contemporary. It may be that the position that St. Trond is espousing is empirically correct, but it is not the dominant position in the scholarship on Paul's epistles, and as such we cannot present it as a "fact." We must rely on what reliable sources say, and there are plenty of reliable sources which dispute St. Trond's fact. john k (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[King James' Bible, Galatians 1:19] "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." "Brother" usually means "having the same parents" or "being a member of a fraternity or religious group ". Alvar Ellegård, (p. 215) finds that Paul uses "brethren" about "the twelve", and about 500 persons who saw "Jesus as risen". We may guess that "member of a religious group" is the appropriate meaning. Thus James is most likely one among the apostles or members of the religion at the time of Paul. St.Trond (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A wholly illogical conclusion. If all the apostles were equally "brethren" then there would be no need to say "other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." If he had said "other of the brethren I saw none save James" then the interpretation would be reasonable, but the fact that he singles out James as a brother and not the other apostles strongly indicates that he means brother in the literal sense. Of course that's before any debate about the actual Greek text. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems more logical that all the apostles/missionaries were out to do their work, while only brother James remained in the temple. If we all stuck to what is logical, then there had been no entry for Jesus in Wikipedia. St.Trond (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That James would stay in Jerusalem leading the Jerusalem group of Christians would seem illogical onlty to someone who has gicen up on the idea of a thoroughly Jewish Cristianity. In the decade following Jesus' death - when followers may have been divided as to whether he was resurrected or not, and whether God would smite the Romans and establish His Kingdom at any moment - the idea of James trying to lead a robust community of Jewish Christians in Judea is not at all illogical. St.Trond takes beliefs that he formed, a couple of thousand years after these events occured, and uses them to decide what happened. Now, that is illogical. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the comment regarding James, of Slrubenstein above. It describes James as an exemplary brother among the Lord's apostles/brethren, a good brother at any time of the life of a religion. However, as it does not explain that James also shares one or more parents with Jesus, it does not indicate that Jesus is a contemporary of Paul. St.Trond (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation seems wild and desperate distortion of plain meaning to me, but we won't get anywhere arguing the toss. Ellegård is not a reliable source. He's an amateur. His specialism is the English language, not ancient history. The sentence can't be included. Paul B (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see any evidence that Alvar Ellegård is a reliable source. I am singularly unimpressed by a purported Bible scholar relying on the King James as a source. What matters is that this is a fringe view among Bibl scholars, although persistent among some dilettantes, and the article gives it full justice. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

St.Trond is clearly trolling here. Why should we try to argue in good faith with someone who says things like, "If we all stuck by what is logical, then there had been no entry for Jesus in Wikipedia"? Let's move on. john k (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology 2

I have reworked the paragraph, and find it convenient to reset the discussion. I propose to add the following paragraph at the end of the "Chronology" paragraph:

Alvar Ellegård finds that Paul reveals no knowledge of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary. Ellegård finds this to be a theological problem with the Christian Chronology, which has been noticed earlier. According to Ellegård, the same may apply to the following texts, which he shows to be roughly contemporary to Paul: the Pastor of Hermas, Didache, The first letter of Clemens Romanus, The letter of Barnabas, The Letter to the Hebrews and The Revelation of John. St.Trond (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellegård is not a reliable source for this article. He may be appropriate for the Jesus Myth article. Feel free to raise this at the ‎Reliable Sources noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the Purpose sub-section under '3.7 Ministry'

This section is currently good, in terms of structure: paragraph 1 quoting Jesus' description of his own ministry, followed by paragraph 2 quoting author's descriptions.

I think someone with the required permission (I'm not a seasoned editor yet) should also include the John 18:37 self-description Jesus gives of his purpose:- "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (John 18:37)

That is all.

Rob.m.baker (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on authenticity of Mark 16

Two editors (including moi) have differing views on whether a comment regarding the authenticity of the "longer version of Mark 16" properly belongs in the Jesus article. (Edit 'diff' is | here. To my way of thinking, a long(ish) article such as this, should be kept closer to the subject. The "longer version of Mark" article is already linked to in the article, so should be sufficient I think, if readers wish to explore that issue. ^rossnixon 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

History Assumed

I have read through previous posts, and though close, none that I could find specifically address the presumption in this sentence: "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life".

The sentence would fairly read: "Most critical scholars in the field of biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life". OR ""Most critical scholars in the field of biblical history believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life"

This removes the following problems with the original statement: 1) Critical scholars of history are often mis-represented or under-represented in biblical studies, particularly relating to the historical Jesus. 2) The word "most" implies that to-date there has been a fair assessment of a full pool of "historians". And if (1) is true, then we are using the word "most" to define a pool that is known to be based on an incomplete survey. 3) Perhaps most critical scholars dealing only in history (and not the combined history of biblical studies) would not test-out the historical Jesus. History can be clearly removed from history related to a particular text (especially a sacred text). 3) To add the weight of "most critical scholars" of history to this argument subtly reinforces the idea that there is agreement on the historical evidence of Jesus' life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After further thought, I think the entire statement should be deleted. In addition to the problems listed above, the article is about a character in the Bible (and in some related texts). To add the weight of critical scholars is presumptious and irrelevant. The entire article can be written about a character, with a less partisan approach to the history. This statement is out of place here, and maybe even of dubious quality in the article about the historicty of Jesus.

Sorry, I do not get your point. In an article on the Duke of Wellington, if we way :most historians" surely it is understood historians of modern Europe or even modern England. if we write an article on Alexander the great "Most historians" it is understood we mean historians of claasical Hellenic world. Why would anyone care what a historian of ancient greece thinks about some debate concerning the Duke of Wellington? How is a historian of modern Europe qulified to particpate in a debate about Alexander the Great? Similarly, isn't it obfious that when we refer to historians in this article we are talking about historians who are experts on the NT as a historical document (meaning, a document or set of documents composed by humans during a particular period in history under specific historical conditions) or first century Roman occupied Palestine? Why would anyone care what an expert on the Duke of Willington or the history of the Soviet Union or the history of the late Ottoman Empire has to say on the topic? Do we really ned to point out that we are NOT including people who lacks scholarly credentials for this period of history in thie part of the world? I do not get your poiNt. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

^^^^JG, 30-Sep-2009 6pm MST

Point taken, but the issue isn't that a historian on European history should know anything about Biblical history... the issue is that the historical "consensus" is really a strange subject in this article (which is about a character in the Bible), and that historians that disagree about the history are under-represented and often mis-represented. The statement is partisan, and doesn't belong in this section. In the field of sacred texts, there is often an ignored segment of counter-opinion that is brushed aside with statements like "most critical scholars agree". Part of my point comes from knowing that in fact I believe that non-partisan historians actually find meager support for the historical Jesus... which says to me that this statement is probably not justifiable and is certainly not provable (and doesn't add anything to the article--except bias). This is another subtle reinforcement of a hotly contested historical issue. Imagine this article being written in the 13th century... would this opening statement still be considered a harmless statement of fact, or would a critical scholar recognize that the claim is biased? 67.177.220.37 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)JG, 02-Oct-2009 11am MST

And again, there are numerous places set-up to discuss the historicity of Jesus... this article appears to be about the character. This profile can be factually based on descriptions and discussions about the character, without any unnecessary reference to the historical debate, and certainly without any claims of scholarly consensus. 67.177.220.37 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

height

This article doesn't mention the height and weight of the savior jesus, could somebody please insert the information. South Bay (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

very... cute Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's 4'7", and 28 stone, according to the rarely consulted Al-HarQum documents. Weight decreased monotonically before ascension. It's currently unknown if this affected mass, or weight only. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the Gospels (which we all know is the ultimate truth and free from all error) Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a colt and a donkey. His weight must therefore have been considerable - 28 stone is thus quite believable. However to sit on two animals at once requires very long legs, so I cannot agree with the 4'7" - based on the evidence of the Gospels, I suspect his height was actually 7'4". Wdford (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh shaddap :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody 7'4" and 28 stones walk on water, I don't think so..South Bay (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends how deep the water was, and how big the feet were. I have seen birds and lizards that run on the surface of the water due to the size of their feet, and lizards can run up walls because their feet have a relatively large surface area. It also depends on how much Peter had to drink that afternoon. Wdford (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question?? South Bay (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A 100,000 ton steel ship can float on water - its not the weight that counts. 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence of the gospels, the "last supper" was a big feast and therefore only a man of unusual size could handle all the food. He, therefore must of been similar or likable to George Costanza in height and dimension. South Bay (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Section treated as a humorous forum. Soidi (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation(s) Needed

This article does not reference one multi source historical fact in relation to Jesus. In fact, it doesn't reference 1 source who was alive within 100 years of his life time. As such, in no way should it be presented as fact as the wording currently implies. In addition, a large portion of the citations used to justify the statements here in are opinion pieces, not researched historical papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.231.3 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. We need to be clear about what's a historical fact and what's an article of faith. When there is a lack of independent evidence supporting a statement in a religious text, we would need to be clear that the statement is a claim rather than definitively true.

218.191.238.151 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about judging what is or is not a hitorical fact, or a theological truth for that matter. It is about reporting all significant views from reliable sources. We do that, including the views of major historians i.e. people with PhDs who got jobs at major universities and publish in peer-reviewed journals. The wording of this article does not make any claims beyond this. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the subtle difference between saying the gospels state and the gospels claim . The latter questions that veracity more than the former. When dealing with something that is postulated in a religious text, the word claim would seem more appropriate than state in wikipedia. Though both are probably technically correct. Pnelnik (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Claim" is a word to avoid (WP:AVOID), and I think it is so for the reasons you put forth. It is more neutral, and matter-of-fact to use the former instead of "claims".-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "claim" is more accurate, and thus more neutral. If the gospel writers were reporting accurately then “claim” is still fine, but since they seemingly lived a hundred years after the fact, in a time with no media as we understand it, then perhaps the info they contain is more anecdotal than fact - "claim" is thus the better word. And that is before we take into account all the editing and insertions that took place after the unknown authors wrote whatever was in the original draft. PS: whoever those unknown authors were, we can be sure they did NOT have PhD's or have jobs at major universities or publish in peer-reviewed journals. Wdford (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the article you are specifically referring to. If we are discussing what the gospels state, then I think the neutral "states" is perfectly fine. We are just matter of factly discussing what appears in a book. By using the word claim, you are assuming that the gospel writers were making claims in the first place. I believe that is taking things too far. We are simply trying to give a plot summary of the 4 gospels, which are the most notable (and historically important) documents about "Jesus", whether that be the Jesus of faith, or the Jesus of history. I don't see how the word "claim" can benefit this section, but perhaps we are talking about different parts of the article. Perhaps you could give an example or two where you think the word "claim" would improve a specific sentence in the article. Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were clearly understood that Jesus was a fictional character, then there would be no problem in presenting the plot as accounted by Mark, Luke etc. However it seem that only a minority of people believe Jesus to be entirely fictional . Thus if we are dealing with a real person then we need to have multiple source and be open about what is contested and what is not. For example if we take Luke's version of the nativity which says that Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because of the census. That conflicts with all historical evidence, since the Roman census never asked people to go back to their ancestral homes. Hitchens has an interesting take on this. He suggests that the nativity stories are clearly rather poor quality fabrications. The authors needed to come up with some story to explain how Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem so as to retro-fit the ancient prophecies . This is clear evidence that Jesus did actually exist and was known to be from Nazareth, since if he were entirely fictional, then they would just have had him born and raised in Bethlehem. We need more references to Hitchens in the article. Pma jones (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens is not a significant historian. And for the claims you have so far forwarded, they have long been made by significant historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Ellegard, Nazaret does not refer to the town Nazaret, but is a misspelling or mistranslation actually meaning "member of the sect of the Essenes". According to him the story did pass by word of mouth for two hundred years before it was reconstructed in writing in Greece. St.Trond (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ellegard has no training in Hebrew or Aramaic linguistics and is an amateur with no standing. All significant Biblical historians agree Jesus was born in Nazareth. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment does not explain why the majority of those who are trained in Hebrew or Aramaic linguisics, do not belive in Jesus as described in the Gospel at all. St.Trond (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And your comment is a red herring. SLR was just arguing the one point about Nazareth, not about what all linguisics belive (not to mention you've provided no sources or context to what they all believe in the first place). If this isn't a red herring, it is at least moving the goal posts for some unknown reason. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of which author we are talking about: Ellegard, Luke, Hitchens, Matthew etc, it will be very easy to find someone who says that that author should not be trusted or revered. In the section on the nativity and childhood of Jesus we should try to reflect the fact that there are a wide range of views. On the one had there are stories with miraculous happenings, such as in Luke, and then there are others who say that there were no miracles, such concocted stories, retro-fit to the ancient prophecies. As it stands right now, the nativity section gives too much emphasis to the Gospels and nothing at all to dissenting views. Pma jones (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... I believe you misunderstand that section. 3.5 Nativity and early life is a subsection of 3 Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels. Why on earth would we want to give a historical view in the "as told in the Gospels" section. We have a 4 Historical views section already. Similarly, we don't fill the "Gospels" section with all the various religions and sect's interpretations of the gospels either (as we have a corresponding religious perspectives section as well). The preface to the Gospels section states The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the Christian biography of Jesus' life as the miraculous Son of God. Critical scholars find valuable historical information about Jesus' life and ministry in the synoptic gospels but more or less discount much of the miraculous and theological content. I don't think we need to add "historians more or less discount the miraculous and theological content" in every subsection. Yeah, historians are aptly skeptical of the nativity, skeptical of the genealogy, skeptical of the resurrection, etc. We don't need to say that again and again, when a) we preface the entire section with that and b) we have a historical views section that immediately follows the gospel plot summary. This is simply how we have come to organize the article. While it isn't necessarily holistic, because we are separating out the views into their own section, it's better than trying to add all the views into the narrative. Conservative historians and most Catholics believe x, while mainstream and liberal historians and liberal Christians believe Y, and Mormons believe Z, and Muslims believe W, and Conservative Evangelicals believe U, etc. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, that's a good point. Regards Pma jones (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What's a theological construct?

The article mentions that Jesus' genealogies are theological constructs. What is a theological construct? Perhaps a euphemism for made-up or fictional? I suggest removing the phrase theological constructs and replacing it with a simpler phrase that carries clearer meaning. 218.191.238.151 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

218.191.238.151 Maybe your question was answered. If so, please ignore the following. User:Slrubenstein's dichotomy of historical v. theological is a good example. When one studies and interprets a biblical passage, it's called exegesis. That only brings us to a point where we believe we understand what the writer was saying to the intended audience. How we apply that to a situation depends on the theological construct or framework we build for ourselves having studied the passage, maybe commentaries, etc. Presumably, we come away from an in-depth study with ideas, inspiration, sense of direction to do something (or even the decision to do nothing) about what we've studied. Based on our understanding from exegesis as to author intent, we may form an intellectual construction for applying the passage. Another example is a theology of "atonement" which is a theological construct. The Bible doesn't have a single teaching on that. To end up with a theological position on atonement, one must synthesize many different passages in both the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) and New Testament. A theology of atonement (if it comes) is developed on the basis of our exegesis. Obviously, our exegesis may contain errors, and our theological construct is probably at even greater peril of error. Some seminary professors say their students become very skilled at exegesis but resist bringing their learning to the point of forming a theological construct as to what should be done about it or how to apply it to life as we find it. Maybe that's what the writer meant in James 4:17: "So any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin." Afaprof01 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely explained, Afaprof01! Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I sincerely appreciate your nice affirmation. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, all things humans do can be described as constructs. I am not sure in what sense you mean "fictional" because, alongside philosophy, fiction is the premier means we have for expressing truth (we don't keep reading Shakespeare for nothing!!). I did not write the clause in question but I suggest it means that the purpose of the geneaology is to communicate a theological rather than historical truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would very stongly disagree with the statement that fiction is the premier means we have for expressing truth.

Anyway what's a theological truth? Is it something that is fictional (made-up) but claims not to be? By saying theological construct the sentence becomes less clear and possibly ambiguous. It is more honest to say made-up or invented.

Pnelnik (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How does this language change anything? Wasn't the atomic bomb invented? Waqsn't the internal combustion engine invented? Averything we do is some kind of invention. The question is, for what purposes. When Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, there was one kind of truth he wished to explore. Whne Plato wrote The Republic he was exploring a different kind of truth (or claim to truth). When Sanders writes his biography of Jesus, he is interested in historical truths. Mark and John are clearly meant to expound theological truths (meaning, truth claims, of course manhy people do not share John's theology. The Torah refers to sources where one can learn more about "what happened," obvlously the people editing the Torah were picking and chosing and combining material from other texts in order to express what they believed to be a theological truth. This is like A Bright Shining Lie - as much an invention as the atom bomb, but invented in order to expound a historical truth about Vietnam, and Oliver Stone's Platoon which is clearly trying to set forth other truths, moral truths that are not supposed to be the purview of the objective historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Having theological construct is just obfuscation. I think the best replacement would be fictitious. Suppose I'm writing about the football world cup in 2002. I could write about the flying spaghetti monster inspired the Luxembourg team who surprised everyone in qualifying and then surprised us some more bywinning the hole competition. Now if such a story were ever mentioned in a wikipedia article I would object to calling it theologically true. And if it were called a theological construct, then we would just be deliberately confusing our readers. The most honest word to use would be fictitious. On the other hand if someone were to write a factual piece based on good evidence about how Brazil won the 2002 world cup, then we wouldn't call that article invented. Clearly the meaning of the word invent carries different connotations if we're talking about a piece of technology or a story.

When two genealogies are presented and they are remarkably different, we can be certain that at least one is fictitious, as it turns out most theologians consider them both to be. So, let's not beat about the bush. The phrase theological construct is understood by few and ambiguous. Pma jones (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your "flying spaghetti monster" is simply your way of communicating ridicule, which just shows that you do not understand what a theological truth (even if is contested) is. Now, I agree that "theological construct" is unclear. But what you propose clearly makes things worse. You already think that the Gospel is fictitious, so you come up with what in your mind is fictitious, and then smugly applaud yourself for having come up with a good analogy when all you have done is further communicated what we already know you believe, that the Gospel is a silly and pointless invention of one person. Since you cannot understand what a theological truth is, of course you cannot come up with your own example of one, so none of your analogies would be useful. We need serious proposals by poeople who do understand how such texts were composed and for what purposes. (If you really want a good analogy to the Gospel accounts of Jesus, I'd say any story about how the US entered a war in Iraq in order to fight terrorism, or for oil, would be a good analogy - either story is shitty history, but both stories attract ardent believers form whom the story they believe in helps make understandable, even justifiable in some sense, the many thousands killed and the tremendous, economy-breaking debt the US is accruing ... these are much closer to the theological constructs of the Gospels, in the way they take elements readily at hand - whether stories of a preacher and healer named Jesus, or stories about shadowy conspiracies between heads of state or intelligence professionals and either terrorists or oil companies - and "manufactures" or "built up" or " invented" - whatever word you would use to describe what goes on at Apple or 3M labs - a much bigger story that makes life, however arbitrary or messy, meaningful. Yes, these stories are much closer than your silly spaghetti monster one, which is really as far from being analogous to the Gospels as anything I can imagine). Slrubenstein | Talk 04:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Slrubenstein that it is entirely incorrect to describe the Gospels as a “silly and pointless invention of one person”. In reality the Gospels were a “venal, mendacious and purposeful invention of many people”. I also agree that the comparison with the constructed “War on Terror” as an excuse to murder the people of foreign countries at the command of your campaign contributors is a very accurate analogy indeed – and the analogy is especially relevant as religious stereotypes and false prophecies have played such a large role in convincing millions of otherwise-decent Americans to condone the bloody farce.

However, lies are lies, whatever the underlying motivation. I don’t agree that this “bigger story ... makes life … meaningful”. It is a blatant deception, whose purpose is to deceive well-meaning people into doing things that they would not have done had they known the truth. Decent Americans would not have supported the invasion of Iraq if they had known the true facts and motivations behind that war, and decent Europeans would not have yielded the power of life and death to the Catholic Church for twelve hundred years if they had known the true facts and motivations behind that religion either. Anybody who opposed the Church was burned at the stake in order to preserve the monopoly on power, while the Dubya administration only had Guantanamo Bay, but neither would have been tolerated at all if “we the people” in either case had not first been terrified into submission by all the cold-blooded lies of impending doom - whether terror attacks or eternal hellfire.

For some reason there are millions of people even today who genuinely believe that every word of the Gospels is the Literal Truth from God’s Lips. I agree that their private rituals are their private business. However, when millions are persuaded by these deceptions that its acceptable to deny people their basic human rights because “they murdered Jesus” or because “God gave this land to our ancestors three thousand years ago”, or when millions are persuaded by these deceptions that it’s a good idea to start World War 3 as soon as possible so that the Jews can rebuild their Temple so that Jesus can come back down on a cloud, then we are all at risk.

I therefore feel it is quite important that we expand somewhat on the concept of a “theological construct”, and that we do so in very plain language. Wdford (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As to Wdford's final point, about expanding on the conceot of "theological construct," I agree that this needs to be explained more clearly. However, any expansion must be made by drawing on significant views from reliable sources. In this context the article is talking about the view of modern Bible scholars and we should draw on them to develop the concept. Soidi, the main points you make are addressed in the legacy section and it sounds to me like that is the section you would wish to expand.

Now, at the risk of going of on a tangent, you are wrong when you state "Decent Americans would not have supported the invasion of Iraq if they had known the true facts and motivations behind that war." Long before Bush announced that we would go to war against Iraq, various journalists, politicians, etc. were presenting the real facts and truth about Bush's motivation. None of it was secret, or hidden. Your "decent Americans" simply did not want to believe those facts. Similalry, your statement "decent Europeans would not have yielded the power of life and death to the Catholic Church for twelve hundred years if they had known the true facts and motivations behind that religion either," while less controversial, still needs a litle modification. For two thousand years Jews have been telling anyone who asked that jesus was not the messiah. This too was no secret. During the middle ages, often times the worst enemies of the Jews was not the Church but peasants - it was mor often peasants who would go on a rampage killing Jews, who often found protection in a Church or in the court of a local prince. By the way I am not denying your larger claims about the evils of the Church or the local power elites, I am just saying the situation was a little ore complicated. Bishops often forced Jews to listen to long boring sermons in church, but they also often staged debates with rabbis. Of course the bishops always "won" but my point is simply that Jews were given forums for explaining their views. So Christians have always "known" the facts (according to Jews), that Jesus was a person.

Wdford, you miss my main point and I strongly disagree with you, and I instead agree with historians who have a more nuanced view of things. Putting aside circumstances where people were forced to believe through the threat of death (I ask you to put this aside because here I agree with you completely, no debate, my point here is separate) in most cases - and certaanly in the first couple of hundred years of Christianity, when Jews were telling Christians that they were mistaken and Christians were themselves persecuted by rome and could not exercise power over Jews or over Christians, this is the time period I am most interested in - people do not chose to believe in falsehoods because they are gnorant of the truth. People are usually provided with different accounts of things that compete to be called "facts." Some of these accounts are ones you probably would call "the truth." In any event, people are not ignorant. Why then do they come to consider as facts things that you or I consider false? The idea of "theological truths," the point I make that you reject (you see, you have the facts before you, you just won't accept them! ;-) is just what I said: it fits with people's experience of the world so that it helps them find meaning. Fundamentalist Christians today are given the same facts as you, yet they choose the life they live because they find meaning in it. You choose a different set of claims aboiut the world, and you accept them as facts because they help you find meaning in the world.

And just to head off one possible confusion, I am NOT a relativist when it comes to these things - the theory of evolution is true, and people who think it is not are wrong, in my view. All I am trying to do in the paragraph above is explain how academic historians explain the way early Christians viewed their sacred texts. For over two hundred years, Jews, Christians, and Romans all disagreed with one another, and during these initial centuries it was the Christians who were persecuted the most. They clung to their beliefs not because they were ignorant of "the truth" which others were constantly reminding them of. They clung to their beliefs because of the kind of meaning it gave their lives. To conflate these Christians with post-Constantine Christians with Medieval Christians with Christian fundamentalists today is just very sloppy history - its own form of ignorance. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

From the above, I excerpt that theological constructs are incompatible with encyclopedic text, and should be used only, for example in separate text boxes or with its separate explanation each time. They are certainly valuable as illustrations, but has to be separated from encyclopedic text, which is meant to be read the way it is written, by a common reader of Wikipedia. St.Trond (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. NPOV demands that we inclue all significnt views from reliable sources. The idea of a theological construct is a major concept used by academic historians studying the Bible, its context and composition. To exclude the views of major scholars who teach at established universities and publish in peer-reviewed journals is just - well, the most anti-encyclopedia idea I can imagine. If you ant to empty this article of scholarly research, perhaps you should move on to another article. Because that is just NOT going to happen here! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No source is reliable if it reads from an unreliable source. The Bible is not a universally axcepted reliable source. It has to be verified by other sources, and some times the other way round. Texts based solely on the Bible, and derived texts, should contain an warning, like: "Warning this paragraph is a theological construct. It is based on one or more sources not generally considered reliable." St.Trond (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness your brain has no control over Wikipedia policy. Someone who so misunderstands scholarly standards, at least as practiced in top universities in the US and Europe, is obviously an "unreliable" source for ideas for an encyclopedia policy! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein makes excellent points, and I fully agree with almost all of them. Virtually my sole point of disagreement is the issue of when do people "know" something. Indeed many people warned in advance that Dubya was lying about the WMD’s, but did the "decent" people actually 'know' that was the truth, or did too many of them 'believe' that Dubya was telling the truth - perhaps because the White House still had credibility in those days? Of course millions of Jews, Muslims, Mithraists, Isms, Jisms and Schisms warned the early Christians that they were on the wrong track, but the Church said the Gospel was the literal Word of God, and the Church said the Gospel said they should burn alive anybody who questioned their authority, including anybody who had their own copy of the Bible and could read it for themselves, and somewhere in that debacle some people 'knew' the Church were lying and said so (and were burned), and too many kept prudently quiet - either because they feared the fires in hell or because they feared the fires in the Church Square. Of course there were countless clergy who participated out of self-interest, and there were countless barons and kings who benefited, and countless soldiers who were granted absolution in advance for looting and raping, provided they looted and raped in the course of a Crusade - the Church always knew how to use a good carrot alongside the all-burning stick - and so lots of people decided it would be a good thing to 'know' that the Church was correct. These however fall outside my definition of 'decent'.

I fully appreciate the argument about the “opium of the masses”. However religion only has an opiate effect if people believe hard enough, and many these days only believe because they honestly think they are being given the true facts by a credible authority.

The ancient Greeks already knew that the earth is spherical, and Erastothenes even calculated the size of the earth (with much greater accuracy then his claimed method was capable of producing, which means there was something else behind that too) but yet at the time of Columbus two thousand years later everyone 'knew' that the earth was flat and Christo was going to fall off the edge. How come? Perhaps because Galileo knew long ago that the earth moved around the sun, but the Church 'knew' different, and Galileo looked at the fire in the Square and decided maybe the Church was right after all?

I agree that some people choose to believe complete garbage because it makes them happy, and good luck to them. But a vast many people believe merely because they are deceived, and they would actually instead believe the "truth" if they received the "true" facts from a credible source (such as an encyclopaedia), because they simply won't accept as "truth" the ravings of a self-appointed prophet howling in the wilderness.

For example, while the bulk of the American voters chose to believe Dubya initially about the WMD's (surely the White House would never lie to us - would they?) the bulk of the American voters now choose to believe that Dubya did indeed lie to them. But they don't believe this because the Hussein government repeatedly told the truth about the WMD's, they only believe it because a source they trust (their own army) has now told them so. Pity about all the dead Iraqi civilians, but hey - at least they're free now!

Now we have a US administration telling us that Iran is also trying to acquire WMD's, and despite the repeated denials of the Iranian government, for some reason millions of Americans still believe the US government - why? Is it because they want to believe Satan rules Iran, or is it because they want a War in the Middle East so that Jesus can Return, or is it because they still accept the credibility of the White House, despite its track record of deception? The pope today says contraception is a sin, and people die unnecessarily of AIDS as a result – why? Is it because they desperately want an excuse to engage in unprotected sex, or is it because they really want to die in large numbers, or is it because they still accept the credibility of the Church, despite its gory history? An increasing number of “experts” tell us that global warming is ruining the world, but still millions choose to believe this is not true – why? Is it because they want to believe that its still acceptable to drive huge SUV’s, or is it because they want to believe that Satan guides the bunny-huggers, or is it because the liars currently have more credibility in their eyes? People know that smoking is harmful to their health, but still billions of people smoke - why? I could go on and on.

People choose which facts to believe based on the credibility of the authority from whence those facts came. One source of such credible authority today are encyclopaedias. I agree that the article needs to state the opinions of all reliable sources, including the deluded and the blatant liars, but I would also like this article to be a bit more clear about the fact that Christianity is a theological construct, and what exactly that means, in a way that more people can clearly understand.

Wdford (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wdford and User:Slrubenstein: Without always agreeing (but mostly), I thoroughly enjoyed your philosophical think-pieces above. You both are excellent writers and you think! That combination must keep you in a state of total frustration on Wikipedia. You raise very valid issues and "it's got me goin'." Warning: SOAPBOX ahead.

In my heart of hearts I believe there is "pay day someday" for all of those throughout the millennia who have done flagrant evil in the name of Jesus Christ. It would have been infinitely better for them to have gone off the bridge with the millstone of NT fame around their necks. On the other side of the ledger is a hopefully longer list of a myriad who have done good in the name of (or inspired by) their savior. In no way does that compensate for all the tragic unspeakable evil. Neither are these unilaterally Christian things─the good nor the evil. Governments?? no comment. You've said it well.

As an academician in the sciences, I've come to learn throughout the decades that I cannot put matters of faith into a test tube, no matter how assiduously I try. Every day I learn something new; every day I learn to correct something old that I may have held near and dear for a very long time. It takes more faith to get in my car and drive to the grocery store with text- and substance-impaired drivers all over the place than to read about Jesus in my Bible. I am not even close to being an inerrantist and the word "infallible" is not in my vocabulary, but I still believe the macro view in the Bible is dependable.

With all of its risks, I don't plan to give up getting groceries, nor riding on airplanes, nor believing what I see when a bumblebee flies. When I sit down to eat the groceries is when the really scary part begins. Did somewhere along the way botulism get on my lettuce leaf? Ah, but Safeway is a trusted source. The H1N1 vaccine is in town, albeit in short supply. Some of my neighbors are afraid to give it to their children. What should we do? I don't know yet. Some very reputable sources say it's safe. Other reputable sources say they really aren't sure yet. The FTC has caught hundreds of charlatans advertising H1N1 cures and even seriously discounted "vaccine" on the Internet. Of course, their web-pages were exquisitely professional looking. Many had fake credentials.

One editor on this Talk page suggested we put warning labels throughout this article. Here we are, genuinely concerned about reader perception and confidence─the impressions they come away with about a very sensitive subject. That's almost a new twist, but very caring empathy. A good statement about theological construct is appropriate. Will it really make a difference? Picking up on a previous: how much difference does the Surgeon General's warning labels make? Maybe we should get more serious about deleting unsourced material in the article. Although I had been in this article many times, I had never noticed that Calvinism and Arminianism were totally unsourced without so much as a "fact" tag─a huge oversight on my part. This article could use more of the in-line caveats that we traditionally put into articles on debatable topics, such as "according to" and "some believe," etc. Asynchronous opinions also are needed. Although it takes up space as well as editing time, I find it helpful when the text include something about the qualifications of the source.

To approach it from a different vantage point, what sort of reader most needs disclaimer protection? Probably not the theologically-sophisticated reader. Probably not the "I'm just browsing " reader. I appreciate the reader who cared enough to ask the question, what is a theological construct. I hope more editors will share our concern and join us in coming up with a fresh approach to this issue.

When do people "know" something? That's a great question, perhaps rhetorically asked. I had never thought about what Slrubenstein wrote:

[The early Christians being persecuted for their beliefs] clung to their beliefs not because they were ignorant of "the truth" which others were constantly reminding them of. They clung to their beliefs because of the kind of meaning it gave their lives. ─Slrubenstein

Profound! Thank you, SLR. It puts a whole lot of pettiness into perspective. Moving on...Sometimes we feel sure we know something when we really in fact don't. It's painful to contemplate the number of times in my career that facts I thought immutable have changed, that something I absolutely positively nonnegotiably dogmatically "knew" was true turned out to be wrong and I had to admit it and apologize to graduate students and even faculty colleagues. Should I stop teaching? The students pay very good money to sit and learn from a credentialed, supposedly reliable source. I have never intentionally misled a student or a Wiki article reader. I can look in the mirror and say I am a person of integrity. But I do make my share (sometimes more than that) of mistakes. I am constantly revising my impression of reliability of sources that I have quoted. It's impossible to go back and issue a retraction/correction for everything I taught as bona fide "truth" that has turned out otherwise, or has been replaced by new learning. With that realization, the viable alternatives are to sit in a corner and suck my thumb—or to press on with a renewed commitment to greater personal excellence with refreshed recognition of my on mortal limitations. The former is easier.

They clung to their beliefs not because they were ignorant of "the truth" which others were constantly reminding them of. They clung to their beliefs because of the kind of meaning it gave their lives.

Meanwhile, a self-reminder that I am an imperfect person who lives in an imperfect world; I worship a perfect God who has been imperfectly represented here on Earth ever since the ascension; and whenever I think I'm getting it all together, that's fair warning that I really don't. I'm still wondering about the lettuce. If you see any edits from me next week, you can reliably conclude that the lettuce must have been okay. We may not know about the H1N1 vaccine that soon. Thanks again for challenging me with your really fine think-pieces. Yours for improved editing and an even better world....Afaprof01 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I think we have to get back on track which is: explaining "theological construct." I will see if i have a nice quote from Sanders we can put in. Suffice to say that while I was expressing my own ideas, insofar as they relate to this article none are original with me: I was simply trying to explain how academic historian see things. Obvously Jesus and his followers did not know calculus or algebra or the theory f relativity or Boyle's law - but for academic historians simply to say people in the past did not know things we know is a dead-end. What is important is having a framework for assessing the sources available to us, and how to use sources that may not be historically accurate, in order to derive historical claims. This is not the paradox that it sounds like, if you just think for a moment - if someone has available to them only the lyrics of the top forty popular music songs for every month of the 20th century, there is a lot they WON'T know - but thee is certainly a lot they will be able to infer about people, their lives, and their values and how these things changed over the 20th century. A good deal of literary criticism is all about learning something about real people's real lives (e.g. Virginia Woolf or James Joyce) from reading about fake people's fake lifes (e.g. Mrs. Dalloway or Stephen Daedelus). Historians take the same attitude when reading the Bible. I know there are some diutors here who think history is about going through the Gospel account and stamping "wrong!" or "lies!" as appropriate. This is like saying that geographers draw maps and memorize national capitals. It is a 5th grader's view of geography, of history. My main point is, after years of struggling to make sure that the claims of the most respected historians are represented in this article 9and I think we do a good job), it is increasingly clear that we also need to explain to people what historians care about, how they think, their methods. Now, this article is clearly not eh place to do this in detail. But "theological construct' is obviously one place where a sentence or two explaining what historians mean is necessary. Perhaps the articles on the historical Jesus should have even more explicit explanation of how Biblical historians work, so we can just refer people to those articles as needed. I have not yet read Wikipedia's article on history, I hope it explores thse issues at length. Here we run into a perennial problem at Wikipedia (one shared by othe encyclopedias) - we need more people with real expertise on these matters to do the job properly ... but the more expertise someone has the greater the risk that they will not be explaining it well to a general audience (now I will SOAP: I have read the article on Calculus several times and STILL don't understand it. i realize we are an on-line university but really, couldn't they imagine readers who do not already know what Calculus is? Which brings me back to this discussion: the perfectly reasonable question/criticism of the phrase "theological construct" means we have to be careful not to expect too much on the part of our readers. The question all of you people watching this article should have something to say about (i.e. not my self-indulgent conversation with WD) is, how do we achieve the appropriate balance? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Add link to the 'See Also' -> 'Views on Jesus' section

In the See Also section there is a list of links to wikipedia articles. I suggest that we should add a link to the Criticism of Jesus article under the existing heading: Views of Jesus. Pma jones (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the criticism should be taken into this article. The red herring here is that some claims Jesus' mother was from Nazaret. See for example Nazarene_(title). It is completely irrelevant. Else the entire setting of the New Testament is that of a Greek philosopher. Someone should be allowed to go through the entire article with and distribute "citation needed" tags. St.Trond (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anselm's Atonement (satisfaction) view

Is this long subsection off-topic, i.e., not about Jesus? Soidi (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Soidi (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus and Muhammed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Jesus_and_Muhammed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I am writting a paper on Jesus and Muhammed and have a question. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Correct? And Islam believe that Muhammed was a prophet sent by God. Correct? So is it this the same God. Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.238.49 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The God of the Christians is the God of Abraham/Ibrahim, who was the father of Ismail and Isaac. The God of the Christians is thus the same God as the God of the Muslims - we are all cousins. Christians also believe that, about 2000 years ago, God sent his divine son to earth to live for a time as a human, who was named Yeshua (in Greek this name is pronounced “Jesus”.) Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God. When the human body of Jesus was killed, the spirit of the divine son returned to earth briefly to finish its work, and then went back to heaven where it rejoined with God. This happened hundreds of years before Muhammed was called to service by God, so the son of God (which had lived in Jesus) was by then back in heaven together with God. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Marcionites and many Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was the son of the Judean god, but rather sent by a higher god (arguing something along the line that the "real real" god would not have created an imperfect universe). And I do think that "Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God" is an opinion many mainstream churches would gladly burn you for (or whatever they do with heretics in these sadly civilized times). But yes, conventionally the god of Abraham is the god of Jesus and the god of Muhammad. Jesus is seen as an important prophet in Islam, but not as the son of god. See Jesus in Islam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you expect there to be a god, which you cannot easily find yourself? St.Trond (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isn't the Talk page supposed to be reserved for discussing the article and how to improve it? I am somewhat surprised that experienced editors are once again treating it as a humorous forum. Soidi (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Point granted on the talk page guidelines. This should probably be shifted to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. But I fail to see anything particularly humorous in the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Split-off?

I think that, at +150k and rising, this article is past due for a split-off. I propose that the entire section called Jesus#Religious perspectives be split off into a daughter article, to be calledReligious perspectives of Jesus the Christ. Any objections or suggestions please? Wdford (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is the organization. I do not think that this article should ever have had a section on Anslem or Thomas, however these might be. I think that it should have a section on every major religion in which Jesus is a significant feature, linked to a larger article. In the case of Christianity, the differences among different Christain denominations and among different theologians should be provided and explored in detail. So my counter-proposal is first a clean-up, in which a lot of detail goes into existing linked articles. This section would become a lot shorter and that that would spare the need for spinning it off and in the process creating a new article on "religious views." The reason i objct to creating a new articl "Religious perspectives ..." is that it would either be a disambiguaton page that I think we do not need, or would just repeat information in the really important articles, which are the ones on Christology, etc. and that already exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just about everything in this article is already duplicated somewhere else in a dedicated article, and a lot of those articles also duplicate each other. You are correct, but its a question of how do we get to where we would like to be. Wdford (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Main image: if all are equally disputed, choose what is believed by many to be the real image

Presently, under the present image of the Pantokrator, we have this statement: "no undisputed record of what Jesus looked like is known to exist."

Given this, i.e. all being equally controversial, I would like to propose that we use an image that is thought of by many people as the real image of the original Jesus: the Shroud of Turin. Although believers are the one's who mainly subscribe to its being a real image, even non-believers who dispute this record of what Jesus looked like and think it is a hoax, see that this is an excellent 13th century painting or depiction of Jesus (especially now that scientists are reviewing the radiocarbon dating).

My point is that if there exists a real image of the original Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, don't we usually choose to use the real image as in their present Wikipedia articles? And for Jesus, given that all depictions are equally disputed, then we should follow the logic of using the image that (a) is claimed by many to show the original visage of Jesus, (b) is the most famous image among those which purport to show the real face of Jesus, (c) is accepted by others as an extraordinary attempt in painting or depicting the original person. Historyprofrd (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "what many people believe to be the real original image". First of all, at the time if Jesus' alleged existence, there were no cameras, therefore if paintings disagree, there obviously cannot be a "true original image". In addition, the "stereotypical" idea of Jesus is as a white man with long, dark hair and sandals, and yet that is impossible because, among many other problems with this idea, Holy Bible refers to Israelis as its' main characters, and that includes the characters involved in any chapter mentioning 'Jesus'. As mentioned, an encyclopedia's purpose should be to DEBUNK myths where possible, not to perpetuate them merely because it is widely believed. For this reason, any picture of any character in the book that is used here should be one that is depicted as the book describes them (or rather, as at least one version of the book describes them, in this particular case), regardless of what some random human on the street may say as to their image of it. This will be true in all such cases of popular media and/or myths and/or legends etc. The 5 billion edits and translations will also have different depictions. Any piece of art that is entitled "Jesus" and is intended to refer to the character in Holy Bible will therefore be an appropriate image.

Thank you, St. Trond, the devout atheist of wikipedia, for the link to McCrone's conclusion that it is "a beautiful painting created about 1355" and "an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist." It supports point (c). Historyprofrd (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want this to sound like silent consensus, but I don't have much to say except that I personally don't like that idea. I think the Turin image is a bit creepy, and I associate it with 1980s Time-Life paranormal books. Doesn't seem professional. I've never encountered it in any scholarly works that I've encountered either. Also seems like a fairly controversial image (is it is real, is it a forgery, is it something else, is it a relic, etc?). Anyway, just my 2 cents. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is an image of a dead man, something that many naturally find "a bit creepy"; but is that reason to exclude it? If I remember right, Wikipedia has an image of the death mask of Martin Luther. Soidi (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a terribl idea. I would really like to see evidence for this claim: "even non-believers who dispute this record of what Jesus looked like and think it is a hoax, see that this is an excellent 13th century painting or depiction of Jesus." Even if true, it is a 13th century imagining ... not of Jesus's likeness but of the impression he left on his death shroud. It had importance as a relic, not as a portrait of Jesus. And there is no reason to think a 13th century imagining is any better than any other representation, including the computer-generated image of a 1st century Judean/Galilean we argued about before. We have argued about images in general, and my own view has been to oppose them as a whole. But if we are to include images, I'd rather we stuck with artist's images of Jesus throughout the ages (e.g. starting with early Byzantine) ... not an image of a fake impression of some generic person on some shroud. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Soidi. Creepiness is something subjective. For some it is not creepy at all but a a face which shows peace and calm, a face that is in fact venerated by thousands upon thousands. The problem of Slrubestein mentions is solved by the link provided by St. Trond which I referred to earlier: [1] Please read what I wrote above. McCrone's conclusion is that it is "a beautiful painting created about 1355" and "an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist." It supports point (c). To say that it is but a relic and does not have importance as an image or portrait is not proven by facts. Kindly read Shroud of Turin and word image outnumbers relic by many. Please also read Holy Face of Jesus and word relic does not appear. The word image appears uncountable times. ;-) Just exagerrating for humor's sake.... I respect your views but IMHO here we should not base decisions on "I find" "I rather" "I personally don't like" but on solid reasons. Please take into account that the belief that it is fake is just one more. The belief that it is the real deal is widespread in the 1 billion Catholic church and 2 billion Christians. Some non-believers also see it as original but reason out based on science. So these opinions have to be taken into account. If one reason is "through the ages" then this has been venerated to be the real deal from the beginning. That it is not used in other scholarly works is not a basis. Wikipedia purports to be better, more logical and more reasonable, more groundbreaking. Historyprofrd (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The images in this article, while arguably not portraits of the historical Jesus, clearly are art/religious representations of Jesus, depicting religious symbolism and imagery, and/or depicting scenes from the gospels. The images are fairly broad, covering through the ages and through the sects. It is always tough to choose an image for the top of the article, because then we are giving prominence to one view. For all these images, even non-Christians can agree that the artist was intending to illustrate the character of Jesus. This is not the same for the Shroud of Turin. The images does not help the reader understand religious symbolism associated with Jesus, the image does not help the reader understand a gospel narrative involving Jesus, nor is it particularly characteristic of how a certain sect or time period depiction Jesus' appearance. The only thing going for it is that some people believe it to be an actual image of Jesus, but this is hotly debated, even among Christians and Catholics. Thus, the image is controversial, and doesn't add much understanding to the topic at hand. Furthermore, as stated above, reliable sources do not give so much prominence (if they cover at all) the Shroud of Turin. WP:V and WP:RS are still important aspect of Wikipedia, even if I personally think the image is unappealing. We mention the Shroud once in the entire article. If there was an reason to discuss the Shroud in more detail, and there was consensus, I wouldn't oppose adding an image of the Shroud further down the article in the corresponding section ("Legacy"), but I have yet to be convinced it deserves to be at the top. Arguments like this has been venerated to be the real deal from the beginning are nonsensical when the actual providence of the Shroud only goes to the 14th century. Without sources, The belief that it is the real deal is widespread in the 1 billion Catholic church and 2 billion Christians. is not helpful. If we did have notable sources claiming this is the most ecumenical image and most venerated image, that would be a better argument for inclusion at the top. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a general worshipping of this medieval fake relic. It may be among Roman Catholics, as the Pope seems interested in it. If Catholics want it on the Catholic page it may be put there, but it should be rejected here. Anyway, it should be referred to as a painting and a Catholic fake relic, as that is what it is. St.Trond (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a good seletion of art work currently in the article and I see no reason to add a relic to the mix. --^StormRider 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's recall the objective of Wikipedia. When someone comes to Wikipedia and wants to know about Jesus, they want to know above all about Jesus, i.e. the person, the man. Not religious symbolism about him, the gospel narrative about him, how a sect depicts him. Yes they also and secondarily want to know about these things, and somehow the shroud image shows these also (the gospel says he was tortured, this is a religious relic venerated, and this is kept by the Catholic church), but they came to here to know the man. And what a better way to know a man than to see his face, his real face. The face is the mirror of the soul, of the person, the mirror of the man. It tells a thousand words about the guy. That is why we have used the picture of Abraham Lincoln et al and not a portrait of them as the top picture. Let's also leave behind our prejudices in this discussion. To say categorically that this is actually a fake is to uncritically ignore all the biological, forensic, historical, chemical etc etc evidence in shroud science, and to accept uncritically the old and disputed 1988 radio carbon dating which the director of England's Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit wants to be reviewed. See this [2] and this [3] A more guarded scientific pressuposition is right for Wikipedia. Please try to see this objectively and see the multicultural and multi perspectives on this image of Jesus. The argument I raised takes into account these many perspectives and given that the "face is the feature which best distinguishes a person (Wikipedia on face}, and given that this is the the best and most famous image that purports to show the original, then it is reasonable to show it, together with a caption that it is disputed. Again, let me reiterate that this article itself avers that all images are disputed. That's a given. So it is reasonable to use one which has great illustrative informative capacity to give information to Wiki readers (potentially if true and artistically if fake) about this person, this man, this face. Compare this information giving power (50% possibility of being real and 50% fake) to an artist's rendition which has 0% possibility of copying the original). And with key scientists wanting to review the facts, this is not a 50:50 thing anymore, given all the other evidences. Historyprofrd (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not 50:50 alright - it's about zero percent. There is no reliable positive evidence that the Shroud is real. There have been enough "real" splinters from the "real" cross to re-build the Victory, and many saints must have had more appendages than Cthullu to account for the number or relics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Shroud has no reliable history for the first 1300 years of it purported life - even if it were of the right age, the a-priory chance that it is the real thing is negligible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"And what a better way to know a man than to see his face, his real face. The face is the mirror of the soul, of the person, the mirror of the man. It tells a thousand words about the guy????" Okay, I think this guy has had his soap-box long enough. Historyprofrd, these pages are to discuss improvements to articles in compliance with our core content policies. It is not a place for you to soapbox. Stephan Sculz is right. Let's move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't give me an ad hominem argument. Or an argument that skirts my main argument by just mere assertion of opinion on the authenticity of the shroud. The content policy on verifiability and reliability are taken care of by these websites and works:

• http://www.sindonology.org/papers/papers.shtml
• http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm
• http://www.sindonology.org/conferenceReviews/dallasConference.shtml
• http://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers
• http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf
• http://www.factsplusfacts.com/ - gathers facts

All image are disputed. And there is one that mainly purports to be the original. Historyprofrd (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The way an attempt was made simply to dismiss Historyprofrd was, I think, unjustified. I'm quite uncertain about the suitability of having his preferred image as the principal image, but I am convinced that it has at least as much right to be included as any of the artworks at present in the article. Inserting it can certainly be seen as improving the article. Soidi (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with this approach is that it gives credence to the disputed image, as if we are somehow giving it special status. If we use an image that everyone knows is not authentic, and state that, then we are not supporting any particular image. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Each of the images now in the article has formed the mind-picture that some people have of the subject. All but two have an indication of the century in which they were produced. Can we not add to the Shroud image an indication of the century to which it was assigned in the tests to which it was subjected? Soidi (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason this painting is venerated is that it is believed by some to be produced in some divine way. If the person shown in the painting really is meant to be Jesus, then it was a medieval con to bring a dead person's soul into Paradise. If the person depicted on the shroud is for example a crusader, then it should not be indicated that it is Jesus. If it is indicated today that it may be a relic, then that is a con too. The painting should not be referred to as an image, we know how it was produced, it should be referred to as a painting and that it is used today as a fake relic. St.Trond (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and call it a painting (like some of the other images/paintings already in the article), but include it. (It seems, however, that it is not in fact a painting, but a picture, an image, or whatever you wish to call it, produced by a process that did not involve paint.) The models for other images/paintings were not Jesus. Are they presented as if they were? And who is asking that it be presented as a relic? Soidi (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

These websites attest to the fact that there is a recent craze over the shroud, in part because cable and broadband has created too much TV space for broadcasters to know what to do with. I fully acknowledge that there are people who devoutly and piously believe this to be an image of Jesus, not Paul's Jesus of the spirit but Jesus of the flesh. But I know of no credible historians who believe this. I am all for Wikipedia having an article on the shroud, I do not think it belongs in this article. for what it is worth I have qualms about all the images of Jesus, but the thing is, they do not pretend to be what most historians say they are not (portraits of the real Jesus). My problem with the shroud is that it pretends to be what most historians say it is not (an image of the real Jesus). Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, where are you suggesting it be included in the article? What section? As I stated earlier, the only section that makes sense to me is "Legacy", and even given that, with the amount of corresponding text in that section devoted to the Shroud, adding the image may be undo weight. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't at all thought about where would be the best place to insert it. But it seems to me that the obvious place would be in connection with his death.

It does not have to be presented as "an image of the real Jesus". Can it not be presented, like the others, simply as an image/picture/depiction/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of Jesus? A more famous and remarkable one than most, one which, for that reason, would add to the article. A simple link to the article Shroud of Turin should be enough to take care of questions regarding the identity of the image/picture/depiction/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Soidi (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Soidi. You have understood my arguments and did not lose focus. I specially applaud your question: "And who is asking that it be presented as a relic?" because this is all about an image. Yes I concede that it would be too much to ask for it to be made top image. I agree that its place is in the Death section. But please do not add a date to it because that means taking sides in the ongoing debate and Wikipedia is not supposed to do that. Better to replace the El Greco painting with Velasquez and then put the Shroud in place of Velasquez. There are many professional historians, of course mostly historians who are Christians, who deem the shroud authentic based on historical evidence. There are many because there are many universities set up by the Catholic church, which may not be too well known in protestant countries or secularized countries. People should take note that several websites list books and scholarly articles, not gossip trash. Systemic bias and prejudice could be at work in not understanding why the shroud image improves the article. Historyprofrd (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to include the shroud image, provided it is properly captioned and cross-referenced. However I strongly disagree with the suggestion that no date be added because that would be "taking sides in an on-going debate". There is no on-going debate - carbon-dating by a number of recognised scientists has shown the shroud is no older than the Middle Ages, and the debate is over. Suggestions that the portion of fabric tested may not have been original, are pure speculation. This suggests that the entire team of scientists who took the original samples were complete fools, which is baseless and thus fringe. There is no "historical evidence" that supports a 2000-year old shroud - the thing appeared out of nowhere at around the same time that the carbon-dating indicates it was manufactured. If fresh info comes to light then the records will obviously change, but for now, the accepted mainstream scientific consensus has it that the shroud is a medieval forgery, and Wikipedia is supposed to present accepted mainstream consensus. Wdford (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree to include the image with a caption such as: "The Shroud of Turin's image of the dead Christ. Radiocarbon tests in 1988 dated it to the thirteenth century". The proposed statement about the 1988 tests holds, even if the scientific judgement were one day to be altered. The words "relic" and "fake" should both be avoided here. Soidi (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a degree of ambivalence and yet, I also fail to understand the value of this image relative to all other paintings, sculptures, etc. of Jesus. Granted I would probably delete some of the images already in the article because I personally don't care of them. What happens the next time someone wants to add another personal favorite? By choosing the Shroud of Turin what does the article gain? Is it improved or is the Shroud elevated? As far as placing it in the death or legacy section; how does any image compare to the Pietà at death? IMHO, nothing compares to that particular masterpiece.

This entire conversation started out from the premise of "we use an image that is thought of by many people as the real image of the original Jesus". It is obvious that the intent is not simply to add another image, but it is to aggrandize the Shroud. On the other hand, that might be just reason enough to have it in the article. Of course, this is not a Christian article per se, but rather an article about Jesus in all contexts. Surely the article would be better improved by adding a picture from the other religions, which are not well represented in the image department?

Again, some ambivalence, but I still don't think the article is improved by adding it. --^StormRider 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To Soidi: Why don't you want to you use "fake relic"? That is why it is venerated. What about "medieval shroud painting", or "venerated medieval shroud painting"? I am against using "image" as we know it is a painting. St.Trond (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This would need a bit of education and learning from peer reviewed journals and experts:

Editor of Nature, Philip Ball, He holds a degree in chemistry from Oxford and a doctorate in physics from Bristol University. He was an editor for the journal Nature for over 10 years (Wikipedia).: "Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game, but don't imagine that they will convince anyone...And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made." (Nature online, January 2005)

Journal: Thermochimica Acta (Vol 425, Jan 2005) “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin”, Raymond Rogers, "leading expert in thermal analysis" (Wikipedia): The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years...The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud.

Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008): There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.

Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL which examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (Aug 2008): [T]he age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case. Historyprofrd (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should we express any judgement here on whether the Shroud is a relic or a fake? That is for the article(s) on the Shroud. Here we are only interested in the image on it. It is a decidedly notable image of Jesus, even if it is only of the thirteenth century. I repeat my suggestion for an NPOV caption: "The Shroud of Turin's image of the dead Christ. Radiocarbon tests in 1988 dated it to the thirteenth century."

Perhaps Storm Rider is right in attributing to Historyprofrd the aim of "elevating" the Shroud. I prefer to make no judgement on that matter. For my part, I don't think I have any such intention. I just think, as I said, that it is an image of such notability that it deserves to be included somewhere. I don't see any reason for putting it under the heading "Legacy", at least no reason more than there is for the images made for Christian devotion that are at present in the article. Putting this particular image under "Legacy" would draw attention to the claims made about it. As I also said, I think no mention whatever should be made in this article of those claims. Soidi (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are 4 images without dates and 10 images with dates. Why tilt the balance further? Historyprofrd (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi: It is a fake and not a relic: The image is made up of pigment particles of ochre and vermilion, which has only been used since the 14th century. St.Trond (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the amount of talk here is evidence of two things: (1) the article deserves its own article, that can do justice to the range of beliefs and controversies, and (2) this article cannot provide an adequate account of it without going off on an unaffordably lengthy t tangent. The article should at sope point mention Catholicism. The article on Catholicism should mention relics. The article on relics should mention the Shroud of Turin (most relics are what we would call fakes and they were hot commodities in the Middle Ages; there is a scholarly literature on this, start with Geary in the volume The Social Life of Things edited by Appadurai). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

StT and SlR, why do you two think this could be a place to discuss whether the Shroud is a fake or a relic? There are already two (no less) articles in Wikipedia on that matter, one concentrating on the Shroud itself, the other on the 1988 tests. So why again say that the Shroud deserves its own article, as if it didn't already have one? All that is proposed here is inclusion of the image. Anyone interested in the claims made for or against the Shroud can go to those two articles, to which links can be provided. Even if StT is right (and can source his statement) and the 1988 tests wrong, all we need do is change the indication "thirteenth" century to "fourteenth". It would be as out of place to mention relics (false or true) here as to say that a particular image is traditionally seen as wonder-working. I am only suggesting that the image be included, not a discussion of the Shroud. So what is wrong with including the image as an image? Or what is wrong with the caption I proposed? Soidi (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. On the understanding that no actual portraits of Jesus exist, and that the shroud has no more claim to accuracy than any other image, I am happy to include the shroud image as one among many, with the caption "An image of the dead Christ on the Shroud of Turin, which was dated by radiocarbon-dating tests in 1988 to the thirteenth century". If anybody is strongly opposed, please could you give clear reasons and your suggested alternative? Wdford (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi you ignored my basic point which is that I think that the explanation required to explain the Shroud accurately so overwhelms this article ... that it is best left for its own article. The article exists? Great!! no one can complain that Wikipedia is exclusing the Shroud.

Now, if we are to include it, strictly speaking, it is not an image of the dead Jesus in the sense most people I think inend (i.e. the impression made on the fabric by Jesus' actual body), it is an image that people claimed to be of the dead Jesus. The only reason we do not say this with other works of art presented is that I know of no one who ever claimed that an icon or painting was an image of the living Jesus. Or to be clearer, the problem is image has two meanings. A painting is an imagined image. Many have claimed that the shroud is the actual imprint of Jesus, more like a photograph taken at the time. I would agree with "An image, claimed by some to be of the dead Jesus," on the ..." "believed by some" would be fine too, if anyone thinks the word claim has negative connotations. Phrased like that i have no objection although I still think it adds nothing to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I don't see what is overwhelming about "An image of the dead Christ on the Shroud of Turin, which was dated by radiocarbon-dating tests in 1988 to the thirteenth century"? Should we shorten it to "The Dead Christ, Shroud of Turin, radiocarbon-dated to 13th century"? Then it will be uniform with, for instance, "Adoration of the Shepherds, Gerard van Honthorst, 17th century". I feel sure you are convinced that the Adoration of the Shepherds never took place, but I presume too that you do believe that Jesus died. What else do you think the image is of if not of Jesus as dead? Why go into what people believe about the content of the 13th-century(?) image, and not into what people believe about the 17th-century image? Soidi (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead Jesus, not dead christ. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then just cut the radiocarbon dated, just say, 13th century. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorsing the 1988 tests as undoubtedly valid without making mention of the existence of a contrary theory, even if it is only a fringe theory, would not be NPOV. We may not agree with those who dispute the validity of the tests, but the validity is in fact disputed. Why are you insisting on bringing into this article a dispute of which the article has absolutely no need and which is indeed quite out of place in the article? Why do you object to just stating the undoubted fact without taking sides, one way or another? If I remember right, but perhaps my memory is false, you accused another editor of having as his aim to exalt the Shroud, not to improve the article. Is it possible that you have as your perhaps subconscious aim to downplay the Shroud, not to improve the article? Maybe not, and I am making no accusation; but I think I have to ask you the question. Soidi (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin caption and dates

Lots of things are disputed by the enlightened minority, but Wikipedia does not shy away from taking sides, Wikipedia states the mainstream opinion as fact and the fringe opinion as fringe. For example Wikipedia does not take sides in the articles on Christianity or Jesus, but states the facts as per current mainstream opinion. If it subsequently turns out that the earth really is flat, or that Elvis really is still alive, or that the Shroud of Turin really is 2000 years old, then Wikipedia will be updated to reflect that new consensus. Right now, the 1988 radiocarbon results still stand. The quality control at the time did not doubt that the many experienced scientists involved selected a representative sample, or that they decontaminated it properly, or that they did anything wrong at all, and three different labs all reached the same conclusion. Any scientist who claims that the sampled section was non-representative or contaminated will need to prove his/her claims first. Until then, such claims are fringe, and must be reflected as such. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Wdford (talk • contribs)

Of course, Wikipedia does not have to shy away from taking sides on the Shroud's authenticity. The place for doing so is in the two articles concerning its alleged authenticity. But in what way is it useful to this article to raise the question here? Soidi (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC) `

Soidi, you may well be right about my unconscious motives. I will have to think about it. It is fair for you to raise the point. All I can say is: my conscious intent was simply to suggest uniform phrasing for all images. If others think that this is inappropriate (that different images require different amounts and kinds of information) I won't pursue the argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi and Wdford, allow me to tell you that you are both wrong on mainstream opinion and fringe opinion on the 1988 carbon dating. The Wikipedia article on this topic has to be updated. If you check footnote number 2 that says "This dating is now generally accepted by the scientific community", the footnote reads: Piergiorgio Odifreddi. La sindone, un mistero per modo di dire. La Repubblica, November 25, 2000, page 48. It does not even have a link. However, what I painstakingly quoted as the pronouncements of experts (Nature Editor, Philip Ball et al) are dated January 2005, March 2008, August 2008. They are found in the web. If by mainstream opinion you want to believe an Italian writer of la Repubblica (born a radical/socialist newspaper) in the year 2000, then please do so, but please do not take Wikipedia with you. I do not mean to be sarcastic but I want to drive home a very important point. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

History, I still think that this isn't the place to discuss the validity of the tests and that here we should limit ourselves to stating the bald fact of what the tests reported. Whether they were right or wrong is for the article dedicated to that precise question and, in less detailed fashion, for the article on the Shroud itself, and I have proposed to include a link to each of them. Propaganda either in support of or in opposition to the validity of the tests is out of place here. Soidi (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, I feel your passion for 1988 radiocarbon dating and its bald results, how about passion for bald results of the 2005 and 2008 scientific studies? What I mean is that if this isn't the place to discuss validity of tests as you very well say, why include one side of the debate in the image caption, and not the other? Why do propaganda for one side and not for the other? And since no one has shown a more recent scientific study disproving the 2005 and 2008 scientific results, then to push for the ancient 1988 results is more propaganda (misleading info) than to push for the 2008 results. Historyprofrd (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please specify what you mean by the 2005 and 2008 scientific results, by giving a reference to some particular section of one or other of the two articles on the subject? I have failed to identify which ones you mean. You obviously do not mean any of the experiments that produced near-identical replicas of the Shroud. You probably mean claims that the 1988 samples came from a contaminated part of the Shroud or similar claims casting doubt on the validity of the 1988 tests but without positively proving that the Shroud is of some earlier date. If there were scientific tests proving an earlier date, they could be mentioned; but if it is only a matter of disputing the validity of the 1988 scientific tests, the wikilinks to the two articles are enough to indicate the existence of that dispute.

I think my proposal is a fair presentation. If you insist on turning this article into a third article on the disputed age of the Shroud, I regret that I cannot support inclusion here of the image on the Shroud. Soidi (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Soidi. Kindly note that I have never insisted on turning this article into a third article on the disputed age of the Shroud. I wonder where that idea came from. :) I hope people here have seen what I wrote earlier: "There are 4 images without dates and 10 images with dates. Why tilt the balance further?" This clearly shows my position: I do not want any dates accompanying the shroud. And these are the reasons: Because (a) there is a dispute and (b) because there are other images without a date, why tilt the balance further in favor of dates? why pick on the shroud when there is letter (a) and (b). I hope (a) and (b) can be clarifed. Thank you. Historyprofrd (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the correct solution is to date all images (where possible). Without historic context, this is just an image gallery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also state the process by which each image has been produced, for example "painted". St.Trond (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wdford (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, let's date all the images. I support that. Since the date for the shroud is disputed and there are arguments for both 14th century and 1st century dates, then we should put both. Soidi, here are the links you requested: statement of Philip Ball:Editor of Nature (Nature online, January 2005), : "Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game, but don't imagine that they will convince anyone...And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made." He also said: "It is, [Rogers] says, between 1300 and 2000 years old. Let's call it somewhere around the middle of that range, which puts the age at about 2,000 years. Which can mean only one thing . . ." And the other quote from Raymond Rogers: Journal: Thermochimica Acta (Vol 425, Jan 2005) “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin”, Raymond Rogers The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years...The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud. Christopher Ramsey Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, from its own website: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed." For more data, you can check this out: Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating Biggest Radiocarbon Mistake Ever. Historyprofrd (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all you link to are quotes that are completely out-of context, and often second and third hand. Have you read Rogers and Ball first-hand? Ramsey's quote, which, btw is here is from an article that refutes one suggested argument for miss-measurement. Ball's text is here, and he is quite sceptical of Roger's claim, and even more sceptical of the general field. "Believers' ability to construct ingenious arguments is more than a match for the most exhaustive efforts of science. The shroud literature leaves no stone unturned in casting doubt on 'evidence' that the relic was faked, while embracing with blind rapture every argument for its authenticity. " Indeed, even if you accept Roger's paper at face value, it certainly does not provide significant positive evidence for a first-century origin, with an error range of 1700 years. At best, it does not refute it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The purported limitations regarding radiocarbon testing of religiously sensitive materials should be brought to, and discussed on, the page regarding Radiocarbon dating. The Jesus talk page cannot be involved in discussions about physical phenomena. Only the physically logical solution should be presented on the Jesus page. St.Trond (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea that can help quell the controversy: don't include the shroud image in this article. I don't believe it is necessary, and I believe we can easily include works of art that better illustrate the concepts of Jesus' death/resurrection. The shroud is controversial, and thus needs further explanation, and additionally doesn't relate to the article's text in that section. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that is "constructive"! Great Idea - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To those who are again dismissing the image, please return to the main arguments, please focus, and do not use merely personal assertions.

To those who may object to a first century dating appearing with the 14th century dating: Please be reminded of NPOV: Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

To those who may say there is no verifiable source that that there is a significant view that it is from the first century, then this is one: http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf. There are many more. They can be found in the websites I previously gave links to, e.g. textile analysis, pollen analysis, vanillin analysis, language analysis, microparticle analysis, blood analysis, body image analysis, human anatomy analysis, historical analysis, etc. Raymond Rogers before he died also gave a statement that he believed that the shroud is the real burial cloth of Jesus. This 1998 Results of a probabilistic model applied to the research carried out on the Turin Shroud is interesting because it summarizes some of the scientific data on why the shroud is most probably the burial cloth of Jesus.

To St. Trond, on painting, please see this.Historyprofrd (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To Historyprofrd: The "blood stains" of the shroud was found to contain pigments of red ochre and vermilion. These substances were not tested in the article you point at. Why? Because they were used only since the 14th century? According to your article the first bishop to see it confirmed that it was a painting. I still think you should try your points at the page about radiocarbon dating. St.Trond (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

...and the best you can say about the probability model paper is that the authors are upfront: "It was made up a probabilistic model...". Seriously, the "model" is nonsense, and the probabilities used are arbitrary, and obviously wrong. They consider three cases: It's the real thing, it's a medieval forgery, and "everything else". Note that the "everything else category includes the case that it is a first-century shroud, just not Jesus'. All so-called evidence that the Shroud is from the middle east gives nearly equal weight to the Jesus and the "other" category, although the a-priori probability of the "Jesus" hypothesis is only (still unrealistically high) 5%. This is complete mathematical nonsense. And even the C14 dating gives nearly equal weight to all three hypotheses... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both, Stephan and St. Trond. Wikipedia is not interested in truth but in verifiability, notability, use of reliable sources and neutrality: including all significant points of view. I believe all the above arguments have proven that the point of view of the Shroud being either a real image of the original Jesus or a fake, and the shroud being of 14th century provenance or of 1st century provenance is significant, notable, verifiable and has reliable sources, and is neutral. Historyprofrd (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has two articles that deal with the provenance. There is no need to deal with it here also. Soidi (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Historyprofrd forwarded a suggestion some time ago. It has gained little traction. AndrewC made a sensible suggestion, which seems to reflect the majority opinion on this page if not consensus, but every time people are ready to move on to talk about some meaningful way to inprove the article (like, hey I don't know, read another book on the topic? Or is that kind of research not appropriate for an encyclopedia?), Historyprofrd makes the same proposal. Many responses, but Historyprofrd's position has not changed, she just keeps repeating it. wp:DE anyone? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading through all this talk, I can sense a difference between rational thinking (Historyprofd) and disruptive argumentation (St. Trond and others). Is there a mafia here? Historyprofd gave a magisterial defense of his position and I am in favor of all his proposals. His are legitimate propositions backed up by Wikipedia policies. Jesus' shroud image is famous all over the globe as his image. A Wikipedia article on Jesus will be vastly improved by its presence within thhe article. Congratulations Historyprofd! Lafem (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Lafem doesn't include me in the "mafia", since I have argued against omitting the image. If Historyprofd were satisfied with an implicit reference to the dispute about the date (just a wikilink to each of the two existing articles that discuss the question), we might move on to including the image. If Lafem is indeed in favour of including an explicit reference to the dispute, Lafem seems to be the only editor who supports History's wish. Why does Lafem think that an implicit reference is not enough? Soidi (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to read Preserve information. I am against censorship even implicit censorship of a vital piece of information. The date of an exact mirror image (like a photograph) of an individual is vital information that should be contained in his article, isn't it? If it is verifiable and vital, why should it be implicit? And if it not vital, why is it vittal to put the date on the radiocarbon dating and the other pictures? Tell me, Soidi, why?Lafem (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very pleased to state my agreement with the ideas of Soidi, Historyprofrd, and Lafem in not omitting an image of Jesus Christ’s image in his burial cloth of Turin. It is right and proper to include an image of his burial cloth in this excellent article regarding Jesus Christ. It will enhance its excellent quality by providing readers a glimpse of the face of Jesus. Thanks to Historyprofrd for his work. I do not have any opinion regarding the dispute regarding dates but Historyprofrd’s two proposals seem to be correct--remove dates altogether or place the two disputed dates. 4672mtem (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Lafem, 4672mtem, and Soidi, for your comments. Much appreciated indeed! :) I particularly appreciate Lafem's point that "Jesus' shroud image is famous all over the globe as his image. A Wikipedia article on Jesus will be vastly improved by its presence within the article." Yes, sir. To those who continue using ad hominem arguments, please let us focus on discussing this using reasoned argumentation vis-a-vis content policies. I respect your views but there is basis for inclusion of this image and both dates because we bring both "conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. [NPOV] requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly..." This is an image with conflicting perspectives. Either we show the two conflicting perspectives on dates fairly or as I said earlier, I am ok with none at all, but to prefer one date over the other is not NPOV, but imbalance. Historyprofrd (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there are presented two different views. The two views should be named in the caption: It is the Roman Catholicism which finds the shroud venerable, and the rest of us who do not find it exceptional at all among other 14th century religious paintings. St.Trond (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it strange that no archaeological artifact connected with Jesus is shown here. Mohammad and Charlemagne are two cases where you have artifacts/archaeolocal sites found in their Wikipedia article. It's good that this lack is now going to be fixed. I wish more of these artifacts can be added. How about a picture of Jesus's birthplace? Christmas is an international event.

The shroud may be disputed however I don't believe its right to shy away from controversy. Just present the controvery and that's it. How about a caption like "1st century burial cloth or 14th century religious painting?". It is not only Roman Catholics who believe in the shroud, many protestants now believe it too, not to mention the loads of studies done by scientists. Ran9876 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about putting it in the section describing his death, and labeling it: "A 13th century representation of a 1st century burial shroud." I would have no objection at all to that. A link to the article on the Shround of Turin will enable readers to learn more, including all points of view in a controversial debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Slrubenstein, your comments smack of a wily subterfuge to get what you have always wanted while appearing to concede. Your wily suggestion is a breach of NPOV nonetheless. You want to make it an established fact that the Shroud is only a 13th century representation. Your idea takes sides. The fact is both sides have bases, and the consensus of Historyprofrd, Rann9876, 4672mtem, St. Trond and myself is abide by NPOV: to present both. Lafem (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The authenticity of the shroud is still a fringe view. The age was calibrated by multiple teams of serious professionals, and that work has not been officially overturned. All that is available to the believers is that a tiny handful of people have proposed that the original teams all failed to do the job properly, and that the DATE MIGHT PERHAPS be wrong. There is no evidence that the date really is wrong, and if the date does turn out to be wrong there is no evidence that the true date is from the time of Jesus, and if the date actually is from the time of Jesus there is still no evidence that this is indeed an article that came from the tomb of Jesus. This is absolutely NOT a 50:50 argument. It is fascinating that people can argue that the smoke from the various fires may have affected the carbon-dating - even though smoke and skin-oils etc were carefully washed off first - but those same people do not consider that all that heat and smoke and incense and rough handling over the centuries may have affected the linen differently to linens which were safely contained in clay pots out in the desert for centuries. We certainly CANNOT use a caption that claims the shroud is an actual imprint of the face of Jesus. I am happy to say "An image on a 13th century cloth, believed by some to be an actual imprint of the face of Jesus." How about that? Wdford (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Wdford, Your idea continues to be non-NPOV. World Mysteries is totally independent and has this to say before all the recent debunking: the scientific community is divided over the shroud dates because -- with the exception of the carbon dating tests -- medical, artistic, forensic and botanical evidence favors the authenticity of the shroud of Turin as the burial cloth of Jesus. Now that scientists already changed their opinion on those radiocarbon tests, you have this: In 1988, carbon-14 dating was carried out on a fragment of the Shroud. The results date the fabric to between 1260 and 1390 A.D. The scientific community itself now questions these results, and more recent experimental studies have reopened the debate. [4] Historyprofrd is correct: you should not use your personal assertions. It's the sources, Mr. Wdford! Lafem (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone. :) I like Ran9876's point. May I suggest a slight modification to what Ran9876 proposed: "Jesus' burial cloth (1st century) or religious painting (14th century)?"? Historyprofrd (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• "World Mysteries" is not remotely a reliable source - in fact, they specialize in promoting fringe topics - from crop circles to Vedic age flying machines, UFOs and Atlantis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy is going on. There are a number of sleeper accounts that recently chimed in on this (that may be related in other matters as well). To everyone, please observe WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK, and familiarize yourself with what constitutes editing abuse. Thank you. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Alrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an excellent point Slrubenbuber | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree completelyh and object to the obvious code word, "fish."Slrubenjaminstein | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Um WP:AGF he said fishy not fish and it is a perfectly valid expressiomn. And stick the point, he iss right! St. Agnostobiblestein | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for a caption

Would History or Lafem propose a precise caption for the image, to rival the already proposed caption, "Jesus after death, Shroud of Turin, radiocarbon-dated to c. 1300"? As long as they (?) only comment negatively on the latter proposal, we will get nowhere. Soidi (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In view of the lack of response, I am moving this request down, so as to ensure it is not overlooked. Soidi (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, as I have said earlier, this is my preference, tweaking a bit what Ran9876 proposed: "Shroud of Turin: Jesus' burial cloth (1st c.) or religious painting (14th c.)?" Historyprofrd (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a completely wrong dichotomy. There are many other alternatives than those two. If we want this image, it should be something like "The Shroud of Turin, attested since the 14th century, traditionally believed to show the face of Jesus after death" , or, to keep things simple, "The Shroud of Turin". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Shroud of Turin", that was my original proposal. I agree with Schulz, for that is the simplest solution. Historyprofrd (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Either "The Shroud of Turin, a 13th century recreation of a 1st century burial shroud" (which is the mainstream view) or Stephen Schulz's first suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "The Shroud of Turin, a 13th century artefact believed by some to show the face of Jesus after death". Wdford (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogout&returnto=Talk:Jesus&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26section%3D10

A. My first choice for the image

In case we are really talking about different things, we should perhaps first select the image to use. I think we should choose a style of caption similar to the style of the captions on the other images in the article. All the other captions indicate in the first place what is represented in the image. None of them gives first place to the canvas, wood, marble or other material that is the substratum of the image. For that reason I think it is unsuitable to begin with "The Shroud of Turin". For another reason, the caption "Shroud of Turin" would accompany rather an image of the whole of the Shroud, which, if legible, would be too big for placing in this article and which might well seem disproportionate in this article for other reasons too. If someone wants to see the full Shroud image, a wikilink will guide them. Soidi (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We can call it the shroud of turin without showing the whole thing. It is importannt to include the name in order to have a link to the article; this is not done with other images because other images do not carry with them the same controversial claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Slr. Does anyone object to showing just the face? Soidi (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversial claims are regarding its decoration, not the shroud itself. If the shroud is presented as a possible relic, then it will be false. The shroud is considered venerable by the Archbishop of Turin while he accepts its medieval origin. Links may be arranged without using "Shroud of Turin" as shown here: Proposed caption:

Shroud of Turin, painting is a Catholic venerability [5], anonymous, 13th or 14th century. St.Trond (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Image A, with just the face. I don't think we should use a caption with "Catholic venerability" in it - there might well be other Christians outside the Catholic Church who also venerate the shroud. I would still go with "The Shroud of Turin, a 13th century artefact believed by some to show the face of Jesus after death". Wdford (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The shroud has been described in public as a venerability [6] by a Catholic Archbishop. That makes a difference from the majority view. St.Trond (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can take it that Image A is preferred. I have therefore removed Image B. (Anyone who wishes to view it again can do so by looking up the versions of this Talk page between 14:18 on 17 October and now.)

What caption? The following are proposed:

A. Jesus after death, illustration on the Shroud of Turin (radiocarbon-dated to c. 1300)

Soidi's proposal, modified to take account of St Trond's alteration of the captions of the other images

B. Shroud of Turin: Jesus' burial cloth (1st c.) or religious painting (14th c.)

Historyprofrd's proposal

C. The Shroud of Turin, attested since the 14th century, traditionally believed to show the face of Jesus after death

Stephan Schulz's and Historyprofrd

D. The Shroud of Turin, a 13th century recreation of a 1st century burial shroud

Slrubinstein

E. The Shroud of Turin, a 13th century artefact believed by some to show the face of Jesus after death

Wdford

F. The Shroud of Turin

Historyprofrd and Stephan Schulz's

Have I omitted any concrete proposal?

Can we eliminate one or more of these proposals? Perhaps Historyprofrd, having given support to Proposal C, would now withdraw Proposal B. For my part, I think that Proposals D and E unnecessarily take an explicit position on the validity of the 1988 tests. What need do we have in this article to insist on their validity or their invalidity? Why not just state the fact of what the tests rightly or wrongly concluded, and leave judgement to the reader, with the help of wikilinks? Proposals A and C differ on the following points:

Proposal A is modelled on the other captions in the article and begins with a reference to an aspect of Jesus' life and death (or, if you insist, his legend), followed by an indication of the provenance of the image in question. Proposal C may be thought to present the image as an image of the Shroud of Turin, rather than an image of Jesus. (Proposals B, D and E do so more decidedly.)

Proposal A gives links to the two Wikipedia articles on the Shroud and on the 1988 tests. Proposal C, as it now stands, links only to the Shroud article (which may be quite enough). Soidi (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Soidi for taking time to sort these out. Just the face would be alright. I added option F: just plain Shroud of Turin. I agree with Soidi that Proposals D and E unnecessarily take a position on the validity of 1988 tests, and do not conform with Wikipedia policy. I suggest that they be stricken out. Proposal B can stay as I suppose we are not limited to one proposal as long as what we propose are within content policies. Historyprofrd (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Historyprofrd, do you mean you think you can veto choices? Nothing should be strucken out until there has been discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I find A and F better than the rest, since A and F contain only (in my opinion) sourced information. I prefer A as it is more informative than F. St.Trond (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The ball is in your court, slr. It's up to you to discuss that D and E do not "unnecessarily take a position on the validity of 1988 tests" as Soidi very well said, that D and E are balanced and not violations of NPOV. Historyprofrd (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been no movement here, even after I discussed it in the talk page of slrubenstein. We can wait for another week. While waiting may I also request Soidi to explain why he thinks showing only one date (the radiocarbon date) and not another is not an unbalanced way of presenting available data on the Shroud, and therefore also contrary to NPOV. The other date (first century as Jesus' burial cloth) is held by many other scientists and two separate peer reviewed journals (the signals of what the scientific community is thinking) have come up with conclusions that the radiocarbon tests were mistaken. Plus the British leading expert on radiocarbon dating has stated that "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates have called for." Historyprofrd (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my proposal to mention any date explicitly. What's in the article now says only "Shroud of Turin", with a wikilink to that article. Everyone seems to have accepted that that's enough for here. Soidi (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Soidi, thanks. That's good. :) Historyprofrd (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad as Jesus's "title"

I'm not sure why St Trond keeps reinserting this very fringe theory as if it were undisputed fact. Since the name Muhammad derives from the Arabic word for 'praise' (see Muhammad (name)) it's really rather meaningless to say that it's a "title" of Jesus if he happens to associated with praise. The theory that lies behind this is the "Muhammad myth" equivalent of the "Jesus myth" - which is fringe of fringe. The claim is that 'Muhammad' was no more than a title that became reified as an imagined founder-figure and author/receiver of the Koranic writings. No doubt some anti-Muslims like this idea, just as some anti-Christians like the Jesus myth idea, but that does not make it reliable or mainstream. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The theory that lies behind what I find is claimed to be the mainstream Jesus theory, was to a large extent believed or decided by the communion of the Bishop of Rome. That means that it is also fringe of fringe. By the rest of one billion Catholics is it only accepted. St.Trond (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You never actually seem to get what the "mainstream" theory of Jesus is. We deal here with scholarly views, not religious dogma. The mainstream scholarly view of Jesus is that he was an itinerant Jewish preacher/teacher who got crucified for being disruptive. The mainstream view of Muhammad is that he was an Arabic trader who believed that God was speaking to him, and who became a political and military leader on the basis of that. Neither of these mainstream views require that we believe either Jesus or Muhammad were actually spoken to by God, or were incarbations of God, or anything else. It's no different from the mainstream view of Zoroaster, or Mani, or David Koresh. If you want to believe God was speaking through these guys, it's up to you. But their existence is not really disputed. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on the mainstream theory (as you said), does not justify the inclusion of fringe theories. Antipastor (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

St Trond, please address the query that I put in this edit = this version of the article. It may have escaped your notice because quickly reverted by Antique Rose, who failed to see that there was no longer a case of "extreme fringe theory presented as undoubted fact". As well as my query, I added a source that called the theory just nonsense. Soidi (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soidi: It is only a reference in the book I referred to. I am sorry about that. The book it is referred to is this: In this book you will find "Jesus als dem muhammad" several places, but the Dome of the Rock is quoted on pages 62-63. The book will be available also in English approximately at this time. St.Trond (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many fringe theories that we don't include because they are far too minor (see P.N. Oak, for example). Adding more material to refute an utterly marginal view simply inflates it to something of significance - which it is not. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My intention was by no means to favour the insertion. I only wanted to indicate to St Trond that his theory has met with a strongly negative peer judgement and to mention my puzzlement at the first source he gave in support. On the latter question, I now take it that he really meant to refer to Christoph Luxenberg, Neudeutung der arabishen Inschrift im Felsendom zu Jerusalem, not to the book to which he gave (and has now again given) a link, but which is in English, not German. Soidi (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments are based on this book: Die dunklen Anfänge: neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte, by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin. I can only say it is avialiable for reading on books.google.com. See pages 62-63. I will not try to copy the link anymore. St.Trond (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This book represents the the maistream view, see also . You won't find a serious, modern source that says anything else. They may disagree on why it was written, but not on that "Muhammad" was used about Jesus.St.Trond (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this comment was meant for me. As was, I think, the comment of 4 November, which escaped my notice. The book referred to can easily be found on Google Books by putting in the title and the authors. It takes more than a Wikipedia editor's affirmation to have it accepted that Ohrig's theory is "the mainstream view". What does St Trond think of Daniel Birnstien's description of Ohlig's theory as "a far-fetched object of revisionist desire"? Soidi (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

improper synthesis

While imprecise, the tag of improper synthesis as it stands seems absurd. Can anyone honestly claim that original ideas about Jesus are being expressed in an article that is 120Kb long?

It smacks of wikipedian make-work and the article is locked, so I can't easily correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.241.88 (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try again. Improper synthesis implies original research or original thought. The topic of this article, Jesus, has been the central figure in Western civilization for the majority of the common era. The few short sentences of the section in question relate nothing original, and it would be difficult to do so. Further, the section cites its sources for the ideas that are expressed. Finally, "improper synthesis?" appears after the section title, leaving unclear its intended object.

Please remove or justify the inclusion of the text "improper synthesis?" in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.241.88 (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Miracles of Jesus

I just noticed that Template:Miracles of Jesus, and a series of articles have been created (see also list Category:Miracles attributed to Jesus). I am mentioning this here because I figure it would be a good centralized location to discuss them (as I doubt many people are watching those newly created articles, if they are even aware of it).

I am mentioning this here at the parent article to see if there needs to be any centralized discussion (I have a few minor concerns) and more importantly, to see if anyone wants to help out improving these new sub-articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this question to this "forum". I think it would help the articles much if they were based on reliable sources, and not on theological constructs. We should not forget the miracle it is to avoid historically reliable records with his history. St.Trond (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I had to clean up the page Miracles attributed to Jesus was that it was full of errors and very short of references before I got to it. The counts of miracles were clearly wrong, the categorization was inconsistent and the table, which I have partially corrected, had many errors. And there were clear errors throughout in fact as items had been added over time with no references. What MUST be avoided here is to have "armchair commentators" just make suggestions for other people to do the work. As I suggested on the talk page there the ONLY solution to maintain quality in that article is to rename it to the "Miracles listed in the Gospels". The other "non Gospel" issues and historicity debates can get their own quality controlled page whenever those who have the time, effort and expertise to do it decide to roll up their sleeves and write that page. The list of miracles in the template came from the following sources that I added to that article:

• Clowes, John, 1817, The Miracles of Jesus Christ published by J. Gleave, Manchester, UK
• Lockyer, Herbert, 1988 All the Miracles of the Bible ISBN 0310281016
• Maguire, Robert, 1863 The Miracles of Christ published by Weeks and Co. London
• Trench, Richard Chenevix, Notes on the miracles of our Lord, London : John W. Parker, 1846
• Van der Loos, H., 1965 The Miracles of Jesus, E.J. Brill Press, Netherlands
• Warren W. Wiersbe 1995 Classic Sermons on the Miracles of Jesus ISBN 082543999X

I mean, there was this article about "miracles" and not one of these books about miracles was listed in it? It had to get cleaned up.

As to the historicity of the miracles, that can of course have a separate page just as there is a page on the Historical Jesus. The fact is that these article can sit there with rock bottom quality and inconsistencies for a long time, and they do need to get cleaned up. But they can NOT get cleaned up on the talk pages. In any case, for someone who wants to have a list of the miracles as reported in the New Testament, there needs to be a clean list. That means that the article name must change and those who want to write a quality article about the historicity of the miracles are totally welcome to do so. And that article will be fully linked to at the top of this article, which the two comments I received on the talk page has undergone pretty good renovation. I still need to clean up that table, for it needs real help. Now, for all those with free time on their hands to type on this talk page: "any one willing to make the table consistent"? And there is a table in Gospel harmony that also needs help for it is inconsistent. Any takers to clean up that table please so the two tables do not have errors? In fact, I was so fed up with the "errors by the people for the people" approach that I am now in the process of writing a program that will do that, as a next step in User:History2007/Improving_Wikipedia, so at last it will be less of Error-Pedia and more like Correct-pedia. The same principle can then apply to the rivers in Europe. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New Testament titles and Crossan

The paragraph in the section "Names and titles in the New Testament" that quotes Crossan is puzzling. The first sentence is not explicitly sourced. Is Crossan the source? If so, the paragraph should begin: "The titles 'Divine' ... were each applied to the Roman emperors, according to John Dominic Crossan, who considers that ..." But the paragraph is in a section about names and titles in the New Testament. I don't think all those titles are given to Jesus in the New Testament. Is the first one, "Divine", a New Testament name or title for Jesus? Some (Jehovah's Witnesses in particular) may say that θεὀς, applied to Jesus in the New Testament, means "divine"; but the same people will then deny that the New Testament speaks of Jesus as "God". Where does the New Testament use for Jesus the title of Redeemer? It says he redeemed, but does not use "Redeemer" as a title or name, as it uses Christ/Messiah. I am convinced that "God from God", which sounds like a quotation from the Nicene Creed of 325, is not in the New Testament. Nor can I find in the New Testament "Prince of Peace", "Wonder Counsellor". It seems that Crossan was not in fact speaking of the New Testament, and the paragraph about what what he said should be removed. Soidi (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discipleship

Re: this sentence: "Jesus speaks of the demands of discipleship, telling a rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor." This is not correct. Jesus, in Mark 10:21, is not talking about discipleship. He is answering a rich man's question about how the latter can enter the kingdom of heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

"Jesus Christ". This looks like a useful online article for an informed, neutral viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to pay for that... --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't follow the link? EBO gave me the impression that I could post a link and even people without access could follow it. No? Leadwind (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Flower Child

In vivid descriptions, many people claim Jesus (the son of god) had broadly long hair and a beard exceeding 5 inches in length. Today, this would definately resemble what is known as a Flower child. However, I do not feel he would get along very well the hippies and so I must conclude that he is not a Flower Child. South Bay (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Recognized"?!

In the following sentence Jesus is recognized as the Son of God and as God incarnate. Christians also view him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. However, Judaism rejects these claims; Islam considers Jesus a prophet and also the Messiah; the term "recognized" lends editorial legitimacy to the claim he is what the Christians claim he is, something that of course cannot be proven. Instead of "recognized" I suggest we use the same term used just below to refer to the views of the Jews, "consider." Thus the two terms will balance each other and the paragraph will be neutral, rather than pro-Christian. Haiduc (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is the passive voice. If we replace it with the active voice and make it clear whose view is being expressed we would be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. For example, we both meet Einstein in the street, you recognize him, I don't. Thus, this choice of words implies that those who do not recognize him are deficient somehow. Haiduc (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Recognize can be neutral or non-neutral depending on the context. An example "They do not recognize the truth!" is non-neutral, and from what I gather it is the connotation that you are interpreting from the text of the article. It can, however, have different connotations, such as official recognition of something, a.e. "Saudi Arabia does not acknowledge the statehood of Israel" (which for the life of me I couldn't think of a better less-controversial example so do forgive me) the point being, however, that while it can be neutral, devoid of describing a specific point of view, it does not seem to be currently. Peter Deer (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in using a term not prone to misinterpretation. Here "recognize" could be taken either way. Haiduc (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc is stacking the deck: "we both meet Einstein in the street, you recognize him, I don't" - you start off saying he really is Einstein. That is like you have said Jesus really is son of God and Jews just do not recognize that. This may be what you think, but it is not what the article says. The article says Christians recognize him as Son of Gd, Jews do not. That is like saying "we both meet a man in the street, you recognize him as Einstein I do not." Is he Einstein? That is your view. It is not my view. Is Jesus son of God? That is your view, it is not my view. Wikipedia articles provide only views. Please do not start off assuming Jesus is God incarnate. All this article says is that Christians view him as such, non-Christians do not.

You say "recognize" can be taken both ways. Well, I am open to your suggesting less equivocal words, and let's see what others say. But I think no matter what word we use people who already think Jesus is son of God will continue to think that, and those who do not, will continue not to Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While we quibbled, a divine force edited the article and fixed the problem. Haiduc (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: Jesus claims to be God

There are many nt scholars who said that jesus claimed to be God. These should also be added, including the actual quotes

http://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&q=divinity%20of%20jesus%20christ&sa=N&tab=sp

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/DaVinci/HJ-davinci-was-jesus-divinity-invented-in-the-fourth-centuary.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.html

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaimshub.html

You have Rabbi Neusner, Joseph Ratzinger, etc.

• Kleinbell (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then cite them? I don't see the problem. Peter Deer (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Citing Tektonics.org would probably create more NPOV issues than the 7 scholars we are currently citing. Tektonics.org isn't a reliable source because it is self-published, and doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. With that said, if we start off a sentence "Many New Testament scholars argue that", it seems to imply a dichotomy, where in this case we are leaving out the other side. So if we have some WP: RS to add, then all means simply add a balancing sentence. -Andrew  c  ^[talk] 14:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Jesus said he was God is a hot-button issue. Certainly mny theologicans and clerics believe he did. Some scholars do not doubt that he says this in the Gospels but do not consider the Gospels wholely reliable accounts of what Jesus really said. And finally, some scholars - like Geza Vermes - believe he may have said something like this but did not mean what people claim he meant. I have no problem with this article saying there is a controvery and linking to another article, he question is where to do this. I think it comes up under names and titles of God and reliable sources on this view perhaps are best discussed there. I have often said we ought to have much better articles on the Gospels or even specific Gospels, drawing on the Anchor Bible and other works to go into real detail concern debates n datingg and authorship, reliability, and thn interpreting key passages. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The more it is a hot-button issue, the more the article should be neutral. As it is the article is badly one-sided. I will add balancing side. Thanks to Andrew and Peter Deer. In fact there are vastly more scholars who agree that Jesus claimed to be God. Kleinbell (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I intend to put under one footnote the seven footnotes (authentic ref bombing!!) presently shown, and introduce another footnote with another set of refs. Kleinbell (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What is important is not the quantity of sources (scholars) but the quality. I would start with Geza Vermes, whose scholarship is impeccable, and work out from there - Sanders, Meier, Crossan, Frederickson, Ehrmann, and so on. Why pick Neusner, he is a Talmud scholar, not an expert on Jesus or the New Testament ... Michael Cook would be a much better source as he is actually an expert on the NT. I mean, why not ask Oprah Winfrey what she thinks? This is not the place for a general survey, let us start with the best scholars. Neutrality is achieved by finding the best sources, without prejudice, and then reporting whatever they say, whether we agree with them or not. I think anyone who teaches a university course on Jesus will agree that i just named the top scholars in the field. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Vermes is an apostate and is not reliable. Kleinbell (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither Apostasy nor belief automatically imply unreliability. Géza Vermes is a highly regarded scholar. --195.4.169.224 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... that's funny, because we'll surely have people on the other side saying Christian scholars obviously can't be neutral or reliable either. We shouldn't have personal litmus tests on scholars we like and don't like in terms of including in this article. We should scan the literature, find majority views, and the leading scholars. We shouldn't write people off based on their religious beliefs (this goes both ways). This is the heat of WP:NPOV, and I'm shocked that Kleinbell would suggest as much. Please reconsider. -Andrew  c  ^[talk] 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea was to tell slrubenstein that rabbi neusner is better than vermes in terms of objectivity..third party is always better in a controversy...but I agree what's important are leading scholars, whether believer or not..am not expert so will put something and then just add or subtract. Kleinbell (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would you wish to tell me that? Neusner is an expert on the Talmud, Vermes is an expert on Jesus. I have no idea what you mean by "third party is always better than a controversy, " I prefer to stick to Wikipedia policy: we include all significant views from reliable sources. Vermes is not the only expert on Jesus - Sanders, Crossan, Meier, Fredricksen are at least as significant. But he is just as reliable as they are, his scholarship is considered impeccable even by people who do not entirely share his conclusions. I am glad you wish to contribute to this page but if you are not an expert perhaps you would benefit from taking some time to learn, at least, who the real experts are. What matters are not Vermes (or Meier's) personal beliefs. What matters is their qualifications as scholars, and the rigor and honesty of their scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, the best current Jesus scholars (Sanders, Vermes, Crossan) concur that Jesus didn't claim to be God, a conclusion backed up by the fact that the first Christians didn't consider him to be God either. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two problems with Kleinbell's edit. First, if what Leadwind says is true, then we have weight issues. We cannot present two opposing views as equal, if one is clearly the majority view (but again, that hinges ultimately on the sources, which I am taking Leadwind's word on). My other, more significant issue, is that Kleinbell did not cite a single historian, yet this section is clearly part of the historical views section. Furthermore, the sources cited represent an orthodox Catholic theological approach. The first two sources are clearly such. The latter made me think for a second because it contains the word "historical" in the title. It would help if Kleinbell added page numbers to citations (generally speaking), and specifically that would help me figure out whether Gerald O'Collins is making actual historical arguments or not. I can tell that he is "a Jesuit who teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, " and/or "Research Professor of Theology at St Mary's University College, Twickenham, and Honorary Adjunct Professor of Australian Catholic University". It isn't clear he has any specialization or background in history. Judging by these sources, at the very least, I feel that Kleinbell's addition should be prefaced with more descriptive language, something like "Catholic theologians agree that..." But on further thought, I personally would not include the opinion of Catholic theologians in the history section. We don't need the opinion of Mormon scholars, we don't need the opinion of armchair atheists, etc (that is not to say that we not include historians who happen to be Catholic, Mormon, or atheist, etc. that distinction is importnat). We need notable views, from leading scholars (or notable minorities). When I think of Catholic and historical Jesus, I think Ray Brown and John Meier. I'll dig out my Meier and see if he covers this topic.-Andrew  c  ^[talk] 16:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Neusner is a historian of theology. http://www.jacobneusner.com/add/resume.htm, http://www.google.com.ph/search?q=jacob+neusner+historian&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org. mozilla: en-US: official&client=firefox-a&safe=active Kleinbell (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think this is really a doctrinal issue that is often paraded as a historical one. Those who want to support thier doctrine will find scriptural support for it regardless of what it is. Much of what we recognize as mainstream Christianity did not become mainstream until decades, if not hundreds of years, after the death of Jesus.

What is far easier is to approach the topic from a position of different doctrinal beliefs about Jesus and how they evolved. Does that make sense? -^StormRider 01:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added these in the footnotes: Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Wipf & Stock Publishers 2007); Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel 2007). Kleinbell (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neusner is irrelevant. He should not be used as a source in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What about page numbers? -Andrew  c  ^[talk] 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the edit - the section already makes it clear that some believe Jesus was God (which by the way is neither a name or a title, I think) and as Andrew c pointed out, this is in a section on the views of historians; Christian views are already provided in the section on Christian views. I do not see why Christian views have to be in the section on Christian views and in the section on historians' views. No major historian who actively works on the subject thinks Jesus believed himself to be God; it is a fringe view if even that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for saying so, but I find that dubious, considering a great portion of historians who focus on Christ are, uncoincidentally, Christian. Not to be rude, but I'd like to know what your basis for this particular statement is. Peter Deer (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem accepting a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim historian of Jesus as a modern or critical historian as long as I kniow that they are suspending or brackdeting their religious beliefs. A great deal of the historians who focus on Jesus either do just this, or do not call themselves Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, I think my point still stands that the belief that Jesus claimed to be God is actually an extremely popular one, not a fringe theory, and is expounded upon in hundreds if not thousands of theological treatises. Whether the logic behind that is sound is not the concern of this article, what matters is if there is significant verifiable third-party information on the subject. Peter Deer (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying these theological treatises are written by historians and therefore this content should go in the historical views section? Or are you suggesting that we introduced religious POVs into the historical view section? or am I missing your point completely? I agree completely that "the belief that Jesus claimed to be God is actually an extremely popular one". But religious belief shouldn't be presented in a historical view section, nor do we introduce Jewish views in the Christian views section, or historical views in the New Testament plot summary section. The article has sort of compartmentalized POVs, for better or worse. And I just am trying to figure out what you are proposing (if anything). Thanks! -Andrew  c  ^[talk] 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What is in dispute is what Jesus said, and its implication. The rationality was that the claim that Jesus claimed He was God was a fringe theory, denoting that its notability is exaggerated or less significant. I am saying that it is not an insignificant or rare viewpoint, and am not commenting in any sense on its historical basis or correctness, only its notability (that is to say the abundance of the third-party material on the subject). What was exactly said tends to be generally accepted as being sourced to the Gospels, but the third-party sources tend to be in contention as to whether the statements made constitute a claim to being God, and there is a significant number of sources that claim that He did. Thus, it is neither fringe nor undue weight, it's just one popular viewpoint. If it is not currently sourced with suitable citations, then as far as I am concerned it is fine to remove it until it is. Peter Deer (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Peter Deer. The problem is also one of structure: the Christian view is being separated from the historical view, as if any theological idea has no basis in history. That is POV, the POV that Jesus is only a Christ of faith. And Wikipedia should be NPOV. This is the underlying point of this section. And it is also a fact that these books are written by people who are also historians. I have proven that Neusner is also a historian and slrubenstein just stomps his foot down without any opposing proof. He seems to think this is his own article. But remember Martin Hengel is a historian of religion, and an outstanding NT scholar. And he wrote a powerful book on this topic. Slrubenstein has not even given any counter proof. I propose he should stop editing so that he detaches himself from this article first. He evidently has a tremendous bias that is blinding him. I say an Admin should come in. Kleinbell (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Kleinbell that he should stop editing so that he detaches himself from this article first. He evidently has a tremendous bias that is blinding him. I say an Admin should come in. Let us ask an admin if this article excludes the view that Jesus said he was God. If he was God, why would he not have said it? This article MUST include this view. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, an "admin". Irony perhaps. First of all, both Slrubenstein, and myself are admins. Second of all, on Wikipedia, admins have no more additional editorial power than anyone else. You are welcome to seek WP:DR such as WP:3O or WP:RFC. But regular ol' editors, even anonymous IP editors have equal say in content disputes. Admins have no special editorial oversight. Or if that was the case, you'd listen to the two admins already involved in this discussion; P Next, I hate to keep repeating myself, but Kleinbell, can you please cite page numbers, and perhaps write up your proposed text and citations here. Part of WP:BRD is bringing a reverted bold edit to the talk page. We've been discussing it here, but it may help other editors if they can a) see the text and citations and b) know WHAT PAGES the arguments are made in those sources. Thanks! -Andrew  c  ^[talk] 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter, "the belief that Jesus claimed to be God is actually an extremely popular one, not a fringe theory, and is expounded upon in hundreds if not thousands of theological treatises. " Exactly. Keep that material in the theology section and leave historical analysis in the history section. The mainstream historical view is that Jesus didn't claim to be God. Leadwind (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but just how did you determine that one viewpoint was "historical" and another viewpoint was "theological" and thus should not be kept in the historical section? It would seem to me that they are both arguing over the same basis, and simply reached different conclusions. To say that one is "historical" because "historians say" but then discount the historians that say otherwise as their beliefs is nakedly POV. Peter Deer (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From you, Pete, from you: "Regardless, I think my point still stands that the belief that Jesus claimed to be God is actually an extremely popular one, not a fringe theory, and is expounded upon in hundreds if not thousands of theological treatises. " Thanks for clearing that up, Pete. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So therefore because I used the word "theological" that's your reasoning by determining that any viewpoint in that matter is theology, not history, and any treatise on the theological material espousing the opposite opinion on the same subject is historical, not theoligical? That's not really particularly logical, it's really just mincing my words to support your argument. Peter Deer (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Logos. I've been following with considerable interest this chain of comments and have looked up many cited sources. I've come across a Christology source from one of my former professors and am adding it to the stack for consideration. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fourth Gospel may give answer to three groups: Jews, Gnostics, and followers of John the Baptist.

• Jews. To the rabbis who spoke of the Torah (Law) as preexistent, as God's instrument in creation, and is the source of light and life, John replied that these claims apply rather to the Logos.
• Gnostics. To the Gnostics who would deny a real incarnation, John' s answer was most emphatic: "the Word became flesh" (1:14).
• Followers of John the Baptist. To those who stopped with John the Baptist, he made it clear that John was not the Light but only witness to the Light (1:6 ff.).

Although the term Logos is not retained as a title beyond the prologue, the whole book of John presses these basic claims.

As the Logos, Jesus Christ is God in self-revelation (Light) and redemption (Life). He is God to the extent that he can be present to man and knowable to man. The Logos is God (John 1:1), and the risen Christ is worshiped by Thomas, who fell at his feet saying, "My Lord and my God" (20:28).

Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God" (1:1). God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action -- although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action.

The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in settings attributed to Jesus: (I and the Father are one" (10:30) and also, "the Father is greater than I" (14:28). the Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans (17:14); he is the Word (1:14; 14:6). He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person. The Logos is God, distinguishable and thought yet not separable in fact.

— Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology, Broadman, 1962. ISBN: 978-0805416138

Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for what? We all accept that the author of the Gospel of John claims these things. The issue is whether the historical Jesus did. If these words are typical, Stagg never claims that he did. Paul B (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Thanks for what?" "Thanks for" considering Stagg's points objectively and for being appreciative to another editor who took considerable time to type up the above quotes as possibly relevant in some small way to the extensive discussion that has taken place in this section. Hopefully, that's what you meant; it just didn't come across that way. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been objective and have clearly explained that Stagg's points are about the Gospel of John, not assertions about the historical Jesus. Most historians consider John to be an essentially theological text with little reliable historical evidence about Jesus himself. Notice Stagg's use of phrases like "settings [should that be 'sayings'] attributed to Jesus". Paul B (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Afaprof01, given how sensible and clear Paul B's comments are, I'd suggest you share this at the Christology article, or the article on the Gospel according to John - this material is interesting, but it is about Christians more than it is about Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul, "We all accept that the author of the Gospel of John claims these things." Actually, this quote is from 1962. There's been a lot of work done since then. Not only does the gospel of John misrepresent Jesus, but this quote misrepresents the gospel of John. These days, a university textbook is more likely to say that the beloved disciple believed Jesus to be Philo's Logos, but not God. Leadwind (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that you are entirely right, but that's a matter of detail. You are of course correct that Stagg is not as up to date a source as we would wish, but even he is clear that 'logos' and 'God' are not simply synonyms. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)