Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Untitled
Archives:''' 1, 2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /Key

Two changes - April 24
I just made two minor changes to paragraph 2. First, I added that most scholars believe Jesus was baptized by John. I added this because it is true (that most historians believe this). Also, I have raised this point several times over the past couple of months - no one has objected to it, and some people agreed it should be put in. No one ever put it in, but given the lack of objection, I thyink it is time. Second, I deleted the claim that most historians believe Jesus was accused of blasphemy. As a number of people on this talk page have pointed out, he was not accused of blaspehmy against Rome. Moreover, all of the historians I have read doubt that Jesus was charged with blasphemy. This word was added recently by an anonymous user, 64.12.117.6, and as far as I can tell it was not added based on any discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We have been having trouble with anon IPs making changes and not discussing them on the talk page. Oh, if only they would come and discuss things on the talk page! Your edits make sense to me. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk  TCF  11:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The edits make sense. I think, given the volatility of these pages, we can all donate two reverts a day to keep it stable. Let's politely ask them to join our happy throng! --CTSWyneken 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, a logical editor! Very good. :)
 * On point, Jesus was charged with blasphemy, but not by the Romans.
 * Matthew 26
 * [63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
 * [64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
 * [65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
 * [66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
 * [67] Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,...

&#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  You miss the point, I am sorry. There was only one blasphemy which would have lead to the death penalty namely the misuse  of the name the god. And that is definitely not the case here. It remains unclear to what the high priest refers exactly here, when using the phrase blasphemy. That is why scholars tend to believe that the real charge was false prophecy, which has other difficulties Oub 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC):


 * What scholars? I ask that seriously, because the requirements for someone to be a true biblical scholar are rather stringent, and most who claim to be biblical scholars are anything but.
 * Note, I'm not saying you're wrong, but this, "That is why scholars tend to believe" is too weasely to serve as any kind of evidence. Also, it would be a good idea to explain what misuse means -- from a scholarly (i.e., first century CE) standpoint. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  Let me first make the statement more precise: there are two possibilities:
 * Jesus was charged with blasphemy and condemned to death.
 * Jesus was condemned to death, because of blasphemy.
 * It is the second statement that scholars object to, while they don't agree on the first: either they don't agree what was the reason (the most popular theory is false prophecy) or state, that there was no formal trial, because of the countless violation against the rules of how a trial should be held before the Sanhedrin (this is now a real complex matter). As for the scholars: if I am not mistaken you are the person who is right now translating the German article, so your level of German is advanced and you don't mind some German authors, I hope:
 * Jeremias, Hahn, Goppelt, Betz, Klappert, Strobel and Sanders. From the Jewish side: Winters, Flusser and well Cohn although he is a lawyer (former president of the Israelian supreme court, but since the trial of Jesus is about law and court and the like his opinion should not be dismissed). Misuse: do you suggest that any of the dialogs in Matthew and Mark would fit a definition of misuse (Lev 24,16), of the-one-who-must-not-be named? Oub 11:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC):

OK, good. That is the type of stuff the article needs. Not generalities, argued points that have citations. Obviouslly, someone would need the cv on the "scholars" because, as I said, the requirements are pretty stringent, but it's off to a good start. (You were right about the German). As for misuse, would I think they qualified as misuse? No, but then I'm not the crazed priest who is rending his clothes. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One other point, while I used the KJV out of convenience, and while many people dislike the KJV because of its numerous mistranslations, I note that this is one case where the translation cannot be disputed. In Greek: την βλαςφημιαν (the blasphemy), and ενοχος θανατου εςτιν (from death to be/is). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that people keep picking up stones in John's Gospel. "Before Abraham was, I AM!" (John 8:58). Did Jesus use the sacred name? Note that this is not the high priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk  TCF  12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring sorry but this is also not relevant, for it was not mentioned in the reports on the trial. Oub 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

And thus one of the reasons the page was protected. Excuse me for my seeming incivility, but who the hell are you to determine what is and is not relevant? Have you any greater credentials than any other editor on this page? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  I accept your apologies, don't worry. As for your arguments: surely you are joking, you can't be serious! So shall I send you my CV? But wait, who are you? So you should send me your CV. Instead of continuing with this sort of bizarre reasoning let's go back to arguments. Here is mine. It is very simple: John 8:58 is not relevant, because it is not mentioned in the reports. (Since I already said this, and you replied who are you: it is not irrelevant because I say it, but because it does not appear in the trial.) That was my argument, where is yours? Why should J 8:58 be relevant, although it does not appear in the reports? I am keen to know. And I forgot to add, since you mentioned the protection of the page: I never changed text in the article, before trying to discuss it. It seems that you suggest I might have done otherwise, if the page were not protected, I find that insulting! Oub 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC):


 * You missed the point: to the best of my knowledge there are no bible scholars on this page, thus all opinions are more or less equal. You dismissed Archola's comment in a manner that appears to be out of hand. However, while you say the events of John 8:58 are "not mentioned in the reports," to me this would only be a valid argument were there any indication that the reports of the "trial" were accurate. Also, Archola has a valid point -- did Jesus use the "sacred" name?
 * The reason I mentioned the protection was not your edits specifically (so cool your jets) but the dismissive nature of your comment. Period. You thought little of how Archola or others might perceive your comment, whether or not they would take offense, etc. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 
 * About style: I didn't mean to offend anyone. If Archola does feel offended I apologise. Now it is sort of strange (to put it mildly) that you  react that way and not  the person who might have felt offended. And besides it was you, who started to use offending language: who the hell are you...  I frankly find this insulting! I recommend you to rethink your acting.
 * About content: there are 2 possibilities and I have not figured out which is the working hypothesis of this article:
 * We take the NT as it is and argue on that base. I had the feeling this was the working base here.
 * We consider the NT as a text, whose creditability is not guaranteed and hence we should consider all sort of historical context, Jewish law, etc etc. That point of view, in my opinion, is more interesting, but then things will be really complicated. In fact there are a lot of reasons to believe that the trial violated a list of rules under which such a trial should taken place. The dialogs between the high priest and Jesus looks (partially) as if 2 christians were talking and not 2 Jews). Etc etc.
 * My comments above assumed that the first possibility holds (we take the NT as it is). If we take possibility 2, then still it needs to be shown, why 8:58 is relevant, and what reason we have to believe that indeed it was part of the trial. (All I have seen so far looks like, well why not). What are the reasons to believe that he did in fact use the holy name in that trial???

Oub 10:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC):


 * CTS: I'm going to request that the page be locked. Two reverts per day, by a number of editors is an edit war. Everyone, especially the Drogo's, anons, and other malefactors, needs to cool off and calm down. I've already discussed this with Archola (aka Grigory of wherever ;) and he agrees. It really is for the best. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it, if you'd like. Be prepared, though, for the admin to freeze it wherever it lands when they get there. This techique sometimes ends in edit wars, but typically, it hasn't happened that way with unregistered users. Sometimes they give up even after my second revert. The point here is not to get at registered users who feel strongly. They're welcome to come here and talk. I'd only use this technique with them to get them to come here.


 * We also should do more pointing to archives, and politely not reengaging old arguments. If something is new, of course, let's talk. Otherwise... politely point out the arugment is old and not engage it. --CTSWyneken 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim62sch writes, "On point, Jesus was charged with blasphemy, but not by the Romans." This sentence reveals a misunderstanding of both what I wrote, and of Wikipedia policy. I wrote only that most historians do not believe Jesus was tried or executed because of blasphemy. I did not write that this is the view of the author of Matthew, I wrote that it is the view of contemporary historians. On this point, Jim62sch's point about Matthew is simply a non-sequitor. Also, Jim62sch use of italics implies that this is what really happened. Please read our NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not about "the truth" and this article cannot make any claims as to what really happened. We do not know what really happened. We only know what different people believe happened. When different people have different views as to what happened, we are obliged to represent those different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is not specifically charged with blasphemy in either Luke or John. john k 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy against Roman Empire
Do most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that "Jesus was ... accused of blasphemy ... against the Roman Empire"? --JimWae 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who added the blasphemy phrase, but it's misleading. If anything, Jesus was accused of blasphemy against God. "Before Abraham was, I AM" and all that. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk  TCF  02:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe he was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire. Blasphemy would have been against God, and the Romans wouldn't have cared - that would have been left to the local authorities. I've never clearly understood why, if, as the Gospels say, the Jewish authorities were the ones who wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't just have him stoned to death for blasphemy. john k 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The conservative Christian answer is that the Sanhedrin didn't have the authority to execute (Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, p. 530, n. 54; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, pp. 695-697; &c). » MonkeeSage « 05:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: MonkeeSage This is highly controversial among most scholars. (I find it surprising that this statement is found in a book about the Gospel according to John, since in this gospel there is no formal trial ). Another point is: if the Sanhedrin didn't have the authority, why did the Sanhedrin made a trial, whose outcome would not have any consequences and the whole case should be tried again before a Roman court under very different rules and laws. Oub 15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC):


 * How is that even vaguely plausible, when in Acts 6-7, Stephen is brought before the Sanhedrin and sentenced to be stoned to death? john k 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: john k I presume that you reply MonkeeSage not to me? Oub 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC):


 * I realize that it is controversial (which is why I qualified the answer as that given by "conservative Christian" scholars). The idea is based on John 18:31 ("Pilate said to them, 'Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.' The Jews said to him, 'It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.'"). Morris comments about Stephen that it is "possible to regard this death as a[n] [illegal] lynching rather than official legal execution" (695). I don't recall where offhand, but I seem to remember other conservative writers making mention of Matthew 14:5 ("And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet"), explaining that the religious authorities were not overly concerned with Roman injunctions against their applying the death penalty, but were mainly concerned about public outrage (which, with Stephen, there would have been little). I'm going to be gone for a couple days, so I don't have time to dig up the sources right now. » MonkeeSage « 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re:» MonkeeSage «
 * There are a lot of examples in favour and against regarding the question of the authority of the Sanhedrin: James the brother of Jesus, Stephen, narrations by Josephus Flavius, parts of the Talmud etc. It might be worth to discuss that subject and maybe add it to an appropriate section, however since this is a complex subject, I presume it would not be included here anyhow.
 * Even if that controversy could be settled, I have not seen any convincing explanation, why the Sanhedrin would have performed a trial, in the case it did not had the authority for an execution anyhow. (Mind you that is also not what the Gospels tell us. In now moment they tell Pilate that they have tried Jesus).
 * The charge of blasphemy is even much more controversial: since the only blasphemy according to Jewish law, which would have ended in a death penalty, were the misuse of the name of God, hence Mark 14,62 etc make little sense. That is why most modern scholars, if they want to stick to the fact that there was a real trial and not a mere interrogation, now think that the reason of the condemnation was false prophecy. However that idea has problems in its own.

Oub 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

Re:Oub: Jesus may have used the sacred name in : "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk  TCF  12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring. As I said below, this does not appear in the reports on the trial so it is not relevant here. Oub 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC):


 * Yes, I understand that conservative writers would make arguments like this. I'm more interested in what actual scholars who know something about Roman and Jewish legal systems in the first century say on the subject. Do any of them believe that the Jewish authorities did not have the authority to put anyone to death? john k 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a useful discussion of this in Raymond E. Brown's The Death of the Messiah - basically, Brown exhaustively reviews the evidence, and decides that the statement in John 18:31 that the Jews are not permitted to put anyone to death is plausible, in a limited sense - the Romans had given permission for the Jews to execute people themselves for certain specific religious crimes, but that in general death penalties had to be approved by the prefect. He suggests that the Sanhedrin was not willing to take a chance and execute Jesus on its own authority, anyway, for a variety of reasons - Pilate and Caiaphas may have had some kind of arrangement; the authorities are afraid of public anger and want to pass the buck to Pilate; crucifixion puts Jesus under a curse due to Deuteronomic law, and would thus discredit him, and so forth. Brown's ultimate conclusion is that the gospel description is historically plausible. john k 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Crossan's Who Killed Jesus? finds the notion that the Sanhedrin did not have authority to execute, implausible. The Romans executed Jesus for sedition, his overturning the tables at the Temple during Passover (a notoriously rebellious time) was sufficient cause, the so-called "crowd of Jews" were scapegoated. From Publishers Weekly: "In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.171 (talk • contribs)

Here is some more Literatur:


 * Flusser, David Jesus last days in Jerusalem seems to be out of print
 * Cohn, Haim. The Trial and Death of Jesus New York: KTAV, 1977.
 * Winter, Paul/On the Trial of Jesus. Berlin: Walter
 * Strobel, August Die Stunde der Wahrheit: (only in German)

Oub 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

John K: I don't know how you meant the distinction between "conservative writers" and "actual scholars", but on the face of it, it sounds like you don't consider the authors I mentioned (Leon Morris and Darrell Bock) to be "actual scholars" — which is odd if you accept R. E. Brown, since Chilton said that in the book I cited "Bock has accomplished for Evangelical theology what the late Raymond Brown achieved for its Catholic counterpart". But if you want "actual scholars", perhaps A. N. Sherwin-White will do — "[T]he capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the attributes of government, not even entrusted to the principal assistants of the governors." (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, [Oxford, 1963], p. 36). We also have primary source material from the period with Josephus (Antiquities, 20.9.1 [§197-203]), which goes toward confirming John 18:31. » MonkeeSage « 19:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sedition charge citation challenged.
User:Codex Sinaiticus has added a "citation needed" tag to the charge of sedition in the second paragraph. This is in spite of the citations provided in footnote 2.

Is there yet another Paragraph 2 war brewing?

Oh, and why are we not semi-protected? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not contract the sentence:

and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.17.176 (talk • contribs).


 * I removed the "citation needed" tag because the sedition charge is already verified by the given sources; it's also consistent with the Gospel accounts. I think it's better as is, without contracting the sentence. Wesley 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, we had a long discussion over the crime of sedition. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  20:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you should be able to tell me where this teaching comes from. All I read in all 4 Gospels is that he was charged with blasphemy, and the Roman official found him innocent and had him executed only at the repeated insistence of those who were accusing him of blasphemy. Why are you presenting a teaching that is at variance with all four Gospels? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is about the views of critical scholars. As for sources, try: Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  20:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then it needs to be made clearer that these are the views of modern day sources who contradict the Gospels, because I for one found it confusing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Codex: The gospels read both charges; the Sandhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy and then charged him with sedition before Pilate (remember the "we have no king but Caesar" line?) Pilate found no basis for the charge, but executed him as if he were guilty of it. That's the meaning of the Titilus. All the scholars listed in the paragraph say this in some way or another. You'll notice that the sentence says "...scholars agree..." I'm not sure how the latter can be clearer. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind giving me the chapter and verse number you are referring to, so I can look it up and follow along? Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Sanhedrin: Matt. 26:62-66; Mark 14:60-64; Luke 22:66-71; Charged with being the King of the Jews, executed as King of the Jews: Matt. 27:11-26, 37, Mark 15:1-4, 26, Luke 23:1-25, esp. v.2, John 18:33-19:16, esp. v. 12. --CTSWyneken 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Claiming to be the Judean King, or not denying the charge, was an act of sedition in Roman Iudaea Province. The action against Herod's Temple, see Jesus and the Money Changers, probably began Roman action against Jesus. The Roman Senate appointed the Idumean Herod the Great Judean King, approved his son Herod Archelaus till 6 as ethnarch, then deposed him for being unusually cruel to Judeans (he killed over 3 thousand Pharisees), then they put Iudaea (Idumea, Judea, Samaria) under direct Roman administration, appointing a Prefect and Jerusalem High Priest, occupying Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem and their capital Caesarea Palaestina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 (talk • contribs)


 * All good points. Please remember to sign using ~ . It also helps to register an account. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this should be quoted if people are gonna refuse to read their own bibles:

The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!" Mark 15:26-30 NIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162  (talk • contribs)

Just for the heck of it, here are the Scholar's Version translations:

And the inscription, which identified his crime, read, "The King of the Judeans." Mark15:26

And over his head they put an inscription which indentifed his crime: "This is Jesus the King of the Judeans." Matt27:37

There was also this sign over him: "This is the King of the Judeans." Luke23:38

Pilate also had a notice written and posted it on the cross; it read: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Judeans." John19:19

translation note for John 19:19: At a crucifixion this sign (titulus in Latin) was customarily posted on the cross and indicated the crime deserving execution.


 * Thank you for quoting that, I was well aware of what it said but had not made the exact connection with "charged with sedition against Rome" since that language does not appear in the text, it seems more like an inference. But it is in keeping with what he said about the ethnarchs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Claiming to be King was an act of sedition against Rome, as was claiming to tear down the temple and "cleansing" the temple, particularly during Passover in Jerusalem. If you need a reference for that, many have been cited above. I would recommend Crossan's Who Killed Jesus?. If you just want to cite the Bible only, that would be New Testament view on Jesus' life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.162 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 April 2006


 * Codex Sinaiticus is raising a red herring and should be ignored. This issue was discussed at length before and he should review the archived material rather than raise inappropriate and irrelevant and groundless objections that we have already discussed at length. The paragraph in question does not state that Jesus was charged with sedition - NO Wikipedia article will police the truth of what did or did not happen. The paragraph says that this is what scholars believe, and it provides a note listing the sources. This paragraph is accurate, complies with NPOV, and follows our cite sources guideline. Codex Sinaiticus has absolutely no grounds for saying that scholars do not believe this. Whether CS thinks it happened or not, and whether the authors of the gospels think it happened or not, is utterly irrelevant. Let's move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not raising any objection, you've proved your point; I just said that this is perfectly in keeping with what he said about the "ethnarchs"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am sorry I misunderstood you. I Do think it is importasnt to keep different points of view separate. Those scholars sho believe he was charged with sedition have evidence, some of which comes from the Gospels, and that evidence should be described in a linked article (on the historical Jesus or Jesus in context). In this article, I just think it is important to disctinguish between the views of (1) the gospels (2) Christians (3) historians, even if there is some overlap or if they draw on some of the same sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Christians have views, as they are people. Historians have views as they are sort of like people. The gospels have no views, as they are not people. Drogo Underburrow 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Slr meant the views of the Gospel writers (who were obviously early Christians). Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection
I am brand new to editing. Why does the 2nd paragraph state the resurrection followed the crucifixion when John 11:25 quotes Jesus: "I AM the resurrection..." (present tense)? Sahansdal 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)