Talk:Jesus/Archive 2

genealogy cont
summarizing genealogy: I removed links purporting to give the "ancestry of Jesus according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke" as the two gospels give different genealogies. I called them "incompatible": Wesley prefers "not identical". I think it clear that if you hired two genealogists, and they gave your paternal grandfather two different names, the genealogies are incompatible.

The approach of most who claim that the Bible contains no errors is to say what neither Matthew nor Luke say: that one is Christ's genealogy through Joseph and the other his genealogy through Mary. They are that different. --Someone else 18:09 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

They are incompatible if you assume he had the usual human sort of parentage of one human father and one human mother; given the premise of both Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born of a Virgin, and Matthew's explicit declaration that he was giving Joseph's genealogy, one is only left to wonder why Joseph's is given at all. John Chrysostom discusses this at length in his first four homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, as well as many other writers. See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-07.htm#TopOfPage. I think it's at least fair to acknowledge that the explanation is internally consistent, though you're welcome to question the premise of the Virgin birth. Wesley 22:39 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, it has nothing to do with the circumstances of Jesus's birth: Matthew says Joseph's father was "Jacob"; Luke says Joseph's father was "Heli". The two are incompatible, which is why those to whom inerrancy is important assert that one of them is Mary's genealogy, though neither Luke nor Matthew say such a thing. If they weren't incompatible, no such argument would have to be made. -- Someone else 23:04 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah. This was addressed in Eusebius's Church History, Book I, chapter 7. He quotes an epistle from Africanus to Aristides, in which Africanus explains that Israel reckoned genealogies both according to law, and according to nature, and goes into some detail about Joseph's immediate lineage. You can find it online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2. It amazes me that basic arguments like this continue to crop up, even though they were refuted over 1,500 years ago. Wesley 13:58 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * They crop up because people can read. Eusebius's ad hoc assertion about how "Israel reckoned genealogies" is unconvincing except to those who are already convinced.  He himself notes that believers have come up with many unsatisfactory solutions in trying to reconcile the two incompatible genealogies.   It's hardly a matter that was closed 1500 years ago, as different believers reconcile the differing genealogies differently. The issue as far as the article, though, I think is resolved, as no one seems to be insisting on linking to bad genealogy. -- Someone else 18:04 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Neutrality of images of Jesus cont
Overly romantic images removed until less emotional-evoking images can replace them. See previous discussion in archive. Image:Sorrow5.jpg Image:Glory1.jpg --mav

I still do not understand how standard images, used by many denominations the world over in and hung in churches on every continent, are 'overly romantic'. And given the nature of crucifixion, how exactly do you propose to find "less emotional-evoking images" of the event? I find this decision perverse, illogical and absurd. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:27 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * Read Sl's comments at Talk:Jesus Christ archive 1 why we shouldn't have the images at all. Having less romantic ones is a compromise between not having the religious images at all. --mav

The debate moved beyond that issue, because there was general agreement that pictures should be in this article. The issue was which pictures. The 'controversial' Orthodox and RC images now have no opposition, apart from SI. The 'controversial' birth of Christ image again has moved from being a source of disagreement to one of acceptance. Other people have been examining other potential images, specifically ones which would represent other denominational impressions of Christ. I still find it perverse and puzzling that an image of Christ crucified, a central fact in his life treated as central to christianity in all its branches, is deemed 'overly romantic' and emotional. I have not heard one logical argument to justify the claim that Christ's execution is too POV to be represented in image form. Wiki has far more controversial POV images elsewhere. I cannot understand how an image of something believed in by billions in POV, overly romantic or emotional. It is simply the standard image. It has no decorative features, no wailing women, no circling angels, no John Wayne at the foot of the Cross muttered 'Aw! Truly he was the son of God!' It was chosen deliberately because it has no extras, just a cross with a guy on it, the stand iconographic image used for two millenia. And if the death of Christ is too controversial to be shown, why do we have piles of pictures of an American who got run over by a bulldozer, images of people who were killed, etc. Would we ban all images of the current war if we had access to them because they were 'overly emotional'. Rachel Corrie's death certainly is highly emotional controversial. Why are images of that judged NPOV and one traditional image the death of Jesus Christ, used by billions, POV? Please explain, because for all the talk here I have heard no convincing argument. (The only near convincing argument was that it could cause problems with browsers. I'm on a monstrously slow one and I've had no problem with image intense pages whatsoever.

BTW, SI I am not trying to make the page 'pretty'. I am trying to make it look professional, the sort of page in terms of its layout, readability and appeal that wikipedia should be aiming for. Pages of text, text and more text may be of interest to people who write them, but they are an instant turnoff to most people, who are intimidated by detail, unless it is laid out and designed in such a way as to make it visually attractive. And professionals who work in the field do that by embedding pictures in the text, their existence neutralising the otherwise overly intense look of a page that simply consists of text. If wiki wants to be accepted longterm as a serious and credible publication, it is going to have to make strong use of images on pages. Otherwise it is going to end up looking like a nineteenth century New York Times, with acres of text that because of its intensity may prove excessively daunting to readers who don't know about a topic and would like to find out more. It has nothing to do with making a page pretty and everything to do with making it look professional. Laying out text and 'photostyling' it is one of the things I have done professionally as a career. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:05 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * The reduced borders and the smaller number of pictures are improvements. Mkmcconn


 * I like the smaller borders too. If you actually did a survey of the history of iconography, I doubt very much that 'just a cross with a guy on it' would turn out to be "the standard iconographic image used for two millenia". Historically, icons have included those other elements you mentioned, and sometimes even more details like the thieves on either side, jeering members of the crowd, the sun, moon and angels all hiding their faces in horror, etc. Is it so hard to understand that different pictures of the crucifixion suggest different ideas about it? Wesley 14:21 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * STÓD/ÉÍRE, I guess I don't see much of a distinction between making the page look "pretty" versus making it look "visually attractive" -- maybe this is a difference in the way people speak English in two different countries. In any event, I still object: on purely technical grounds I think you are wrong that pages of text are a turnoff to most readers.  To be frank, the use of pictures on this page turns me off, aesthetically.  It realy turns me off.  I do not think your aesthetic priorities should trump everyone elses -- and if you are in the minority here, you should learn to live with that.  Of course, if everyone else is fine with pictures, I am not going to put up a fight -- but I want to make this clear that not everyone finds pictures an improvement.  I honestly think the pictured detract visually from the article and I believe many others will be put off too.


 * But while I do admit to having a strong negative visceral reaction to the pictures (and believe others do to), my main objection is still that it is poor scholarship and undermines the credibility of the article. When I look at the page now I see images which I am virtually certain do not reflect what Jesus really looked like, or even what the first generation of Christians thought he looked like.  What I see are images of people who lived in other times and places, imagined by artists living at other times and places.  These images more than anything else illustrate the culture of people of other times and places, and this distort and distract from the content of this page.  As I said, I would wlecome a separate linked page to an article on changing images of Jesus, in which the article actually tries to educate people about these images -- who made them, in what context, how they were received, and so on.  That would be a good article.


 * I can't imagine explaining myself any more clearly than this. I find the inclusiuon of an image that is common on Christmas cards offensive, not only personally but to the project of wikipedia.  This is not an on-line Hallmark catalogue, it is an encyclopedia.  Unlike other web-pages, we are not competing with anyone for attention -- people will come to this encyclopedia for information, and will come if they know they will get good information.  I really did not think I was the only one who thinks this way -- I though Mav and Wesley did too ...  Anyway, now I will shut up. Slrubenstein


 * I think I have to agree that these pictures are more about what people thought of Jesus in later centuries than they are about Jesus himself. Probably the only images that anyone claims bear his actual likeness would be the Shroud of Turin and the "Holy Napkin" or whatever it's called, that Jesus is said to have sent to the King of Edessa. And the versions of these that we have now are of debated authenticity. Back to the subject at hand. In general, when an encyclopedia uses illustrations, the illustrations should give more information about the subject at hand. No matter how "neutral" you think these pictures are, they really don't inform the reader about Jesus himself. And if a particular reader is disinclined to read large amounts of text, I don't see how having pictures next to the text makes it any easier, unless just having the next in narrower columns helps. Readers can adjust the size of their browsers easily enough. So far you have displayed no grasp of the fact that pictures convey ideas and opinions as well as information, especially artisitic representations although photographs do as well. Pictures tell stories. When you don't acknowledge this simple thing, it's difficult to take your insistence seriously. Wesley


 * Well, if either Mav or Mkmcconn agree, then I believe we should delete the photos, put them in a separate article entitled "Images of Jesus" or something like that, and invite contributors to work on that article. Slrubenstein

STÓD/ÉÍRE, I don't think it is fair to say that there was general agreement that there should be images in this article. Some people may have been willing to compromise, but that doesn't indicate a liking of the use of images, just a desire for harmony. I read the general consensus at this stage to be against the use of images of Jesus, and very against the use of the images mav removed.

Having read the comments here, my view is changing towards no images being the better option. The impression the images give is just too subjective. The first two may seem OK to me, but it's clear they don't to others. I can understand that the first two images give the same impression to some as the later three do to me. So with that in mind I would prefer to see this article without images. -- sannse 17:54 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Actually my view all along has been that the only image of JC we should have here is what modern scholars think JC looked like. I've seen a representation of this on television but I'm not sure how widely-accepted that image is. But the above arguments are convincing me that the best solution with the images we already have is to move them to a separate article about artistic representations of JC. The only reason I proposed a compromise was just to restore some WikiLove around here. But since the compromise isn't at all acceptable to the main person we have been arguing with here we might as well forget the compromise and do what we think is best for the article by moving all the images. I dare say there is a consensus on this point so some brave soul should finish what I started. --mav


 * FWIW, most of these images have been added to the Rosary article. IMHO, the only image that really adds to that article is the one of the Lady of Lourdes at the bottom, since it's of Mary holding a (shock!) rosary. Consensus? Wesley

Absolutely NOT. They are images specificially designed for rosary pages websites and rosary publications. In fact they have been there long before they were put here. What is your problem? Sounds like an unambiguous case of POV which you have somehow managed to convince yourself is NPOV. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:00 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)


 * Are these the same images that you earlier in this page's discussion described as non-denominational? Specifically, the ones of the Nativity, Crucifixion and Resurrection? You can't have them be non-denominational on this page, but specifically designed for rosary publications in the rosary article. I'll check the dates. What's my un-neutral Point of View again? I specifically stated above that it's "IMHO" that most of the images don't add to that article; hardly a pretense of neutrality. Wesley 05:17 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

It depends on the context, Wesley. They are neutral images, in the sense that they cover specific non-denominational or rather multi-denominational beliefs - in Christ's birth, death and resurrection. Nothing in them is specific to Roman Catholicism; there are no popes popping up, no celebration of a Mass, they are simply images of aspects of christ's life. They come from a series of images that was designed with regard to the decades of the rosary in mind, which include many universal christian themes as well as some uniquely catholic ones. I deliberately chose to use only those that dealt with universally agreed christ stories on this page. On the rosary page, along with some from here I used ones that are specific to Roman catholicism in general and the rosary in particular, eg the coronation of the BVM. It is patently simple. Images can be NPOV in one context and POV in another, depending on the usage. If I had used a specific image exclusively associated with catholicism and dressed it up as a universal christian belief then that would be pov. I didn't. I used images accepted across the churches on a non-denominational page on Christ. On a page specific to Roman Catholicism I used some images specific to Roman Catholicism. Is the problem that you have a problem with Roman Catholicism, and cannot accept images of a Roman Catholic origin used in a general christian page? A couple of people, having read you comments have contacted me to wonder whether that is the problem. You certainly seem to have some major chip on your shoulder about these images and the fact that they come from a series of artworks associated with catholicism. You didn't want them here because they are too sentimentalised, which is an accusation often thrown against works of a catholic origin. You don't want them on the rosary page, because they aren't relevant, even though they show the very issues being meditated on in the decades. Most bizarrely of all, you want to keep an image of Our Lady of Lourdes. Now, given that apparitions are generally disregarded by non catholics as the work of overly emotional, overly sentimentalised minds, I would have thought Our Lady of Lourdes would be the most POV of all the images, as it represents an image of an apparition that many people believe was a figment of one young girl's imagination. But instead you are against representations that are generally of topics agreed by christians, and for the most exclusively catholic pov one. Maybe I missed something but logic seems to have fallen out of your argument a long time back. And maybe you should think as to whether you are mixing up your POV with NPOV and thinking if you believe it then it is NPOV and of course everyone else is biased and pov where they disagree with you. STÓD/ÉÍRE 06:20 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think my problem is using Roman Catholic imagery to represent events in the life of Jesus Christ, as though that imagery were representative of all Christianity. They suggest Catholic theology that is contrary to Orthodox Christianity, even if both traditions are based in the same Gospels; perhaps that's why they seem foreign to some Protestants as well. I can go into detail again if you like. I also would not want Orthodox imagery to be presented as though it represented all of Christendom, although that's the imagery from my own tradition. I think it conveys theology that not all Christians agree with. I also would not want any version of the Nicene Creed to be presented as though it represented all Christendom, for the very same reason. The only POV I'm consciously espousing is that religious pictures always carry with them an implicit and sometimes even explicit POV. Isn't it neutral to assert that images convey ideas and opinions, or is that too opinionated of me? If I'm blinded by some other opinion, please tell me what that is, and I'll thank you for it. Regarding the Rosary, I'll withdraw my objections to all the images there, since they're apparently from the same tradition as the topic of that article. Wesley


 * I understand you point completely and indeed have a lot of sympathy for it. But I think if a caption clarifies the nature of the demominational images, they can be if not fully NPOVed then neutralised to the extent that they don't claim to be universally accepted but from one tradition. Not including any images because they have denominational origins risks having no images whatsoever. In the case of Jesus Christ, nobody knows what he looks like. All we have are denominational interpretations of him. Not having any images I think makes the page less attractive to readers, just as a book, a newspaper or a magazine without any images is less attractive and so less likely to be used. I think wikipedia should try to achieve a situation where every page if at all possible has some image. It does make a difference to how a page looks and so how more interesting it is to visitors. Perhaps wikipedia should have a team of people whose job it is to put together a 'bank of images' that they can used from copyright-free or GNU free sources, with a specific list available (not a detailed one with complicated jpeg details, but simply a command that throws up names of images; eg, Jesus Christ (RC), Jesus Christ (protestant), Charles de Gaulle, George W. Bush, FDR, Nelson Mandela, etc. Wiki users could then pick one of these images for a page, which the same images being used in as many pages as needs them. The overall effect would be to produce a high quality visual impact wikipedia.  But all images should be NPOV or if they are not, very carefully caption them so that there is no suspicion that we are agendaising or editorialising a page. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:27 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus' language
Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew and the common language of Galilee and Judea during his time. As a tradesman in the Hellenized Galilee, Jesus probably spoke passable, business Greek, and his study of the scriptures would acquaint him with Hebrew. Thus, in his life, he was most often called Yeshua.

Im not following the above passage very well.


 * Jesus spoke Aramaic.
 * Aramaic is related to Hebrew and Jesus's language
 * Jesus was a tradesman
 * Tradesman spoke Greek
 * Jesus studied the scriptures
 * Students of scripture were aware of Hebrew


 * CONCLUSION
 * Thus, Jesus was usually called Yeshua by his friends

Eh? Dietary Fiber

As I understand it:


 * Aramaic was the common language of Galilee and Judea during this time.Its close relation to Hebrew should probably part of a parentheses.Jesus' language of everyday use.


 * Greek was the trade language of the time, widely known around the Medditeranean world.Assuming Jesus was a tradesman Jesus probably could speak passable Greek as his second language.


 * Since he studied the scriptures, written in Hebrew he probably had a good knowledge of the language.But Hebrew was at the time an antiquated language known to the educated and used in religious life but not in everyday use.


 * Yeshua would be the name used for him in everyday contact as that was the Aramaic form of his name.

It is similar to the current situation in Greece where:


 * Modern Greek is the common language in everyday use.
 * English is the most usual second language and a passable knowledge of it is considered a necessary requirement in most occupations.
 * Antiquated forms of Greek, both Ancient and more recent, are taught in secondary schools and serve as the language used by the Orthodox Church but outside the education system and religious life there is little use for them.

Easier to understand now? User: Dimadick

I understand what is trying to be said but:


 * Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew and the common language of Galilee and Judea during his time. As a tradesman in the Hellenized Galilee, Jesus probably spoke passable, business Greek, and his study of the scriptures would acquaint him with Hebrew. Thus, in his life, he was most often called Yeshua.

is not the way to say it

Dietary Fiber

Why change "ca." to "~?" Slrubenstein

c. is fine I guess, circa written out just annoyed me Dietary Fiber

opening preface
Regarding the opening paragraph: classical Christian teaching has been that Jesus' life, death and resurrection bring salvation to the entire world, not just to the human race, not just to those few humans who "accept him." From St Athanasius of Alexandria: "And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them." (On the Incarnation, section 9) No, this is not universalism, but the point is that what Jesus did he did for everyone, and that he also began healing the corruption in the created world as well. This is the theme not just in Athanasius' writings but most of the patristic writers, and of course has its grounding in the New Testament. Wesley 21:49 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

So if I reject Christianity as a crock of $#@ and instead I become a discple of LeVey and the Satanists of Amerikkka, do I still go to heaven? I think its an important question because usually when I think of being "saved", I think of God saying, "Ok bad little bugger, I forgive you, here have some immortal and eternal happiness."; however, most Christians I know (of course maybe they aren't true Christians) seem to feel that if you don't accept Jesus then you are damned to eternal torture and misery, so you know, Im a little confused on whether Christ saves people that don't accept him as their lord and savior and the son of God and all that. Susan Mason


 * My personal opinion is that if you reject Christianity and the Christian God and want nothing to do with Him, then you likely wouldn't particularly enjoy spending time in God's presence; were God to offer you immortality with Him, but you couldn't stand to be in His presence, would the result not be eternal misery? Wesley


 * Wesley, Susan made my point, just not in the words I would have used. A key part of what many Christians believe is that if you don't "accept" Christ, then you "aren't" saved by him.  That was what I intended my change to state.  Comments? -º¡º


 * I agree with Wesley. Trying reading the text in the article as purpose instead of result.  The purpose of Jesus's life, death, etc. is salvific, i.e. in order to bring salvation to the world. SCCarlson

No Stephen, to bring salvation to the world through him. Many christian faiths are explicitly clear on that point. From born-again christians to Roman Catholicism, all are agreed on one thing; you have to accept Christ to be saved. Of course they all have their own brand of Christ. Born again christians long argued that unless you were born again into their brand of christianity, you could not be saved. The traditional catholic teaching was that 'outside the Church there is no salvation'. That changed somewhat post-Vatican II, though there was a partial reversion in Dominus Iesus. The basic christian belief is that Christ brought salvation to the world through his church (whichever one!), with people getting redemption not simply because he came to earth and 'died for our sins' but because me left a mechanism (a church) and a message, both of which if followed would provide redemption. If you didn't. you were doomed. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:37 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem is. Bringing salvation to the world does not mean everyone in the world accepts it.  The purpose of the statement in the lead paragraph is to point out the centrality in Christianity of Jesus Christ in salvation, not to get bogged in a lot irrelevant details better explained elsewhere. SCCarlson 04:52 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * It isn't an irrelevant detail to 2/3 of all christrians right across the denominations, who believe this 'irrelevant detail' to be central, the central aspect of their religion, the central message they believed they got from Christ. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:57 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Again, it is a purpose/result distinction. If the intent of the sentence in the lead paragraph is about the purpose of Jesus Christ in God's eternal plan according to Christian belief, details about the salvific results is irrelevant.  I'm realizing that is possible to (mis)read the sentence solely in terms of results, but I don't think that adding greater precision about results would help the lead paragraph, because there is a lot more controversy on that side of the equation and difficult to accomodate all view point in a lead paragraph.  SCCarlson 14:12 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I added the possibility of to the sentence. Does this please everyone/anyone? Tuf-Kat


 * No, the sentence starts with "According to Christian belief". SCCarlson 04:52 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * Which part of According to the Christian belief, he is the "only begotten" Son of God, whose incarnation, death, and resurrection bring the possibility of salvation to the world. is untrue? Christians believe that Christ brought the possibility of salvation for everyone, but that not everyone takes advantage. Tuf-Kat
 * It struck me that the term possibility implied a limitation of God's power, which not all Christians would agree to. SCCarlson 14:12 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

It floats my boat. Susan Mason


 * I took my own stab at it, using the word "gift" to imply something that can be rejected. Just another attempt at phrasing what I think we are trying to say. -º¡º

In many situations a gift cannot be rejected (or can be rejected only with serious costs) -- I do not think this metaphor is any improvement. Slrubenstein


 * Just my attempt, feel free to improve of course. I'm thinking about what you wrote above though, and I can't help think that is exactly what some Christians would say.  You reject Christ's gift only at a serious cost. -º¡º


 * Replacing "the world" with "those who accept him" or "all takers" suggests that Christians think Christ's work was only for people, or only for some people. Classical Christian teaching is that his salvation is for all creation as well; I don't think that many Protestants would disagree with this either, as far as it goes. As I tried to make clear before, I am not trying to equate Christianity with universalism. In the words of John 1:17, "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." (my paraphrase, might happen to match some translation) Would it be a reasonable compromise to say that according to Christianity, salvation comes to the world through Jesus Christ, thus at least hinting at the exclusivity it seems that some want to emphasize? Once we start talking about "accepting" or "taking" or whatever, we're starting to touch on nuances about which Christians tend to fight amongst themselves a good bit. I could go either way on using the word "gift" at this point; I can only agree that the word can carry a variety of different baggage with it, so I don't think we can expect too much from this little word all by itself. Wesley 05:40 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)