Talk:Jesus/Archive 26

Historicity
The non-Christian writings should be the first thing mentioned here. Since there would be no motive for those writers to make it up, they are the most likely to be true. TheTruth12 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the word Historicity, we happen to have the appropriate article I think you are looking for right here: Historicity of Jesus :D Homestarmy 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth is correct and they need to be at teh top of the biog article too - not the POV non contemporary writings. Robsteadman 07:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, just because something wasn't written when an event happened doesn't mean it isn't true, how can you call the people who wrote the Gospel liars just because you don't like the idea that Christ was God or don't like what they wrote? The main source of information for thousands of years has been the Gospels, whether they are not as historically written as real historians is irrelevant, you don't have to write things in an accepted historical format to write the truth. Besides, if people read the entire article, then they'll learn of everything anyway. Homestarmy 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Historicity section's sole purpose is to discuss evidence for and against the existence of Jesus. No source is going to be worth more than another unless proven unreliable. Please keep in mind the section is titled "Historicity of Jesus" and not "Why Jesus didn't exist." —Aiden 17:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bahai Faith
Should minor religions be mentioned in the intro? (Sure 5 million followers but that's worldwide). Surely After the main religions all minor religfions and cults should be restricted to the body of the article not the intro? Robsteadman 19:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, Ba'hai does have its own big section on Wikipedia after all, and i've been seeing the name of that religion pop up more and more in real life, one sentence acknowladging they have their own opinion on Christ seems fair for the intro. Homestarmy 19:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So should we include the list of all minor religions, sects and cults who have an opinionn on Jesus? Surely a mention in the body of the article is sufficient? 86.137.71.91 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah but the page of cults can go on all day and their memberships either consider themselves Christian anyway, in which case it probably would go in the body as a noteworthy addition, or their populations are so small that it's not really noteworthy for the introduction. Besides, many of those religions do not contain an opinion on Jesus per-se, it's just the people of those religions make their own decision outside of their religion's ideology. Besides, Ba'hai is getting pretty popular, or so i've heard. Homestarmy 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 5 million Bahai - there are 6 million Jehovah's Witnesses - shouldn't they be included? I wonder how many more should be included? OR is it better that these minor "faiths" and cults are left for the article. Maybe a separate section for minor "faiths" and cults?

Fair enough, but Jehovah's witnesses adamently claim they are the only Christians, if their perspective isn't already in here, it would be better for the section on other beliefs, I can probably cite that real quick. But hey, if nobody but me thinks Bah'ai should be in the intro, then we ought to remove it :/ Homestarmy 14:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Bahai's should be in the intro. While their view of Jesus is laregly the same as the of Muslims, they do not claim to be Muslims (unlike Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS assert that they are Christian).  They are a significant enough group, and they do not fit well into one of the other world religions, so I think they should be in the intro.  Guettarda 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But they're so small - maximum 5 million worldwide (even accepting their own stats) - should every cult be in the intro? What about Mormons? Robsteadman 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well like Guettarda said, Mormon's claim not only to be Christian but to be the only Christians, their a deviation, not an entirely new construct. Homestarmy 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ignoring the AD/BC BCE/CE debate and the phrasing of historical document sentences...
What's a full list of everything that anybody considers POV here, if we continue messing around with extremely tiny points like AD Vs. CE and how we should phrase 5 words so that they slant this way and that, we might very well find after many weeks of debate that at the end, someone thinks that half of this entire article is POV, down to every puncuation mark. Is there anything MAJOR that people consider a POV error, more than 1-3 sentences long, such as an entire section, that anybody sees as totally blowing everything POV? Simply saying "I think this whole thing is POV" doesn't count, because all articles have a POV and an agenda inherintly, namely the agenda to inform the reader on a subject, and refer said reader to anything else they might want to know on the subject. Now, is it at all possible we can step away from nitpicking just a second to see if there is something major and obvious to everyone that is very long and very POV on a constant basis, so that when we do end all these long debates over tiny issues, we can at least say that those tiny things are all that is wrong? Please, try to explain yourself well if you've got anything to say, as long as all that anyone can find wrong with the article is a bunch of extremely tiny, 1 word or less POV errors, at least this thing can get a peer review, come on. Homestarmy 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro goes extensively into Christina beliefs about Jesus - somewhere around the Right hand of God I find myself losing all hope that the upcoming article will ever be NPOV--JimWae 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the intro is too long, too wordy and too POV Robsteadman 07:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think our goal is to have this article completely NPOV. When it comes to talking about the historicity and factual aspects of Jesus, yes, but when simply portraying the Christian or Muslim beliefs about Jesus they should indeed be POV. JimWae, you said you can't see this article becoming NPOV because of "the right hand of God"? It is explained that this is only Christian belief, not fact. That's what you get when you have a factually existant historical figure with conflicting opinions about his/her theological significances. Darwiner111 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Our aim MUST be to have it entirely NPOV - it is possible with proper wording. Currently it is far too biased. Robsteadman 07:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * that you can say what you say in your first sentence above, indicates to me I would spend my time better elsewhere than discussing this with you. That nobody has called anyone else on repeated similar statements here suggests this article will never be NPOV--JimWae 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course SOME beliefs belong - but the intro is way too heavy on the Xian ones. Article is about Jesus - and reader should not be given expectations that article will be primarily about what Xians believe about him - and that everything else will be shunted into other articles, like Historical Jesus has been. Since I typo every time I am reverting to Xian, Xty. First sentence of that 2nd paragraph has serious syntax problems because it, like the rest of the paragraph, is trying to cram too much in --JimWae 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what about after you finish reading the entire intro where other beliefs get their time to shine, does it seem as POV after that? we could make tiny references to their main articles. Homestarmy 00:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:NPOV:


 * "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth."


 * As you can see, the most prominent view concerning Jesus is the Christian view, due to the fact that he is the central figure of that religion. Likewise, the Muhammed article will have the Islamic view as most prominent, the Buddha article will have a Buddhist view as most prominent, and so on. According to NPOV policy, such articles should include as most developed the most prominent view, which is why the Christian view is discussed in most detail, just as other figures in other articles are discussed in relation to other more prominent views. —Aiden 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The MOST prominent view is the non-Christain one - only 1/3 of the earth is Xian --JimWae 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, most other religions do not place as important the life or teachings of Jesus. Very few even recognize him. Of those that do, Christian and Islamic views are by far most prominent. The policy does not relate to numbers alone, but to prominence. There's a big difference. —Aiden 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Article should focus first on what even non-believing scholars agree on about Jesus, then discuss what believers think --JimWae 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is that? pookster11 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first, i've tried to clean the syntax slightly in the second section, but something weird is happening with those spaces between verses, i've tried several things, but I can't make those odd spaces dissapear, the problem seems to be in between the number and the puncutation mark, but all that is there is a ], the same thing appears to be wrong with both spaces, I think we need some technical help with this or we need to format it differently somehow. Nextly, most non-believing scholars probably don't care very much about Jesus, considering they don't care about Him as their savior, so how does their opinion take precendence just because they are historians? Does the Macaroni article start with most common historians view on the development of Macaroni and what most scholars agree were the events of its creation? (I haven't actually gone to it, but if it does do that, that would look really weird.) The non-believer opinions of course need to be mentioned somewhere in this article, but their opinions are not as complicated as the Christian view since, of course, they don't tend to make a religion out of their opinions, so the most popular and important view should come first. Scholar's beliefs on who Jesus was did not radically alter history, but believer's beliefs in Him most definently did, making them the most noteworthy to describe. Being scientifically or historically held does not necessarily make a view the most important, even if it is an encyclopedia we are working on, whichever opinion makes or has made the most impact on whatever is being discussed is the one which should be predominently discussed. Pliny the Younger did not really change history, Charlemagne did, Pliny was a historian, Charlamagne was not, Pliny was not a Christian apparently, and Charlamagne apparently was. Yet it was Charlamagne who had more impact on history. Homestarmy 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think the only way we can stop this back-and-forth editing (which seems will never end) is to do like what some other languages have done: Make Jesus the disambiguation page, linking one to Jesus of Nazareth, one to Jesus Christ, one to Isa, links to the Historicity of Jesus/Historical Jesus articles, etc. This is, of course, outside the AD/BC/CE/BCE debate that covers so many articles. (Personally, I don't care either way, though I do think some forget that even CE/BCE is still marked as it is because of Jesus, whether that is recognized in the dating name or not, if someone asked why it changed from BCE to CE 2006 years ago, what else would the answer be. That being said, I don't care either way, just go with consensus. --Oscillate 15:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought about a disambig page myself, we have so many articles which should have different PoVs on Jesus simply because of how they are intended to inform, the problem is, I don't know how to set those up :/. Homestarmy 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Even then each sparate page must be NPOV. Just because a page is "Biblical Jesus" doesn;t mean that it can all bne presented as fact - it must still be NPOV. Robsteadman 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That page should be the perspective on Jesus that the Bible, and the Bible alone, (Or mention of any books that were kind of Bible-esque) gives on Him. We have, verifiably, Bible's today, therefore, I can see no reason why the contents of the Bible concerning Jesus cannot be called fact, if your talking about something from the perspective of the Bible, you can't argue over what it is literally saying because you have what it literally says. Homestarmy 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Does Nicene Creed say acceptance of Jesus is a condition of being saved?
Intro has
 * Most Christians, affirming the Nicene Creed, believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

Aside from being a tortured sentence that sorely needs at least a couple of "that"s or, better yet, needs to be split up, the Nicene Creed does not say acceptance of Jesus is a condition of being saved. It may, in one of its forms, say he came to save people - but it does not say acceptance is needed. This is a presentation of beliefs of one variety of Xty - and does not even accurately reflect the beliefs of the single variety that has the most members (Catholicism) --JimWae 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
 * ''the only Son of God,
 * ''eternally begotten of the Father,
 * ''God from God, light from light,
 * ''true God from true God,
 * ''begotten, not made,
 * ''of one Being with the Father;
 * ''through him all things were made.
 * ''For us and for our salvation
 * ''he came down from heaven,
 * ''was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
 * ''and became truly human.
 * ''For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
 * ''he suffered death and was buried.
 * ''On the third day he rose again
 * ''in accordance with the Scriptures;
 * ''he ascended into heaven
 * ''and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 * ''He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
 * ''and his kingdom will have no end.
 * -excerpted from second paragraph of Nicene Creed. As you can see, the paragraph starts out by stating "We believe..." (or in your terminology and several translations, "we accept") and then has a shopping list of items about Christ, including that he came down to save people and was killed etc etc.  To my knowledge the Catholic church today, and I believe the Lutheran church as well, still explicitly adheres to the Nicene creed.  Any Catholics out there, please let me know otherwise. pookster11 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say belief or acceptance is a condition of salvation? Catholics do not believe acceptance is either sufficient or necessary --JimWae 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, acceptance of the Nicene creed is a condition to enter the membership of the church and thereby a condition to obtaining salvation. Depends on who you read and talk to.  But yes, you are correct, personal belief in Christ, according to the Catholic church, is not enough to obtain salvation; one must be catechumized and made an actual "member" of the church in order to be included amoungst the saved.  Anyway thats my knowledge from a scholastic study of the Roman Catholic church (which I must admit is mostly from the early medieval and late antiquity period).  Once again, if anyone knows otherwise please post it here. pookster11 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence does not say it's a "condition", merely that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin." Concision is desirable here, not convolution. Paul B 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all Christians have even heard of the Nicene creed nor does it represent the prime definition of Christianity, just because the Nicene creed might not literally say that we must accept Christ, (Though considering it says "we believe in" one would think acceptance of Christ would follow) does not mean Christianity does not. Also, belief about something does not imply accepting something, but belief in something does, if you believe in someone to help you, you are accepting that the person will help you, if you believe that you will get a good grade on a math test, you are accepting the idea that you will get a good grade on your math test, I don't see the problem here. Also, the Bible never specifies that formally joining a church is a pre-requisite to being saved, it better not be, or I am dead....quite literally, I assure you. Homestarmy 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the Nicene creed is the earliest and most widely accepted and utilized definition of what it is to be a Christian and was for hundreds of years defined what teachings were and were not canonical. Whether it has anything to do with your beliefs or not is beside the point; when referencing the Christian belief in Christ, it is completely acceptable to reference back to the Nicene cred because most, if not all, of the beliefs around Christ and the Christian church devolve from the creed and the Nicean council. pookster11 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What im trying to say is that it is not the only definition of Christianity, so therefore, any arguments saying it does not ask people to accept Christ do not invalidate every single part of the Bible where belief IN Christ is mandated for salvation. Though im not sure how people are making this kind of argument anyway. Homestarmy 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the Nicene Creed does not say "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)". Stuffing it in the intro, besides leading to truly awful syntax, is needless partisanship even within Xty. --JimWae 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The problem seems to be that last part, to which your point is correct that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" is not universal to Xtianity and Xtian beliefs.  Other than the last sentence, which seems to be doctrinal in nature, the rest I think is a nice summary (barring any cleanup).  What about you? pookster11 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can anyone find something from Catholic Doctorine which specifically states that actually accepting Christ isn't necessary? That sounds extremely far-fetched, the Dark Ages were a long time ago, I know the Church sometimes has some issues even today, but still. Homestarmy 14:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * see Talk:Jesus/Archive_19 & . Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out? --JimWae 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I get it now :(. The reason that it would take a non-Christian to point it out is because it really seems crazy, what the pope essentially is doing there is supporting a pretty much Islamic lifestyle as an alternative to devoting all of an instant period of time to accept Christ. In Islam, it is the balance of your good deeds vs. evil deeds that Islamics claim makes one get into heaven, (Believing in the Qu'ran is also something they supposedly claim helps) yet in the Bible, an increadibly large amount of references are made that this is ridiculous, and you must be saved through faith in Christ, (John 3:16) (Ephesians 2:8-9) (John 14:6) (Romans 3:22) (Romans 5:1-2) etc. etc., stuff like whats at this site. So what the Pope was doing is pretty saddening if it's true. The thing is, if you believe in something to give you something, and then don't accept it, what is the point? Let's say I believed in my calculater to give me the answer to 2+2, and it gave out the number 4. If I didn't accept that answer and said that the real answer is 42, then it would be totally wrong. So if you believe in Christ but refuse to accept the gift of eternal life which comes through Him, (You've got to accept Him to get it, the Bible is pretty clear it is through Him, not around Him or something) What part of the Bible says that Jesus will force this eternal salvation upon you even when you don't want to accept Him? It sounds like the Pope was disagreeing not just with the Bible, but with the Nicene creed, all for the sake of, what, that article said placating other peoples? Homestarmy 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems this has touched a POV nerve here? If there are many roads to a goal, one road could be the main road - while others could have obstacles, but still get you there. People can receive gifts without even knowing it. It's not just the pope's view either - see archives --JimWae 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, what im showing is that the Bible does say there is only one road to the goal, and you can't simply not know you've recieved the gift of eternal life, being born again (John 3) isn't something you just kinda don't realize at first, even if it is spiritual. Homestarmy
 * Catholics also do not take the Bible literally, and you seem to be verging on either anti-Catholicism or Original research --JimWae 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me, I didn't write the Bible. And as I understand it, the Catholic church is a very diverse group, especially once you cross the atlantic, as I understand it, things change rapidly. Why can't any Catholic decide to take the Bible literally, i've heard plenty of them just plain come out and say they don't agree with the Pope compleatly on things, I don't just stay inside all the time :/. Homestarmy 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase in question is noted as being the belief of the majority of Christians, in which acceptance of Jesus saves one from sin. It does not say it is a universal view. Many of the views which can be described as majority views are enumerated in the Nicene creed, which is mentioned because it simply provides a summary of the most common Christian beliefs. The sentence does not say ALL majority views are listed in the creed, but that most Christians, who happen to believe the Nicene Creed, believe this and this. Many sentences can be denoted as mentioning sacrifice for sins, such as "''For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven... For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate..." —Aiden 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Catholics are nearly half of the Xians in the world . The introduction is no place to present views about Xty that are not overwhelmingly accepted. There's a bit of difference between saying "Jesus saved us" and "Believers in Jesus are saved"--JimWae 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Roman Catholics, Orthodox and similar Christian groups, intellectual belief in Jesus is not required for salvation in all cases. For instance, in the case of infant baptism, someone else believes on the infant's behalf. Similar cases might include adults who lack the mental capacity to believe or disbelieve in a particular creed. Of course this is different than the case of someone who does have the mental capacity and information, yet chooses to believe something quite different. Wesley 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they perhaps try to back this up with anything in particular or take a more Universalist approach to looking at things to arrive at these conclusions? Homestarmy 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Does God have 2 hands and a face?
The intro uses "right hand" of God -- this is a needless additional "detail" to saying Jesus is in heaven with God. It assumes God is bilateral - something few theologians assert with any certainty. Perhaps this is just figurative language. If so, it may be appropriate for Sunday school & parables, but it does not belong in an introduction to a basic encyclopedia article about Jesus -- scare quotes or not --JimWae 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake. That's what it says in the Bible. Yes, it's figurative. You think it's dumb? Well, so do I. Who cares? Paul B 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember Wikipedia policy: no personal attacks.
 * I do think you might be reading into it a little too much JimWae. I wouldn't have noticed something like that. Deskana (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What personal attck? Please remember Wikipedia policy assume good faith policy.Paul B
 * It seemed like a personal attack to me, considering I would have been offended had someone asked "Who cares?" when I attempted to state my viewpoint. Deskana (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I can't say what you are likely to be offended by, but "who cares" is clearly addressed to both no-one and everyone, and is therefore by definition not personal. Note that I included myself ("I do too") before the comment in question, which further emphasised its non-personal nature by saying I shared a lackof sympathy with the imagery. Paul B 02:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How do people think the gospels are logically flawed on the subject of Christ's divinity?
The Equivocation article says that Equivocation is the use of a logical fallacy of relations and assumptions, much to my surprise, (I didn't know what it meant, which is why I changed it, I thought it meant they didn't agree :/) shouldn't how people claim that the assertion by the Apostels that Christ was God was a logical fallacy be included there at the end of that paragraph? I think I can understand the general premise behind how people would argue it, (And I think I can make a counter-argument personally) But im not totally sure what exactly the argument is of course :/. Homestarmy 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In philosophy Equivocation is the lgical falacy of sliding between multiple meanings of the same term in the course of an argument: e.g. -


 * Jesus is Lord
 * Lords are members of the British Parliament
 * Jesus is a member of the British Parliament


 * In this context the word simply means much the same as "ambiguous" - that is "unclear about which of the multiple meanings of the same term is meant". Paul B 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the Bible doesn't advocate that Jesus is a member of Parliament, i'd like to know exactly what argument was and apparently still is being used to say that the gospels do not assert that Jesus is God, to leave it so open ended seems to be like a big question mark, and it seems to me an encyclopedia article should fill it. Homestarmy 02:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, Jim changed the word to unclear. Homestarmy 03:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument is that they don't say it outright. Jesus himself is reported as not giving straight answers, but saying thing like "what do you say?" in reply to questions about his status. The only unequivocal assertion is Thomas's "my Lord and my God" in John, and even that is presented as an exclamation to a manifestation of the risen Jesus. Paul appears to say that Jesus is transformed by virtue of his ressurection, not that he was born as an incarnation of God. Anyway, we can argue forever, but the point is that plenty of scholars believe that the Gospels are equivocal (or ambiguous, vague, unclear - whichever word seems best). Paul B 13:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Gentle reminder, folks: this page is for discussing the article, not for Christian apologetics or anti-Christian polemics... Tom e rtalk  09:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

critical scholars
I won't object to anyone deleting the specific names, although perhaps they should be replaced with citations. That said, the people I name in the paragraph I moved up are critical historians and it does matter. Anytime an article represents different points of view, it is worth saying whose point of view it is. The people I cite are widely used in secular courses on Biblical history and late Hellenistic Judaism, and these scholars are widely cited in academic literature. It is NOT appropriate to say "generally" when these people have reached their conclusions after many years of scholarly research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What does 'critical mean? Are they critics, skeptics, pedants or just highly regarded in their field? Is there a clearer word? Just wondering...rossnixon 10:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "critical" comes from the historical method known in scholarly circles as "higher criticism," or the attempt to deduce from the words of the text of the Bible what to them are the original sources of the Biblical books. It is a reasonably neutral term for scholars that depart from the older techniques of understanding the origin and meanings of Scripture. The other alternative is "liberal," which is seen by many as a POV label. --CTSWyneken 12:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second, now we've mentioned the scholars twice, in the intro and in the body, and now we've mentioned almost the exact same sentence about the 4 canonical gospels at least 3 times, what's going on here? Homestarmy 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved them out of the intro - it is right they get mentioened but the intro should be sparing in detail using a broad brush. They are still further down. Robsteadman 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. Remember, Christians are mentioned in the body of the article too.  To use the word "generally" is misleadingly vague.  "Critical Scholars" may or may not represent a "general viewpoint, I can not say and I know of no verifiable sources to demonstrate this.  But I do have verifiable sources as to what "most critical scholars" think.  Critical scholarship is one point of view, just as Christians is one point of view.  It should be represented in the introduction. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Modifications for the section about the trial
Hello

I would like to propose some changes in the section about the trial. The trial is a very complicated issue, since it should involve a discussion about several facts, such as: Did the Jewish authorities had the right to execute condemned persons? To which extend would the (night) trial before the Sanhedrin violate Jewish law, as described in the Talmud and last but not least what was the nature of Jesus blasphemy? Since such an extended discussion would not be proportional withing this article, it would be worth an article by its own. Hence I will propose three different changes, small, moderate, extended.
 * Small: However the events which followed and lead to the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus differ in all the four Gospels. According to John, Jesus was arrested the night before the Pessach Seder (Jhn 18:28) by Jewish guards and roman soldiers (Joh 18:2). He then was questioned by the high priests Caiaphas (and his father in law) Annas before brought to Pilate. According to the synoptic gospels, he was arrested, only by Jewish guards, after the Passover Seder. He was then  brought to trial before the Sanhedrin and condemned, at least according to Mark and Matthew, for blasphemy and brought to Pilate.
 * Moderate: However the events which followed and lead to the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus differ in the four Gospels. According to John, Jesus was arrested  the night before the Pessach Seder (Jhn 18:28), 14th of Nisan by jewish guards and roman soldiers (Joh 18:2). He then was questioned by the high priests  Caiaphas (and his father in law) Annas before brought to Pilate. According to the synoptic gospels, he was arrested only by jewish guards after the Passover Seder, 15th of Nisan. He was then brought to trial before the Sanhedrin.  The decisive moment in that trial concerns the question whether Jesus was the Messiach, son of god (son of the blessed). Only in Mark he cleary answered with a yes  while in Luke and Matthew he did not give a clear answer and refers to the son of man in third person. However  at least according to Mark and Matthew, Jesus he was then condemned for blasphemy and brought to Pilate.
 * Extended: However the events which followed and lead to the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus differ in the four Gospels. According to John, Jesus was arrested  the night before the Pessach Seder (Jhn 18:28), 14th of Nisan by jewish guards and roman soldiers (Joh 18:2). He then was questioned by the high priests  Caiaphas (and his father in law) Annas before brought to Pilate. According to the synoptic gospels, he was arrested  only by Jewish guards after the Passover Seder, 15th of Nisan. Contrary to this dating  according to Mark (15:42 it was still the day before Passover) and  moreover according to   Mark (15:21)  a man return from this field, which seems unlikely during Passover. Jesus then was brought before the Sanhedrin. According to Mark and Matthew he was tried during the night (which would contradict Jewish Law as described in the Talmud), while Luke only reports a trial in the morning. The decisive moment in the trial concerns the question whether Jesus was the Messiach, son of god (son of the blessed). The question, answer and the reaction of the Sanhedrin vary from Gospel to Gospel:


 * Mk14:61: ... Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (This is the only place in all 4 gospels where Jesus declares himself as Messiach and son of god!)
 * Lk 23:67: Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. 70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
 * Matthew26:63: 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.


 * The reaction of the Sanhedrin differed:


 * Mk14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
 * Mt26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. 
 * However according to Luke: Lk22:71 ''And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

''


 * It should also be noted that the decisive question is asked by a Jew to a Jew which means that Son of god should be interpretad according to Judaism, most likely in the lines of Psa (2:7) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
 * Moreover it is however difficult to see in what the blasphemy consisted which would have lead to a death penalty according to Jewish law. In any case Jesus then was brought before Pilate.

Please tell me your opinions. What do you think is the most appropriate modification (if any). Oub 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC):

It sounds like your bringing up a supposed Biblical contradiction, are you sure the synoptics specifically use the word "only" to describe who arrested Christ, or were there more modifying words that could cause Romans to be included in the mix? Homestarmy 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Well you are right in the sense, the word only  is not used. Now while Luke is not very specific:
 * Lk 22:52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
 * I think Matthew and especially Mark (he uses the word from) suggest that there were only Jewish temple guards.
 * Mk 14:43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priest and the scribes and the elders.
 * Mat 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
 * Oub 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC):
 * Oub 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC):

Ah ok then, it's just another matter of one or more books having something the other doesn't. To tell you the truth, I think it's a good idea to add more detail to the trial, I think the moderate option seems best for now but that's just my opinion, you'd also need to note that it's probably a matter of John not including all the information. Homestarmy 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you assume the narration of all gospels together, you are forced to assume, that Jesus, was arrested late in the evening after the Passover Seder by Roman soldiers and Jewish temple guards, then not only  questioned by Annas, and Caiaphas, but  tried by the Sanhedrin, twice (while the Romans were waiting outside!) then brought to Pilate, then brought to Herodes then back to Pilate, then flogged, then put together with Jesus Barrabbas (which BTW means son of the father, strange name), then condemned, then sent to Golgatha but still it was  only 9 o clock in the morning. That frankly seems to be impossible.
 * Independent of that the question of 14 or 15 Nisan looks to me much closer to a contradiction. In any case the gospels are not a piece of mathematical logic, so finding a contradiction does not mean the whole gospels are wrong. I think Sanders put it right by pointing out, that the narration looks pretty much of a confused night where nobody knew all parts of what actually happened. But that is interpretation and speculation. However as the section is now it gives the impression of a unique narration and that definitely is not the case, so I think right now a good compromise is the moderate proposal, for the extended proposal would be large compared to the rest of the other sections.
 * Another important point is of course the (possible) merge with the other(s) article(s) about Jesus. IMHO the description in Biblical Jesus is historically more correct since it emphasis the role of Pilate.
 * Another important point is of course the (possible) merge with the other(s) article(s) about Jesus. IMHO the description in Biblical Jesus is historically more correct since it emphasis the role of Pilate.
 * Another important point is of course the (possible) merge with the other(s) article(s) about Jesus. IMHO the description in Biblical Jesus is historically more correct since it emphasis the role of Pilate.


 * Oub 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC):


 * Perhaps a better option would be to split the trial into its own article. Jpers36 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but that would be a huge work, for the issue is very complicated. Oub 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC):

Shall we have a separate page for each meal he ate? Each time he went to the toilet? Robsteadman 10:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a good one, I am still laughing. I see, so for you the question of the trial is as important as the question of how often he went to the toilet, I see your preferences. Oub 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC):

Toilet and vulgar language used by Jesus

That might interest you: I do remember that especially in Mark one can find well quite vulgar wording (especially given the fact that Americans tend to use the word restroom, while we Europeans use words such as toilet) by Jesus, which usually is smoothed out in any common translation. That is why the example is taken directly from the inter-linear translation:  Mk 7:19


 * kai eis ho aphedron ekporeuomai katharizo pas ho broma
 * and into the latrine it-is-out-going cleansing all the foods

and I think even the translation latrine for aphedron is still to hm polite. Oub 09:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC):


 * Oub, you might have a point, its entirely possible that really none of the people who wrote the gospels actually were there to get the entire story themselves, (It was probably a crazy night) but I still think we can at least put something like this in as long as we mention the accounts may of been incompleate due to possible inability to get information. And I don't think the Bible mentions whenever Jesus was going to the bathroom Rob....Homestarmy 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is my point, and that is why I want to enhance the section about the trial, at least moderately. So we agree that this version would be the best compromise for the time being? Another point concerns the scenes before Pilate. The accounts as described, at least for John and partially for Matthew, look very un historical and exaggerated. Pilate was well known  for his  cruelty, moreover the gospels fail to explain the reasons for in the intense hate, the Jewish Mob radiates in these scenes. Look for example at Luke (Lk. 23:27) (Lk 23.48) or (Mk. 14.2), which report that  Jesus was poplar among his people. Oub 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC):