Talk:Jesus/Archive 38

=Judaism's view= The first sentence shouldn't say "most Jews" as not all Jews even follow Judaism and the section is about what *Judaism* teaches about Jesus. The *traditional* Jewish messianic qualifications are very specific, and there are none from a Jewish religious perspective who would say he met these very specific requirements, which btw differ from Christianity's interpretation of what the messianic requirements are. -- M P er el ( talk 20:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here, just what are the traditional messianic views anyway? It sounds like they'd have to be some pretty out-of-context rip off's of the OT to not match up to Jesus. Are these like extra-Biblical things or what? I mean, I know about the thing where they ripped out a prophecy in the book of Isaiah or something which predicted Christ's coming so that people wouldn't be inspired to think He was Christ, but surely there must be something more to this than that? Most apologetics sites your going to see are going to have very simple answers to the claim that Jesus didn't fulfill prophecy, and the NT itself is almost like an apologetics book in that way because it cites fulfilled prophecies throughout it, and if the section is left like it is, people who know a little bit about history will think "Wait, Christians were absolutly lying the whole time?" Because the verification we have that Jesus is Lord comes mostly from OT predictions, if it stands the way it is, anybody who reads this is going to think that the Jews are 100 percent right to not think Christ is God or even fulfilled any prophecy. At the very least, if we let this claim stand like it is with the way it asserts itself, some 1 or 2 liner counter-argument needs to be inserted, or even just a link or 2 from Christian or Christian-based websites which try to resolve the issues that many Jews seem to have with Christianity. Otherwise, I see no reason why a person reading this article won't go "Well, it must be absolutly true that Christianity is a lie because Judaism says so, time to leave!". Homestarmy 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to leave the discussion of Jesus being God out of this section as it is and stick with Messiah or not. --Oscillate 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. This all seems very confusing to me, i've never really heard of any halfway serious Jewish arguments against Jesus being the Messiah before that made any sense, and for the article to just blatantly assert that basically, "Christianity is against Judaism in all ways, it fails the Bible's claims in the OT miserably." well, im sorry, it just seems downright POV. There needs to be either something to balance it in the way of counter-claims, or it be made more clear that it is the popular Jewish view rather than the absolute and only Jewish viewpoint allowed, or you know, there could be another solution to this problem, I don't know. Homestarmy 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the following, which is in the article itself; Jim62sch 18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point is to balance Judaism's views with Christian views. I am a Christian, but I have heard Rabbi Toviah Singer's counterarguments and I think both sides need to be presented. Just as long as we remain NPOV.Arch O. La 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what im thinking, we should indeed present the fact that apparently most Jews do not feel that Jesus was the Messiah (and/or God), but if it's left like this, it reads like a fact of Judaism, when Christianity is based on the compleate works of Judaism, so it reads somewhat like a 100 percent contradiction of Jesus as the Messiah is being presented as fact, when it's most definently not. We could even expand it to cite some particular Jewish arguments, maybe that Toviah person, but if we do, we should at least note there is considerable debate over this, and present the opposing view with some citations there. Not overshadowing it necessarily, but simply to show that the debate exists and cite a couple examples of it. By the way, why do I get the weird feeling that im turning into Robsteadman? Homestarmy 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, the article is not about the merits or nonmerits of Christianity. It's an encylopedic biography of Jesus. The section "Judaism's views" should include a brief presentation of Judaism's views of Jesus, period. The bulk of the article as a whole presents largely Christians views of Jesus. The other religions' views are already a counterpoint to the Christian perspective. It's not necessary to create some counter-counterpoint debate within the tiny section on Judaism's views. The place for that, if necessary, would be in the main article Jewish view of Jesus. But again, I think several people miss the point of this article, it's not an evangelistic or apologetic tool for Christians (Homestarmy) nor a soapbox for defaming or dismissing Jesus (Robsteadman). And I'm only mentioning handy names, you're certainly not alone as there is always a steady parade of editors with personal strong feelings on this topic. My only admonition to all is to please, please try to not let personal feelings and beliefs get in the way of editing objectively. -- M P er el ( talk 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Rabbi Singer is basically responding to the Messianiac Jew movement by presenting an argument that Jesus doesn't meet Judaism's definition of "Messiah." He bases his argument both on the Tanakh and on the New Testament. That said, I leave it to others whether that datum should be used here or in another article. Arch O. La 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I think the specific details of the traditional Jewish messianic requirements should be left to the main article Jewish view of Jesus. For this article, it suffices to briefly explain that the traditional Jewish view of Jesus is that he does not meet Jewish criteria for either messiah or prophet. The topic of messianic requirements is an article all by itself, and I would like to see this article stay on its own topic...it tends to want to grow and divert off into all sorts of tangents : ) -- M P er el ( talk 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I agree. I actually found Rabbi Singer by doing a random-walk web search from an off-site link in Jewish views of Jesus. I've just been waiting to bring him up when we moved on to a discussion of Judaism's views. Arch O. La 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is, the way it reads with the edits, it reads as though Judaism definently and absolutly condemns Jesus as a false prophet. Is this Judaism literally based on the OT, or Judaism based on the main consensus of people? If it's the former, there is considerable debate on this extremely crucial point, as if such a POV is correct, than Christianity would have to be a total fraud, Jesus would have to be a fake, and a bit of mention of a counter-argument would be in order, otherwise it reads as though it is fact that the OT condemns Jesus. If it is the latter as the section protrayed before indicated, (if I remember correctly) it needs to indicate that it is the vast majority of the followers of Judaism, or that Judaism is not necessarily referenced directly with the Bible, (You could probably argue for this, as I understand it, modern-day Torah production has sometimes removed very crucial Jesus-predicting passages that the OT does contain.) or something to that effect, to say that Judaism absolutly condemns Jesus without defining what we're really talking about essentially is like the article is saying "And by the way, Jesus was compleatly faking all the standards that He himself claimed He was meeting.". Yes, this really is pushing my strong feelings button. But the way it reads now, knowing what I know about Christianity, (And therefore giving me some inside information the section doesn't present) it reads as though it is trying to convey the absolute notion that Christianity, and Christ's claims about Himself, were all lies. This seems a clear violation of WP:NPOV, plus even if it isn't, I still don't know exactly what this section is trying to advocate. Homestarmy 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've heard arguments that Jesus was a false messiah and also arguments that Paul was a false apostle (I think that was part of Singer's argument). I leave it to the experts to explain more (unless it'll take us off-topic). Arch O. La 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the section isn't talking about the arguments, it's making an assertion with the new edits it has, and someone with a little inside knowladge would know it now means "Jesus was not God, the Messiah, or anything, and Christianity is totally fake.". It's not making the assertion that the Jewish people say it, it's making the assertion in general, as absolute fact no matter where your coming from. And that's what I see is the problem, I know it's not overtly obvious to somebody without inside knowladge of the relationship between the OT and NT, but the implication is abundantly clear. Homestarmy 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homes, here's the Jewish response and even a catholic counter-response: The site includes Rabbi Singer, BTW. However, since the section is on Jewish views, it states Jewish beliefs, not "fact" in either your or Rodsteadman's definition (although Jews take it as religous fact). Arch O. La 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homestarmy, that's a bit of an inaccurate projection. That most see Jesus as a better fit for the false prophets warned about in Deut. 13 is not exactly "Judaism definently and absolutly" condemning Jesus as a false prophet. Also, I think again, you're missing the point that it's not Wikipedia's place to debate Christianity's merits in light of Judaism's view, we just need to accurately present what Judaism's view on Jesus is in the section on Judaism's view.  I think you're blowing things way out of proportion and making this too personal about *your* beliefs..."if this is Judaism's view then all of Christianity is a lie" may be your personal conclusion, but honestly, it's irrelevant as far as this article goes, and shouldn't keep us from our task of objectively presenting what Judaism's view actually is.  -- M P er el ( talk 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I suggest that Homestarmy do what I did: examine the other side before you rush to judgement. (Judge not, lest ye be judged and all that). The section does not question my Christian faith, because I know that its a summary of Judiac beliefs. If homestarmy wished to evangelize, he can take it up with the operators of the website I mentioned above. Arch O. La 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But what im trying to say is what your suggesting the article says isn't what it says anymore. It said something along those lines before and that was ok because it was showing a viewpoint of people, but now it doesn't because of the editing today, and that's why it's a problem to me now.
 * According to Judaism, Jesus did not meet the traditional qualifications of the Messiah, nor was he a prophet, as Judaism maintains that there were no prophets after the prophet Malachi.
 * It's no longer about the people of Judaism, it's about Judaism the religion, which as far as I know, begins and ends literally with the OT. It no longer addreses in this sentence what most Jews believe on the subject, which is what it should somewhat be saying at least. Judaism the religion comes from the Torah and the prophets, I.E. the Old Testiment. Christianity is built on that and the New Testiment. If the Old Testiment, I.E. the essence of the religion of Judaism, contradicts the New Testiment to the point that it says Jesus couldn't save anyone because He wasn't the messiah, then that would mean Jesus was fake, Christianity is a lie, and everyone dies. If the Jewish people believe this, then that's what should go into the article. But now, with the article clearly asserting that Judaism says that Jesus did not meet those specifications, it is essentialy giving the message of "Jesus was fake by the standard that mattered, AKA the Bible, and Christians are hopeless fools because their own book says so", without saying that this is coming from a group of people, but rather from a common sense argument. It's true the article doesn't explain the relationship between the OT and the NT, that probably wouldn't fit in this article, but when you know that background information, the start of this Judaism section sends a clear message when you understand it, and that message asserts that Jesus was fake, not because Judaism says so, but because both Christianity and Judaism literally say so. Do you see what im trying to say? Homestarmy 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homestarmy, remember Ecclesiastes 3: everything in its season. The subject of why Judaism doesn't believe in Jesus the way we do is quite complex, and we're not going to settle it today. Patience, my friend. Arch O. La 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Thank you Arch O. La.  Homestarmy, your Christian colleague speaks wise words ; ) -- M P er el ( talk 01:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A moment please: pointing out that Judaism's views of Jesus does not undermine Christinaity any more than pointing out that Christians do not think Muhammed was a prophet undermines Islam, or any more than pointing out that Sikhs believe that only 11 gurus have existed rather than hundreds undermines Hinduism, etc. They are merely different viewpoints. Jim62sch 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The season is now, im getting the feeling im not getting my point across here, the reason it shouldn't say "Judaism" rather than "most Jewish views" is becauseJ udaism doesn't disbelieve or believe in Jesus, because Judaism is essentialy the Old Testiment, not the consensus of Jews. Judaism is the Torah plus the prophets, not all that unless the people decide it isn't. A book does not have faith in anything because it is a book, but in this case, the book is telling people about their faith, and that same book tells Christians about their faith the way it began as the Old Testiment describes it, before Jesus came to fulfill it, not to delete it so we can just ignore it. The Old Testiment applies literally to Christianity just as much as it applies to Judaism, it's just the New Testiment fulfills it so it comes out as a different result now, but not a result which says that the Old Testiment was just kidding about all those prophecies of the Messiah. Judaism isn't the people, it's the religious concept which fundamentally relies on the Old Testiment, that's a very different meaning than what was in the section before. The original meaning said that most of the people of the Jewish religion did not believe Christ to be God or the Messiah. The new meaning says that Christianity had no basis not just because people thought so, but because the Bible literally says so. Therefore, this section is really saying that the Old Testiment says that Jesus was not the Messiah. Which it does not, but for the sake of Wikipedia and reporting the controversy, it is a hotly debated issue, therefore, if the meaning of the section now stays the same, the controversy should be reported, not just snuffed out so the only viewpoint left says that Jesus was a liar and that Christians are just plain fools by Christianity and Jesus's own standards. Why can't we just say it is the majority of Jewish people rather than Judaism? It said that before, you both seem to agree it should say that, I agree it should say that, but as I think i've showed, it does not say simply that anymore. Homestarmy 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not for you to say what Judaism is. It's Jews who decide that. Please stop telling them what their beliefs should be. The section describes the view of Jews who profess Judaism. If they interpreted the OT as you do, they'd be Chrisians. But they aren't, are they? Paul B 01:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't specify that it is the Jews who decide what Judaism is, it simply says "Judaism says", it doesn't define it beyond that. All I want is a little clarity here, I mean I read this thing from an outside perspective and alarm bells start ringing, or as my English teacher would say, it is a drastic error that brings the reader to a compleate stop....at least for me. It simply doesn't define what definition of Judaism we're talking here, it's not a mere theological difference, it's a matter of I have no idea what it really means here and I naturally assume the worst meaning possible in this context. If it's a definition of Judaism which doesn't even use the Torah and the prophets the same way Christians do, then that is something I would never guess simply by looking at the word "Judaism", when I think of "Judaism" my mind immedietly says "Old Testiment....and people we need to evangelize to." But for the sake of Wikipedia of course, "Old Testiment" is the definition that matters. Why is it so important that it must say "Judaism" as opposed to "Jewish people?" Technically speaking, isn't Wikipedia not supposed to define people's beliefs for them anyway? As far as this sentence goes, it looks like Wikipedia is making up the definition in general, not simply giving the definition of Judaism that most Jews hold as the truth. Homestarmy 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned that your English teacher encourages the use of such hackneyed expressions. Everyone understands "Judaism" to mean the Jewish faith. It most definitely does not mean the "Old Testament", an expression, btw, that Jews, for obvious reasons, would never use. Paul B 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well of course it means the Jewish Faith, but if Judaism isn't using the Old Testament, what is it using anyway? Random inspiration? Free collaboration of ideas? Consensus? If It's not the Torah and the books of the Prophets, I have no idea what their doing today. "Members of the Jewish faith", then, would mean the same thing by this logic, why not use that instead of "Judaism"? Homestarmy 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You've not heard of the Talmud then? Paul B 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And the oral law, halakah, which is broader than the Talmud, if my understanding is correct. But this is getting far afield. Let's stick with how contemporary Jews of all perspectives view Jesus. Does anyone have a work by Jacob Neusner on the subject? --CTSWyneken 01:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I see in the Talmud article, the sum total of all of it's "orders" deal with prayer, blessings, tithes, agriculture laws, the Sabbath, Festivals, marriage and divorce, oaths, laws of the nazirite, civil and criminal law, functioning of courts and oaths, sacrifical rites, the temple, dietary laws, and ritual purity. How could this have anything to do with the Judaic view of Jesus, it all sounds like it's straight out of the Old Testiment. I've looked at the Judaism article just to see if Judaism made some radical, fundamental shift in thought away from the Torah and more towared something else a couple centuries ago or something, the closest I saw was the responsa, in which the responses of rabbi's or someone I think are followed concerning important questions, and from that, I can totally see somebody answering a question about Christ. But I think I can safely say I have never heard the word "responsa" before in relation to Judaism, why should we assume that the reader knows a great deal about Judaism in the modern day to the point they know all these facets? Why would it be likely that a reader would think that "Judaism" in this sense means maybe one of perhaps many responses to questions in the responsa using every-day knowladge? I'm not asking to remove the word "Judaism" necessarily, i'm at the very least asking for clarification on what this word means in the article to be there, nothing big and fancy, just a couple words will do, right now, all I can see in it is "The Bible says Christ could not be God, end of story." Besides, the Judaism article I think said halakah was still based on the Talmud, the Talmud doesn't ever have the name "Jesus Christ" in it, nor the name "Jesus", and "Christ" comes from a Greek word anyway, how could it directly refer to Jesus, whom this article is focusing on? Homestarmy 01:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homes, I left a message on your talk page trying to sort it out. Basically, if you don't believe the New Testament, then it leaves room for doubt about Jesus being the Messiah. Part of it is that the Second Coming hasn't happened yet. If you're a Christian, and thus believe the New Testament, Jesus as Messiah is beyond doubt.Arch O. La 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It may leave plenty of room for doubt, but it doesn't give concrete, absolute grounds for denial. If the Old Testiment specifically stated something along the lines of "And lo! beware of the man called Jesus of Nazarath, for although He will fulfill every last prophecy of this book concerning the Messiah, thou shalt not trust in Him." then this paragraph's intro would make plenty of sense. Yet it does not name Jesus by name, nor is it the accepted consensus that the Old Testiment compleatly deny's Jesus as the messiah, Christianity depends on that book too, it's not a Jewish-only work. If Judaism seriously is known by everyone in the world to of radically changed positions to write in their manifesto's or whatever that Jesus was definently not the Messiah, then can't at least we say "Judaism by how it is commonly known today..." or "Judaism as represented by the Jewish people of today..." or something along those lines? Homestarmy 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * George Bush clearly doesn't meet the Jewish messianic criteria either, though his name isn't specifically mentioned in Tanach. Quite frankly, I doubt there will be any accommodations to Judaism to appease any religions usurping Jewish texts to create novel spinoff interpretations who insist that George's name must be specifically mentioned and emphatically denied in order to cast doubt on his messiahship. -- M P er el ( talk 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "concrete, absolute grounds for denial." Just enough that Jews are Jews, and Christians are Christians. Arch O. La 03:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that Jews do not equal Judaism and Christians do not equal Christianity this isn't just a theological debate, it's reality, a group of people cannot embody a concept, they may share a common concept which unites them, but the people themselves are not literally the concept. Why can't we just spare a few more words to clarify this, such as "Judaism, as commonly followed/interpreted by the Jewish people, says that...." or "Almost all Jews, following modern-day interpretations of Judaism using the Talmud/responsa/whatever, deny....."? We have to do almost the same thing for any religion, Christianity included, as we have to define what the most popular view is because other denominations keep inserting crazy ideas that throw off consensus, why not spare a couple words and do the same for Judaism here? Homestarmy 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about one word: change the link from Messiah to Jewish Messiah. Arch O. La 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As the Jewish Messiah article points out, things only get more complicated, as apparently there is some debate among Jews as to what the qualities of the Jewish messiah actually are. What about something real simple and short, such as "Judaism as it is known today...." That fits in with what Paul B was saying, if it's known to consist of the Jewish consensus in modern times, then I see no problem, according to the Judaism article it changed every time people added to the responsa or other things as time went on anyway, it seems good to me. Homestarmy 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the current wording is correct as there is no current or past definition of Jewish messiah by which Jesus (or George Bush) meets the criteria. There may be more modern views which diverge from traditional views such as Reform and Reconstructionist who dismiss the concept of an actual person being messiah altogether, but in no case has Judaism of any affiliation espoused any view by which Jesus would fit the criteria. And the Christian messiah is (and always has been) quite alien to Jewish messianic views. -- M P er el ( talk 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How could Jesus be alien to Judaism before He was born onto the earth? If Judaism immedietly somehow embodied the idea that Christ was not the Messiah, that doesn't mean they knew about Jesus being born beforehand, you don't see anything in the Old Testiment about "And beware all who come out of the town of Bethelham and call themself a Nazarene, even though I, your Lord, declared that this is where the savior would come from, just forget what I said earlier.", if we're basing the idea of Judaism based on consensus of the Jews rather than the OT, then how could the Jews of known before Christ even existed that He was not the Messiah? What about "Judaism, after Jesus was born, says that...." or something like that? Homestarmy 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Homestarmy, Jewish messianic views didn't suddenly change upon Jesus' birth to somehow exclude him, so such a qualified statement would be pointless and ridiculous. -- M P er el ( talk 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, we're just reenacting Matthew 16. Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I am?" Peter affirmed that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, but there were other answers given: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (verse 14). Judaism simply says that Jesus was not the Messiah, and everthing else flows from that.

You and I are with Peter, but others have other responses. Like MPerel says, Jewish messianic views did not suddenly change, and even in the New Testament Jews debated the nature of Jesus. That is all the section under discussion asserts. Arch O. La 04:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But apparently, Judaism can now mean the religion, or the consensus of people inside that religion, or the religion as determined by a new consensus of the people. If it's the people, then by all means, say the people believe it. If it's the religion as now determined by the consensus of the people, by all means, say that the religion says it by the new consensus of the people. But the religion alone contains the building block for Christianity, it's not merely a matter of people interpreting it differently, we use the exact same book (Except when people delete things, but im not sure if that's widespread), and since the source is pretty much exactly the same, how can the controversy be ignored? Honestly, I can see why this section shouldn't turn into a debate comparing both religions views of the OT, because that's not really what it's necessarily meant for. But if your just saying "Judaism says that the OT puts Jesus in the same class as false prophets", where's the response? Both Judaism and Christianity use the OT, it might have different names, but it is the same book, and if the interpretations are so radically different that Judaism now "says" that the OT claims Jesus was not the Messiah, without Christianity's view, it reads as though the OT (Or "Talmud" or whatever includes everything) only says the Jewish interpretation, and therefore because of this supposedly common sense observation, Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah. Is there even a Wikipedia article on, say, Christian views of the Old Testiment or something? Homestarmy 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homes, Christianity agreed with Peter and the rest of Judaism did not. Then Paul evangelized to the Gentiles, and pretty soon Christianity was no longer Jewish. Then there were nearly 2000 years for both religions to change. But at heart, the difference between Judaism and Christianity goes back to Peter's affirmation, and that is why the section references the Jewish messiah. After that, we're no longer talking about Jesus. Arch O. La 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Not an article, but there is a section


 * Homestarmy, I think you expect Judaism's views of Jesus to merely be a validation of your Christian views, but it just doesn't work that way. Are mainstream Christians obligated to validate Mormon views?  Try this on for size using your logic:  Christianity "contains the building block for" Mormonism.  "It's not merely a matter of people interpreting it differently, (you) use the exact same book,"  Mormons merely added a new book to the existing Christian scripture along with a few extra views about Jesus visiting the Americas etc.  So do you want to go make sure all of Christianity's views lay out a clear evangelistic arrow pointing to Mormonism (Mormons self-define as Christians)?  This appears your intention with this article regarding Judaism's view of Jesus... -- M P er el ( talk 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen to MPerel; there is wisdom in his words. As I said elsewhere, I get the feeling that you're fighting against 2000 years of history. Well, good luck. Arch O. La 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homestarmy, havin reviewed the wording you are concerned about, I can say that it is sufficently NPOV and accurate. "According to Judaism, Jesus ..." introduces it as Judaism's view. Judaism is correct because the religion called Judaism (today split in various denominations) has been defined as excluding Jesus in the 1st and 2nd century - Judaism is based on the reorganisation of the non-Christian Jewish communtiy post 70 AD under the leadership of the Pharisees and Rabbis, resulting in the Talmud. This can lead to problems when using the term "Judaism" pre 70, as the historical reality was that the Jewish religion did encompass Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, Christians and other groups, of which only two survived the year 70 - Pharisees (who came to form Judaism) and Christians. In the context of this article "Judaism" is completely fitting. Str1977 (smile back) 09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why can it not simply spare the trouble to say "According to Judaism after 70 AD/CE..."? 3 more words is all, then everything looks fine to me, "Judaism after 70 AD/CE..." works too. I think what the problem is that I simply look at the word "Judaism", and question marks pop up for me. I don't know how their not popping up for everyone else, but when I see the word "Judaism" I think "This probably means the belief in the Old Testiment as a religious idea.", not "The mass majority of Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus". If the development of this idea along a timeline is suggested, then it's much more clear that it is the result of change of common thinking. I know that the way the word is used here is supposedly to only reference the vast beliefs of the Jews, but only because that's what everyone has told me it is "supposed" to mean, how can we be certain somebody just looking at this article to reaserch Jesus will have the knowladge of this talk page discussion? Homestarmy 13:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the way, on the Mormon thing, as I understand it, Mormon's do not believe either the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or whatever that 4th thing is to be 100 percent trustworthy, it's very confusing, but it is not based on literally interpreted building blocks in Christianity. I mean Mormon's apparently say nowadays that there can be god's over all the planets, not a clue where that comes from, but the point is, it's not built literally on Christianity or come to think of it, anything else. And to tell you the truth, I can't think of a single pair of religions in the world that are built on top of each other like Judaism and Christianity are..... Homestarmy 13:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Zoroastrianism and Vedic hinduism are "built on top of" earlier Aryan beliefs, and then Buddhism branched off from aspects of Hinduism, as did Jainism. Islam is "built on top of" both Judaism and Christianity; and Sikhism is built out of a branch of Hinduism sympathetic to aspects of Islam; and Bahai is a branching out from Shia Islam.


 * Now you may say that Christianity emerges logically from the prophesies in the OT, but these other faiths are not "built on top of" their predecessors in the same way. Fine, that's the traditional Christian POV. But that's all it is. Talk to a Muslim and they will say that Judaism and Christianity both corrupted God's message, which why a new scripture was required. That's their POV. Talk to a Jew and they will argue that you have to distort "OT" prophesies to make them fit Jesus, and that the NT even includes "prophesies" that are nowhere to be found in Jewish scripture. That's their POV, and that's what we understand by Judaism. Paul B 14:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Aw now that's all semantics about what constitutes a building block, but that's not what this discussion is about, can't we just say "Judaism as of about 70 AD/CE says/claims/believes/whatever...." and be done with it for now? You might understand Judaism to be "Jewish people's POV." But when I see "Judaism" I think "The religion of Judaism" not "The POV of the people of Judaism", the reason for that is, quite frankly, in Christianity, with all the different POVs, I am not inclined to think that it is what people think that matters, but what the Bible says that matters. Therefore, im not so inclined to think that religions are broken down compleatly into what people personally believe. Of course, I don't represent most people, but this article shouldn't be written so that any person who just comes here ever needs a considerable amount of inside knowladge of the meaning of Judaism here and where it's even coming from. Homestarmy 14:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's "semantics". That's the point. There are different interpretations, but when we use well established terms like "Judaism" we use the standard meaning, that's WP policy. "Judaism" is a relgion. Rather uniquely, it's also an ethnicity, so there can, in a sense, be non-Jewish Jews, if they have rejected the Jewish religion. That certainly leads to confusion, but there's not much we can do about it. The word "Judaism" refers to the relgion that identifies itself in terms of an ethno-religious continuity with the traditions of the Torah and does not see Jesus as having affected that tradition, any more than they see Mohammad, who also claimed to be a prophet in the OT tradition, as having affected it. Paul B 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So wait a minute, your saying that Judaism represents the ethnicity as well and that changes the definition? It seems to me there's a simple way to resolve this, just put "Judaism as of 70 AD/CE says..." or "Judaism as defined by ethnic and religious definition says...." I've never heard of Judaism's standard definition as including most everyone who is ethnically a Jew, why should the article depend on the reader to know this to understand how the word Judaism is being used here? Im only asking for a few little words of clarification, not a whole re-write in which I single-handedly condemn Judaism in every way possible. Homestarmy 15:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Judaism doesn't evolve into a new religion just to deny every messianic claimant (and there have been many). "Judaism as of 70 AD/CE says..." is as unneccessary as saying "Judaism as of 1666 claims Sabbatai Zevi didn't meet messianic qualifications".  The latter candidate, btw, came a heck of a lot closer to meeting traditional qualifications, but still no cigar, according to Judaism. -- M P er el ( talk 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The section in question is about Judaism's view of Jesus, not about what "some Jews", or "many Jews" or "most Jews" purportedly think. Those kinds of phrases are, in fact, unsourced weasel words, and not even relevant, since there are millions of Jews in the world, who have millions of viewpoints about Jesus. Although Judaism does not speak very much about Jesus, Jewish movements, and seminal Jewish thinkers (such as Maimonides), have made authoritative statements regarding him. This is what the section is about, not about some theoretical poll that was taken of all Jews. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really have anything to add to the debate after Matthew 16. But as I Lutheran, I know how Martin Luther tried to reach out to the Jewish people and share the gospel (challenging Catholic dogma by the way). I also know how frustrated and bitter Luther grew when he wasn't able to win too many converts, and how it poisoned his soul. I pray that Homestarmy is not headed down the same path. Arch O. La 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if he's here to win Christian converts, he's violating Wikipedia's purpose. If he keeps in mind this is an encylopedia project, not a christian/heathen battleground, and that we're not here to debate personal theologies, just objectively and accurately reflect (in this section) Judaism's view of Jesus, then he should be fine. -- M P er el ( talk 17:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The religious discussion/debate on this Talk: page was interesting and all, but we have to remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a soapbox, that this is a summary article about Jesus, and that the section on the views of Judaism is itself just a summary of another article.  As such, it should briefly state Judaism's view citing reliable sources, which I've done, quoting authoritative Jewish sources, and bringing sourced statements from Orthodox Judaism to Reform Judaism, which pretty much covers the spectrum.  This small section is certainly not the place for vague POV paragraphs filled with weasel words claims about what "some Jews" believe, nor is it the place for another Christian-Jewish debate about whether or not Jesus really was the Messiah; I don't imagine we'll be having little "Christian rebuttal" sections under the views of other religions (e.g. Muslim) as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg for your recent edits to the section which give sourced clear statements about Judaism's view of Jesus. -- M P er el ( talk 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; if you can find more authoritative sources from Judaism which discuss this topic, please feel free to add them. Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I thought it might of been the responsa that did it! I get the feeling I just didn't plain project in this conversation exactly where I was trying to come from, it looks fairly good to me now, good citations and whatnot, seems to explain pretty much everything clearly. It's just before, it didn't specify who or what was saying things, that's what made me assume the worst. Homestarmy 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if all you wanted was clearer sources that's fine. I just thought your approach was opening up a can of worms. Arch O. La 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well clearer sources was apparently one way of solving the issue, what I really wanted was the section to be clear on what it meant by Judaism or balance it if it was the definition I thought it was, I guess it's relatively fine now since it doesn't read much like the definition I thought it could mean. Homestarmy 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks very good now. It is a nice summary linking to the main article. It now has what Judaism believes as opposed to indivual beliefs (reminds me of the the old joke about two jews and three opinions), and it is properly sourced. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if it were called "modern Judaism" (meaning the Jewish religion right now) homestarmy might be happy. homestarmy- Judaism and the OT are not the exact same thing. Judaism is a religion and the OT is a book. The article correctly states Judaism rejects Jesus as the messiah. The OT doesn't say who the messiah is or isnt. People have read the OT and interpreted it differently and formed religions. Judaism is a religion that does not recognize Jesus as the messiah. Christianity is a religion that views Jesus as the messiah prophecized in the OT. You seem confused, thinking that saying "Judaism rejects Jesus as the messiah" to mean "Christianity is a fake." I hope this cleared things up for you. The analogy involving Mormonism is a very good one also.

Also, you say that Jesus fits into the messianic expectations so prefectly that there is no other possible interpretation, but you are wrong. For instance, Jesus did not restore the davidic monarchy like the Jews expected from the messiah. Also, pre-Christ Jews claimed that Isiaha's "they shall call him Immanuel" prophecy was about Hezekiah, and some Jews may still maintain that it was. Also, Jews may think that the virginal birth and Jesus riding in on a mule did not really happen but are fabrications. These are just a few of many examples. The point is the OT messianic prophesies are very general, and although I personally believe they referred to Jesus, I think it is important to recognize that if someone thinks they didn't, it does not make them stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs)

All good points, but I thought we had already established this? Arch O. La 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Homestarmy is making a profound error when he identifies Judaism with the Old Testament. for one thing, Jews do not believe in an Old Testament.  "Old" Testament implies that there is a "new" testament, and Jews do not accept the New Testament.  Secondly, the Hebrew Bible tells of God's covenant with the people Israel.  For historical reasons, i.e. the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, today we use the words "Jews" and "Judaism," which derive from the Kingdom of Judah which remained after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.  But the covenant itself endures: God's covenant with the Jewish people.  So it is simply absurd to try to talk about a "Judaism" separate from the Jewish people.  Third, Homestarmy claims, as do most Christians, that the Hebrew Bible can support Jesus' claim to being messiah - but he mistakes his reading, or a Christian reading for an "objective" reading.  Thus, he questions the Jewish reading as a Jewish POV.  But there is no objective reading of the Hebrew Bible.  There are only different readings from different points of view.  Although this fact is consistent with the way contemporary literary critics, especially those who employ reader-response theory, read all texts (e.g. Moby Dick, War and Peace), it is also how Judaism views the text.  The Talmud and various Midrashim provide a wide range of readings of the text.  My point is that Judiasm includes a way of reading the Hebrew Bible that is profoundly non-fundamentalist.  Anyone who attempts to interpret the Hebrew Bible the way fundamentalists do certainly have that right, but what they end up with is not a Jewish reading of the Hebrew Bible. There was a brief period when Jews wondered whether Jesus was a messiah, but by the end of the second century that moment had passed.  Isn't this the point of Saul's conversion to Paul on the road to Damascus?  In Galatians he states that in Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile.  Sauls conversion is from being a Jew to being a Christian, and his interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, smart and thoughtful though they may be, are not Jewish readings of the Hebrew Bible. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irregardless, the simple clarification and citation of the Jewish POV cleared up the problem I had with the sentence, it's clear what the meaning of "Judaism" in the article is, and it ain't the one I was afraid it was. Seriously, is all that talmud and responsa stuff really common knowladge? Homestarmy 14:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Any Jew with a minimum amount of Jewish education knows what the Talmud is and how important it is. Any Jew with a reasonable amount of Jewish education (comparable to what an American knows about American history, and so on) knows that for a very long time, and even up to today Orthodox, Jews have believed that the Talmud embodies the oral Torah that God revealed to Moses at Sinai along with the written Torah, and that the Written Torah is only half of the Torah.  All well-educated non-Orthodox Jews - who do not believe that the Torah, written or oral, was revealed at Sinai - still believe that the Talmud is as much at the core of Judaism as the Bible. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah but here's the kicker, as an encyclopedia article, our audience will not be limited to orthodox or non-orthodox Jews, and will probably include a great many people who do not know what the definition of Judaism is to people "in the know", and who may very well default to the OT as the definition. The point is moot anyway, the section makes it quite clear by citing information what sort of Judaism the article is referring to, I don't see the problem now. Homestarmy 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no problem now. be that as it may, I have no idea why people would identify Judaism solely with the "Old Testament" but this is precisely why we have links - someone ignorant about Judaism (which would become apparent if someone reads something about Judaism and is confused - I mean, this is always how we discover our ignorances, by encountering something that confuses us) can just clikc on the Judaism link and learn about it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But not everyone who comes to wikipedia is on a journey to click on all the Wikilinks, sometimes people just come to get information from just one article and then leave. Homestarmy 13:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to make sure they have the correct information first - otherwise we are just reinforcing the readers ignorance. SOPHIA 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

=Again with the Jesus-Myth=

I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist
I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist. Raisinman 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Raisinman
 * Why? Historians tend not to assert things that cannot be proven or documented; to do so is the realm of religion. Historians can say that no contemporaneous documents exist that prove the existance of Jesus; they can not say that this demonstrates Jesus didn't exist, since the vast majority of living people (of that period, certainly, and I imagine of most periods) left no contemporaneous record. At best they can say "case unproven" until they find the secret scrolls that record the conspiracy to invent Jesus. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But, for the record, their "best guess" (an educated guess, based on the available evidence) has been that Jesus did exist (though obviously they can say little regarding miracles, divinity, etc.). KHM03 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jpgordon. Arguing from the negative (no historians think ...) is always a bad idea.  For one thing, has Raisinman surveyed all historians to see what they believe?  How can we know whether or not an article will come out tomorrow by a major historian stating that Jesus did not exist?  This is not a joke - few if any of us read all of the history journals and it is common for encyclopedias to lag behind the fields they represent - especially if something is a matter of ongoing discussion.  All major historians I know of believe Jesus existed, and I feel confident saying this because I have done considerable research on the topic.  But even having done this research, I cannot say that there are no historians who believe he did not exist.  How could one prove such a statement? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't think Josephus is positive about the non-existence of Brian son of Naughtius. A close tie between the historicity of Jesus vs. Brian, then :p dab (&#5839;) 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone knows Brian existed. Haven't you seen the movie with your own eyes?  Guettarda 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but did Josephus exist? ;-) --CTSWyneken 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember - was he in the movie? Guettarda 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anybody exist? I think, therefore I am...I think. But what is "real"? How do we define "real"? Should I take the red pill or the blue pill? Arch O. La 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're debating the meaning of life, go | here :D. Homestarmy 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Revised idea: I think the article should say that all the Jesus mythers are non historians
I think the article should say that all the Jesus mythers are non historians. Raisinman 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Raisinman

The article should not say that no historians say that Jesus did not exist because some historians do say that Jesus did not exist. Most don't. That's why the sentence that has caused so much furor says that this is a minority view. Most historians say that Jesus did exist, that he was a thinker ahead of his time, that he championed the rights of women, and of people in prison, and of tax collectors, who has been co-opted by narrow-minded bigots who hate women, and people in prison, and tax collectors. (I did not say that. I am not here.  I'm also a little drunk.  It is late at night, and time for everybody to go home and go to bed.) Rick Norwood 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, it's early evening here. Good commentary, though ;) Arch O. La 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the major advocates of the Jesus-myth, at its inception, had ulterior motives and as such have since been largely discredited. Drews, for example, was a philosopher and argued for a pan-Germanic and nativist religious and philosophical ideal, and while he was not himself a Nazi nor did he openl support the Nazis the ideal that he was seeking was utilized by the Nazis and other German nationalist movements to attempt to create such an ideal. An integral part of this creation of a native Germanic mythos and identity was the discreditation of the existing Christian identity of the German populace. Maccoby was an atheist Jew who was intent on disconnecting Jewish identity from Judaism and Christianity and attacking the idea of anti-Semitism (and its identity with Christianity) as an outgrowth of Roman proto-nationalism (something I personally agree with). Urrutia and Davenport were both involved in the neo-Gnostic movement and were attempting to portray the concept of Christ as more of an outgrowth of Hellenistic philosophy rather than a literal person. Each of these authors in their own way had their own definite agends when approaching the historicity of Christ, and each has been recognized as having said agendas. Now, this is not to argue that anyone who accepts the Jesus-myth hypothesis has an agenda of their own, but this does point out why the Jesus-myth does not hold much ground within the academic community. Any historian writing on Jesus who wishes to propose the Jesus-myth as viable would have to return to these individuals as sources in terms of historiography, and along with that, bring along any baggage and criticisms that these individuals may have as sources. Just as when writing about Augustus it is unnacceptable to simply leave Syme out of your research, or when researching the fall of Rome to simply ignore Gibbon, these men for better or for worse are the standard bearers of the Jesus-myth hypothesis until a more widely recognized work comes along. As such, you would be hard pressed to find a historian in any community that would unequivocally come out in favor of the Jesus-myth or who would without question deny the historical person of Jesus. The fact of the matter is the research that has been done on the matter is "tainted" and is not considered valid research because it is so heavily biased towards these individual's personal agendas. pookster11 02:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood, a previous poster, said there have been historians who said Jesus never existed yet he didn't mention any. I would like to see a historian quote saying Jesus did not exist from Rick Norwood. Raisinman 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Raisinman


 * And make that modern historians, otherwise it doesn't belong in the intro. rossnixon 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Define what precisely you mean by modern historian? pookster11 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A Google search turns up Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Old Testament Studies, University of Copenhagen and author of a book on the subject. The Columbia History of the World says about the Biblical accounts. "These sources disagree with one another, and sometimes with themselves, in many points ... They represent Christian Tradition as it was after one or two generations of reflection, controversy, exageration, and invention." But they don't say flatly that Jesus was a myth. Is that enough, or shall I keep looking? Rick Norwood 17:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good lead, but we'll have to check it. Do you have a title? --CTSWyneken 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm... am I the only one that doesn't see anything about Jesus-myth in that quotation? pookster11 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A visit to amazon.com provides this: "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Rick Norwood 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! We don't own a copy here, but I'll send for it from one of the other 180+ libraries that own a copy. A look at the version in books.google.com did not yield enough info to say one way or the other. The author does do, however, a rather thorough historiography of the study of Jesus. Reading about 15 pages from the book, I did not run into his opinion once. --CTSWyneken 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the encyclopedia quote is enough, because historians who accept Jesus' existence (Vermes, Fredricksen, Sanders) seem to think the same thing abou the NT. Rick Norwood's quote is a good one, but it illustrates the critical approach to NT studies in general and does not, as Rick points out, necessarily mean that Jesus did not exist, or that the critical scholar does not believe Jesus existed.  The whole point of the scholarship on the historical jesus is to distinguish between jesus the man, who really lived, and Jesus the myth, as he came to be represented in Christianity.  (Of course, this view does not require one to believe Jesus existed; I am just saying that we have two separate things here: views of the NT as historical document, and views of Jesus as a historical person)Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Jesus wikipedia article has been unduly influenced by militant atheists
I looked at many print encylopedias in the library. None questioned the existence of Jesus. I believe the Jesus wikipedia article has been unduly influenced by militant atheists. Fringe views like the Jesus mythers are not featured in more scholarly encyclopedias. Raisinman 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Raisinman


 * "Militant atheists"? As opposed to what, friendly atheists, peaceful atheists, militant Christians, or something else?  You really need to go read the German article. Jim62sch 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've seen all of the above on Wikipedia. Could someone translate the German article for us? My ancestors spoke German, but lost it during World War I (assimilating into the general American culture was considered a sign of loyalty). Arch O. La 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny thing about mainstream encyclopedias -- the never say anything that will hurt sales. For example, the Encyclopedia Britanica used to say up front that astrology is a psuedoscience.  Not any more.  The Columbia World History that I cited above is a good example of the scholarly view.  Rick Norwood 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * CTSWynekan checked seven encyclopedias and only one (Academic American) even mentioned the Jesus-Myth. OTOH, you should be careful&mdash;"militant" may be seen as a personal attack. Also beware of the Dark Side. (another way of saying, "beware of false prophets.")Arch O. La 01:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We should aim to be better than paper encyclopedias anyway, and besides, if we just cover up what these people have to say, they'll just get the jump on you more easily, you know? Better to show their ridiculous views, simply by showing them in an NPOV manner, the foolishness of their viewpoint speaks for itself. Homestarmy 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As does the POV silliness of your post. Jim62sch 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not call people names, even if you disagree with them. You do not want others to call you names, either.


 * Yes, print encyclopedias do not mention the non-existence hypothesis. But it does not hurt to mention the minority position as long as it is clear that it is such. --CTSWyneken 02:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I called the views ridiculous and foolish, not the people. I mean I could maybe find academic citations labelling their view ridiculous and foolish, you know? But it can't be an ad hominim unless I actually insult the person. Homestarmy 14:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the whole exchange above, not any specific user. That being said, I think labeling a person's viewpoint is likely to gain an emotional response rather than a rational one. In a forum like this, it can set forth a flame war, the likes of which we've seen here in recent weeks. After all, if I were to call your faith stupid (as has been done here in spirit if not letter), wouldn't you take that personally.


 * For the sake of conversation here, therefore, I'd appreciate it if we all keep the value judgments to a minimum, please, and try to use adverbs and adjectives that at least on the surface can be argued somewhat objectively. --CTSWyneken 14:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, i'd probably try to shake it off and remember the Bible said that sort of thing would happen. Do people even realize, every time they insult Christianity or Christians, their proving Christianity and the Bible more and more right for every single insult they throw? I mean if you get it in perpsective, the more you get criticized, the more absolutly certain you can be that Jesus is Lord, because His word on the subject just gets more and more fulfilled as time goes on. But I can understand what your saying, but like I said, I can pretty much prove their views foolish by consensus of academia in addition to using the Bible, and you know what, when modern day scientific or historical observation agrees with the Bible, it's a bit obvious the other side's viewpoint is pretty sunk. Homestarmy 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would not be hard to come up with quotes of this nature... on both sides. It is better (and considerably easier on the archive, BTW) to avoid such language and the emotions they arouse. It will calm things down considerably. --CTSWyneken 15:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Homes: when did logic take a vacation? Following your logic someone could say that the more people who bash the Nazi's, the clearer it is that they were right.  Obviously, that's not what you would say (nor would I), but that's where that type of logic leads. Jim62sch 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood... your Columbia History of the World quote does not even imply at all that Jesus didn't exist. It doubts the accuracy of the Gospels - thats it. Most scholars would say that the Gospels are unreliable, but that Jesus still existed.


 * Please sign with four tildes ~ . Anyway, agreed. Jim62sch 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well ordinarily my logic wouldn't apply, but Jesus predicted people would do generally mean things to Christians in general, and people trying to assert that we're all liars on the grounds of "Jesus didn't exist" certainly qualifies. So Jesus's prediction just keeps becoming more and more accurate as time goes on, further adding to the validity, though of course not being the sole method of finding the validity. Homestarmy 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't app;y. All you've done is describe a self-fulfilling prophecy. Alienus 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I would think a prophecy which fulfills itself would be lending itself credability, but you know, if somebody is going to go to the trouble to attack Jesus in some manner, I might as well take it Biblically. Otherwise, I might just break WP:CIVIL, and we wouldn't want that would we? :D Homestarmy 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Be careful that you are not confusing two different definitions of the word "prophecy." The Christian/Jewish/Islamic definition is basically "a message from God." I am also familiar with the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy from my sociology classes--basically it means acting in such a way as to make expectations come true. It all comes down to social dynamics. Arch O. La 20:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, if you come up with a radical new idea and predict that some people will doubt you, you're hardly going out on a limb. It's merely a reflection of human nature.  Jim62sch 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

=Question: Jesus, Pilate and Barabbas=

I'm wondering why there's nothing in other views regarding the impossibility of a Jesus-Pilate conversation, the pun of Barabbas' name, the fact that Romans had no custom re releasing a condemned prisoner during Passover, etc. Jim62sch 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly because much of those are covered in other articles. The Barabbas issue is covered in the Barabbas article, as are many of the issues secondary to that incident which you bring up here. pookster11 23:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, nevermind. Read the whole thread.  Jim62sch 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ....Because....there are no views about those things that are actually credible? I don't know, im just guessing. Homestarmy 22:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps the fact that they are less critical to the story? Assuming Jesus didn't exist, it doesn't matter whether or not someone else was released in his place. He could still be executed. It doesn't matter whether someone's name is a pun. But it's pretty damn important to the story that Jesus existed. Minor details are inconsequential. See where I'm going with that? It's hard to explain. Deskana (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to open a can of worms here, so I'll just say I see the irony in a choice between Yeshua "son of father" (bar-abba) and Yeshua Son of the Father (2nd Person in the Trinity). Arch O. La 23:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The English language Wikipedia, like most English language publications that are not aimed specifically at the skeptic community, bends over backwards not to offend any religion, partly out of politeness, partly out of fear. I wonder what the other-language Wikipedia have to say about Jesus.


 * I think, however, the place to point out obvious errors in the Bible, such as the ones you mention, is in the article on that book of the Bible. And, of course, one must be polite, NPOV, cite sources, and all that good stuff.


 * Watching a person of a different religion defending their religion is as embarassing as watching a person of a different sexual orientation having sex. Rick Norwood 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A humourous analogy... but there is truth in it! That's almost scary... Deskana (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds rather Freudian to me. Arch O. La 23:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't read too much into what I asked -- it was rhetorical. They are things worth discussing (Arch resolved part of the one question), not to criticize, but to make people think.
 * I'll have to go look at the other language articles (at least those I can read) to see how they treat this issue.
 * Anyway, give the questions some thought. Jim62sch 23:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note, once again, all the quetions here are actually addressed in the Barabbas article. pookster11 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your kidding me, right Rick? If your not faint of heart, type in "Piss Jesus" into the search box and see what pops up front and center. But I warn you, even though I haven't seen it, it's nasty, and quite offensive indeed. No bending over backward in this encyclopedia. Homestarmy 02:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean Piss Christ, not Piss Jesus: "even though I haven't seen it, it's nasty, and quite offensive indeed". It's good to see that you are so reliant on "faith" in this as in so many other matters, but in this case a little bit of actual research might not go amiss. Go on. I dare you to click on the blue words and be totally shocked by how beautiful and even spiritual this image is. Paul B 13:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I got one word wrong. I don't memorize the titles of every article I come across, especially when I don't actually click on them when I know their disgusting. I've heard more than enough to know I do not want to click on that link, so I won't, it's simple. My point was, Wikipedia is not censored to respect Christianity, there was quite a protest over it in both Wikipedia and in the real world, yet it still remains front and center apparently. The same goes for many other religions. There is no cartel of Christian sensibility. (Unfortunently) Homestarmy 13:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How in the name of Krishna, Zeus, Eloi, or any other deity you could mention you could know that something is "disgusting" (whatever that word means) without looking at it is beyond me. Jim62sch 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You could ask people of your trust for their opinion ... or judge from reports. Granted, that judgement is not as certain as one after having looked at the object yourself, but it's still fair enough. BTW, disgusting is a pretty well defined term. Str1977 (smile back) 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe to the first, although there was no indication that that was what happened...as for the second, while "disgusting" as an adjective has a good definition, the concept of what is disgusting is highly subjective. One person's horror is another person's beauty -- and neither of their opinions would be intrinsically right or wrong.  Jim62sch 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I went ahead and looked. It's not as bad as I expected...but still, I saw no beauty or spirituality there whatsoever. I guess it's true what they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Arch O. La 13:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised you don't see it. The figure is dissolving into a golden light, as though the material body is being replaced by an insubstantial spiritual one. Around it is a glowing red aureole. All this is entirely within the familiar tradition of Christian art. In fact this play on insubstantial spirituality and bodily materiality is within the familiar theology of the Incarnation. The photo explores that spiritual/physical dichotomy. The crucifixion would be a very physical event - very probably involving uncontrollable urination as well as bleeding. The idea that the body is purified or "washed" by this violation is common in theology: "washed in the blood of the saviour" is a disgusting image if you take it literally, and yet people seem unconcerned by it. As it happens it was quite common for Renaissance painters to use urine, and this was even commented upon by Iconoclasts who objected to the "smearing" of the face of God by portraying it with disgusting substances liked crushed beetles etc that were used for pigments. Rather tangental this, I know, but I can't stand wilfully ignorant outrage. Ho hum. Paul B 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. That's one way of looking at it. Thanks for the insight.Gator (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Or it could just be some guy painting as offensive and anti-christian a picture as possible, art critiques are pretty subjective after all. Of course, im not sure if I used the word "subjective" right.....Homestarmy 15:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we are on this tangent: I don't think it is subjective at all. Whether one likes the painting or not is subjective, but what it means is not subjective because the meaning of things is social.  Paul makes a number of objective claims that anyone could prove to be false or true: (1) that golden light is a motif in Christian portrayals of jesus; (2)that the distinction between insubstantial spirit and material body is often made in Christian theology; (3) that crucifixion leads to uncontrolled bleeding and urination; (4) that viewing this uncontroled bodily secretion has been portrayed as cleansing in Christian literature; (5) that Renaissance painters used urine.  Five claims, none of which are subjective, upon which Paul's interpretation of the painting rests.  If you can prove any of these claims wrong, his interpretation is weakened.  If all of these claims are true, his interpretation is strengthened. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, technically, the Bible never says if Christ's crucifixion led to urination, speaking from a medical standpoint it should, but it was never mentioned. Apparently a good amount of Christians disagreed that it cleansed one's soul to look at it as well, as they protested it. (Without burning down embassys) This is all besides the point, regardless of how some people choose to interpret it, many Christians were very unhappy over it anyway, for good reasons culturally speaking. Urine is culturally known as a very undesireable substance to associate with things, urine is not commonly associated with the crucifixion, and if the person making that painting wanted to make a painting respecting the crucifixion, then urine shouldn't of been associated, and it was not a renaissance painting as far as I know. Plus, it's sunk in urine, that's downright weird even if it wasn't being associated with the crucifixion. Homestarmy 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

=Jesus in other languages= The Catalan version is more NPOV, reading as a critique of a historical figure. Jim62sch 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish is roughly the same as the Catalan, though more POV Jim62sch 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, my only other language is Spanish, and that is only es-1. The Spanish article takes a lot of time discussing the name. Beyond that, the Spanish version seems fairly reasonable to me. I can't read the other versions. Arch O. La 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The French is less Cartesian than I expected, but there appears to be conflict as the page is protected. Jim62sch 23:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sicilian and Romansch are stubsJim62sch 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we bring this article more in line with the Catalan version? Rick Norwood 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably, I don't see why not. The Romanian version looks OK, too, but it takes me longer to read Romanian (I have to translate to Latin in my head and then it's understandable) so I really haven't gotten through the whole thing. Jim62sch 23:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine some here wouldn't approve of the German article, which is about the "historical person". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if the Germans don't have the equivalent of a Historical Jesus article, well, their loss :/. Homestarmy 14:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Homes, you really missed the point. The article is the "historical" Jesus -- warts and contradictions and impossibilities and all.  It is a truly scholarly piece of work.  (BTW, it's a featured article).  I guess for your sake, it's a good thing you don't read German. Jim62sch 01:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They do have such an article, don't worry. Actually their distinction between historical Jesus  and Jesus in Christianity  seems to be a better one, than the one found in en.wikipedia.org. Oub 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC):


 * So some of you are saying that it's "better", care to go into specifics? :/ Homestarmy 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the spanish version has changed significantly the last time I checked. Last time it was clearly a catholic based presentation, now it has changed to a more neutral point of view.
 * About the German version: there are two things.
 * First there are two articles nicely distinguished, one about Jesus in Christianity the other one about the historical figure. The latter then talks about the historical background, the situation of the Jewish religion at that time, keeping in mind the results of modern scholars, from Bultman to Sanders. The situation in en.wikipedia.org is much less clear. At least I can see three articles ,
 * New Testament view on Jesus' life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_view_on_Jesus
 * Historical Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
 * That, namely Jesus  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus, which by the way is the only one, which does not make references to the other two.
 * I personally would find the following notation better:
 * Jesus Christ for the religious aspects.
 * Jesus of Nazereth  for the historical aspects.
 * In any case the other main difference to the German version is, the German version is far more detailed than the English one. And I think it is not for the lack of contributions, far the opposite. I see fiercely debates about single phrases or even single words, but then real issues of improving the quality of that article are not discussed nor are changes accepted. To give you an example of the latter: the current section about the death of Jesus has serious flaws and errors. I would like to bring up that subject (as a matter of fact I have prepared already a list of complains), but right now it seems better to wait, till the situation has cooled down somehow.
 * Oub 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC):
 * In any case the other main difference to the German version is, the German version is far more detailed than the English one. And I think it is not for the lack of contributions, far the opposite. I see fiercely debates about single phrases or even single words, but then real issues of improving the quality of that article are not discussed nor are changes accepted. To give you an example of the latter: the current section about the death of Jesus has serious flaws and errors. I would like to bring up that subject (as a matter of fact I have prepared already a list of complains), but right now it seems better to wait, till the situation has cooled down somehow.
 * Oub 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC):
 * Oub 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC):
 * Oub 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC):


 * I don't know...the German "Jesus Christus" (Jesus Christ) seems pretty small. The main article is "Jesus von Nazaret" (Jesus of Nazareth). That might be a better name than "Historical Jesus" (since we also have a separate historicity article, the names are confusing). We also have a separate "Christian Views of Jesus" article which is probably similar to Jesus Christus. But Babelfish failed me when I tried to translate, so beyond the titles I can't tell if they're better or worse. ;( Arch O. La 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The German article is much better. Babelfish bites -- especially for something written on the level of German that the Jesus article is written on.  Jim62sch 00:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)