Talk:Jesus/Archive 67

Something strangely missing from Historicity section
One would expect the Historicity section to begin (as in, first sentence) with a statement of the consensus of historians on whether such a man as Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. After all, best practise is to assume our readers are wholly ignorant. Logically speaking, we must begin with basic premises before we advance to more complex constructions. Historically, the most basic question of all is, "did Jesus really exist?"

It appears, incidentally, from the various statements in that section, that historians do agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed (at least as a man). Would it be acceptable to preface the section with the aforementioned necessary introduction? Kasreyn 20:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd think so. Homestarmy 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen ;) Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 是 :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Can someone add this to a list of things to change as soon as the lock is lifted? Kevin/Last1in 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, going on these positive comments, I'm going to go ahead and make the addition now. Please reply here if there are any replies.
 * Hmmm... actually, I did some Googling and it appears there is some debate remaining on this question.  I'm not sure which way the consensus goes, if there even is one.  Let me think of a new wording before I change anything.  Kasreyn 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Be careful to check up on the credentials of people you look up, we've had discussions long ago about people's opinions on Jesus's existance, and so far I think only one person was proven to actually be a historian. Homestarmy 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest looking at the Historicity of Jesus article for ideas on how to approach this. Joel Bastedo 03:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think quick consensus could be reached on a statement like, "With a few notable exceptions, historians generally accept that Jesus did exist in the early first century." Argument will ensure over whether to add CE or AD after 'first century', but the substance should be acceptable. -Kevin/Last1in 17:50 UTC 18 July 2006


 * The consensus about dating style here seems to be to use BC/BCE with a slash mark like that. Homestarmy 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
In more than two weeks no consensus has emerged in the survey. Please continue to discuss. Meanwhile I am unprotecting the article and request all editors to show restraint. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to extend my thanks to Aiden  for completely proving my point that he has no intention to operate in good faith, nor any apparent understanding of the term, consensus. Within 14 hours of the article losing protection and with the SPECIFIC plea of the admin to continue the discussion until consensus is reached, Aiden move the Christianity template back to the top, claiming the move was "per talk page.". Whether the template belongs there is a matter of continuing debate (with the idea that it does NOT belong there predominating currently); to make this change in defiance of the ongoing discussion (above) is intentionally provocative and antithetical to the nature of Wikipedia. I believe there are only two viable courses at present: revert to the 28 June version and re-protect until REAL consensus is reached, or re-protect and request that some outside admin make specific changes NOT related to the templates in any way. Kevin/Last1in 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you think you're over-reacting, it was just one edit, its not an edit war....yet. Homestarmy 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Homestarmy. I don't. If you read Aiden 's post about un-protecting the article (now archived), he makes it quite clear that he believes an edit-war is inevitable, and, as evidenced by this change, seems perfectly ready to fire the opening salvo. I find it disappointing and distasteful in the extreme.Kevin/Last1in 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless he fires another "salvo", i'd say there isn't much to worry about yet. But instead of being so eager to jump the gun, why don't we just file an RfC if things start to get out of control again? Homestarmy 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize as I didn't read this comment before filing the RfC. :-( אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, H, you have my apologies. Thirty-two separate editors have been working (as various levels of involvement) for a month at least on the issue(s) surrounding templates. I find it extremely unpleasant for one editor to suddenly abrogate that work. You're right, though, I need to step back. Kevin/Last1in 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin. I'd like to point out that the original and long-standing placement of the Christianity template was at the top of the article. There it remained with no contention up until the edit-war several weeks ago (which, mind you, was started by those who sought to have the template moved). As no consensus was achieved here on Talk, I moved the template back to its original position pending the outcome of our ongoing debate. I'm not quite sure how it is fair to move the template before consensus is achieved and then accuse others of edit-warring or operating without good faith when they restore it to its long-standing placement. If a consensus among editors is achieved in which the Christianity template is moved, I will respect it; but until then, it should remain where it was, not where you think it should be. You are the person advocating the change; you can't have it both ways. I also find it a bit of a stretch to contend that I am "abrogating" all of this tireless effort by moving a template to the top of an article where it had remained for months. I think a consensus should come before a controversial change, don't you? Why should a group of editors be allowed to make a contentious change and then force a debate to discuss that change? Finally, my comments were nothing but true, in that my restoring the template would be met with a swift revert, which it of course was. It takes two to tango, my friend. — Aiden 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Aiden. Let me hit those points in order:


 * Yes, the top of the article was the original home for the Christianity template (I'll call it the CT to save space), but only until the Jesus template (the JT) was developed and applied. Now that there is a JT, the question becomes, shouldn't the CT appear with Christian Views, just like the Islam template resides in the appropriate section?
 * When there is no consensus, the normal process is to leave it alone until consensus is reached. Your frequent revert wars do not help us reach that consensus.
 * The "not in good faith" issue relates specifically to your statement that, regardless of consensus, people would return to edit warring as soon as the lock was removed. My statement was that you, Aiden, were saying that you did not believe other editors would act in good faith.
 * Actually, no, I did NOT advocate the change. If you'll think back to your revert-war over "God the Son" that ended up in a quest to eliminate the CT entirely, I voted to keep the CT at the top of the article. I only objected to it and its associated revert war once the JT (which is excellent, since we have a plethora of Jesus-related articles) was applied and the CT moved to the appropriate section. By your logic (that since Christ a major fixture in Christianity, the CT must therefore be at the top) we'd have a dozen templates up there, from Catholicism to Islam to the LDS. That is untenable, and since the only template that is specific to the article's subject is the JT, I feel it should remain at the top. That is the extent of my "advocacy".
 * Yes, I think a controversial change (like the one you keep making in the middle of a consensus discussion) should wait until consensus has been reached. I can only see a couple of weeks (cumulative time) where the CT and JT were both jammed into the top of the article, not months. Frankly, the article has been locked longer than your arrangement prevailed.
 * Finally: You are unquestionably correct; your prediction that a revert war would start immediately upon the unlocking of the article came true. Most self-fulfilling prophesies do. The same is true if I predict that some random dog is dangerous and then kick him a few times: WOW! He bit me! I told you he was a menace! I don't WANT to tango, and I don't participate in edit wars; I do decry them, as I have here. Kevin/Last1in 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PS to Homestarmy: Well, I guess I blew the whole "stepping back" thing, huh? Kevin/Last1in 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A revert war cannot involve one party. I stated well in advance that as no consensus had been reached I would restore the original template layout which existed prior to this big mess. This I did. This another user reverted. My prediction about another revert-war was not self-fulfilling prophecy, it was an accurate assesment of the bitter climate on this article as of late and the strong chance that someone would in fact force this change with no consensus achieved. To answer your question: No I do not believe the Christianity template should come before the Jesus template and I have stated that this "issue" is easily solved with a floating table. However, in an effor to end this mountain of a mole-hill, I propose this compromise: Place the Christianity template in the Life and teachings based on the Gospels section. This account of Jesus is obviously an integral part of Christianity and comes straight from its cannon. This would emphasize the importance of Jesus to Christianity while allowing the Jesus template to remain at the top. — Aiden 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Life...Gospels solution is far better than having everything jammed at the top. I would certainly support it. Frankly, I've never understood why the words, Christian Views, was not the over-title of that section, anyway; I didn't want to "go there" because I didn't have time to read 64 pages of archived talk. As for your apparent conviction that a "war" starts with the second shot, I just don't get that. In my worldview, a deliberately provocative act (ANY act that a person reasonably believe will result in a battle) is the "start". IMHO, if you had not moved the Christian Template within hours of the article being unlocked, the consensus-building would have continued without problems. You could have made your suggestion, and it probably would have been approved without the strife that the move engendered. Kevin/Last1in 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't mistake my reverts with not wanting to solve the dispute. My reverts were a matter of principle: that one should not force a contentious change to an article BEFORE a consensus is achieved. I felt (and still feel) that the template layout should remain as it was until we agree to change it, not vice-versa. However, let's let bygones be bygones. I think the compromise template layout is something everyone can agree on. — Aiden 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC
In working with the Dispute Resolution Policy, I have created an entry on Request for Comments (RfC). אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A reasonable submission I think. Even the "Extant contemporaneous documents" debate didn't make it to an RfC :) Homestarmy 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It looks to me like this is an article about Jesus the person, and if there is going to be a Jesus template, this seems the most reasonable choice of main articles, and so should have that template on top. As the article appears at the moment, the Christianity template appears next to the section on "Christian views", which again seems like a sensible place to put it. BTW: The phrasing of the survey question is rather confusing... took me a minute to figure out what a yes or no vote meant. SB Johnny 01:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it might also be informative to see if the results would be different if the Q were phrased simply as: Which should come first the Jesus template or the Xty template? --JimWae 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, "Would putting the Jesus Template at the top and the Chistianity Template in the Christian Views section increase or reduce the appearance of POV?"Kevin/Last1in 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. JimWae is absolutely correct. Let's settle the "which comes first" question, the tackle the rest. Revert-wars and edit-wars are inimical to what we're trying to accomplish, and we need a consensus on something to use as a starting point.Kevin/Last1in 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is still edit-warring about which should come first. If we could at least settle that, perhaps SOME progress could be made --JimWae 02:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem with the Jesus template being on top, but the Christianity template should not be confined to the one small Christian views section. How about this: We place the Christianity template in the Life and teachings based on the Gospels section? — Aiden 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, that is a very reasonable compromise. The Life and teachings based on the Gospels section is very firmly rooted within Christian tradition and would be an apporpriate place for the template. We would just need to find another home or "seating arrangement" for . אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / poll ) 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I think it's an excellent solution to the current problem. I think we should "call" the current poll and ask for consensus on this instead. If the question is put, I will support it. Kevin/Last1in 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. — Aiden 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It would help, when drafting a new poll question, to make it absolutely clear that both templates are expected to be in the article, so that we will not still have people thinking the debate is over whether one of the templates should be removed altogether. Joel Bastedo 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. :-) אמר <b style="color:#0033CC; font-family:monospace, monospace;">Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, new question. Can we put the Islam template on this article? And maybe put it in a section that isn't the Islamic views section? (ok, that second question was a poking fun at the absurdity of the above 'compromise', but my first question is 100% serious). And BTW, the Christian view section is not "small" by any means. It's 3 screens long on my computer (1024 x 786). --Andrew c 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments: First, if this has been causing edit wars, it should be settled before bringing in new issues (like an Islam template, or for that matter a Hindu, Jewish, or Druze template), so if the choices are edit war or new straw poll, the latter is preferable. WP is not on a deadline, so changes can certainly wait until consensus has some time to build. My personal (and pretty much disinterested) opinioin is that having it in the Christian views section makes a lot of sense, because that's the section directly pertaining to Christians, though it might be appropriate in the Resurrection and ascension section too (since as far as I know that's a belief exclusive to Christians). I guess I just don't really understand why it needs to be "higher up" in the article, except --(if you'll forgive me being blunt)-- to push that the article is "owned" by Christians, which would imply some strange variation of WP:OWN as a cabal. Is there another reason it should be more prominently placed? (Andrew c's point comes right back into play here I suppose).SB Johnny 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, let's settle the Christian Template question first. Putting the Christian Template in the "...Gospel" section seems like a great compromise, but I don't see it posted for consensus. Once that is finished, I would suggest re-posting the question about the Islam Template in the "Islamic Views" section. -Kevin/Last1in 15:27 (UTC) 19 July 2006

WP:3RR warning
To involved editors: and  – Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not violated the 3R rule nor do I intend to. — Aiden 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting that you or others did. Just happened to see the revert war and though that will be useful to warn editors. As you probably already know, reverting one another seldom accomplishes anything beyond increasing wikistress. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I regret engaging in the revert-war. However, I still feel that concerning such a contentious change, the original version should stand until we agree to change it, not the other way around. — Aiden 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concern is greatly appreciated, Jossi. A personal rule of mine as of late is to revert twice and if that doesn't solve it, leave it alone and either pick up or continue with WP:DR. If Aiden persists when a period greater than 24 hours is up, I plan to stick to my code. Peace and thanks: --The Thadman 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. I put some very firm requests on your and Aiden's pages, but it looks as if it was unnecessary if you both resolve not to continue edit warring.  It would be polite to continue trying to find consensus on the matter of the template without making us protect the article, which stops any other edits being made in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NT plot summary
Ok, I have mentioned this before months ago, and I bring it up again. I think it is absurd that there are 3 different biographies of Jesus based on the NT on wikipedia. There is the "Life and Teachings..." section of this article, there is the main article New Testament view on Jesus' life, and there is the "Life" section of Christian views of Jesus. And to make matters worse, the version included in this article is the longest. Here is what I'd propose. Removing the "life" section completely from the Christian views of Jesus (and leaving a see also for New Testament view on Jesus' life. Next, merge or simply completely move the bio from this article to NT view on Jesus' life. Replace the bio with perhaps a bulleted list of the events in Jesus' life that have their own articles. We'd avoid this 3-way redundency, and we'd significantly making this article shorter (length is going to be an issue if we want to nominate this for FA again anytime soon). I'd say this is comparable to the Gospel of Mark article where a plot synopsis is not given, but instead, a bulleted list of topics (and a large portion of them wikilinked to the more indepth articles). What do people think of this proposal? Would anyone want to go over the texts of the 3 bios to make sure we aren't removing helpful content if we decided to go with the bio in this article over the bios in the other 2 (or would anyone want to merge the 3 texts to make one single, new composite text?).--Andrew c 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about having one main article for a biography, and using the Christian views section to discuss views, not history. However, a biography article of Jesus should include a biography first and foremost. I could very easily take your argument and use it as an argument against having a historicity section. For the same reason you could ask why have a "Historical Jesus" article? Why not completely remove the historicity section and replace it with bullets? The way things are, the article is very balanced and informative. I see no reason why we'd gut the most important content: the biography. — Aiden 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was just a suggestion. However, I disagree with a few of your points. This is not a biography of Jesus. This is an encyclopedic article on Jesus. There is a difference. Second of all. If there is a main article covering a section in this article, then clearly the main article should be more in depth, and the content in the section should just be a summary/overview. Maybe making a bulleted list is too much, but I have been saying this for months, we need to cut down on the "life" section. Wikipedia has guidelines covering this at Summary style and Content forking. Here is the important part: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary." Likewise, if we think any other section that has a spinout article already is getting too long (as you mentioned the HJ section), then we should also condense it as well (and we have to make sure that the spinout articles are more indepth than this article, which is CLEARLY not the case for the "life" section).--Andrew c 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I like the idea of bulleted lists for a whole section, it's certainly not "Brilliant prose", and as I understand it generally isn't looked upon well in FA reviews, unless its like some minor thing that can only be rendered as a list. Homestarmy 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just saying that we have articles on the major events in the gospels already, and we could simply point the reader to those pages instead of repeating information there. (But I guess that is what the "Gospel Jesus" template is for). Obviously this suggestion is a little extreme based on the response of two editors, however I still feel strongly that if we are to present a section that is covered in multiple spinout articles, we need to summarize, not make the content longer than the spinout articles themselves. --Andrew c 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a good start on standardizing everything would be to move any biographical content from the Christian views of Jesus article to the NT views of Jesus article. From there, we can summarize that larger article in this article. However, take a look at other biographical articles such as Muhammad: many of them include much more detailed bios, so I don't think we have done anything wrong by supplying a well-rounded biography. None-the-less, it would be good to have one primary source of biographical content. — Aiden 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Aiden here (someone call an ambulance for those who just fainted). The NT Views article should be far more robust and it needs a lot of work, anyway. The section here should be a simple summary with a link per Wikipedia policy. Also, IMHO, if we really need to have such a wide array of articles related to Jesus, let's at least use them for something. -Kevin/Last1in 15:35 (UTC) 19 July 2006


 * I think we all agree with each other here. Or at least, I agree with the above comment about the NT View article being more robust, and this article being a simple summary per policy. IN regards to Muhammad, there is not article called Muhammad's Life based on Islamic traditions, so there isn't an existing spinout article, hence no redundency. Another solution to for those opposed to significantly compacting the section here is to delete the NT views article to avoid the spinout. The issue is there are articles about events in Jesus' life: Nativity of Jesus, Temptation of Christ, Sermon on the Mount, Death of Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus, etc. Then we have an article that sumarizes all that into one place (NT views) then we have this article that tries to do the same thing the NT views article is supposed to do, only in more depth, while also including historical views, religious views, popular culture references, etc. I hate to say this, but the problem is we have WAY too many articles about Jesus, creating spinout problems. I'll try to work on this stuff some, but anyone else that wants to work on consolidating information into the NT views section, or making this article more concise, feel free.--Andrew c 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok here is my biggest problem, I don't want to merge the Christian views content into the NT views article if we are simply going to replace it with the life section from this article. I think someone (or a group of someones) needs to look at all 3 at the same time and combine them into one. And for some reason, that task seems a little overwhelming to me. I'd love for someone else to take that on (combining the 3 to make 1), but if no one has the time, I'll do my best.--Andrew c 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we'd call the 3-in-one-edit project the "Trinity Solution" (sorry mate, couldn't resist). I think the Christian Views section just needs some clean-up. I deals with various religions views which, IMHO, are non all derived directly from the NT (otherwise, we would not have two forks within that section, nor have umpteen-kajillion We-Know-The-Bible-Best sects). However, I think the info in the "Life...Gospel" section needs to be merged into the NT Views article, then reduced here to a summary. This redundant information comprises about 1/4 of the total Jesus article, so doing so would significantly improve BOTH articles. Can we set up a sanbox in the NT Views for this project? I will be happy to contribute. -Kevin/Last1in 20:34 (UTC) 19 July 2006

Good idea. I have set up a "sandbox" in my user space, User:Andrew c/Jesus. I invite everyone to come and help merge content from the "NT views..." article and the life section of the "Christian views.." article, for the purpose of creating a more detailed, robust article to replace the NT View. Thanks, and good luck!--Andrew c 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Jesus Bipolar?
It is important to keep in mind that societies have always constructed a shield around powerful and popular figures that, when pertaining to mental illness, leaves them largely innocent--even after having been proven guilty. The typical historian or biographer studying a powerful figure is generally inclined to believe that mental illness is incompatible with extraordinary power and influence.

Likewise, the typical journalist will refuse to consider that Bill Clinton is hypomanic, despite the ample support for this diagnosis from the psychiatric community and the obvious symptoms he displayed while president (little need for sleep, high energy, hyper sexuality and the poor judgment that got him into trouble).

The same holds true in popular culture. In the twentieth century, Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe  are widely suspected within the psychiatric community of having bipolar disorder, and yet somehow this key aspect of their lives continues to escape mainstream discourse. Heroes, by definition in society at large, cannot be mentally ill.

I'd also argue that the most influential band of the 1980s, then the 1990s and finally the 2000s (thus far) were led by manic depressives:

1980s: Guns ‘n Roses/Axl Rose

1990s: Nirvana/Kurt Cobain

2000s: Radiohead/Thom Yorke

Like Jesus, each of these men attracted huge numbers of dedicated fans and admirers. Despite the obvious evidence of their mental illness, however, the media never mention it.

Combining five manic episodes, I have about ten months worth of experience believing that I was the Son of God. I didn’t tell people and I could pass as normal until the end of each manic episode, when I became psychotic. If Jesus promised heaven to his followers and then went insane and totally discredited himself, it seems this could be the real reason why he was crucified as a heretic. Wouldn't his followers have taken up arms to save him if he were still convincing? Jesus Christ!

The bible leaves little doubt in my mind that Jesus was bipolar (see Psychodynamic Study of Jesus.doc+). I recognize the abundance of metaphors, it's a common characteristic of mania, which is why a highly disproportionate number of history's most famous poets and writers were manic-depressive.

In The Psychology of Literary History, Dr. Martindale created the "Regressive Imagery Dictionary" as a research tool for his book and found "significantly more primordial content" in the poetry of poets who exhibited signs of psychopathology than in the work of poets who exhibited no such signs.

In her study of famous British poets who lived from 1705 to 1805, Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison determined that 40% were probably manic-depressive, compared to the 1 to 2% found in the general population. Although diagnosing a man who lived 2000 years ago presents many problems, one symptom of bipolar disorder that Jesus certainly displayed was the belief that he was the savior. It would seem that everyone would agree on at least that aspect of his life (except, of course, those who believe that he never even existed. This hypothesis is rather persuasively argued in a DVD produced by former Christian Fundamentalist Brian Flemming.)

Every day, there are thousands of people in the world who think they're the savior...it's like being consumed by a Jungian archetype that allows the unconscious mind to swallow the conscious mind. Every once in a while, one of these individuals keeps enough toes on the ground and is impressive and charasmatic enough to be believed by others. Most recently, David Koresh comes to mind.

When considering the possibility of Jesus being bipolar, one must also realize the factors of wish-fufillment, the madness of crowds and a level of ignorance that is unfathomable to modern humans. Even in the 20th century, Hitler wisely claimed, "The great mass of the people...will more easily fall prey to a big lie than to a small one." Little was known about the world and man and few were educated about the little that was known when Jesus was alive.

Once you accept that Jesus was probably psychotic, then an unpleasant reality surfaces: Although his intentions may have been entirely pure, some of his words were that of a tyrant. Please compare these quotes:

Jesus (Mathew 10:37): "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he who does not take up the cross and follow me, is not worthy of me."

According to the Gospels (John 10:20) Jesus' own contemporaries said, "He is possessed . . . raving," and his relatives worried about his sanity.

Now, from A Brotherhood of Tyrants: Manic-depression & Absolute Power by D Jablow Hershman and Julian Lieb

Napoleon: "Now, if I like somebody and honor him with my trust, I want to be the object of his dominant affection. I don't want to share, do you understand?"

Stalin's daughter: "He wanted no equals...he wanted blind devotion and absolute submission to his will." The author goes on to state: "Perfect obedience was not enough. Stalin wanted to plant all the thoughts in everyone's head."

Hitler: "Whoever fails to obey my orders, will be destroyed. I shall strike as soon as I have so much as a suspicion of their disobedience."

“Only a particular type of manic-depressive develops delusions of divinity, and only a small minority of manic-depressives possess the qualifications to succeed in political careers. The dangerous individual is he who belongs to both groups, for he is the stuff of which tyrants are made of."

"Ultimately, the extremities of mania led Napoleon to believe that he had powers denied to the rest of mankind, that he was godlike--omnipotent, omniscient and infallible. This is the sort of delusion that has immense potential for destruction."

By supposedly claiming that one get's to heaven, "Only through me," and demanding to be loved above all others, Jesus exhibited the qualities of a tyrant similar in some respects to Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin, even if his intentions were pure.

From The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between a Little Craziness and a Lot of Success in America, by John Gartner :

"Virtually every new movement in history--religious, political, intellectual and economic--has been led by a charismatic leader. Hypomania is the common thread that connects these world changers, a thread as invisible, as powerful, and stretching back as far in time as a strand of DNA."

"Christopher Columbus was always a messianic character, but his special sense of destiny evolved into a grandiose delusional system." Children don't learn that in school...

Like Jesus, Columbus thought he was God's chosen one, and for the last period of his life, he did not sign documents with a signature, but rather he used a complex symbol. And like Jesus, he thought he could bring the kingdom of heaven to earth.

The Hypomanic Edge also profiles the delusions of Alexander Hamilton (who died in a gun dual where he purposefully did not shoot) and Andrew Carnegie (who spent millions of dollars on a peace palace, believing he could single-handedly stop World War I).

Craig Venter, the genetic pioneer whose company, Celera, beat NIH by a long shot in the race to map the human genome, is also mentioned in the book as admitting to probably having a mild case of manic-depression. Yet the stigma remains, and, for the most part, today only psychiatrists and manic-depressives themselves reach what is the most probable explanation for the life of Jesus Christ. With no proof of his supposed miracles, nor any proof of supernatural acts throughout history, it seems that faith is all that is left.

How can man make progress with a rusty anchor in the past? It's very difficult, hence the U.S. government's senseless policy on stem cells--where embryos are destroyed every day in fertility clinics, yet stem cells cannot be harvested from them to help advance medical science and possibly make Superman walk again.

Despite a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in 2003 that found sodomy laws unconstitutional, it is still illegal in eight states for a man to engage in oral sex with his wife in the privacy of their own home. Three other states apply the law to homosexuals only. Who are the states protecting? Jesus? He's certainly the root of this evil, though I do believe his intentions were good, and I do not deny that many of his ideas were good as well. But if you make the logical assumption that he was psychotic (considering there is no hard evidence to believe otherwise), then add his threats of eternal hell fire and demands to be loved more than one's own family, there is only one conclusion. Jesus: He's not your savior, he's your psychotic tyrant. Where there is a demand, there will always be a supply--whether it's drugs or religion. Throughout history, man has looked for a god to worship. Those who supplied such a god enjoyed absolute powers. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Leaving skeptics off the Jesus page seems to be exercising absolute power. Interestingly, there used to be an excellent wikipedia entry for absolute power, but it's gone. I considered posting to the lengthy wiki famous manic-depressives page entry (talk page) on Jesus about six months ago, but now it’s gone too! Absolutely gone!

Final note: "It takes one to know one." I think this discussion belongs on the wiki list of famous bipolars, where it was removed. This is not an attempt to get on the main Jesus wiki page, but rather an attempt to spark discussion. Isn't that what the "Talk" page is for? --Jeffmath 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems related to that Trilemma thing, you know, "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" and all that. I was however under the impression that psycological analysis was best done by psychiatrists and normally in relatively same time period as the subject in question, I don't think modern psychiatric evaluations stand much chance of being applied fairly to really any person from almost two thousand years ago, much less Jesus Christ. Plus, Stalin and Hitler sort of had that whole genocide obsession thing and im fairly certain they were both either atheists or really didn't care about God unless the idea suited their own ends, and Napoleon seems to have a mixed history of religious belief, at first saying things like "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet" and at the next saying stuff like "I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity..." So it seems Napoleon isn't very "Jesus-like". (Plus he seems to of taken a back-from-the-past swipe at your opinions)


 * At any rate, you'd certainly need more than a single google cached PDF to back up such a controversial claim. As for skeptical type people, we've been looking for their viewpoint on Jesus for awhile now because that paragraph needs citations, but so far we haven't found any really nice references. Homestarmy 00:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk...Is there nothing you atheists and Buddhists would rather be doing? Lord Loxley 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) I don't think that a post-mortem psychiatric evaluation is an appropriate addition to this article. If you develop sufficient sources, a separate article might be warranted with a VERY brief summary here, but I doubt you will ever find such sources. I cannot imagine a truly impartial evaluation of this subject until time travel is perfected. (2) Comparisons between any historical figures are sticky; your choices for such comparison are frankly barmy. Jesus died/ascended/matriculated before he had more than a tiny fraction of the population as followers. He never led troops to battle or ordered pogroms, massacres or genocide. His message was a seed which took root and grew at an historically unprecedented rate, largely due to the unquenchable faith and masterful talents in motivation and organization of folks like Peter and Paul. (3) Your expectation that your POV and deliberately provocative statements on this talk page will be removed is unfounded. Your suggestions might be lambasted due to the violation of, well, more Wikipolicies than I can count, starting with WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Further, I'm sure that your little bit of Flamebait will be preserved in this talk page's archive for all to read and enjoy for a long time to come. (4) This to Homestarmy: It is understandably difficult to find "sceptical type people" who meet this talk page's apparent standards of notability (in other words, mainstream Western Christians). Sources that disagree with the current Canon are automatically discounted as "obviously biased" or "junk science" unless they express a view that can be neatly tucked into a "Religion X's View of Jesus" section. (5) This to Lord Loxley: No, frankly, there probably isn't. This article, somewhat understandably and certainly by its nature, is and shall likely remain skewed against the views of those groups. The fact that the infamous "they" keep posting here is simply proof that the Wiki concept works and that everyone can help improve articles and can try to insert or remove bias. IMHO, the fact that they fail is a combination of the power of Wiki policies to keep junk out of articles and the (occasionally fanatical) crusades of True Believers. -Kevin/Last1in 16:13 (UTC) 19 July 2006
 * Kevin, I meant skeptical type people like for our secular/atheist/non-religious views section, when we were doing reference passes, we ran into a bit of a roadblock concerning that section. I mean there's just not much out there, for either notable criticism or lauding :/. Homestarmy 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)