Talk:Jesus/Archive 81

Founders of religions category tag
I reverted the removal of this tag. The edit summary said "(→External links - Jesus did not found the religion that was Paul and Peter inspired by his teachings, hence it is they who need to be categorised and not Jesus, same as haile Selassie who was remov)" but Matthew 16-18 says; "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." which I maintain makes Jesus the founder of the Christian church. --BenBurch 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact, I was just going to revert, but BenBurch beat me to it. ElinorD (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Same editor has made changes to John the Baptist, Paul of Tarsis and Peter... Complimentary changed to this one.  Should those be reverted?  And they appear to be some sort of statement about Rastafarianism, somehow...  --BenBurch 02:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I already reverted those. The thing about Rastafarianism is about me removing Haile Selassie from the cat, simply because he had NOTHING to do with the founding of Rasafarianism! Zazaban 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have Rasta friends who seem to know that fact though...  --BenBurch 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * y'Welcome, glad I could help. In the end it turned out it was a Rasta throwing a hissy fit over Haile Selassie being removed from the category. :( Zazaban 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus's Character
I'm the least person the start a debate, trust me, but while reading I found startling evidence that Jesus was not moral and not wise. The Gadareth swine and the fig tree is a good example of those. (PRhyu 11:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC))


 * PRhyu, my perception of your statement is that the two instances are difficult for you personally to understand; not necessarily an example of being immoral or unwise. You may appreciate doing some more in-depth study of these passages by reviewing what theologians have said. I am sure you will find some references published by your church or other trusted source. If not, I am certain I could find references for you to review. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PRhyu, just because the gospels say Jesus did something, doesn't mean he did it. The swine and fig tree stories don't float my boat, either, but that's the gospels' business, not Jesus'. Jonathan Tweet 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, the only issue is this: Wikipedia talk pages are notmeantfor debates or discussionsof personal views but ways of improving the article.PRhyu, with all due respect, please familiarize yourself with our policies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent significant changes
There have been large changes, with no discussion, to the Genealogy section, the Arrest, Trial section, the sources on Jesus, Possible earlier texts, and the Questions of reliability sections. Here are my issues:
 * Genealogy This section is supposed to be the gospel's account of Jesus' life, nothing less and nothing more. The recent changes inserted traditional Christian interpretation from Eusebius. It states for a fact that the Luke line is Mary's line, when this 'fact' is disputed some Christians and scholars alike and not clearly supported in the text. I'd propose restoring the longstanding text.
 * Oppose : It doesn't state for a fact, and I actually quoted the reference text. It is a myth that the genealogy is Luke's, where Eusebius record is well known. My new genealogy is better, but I don't think this article is the place to explain the differences Wyatt 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying your genealogy is better is not helpful because you don't explain why. There is no reason to cite Eusebius because this section isn't "Early Chruch Father's interpretations of the Gospel's genealogy" it is "Jesus' life according to the Gospels". The only source we should be using is the Gospels. The interpretations should go in the spinout article. I don't know what you "myth" comment means. How about you say specifically what was wrong with the previous version?-Andrew c 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eusebius is quoted as a valid reference throughout wikipedia by many people because of his exhaustive research. I think he's a valid source because he had access to documents that have been lost, which he has quoted reliably. Wyatt 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eusebius can't be quoted in this section because it's off-topic. This section is "according to the gospels," not "what really happened." For example, we can't add stuff about the lake of fire in this section because that Revelation, not Gospels. Eusebius, same thing. No business being here. The book of Acts, however, gets a special exemption so we can talk about Paul. Jonathan Tweet 00:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arrest, trial, and death The added part about Judas' plot is ok, but Caiaphas nor the Pharisees are mentioned in direct relation to Judas (it may be extrapolated, but we should stick to the text) and isn't mentioned in John. The next paragraph, which was previously pretty well cited was replaced with another section about praying and fearful soliders that has no citations. After his arrest, all the disciples went into hiding while Jesus endured a mock trial that illegally occurred at night to avoid rioting by the masses who loved Jesus. The court presented many false witnesses and beat Jesus. was added with no references. Seems rather POV. I'd propose restoring the longstanding text.
 * Oppose : I added several references to the text, verifying the claims, have you actually read the text? Please no original research. WP:NOR please read them for yourself. Wyatt 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is not a single source for the paragraph I quoted. How can you accuse me of OR, when you added unsourced, POV commentary that the trial was "mock" and "illegal".-Andrew c 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be good if we could find a citation that talks about the trial being illegal. i dont remember if it was on the sabbath. but i think there is good information that says this, i just don't have the citation myself Wyatt 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether some scholar has derived from the gospels that the trial was illegal or that it was held at night to prevent a riot. This section is "according to the Gospels (plus Acts)." Jonathan Tweet 00:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources on Jesus' life This section has become bloated. What was two short/medium sized paragraphs has turned into one big paragraph and 2 smaller ones. This is supposed to be the scholarly views section, but there has been a lot of information inserted from Eusebius. The language of a Christian POV (orthodoxy and heretical) has been adapted. These changes move this section away from the scholarly view, and more into the early Churh history (a valid topic, just not in this section). I propose we restore this section to the longstanding text.
 * Oppose : If we are going to include this section, then we should use accurate references. Wyatt 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But this section isn't the early Church Father's view, it is contemporary scholar's view. Eusebius's view has no place here. If you think that the scholarly view is inaccurate, then this section is going to have inaccuracies (and that is ok, as long as we are accurately presenting scholarly views).-Andrew c 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show how contemporary scholars have discredited eusebius' genealogy without OR? Wyatt 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Possible earlier texts (which was renamed "Synoptic problem and speculated sources"). The first paragraph dealing generally with the diea of earlier sources and the synotpic problem, which was sourced, was basically removed. The new paragraph starts off with jargon with little explanation. Intense criticism like  but there is no historical evidence that this document ever existed. was inserted to replace more neutral language like  though none have been found. The two source hypothesis is incorrectly summarized (doesn't mention Q). And there are more POV changes that I won't go over (just read the changes for yourself) A paragraph has been added that is unsourced and criticizes scholarship and then mentions the documentary hypothesis which deals with the OT, not Jesus or the NT. That paragraph needs to go all together. In fact, I propose that the longstanding version be restored.
 * Oppose : This section contradicted the previous sections and needed more reliable sources. Wyatt 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific. How did it contradict the previous section? Looking through the history, it doesn't look as if you added any more sources to this section. All you added was POV commentary that I mentioned above.-Andrew c 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was the Q document is never mentioned by any ancient writers and is only a hypothesis that has no evidence other than estimates by texual analysis. I'm not arguing my exact wording, and though non have been found is fine to me, I wanted to expound on the topic.


 * Questions of reliability More POV changes. Section that were sourced were replaced with POV stuff, one citing Josh McDowell (why are we citing Christian apologists in the scholarly views section?) Again, I suggest restoring the longstanding content.
 * Oppose : I only quoted Josh McDowell because thats where I got 25,000 document number from, nothing else. Wyatt 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Because none of these changes went through consensus, and because they are controversial I am coming to talk first. I believe that all of the recent changes should be reverted, but I wanted to explain myself here, and give the editor a place to discuss and propose changed on talk. I also wanted to make sure that other editors were on the same page as I. So what does everyone think? Is it ok to restore the longstanding, sourced content that was recently removed/changed with POV commentary (generally speaking)?-Andrew c 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Overall, I think the new changes are much more accurate, and could be cleaned up because the article is bloated. the old text needs to be updated Wyatt 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All in all, don't just delete content without looking at the references or talking about it on the talk page... Wyatt 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

lets talk about the specific updates and see how can improve the article. Wyatt 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't now why you added "Oppose" to everything up there. This wasn't a vote (some say voting is evil). I understand that you don't want the changes you made reverted. It makes sense since you made the changes. But we should all be able to recognize that if we make a change to an article and another editor disputes that change, that the article be restored to a previous version until the dispute can be resolved.-Andrew c 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I make a change, and you dispute it, then we should reconcile the texts and not simply revert them. I see a need for improvement, and I think we can work to add valid info. I have no desire to simply delete existing citations but to clarify with accepted information. Wyatt 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

These changes seem very poorly written. Readability went way down. I see no reason why the current section, which has been refined for years and reached its current form through vigorous debate and consensus, should be altered so drastically. — Aiden 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wyatt, I hope you win this fight, even though you're wrong. As soon as you can cite Eusebius and scholarly interpretation of the gospels in this section, I can add material from historical Jesus. Scholars of the historical critical method, too, have some "accepted information" that would be fun to add. Jonathan Tweet 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism View
I added this text, and its not original research, but could use more citations and also could be reduced dramatically. This article is about jesus, and its relevant to say why the jews don't believe and talk about the controversy about the messianic propherices. Wyatt 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reduced the additions and moved them lower in the section. Wyatt 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You've added what may be a Christian (mis)interpretation, but it is unsourced original research and doesn't represent Judaism's view. -- M P er el ( talk 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits Reverted
The gospel of John is dated within the 1st century also. There are 12 disciples and 70+ apostles, and its more accurate to say the disciple peter. I also used the ESV text, which is a more colloquial translation. Wyatt 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll respond further in a little bit. But for now, I wanted to ask you to please not edit war. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, especially on a fairly stable, top tier article like this one, don't go adding your exact same content in again. Come to talk if necessary and work things out, through a process of collaboration and consensus. Strong wikipedia articles are built on team efforts, not from one editor forcing their edits in through reverts. I'd urge you to refrain from reverting if someone disagrees or removes one of your edits. Instead, come to talk, work things out, and only after a group decision has been reached, returning to editing that section of the article. We can all work together, not against, each other. (specifics relevent to the content in question soon to come).-Andrew c 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented on all your concerns about my edits in the talk page, and didn't find your claims founded, so i went ahead and reverted. also, during the revert, other minor edits were reverted too because the revert process wasnt done right. we can discuss it more, but i put a lot of time and research to make those updates and you'll find them accurate. Wyatt 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, onto the specifics of this edit/revert.

1.The gospel of John is not dated to 65 by the majority of mainstream scholarship. This section is on mainstream scholarship, so when we have college level introductory texts by Ehrman and Brown saying John was written 90-95, and that they and most scholars think Mark, not John, is the earliest Gospel, there is no reason to add the Gospel of John to the sentence that formerly said The earliest extant texts which refer to Jesus are Paul's letters. Not only is there NO SOURCE for this claim, it simply is not representative of the majority scholarly view.
 * You are right that Mark is the earliest Gospel, and I added John because I know they had early fragments found around 70AD, but the date is debated. My point was that Paul's documents were not the only documents written in the first century, and although Paul's documents were written first, I thought it was misleading and saying that only Paul's documents were actually found.Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

2.There were changes made to the section about the capture in Gethsemane that worked to harmonize the gospels. We have discussed this in greater detail in the past (its in the archives). The section on Jesus' life in the gospels is just that, a section on Jesus' life in the Gospel. It is meant to give a plot summary of 4 different books that tell similar stories. Generally, this section covers material that is found in all 4 gospels. If something is only found in the synoptics, it is presented as such. If something is only found in one gospel, it is mentioned as such. The changes ''Jesus rebuked Peter, and healed the soldier's ear while stating "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." .'' are simply wrong. Look at the citation. In Matthew, Peter's name is not mentioned, the healing is not mentioned (the rebuking IS mentioned). The footnote covers the variations to the tale. However, the changes present the story by harmonizing pieces found in 4 different books into one account. It is fine to say what each gospel is saying, but it is original research, or simply not what this section is about, when we 'harmonize' the texts in this manner. The previous version was much more accurate, and follows the guidelines we had previous had consensus on when it came to the Jesus' life according to the Gospels section.
 * I don't think people will throw away information unless it appears in all four gospels, but rather one gives more details about the others. If there is a contradiction between them, it might be worth reconsidering, but the accounts are in accord. Scholars who dismiss texts that aren't exactly the same between them, are usually trying to discredit the whole thing like the Jesus Seminar. I don't think its unreasonable to specify a disciple and even better to say that it is Peter and I'd like to see some reference that says its not peter that contradicts the passages in the Gospel of John: I don't see how its original research for me to quote it. Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

3.I see no reason to change the bible version used in the article. In fact, the citations throughout out use the NIV, so it makes the most sense to use NIV for consistency. Again, what bible translation to use has been discussed in the archives. If you would like to make a proposal to change the bible translation, feel free to do so, but broad consensus to change should be gathered first, and the change should be made consistently through the article. The recent changes inserted phrasings that were not found in the citation. So imagine how a user would feel if they read one translation, and clicked on the link to read more and found a different translation? I personally don't care that much what translation we use (I personally prefer the NRSV), but I understand that the NIV was agreed upon in the past, and that consistency is important here.
 * I admit it was laziness that caused the sources to differ, because i quoted teh ESV and then realized its not part of wiki but I knew that it could be cleaned up easily by some generous person. I actually like the ESV right now which is 90% literal, but i don't think that is used by the bible citation short cut, so I was trying to use the NASB because its the most literally accurate at like 93%, where the NIV is an old translation. If the editors wish to use the NIV that's fine, I just think that the KJV is difficult to understand and modern translations like the NRSV, NASB and ESV are better. Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So for those following along, the 3 above comments are dealing with this diff. Because there is no consensus for Whoutz's recent changes, and because they are disputed by me, I propose that we restore the longstanding version of this article until Whoutz's changes have more support, or we reach a compromise. -Andrew c 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed. Paul B 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that this article should be closed to all future edits or revisions, even if the text gives the same facts? please do not be angry with me, I just would like to help improve this article. Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if I did think that - which I don't - my opinion would be irrelevant. It is fundamental to Wikipedia that it is open to edits. All articles are provisional. However I agree with Andrew's view of your edits. Paul B 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status
This article needs to be improved towards FA status, so i vote that sections be revised. I understand that voting is evil, but im just trying to follow wiki guidelines so my edits stick! Wyatt 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Bias?
I'd like to propose the change of the opening part of this article where it says, "...(Jesus) is the fictional figure of Christianity."

This I believe is biased since you are assuming from your POV that he didn't exist. People do believe that he exists and so stating that he's fictional is biased toward the people who don't believe he was around. I suggest changing it to something like, "some believe that Jesus was only a fictional character while others believe that he did exist."

That'll make sure that it keep a nuetral point and both sides of the discussion is covered fairly allowing the reader to come to his/her own conclusion.

Lucky Foot 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * it's called vandalismBrian0324 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know. Thanks for changing it. I saw a lock symbol in the corner and thought that meant this page was protected. Lucky Foot 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheist views section
A section on "Atheist views" is being added and deleted or partially deleted. Do we really need such a section? The atheist view is obviously that Jesus was neither God, nor the 'son of God' nor inspired by God - because there is no God. It's so obvious, I don't think it needs to be said. We don't have "atheist views" sections on Muhammad, or Zoroaster, or Krishna. As for the claims that atheists think artistic depictions are inaccurate, or that he was an historically unimportant figure - these views are not specific to atheism at all. Indeed there's no reason why an atheist might not think some pictures are accurate. Paul B 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed.


 * Even if this section is needed (and really, it isn't, since there isn't a particular "atheist view" on Jesus beyond that he wasn't associated with God, only the views of individual atheists), we don't need it to make blanket, unsourced statements like "most atheists believe that he was an unimportant figure".


 * We especially don't need editors to make unfounded accusations of the inner motivations of people they have never met, by accusing anyone who agrees with them of being "an extreme Christsian who tried to suppress opposing views using spurious reasons", and of vandalism. Please WP:Assume good faith and be civil. TJ 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. What is written above is atheist views about a God - not jesus. They are irrelevant.

2. All other religions have sections. Atheists should have one as well. Most Atheists have views about Jesus. It is plainly bias to attempt to suppress them solely because they unfavourable.

3. Views not being specific to atheists is not a valid argument because there are views held about Jesus by different releigions that are not specific to them eiether. The atheist views are not represented anywhere else on this article, so it is plainly deceitful to try to make out that they are nothing new to the article.

4. You can not source a claim that Jesus was not considered important at the time because there are no contemporary mentions of him. The Gospels were written long after he died, and only by his supporters - nodody else.

--Dr Lisboa 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Atheist views are indistinguishable from secular/skeptical historical views, which are represented throughout. A specific and notable atheist's opinion is represented by the quotation from Bertrand Russell. Paul B 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. Many of the the supposedly atheist positions are mainstream even among Christian theologicians, e.g. the "many gospels" and the "looked [not] at all like the typical depiction of him in films and paintings" (also, shock, he would be a Jew speaking Aramaic, not English ;-). I would assume that most would even agree to the "little consequence in his time", at least as far as historical and not spiritual consequences are concerned.--Stephan Schulz 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 The Gospels were written within living memory of the events.
 * 2 Events are recalled accurately to those who perceive them as momentous.
 * 3 There was already an existing tradition prior to the writing of the Gospels - and almost certainly within two years of the crucifixion.
 * 4 There is no evidence that the authorities (Roman or Jewish) disputed the events recorded. Considering the Romans' efforts in suppressing Christianity an obvious move would have been to deny the events ever took place.  They did not do so.  --JohnArmagh 12:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find most of these plausible, but I also fail to see how this is relevant here. We are not dicussing wether the proposed views are correct or not, but wether they are "atheistic views" and if such a concept even makes sense in this context. --Stephan Schulz 12:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Plausible or not, they are the facts. They are not there to support or oppose the inclusion of the disputed text, merely to answer the foregoing mistaken premises. --JohnArmagh 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting off-topic, but for number 2 ask any judge or police psycologist. For number 1 we have to define "living memory". Since John is usually dated 90 B.C. or later, there are 1-2 generations between the events and the writing. And number 4 is pure speculation about what the Romans would do. I'm not aware of any case where the Romans attacked the spiritual base of anything. They used to be a practical people and try to solve the percieved problem directly. --Stephan Schulz 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

CORRECT - are these atheist views is all that matters. All atheists don't have the same views of Jesus. Neither do all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists. These are some of the prominent views. They have jsut as much right to be here as the views of all other religious persuasions. --Dr Lisboa 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm not sure it's fruitful to discuss the evidence or otherwise for the historicity of the Jesus of the gospels at this juncture. Partially because Dr Lisboa appears to be already convinced that the only people who disagree with her edit are acting from purely malicious motivations as a result of their alleged bias.TJ 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a disturbing comment. After Dr Lisboa reached her 3 reverts, there was very quickly an edit in the same direction by an editor called Triffid3, whose contribs page indicates that of the 3 pages he or she has edited, only one has been made to a page which Dr. Lisboa wasn't interested in at the same time, within a matter of hours (and that was the only edit Triffid3 made before Dr. Lisboa joined wikipedia). It's worth noting that we may be dealing with a sockpuppet here, although I really don't know much about detecting them, so I figured I'd submit that possibility to the community. There may be some reason why it's obviously not the case.TJ 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What hypocrisy ! You write to me that I should assume good faith and then, as you lose the arguement start making allegations against peoeple. One rule for you and another rule for others is it ? Several devout Christians all acting together - meat puppetry ? Shall I make that allegation against you, or shall we do as you ORIGINALLY claimed and assume good faith ???--Dr Lisboa 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not state that that individual was a sockpuppet, I stated that it was possible that you were, and I explicitly stated that it was possible that it was not true. TJ 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who here is a devout Christian? Certainly not me!--Stephan Schulz 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Paul B. All Atheists have in common is their rejection of one belief - in other regards they do not constitute a social group or movement.  Thus, while it is easy to come up with a few sources that clearly represent the range of Jewish of Muslim opnion, one cannot do this for atheists.  At most we would have a collection of quotes from individuals who happen not to belong to theistic religions.  And as paul says, whatever they would say of relevance is already in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Atheists have religious views just like anyone else does. They constitute a group of people just like any religious group is. Don't try to give atheists second rate status.

2. Atheists don't have a religious book, so there is none they are able to quote. These are a range of the sceptical atheists views of Jesus.

3. What is written in the atheist section is very plainly not already in the article. Please be factual.

--Dr Lisboa 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these views are neither restricted to atheists not do all atheists share them. As such, it is nonsense to call them "atheistic views". They may be views of some individual atheists. Including them is as useful as stating "ham is nice" as an atheistic view on food. Of course, they are also completely unsourced, and hence fail under WP:V. And contrary to what you claim, atheism is not a religion. It's defined not by a shared belief (which hence include certain shared views, but by a shared lack of belief.--Stephan Schulz 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Many of the views ascribed in the article to different religions are not shared by everyone of those religions. So the fact that not all atheists share the same views is irrelevant and inconsistent.
 * As I pointed out, religions are defined by a shared belief. If you want to split hairs, not all adherents hold all all of the beliefs, but all hold most of the core beliefs (or they are not a member of the religion in question). Atheists are not defined by any such shared belief.--Stephan Schulz 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Not all information has to be sourced on Wikipedia. No sources are provided for the views of different religoions. All we have is quotes from old religious books. People of different religions do not all share the views written in their religious book. If you claim that sources are needed then you will have to get surveys of religious views for each of the religions.
 * You are wrong about Wikipedia policy. Read WP:V and WP:ATTR. These are core policies. --Stephan Schulz 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Nobody has claimed that atheism is a religion. It is a religious view.
 * Sorry, I was confused by your "All other religions have sections. Atheists should have one as well" (emphasis by me). And I don't think that atheism is well-described as a "religous view" either.--Stephan Schulz 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Atheists have a lot of shared beliefs, about : a lot of the nonsense written in the Bible, the naive adulation of Jesus, the fallacies written about him, the obvious falseness of claims of his performing miracles.
 * Absolutely not. Many atheists have no opinion at all about the Bible. One does not even have to know about the existence of the Bible or Jesus to be an atheist. I happen to believe that the Bible is a valuable historical source that, like most ancient documents, has to be taken with a suitable degree of scepticism. --Stephan Schulz 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All we have sen so far is extreme Christians attempt to suppress opposing views by going from one reason to another every time it is pointed out how false their reasoning is. Bias is against Wikipedia rules.--Dr Lisboa 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your observation about this edit is wrong.--Stephan Schulz 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An "atheists' views" section could very well become ridiculously huge as there are many varying views. Some say he was simply a man who had legends built up around him. Others say he never existed at all and that the Gospels are fabricated out of whole cloth. Still others claim he is an amalgamation of many different parts of other so-called "savior myths." Jinxmchue 13:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (In reply to Dr. Lisboa)


 * Schulz has explicitly stated that he is not a devout Christian - I'm pretty sure that by that statement he was implying that he is not a Christian at all. And yet he disagrees with you. We have obviously seen things other than the groundless accusations you have been making. 	+  	*An "atheists' views" section could very well become ridiculously huge as there are many varying views. Some say he was simply a man who had legends built up around him. Others say he never existed at all and that the Gospels are fabricated out of whole cloth. Still others claim he is an amalgamation of many different parts of other so-called "savior myths." Jinxmchue 13:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As per your points -


 * 1. is irrelevant, because those views are attributed to specific members or texts of that religion. Unlike this section,.


 * 2. is simply wrong. Other religious views are referenced.


 * 3. Seems to be a valid point, actually, but only discounts against one specific argument against this inclusion - and by far the weakest.


 * 4. On the historicity of Jesus, atheists have a diverse opinion. Some, like say E.P. Sanders, hold beliefs on his historicity that would be quite close to those of people within the Christian tradition - indeed, they don't seem to have changed much since he was himself within the Christian tradition. Others hold the kind of views you describe. An "atheist views of Jesus" section might possibly be worthwhile, if it displayed this breadth. This one does not - it makes statements all of which are unfounded and either untrue or insignificant. TJ 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. It is ridiculously false to claim that it is "splitting" hairs to point out that there are hugely different views within each different religions : Protestant v Catholic, Sunni v Shia, all the different Christian sects, - be serious. Please don't make obviously false points. So there being different views amongst atheists is a spurious one.

2. Being fearful of the atheist section becoming huge is also a stupid suggestion. If it becomes huge then complain about it. Don't delete a small paragraph in its entirety based on some false claim. Christians have more extensive views abolyut Jesus than atheists do. You aren't suggesting that section be deleted in case it becomes too big. That's obvious double standards.

3. The section does not concern the historical accuracy of the Bible. That would go on to the Gospels article.

4. "Some say he was simply a man who had legends built up around him. Others say he never existed at all and that the Gospels are fabricated out of whole cloth. Still others claim he is an amalgamation of many different parts of other so-called "savior myths."" - good points, put them in. I see nothing in the article that suggests any of this despite it probably being true. That is sheer bias.

5. Other views are referenced using their religious books. Atheists don't have one. Surveys are the only way that views of Jesus can be properly be shown, but there is none of that for any releigion.

6. Whether atheists views are true or significant is irrelevant. The sections aims at detiling their views not their validity. Atheists belive that Christians views of Jesus are unfounded and irrelevant. Shall we exclude those as well ?

--Dr Lisboa 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually these views are in the article. The claim that Jesus was "completely mythological" is even mentioned in the opening section (second paragraph). But that view does not require atheism. One could believe that while also being a theist. We do currently have a section in which the opinions of two famous atheists are reported, Russell and Nietzsche. The quotation from Russell's essay Why I am not a Christian is even footnoted to a website called "positiveatheism.org". If you wish to emphasise that these guys are atheists then we only need to add a word or two (in Nietzsche's case "anti-theist" might be more accurate, but rather confusing). Paul B 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the views presently in the atheist section are included in the article even if you include Nietzsche and Russell. --Dr Lisboa 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's because, as has already been stated, the views you listed are not specifically or distinctively "atheist" ones. Paul B 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Garbage - they are not there because some extreme and intolerant Christians have been attempting to suppress anybody's views that they don't like. --Dr Lisboa 15:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Think what you like. I am not a Christian. I see no point in further discussion. Paul B 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good. You didn't add anything useful and instead only distracted attention from the issue by making points that were clearly false. --Dr Lisboa 15:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Be fair. Let the atheists have their own section, just like the rest of us do. --Stalvione 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "The rest of us" don't - religious groups with specific opinions have their own section. Jews do because owing to the historical relationship between the two religions, a number of foundational documents refer to such things.  Hindus and buddhists do because they raise interesting questions within that context. There is nothing distinctive about the views expressed in this section.  Furthermore, I strongly suspect that they are inaccurate - "most atheists" don't know the historical details of such things, for example.


 * That's not to say that a sensible paragraph on Atheist views on Jesus could not be written. (I think one could, although other editors might disagree.)  It's just to say that this is not it.  This is an unsourced paragraph explaining random unsorted insignificant 'facts', many of which are not facts at all, but rather inaccuracies. TJ 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's cut to the chase: what would be the verifiable sources for such a section? Are there any good books published by university presses on "what atheists think of jesus" or articles in peer-reviewed journals on "what atheists think of Jesus?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware, no, but I don't think there are quite so broad statements on any of the other sections. You could, however, cite specific atheists whose opinions on this subject are notable enough to be cited - say Russel, Nietsche, Dawkins, Sanders.  It'd involve a fair bit of debate as to who to include so as to adhere to undue weight policies, but I think in principle it's workable. TJ 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you are bring constructive. There was once similar discussion.  I think it was ditched because the people we were looking at were mostly philosophers, not historians, and their claims about history were inappropriate for the article.  Now, another way to think of this would be a separate article linked to the legacy of Jesus that looks at how secular authors (in literature and philosophy) have been influenced by/reacted against Jesus ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A few famous atheists don't represent all atheists. --Dr Lisboa 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. "Hindus and buddhists do because they raise interesting questions within that context." - interesting to you. That's a POV and is not allowed on Wikipedia. You're attempting bias. Atheists bring up far more interesting questions -such as is most of what is written about Jesus largely a complete load of rubbish.

2. The section is a collection of commonly held atheistic views. Those views don't have to be accurate. They don't have to be interesting. They don't have to be facts.

3. The other religions rely on their holy books for "views". Atheists don't have one ! Holy books do not contain views of all people with that religion. Only surveys would properly represent people's views. Not one of the sections is backed up by survery results. So none of them have proper references. A University press article would still be just one's person's views. It doesn't make it any more valid.

4. If you think there is a better wording, then suggest one here rather than keep on trying to suppress viewpoints solely because you don't like them.

--Dr Lisboa 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. When I said "interesting questions within that context", perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Basically, what I meant was that they raise theological questions for that religion.  What can Jesus be, according to Buddhist dogma, is the question.


 * 2. They don't have to be facts, in the sense that the views held don't have to be true to be included, no, but they do have to be attributable and the views have to actually be held. So if you say "most atheists believe this", and then say something that most atheists don't believe, then that is not true and thus should not be contained.


 * 3. They rely on holy books to say what those holy books say, not what members of that religion say. As I said, citable.  Or they attribute views to specific members of that religion, with evidence that those individuals hold those views.  This section does neither.


 * 4. Please stop attempting to read my mind through the internet. It's not possible. I simply cannot be bothered to do the research, due to a lack of time.  You are welcome to yourself.TJ 16:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The views do not have to raise theological questions for that religion. That much of what is written about Jesus being false is a theological question.

2. You can't attribute atheistic views to any specific books because there is none. Quoting specific atheists does not make them any more valid.

3. What is in a holy book and what one or two people think of what is written in that holy book does not make it properly does not mean it represents all or even most people's views of that religion.

YOu simply don't like atheistic views and have been going from one reason to another to suppress them. --Dr Lisboa 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. It is a theological question, but it is not one specific to atheism. The point is, for those taking this point of view, that there is no distinctive atheist view of Jesus, since all views of Jesus held by atheists are also likely to be held by persons who are not atheists (e.g. agnostics, deists, and atheists all likely generally proportionally believe the same about Jesus).  That's differentto say whether Jesus fits into a category unique or almost unique to the hindu religion.


 * 2. You state "Quoting specific atheists does not make them any more valid." Even if that is true, the policies of wikipedia (WP:Attribution dictate that all content should be attrubutable.

3: That's true. That's why the article as it stands does not say that the content of that holy book represents the views of that religion. What it does state is what the relevant texts say. It doesn't say that that's what all members of that religion say.

You end this comment with a foundationless personal attack. I've asked you quite a few times to stop making personal attacks against myself, and all the other editors. I'm out of patience, so I will now warn you: If you make another unfounded attack against myself or any other editor on here, I will file an RFA against you. TJ 17:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not the place of wiki editors to censure viewpoints based upon rational scholarly research that is properly referenced. Christians do not need to be insecure, it is not necessary to block the views of those who don't believe in God. I believe in God, and I don't feel threatened by people who believe Jesus to be mythical or mearly historical. One should not label a view atheist by principle. If people wish to dispute a historical figure using historical evidence only (without the scriptures) then that is their interest. You will not change the common perception of Jesus by removing the views of atheists or agnostics. An atheist will not believe what he reads in such an article, and a theist will make a judgement based upon scriptures.86.4.59.203 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.


 * "rational scholarly research that is properly referenced" - yes, I can agree to that. But what we have had so far are unfounded, unreferenced, unattributed and mis-labelled claims. --Stephan Schulz 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christians and Muslims and Buddhists all differ in their views just as atheists do. So that's not a valid excuse at all for trying to deny atheists a section on their views. You have also selectively quoted the WP:Attribution page. You are required to put "citation needed" if you claim that something isn't true. You are not supposed to delete the whole section solely because you don't like it. As for being unfounded, Christian views of Jesus are unfounded and ridiculous. However, what goes in the "views" section doesn't have to be founded.

It's good to see that there's one tolerant Christian amongst you. I thought that was what Christianity was about. Judging from what I see here, it rarely is. --Dr Lisboa 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Attribution states: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found..." Your proposed additions lack attribution, and it is not clear that reliable sources could easily be found to support them; e.g., I doubt there are reliable sources for the opinion of "most atheists" on the accuracy of artistic depictions of Jesus. As far as I can tell, the removal of your addition was entirely in keeping with the Attribution policy. This is not a matter of anti-atheistic bias, and I for one would be quite happy to see a section added reporting atheist views that are attributable (for example, works by atheists, statements by atheist organisations, opinion polls). EALacey 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - So what is a rule for atheists is a rule for Christians is it ? Where are the opinion poll results for all the other religious beliefs. So everyone is happy that I start deleting unreferenced and fanciful statements on the Jesus article ? If so I'll start deleting. There will be a lot to do. If not, then stop trying to impose blatantly biased restraints and conditions on atheists that is not imposed on Christians as well. If a rule applies it will apply equally ! --Dr Lisboa 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not state that polls were the only acceptable source of information about beliefs. And if you believe that statements in the "Christian views" section cannot be attributed to reliable sources then by all means remove them. EALacey 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an atheist, I have to say that the section in question is simplistic and adds nothing to the article that isn't already obvious. The inclusion or rejection of this section means nothing to the big picture, especially when there is another entire article  devoted to the topic, and linked from the intro of this article.  This debate has reached the point where accusations and behavior are getting personal and unwarranted.  I don't want anyone acting the troll in the name of atheism; it embarrasses me. --SECurtisTX | talk 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To describe it as simplistic is ridiculous. It's not supposed to be complicated. You are blatantly misquoting what is in the article because it is NOT already there. The section does not concern the historicity of Jesus. It concerns atheist views. They do not have to be historically correct to be views. If you don't want to act the troll don't make false or irrelevant claims. --Dr Lisboa 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring. There is no consensus to support including this section yet. Please bring all proposals here to talk first so that we can all decide together on how this article will be. One editor cannot force their edits into wikipedia. We work together. So please, everyone, stop edit warring, and come make proposals here at talk so we can come up with something through a collaborative process.-Andrew c 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody originally deleted the section without prior discssion. They should have justified it here before doing that. Since then some people have deleted without any reason being given. You are one of them. You deleted without providing any evidence. Is it one rule for you and another rule for others ? Others have gone from one reason to another when ever there reasons have been shown to have no substance. The blunt fact is that some of those here are intolernat of different views of Jesus and so are trying to repress them using any excuse they can think of. --Dr Lisboa 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the section. Please feel free to revert if it doesn't satisfy, but I am using Wikipedia links throughout.  --SECurtisTX | talk 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've retained one prior belief but it's otherwise OK. --Dr Lisboa 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]SECurtisTX's edit is problematic because it assumes "atheism" is synonymous with "materialism/naturalism". Just because someone has a belief (or disbelief) does not mean that they reject all things miraculous or supernatural. Hypothetically speaking, there could be atheists out there who believe that Jesus had supernatural powers, just that they didn't originate from a deity. If we are going to have a section on the atheist view (which I think isn't feasible), we need to delete the references to the supernatural, and we need to supply citations for every claim. The problem is, atheism is NOT a belief system. It is just the absence of a single belief. It's like saying we should have a section on what redheads feel about Jesus. It's impossible. Just because you can create a group of people based on a single trait (in this case, disbelief in deities) does not mean you can say anything else about the group as a whole. All you can really say is that "Atheists either do not believe or lack the belief that Jesus was a deity, or that Jesus was the son of a deity, because by definition, atheists either do not believe, or lack the belief in all deities." And that is is. There is NOTHING else you can say about atheist belief besides that one thing. Atheism is not a movement.-Andrew c 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the section to see how reduntant, obvious and unnessesary it is. Just clear your head and read it through. It's just so stupid for it to be there.

'By definition, atheists reject the divinity and supernatural aspects of Jesus and, by extension, any miracles attributed to him. Some even question whether he existed at all. Some believe that if he did was just a normal person of little consequence to most of his contemporaries, and that his words and actions were embellished after his death either deliberately to promote a specific belief, or through a gradual absorption of mythical motifs. Also by definition, atheists do not consider the Christian Bible the "Word of God", and thus assume that the books of the Bible, including the four canonical Gospels, were both written and chosen for inclusion in the canon absent any supernatural influences. Many people (not just atheists) also point out that Jesus' appearance probably did not match the caucasian image that has been portrayed in religious art from Medieval Europe and, more recently, in modern media.' (Note: No consensus, and lack of references.) rossnixon 02:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed from article. (No consensus reached yet on whether it should be included or not).
 * arguments "by definition" are just tautologies and don't even constitute research and hav eno place in an encyclopedia
 * the two "some people" sentences use weasel words and provide no sources; more important, these views are already expressed in the introduction and the section on the historicity of Jesus
 * another stupid "be definition" (= excuse for not doing any research) sentence has nothing to do with this article which is not on the divinity of the Gospels
 * the comment on race has nothing to do with atheism and in fact addresses a topic on which there is a host of research especially by art historians but that would be relevant (if someone had the will to do real research) in an article on art history.
 * in short, it is one of the dumbest paragraphs I have ever seen in Wikipedia; it is based on no research, is poorly written, mostly has to do with other topics and not the one covered by this article, and just has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To all contributers to this thread. 1) Assume good faith and avoid; taking comments (about sections of an article) concerning wiki policy personally. Anybody can put together a viewpoint from their own perception of the world. An encyclopaedia is for bringing to the attention of the general public published viewpoints, whether the view be theist or atheist. This requirement is not about personally critisizing a persons own perception. There are too many people with too many views to list all opinion. Rather than expressing your own view and citing to match, its better to summerise views of prominant scholors (whether atheist or theist or agnositc or martian. Prominant Professors and Dr's who sit in university libraries/laboratories  or field studies researching athesitic evidence concerning Jesus are likely to have a more considered view than hobby editors. Supression of such scholorly views would be frowned upon by all reasonable editors.  2) One should avoid making personal rants at what you see as stupid views or opinion. Wiki has its policies. If a section of text does not meet criterior, copy and past it into discussion section along with the relevent guide line which states correct criterior. Personalizing critisizm is bound to lead to slanging matches which are unnecessary. 3)Don't assume to label a person's views in terms of theist or atheist or agnostic. Individual perceptions rarely fit pidgeon holes catagorized by belief, non believe or uncertaintity of the existence of God, aliens, or the paranormal. If we only edit according to wiki policy, no sterotyping is required. 4) When making a point to somebody, it is generally not helpfull to use extreames as examples or what if's. A point does not need to be sarcastic to hit home.86.4.59.203 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.

Report for violating 3RR
For those who are interested, I've reported Dr Lisboa for violating the 3RR here.. If anyone would like to make comments there for or against, please do so. (It's worth noting that looking at the history of her page shows that she's deleted past issues similar to this, which appears to be a pattern in her edits.)TJ 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:TheologyJohn has been breaching the very same rules that she is complaining about. She is also making false claims about the 3RR rule being breached. There have only been three reverts. The other instance was adding a paragraph that had been removed many edits before. She is also : attempting meat puppetry by trying to bring in known allies to support her, failing to support her contentions with references, failing to assume good faith whilst at the same time hypocritically claiming to others that they should, and she has been attempting to impose bias on an article. All of these are inbreach of Wikipedia guidelines. She is using this allegation as yet another means of suppressing opposing views and imposing religious bias. --Dr Lisboa 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to all of these claims, leaving aside some of the comments that are irrelevant to policy and only personal attacks (which I would consider a waste of time, as I don't think any other editors take them seriously), over at the noticeboard entry. TJ 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The other statements are very relevant to breaches of policy. All other editors have not claimed that they don't take them seriously. --Dr Lisboa 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but you having made similar attacks against most of them as well, I doubt they're inclined to listen.TJ 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a dabate about the 3RR rule. You both disagree totally, and your trying to stop the other from editing out what you disagree with. Theology John and Dr Lisboa, this is a really purile act displaying your disagreements. If you both can't agree on the said segment, why don't you comprimise and replace said segment with something vague but non offensive to either of you. Do you really believe either of you have general support,, bull. I don't care how much support you might claim to have, you both chase support to have your way. If you can't agree, comprimise. And argue with each other out of the public domain. You could both learn from the Japanese who have the concept of Haragei86.4.59.203 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.


 * You complain about people disagreeing by disagreeing. What hypocrisy ! So it's OK for you to disagree with other people's actions, but it isn't OK for other people to disagree. Do you have some kind of monopoly on disgreeing with the actions of other people ? I haven't chased any support. It's better to be right and have everyone disagree with you than be wrong and have everyone agree. TJ is the one that is trying to get support because he doesn't and couldn't have any confidence in what he writes. Vague and non-offensive atheists section. That's foolish. It is supposed to represent what atheist views are - not what Christians would like their views to be. If all atheists thought that Jesus was an insane paedophile or a pink elephant then that is what is should state regardless of whether it was right or it offended anyone. --Dr Lisboa 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I was trying to promote a comprise, but you seem to have taken offense at comments which were not necessarily thrown at you. I shall make a point to you about 'views'. Atheists don't have a majority view about Jesus, and neither do theists. As TJ can read non christian views, he can also edit the atheist section so long as he quotes sources. Same for you, if you can quote your sources whilst editing the Christian view. What is best for the article obviously requires debate. It seems to me that we should keep the article page for views of published scholors only, whether it maybe an atheist or theist or agnostic viewpoint. That way, the insane paedophile view might be left to the conspiracy theorists blog websites lol..I'll site my point again about Haragei. If neither of you two can agree on what is said in that section, perhaps what is required is either: Two paragraphs showing opposing views, or a vague non offensive paragraph which sides with neither view.86.4.59.203 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.


 * Mu. --Stephan Schulz 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that user:Tintorini seems to have materialised into being just as Dr Lisboa has reached his/her 3R limit. Paul B 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I registered long before this dispute, as can be seen from contributions. False claims are considered as personal attacks. --Tintorini 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I see that Dr Lisboa has been blocked. One of Lisboa's previous "revert friends" on this page was user:Stalvione, whose only previous edit, over a month ago, had been to the Tintoretto page. The new editor "Tintorini" claims to come from Padua (Tintoretto's home). Paul B 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheist views - take 2
The current version reads: By definition, atheists reject the divinity and supernatural aspects of Jesus and, by extension, any miracles attributed to him. Some even question whether he existed at all. Some believe that if he did was just a normal person of little consequence to most of his contemporaries, and that his words and actions were embellished after his death either deliberately to promote a specific belief, or through a gradual absorption of mythical motifs. Also by definition, atheists do not consider the Christian Bible the "Word of God", and thus assume that the books of the Bible, including the four canonical Gospels, were both written and chosen for inclusion in the canon absent any supernatural influences. Many people (not just atheists) also point out that Jesus' appearance probably did not match the caucasian image that has been portrayed in religious art from Medieval Europe and, more recently, in modern media. I still think there are so many problems with this section that it us useless: As it is, the section is neither useful nor compatible with Wikipedia policies.--Stephan Schulz 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "By definition, atheists reject the divinity and supernatural aspects of Jesus and, by extension, any miracles attributed to him." As User: Andrew_c has pointed out, this sentence is wrong. Only the first half sentence is "by definition".
 * "Some even question whether he existed at all" is a violation of WP:WEASEL, and not restricted to atheists at all. The Wikilink as a source is iffi, as the linked article does not specifically discuss atheistic views.
 * "Some believe that if he did was just a normal person of little consequence to most of his contemporaries, and that his words and actions were embellished after his death either deliberately to promote a specific belief, or through a gradual absorption of mythical motifs" - WP:WEASEL again. Also not specifically atheist positions. Christian heresy is not a good source for the claim.
 * "Also by definition, atheists do not consider the Christian Bible the "Word of God", and thus assume that the books of the Bible, including the four canonical Gospels, were both written and chosen for inclusion in the canon absent any supernatural influences" is actually rather reasonable, but slightly off-topic, and neither attributed nor sourced. Also, this is not a particularly atheistic or even non-Christian position, although it does conflict with some of the more literal-minded interpretations of Christianity.
 * "Many people (not just atheists) also point out that Jesus' appearance probably did not match the caucasian image that has been portrayed in religious art from Medieval Europe and, more recently, in modern media." - again, not unreasonable, but violates WP:WEASEL and is neither sourced nor attributed.


 * I'd propose that since this section is so controversial, and because a number of editors have problems with it, that we remove it from the article because the current version clearly does not have consensus. Perhaps we could create a subpage or a sandbox where a working group could come up with a more finished proposal, or we could just continue discussion here. My concern is that we have a problematic section that is not supported by consensus in the main article. If we build consensus on talk BEFORE editing, we can avoid edit warring (which has been going on for days here, and is a bad thing) and we come up with a version that is supported by consensus BEFORE it goes into the article, as opposed to this edit warring, trying to force a version into the article without trying to work with the community first. Therefore, let's remove the controversial section until there is consensus for its inclusion.-Andrew c 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to object on the basis that some atheist beliefs are not uniqute to atheists is totally inconsistent with the rest of the article. Throughout the views section different religions are shown to share the same views about Jesus. You haven't objected to those. Another case of one rule for you another rule for others. If you delete the atheist section I will delete the other sections because precisely the same objection applies to them. YOu don't like the section solely because it is negative towards Jesus. --Dr Lisboa 09:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section should not be removed. Nobody has come up with a single cogent and consistent reason for getting rid of it. Attempting to suppress opposing views is bias and is in breach of WP rules. Some editors have problems with it solely because of intolerance. Every time extreme Christians are shown to be wrong that try some other spurious reason because they don't like what atheists believe. WP is not a democracy. Numbers do not decide whether or not something is edited. Reasoned arguments decide it. The argument is solidly in favour of inclusion. --Dr Lisboa 09:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors have come up with numerous cogent reasons, it's just that you show no signs of understanding or even engaging with them. The point is not that the beliefs are not "unique" to atheism, but they are not even specific or distinctive to it. The most obviously absurd part is the claims about atheist view of images of Jesus. Atheists as such have no opinion whether he looked "Caucasian" or not. What makes you think that atheists are more or less likely than anyone else to think that he didn't look Caucasian? Are you aware of Ethiopian Christianity, or of some of the more eccentric black American relgious groups? Or, on the other side, of some anti-Christian Nazi theories that JC was of Celtic or Germanic extraction? Paul B 10:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Their reason haven't been cogent inthe slightest. They have been full of fallacies and inconsistencies. For example, you claim that atheist views are not specific to atheism. Yet the article states that Islam views Jesus as a messiah, just as Christians do. Their views aren't unique. Yet tou don't propose that being deleted. This is one of many examples of incosistencies. Atheists don't all share the same views, but neither do Christians,Moslems and Buddhists. TRy to be consistent - not one rule for you another rule for others. --Dr Lisboa 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (note ... bolded sentences are by Dr. Lisboa) Of course the section should be removed. Dr. Lisboa is simply a troll and ought to be ignored. You're the troll and a cowardly one as well - one of the keyboard cowards that insults people over the Internet because you are too much of a coward to do it to their face.  I have one last thing to say to him/her on the topic, to add to what I have written above, and then I am done.  I observed that atheists are not a social group or movement and Dr. Lisboa argued that they are, No I haven't which only means Dr. Lisboa does not know what a social group or movement is in sociology.  Let me be clear about what I think is the key issue here: Dr. Lisboa is a POV pusher and the POV s/he is pushing is not "atheism" but his or her own views. You're the point of view pusher, attempting to impose your obviously intolerant and extremist views in place of facts. Aside from violating NPOV this violates NOR/ATT and the only way around this is to ask as I did above: what sources would we use to write an account of "atheists' views of Jesus".  I've already added quotes from American Atheists.org - they were deleted. Paul B mentioned Nietszche and Russel, and TJ mentioned a few others.  Here was Dr. Lisboa's response "A few famous atheists don't represent all atheists. --Dr Lisboa 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)."  This is true, and this is precisely why we cannot characterize atheism as a social group or movement - a minor proof that Dr. Lisboa is trolling, because s/he switches positions in order to prolong conflict.  I've maintained the same view throughout. You've gone from one spurious reason to another because your reasons are so stupid. The only thing all atheists have in common is there lack of a belief in God. Absolutely false - they are sceptical about all of the delusion and propaganda surrounding JC. There is no reason to believe they have anything in common, and no reason to think there is an "atheist" view of Jesus.  We may as well as for an atheist view on chocolate ice cream (and I mean no offense to those who believe that Jesus is divine, or those who believee chocolate ice cream is not).  Now let's be absolutely frank: given that Dr. Lisboa rejects the use of verifiable sources for "the atheists' view" I've provided them but you didn't check them before they were deleted. it is obvious that all all s/he wants to do is represent his/her own views.  This is strictly forbidden.  So this rubbish is irrelevant Many people have responded to Dr. Lisboa's comments spuriously, ingood faith, innconistently, thoughtfully, intolerantlyand in detail,and without any factual basis and Dr. Lisboa responds only with contention, and reasoning, and facts and sources and consistency.  At this point I know I have fully expressed my views on the topic and while I am sure this will provoke Dr. Lisboa to respond with some long list of points that are meant to constitute an argument with me but that manage to evade all the important issues concerning improving this article, I have no intention of saying anything more. That's doing us all a favour because you have had nothing useful to add. Paul B, I ask with respect that you not say anything more, not because I discount what you have to say but because you have already expressed your views fully and articulately and I hate to see you waste your time by what at this point could only be repitition.  With respect, I advise my fellow editors to do the same.  Good suggestion because the spurious reasons for objecting are getting even more inconsistent, fallacious and spurious. Please do not feed the trolls.  which accurately describes you as you're the worst of all Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is obvious now that there are trolls on both sides of this issue. The disrespect you are all showing to each other and to Wikipedia is deplorable.  --SECurtisTX | talk 14:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the bolded passages are Dr Lisboa's insertions into Slrubenstein's text? Paul B 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockkkkkkkk warrrrrrrrrrr. There are lots of sockpuppets. Tell me about them and I'll revert/block them. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough evidence for a RFCU about User: Dr Lisboa (the suspected sock master), User: Triffid3, User: Stalvione and User:Tintorini. All but the first have been created in February or March, all have been mostly idle, and all conveniently turned up for tis discussion, with very similar language and edit style. --Stephan Schulz 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Athiest views have no place on this page. The views of various religions on Jesus are basically dogma (so therfor relevant) while the Athiest views are not a collective viewpoint. If you include Athiest views then you have to include the Plumbers Union views or the Garbage collectors Unions views as they are just as relevant. The majority viewpoint is to exclude isn't it? Accept the consensus. Wayne 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To editor Wayne. The article is entitled Jesus. Thus, scholorly published work upon Jesus is admissible into the article whether it is atheistic in tone or theistic. If one wishes to part the two, one needs to change the title of the article to 'X's Dogma concerning Jesus'. The quality of the article will be improved by the use of considered scholorly publisized work. There is no majority view point for a world wide encylopaedia. 6 billion potential contributers are not going to have a majority view upon Jesus or any other topic. Therefore, it makes sense to promote different views in all their colours so long as the views are products of someone who works at the issue as a career, rather than model (original research) views supported by random expert quote. As consensus is not voted on, one cannot assume what the consensus is. So I disagree with your assertion on the grounds that its against wiki policy.86.4.59.203 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Joe.
 * Note: sockpuppets indefblocked.
 * I have treated the puppet master as User:Stalvione, and blocked that account for one week. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have treated the puppet master as User:Stalvione, and blocked that account for one week. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have treated the puppet master as User:Stalvione, and blocked that account for one week. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have treated the puppet master as User:Stalvione, and blocked that account for one week. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

LIBERAL BIAS
How DARE we use BCE and CE here, how dare we! This is the page for JESUS CHRIST! America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and despite what some whiny Europeans want to believe, this really is the AMERICAN encyclopedia. We are living in the WEST, and our culture was founded upon Judeo-Christian values! How dare you try to insult our history by inserting liberal dating notations into this article, HOW DARE YOU!!!

Spotswood Dudley 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Buddy I'm a conservative too, but you don't need to throw such a fit when somebody says something you disagree with. This sort of behavior reflects badly on you and the conservaive movement in general.


 * This is the Wikipedia, a site not restricted to an American POV. I'm not sure how BCE/CE is an insult to Jesus, and I believe it is current practice in modern history texts. Splintercellguy 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberal bias? Don't you know that everone here is an "extreme Christian". Paul B 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing. We must be doing something right if we manage to upset both the Judeo-Christian AMERICAN conservatives AND the in-your-face atheists at the same time.-Andrew c 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't "extreme Christian" more or less the same as "liberal" (US understanding)? I mean, the whole new testament is about a group of unshaved guys in sandals, with the head guy (a Jew!) talking about pacifism and turning the other cheek, actually demolishing a valuable trading place and preaching against earthly wealth, but in favour of paying taxes...how much more liberal can it get?--Stephan Schulz 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For all those whom may add to this tread. This is a regular debate, and the issue is always hottly debated. Nobody has yet to agree a general consensus. The only approach therefore has been to include both conventions. It will probably be a waste of your time to add further comment, this is an unresolvable debate.86.4.59.203 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.


 * Well, despite the rhetoric, this person brings up a question that no one has directly answered when I've asked it. Why is this article and a tiny handful of others the only ones that have the clumsy and ridiculously non-encyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" designations? All I've been told is "check the archives," which is a cute dodge, but doesn't answer the question. Jinxmchue 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you read the archives, you would see at least 2 very large votes regarding the issue. If you read wikipedia's MoS, we have no preference over which is better, AD or CE, as long as the era notation is used consistently through the article. So looking at both of those large votes, you will see that there was never a consensus big enough to support either side, so a compromise was drawn. It is clunky, but it keeps the peace because there hasn't been a consensus to support just using one or the other. And what I always say when this topic is brough up for the umpteenth time, we should not attempt to tackle this issue until we have addressed the items on the To Do list, and gotten this article up to FA status. What is more important to you, two silly letters at the end of years, or getting this article FA status? No need to beat a dead horse and dredge up this old debate. Move on, and find better ways to improve the article for now. I hope this helps explains things.-Andrew c 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Folks, we already went over this with Spotswood Dudley (here) - that he is bringing it up again means only that he is trying out his Bill O'Reilly immitation, or his charicature of a troll - honestly, can the tone of his above rant be intended to do anything other than make us smile? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Well, if you read the archives." My point is proven. In any case, I've little doubt that the anti-Christian atheists (of the PZ Myers and Michael Newdow ilk) are having quite a smug little laugh that the "BCE/CE" designation has been included in this article. Jinxmchue 13:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, have you read the archives? There is a rather useful index. Spending two minutes, I found Talk:Jesus/Archive_74, and of course there are many other discussions, e.g. Talk:Jesus/Archive_14 (and the whole rest of that page) and Talk:Jesus/Archive_15 (and the rest of that page, too). --Stephan Schulz 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jinxmchue, exactly what point have you proven? You said that no one has directly answered your question about why this article has a particular era notation style.  Andrew c answered your question.  He also referred to the archives where you can see all the gory details of the debates.  Sounds like a direct answer to me.  Your comment about smug atheists is a nonsequitur.  I really don't think there are evil cackles of glee emanating from the dark halls of atheism over a hybrid era notation in the Jesus article on Wikipedia.  No doubt they're too busy maiming puppies and stealing broadband wireless from their neighbors to pay much attention to what's going on here. alanyst /talk/ 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

TYPING IN CAPS DOESN'T MAKE PEOPLE LISTEN TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. --Deskana (ya rly)  15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not. You don't use your ears to read, silly. Jinxmchue 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently left another message here, but it seems to have dissapeared and is nowhere to be found in the archived pages...I suppose my words must have been erased by a bureaucrat or an even higher entity. I have no idea why, as I didn't write anything even close to as controversial as my first message. As for all of you telling me to search the archives, I'll have you know that I have, and that for the most part I am personally involved in the talks about this very issue. In the archives I once called for a vote to change the era notations to BC/AD, and the vote came out positive. Nevertheless, nothing changed, due to the massive amounts of liberals who have nothing better to do but sit in front of a computer all day.

Now, assuming my words are not erased from history this time around, I would like to address some of the points that my detractors have expressed. As for typing in caps, I did so because I felt strongly about the issue at hand and wanted attention to be drawn to my words. Deskana has proven that I succeeded in that regard. Now, because this post is getting rather long, I shall only refute one other person's point today. I choose to refute Stephan Schulz, as he is mistaken about the comparison he makes between liberals and extreme Christians.

Now I know, Mr. Schulz, that you aren't a master of scripture, but I still feel that I have to be somewhat stern about proving you wrong. The whole New Testament is NOT about a group of unshaved men in sandals, this is nothing more than blasphemy intended to provoke Christians. First off, it is true that we do not know definitively what Jesus or his disciples looked like, but it is probably safe to assume they had beards, as this was the custom at the time. However, to say they were unshaven would be a mistake. They kept their beards in check and under control.

As for Jesus being a Jew, what of it? He would have to be! Had Jesus never arrived, all Christians would be Jews! Only after Jesus was crucified did Christianity come to be. As for talking about pacifism and turning the other cheek,this is true. This does not mean, however, that men everywhere should never raise a fist against those who wish to kill them. Only in situations Jesus faced while on Earth, with the exception of the crucifixion(which is specific to Jesus), should these rules be followed. And as for demolishing a valuable trading place and peaching against wealth, and in favor of paying taxes, it is important not to twist these incidents into support for the modern welfare state and communism. I would elaborate but I have already written far too much, so if you wish me to elaborate, say so and I shall gladly oblige. Until then, I shall depart. Spotswood Dudley 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The most likely explanation for "vanishing content" is that you never successfully submitted it in the first place. It happens quite a lot to me - I hit "Show preview", and forget to hit "Safe page" in the end, or I hit "Safe page", but never notice there was an edit conflict. As for your comment on my remark: It should be obvious that I wrote tongue in cheek. As you rightly point out, we know very little about what really happened back then (and that of course includes that we do not know exactly how the disciples kept their beards!). "Had Jesus never arrived, all Christians would be Jews" - um, no. Had Jesus never arrived, there would be no Christians at all. Assuming you mean "all current Christians would be Jews", no again. Judaism is not particularly contageous as religions go. Mithraism was fairly popular at the time, or the religion of Sol Invictus. Or see Harry Harrison's The Hammer and the Cross triology for one version of what might have happened. As for the rest: I assume you know that you are interpreting scripture, and that it can be, and frequently is, interpreted differently. Christianity started as a messianic Jewish sect. It transformed (under the significant influence of Paul) into a religion popular among the lower classes and slaves in the Roman Empire. It took quite a while until it became popular throughout the social strata, and even longer until it was used to support various forms of gouvernment and social stratification. --Stephan Schulz 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism! Help! Someone!
The vandalism saying Jesus is an E.T. is still there. Yet when I view the history, it says it was removed. 68.55.183.136 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nvm. 68.55.183.136 23:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that it is still there and I can do nothing about it seeing as it's locked.156.34.250.93


 * Try purging and a forced refresh. I can't see it. --Deskana (ya rly)  23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)