Talk:Jesus/Archive 99

Literature to be mentioned
I think.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.153 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of birth
I am still trying to get the hang of the technical aspects and protocol of this, so bear with me. I disagree with the way it is presented that Luke places Jesus birth during a specific census, as this is speculation. The writer of Luke simply says Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor, and is not specific about which census. While I understand the controversy belongs in the article relating to the census, the statement is still incorrect and borders on being a point of view. If Luke is going to be used, it should be quoted as it is in Luke. Whether the article elaborates that Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 CE doesn't matter necessarily, but it is valid to point out that Matthew and Luke do not agree at face value. There's something odd about the whole Chronology section, actually.Burpboohickie (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, completely. Go ahead and edit as appropriate. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I put in the stuff on Quirinius because I wanted to make it easy for someone to follow that link, but it's pretty tangential, really. I'd be happy to have it cut. Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. I don't want to rush in and make any edits yet, as it seems there isn't really a problem with this article, but that the details are all being broken up into their own separate articles. (There appears to be a commentary on every section of the Bible!) The Census of Quirinius is not referred to as such anywhere else as far as I can determine, and that article is extremely lengthy considering it is a controversy. Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is it doesn't necessarily do any good to, say, specify what Matthew and Luke say about the birth of Jesus when it may be covered in twelve different articles that are not coordinated. I understand that's just one of the issues facing a living encyclopedia. It's just something that I am figuring out, though, so again bear with the greenhorn! Burpboohickie (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * this section exists largely for us to comply with our NPOV and NOR policies. NPOV demands that we provide all notable points of view.  Many Christians and many historians have conflicting views of Jesus, and both views have to be represented.  But both groups draw on the Gospels as source material and many felt it made sense for this and other reasons to summarize the Gospels.  But the Gospels are primary source material and editors cannot use them to forward their own arguments or views.  In other words, if we insert summaries of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, we have to be as literal as possible to avoid suggesting any particular interpretation of the Gospels.  Many interpretations - by historians and devout Christians, hinge on how the reader views the differences or relation among the Gospels.  If we were to try to synthasize different statements in different Gospels, or if we were to draw on one Gospel and leave out mention of a different one, we would be implying a particular way of reading the Gospels that would violate NOR.  So, the shape of this section has a lot to do with complying with these two policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's not realistic to say We have to allow for every side of every argument. These are theological issues, not encyclopedia articles. Half of Wikipedia will end up being about Christianity. It is already ridiculous how many articles there are on the tiniest issues. It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to correlate all the sub articles. I've seen many with NO citations and many are pure apologetics.  The way to do this to simplify and condense.  We don't have to give every side of every story. A reader wonders, Who is Jesus? and looks it up. Oh, he is a prophet of Islam and the Son of God to Christians. If people want apologetics, they should go to Conservapedia.  I love studying religion and love Wiki. But I can't consider Wiki a reliable source on Christianity any more. Burpboohickie (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your response, since I did not say that we have to allow for every side of an argument. I do not believe anyone here has ever said we have to provide every side of an argument. What I did write was, we have to provide all notable points of view. This is WIkipedia policy. If someone adds anotable view to the article, neither you, I nor anyone has a right to remove it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

four gospels
Not surprisingly, this article gives special weight to the four canonical gospels. For example: "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Does anyone have a citation for this? I'd say, "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the synoptic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke." The gospel of John is not a source of information about Jesus' life. Historians regard it as not reliable. Leadwind (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * no objection on my part, although John is of course very important not only for Christian theology but for how historians explain the origins of early Christianity. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest? Shall we look for the 31 AD edition of the Daily Mirror? Or better still to the Gnostic Gospels, nonesense written decades after the Cannonical gospels? The latter were written by individuals who met Jesus or were influenced by people who met Jesus. Thats as reliable as one can get you know. Tourskin (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake to consider John (at least) any sort of chronological account of Jesus life, but it has become an accepted source for his "teachings"--JimWae (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would never denigrate John as a historical window into early Christianity. Very influential and descriptive. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tourskin, you're right, the gnostic gospels are bogus hokum, Jesus-wise. I would suggest using the three earliest gospels because, as you say, they're closer to the source. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim, you're right, John has long been accepted as faithfully representing Jesus' teaching. It just isn't any more, not by most contemporary scholars, anyway. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tourskin and Jim, I am looking for a citation for the original sentence. If you have one, please share. Leadwind (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On further consideration, I agree John has to be the least reliable. An alternative to singling him out by omission would be to just say gospels rather than naming any. --JimWae (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim, sure, we could just say synoptic gospels and not name them. Leadwind (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other Gospels should also be discussed. There were more than 4 Gospels. Also, all the pictures in the article show Jesus with sinful long hair. Only women were allowed to keep their hair in that fashion under Jewish Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.110.136 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

lead, nontrinitarianism
"Nontrinitarianism profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity (see below)." The lead should summarize the topic. This sentence doesn't. The lead should be able to stand alone. Let's try "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A good lead "can stand on its own as a concise version of the article," so we need to say something about the nontrinitarians instead of "see below." Any objections to: "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Except, it isn't simply individual Christians but well-defined faith groups. Perhaps, "The doctrine of the trinity is not universally accepted and some Christian denominations hold to a different non-trinitarian understanding of the divinity of Jesus." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's at least hint at what the nontrinitarian understandings are. Leadwind (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the gist of nontrinitarian theology should be in the lead. I'll give you the honour of creating the brief synopsis :-)  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

historical Jesus, Jesus as myth
The whole "Possible external influence" section is rambling. Apparently various editors have layered pro and con evidence here. The historical section could use a concise summary of the "Jesus as myth" movement, so I've provided one. I've commented out the original "possible external influence" section because it's easier to start over than to make sense out of a troubled section. Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that Jesus is an Alien the spirit decended as a dove which could be a space craft. It is time to look for a scientific answer to reilgion not a metaphisical or spiritual. God is from the stars UFOs are their vehicles to which they travel in.

the second coming will be a mass landing of UFO vehicles they want mankind to get along, and live in harmony, so they will feel safe when they land here on the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.47 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, lets see how THAT view turns out when the Rapture comes around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.130.128 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several NPOV problems with this section, it frquently refers to Jesus' history as self-evident fact when it is in fact under considerable doubt. That article as whole has a blindspot for the evidence that Jesus never existed at all (at least as the Bible depicts this Jesus) and that his story is merely the evolution and synthesis of many other myths of the region.

Please give a more complete and honest account of how Jesus is regarded academically and not by referencing crackpot Bible scholar websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.27.9 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One might start by referencing E.P. Sanders. His book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, discusses the question at length in its introduction (especially pp. 2-4; there is also a list of facts that are generally regarded as "almost beyond dispute" [p. 10] by historians of the Middle East at the beginning of Chapter 1). That was my introduction to the historical basis for Jesus' existence. --MatthewDBA (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is no longer a good article - actually, it's getting into a bit of s state. The Jesus myth is hotly contested by people who believe the Bible, but we have little or no evidence outside of relgious texts that such a person existed. This will offend Christians, I have no doubt, but the same applies to the images of Muahmmed that Wikipedia will not remove. We have little firm evidence that anything in the Bible actually happened so I would question the use of facts here as this is an encyclopedia.Smidoid (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.32.158 (talk)

Indeed, I was expecting the first section under "Historical Jesus" to be called "Evidence That He Existed", or something like that. Right now it reads like a religious article, with a tiny "appeasement" thrown in. It says that a Dutch school laborously denies his "historical reality". I was under the impression that there were many historians around at the time, yet every one failed to mention him, except for one, which is a "known forgery". What makes it a "known forgery"? Is it debated? Why isn't any of this mentioned? Why is the "Jesus as Myth" section hardly one paragraph? There is even a term for "life-death-rebirth diety", because it is such a common theme in other religions. The article on it mentions Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, phoenix, Jesus, Baldur, and Odin.

Furthermore, I thought there were dozens or more people claiming the be prophets at the time, most with followers who claimed miracles. Why for Jesus these "claims" turned into "it happened", I don't know. The point is, these views (if correct) are not even mentioned. Somebody needs to actually change this section (I'm not an expert). 99.246.109.131 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles should be shaped by the scholarly literature available. Mainstream historical debates about Jesus do not revolve around the question of whether he existed.  Instead, the revolve around the question of teacing apart elements of the NT accounts that make sense in the context of what we know about 1st century Jewish life, and elements that reflect doctrines that developed in the Church after it separated from Judaism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream historical debates about Jesus do not revolve around the question of whether he existed." Well can you point us to a scientific and non-religious source that is widely enough accepted by academic historians to be called "mainstream"; that demonstrates Jesus' existence? And does the existence of some person called Jesus bear any relation to the person depicted in the New Testament? Cherry picking what you like because it agrees with you is garbage.


 * I never cherry pick. I asked friends of mine who are academic historians of early Christianity, of Hellenistic and 1st century Judaism, and Biblical scholars and they told me that the people most commonly assigned in university courses as authorities on Jesus are E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredricksen, Geza Vermes, more conservatively, John Meier, and less conservatively and somewhat more controversially, John Dominic Crossan.  I did a bit more research using academic data-bases and these seem to be the scholars most frequently cited in articles on Jesus published in peer-reviewed academic (meaning, non-theological, non-clerical) journals on 1st century Palestine history and New Testament research.  So these are my sources for the contributions I have made to this and related articles.  These books of course mention and cite other scholars, for example Morton Smith, who my academic friends tell me are well-respected though dated.  For Hellensitic Jewish history, my academic friends tell me Shaye JD Cohen is the best, most authoritative historian around, although Jacob Neusner is still considered authoritative for a slightly later period - so virtually all my claims about Jewish history, especially the Pharisees, come from Cohen and Neusner.  So really all my contributions come from these scholars.  So all my contributions come from these scholars (I must add that on Jesus I find Sanders, Fredricks, and Vermes the most useful).  I don't have any opinions of my own on the matter, I just try to represent what these guys say.  What other method is there for contributing to an encyclopedia? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, anonymous user 88.111.5.223, if you want to contribute to Wikipedia consider registring and signing your contributions. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well how does that resolve itself to the recurring theme I keep hearing that the only reasonably contemporary historical document (Tacitus) pertaining Christ has been exposed as a forgery? Note that is a non-rhetorical question. So, again, can we have a demonstration that debunks that or more objective language?

"Biblical scholar" a more oxymoron phrase more guaranteed to antagonise scientific academics you'd be hard pushed to find.

May I suggest then equally as politely that you mind your own business in terms of registration and signatures. Better still ditch the ego and engage with arguments and not personalities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.5.223 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia - we are guided by our policies of NPOV and NOR and V, so we provide accounts of notable views from verifiable sources. We are not here to answer your personal inquiries.  Nor are we a chat-room or list-serve.  If you wish to debate the existence of Jesus, create your own blog or find an appropriate chat-room.  As I explained, I draw on notable and reliable sources.  Neither Sanders, Fredricksen, nor Vermes try to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus.  Read what I wrote above, I already told you what scholars spend most of their energies doing.  As for your claim that Bible scholar is an oxymoron, you are simply revealing your own ignorance.  Perhaps you never went to college.  If you went to a good University, you should know that most offer courses on this array of topics (biblical history, Hellensitic Jewish history, 1st century religions, etc.) and that there are a host of fine scholars - I named several - who learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Akkadian, Uggaritic, Sumerian or ancient Egyptian if they study the Hebrew Bible and Greek and Latin if they study the New Testament, as well as various historical methods including hermeneutics, Higher and Lower Criticism.  It sounds to me that you either do not understand academic history, or simply have contempt for academic scholars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and encyclopedias are supposed to stick to facts. I doubt I'd be very interested in chatting with you in any context.

I am posing a simple question: where is the demonstration that Christ's existence is beyond doubt for most academics. It's there in the encyclopedia, so I assume that a scrupulous person like yourself should be well-disposed to point me straight to the information that upholds this statement. It should be evident don't you think?

Aah, are you going to wave start waving your letters around next to try and assert 'authority. No, I understand academic history and where its roots are and I have the utmost respect for most scholars who now generally regard those roots with disdain... as they generally do theism.

Thank you for demonstrating that you cannot answer a simple question and thereby, by default, that my point is valid.

The POV complaint thus still stands.

Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.5.223 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You just changed the question from Jesus' existence to Christ's existence. Do you really believe they are the same?  now your own POV is showing. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the distinction is lost on me... but an answer to "either" is still inevident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.5.223 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Jesus" is a historical figure that eventually became the focus of a new group of religions collectively known as Christianity. "Christ" is not actually a name, although it is frequently mistaken for one. It is the anglicized version of Greek "Christos", the anointed one, i.e. the promised Jewish Messiah. In other words, "Jesus" is a simple name, while "Christ" presumes the truth of at least some core assumptions of the Christian religion. And please try to be a bit more civil (we have a policy, WP:CIVIL, that you might want to read) and reconsider getting an account. It gives you better tools to work on Wikipedia, and makes it easier for us to have a coherent conversation. It also does not compromise anonymity - indeed, it makes it harder to identify you (unless you pick a recognizable user name). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone cannot see the difference between Jesus, an itinerant preacher and healer, and Christ, the Son of God and one with God, I can only infer that this someone is a Christian. I have nothing unkind to say to my Christian brothers and sisters, but point out that it is but one point of view, and there are other points of view, especially when we are talking about the work of Biblical scholars and historians. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the case here - I rather assume that he fell to the common misunderstanding that Jesus would be politely addressed by his family name as "Mr. Christ" (son of Joseph Christ and Maria Christ née Finkelsteen ;-), and was not aware of the religious significance of that title. --12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? If you say so - but the only people I know who refer to him as Christ are Christians.  Jews certainly don't, and historians and critical Bible scholars do not. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not universally correct. Many non-Christians refer to Christ as Christ. Myself, for example. Ghandi as another example. Some say 'Jesus' some say 'Christ.' Muslims often say 'Isa,' particularly Arab Muslims, and some of course use Yeshua or some other equivalent. But the name does carry specific religious significance that many Jews and even many Christians are unaware of. Jesus was His given name, Christ was His title, and He is often known by that particular title even outside of His followers, much as Ghandi is known as Mahatma even though that's not his name, to use him as an example again. Peter Deer (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I myself would refer to Ghandi as Mahatma, or Siddharta Gautama as the Buddha, or Muhammed as the Prophet, as a matter of respect .. but the fact is there is much that these men said (or are supposed to have said) that I do respect.  In this particular case, 88.111 seems to think that claims about Jesus as Christ are fraudalent, so I am surprised that she refers to Jesus as Christ.  If I thought Gautama were a charlatan I wouldn't call him the Buddha. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, wouldn't you? But then, there are oddly enough plenty of people who call Jesus 'Christ' without believing He is the Messiah, who call Siddharta Gautama 'Buddha' without believing in the existence of Buddhas per-say, who call Muhammad 'the Prophet Muhammad' without believing He spoke with God, and so forth. It's funny how despite disbelief the terminology by which they refer themselves has become vernacular. I think it's ironic how there are many people who do not believe these Persons but don't realize that their entire belief systems and way of thinking are shaped by Their teachings. Peter Deer (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a question of Christian background and education, not current religion. I think Dawkins called himself "an atheist, but a Christian atheist" ;-). From my experience in Germany, "Jesus Christus" is used as a simple name, and I bet most people, even fairly well-educated ones, don't reflect on the meaning of the title (or even recognize it as such). 88.111 seems to actively doubt the historicity of Jesus, which would be an unusual position for a Christian. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC, but fits with what Stephan writes too) To me this suggests a strange (and highly relevant to the theme of this thread) fundamentalism, perhaps one could call it a reverse fundamentalism, in which people reject belief in something, but have such a clear and uncompromising vision of what they reject, they are in a way affirming that particular view of what they reject. I have met people who think if you are not a Christian you just do not believe in God or religion - they simply cannot imagine any religion or God that is not Christian. And the funny thing is, some of these people are self-described Christians, and some are self-described atheists. They think they are completely antagonistic, opposites, yet they agree on one thing, that is, the nature of that thing they either accept or reject. I find it odd and fascinating. As to "well-educated" I assume what you really mean is people with university degrees which in my experience is not the same as well-educated. I think everyone is well-educated about some things and ignorant about others.  But I would hope that anyone participating in this talk page know enough about Jesus to know that Christ is a title and not name.  After all, you find this out just reading the introduction to the article.  Shouldn't reading the introduction to the article be a minimum requirement (morally, I know it can't be enforced!) for participating in discussion?!? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"And please try to be a bit more civil" You may wish to address that to Slrubenstein. If someone addresses me like a donkey, I'll kick them like a donkey. I don't believe in "turning the cheek". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.225.42 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"88.111 seems to actively doubt the historicity of Jesus, which would be an unusual position for a Christian." well quite obviously I am not a Christian. Now to be fair, posing a question is bit more neutral than "doubt": I am rather bewildered by what people mean by Jesus/Christ (in my upbringing there has never been a distinction) as there seems to be some ambiguity.

I am genuinely curious as to what proof that someone called Jesus existed and to what extent this person (if real) tallies with the Christian narrative. That none of this is self-evident from the article and the article states that most academics believe Jesus (which one?) existed is frankly absurd. And to have someone start waving scholarship in my face as a distraction is almost comic.

I would assume that a "scholar" would have already posed these questions of the data and would have a ready answer. As it stands, all I can glean is "(unspecified) Jesus existed because I say so and so do "most" academics". Which let's face it is about as factual as accounts of alien abduction.

I don't care for registration. I see no virtue in establishing dialogues on the basis of personality. I'd rather engage content.

88.111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.225.42 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for answering your questions about Jesus. The evidence that he existed is the literature written about him shortly after his death. Yes, it could all have been made up, but most scholars think that is very very unlikely because it does not take the form of contemporary fictional or mythic narrative. For more detail see Historicity of Jesus and historical Jesus. Paul B (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing "improvements"..."Yes, it could all have been made up, but..." But, the article doesn't reflect this in either grammar or references. As someone not learned in this area I suddenly hit a brick wall of "authority", which is a poor substitute for data. Don't you think that should be "improved"?

An encyclopedia is a repository of information. If this article fails to provide information, then it fails its remit. Quite how (or moreover, why) I am supposed to draw attention to a deficit without mentioning the deficit in name is beyond my logic?

If the article's position can't be substantiated then it is POV. If it can, then please do so, and I'll quite happily be silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.225.42 (talk • contribs)


 * The "brick wall of authority" is how Wikipedia works. We have rules regarding reliable sources precisely to stop endless discussion on talk pages in which editors try to prove by argument what is "really true". Otherwise the most assertive editor would get to present his/her opinion as fact in the article. Specifically, what information do you think should be provided? Saying "it coild all have been made up" is pointless. You can say that about information is any historical narrative. Much of what we know about Roman emperors derives from books written by ancient historians. Paul B (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, registering has nothing to do with "establishing dialogues on the basis of personality". It is a way to ensure that contributors know that a piece of text was added by the same person who wrote a previous one, so that we can engage in meaningful debate. Paul B (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Beyond agreeing with everything PaulB has written, I will add, that wikipedia is not about "truth" it is about providing an account of notable views from verifiable and reliable sources. This article provides a variety of diverse, many conflicting, views, all from verifiable and reliable sources.  So there is no issue of the article not being substantiated.  As to the Jesus/Christ distinction, it has been explained in this very discussion, and in the introduction to the article, and in various articles.  The anonymous user either has what academics call a "cognitive deficit" or simply does not read the article or what others have written - either way, unpromising for any constructive discussion that might help improve the article.  But it is clear to me that the anonymous editor doesn't care about that, she only wants to soap-box. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Manichaeism
I'm surprised the article says nothing about the Manichaean view of Jesus. This really ought to be mentioned somewhere. Skoojal (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We should have a section that covers Mandean, Manichaean, Gnostic, and early minority views of Jesus. Mani believed that the prophets, Buddha, and Jesus had all been sent to help liberate humanity from the material world. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing would be to add a short sentence about the Manichean view, with a link to the Manichaeism article. Skoojal (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

year of jesus's birth
Jesus wasn't born between 2, and 7 B.C. they started counting after his death thats why its the year 2008


 * Can you explain this further?--C.Logan (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think hes saying that AD 1 is the death and resurrection of Jesus so born ~30 BC? No thats not true, they count after his birth. Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AD means from the year of our lord. 2008 years since Jesus's claimed birth year. It's no more accurate than the date of Christmas.Smidoid (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.32.158 (talk)

Edit at top of Jesus page
At the top of the Jesus page, a sentence proclaims in bold capitals that jesus had sex with small children. I feel certain that this inappropriate comment was a prank edit of some sort. As a wiki reader without an account, I cannot remove this sentence myself. Could someone who does have that power please restore the article to its original status? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.121.42 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The vandalism you were refering to was reverted in less than a minute. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's gone. If you still see it, clear your browser cache. Such obvious vandalism in a high-profile article has a very short lifetime - this one was on less than a minute. There is usually no need to mention it on talk. But thanks anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Colored Yeshua
Out of curiosity why did you'll take the Yeshua off the article? And did any of you know Yeshua was a colored man this not my point of view it's a fact even though most people know Him to be white He is a colored man and I think that should be mentioned. The K.O. King (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "Yeshua" you are referring too - can you be a bit more specific? Anyways, if Jesus existed, both the Bible and normal common sense suggest that he looked like a typical inhabitant of Palestine at that time. That is, he would have been swarthy, but not black. We are all coloured, at least in a non-PC sense (I go from pale pinkish brown in winter to medium dark brown in summer - successfully avoiding blazing red most years ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The part that said Yeshua is His name in Hebrew. Yeshua was black no one knows how dark He was though. If you would like to explain this I will. The K.O. King (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been taken out of the lead, but is still in the article, at Jesus, and in more details in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't think that a black Jesus has mainstream or even significant minority support in the academic community. Do you have any sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can see it is plausible that Jesus could have been anywhere from quite white (Roman/Greek) to light brown (Arab/Persian) to very dark (Egyptian/Libyan) and that the only reason for the movement to assert that Jesus was black is to counter the more popular assertion that Jesus is white, neither argument of which has any particular basis and is almost universally put forth by individuals of that ethnicity. The only part of Jesus' genealogy that I have seen that is mapped out significantly is the family tree of Joseph, which individuals who believe in the immaculate conception don't believe Jesus is related to by blood anyway. Peter Deer (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the Gospels describe him as inconspicuous, and the Romans needed Judas to identify him among the disciples. This makes all but a normal levantine coloring (which, btw, overlaps with at least current Greeks and Italians and Egyptians) very unlikely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That indeed would seem to indicate that. On another note, asserting that He was white or black when there is not conclusive evidence supporting either notion just serves to essentially use Jesus/Yeshua/Isa/etc. for political and bigoted ends. Peter Deer (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look for a source just give me some time. And just for the record I didn't say He was a dsrk black he could have been olive or dark colored no one knows but He was colored. The K.O. King (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are saying he was not an albino? All human beings have some skin pigmentation - Diana Spencer, Golda Meir, Yasir Arafat, Barak Obama, Alicia Keyes, Anwar Sadat, Papa Doc Duvalier - they are/were all colored. So what? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * THere are a lot of scholars who think he was black, but mainly there are a lot of scholars who think he was just dark skinned like an arab or palestinian because that's where he lived. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources please? Also, there is a huge difference between saying someone was black and saying someone was dark-skinned. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of Jesus which currently exists
Hey all, I'd just like to point out that there is an image (or several) of Jesus which currently exists. It is currently about 2000 light years from where earth was 2000 years ago moving away at the speed of light and a really good telescope could make it out at that location. We however can't catch it, unless superluminal travel is possible, although it's theoretically possible for it to reflect back off something to us, or an extraterrestrial could record it and send a copy back. This of course applies to all historical people and events, so maybe someday we could just sit back and watch it all! Roy Brumback (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was light that hit Jesus then bounced into space, carrying His image with it. It's currently about 2000 light years away, and thus so is His image. So someone at that point in space, with a very good telescope, would be able to watch Him, Augustus, Caligula, ect, or anything else happening on Earth back then, just like when we look at say Alpha Centauri we are watching it as it was 4 years ago. If it were to reflect back to us or if someone saw it, recorded it, and sent it back to us, we could then watch history happening. I just say all this because it's not actually accurate to say an image of Jesus doesn't exist, because it does. I changed that statement that there are no images of Jesus to no known images, but it's actually more correct to say no known images on Earth, as we do know there is one about 2000 light years from where Earth was 2000 years ago, but that might be a bit much for the article. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. That's very interesting. Now could you back up your information? Skele (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take into account WP:NONSENSE. Peter Deer (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true Roy, but the reflected light rays would have diverged to a width of billions of miles by now. Quite difficult to collect, wouldn't you say? rossnixon 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. With a good enough telescope you could see an alien planet, and with a really good one you could see the surface of it and everything on it. This almost certainly couldn't be done in our lifetimes, but in principle it can be done, just like the WMAP satellite can see back to near the big bang for instance. If we had really good telescopes we could look at the surface of alien planets as they were back in the past, so someone could obviously watch Earth as it was in the past too, then send us a message telling us what they saw, although they would have to just do it out of good will and hope we would get the message as we couldn't ask them to do it before they would receive the messge as we can't overtake the light, unless of course superluminal travel is possible. The telescope would have to be very big, although I'm not sure about the billions of miles across. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah now I know what you are talking about. But, well, that's very far fenched and with our current technology it's not yet possible. And ofcourse all the space dust planets and even the weather on Earth on the way, I would say it would be never possible. And think of the size of that telescope, it would be huge. And ofcourse Earth's rotation, because of that the point where the images are heading is every direction which means we couldn't put it in a video and show it as a whole. Skele (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel I need to point out that we should keep discussion in here pertinent to the article and not just about whether or not there's a theoretical space Jesus image that doesn't appear like it could actually be included in this article at all. Peter Deer (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry if you don't understand. I have everything under control. Skele (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
We need to have a section or mention about Jesus' son. There are many people who think Jesus had a son. Maybe we could talk about it if there is any evidence. Also, is there any evidence that Jesus is the savior or any evidence other than the bible that he did miracles? Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean like The Da Vinci Code? If you have evidence maybe that would be a place to take it.--Carlaude (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is little to no current evidence that He had a son. There are some circles that assert that He had a daughter, but I haven't seen anything conclusive in that regard either. Christ certainly had brothers, and possibly sisters, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that there are still descendants of Joseph and Mary, but the prospects of there being descendants of Christ are dubious. As for the bible, one thing to remember is that the bible is a collection of accounts of the life of Jesus that the church believed at the time to be the most authentic and not 'slanderous'. There are actually several accounts of the life of Jesus that never made it into the bible, I believe that of those that survived are for the most part still in the possession of the Vatican, but I am unaware of any source by which one would gain access to them. Peter Deer (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sections should correspond to notable fiews from reliable sources. I know of no - no tone - notable Biblical scholar or historian who has made this argument.  Since no one of note thinks it is worth talking about, it it an unencyclopedic topic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with this. Unless there is a noteworthy historical source that can provide indication of this, it really has no place outside of tinfoil hat discussions. Peter Deer (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)