Talk:Jesus/Archive 95

The problem is with calling these groups, as listed further down the page, the church of latter day saints and Jehova Witnesses Christians.

It is commenly known, first of all, that these sects have not been considered christians by the vast majority of those who are Christians nor do they deny that there is a vast difference with the rest of those who have been called Christians in the family of faiths dating way back before the inception of their religions. When one thinks of Christians, these two religions are seperate from the basic meaning of that concept.

Moreover, the biblical example of those who were called Christians shows that they all believed and taught that Jesus was God in the flesh and that this was a central teaching regarding Jesus. The disciples worshiped Jesus and worship anyone but God was breaking the ten commandments and everyone knew that. Even if they did refer to themselves as Christians would that make them christian. The KKK refered to themselves as Christians also but were they. These groups aren't the KKK obviously but nevertheless there is a deviation to what those who were called Christian were and to what those today who are called Christian are. The Jehova Witnesses and the Church of LDS both rely on other books as their authority whereas Christians have no other authority than that of the Bible. I am seeking consensus here and I believe that this will be agreed upon by the vast majority.

My proposal is to use the word "Nontrinitarian religious groups" or something to that extent that could be discussed in order to be more accurate about what Christians think and what other groups think. HisTruthsetsfree (talk)06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because, of course, there is only one right way of thinking in order to be a Christian. Pairadox (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources identify Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian denominations. They may be heterodox but that is a different question than if they practice a form of Christianity. Vassyana (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree they are not Christian, but the label "Nontrinitarian religious groups" is a good compromise in that it says nothing any group finds erroronous . It names them for what they are, rather than what they are not. --Carlaude (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Taken literally, classical pagans are a "nontrinitarian religious group", as are Muslims, Shintoists, and Zoroastrians. Nontrinitarians are Christians first, in that they accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the son of God, and believe in the absolution of sins by his sacrifice. The core theological differences are so extremely subtle that I doubt most Christians can explain them. See also our article on Nontrinitarianism, which affirms this as a Christian belief system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They might not be true Christians, but they're "Christians." What I mean is, they are known by the name "Christian." They're called "Christian." WP records what things are called. It makes no claim to record what things really are. Leadwind (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The initial editor states positions that are of faith and not of fact. First, the early apostles taught that Jesus was the Son of God; they did not refer to him as God but as Jesus referred to himself, Son of God. Additional comments were made that lead to the belief that Jesus was God the Father. This concept of a single doctrine of faith did not fully evolve until the 4th century. In the Bible a follower, a disciple of Jesus is one that followed Him, believed in Him as Savior, responded to His call to repent and be baptized, and looked forward to the day when He would return again. IF you want to call other Christians "Trinitarian religious groups", I can accept the compromise as proposed; if not, then I reject it wholesale as POV.

Second, the article is not about what some Christian say about other Christians or identifying who is "the real deal". That topic is best left for the respective church articles.

Third, if there are references that support the position a church, religion, denomination is Christian, then it is called as such.

You have to be very careful with definitions you create for words as powerful as Christian. If you want a definition that is neutral find it in the Bible and use it. Otherwise, all you have done is create another definition that achieves your personal (or a church's) objective and are put in the position of attempting to force others to accept it as the definition. It is not the definition and never was; there have always been the simple one found in the responding to His command, "Come follow me". Curious, how did Jesus define his followers? I also seem to recall "ye shall know them by their fruits". --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted two edits by Scifiintel which I believe were POV pushing and editing to make a WP:Point. First, he changed sedition to rebellion against the Romans - this I reverted on simple grounds of stylke: sedition is less wordy. Second, he removed "on orders of Pontius Pilate." But this is indeed what most historians think. The following paragraph describes the Christian POV, and there is a section that summarizes the Gospels - these are two other places in the article that express alternate views. Let's stop trying to put Christian views in the paragraph on historians. There is a separate paragraph for Christian views. You want to put forward a Christian view? put it there! Third, he linkied "King of the Jews" to the article on kings of the Jews. This I consider tendentious since no Jew and no historian believes Jesus ever was a Jewish king. According to the Gospels the Romans perhaps accused him of pretensions to be the king, but he was never actually the king. Linking this to a disambiguation page that links to lists of the Kings of Israel, Judeah, and the Hasmonians makes no sense at all unless you are pushing a POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, and thanks. Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Content from Jesus: the Jewish POV was merged into Jesus in 2005. The subsequent redirect was recently nominated for deletion at RFD. Per the debate, the original page was moved to Talk:Jesus/the Jewish POV to maintain the history per the GFDL and the new target deleted. This notice is simply to let folks figure out what happened if there is ever a future question. -- JLaTondre 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Care for an athiest view? Nobody knows what Jesus looked like, therefore these images are all PoV (artists PoV) images. It wouldn't bother me, if they were removed all together (see similiar discussion at talk: Muhammad). -- GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Images as such are not "POV" because they are not assertions. Assertions can be made about images. There is no opposition to images in almost all branches of Christianity - indeed in the most widespread forms they are positively encouraged. The opposite is true in Islam, hence the problem with images of Muhammad. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-known historical works of art by notable artists directly related to the topic at hand hardly qualify as POV. Much of this work represents views of Jesus espoused by denominations of Christianity, Islam etc. which each boast millions or hundreds of millions of members: as such, their significance in relation to the topic cannot be ignored. Besides, would we have to remove all painted portraits of famous individuals such as members of royalty or ex-Presidents simply because the technology for photography did not exist at the time that they were living? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, quite true. Most historical figures haven't been photographed. Anways, I've no desire to remove the images. Wheter they stay or not, isn't that big a deal, the article content is the main thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a small thing thou Jesus wasn't there when he was painted. Many historical figures were painted when they were there. So if I would decide, I would keep almost any portrait of any one resembling to the texts as Jesus. Skele (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How's the dispute go about Jesus's image? Was he white with straight brown hair & blues eyes? Or was he brown, with short curly black hair & brown eyes. Interesting indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The dispute has been archived by Slrubenstein, depite the fact that the debate was clearly not concluded. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is a lie. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that is a disgraceful remark of which you should be utterly ashamed. Your behaviour with regard to this issue has been offensive throughout. Paul B (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the record I see that I was in fact mistaken, and that it was Roy Brumback who archived the section. It was an honest mitstake on my part. I certainly do not that can be a justification for offensive accusations. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, Paul, is this an apology? If you are apologizing, then I would be happy for us to strike-out this whole exchange. I am not ashamed for pointing out the unthruthfulness of your accusation. Perhaps now you are also suggesting, when you say it was an honest mistake, that your singling me out and adding the "despite" clause, was not meant to be a rebuke to me. If you are indeed apologizing for an honest mistake, well, I am happy to apologize for having pointed it out in a way which has so wounded you. To be clear: my intention was to defend myself, not to harm you. As for my having been offensive on this issue throughout, well, you and I will just have to disagree. My comments were always made in good faith and expressed what I consider to be valid concerns even if you disagree with them, and I ("for the record") do not think my last statement on the issue, which was a direct response to a comment of yours was at all offensive or disgraceful. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, the text is almost intentionally ambiguous on the issue. The clearest description is found within a book of metaphorical imagery, so its presentation can not been seen to have great validity in terms of "how he looked when he was alive", even though Afro-centrists and White supremacists equally cite it (interestingly enough) as evidence of appearance.--C.Logan (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 

If we're trying to justify eliminating these images on the basis of POV, we would have to do the same with every depiction of war made before the advent of photography. The image at right, Washington Crossing the Delaware, is an example of this. It's a classic work of art, widely recognized, but it was made in 1851 (long after Washington's death) and it portrays George Washington in a decidedly heroic, stalwart manner. Does this violate NPOV? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Above, Paul writes, "Images as such are not "POV" because they are not assertions. Assertions can be made about images." I think virtually all art historians and most cultural historians (if not all) would disagree. In many places and times images have been principle ways views were expressed. Now, I do think it is wrong to object to including an image because it is POV - the whole idea of the NPOV policy is that articles embrace multiple points of view, as long as they are notable and properly identified and if needs be contextualized. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Would they now? I am an art historian, Slrubenstein, and I obviously don't agree. [1] [2]. I am also apparently 'naive' about BBC documentaries - even though I have appeared in five BBC documentary programmes, a fact I've not mentioned so far, since I didn't think it appropriate. "In many places and times images have been principle ways views were expressed." Yes, indeed, but if you read carefully what I wrote you will set that I said images as such are not POV. The image of - say - Rameses crushing his enemies represents Rameses' POV about his military achievements, but the image is dumb without a discourse surrounding it - hence "assertions made about" images. It can also serve the assertion "This image shows the vanity and dishonesty of Rameses". The meaning is an extrapolation from the image. It depends on the assumptions and knowledges we bring to it. The assuptions we bring to most images of Jesus do not usually include the proposition "this artist believed that the historical Jesus actually looked like this". Paul B (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey gentlemen, I was only making a general comment on article images. I'm in no way demanding these images be removed - I didn't want these to become a full-blown discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I am pleased to meet a real art historian. I agree completely with your explanation of the "as such" but I would say that this is actually true about many other things we take to be assertions of view ... for example, something Jesus said. NOR instructs us that we can quote the Gospel saying "Then Jesus said ..." only to illustrate what the Gospel says. But a Wikipedia editor cannot then put in his or her own explanation or interpretation of what Jesus meant. NOR requires that we use secondary sources (According to historian X, this means a... According to theologian Y, it means b...) To use your words, I would say that this is because the quote (from the primary source) is dumb without a discourse surrounding it. If to my assertion that a given image of Jesus expresses a particular view, you as an art historian want to correct me that, no, there may (and almost certainly) actually are at more than one views about what view the image expresses - well, I am glad to stand corrected and if this is basically what you have meant () I agree and (2) regret any prior misunderstanding. However, it does not change what I consider to be my basic point which is that images ought to be used in Wikipedia with the same care as other sources, guided by our NPOV and NOR policies among others. As to BBC documentaries, I have not been in any though I have been asked to consult several and my opinion stands. To be clear: I have never said that the inclusion of something within a BBC documentary means it is not notable beyond the TV audience for news or entertainment (e.g. among art historians, physical anthropologists, or historians). It may be. But inclusion in a BBC documentary is not in my experience sufficient grounds to know that it is a notable view (among say art historians, physical anthropologists, or historians). It may be, but we would need other documentation.

If we may return to the image under discussion ... if the medical artist who created it claims that it is a highly probably image of what Jesus looked like, I doubt that physical anthropologists and historians would take him seriously. If he said that this is a probable image of what many 1st century Galileans looked like, well ... I would have to know what physical anthropologists and historians think. Do they agree? Do they disagree? Or do they not take serious note of it? If there is little or no discussion among historians of 1st century Galil, or physical anthropologists who have worked with skeletal remains, I would conclude that it is non-notable (how else would we know what is notable or not?) Certainly you have indicated that among the historians and scientists who are experts in the matter, there is no discourse surrounding it. A careful scholar would say that there is a world of difference between even the claims that "this is what many 1st century Galileans may have looked like" and "this is what Jesus looked like" and I wonder how many people watched the BBC documentary (or looked at the image here) end left with the belief that this is what Jesus "really" looked like or even (and worse!!) "this is what scientists think Jesus really looked like?" That may well be another discourse attaching to the image. And I would want to know that his is indeed a notable view among th relevant scholars, before including it in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, this has seeped over here too? Zazaban (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to have an image of the 'Chocolate Jesus' placed in this article? Would we need permission from the sculptor? What's everyone think? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the same concerns raised above regarding the Piss Christ image apply here as well.--C.Logan (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Images have to qualify for notability first to the topic at hand, and if it qualifies there, undue weight must also be considered. You may notice that most of the images which appear in this article are among the most famous and historical works. This is neither. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was just wundering about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

wyh —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterWiki (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wyh indeed.--C.Logan (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the book referenced below is biased and therefore does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines for being neutral in viewpoint. It also does not appear peer-reviewed or especially "academic". I suggest someone finds a better source and removes this, or finds evidence that supports the credibility of this source.

"One recent study has stated that biblical scholars and most historians accept the historical existence of Jesus and regard claims against his existence as "effectively refuted".[35]" 68.184.35.29 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)jonathan

I have actually read the book and it has been well received by relevant scholars. This contributor is speaking from a position of ignorance.Robert O'Brien (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert E. Van Voorst is a theologian. I question the validity of a statement about the historicity of Jesus from someone who is not a historian. Unfortunately, people not careful enough will believe this as fact instead of one theologian's perspective corroborated by other theologians and deeply religious historians. Now I don't care if the idea of Jesus is based on a real person, it just seems silly to base an understanding of what educated people think on this subject just because of this source. Whether or not there existed an actual Jesus is rather unimportant, I feel. But whatever, leave it up.68.184.35.29 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Jonathan

Wikipedia guidelines do not require that the sources themselves be neutral in viewpoint; the only requirement is that articles present all viewpoints in a neutral manner (while still considering the proportionate acceptance/rejection of particular beliefs of ideas in consideration of WP:UNDUE.

I personally have no familiarity of the source, but I was a passive observer to the discussion which surrounded its addition, and there appeared to be a general acceptance (read here: consensus) that the source was reliable and was of relevant scholarship. I may have to uncover the page history to notify the involved users and renew the discussion on the matter if you prefer to dispute this source.--C.Logan (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cut this referenced information, first find a reliable source that says different. Find a reliable source that says, "The question of whether Jesus even existed is wide open." Once you've done that, you'll demonstrate that the RS's don't agree, and it's an open issue. Until then, one RS is enough for us. Leadwind (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm68.184.35.29 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Jonathan

Jonathan, that's a good start. Thanks for the link. That site isn't a reliable source. Is it Jim Walker's self-published site? Please see WP:RS. But you might be able to use that page to track down actual reliable sources that would tell us that Jesus' existence is an open question among mainstream scholars. Walker quotes reputable scholars. What do theses scholars say? So, again, we'll be able to see that the source you're complaining about is biased once you demonstrate that there's an RS that disagrees. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JESUS Is not GOD He is GOD'a Messanger so Wikipedia writers should write "According to Cristians Jesus is GOD" not according to all humans in the world. Please change the text in The topic "Life of Jesus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.97.158 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the article never (as far as I can see) says what you are complaining it says. Additionally, there is no section with the title "Life of Jesus", so I'm unsure where to even look in the first place. Finally, operating from a POV doesn't quite work here, so your initial statement is completely unacceptable as an argument. I believe that Jesus is God, and therefore I would consider your statement to be false. However, we need to operate with a mind for neutrality which focuses more on presenting an objective picture in the article than one supporting those views with which you agree.--C.Logan (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Stephan Schulz complains "Father" is used (for Joseph) in reliable and ancient sources, "stepfather" is unsourced interpretation
• Stepfather is an interpretation, but an interpretation clearly intended all those made by all those reliable and ancient sources.
• The NT greek seems to have no word for "stepfather," and if so then it is not meaningful to stand on the idea that ancient sources ever choose the one word over the other.
• I believe my edit "(step-)father" makes the issues clear. The other option (I expect what many encyclopedias would do) is to drop either word, e.g. "Joseph, husband of Mary, appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood."--Carlaude (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"an interpretation clearly intended" - it is precisely because so many editor presume to make these kinds of contentious and POV claims that we have an [WP:NOR]] policy that prevents these kind of edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The (step)-father thingy seems laboriously constructed, lets go with "Joseph, husband of Mary" The NT uses:

• Matthew 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

• Luke 3:23

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

• John 6:42

They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" all from the NIV version. Hardyplants (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If the NT uses "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus"-- an avoidance of calling him father why would we think we need to call Joseph his father.

The "stepfather" thing is rather slippery. If Josef is not Jesus father, is Jesus a bastard? At least it seems to force the dichotomy between this conclusion and accepting the virgin birth. I'd rather not force this on our readers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How does not "(step-)father" force the dichotomy on our readers. --Carlaude (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an important issue, historically and theologically, so the issue should be dealt with. It also impinges on the way the two genealogies are understood by many; namely that one is maternal and the other is Josephs. Hardyplants (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How can we "deal with it" from NPOV? If it is important theologically it is due to be (or is) dealt with elsewhere, --Carlaude (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if Joseph were not Jesus's biological father, he would not have been considered a bastard by his Jewish relatives and neighbors (the Hebrew word that is usually translated as "bastard" does not mean what the English word means). In any event, while Hardyplants is right that it is an important issue theologically, it should not be dealt with here. There is an article on Christology, which is the appropriate place to present various Christian views about the humanity and divinity of Jesus. In this article we provide what notable historians believe, and what the Gospels state. Without violating WP:NOR, all we can do is, as Hardyplants suggests, say "Joseph, husband of mary" and note the different ways the Gospels refer to joseph, without introducing our own interpretations. I do not think it is that important an issue historically. Most historians I know either assume Joseph was Jesus's father - assume, explicitly, because they make it explicitly clear that there is just not enough evidence to make a strong historical argument - or just say flat out that the sources are unclear and go no further. The historians I have read seem far more concerned with reconstructing Jesus' life as best we can from the sources, which means the adult Jesus's mission, than with speculating about paternity. I think it is pretty obvious that virtually all non-Christians today will think Joseph was Jesus' father. I know Christians have a variety of ways of dealing with seeming ambiguities or contradictions in the text, and I agree that these are very important theologically, which is why I think the proper place to explore those different views is in an article on this area of Christian theology. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Carlaude (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein as well. We should stick to clearly attributable facts and not put our own or any unsourced interpretation into the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree as well. However, some context for the early role Joseph served in Jesus' life is sure warranted. At present, there is no indication, apart from being the husband of Mary, that Joseph was even involved. My proposed change [3] was

I think NPOV is served, by avoiding any factual commitment one way or the other as to whether Joseph is the biological father, and yet still using the term father in a descriptive sense. Any thoughts? Silly rabbit (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"During this time he acted as Jesus' foster father" is original research and cannot go in. "During this time he acted as Jesus' foster father, although most traditions deny that he was the biological father of Jesus." is reasonable, butwhere would you put it? Not in the "According to the Gospel's" section since this is a statement not about what the Gospel's say but rather Christian traiditions. I guess it could go in a section on what Christians believe about Jesus, but it seems pretty tangential to me as this article is about Jesus, not Joseph. I assume we have an article about Joseph and in that article this sentence would be fine as long as it specified, most Christian traditions. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about Christian traditions, though I just assumed that was implicit from the context. My chief concern is that greater context for Joseph needs to be provided. The article currently states that Joseph was husband of Mary, but at no point does it indicate that Joseph played any other familial role in the life of Jesus. A literal reading of the text leaves the mistaken impression that Joseph was an absentee father (step-father/foster father/whatever). The article only indicates that Joseph was not present during the ministry of Jesus, which seems to suggest that Joseph was absent in other ways as well. If the precise wording "foster father" is an issue, then I suggest that we float alternative ways to characterize References can be provided for the "foster father" statement if necessary. At any rate, there surely must be a way to make a purely descriptive statement on the role Joseph played without committing to any particular claim of fatherhood. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A literal reading of the text does not leave the impression that Joseph was an absentee father. That is not a "literl reading" of the text. That is an interpretation of the text. It seems like you care wht people think of Joseph. Frankly, it should not matter to us what people thought of Joseph. Our task is to write encyclopedic articles that comply with our core policies. If a summary of the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' life makes scant reference to Joseph, so what? We stick to the reliable sources. If the sources don't discuss something, it is not our job to try to figure out how to fill in the gap. If a reader leaves a question on this talk page, "But what about Joseph" I think there is only one response: go to the article on Joseph. Hopefully, that article will, like this one, summarize what the sources say, and then provide an accurate account of how notable secondary sources interpret the Gospels or fill in gaps in the Gospels. even there, it is not for us to decide who to characterize Joseph. We provide notable views of Christians, historians, and anyone else who has had a notable view about joseph. But anyway, that is for the Joseph article. You seem to think we need to describe Joseph's role. Our job is, in the section on "according ot the Gospels," to provide an accourate account of what the Gospels say. In "The historians' views" what historians say, and in "the Christian view" what Christians say. We should focus on notable views about Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia policies on the matter. At least now (after my edit) there is a link to the article Joseph of Nazareth. There wasn't one before. Anyway, as the genealogy section is "according to the gospels", the point has finally hit home. Forgive me for being WP:DENSE. :o) Silly rabbit (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)