Difference between revisions of "Talk:Jesus Christ"

Revision as of 15:38, May 16, 2007

Abomination!

Could Conservapedia provide an article even more so minimizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Maybe if we work real hard at it, we can acknowledge him, along with all the other men named Jesus, as mere spokesmen? --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. Dpbsmith 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. Who, exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. Dpbsmith 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Want confirmation of this? Go to this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize small, minority. Scorpionman 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on Historicity of Jesus, thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are reasonably widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. Dpbsmith 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. JoshuaZ 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. Dpbsmith 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --John 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --GarbageMan 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the existence of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

Locked

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. Scorpionman 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

You Legend

Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --Will N. 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Josephus

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...^[1]

Worth mentioning?

Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

Jewish? Jewish? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been half-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with their scriptures!--Petrus 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wouldn't that be racist? --Luke-Jr 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (Of course the man was Jewish!). --Petrus 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. Tsumetai 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --Petrus 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The two theories are:

1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage

2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph

--Luke-Jr 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --Petrus 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

References

1. ↑ http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

Christ

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

Boethius 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Or rather that christos is the Greek translation of Hebrew mashiach, meaning 'anointed' and thus 'Messiah' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --Petrus 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Christ the Redeemer??

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

A NOTE TO THE ADMINS: Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. Dallas 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Help for this article is on the way, so be patient!  :) Karajou 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The name Jesus

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

Britinme 3.51 24 March 2007

Very interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --Petrus 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Birth of Christ

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

Case for Christ

I am reinserting the reference to Case for Christ. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. MountainDew 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Name of page

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. MountainDew 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a title not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. Sulgran 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is Jesus Christ to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

Our Core Values

1. 1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always.
2. 2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
3. 3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
4. 4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.

5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:

6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, mashiach) throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a Greek translation, of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --Petrus 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually YeshuaDaemon 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, we are not for everyone. --~ TK ^MyTalk 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on Jesus would be better served if they found it in Jesus Christ. --Ed Poor 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. Conservative 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. MontyZuma 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Simple Logic?

I don't see how this phrase:

"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. MatteeNeutra 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --Trashbat 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. MatteeNeutra 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. Conservative 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind i fixed it. Conservative 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

• LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. Conservative 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? Sterile 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Unprotection

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. Ian St John 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Other people in the Bible name Jesus

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks Learn together 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Lead

I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. Lostcaesar 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. Learn together 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

• Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.

Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.

I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.

--Rex Mundane 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. Learn together 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.

My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.

When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--Rex Mundane 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)