Talk:Jesus/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

This is CLEAR CUT BIASNESS IN FAVOR OF RELIGION. Wikipedia seems to scared to offend Jesus believers. There is neutrality for the myth, but no neutrality for the actual guy. Because, this article is making him A FACT in birth/death. I'm disgusted that there is biasness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Keep watching, the POV tag comes by regularly and I'm sure it will return before too much longer ;) Be warned, though, there are many people who have worked hard to ensure that this article does not favor any one particular POV, be it theological, historical or whatever. This includes making sure that no one pushes a Jesus-Myth/nonexistence hypothesis bias over the actual facts of the matter. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about what this picture would look like under the "ministry" category, and tried to find a photo of Jesus that looked completely neutral. What do you think?

Image:Jesus_icon_films.jpg

The caption could read something like: A neoteric portrayal of Jesus in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

You will have much argument over the use of photos. A sketch might be better. And he should look Jewish and have shorter hair. ^rossnixon 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely he should have blonde hair and blue eyes, no? David L Rattigan 12:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am against any pictorial representation of Jesus in this article. No sketch, drawing, painting, or sculpture of Jesus is actually of Jesus. They all reflect certain theological assumptions or claims made by the artist. It would make sense to have an article on graphic representations of Jesus, which provides not only an array of depictions but is informed by debates among art historians as to the meaning of different representations and changes in style. That article would comply with NPOV because there would be no claim that "this is what Jesus looked like," only a set of claims about how people imagined him to look like. Any use of any image in this article is bound to be contentious. NO painting or photo in this article represents Jesus, at best it represents ONE point of view ob Jesus. To comply with NPOV, wouldn't we have to include many many others photos than? Folks, photos are not representations of Jesus. They are representations of points of view. How can we be NPOV compliant here? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein here. No one knows what Jesus looked like, and there's not even any universal agreement on what race he was. Any representation is inherently POV, and this article isn't the place to try to address the various views. I wish I knew enough to start the artice Graphic representations of Jesus, but alas I do not. –RHolton≡– 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on pictoral representations of Jesus is titled Images of Jesus...but what the hey, I'll make the redirect. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Arch O. La! –RHolton≡– 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In compliance with the current abject fear of violent Muslims, I agree that there should be no pictorial representations in religious articles.Lestrade 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lastrade, please use this page to make constructive comments concerning improvements to the articles. Islam has no law prohibiting christians from making representations of Jesus or God, and your comment is just silly. The reason we shouldn't have issues is because it would be hard to do without violating NPOV. If we can find a way to be NPOV compliant, then we can do it. Please learn our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, a "POV" picture is better than no picture at all. But somehow, im not really so sure that a movie take on Jesus's picture is really, well, realistic....Homestarmy 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In the oldest talk archives (1 & 2), the POV issue was settled by using images (paintings, that is; photos are of actors playing Jesus, not Jesus himself) from a variety of perspectives. This seems to be the long-standing concensus (for 3 years or so); does anyone disagree? Personally, I think images enhance any article, but I'm speaking from a (mass media) journalism perspective. Scholarly journals often seem to omit such images. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as there is a linked article on the historical Jesus, andon names and titles of Jesus, I think there should be an article on figurative representations of Jesus with a wide array of images and scholarly interpretation. I would rather that than try to representimages here. However, if we are going to represent images here, a consciously diverse array is the only way to go. One image is worse than none at all - with all due respect, Homestarmy, it simply violates NPOV and that is taboo. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But how many people are going to look at the Jesus article if there's a picture, Go "Aha, that's a 7th century Byzantine or whatever take on it, how increadibly biased and POV pushing this article must therefore be!". It seems a mountain out of a molehill honestly. Homestarmy 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Grigory, in that from a mass media / communication standpoint, we need to offer our users the most comprehensive set of information. It is true that any image, whether sketch, drawing, or photo, will have connotations associated with it, and that is why I tend to prefer this picture. It is not a photo of Jesus smiling and helping children (a positive portrayal), nor is it a photo of Jesus turning over tables in the temple[[1]] (a negative portrayal). It simply increases the caliber of the article.Spicynugget 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I offered my opinion above, but if it's already been discussed, and the present state is the result of that discussion, I'm not going to push the issue. I would observe that the images we have tend to be "European". It wouldn't hurt to try to find something from Africa, Asia, and/or South America for balance. I'll do some looking, though others are (of course) welcome to help! –RHolton≡– 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of political correctness and diversity, the image of Jesus should be of a Negroid male, with black skin, thick lips, flat nose, wide nostrils, kinky hair, extended heel, flat arches, elongated forearms and shins, and affable facial expression.Lestrade 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Just to clarify what I meant above...I am suggesting that we attempt to find depictions of Jesus by artists of other cultures. –RHolton≡– 01:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

These "interests" are irrelevant. Please familiarize yourself with our actual policies; it is our policies that count, not this crap. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is absolutely correct. We will be ready to post that image soon.Spicynugget 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Boy, was I reluctant to edit this page. But considering the effect that this man had on Western civilization, I feel as though a little more needed to be said about his legacy. So I added "His teaching promoted the value of those who had commonly been regarded as inferior: the poor, ethnic outsiders, children, prostitutes, prisoners, etc." I could go on about the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, etc., but let's leave it simple for now. Jonathan Tweet 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this your personal view? If so, you must delete it as it violates our NOR policy. However, if you fel that this view is held by others and expressed in verifiable sources, you can keep it - but you should identify who has this view in order to comply with our inviolable NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This view is held by others (like me!). But I recommend using historians and scholars as sources. :-) ^rossnixon 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a few citations supporting Jonathan Tweets statement: [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]

let me know if the citations should be changed to the Bible Gateway standard.Spicynugget 10:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need sources that explain the link clearer than those do. There are loads of books on this subject so someone must have a well known one one on their shelf they can check and reference. Sophia 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Those bible citations are not appropriate for the claim made by Tweet. The bible says nothing about Western civilization and Jesus' influence on it. However, that said, there is a section already very similar to this idea: check out the last paragraph of "Other views of Jesus".--Andrew c 17:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you're right that the Bible quotes are beside the point, and that similar ideas to my addition are found elsewere in the article. But if we're going to have a section about the cultural effects of Jesus, and it's going to mention the negative associations (e.g., colonialism), it makes sense to include positive associations. As for citations, there's no end of stuff written about Jesus, so one can find citations to back any interpretation. I might start with Jesus Through the Centuries : His Place in the History of Culture, by Jaroslav Pelikan. Or I could add the caveat that we see too often on Wikipedia, variations of "Some people think that. . ." The bigger issue is that "cultural effects of Jesus" could be a big article in its own right. If we wanted to ennumerate influences, as well as tease apart the legacy of the Old Testament vs. Jesus' teaching (e.g., slavery vs.abolitionism), or Christianity vs. Jesus teaching (e.g., oppression of religious minorities vs. egalitarianism), there's just not space here. In the list of related articles at the end, I can't find "Cultural legacy of Jesus" or the equivalent. Is there an article like that? If not, should we start one? Maybe the solution is to refer to specific social movements that explicitly refer to Jesus' teaching (abolitionism, social gospel, countless Christian charities, civil rights movement, etc.) and then link to those articles. This small section of this article would no longer be a small section if we tried actually to address the cultural effects of Jesus. There are several ways to move forward, and I'd like to hear folks' thoughts on that. Jonathan Tweet 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we could keep the list in one sentence, but each phrase would link to another wikipedia article. e.g. "abolition of slavery" would link to whatever article discusses the reasons for the "movement". In that article it should discuss the reformers, eg. William Wilborforce and his "Christian motivation". ^rossnixon 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is opposed to including positive aspects of the legacy. In fact, I thought the legacy section already had that! I suggest though that we try to keep this brief - instead of an inclusive list about everything people like about Jesus, what are the most important positive influences people make claims about - and also try to provide only a few, but prominent, citations. I know for examples that non-Christians like Ghandi and Russell have praised Jesus' legacy. Does anyone know the best citations? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the current C.S. Lewis quote fails to comply with WP Policy? standonbible 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed a long C S Lewis quote at the end of the "Other views of Jesus" section again as it turns this section about diversity into a discussion on the merits of the ideas. I appreciate that some will not agree with the views described but to put an apologetics reply on the end makes the section hopelessly POV and will undo the diversity the peer review was asking for. By all means add the quote if it is felt necessary but just not in this section for the reasons I have given Sophia 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To start with, the quote is not particularly long. It is a lot shorter than the quote from Judaism directly before it. Here's why it should remain in the article:

• It isn't POV and it isn't an "apologetics reply". As evident from the discussion on this page, Jesus is primarily in the realm of Christianity due to the enormous influence that Christianity has had on this planet and the primary historical function of Jesus in Christianity. An "apologetics reply" would go through and make a point-by-point analysis/rebuttal of the diverse views - something that the CSLewis quote does not do. Rather, it provides an excellent summation of a historical position on alternate views of Jesus that ignore His claims of Godhood. Show me what WP policy it conflicts with, OK? standonbible 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish quote is about their view on Jesus - not why their view is wrong. That's why this quote is POV and not appropriate for the section. Take a look at the last peer review of the article. Expansion of the other views section is specifically mentioned. What they want however is other views and not apolgetics rebuttals. C S lewis was a great author and very committed Christian - this does not make him a good source for diverse views on Jesus. Sophia 14:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We agree that C. S. Lewis was a great author and very committed Christian - and that this does not make him a good source for new, "diverse views" on Jesus. However, his position as a great author and very committed Christian means that he has an excellent basis for providing an orthodox view on unorthodox views in general. It isn't apologetics; he isn't attacking any particular view. The quote merely gives a perfectly relevant traditional view on the diverse views that this section is all about. Christianity's traditional place in history doesn't make it true, but it gives it license to comment on nontraditional views! standonbible 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about rebuttal. In the Muhummad article, it would be perfectly legitimate to have an Islamic viewpoint on what Muslims consider to be "infidel" views of Muhummad. Not an argumentative rebuttal, but simply a broad overview. standonbible 14:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again you miss the point - the whole article gives the orthodox view so for NPOV and completeness alternatives are needed - no "view on other views" is needed - or shall I find books that comment on CS Lewis??? Sophia 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"For NPOV" we need the traditionally accepted viewpoint on the basis of this entire section. Aren't you a "wikipedian against censorship"?

I will refrain from commenting here for a while if Sophia will do the same and I request other users (besides Sophia and I) to comment on this question so that we can see an overall consensus. standonbible 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophia is right. Articles should be NPOV, not argumentative. This article presentd a diverse number of views on Jesus. It is not even exhaustive - there are many linked articles. CS Lewis's views perhaps fit in somewhere. But he was clearly a Christian and speaking as such and to put his views in a section meant to represent non-Christian views does not add neutrality, it violates it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems with the Lewis passage. It is far too long. Its tone is argumentative and dismissive, but it contains arguments that are, to say the least, of dubious merit. I'd say they are downright specious. If I find it provoking, I guess other editors will too. If it stands it will simply provoke other editors to add rebuttals to these arguments. The whole thing will grow uncontrollably. Paul B 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth repeating that the section is about Other Views - that means views other than Christian orthodoxy, which is discussed elsewhere. Ending the section with a lengthy uncontested passage in which these other views are said to be utter rubbish implies that Wikipedia is endorsing this dismissive view, or at least promoting it to the dominant position. Paul B 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask that standonbible AGF on the reverts as Paul was obviously trying to remove the Lewis quote and inadvertently replaced it. That is why Slrubenstein marked his edit as minor. Sophia 15:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly AGF. But he still should not have marked such a large edit as minor when there is a large disagreement over it. standonbible 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein said that the CSLewis views "perhaps fit in somewhere". OK then. Rather than practicing censorship, why don't you fix the apparent problem! Move it, don't erase it because you disagree with it.

Paul B, I would disagree that the arguments are "of dubious merit" or "specious", but that is not the issue. The arguments could be the worst in the world - such would actually make them more NPOV in this case. We are talking about nontraditional, nonhistorical views of Jesus in this section. This being the case, it is fully concurrent with WP policy to have the traditional, historical view OF SUCH VIEWS shown. Not as a rebuttal, but as a commentary. Without this quote from C.S. Lewis, the "diversity views" section lacks basic continuity because the majority holding concerning diversity views is censored out. Need to see an example? Take a look at this page - the mainstream view of "social and religiouc controversies" is clearly laid out. Let's be consistent, folks. standonbible 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How does the current version with C.S. Lewis in it differ from the link I showed above? If you can accurately explain how it differs (other than the fact that the section shown by the link states the majority opinion as fact and this page only quotes the majority opinion), then and only then will it be OK for you to remove the CS Lewis quote. If you continue to practice POV censorship, we may need a RfC. standonbible 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Standonbible, if the passage means so much to you I encourage you to look for other places to put it. As long as this article has an edit history, it is not going to disappear. However, as long as three experienced editors agree that the passage does not belong in this particular section, especially when there are NPOV issues, it is not going to be in that section. Let us have discussion if you want, we can discuss it here, but when you have strong opposition from three editors who have added a lot to this page, we discuss before we make a controversial change. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash!)I take it the moratorium on us commenting on the section is over. The example you give is of a section devoted to other views and perceived problems with evolution. There is no comment by the traditional, widely accepted view of why these arguments are invalid or plain wrong - even though some of the views clearly don't know the difference between evolution and natural selection - how does this prove your point? Sophia 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you apparently didn't see it, here are a few examples of the majority opinion being stated (as fact, no less) in a section devoted to alternate opinions (emphasis mine):

Because animals that are (in their view) "inferior" creatures do demonstrably exist, evolutionary critics sometimes incorrectly infer that evolution is false.

the science of evolution is clear both that humans are animals and that they share common ancestry with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most modern scientists argue are neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science.

Another example of an extension of evolutionary theory that is widely regarded as unwarranted is "Social Darwinism"....

In all these cases the majority opinion is stated as fact or close to it without much citation - in the section that speaks about controversial, "unorthodox" views of evolution. The CSLewis quote (which I believe was on here for about a week before anyone complained) quotes the majority opinion with obvious citation at the end of a section summarizing unorthodox views of Jesus. What's the dif? standonbible 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We have to consider additions and deletions all the time. Deletion of passages is not "censorship" unless a legitimate opinion is being excluded. Orthodox Christian opinion is included at length. We should not include passages that suddenly introduce new and detailed arguments that call, by their nature, for responses. This is not a page for discussion of Lewis's specific arguments, but it will become one of the passage is included. I don't have time now to discuss why Lewis's rebuttal is weak, but it may be worth doing so just to point out why it will inevitably produce "replies". The "orthodox" view in science is a very different matter. That is the established view of the academic community. The established view of the academic community is certainly not identical to orthodox Christianity. I doubt there is any clear established view. Also orthodox Christianity is not the "majority" view, either in academia or outside it. Most people are not Christians. Paul B 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Standonbible has accused me of violating 3RR. I would argue that my first revert, 15:04, June 16, 2006, should not count as I was correcting Paul's error. be that as it may, I am taking a break from this. Good luck, folks. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(Another edit clash)Incorrectly infer refers to the fact that evolution makes no reference to superior or inferior creatures; evolution is clear on the points that it makes; most modern scientists argue evolution is valid and the extention to social Darwinism is widely regarded as unwarranted - these are all facts that can be confirmed. However we are here to decide if CS Lewis adds to the "Other views section". You think he does and so far 3 of us disagree for reasons we explained. You asked for the community to give it's views and it has. I think it's fair to leave the section out of the main article but lets give it more time here to see what other editors have to say. Sophia 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The C.S. Lewis phrase is an important part of current Christian apologetics, and it deserves respectful treatment in Wikipedia. But the C.S. Lewis quote doesn't belong here. It's too long. It's almost as long as the paragraph that it's contradicting. It's too indirect (not a view about Jesus but a view about a view about Jesus). We don't put criticisms of trinitarianism in the trinitarian section, etc. This quote already gets major play on the Lewis page and the Trilemma page. If reference to this quote belongs on the Jesus page, then it can go under the Trinitarian section: "A common trinitarian argument supporting the view that Jesus was God is the so-called trilemma, first phrased by C.S. Lewis." Then readers can go to the trilemma page and get the whole scoop. Jonathan Tweet 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those are the main reasons for excluding it, however it also a very problematic passage that opens up a "can of worms". The obvious rebuttal to Lewis is to point out that his "unavoidable" alternatives are not unavoidable at all - a version of the fallacy of the excluded middle. In other words his position assumes unargued premises that actually evade the very issues he claims to address. The unargued assumptions that he makes already reject the mainstream positions of his opponents - an example of begging the question. He firstly assumes that all the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels are accurately reported. Critical historians would, of course, point out that the strong assertions of divinity found in John do not exist in the earlier gospels. So it is possible to argue that the claims allegedly made by Jesus appear to evolve along with early Christianity itself. Secondly, he assumes that the standards of "reasonableness" characteristic of England in the mid twentieth century would equally apply to first century Galilee, as though Jesus's qualifications for being a "great teacher" would be the same as those required to get a job as a lecturer at Oxford University. He ignores the historical and cultural context. We do not believe that Julius Caesar was mentally ill becasue he consulted chicken entrails. Many of the beliefs attributed to Jesus were part of the cultural milieu, including the idea of an imminant divinely-inspired cataclysm. Lewis is guilty of wild hyperbole ("either a lunatic...or the Devil of Hell"). Well this applies to other religious leaders too. Muhammad thought he was receiving the world of God. Do we really have to believe that this must be 1. True, 2. Proof the he was a "lunatic". 3. Proof that he was "the Devil of Hell"? Lewis's argument is riddled with basic errors of logic and misrepresentations of the alternatives. Paul B 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Lewis only made the Trilema thing because Jesus was claiming to be God, and Muhammad, well, didn't do that.... Homestarmy 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He claimed that the words coming into his mind and out of his mouth were literally God's words. Anyway, I addressed the point about claiming to be God. I've since discovered that User:Jonathan Tweet has himself discussed these points on his own web page. [6] Paul B 09:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, a trilemma applies to Muhummad too. In fact, a trilemma applies to the maker of any statement: they are either lying, deceived, or telling the truth. It is just that in the case of Jesus, each of these options was incredibly magnified - he was either a lunatic for thinking he was God, a Devil for saying he was when he wasn't, or the Lord of Heaven. standonbible 19:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we find a place in the "Other Views" section where some mention of "Mainstream thought has often applied the Trilemma, a controversial but firm logical argument that states that Jesus "could not have been a 'good teacher' because he was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was telling the truth" to alternate views of Jesus' identity. However, this argument has received little appreciation from historians despite its popularity in mainstream evangelical circles" will fit? standonbible 19:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also the option that Jesus never existed and it's all made up or copied from older religions. The trilema, as has been much better explained by Paul B, is logically a poor argument and adds nothing to ths section other that a devout Christian view on others "errors" - thus defeating the whole point of having an "Other views" section. Sophia 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that if Jesus never existed then he is still not a "Good Teacher", right? Yeah, that was tongue-in-cheek, I know.

But all the historical evidence we have points to the fact that Jesus did exist and did claim to be God in the flesh - in which case he would was either lying, crazy, or telling the truth. Do you have any other options? standonbible 11:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already listed some of them. Are you somehow blanking them from your mind? And no, "all the historical evidence" does not point to what you say. Here's some more: 1. He was deceived by the devil (he wasn't mad, he just didn't realise it was the devil, not god who was "inspiring" him). And how, indeed, can we prove otherwise? 2. If he said he was at one with god he meant that he believed he was doing God's will - like thousands of other people have done. 3. He was mistaken, which does not require that he be mad or lying (even you have implicitly accepted this when you say that Muhammad might be "deceived").

Does it never actually enter your head that the Gospels might not be 100% accurate - after all they report conversations at which the Apostles were apparently not even present. There was no WP:CITE in those days.

You are aware, I assume, that the belief that real individuals were the sons of Gods was quite common in the ancient world - Alexander the Great's dear mama insisted that her son was the child of Zeus. Even as late as the early middle ages some English kings claimed to be descended from Wotan. Charismatic leaders were commonly associated with divinity. Most of these people were not mad, nor were they necessarily lying. Of course this was "pagan" culture, but Galilli and Judea were culturally very mixed by this time. The importance of this cultural cross-fertilization is one of the issues under debate. Paul B 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the Trilemma: I hear what you are saying about how he was "deceived by the devil" etc. Jesus Himself put an end to such speculation quite effectively when the Pharisees proclaimed that His power came from Satan - he replied by asking them (He answered with questions quite a bit, don't you think) how anyone would be "casting out Beelzebub by the power of Beelzebub"; after all, a house divided against itself cannot stand. But regardless of such arguments, it is still quite obvious that for someone to be SO deceived into actually believing that they are God then they must be at least somewhat loopy. A man who says he is God when he isn't - even if he is deceived - isn't a good teacher. He is CRAZY.

Of course, in the case of Muhummad it is quite possible that he was deceived into thinking that he was hearing from Gabriel when in fact he was hearing from demons. That's no conflict; the guy just got it wrong. But being so deceived as to think you are God - that is craziness.

Oh, so Jesus just believed He was "doing God's will" and everyone thought he was saying He was God. Poor, misunderstood person. No, I don't think so - what about when He told the paralytic "Your sins are forgiven you" and the Pharisees said "Blasphemy! Only God can forgive sins" and He replied "Yes, I do have the power to forgive sins. I'll prove it. Paralytic, pick up your bed and go home."? Or the time when He used the name of God, "I Am", to refer to Himself, subsequently making the [Devout Jewish] crowd so angry that they tried to stone Him?

You ask me if I have ever considered the possibility that the Gospels are false. Of course! I am told within them to question everything - which I have done because it is common sense - and I find not a single discrepancy. So I'll turn the question back to you, but in a more pointed fashion: Have you ever considered that possibility that Jesus Is God? Hmmm.... Suddenly the contention that the Apostles were not always present at the conversations they record seems strangely meaningless.

The rest of what you say really lacks all historical basis so there is no need to address it. So think about it! What if you're wrong? Look at it from a neutral standpoint just for once and think it over. standonbible 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to put Lewis' views in a section which discusses completely opposite views. This would be like adding "but Muslims dispute this" at the end of every sentence in the Arrest, trial, and execution and Resurrection and Ascension sections. When the section in question is discussing a POV and we have other sections to discuss other POVs, there's no need to creat a mess like this. —Aiden 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Quintlemma, anyone? Seriously, I thought this article was about Jesus, not about C.S. Lewis or about C.S. Lewis' views of Jesus or about Lewis' critiques of nonchristian views. We need to remember due weight. Some of CS Lewis' views have been listed in the "External influences" section (as a rebuttal) and in the "cultural impact" section, both for quite some time (ie, at least since before I became active on this page in January). I like Lewis too, but it's not like he's the only person who's ever written on Jesus. Besides, this article is already quite long and I thought we were supposed to be trimming in back a bit--NOT censorship, just moving some details to related subarticles. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I don't think that the entire quote is necessary. However, I believe that adding "Mainstream thought has often applied the Trilemma, a controversial but firm logical argument that states that Jesus 'could not have been a 'good teacher' because he was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was telling the truth' to alternate views of Jesus' identity. However, this argument has received little appreciation from historians despite its popularity in mainstream evangelical circles" after or before the "Other Views" section simply as a summary of mainstream thought on the entire realm of "Other Views" from a traditional standpoint. Compare that to this page, where the traditional rebuttal to all misconceptions or misunderstandings (as seen from a mainstream viewpoint) are given along with those perceived misconceptions. Christianity's status as the mainstream, traditional "owner" (not the greatest word but it gets the point across) of the story of Jesus Christ gives it a little room for mention concerning alternate or deviant viewpoints. standonbible 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the edit war. Please try to reach a compromise on the talk page, and when you're ready to edit again, either let me know or post a request for unprotection on WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't be reverting any more until we reach a consensus on the talk page because right now it is 3 against 1 so it doesn't do any good - feel free to unprotect. standonbible 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add, some people looking at this talk page might just plain be so neutral on this whole issue we don't care much, I for one see the merit in adding Lewis's opinion on this matter, but it doesn't seem consistant when its added in like that, plus its a bit alone when the paragraph in question is supposed to be making a broad generalization about many people. Homestarmy 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Standonbible. I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reviewing the exterior links and deleted several for the following reasons:

1. Evangelical Lutheran: there was an excellent link to a reformation site; redundant
2. Questions answered by Campus Crusade for Christ: too narrow. If we have this, then a site for every view of Christ out there should be listed: they were deleted not too long ago.
3. Conservative Calvinist: same reason as Luthern, we have a reformation site that should suffice.
4. Sayings of Jesus: This should go on Bible site; latin and english translation does not really belong here.
5. Non denominational: I may have deleted one of the two nondenominational sites listed. It my have been the Smith Bible dictionary on a site not limited to the article.

My intention was not to "ding" any one group, but rather to limit the number so that other groups do not feel obligated to add their site to the list so that their specific view of Christ is also listed. This list used to be quite extensive and was pared down not too many weeks past; I think we should keep this limited, remove redundancies, and close the door on sites more appropirate for missionary work than providing an explanation. That's my story and I am sticking with it. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. (I've been away for a while and hadn't noticed the link spam. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a nonworking link and readded About-Jesus.org. I find that it is far more informative than WikiChristian, most of whose articles are stubs. —Aiden 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But missionary work can be great! :( Homestarmy 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weeding the list. I have in the past tried to make it smaller, but it always seems like the list keeps getting bigger.--Andrew c 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)