Talk:Jesus
Armondikov (Talk | contribs) (→Birth) |
(→Birth) |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:::: I do not know there's even any way to know this. Incarnation is a Great Mystery. Not even sure it's a valid question to ask - the only human DNA God is known to have for sure is Jesus's. [[User:OrthodoxBeliever|OrthodoxBeliever]] ([[User talk:OrthodoxBeliever|talk]]) 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | :::: I do not know there's even any way to know this. Incarnation is a Great Mystery. Not even sure it's a valid question to ask - the only human DNA God is known to have for sure is Jesus's. [[User:OrthodoxBeliever|OrthodoxBeliever]] ([[User talk:OrthodoxBeliever|talk]]) 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::::Or, in English "don't ask awkward questions". [[File:Scarlet A.png|24px|link=User:Armondikov]][[User_Talk:Armondikov|<font color=#CC0033><sup>''postate''</sup></font>]] 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | :::::Or, in English "don't ask awkward questions". [[File:Scarlet A.png|24px|link=User:Armondikov]][[User_Talk:Armondikov|<font color=#CC0033><sup>''postate''</sup></font>]] 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::: Or, in English, involvement of the omnipotent Agency makes any bitty-gritty explanation utterly unfalsifiable. The initial argument rests on the assumption Holy Ghost "needs" human chromosomes to conceive a Son. God Almighty doesn't "need" anything for anything, almost by definition. [[User:OrthodoxBeliever|OrthodoxBeliever]] ([[User talk:OrthodoxBeliever|talk]]) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:11, 15 January 2012
Contents |
Census
Is there any record for a census taking place outside of Rome (in the territories) at the time. I just read somewhere once that there isn't any. Also Wikipedia seems to come down on the side that the slaughter of th innocents was apocryphal, do we have a mention of this anywhere, as I am sure this is the current view amongst scholars. - User
Please set to always render PNG. I have wasted alot of time to make this work. 03:17, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Crucifixion Survival
"Skeptics" should not beleive this if they're actual skeptical. Crucifixion Survival is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of the worst sort. Dan Brown even thought it was too outlandish to be in 'Da Vinci Code.' Dan Brown! Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this is supposed to NOT be the joke article right? The Crucifixion survival conspiracy is a completely unskeptical position on par with 9/11 conspiracies. -Morgan
- I'm inclined to agree with you. If we start making up convoluted explanations for the resurrection, then why stop there? We'd also have to explain away the virgin birth, water into wine, walking on water, curing the sick, & all the other miracles. Better to just treat the whole thing with skepticism. I'm guessing that parts of this article were written by somebody who was enthusiastic about the crucifiction survival scenario. Anyway, I've reworded the offending section of it. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
- Are you sure that you're not talking about crucifiction? Either way, didn't Josephus write about crucifixion survivors? --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:27, 28 January 2009 (EST)
- One, who was pardoned and taken down. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:38, 28 January 2009 (EST)
This is a wild conjecture and probably unworthy for a skeptic to hold, but not a conspiracy theory, since in no place does it make any claims about a conspiracy.
ListenerXTalkerX 13:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's not Fun:Jesus anymore?
Or is someone working for that? ThiehZOYG I edit like Ken! 05:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not. This article started in the main space, pretty much as it is now. Jesus Christ was the slightly more serious (ie, about the religious figure) article. Then one day PC got a bug up her ass about calling Jesus "Christ", which means "Messiah", and went around the innertubes imposing her attitude. She moved Jesus to fun, to make way for moving JC to Jesus. Jesus got moved back to JC some time ago, I just hadn't noticed that this one was still stuck in fun - where she put it without any discussion. Remember, "fun" isn't just where we put anything that is "funny" - it's where we put articles that are funny enough to save but don't belong in the mainspace, so they survive. ħuman
19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- So why do we need two mainspace articles on the same subject? Without one of them being defined as "fun", it really isn't clear what the distinction is. Merge? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think the original idea wayyyyy back was for a serious article and a snarky one, but's got lost somewhere. Merge into one ruddy gurt article if you like. Totnesmartin 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this one is so different in tone that it wouldn't merge well. (IMO). Everything was fine until PC went on a "purge the internet of the word Christ" binge. Now things are just back where they were before that. The other article is about the "Christ", this one's about some middle eastern carpenter turned preacher. ħuman
23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am a firm believer in the idea that RW should be snarky on all articles where snarkiness is warranted. There is no point in making a "rational" article about someone who, if he even existed, isn't even historically notable. Snarkiness is RationalWiki! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this one is so different in tone that it wouldn't merge well. (IMO). Everything was fine until PC went on a "purge the internet of the word Christ" binge. Now things are just back where they were before that. The other article is about the "Christ", this one's about some middle eastern carpenter turned preacher. ħuman
- I think the original idea wayyyyy back was for a serious article and a snarky one, but's got lost somewhere. Merge into one ruddy gurt article if you like. Totnesmartin 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- So why do we need two mainspace articles on the same subject? Without one of them being defined as "fun", it really isn't clear what the distinction is. Merge? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
See also
Fun talk:Jesus just in case. ħuman
05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why the move? a fun article about Jesus should be funspace. Acei9 05:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is SERIOUS. — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then why two articles on the same subject? -- Nx / talk 06:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because the subject deserves it. ħuman
07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- That seems pretty weak reasoning there Huw. Acei9 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- You need to look at the history of our two articles. Jesus was the funny version, and Jesus Christ was more serious, and all was well in RationalWikiHell. Then some whore named Proxima Centauri decided, upon reading some shite on another site, that "Jesus Christ" was a bad word, making Jeshua our "Lord and Saviour". So the dumb bitch moved Jesus Christ to Jesus, and moved Jesus to fun:Jesus, mucking up our perfectly fine wiki to match her fucked up anti-world view. Hence my undoing of her stupidity. I hope that is clear. ħuman
07:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant why PC moved it to funspace. If this is mainspace-worthy (which I don't think it is), then it should be merged into Jesus Christ. Otherwise it should be in funspace. -- Nx / talk 07:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- You need to look at the history of our two articles. Jesus was the funny version, and Jesus Christ was more serious, and all was well in RationalWikiHell. Then some whore named Proxima Centauri decided, upon reading some shite on another site, that "Jesus Christ" was a bad word, making Jeshua our "Lord and Saviour". So the dumb bitch moved Jesus Christ to Jesus, and moved Jesus to fun:Jesus, mucking up our perfectly fine wiki to match her fucked up anti-world view. Hence my undoing of her stupidity. I hope that is clear. ħuman
- That seems pretty weak reasoning there Huw. Acei9 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because the subject deserves it. ħuman
- Then why two articles on the same subject? -- Nx / talk 06:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is SERIOUS. — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No need to merge, it's ok to have two articles. Please don't be angry. ħuman
07:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am so mad at you I went as far as wetting my pants. Acei9 07:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- We need to consider the history of fun. (All this from memory.) It was originally "ACD" - at joke based in CP's "Article Creation Drive". Later when we were cleaning up the wiki a bit it as decided that ACD wasn't a very meaningful name so it was renamed "fun" - it is possible the name was not well-chosen. Later it as decided that all articles which were not mainspace worthy should be in "fun" because there was no other place to put them but it should be a sort of "holding area". Some articles were moved to fun becasue they were not funny enough.
- With the passage of time and the appearance of new users the idea began to take hold that only "funny" things should be in fun and that all funny things should be in fun. this was not the original intention.--BobBring back the hat! 08:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that mainspace should be devoid of humor, but I do think that Jesus Christ is a better article and should be given precedence. As for Funspace, I don't think it should be a Storehouse of Crappyness. -- Nx / talk 09:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- So, do we create a namespace for articles which are neither mainworthy or funny? That's what this all come down to. What should it be called? Betaspace would be good - anything in it would be a priority for improvement. (this would be extra to funspace, which could be kept for geuinely funny articles). Totnesmartin (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that mainspace should be devoid of humor, but I do think that Jesus Christ is a better article and should be given precedence. As for Funspace, I don't think it should be a Storehouse of Crappyness. -- Nx / talk 09:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Stuff I removed...
" In the recorded words of the Bible, Jesus never personally claimed to be God: indeed, many times he spoke words incompatible with it ("The Father is greater than I" - if He was his own Father and was God Incarnate, he would be as great as himself - "Some knowledge not even the angels in heaven know, but is reserved for the Father alone"; "He was asked: 'What is the most important commandment?' Jesus answered: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord is God and your Lord is One... the are no more important commandments than these.'", he prayed to God; many more). Needless to say, it's debatable whether the New Testament contains any actual dictation of the speech of Jesus, but it seems likely, if the Church wrote it, it would put words in Jesus' mouth claiming he was God, and words about the Holy Spirit, to try to make it accord with their doctrine (the same reason "Catholic Versions" of the Bible always translate Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin", even though the Hebrew is clearly "young women" or "adolescent girl", "almah", which is how all modern "honest" translations translate it). The only records in the New Testament that claim Jesus was God were written by Saul of Tarsus (St Paul to Roman Catholics), a rabid antinomianist (antinomianism: the abrogation of all law, mortal and divine: incidentally, some of the surviving Common Era Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran Manuscripts speak of Paul as having been excommunicated from the early church), and John the Evangelist (a gnostic with some Judaeo-Christian influences), who wrote more than half of the New Testament canon of 27 books: this is why modern Christians practise Pauline "Christianity" and are not Messianic Jews. Among New Testament scholars, it's widely accepted that Jesus never claimed to be God, but this was attributed to him at first by Saul of Tarsus,[1] and then later by the Church after it had Roman support, and the first ecumenical councils, which denounced (and put to the sword) various interpretations of Jesus' teaching that did not hold him to be God, such as that of the Monophysites, Nestor, Marcion, Arius, and (many) more, of which the latter - Arianism - held great sway when it was denounced: the Roman Emperor at the time it was outlawed by the Second Ecumenical Council - and the Emperor who reigned for almost a decade after the first one was killed for his religious views - were both Arians: respectively, Constantius II and Valens.[2]"
This seems to add little to the article but a wall of text. But if I am wrong we can fix it easily. ħuman
03:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think some of the points above have some validity, even if they could be stated more clearly. Just regarding the first point - the Bible says Jesus saying lots of different things about himself at different points. At some places, he seems to be suggesting he is divine (without straight out saying it); at other places, he seems to be suggesting he is not. Of course, most Christians, believing Jesus to be divine, have their interpretations of those places where he seems to suggests he's not so that he isn't actually doing that; and likewise, the minority of Christians who don't believe in Jesus' divinity, they have their interpretations of those places where he seems to suggest he is so that he isn't actually doing that either. And this is the big problem with biblical interpretation, if you try hard enough you can make it mean lots of different things; and who can say whose interpretation is actually the right one? --Zack Martin
03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ "John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."
- ↑ "John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."
Sex Life
To me personally, this is badly conceived and currently very weasel. "arguments exist", but nothing to support the idea. "might have used prostitutes" - yeah, and i might have used drugs, but until you find *something* compelling somewhere, it's not really relevant. If our article is pure speculation - let's just say so, rather than the implication that this is something commonly discussed between scholars. And if it *is* discussed, let's find some articles and quote them.--
En attendant Godot 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it's any more relevant than "does Barack Obama have a sex life?" ADK...I'll pander your blasphemy! 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- The gospels say Jesus associated with prostitutes, the rest is speculation. I'm not Jesus (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care that anyone speculates at all. just say so. "it's our best guess that" or, "if any rational person things about it, they'd conclude". what you have now, however, are weasle words "there are many arguements about..." and really, there aren't. It's not something greatly discussed in true academic circles, cause most people in academic circles accept that 1) people marry around 15 in Jewish culture of the day, 2) to have any authority at all in jewish life, you must have fulfilled god's commandments to marry and build a family. that is to say, in academic circles, most people who do NOT think jesus was born of a virgin and ressurected, but think he was a teacher or prophet or both, also think he was married. Like i said, my issue is not the idea of setting up logical reasons or even silly reasons he might have been sexually active, but dont' imply that there are "arguments' and then not talk about them.--
En attendant Godot 14:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, "jesus", that worked perfectly. --
En attendant Godot 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- The prostitutes business is speculation but the rest I hope is verifiable if you follow the links. I'm not Jesus (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, "jesus", that worked perfectly. --
- I don't care that anyone speculates at all. just say so. "it's our best guess that" or, "if any rational person things about it, they'd conclude". what you have now, however, are weasle words "there are many arguements about..." and really, there aren't. It's not something greatly discussed in true academic circles, cause most people in academic circles accept that 1) people marry around 15 in Jewish culture of the day, 2) to have any authority at all in jewish life, you must have fulfilled god's commandments to marry and build a family. that is to say, in academic circles, most people who do NOT think jesus was born of a virgin and ressurected, but think he was a teacher or prophet or both, also think he was married. Like i said, my issue is not the idea of setting up logical reasons or even silly reasons he might have been sexually active, but dont' imply that there are "arguments' and then not talk about them.--
- The gospels say Jesus associated with prostitutes, the rest is speculation. I'm not Jesus (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Birth
OK, I am biased here, but the whole second paragraph is very lame (unless intended as a joke, in which case it's not funny). Why would anyone "assume" that what is explicitly described as a supernatural event (THE supernatural event to some) was "parthenogenesis", a natural phenomenon? Beyond the slightly similar name, that is. Also, not having human DNA hardly seems to be a problem for Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is Lord God Almighty and has, you know, like, the power to create arbitrarily complex matter from nothing, at will (God might have used evolution the first time, but He's not constrained by that choice). So the whole point kind of falls apart. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't quite follow your point. Did Jesus have a mixture of God's DNA and Mary's?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, the ABCs. Jesus is ontologically both God and Man. As a Man, he has full set of chromosomes. I think for theological reasons, half of these must come from The Most Holy Theotocos, Mary (so she's the true Mother of God, reinforcing Lord's human nature). The exact sequence of the other half is utterly unimportant for us. God could, for example, pull up the archived record of Adam's pre-Fall DNA undamaged by sin and just create a new set. Of course, this kind of stuff is just what Catholics would try to do, trying to explain the unexplainable. It just happened, OK?OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you have answered my question. Did god provide half his DNA? Furthermore, presumably Jesus had functioning testicles. What would an analysis of his sperm have shown?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not know there's even any way to know this. Incarnation is a Great Mystery. Not even sure it's a valid question to ask - the only human DNA God is known to have for sure is Jesus's. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or, in English "don't ask awkward questions".
postate 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or, in English, involvement of the omnipotent Agency makes any bitty-gritty explanation utterly unfalsifiable. The initial argument rests on the assumption Holy Ghost "needs" human chromosomes to conceive a Son. God Almighty doesn't "need" anything for anything, almost by definition. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or, in English "don't ask awkward questions".
- I do not know there's even any way to know this. Incarnation is a Great Mystery. Not even sure it's a valid question to ask - the only human DNA God is known to have for sure is Jesus's. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you have answered my question. Did god provide half his DNA? Furthermore, presumably Jesus had functioning testicles. What would an analysis of his sperm have shown?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, the ABCs. Jesus is ontologically both God and Man. As a Man, he has full set of chromosomes. I think for theological reasons, half of these must come from The Most Holy Theotocos, Mary (so she's the true Mother of God, reinforcing Lord's human nature). The exact sequence of the other half is utterly unimportant for us. God could, for example, pull up the archived record of Adam's pre-Fall DNA undamaged by sin and just create a new set. Of course, this kind of stuff is just what Catholics would try to do, trying to explain the unexplainable. It just happened, OK?OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)