Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:33, 8 March 2012

Christianity: Jesus / Catholicism B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).

Death B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Barbara Frale

The question of Barbara Frale's statements about a death certificate has come up. She is a well known scholar and her work has been reported in major publications. Hence it is not a fringe approach, given that she is a respected scholar. History2007 (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge (POV fork)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Consensus not to merge

I have begun reducing the article at User:Jeffro77/Dispute about Jesus' execution method to a section suitable for inclusion at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually that topic is much more of a Pandora's box that may seem at first. What is at stake there is not just a JW issue, although that article makes it look as such. As a fun issue, it should be mentioned that there is also a dispute about 3 nails vs 4 nails (also depicted in art - Western art vs Eastern art) and that although there is debate about 3 or 4 nails there are at least (yes, at least) 30 separate churches in Europe that claim to have the actual Holy Nails.... good for the tourist trade, Go figure. So if anything that article needs to get less of the JW items, then add other material that is both relevant and interesting. Not that I have time to do it this week, but I do not think that article needs to be crucified yet. Else it may have to be resurrected... pun intended... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They (unstated individuals) even argue about the number of nails used?? But is that dispute notable?? In any case, religion just gets stupider and stupider the more I look. Sigh. I'll wait for some more comments and decide from there what course to take.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Erasmus complained before you did. He complained about the large number of churches, all built using the wood from the True cross. The 16th century pilgrims did not know of the other churches and paid good money to visit those churches. The Holy Nails were just one item. There were also those who marketed the beard of Muhammad to pilgrims. Really. One must accept the fact that as in any other commodity there are people who market God/religion. Today, there are also those who market future stock market reports, magic diet pills, etc. But the variations on the crucifixion method are many fold, e.g. were the nails placed on the wrists or the palms, were there also ropes, was there foot support, etc. And the differences are also reflected in art, and that would make a good gallery for that article. You can tell many Eastern vs Western depictions from the placement of the feet, if they are next to each other or on top of each other. There are even people who analyze the placement, e.g. left foot over right in art etc. As recently as the 20th century, there was a move to depict an arched crucifix, rather than a straight one, etc. So that is in fact a large topic in itself. History2007 (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, folks were selling the Brooklyn Bridge to the gullible, long before there was a Brooklyn Bridge. This kind of stuff is partly what sparked Martin Luther to action. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But are those disputed points notable? In any case, the purpose of the content fork in question seems to be about presenting a single point contested primarily by JWs rather than addressing those other disputed points. Therefore, it would seem that the present content of the fork should still be reduced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They were notable to the person who created the article. The vast majority of us perhaps don't give whatsit. But I would be curious to find out more about some of the more interesting holy relics. Nails and wood are fine, but what of Christ's Last Breath, caught and corked in a bottle by John the Beloved Disciple? And Christ's Holy Bellybutton? Not to mention the Sacred Foreskin of Jesus, which disappeared in mysterious circumstances just a few years ago? The Blood, Sweat and Tears of Christ, all of which were preserved by the faithful? And the Holy Toenail Clippings, which weren't? I mean, holy shit! PiCo (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The relics are out of the scope of this thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the relics are another story. However that article needs to mention the several other issues that relate to the discussion/dispute about the process and the namely:

• Form of the cross: a cross or stake, etc. as discussed there at length.
• The number of the nails in the crucifixion: there are two main theories, namely 3 nails vs 4 nails, and stated before.
• Location of the nails: on the hands, or on the wrists, etc.
• The use of ropes to support the hands, or tie the feet
• The use of additional wood pieces between the nails and the wrists to stop them tearing through
• Angle of the cross: was it at 90 degrees or was it tilted?

There have been several experiments on these with living subjects (no nails, however), the measurement of the weights of the subjects, angle of the cross, etc. to determine the likelihood of each scenario, e.g. with foot support without, etc.

I do think that the reduction of the large amount of the current semi-JW text in that article is a good idea. There is too much of that. But the sum of all these other issues, once addressed in a few paragraphs each will make a reasonable sized article on its own, regardless of the JW issues. So I do not see how that article can just disappear, when in time these other issues need to be added to it as multiple aspects of the topic.

This is a much large topic than the current article, and just the JW corner of it has been addressed. Anyway, there is a simple gallery below, but that just handles one of these issues. I do not have time to add this material to that article right now, but may do so later. This is a large topic. History2007 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Depictions

• no support 3 nails
• supported 3 nails
• supported 4 nails
• no support 4 nails

You clearly want to take over this thread and the article. You're welcome to do so. I'll give it a couple of weeks for you to add what you think should be in the article, and then I will decide how to proceed based on what remains of the existing JW POV fork and whatever new material you provide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had no interest in writing on that article as of yesterday. I just responded because I thought there were facts that were not mentioned. That article does have a single perspective, but the topic goes beyond the JW. The current text may be a JW POV , but the topic is not a content fork. I think it is best if you can trim the extra text there, then I can add material later. That way, it will get multi-dimensional. At the moment it is 1 D. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion will require trimming of the existing article to a different extant than that which I had considered suitable for making it a section at this article. I will need to re-assess the suitability of content with respect to scope and context if it is to remain as a separate article. You are welcome to add other material in the meantime to the live article while I work on my sandbox copy with the existing part of the article over the coming days.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I will have to do that slowly, given that I have other things to do the next few days. I had researched that topic at length in the past, but I do not have all the references together. What I typed above was mostly from memory. So I will wait until a less-JWPOV version appears. There are also other people who edited that article, so let us see what they say. I looked at your shorter version now and it is well written but the hair cut given there probably too short. Some of the other refs that support the 2 bar cross should probably go in. As is the other article has many long quotes at the end that do not amount to much and they need to go, but there is some material that informs the user and supports the 2 bar theory - which is the theory with most support. Anyway, I will stop now and see what happens with the more moderate trim. History2007 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My current shorter version is not yet finished. However, it was from the perspective of being a section at this article. Your suggestion above completely alters that. I won't be editing the main article for the time being, so just go ahead and make your edits. You'll be dealing with different sections anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I outlined the basic ideas as a section in this article, now that you brought it up and it was fresh in my mind. So the basic concepts are here now. As to when I can get to include them in the other article, time will tell. But the basic issues have, by and large, been mentioned now. I am definitely going to wait for that article to be cleaned up before I touch it, given that it needs a pretty good clean up. I think your summary needs to be about two or three times the current length to do the subtopic of the cross/stake justice, then the rest can be thought about. I will not touch that article before the clean up. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you've added here (which seems good on first glance), I think I will go ahead with working on a reduced section for this article. I am still not convinced that there is a notable 'dispute' to warrant an extended fork either on the JW POV, or the new material you've added here. If/when it becomes evident that there are in fact notable disputes on various issues rather than soapbox-type arguments, I'll do a separate reduction on the existing material at the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make unilateral decisions regarding the execution of that other article, given that it is a topic unto itself and each of the sections Nails, etc. here is just a summary at the moment. The addition of that much extra material to this article will overweight it with the "dispute over method" rather than other issues, and this new section will then dominate this article beyond what a section should do. Then that article will need to get restored again in a few days. History2007 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated previously, I am only working on a sandbox copy of the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can of course do as you wish in user space. My issue was the deletion of too much text from that article and the overweighing of this one with the "dispute over method" topic, given that the section on it here is already long enough as a section and any additional material should go to the Main which is that other article. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't seen much indication that the dispute is notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Which dispute? The one about the shape of the gibbet? The one about the nails? The one about the standing platform? The one about the angle of the cross? The one about the ropes? There is so much material on this that it can not fit in a small section in any article, hence it needs its own article. If you have notability issues, you need to do an Afd. And I am over 90% sure that article will survive an Afd. The merge/redirect as a surrogate for an Afd is not appropriate. History2007 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of the other issues, the weight given to the single issue of the shape of gibbet is disproportional. Therefore, as I have indicated previously, a greatly abbreviated summary of the other article as it currently stands can be made, and sections about other issues as indicated by you above can be added. It would be premature to raise an AfD because so far only one editor has responded to my concerns, which hardly indicates any kind of broad consensus to do anything at all. So I will keep working on my sandbox copy for now, as time permits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree on that point. Not only is there too much on gibbet there, it is also messy. The references section is used as a 10 foot tall soap-box. That was my reason for not even touching it - just too messy and too much JW view on top of that. Once it has been reduced and cleaned up, then more material can be added there. At the moment it is like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I needs clean up. History2007 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your other question, I haven't seen much indication that any of these disputes are especially notable. Therefore, I'm still not entirely convinced that any of these issues require more than a couple of paragraphs to simply present the various views. It is not necessary to try to prove or disprove any of the views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we are going in circles now, but there is much more than two paragraphs on each sub-topic, and there are more sub-topics. Anyway, enough for now. History2007 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect merging is a not good idea here. There is a genuine dispute, religiously significant to some, with a huge article on it. That is not a POV fork, even if a particular POV feels strongly about the matter. The question also depends, more or less, on the interpretation of texts relatively near the event. There are other questions about the exact mechanics and appearance of the event which have no textual basis to speak of, but are of interest because they influenced the iconography in art, and in some cases were probably related to shifts in theology. All these could easily make another long article. Both this and the "pole" subject are essentially rather arcane issues which should be dealt with briefly here, and allowed to sprawl at sub-articles. Since the amount of independent coverage of the topic is so vast, there are no real notability concerns here. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put. I agree. History2007 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 and Johnbod. For Jehovah's Witnesses, this is a notable question, one on which they insist strongly. For those uninterested in the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, it will seem as unimportant as the Trinity seems to those with no interest (favourable or unfavourable) in Christianity and the Immaculate Conception to those uninterested in Catholicism - but these are matters that do merit Misplaced Pages articles. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra comments. Based on this information, and the fact that there is a fair bit of repetition and redundancy in the 'fork', I will go with my secondary plan as previously indicated here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I say ALL the information should be on the main article page...especially the POV that it was only a stake. I am not a JW but it is EXTREMELY relevant to correctness if Vines Expository dictionary and other notable works state it was not a cross. Majority is not always right. Sometimes the truth is smothered by the majority. SOMEDAY it will come out. 70.178.76.138 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested that the other article should have content on aspects other than the shape of the gibbet (though I haven't seen any indication that the other issues are notable). No actual edits with that intent seem to have been made. My activity on the article is on hold until some action is taken by other editors who have claimed they would work on the article. In the meantime I have other priorities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No objection against merging (if the length of the article technically allows it), and striking the doubles. Mendelo (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. The article currently at Dispute about Jesus' execution method is no beauty, and it suffers from real flaws. But it's certainly not an example of WP:CFORK, where the same topic is discussed in parallel articles. Incidentally (and at the risk of having WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS screamed at me), Misplaced Pages has other articles related to hypotheses about Jesus: Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, Vision hypothesis. Comparing and contrasting, is Crux simplex hypothesis uniquely intolerable? The article here (Crucifixion of Jesus) discusses everything related to Jesus' crucifixion, and has just a sentence or two about the shape of the gibbet. At the other article, both sides of the gibbet-shape "dispute" are well sourced from secondary sources, and it just seems remarkably unlikely that the Misplaced Pages community would benefit from eliminating the majority of that topic discussion just to shoehorn the topic into a single section here at Crucifixion of Jesus. The "dispute" seems to have continued for more than 150 years now (preceding Jehovah's Witnesses) and most of the cited scholars are not Witnesses. Perhaps move some of this discussion to the article Stauros? perhaps reinstate a less-ambiguous name at Dispute about Jesus' execution method? I'm still unconvinced about the change from what was a perfectly acceptable name ("Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus").--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think merge of the article is unwarranted, as the article is of sufficient notability and length to act as a stand alone article. Additionally, it is well sourced. It may need some attention for readability, but that is a minimal problem that can be corrected without going to the extreme measure of a merge. Willietell (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the page where the formal merge/deletion proposal has been made is the proper place for comments: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD proposal by User:Jeffro77 of the related article was closed with Keep.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from a few comments appended in the last few days, the discussion above from a year ago had nothing to do with the recent AfD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Editor User:Jeffro77 himself connected this thread with his own AfD proposal (see last comment at the bottom of the AfD page).--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You just can't stop can you. Actually, this discussion was only mentioned at the AfD after you accused me of raising the AfD for other motives.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In either case, the merge suggestion failed. Makes no difference anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but for quite different reasons. The merge suggestion from last year was essentially abandoned because it was claimed that other information aside from the cross/stake issue would be added. This was not actually done to any significant degree. Now, there is a discussion at the other article about renaming the article to again sound more like it's only about the shape of the device.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, we will let that wonderful discussion take place on the other talk page. But given that the merge issue is over, so is this discussion. Look, this merge issue is over, and there is no resurrection of it in the cards here. History2007 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the merge discussion be re-opened. I am suggesting that the original improvements that were nominally put forward should actually happen.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I a added a short paragraph there a few days ago. Let us wait to see what ideas appear in the discussion there, then I try will add some more and expand that based on those ideas later. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Eucharist NOT a commemoration/reenactment of the Crucifixion

Communion is a commemoration/reenactment of the Last Supper, the Lord's Passover meal, which signifies reception of his saving body and blood, that of the New Covenant (for Catholic and Orthodox Christians, really; for most Protestants, metaphorically), prior to the Christian dogma of the Passover of the Lord (the death and resurrection of Christ). It has nothing to do with the Crucifixion in and of itself, although its institution ushers in the Crucifixion, historically and spiritually.

This is very important. I will remove the incorrect association of the Eucharist to the Crucifixion as it appears in the introduction. (I think I have sufficiently explained why this needs to be done; it would be totally inaccurate and misleading to keep it there.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.156.106 (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed this slightly (because the 'sacrifice' or 'ransom' is a belief not fact), but it's not saying the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the crucifixion, only that the Eucharist is a means by which Christians (allegedly) participate in the 'sacrifice'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually all parties who edited there have correct points. I modified it to say most Christians, given that there are non-sacramental churches too and also the issue of "participate" in it or not is subject to debate, so I just said "proclaim" so it is not stated that they participate because some think they do, some do not think so, etc. And I added refs. Not a big issue, but as usual the different churches do not agree on details at all. And as we type this there were probably 2 new churches formed that have yet another idea about it, so needs to be somewhat vague and also needed to refer to Last Supper as the IP said. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened next?

Can someone find out what happened to Jesus' cross? Or at least what is believed to have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.207.163 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

According to my research, Queen Helena, along with her son Constantine, found the crosses of Jesus and the other two criminals buried in Mount Calvary where it all happened. She also found the nails that were used to crucify the three. The queen easily found the ones that belonged to Jesus since one wooden cross did not decompose and some nails did not rust. The cross was then preserved. Some of the "holy nails" as they call them were given to the queen's son, Constantine the Great, for protection, and then the others were also preserved.

I hope this information helps. PrettyPetite 10:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As stated somewhere below here, and on the page on Relics of Jesus, that story about St Helena has been told. She did come back with lots of things (and the only thing not claimed was Larry Kings' microphone). But seriously, Erasmus complained about the large number of buildings constructed from the wood claimed to be from the True Cross and while experts debate whether Christ was crucified with three or with four nails, at least thirty Holy Nails continue to be venerated as relics across Europe. So claims of relics always abound and do not harm the tourist/pilgrim business, but there is absolutely no way to verify if these are real relics. But then 30 nails do sound like 27 nails too many. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph and POV

Perhaps the first paragraph should be adjusted to reflect that the crucifixion is a part of Christian mythology and not historical fact. It might confuse readers otherwise. 75.204.129.200 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see/search Talk:Good Friday where the mythology issue declaration was discussed at length, and not accepted by consensus. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps we should not push the non-mainstream Christ myth theory as the mainstream scholarly view when it isn't. The crucifixion (that is specifically the nailing to the cross) is as accepted as the existence of Jesus, even if the resurrection is fair game to call Christian mythology. The crucifixion was an embarrassment to early Christianity, and yet they did not deny it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we must expect these comments once in a while. Usually these debates start around Easter, this year we did not have any. Would be interesting to have a bar chart of their frequency, however. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picked source offers only an opinion

The cited reference backing up the statement "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history." (Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0060616628) is cherry-picked and offers only an opinion on the matter i.e. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." What is described as well-attested relies on no more than two brief passages and the historicity of Jesus is disputed enough to have its own article on Misplaced Pages. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus describing the crucifixion is disputed and almost certainly contains an interpolation. That leaves us with only the passage by Tacitus on the Great Fire of Rome where he incorrectly identified Pilate as a procurator instead of a prefect. This calls into question whether he is documenting Roman history or merely the repeating the mythology of the religious sect that he is describing. It is impossible to say which it is and therefore it cannot be unquestionable accepted as fact. In any case Mr Crossman's apparent acceptance of known interpolated passage by Josephus discount him as a reliable source to back up the statement "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history". I see that since I began writing the paragraph my edit to the lede where I inserted "according to Christian tradition" has been removed. This is unfortunate. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "well-attested" is slightly more than NPOV can support, but as I'm sure you know, there is only an absence of other evidence, and no good evidence that anything else happened. Starting the article "according to Christian tradition" is at least as excessive. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No - at the very least what is in the Gospels should be distinguished from "Christian tradition" which normally means what is not in the New Testament but was believed anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is a valid distinction I stand corrected. I originally intended to write "According to Christian doctrine" but noted the phrase "According to Christian tradition" further down the page. Would you accept "According to the Gospels" or "according to Christian doctrine"? JAC Esquire (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase that drew my eye was "According to Christian tradition, Jesus then rose from the dead two days later (the "third day")." I don't see this distinction coming into play here. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that should be changed to "according to the Gospels". Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the beginning should be left as it is - as there are no (Islam apart) alternative theories, there is no need to qualify it. But as I say "well-attested" should be softened to "some other evidence" or something. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "alternative theory". The event either happened or it did not. If the evidence that it happened is not sufficient to state it as fact, it should not be stated as fact. JAC Esquire (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to draw a parallel with articles of other religions. For instance the article entitled Golden plates begins thus: "According to Latter Day Saint belief ..." and continues with a tone that shies away describing the events as fact. Let us say for the sake of argument I found a near contemporary source, say a newspaper article from about 5 years after the alleged incident with the Golden plates which described the discovery in factual terms - would it not then amount to a similar situation to the report of Tacitus and therefore give an editor looking favourably on that religion a valid argument for amending the wording and removing all the "According to ..." bits? JAC Esquire (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "Christian Tradition": Christian tradition refers to what Christians exclusively or almost exclusively believe for religious reasons. That is not the case here. Most secular scholars acknowledge the crucifixion.

Re Historicity of Jesus: If you actually read the historicity of Jesus article, it plainly states that those qestioning Jesus's existence are in the fringe minority and not mainstream, and that mainstream academia (regardless of religion) acknowledge the crucifixion as one of the few things about Jesus we can be sure of. Please review articles instead of just citing thier titles.

Off-topic: Why does nobody go after Buddha or Socrates? I'm not doubting their existence, but why is it that in those cases, anyone doubting their existence would be dismissed as a crackpot, but the people doubting the existence of Jesus are given any consideration?

Re rising from the dead: There is a big distinction between acknowledging the crucifixion and accepting the resurrection. The first happened to lots of people and could readily happen to Palestinian Jewish insurgents, the latter is not attested to that well and is considered supernatural by even those who accept such ideas.

Re evidence: regardless of what you or I think, mainstream scholars see the evidence as leaning towards the crucifixion. Per WP:V and WP:RS, we go with that, not with your original research and speculation on the subject (per WP:NOR).

Re Golden Plates: Smith's claims (including advanced metalworking, horses, elephants, chariots, and cement in the Americas) are contrary to historical evidence. The existence of a first century Jewish messiah claimant who ticked off the authorities and was executed for it is not only completely plausible, it happened all the time.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ian. Please tone down the rhetoric and read what I have written and address the points I made rather than going off on a tangential rant about what you think I wrote and how you feel targeted because people argue about a figure from your religious tradition rather than other figures with dubious historical heritage. No doubt their fans feel similarly targeted. My reference to the article Historicity of Jesus was not to cast doubt about the existence of Jesus - because if I had wanted to do that I would have referred to the Christ myth theory. The Historicity of Jesus article very clearly states that it is "about the basis for holding the view that Jesus existed as portrayed in the Bible" - i.e. that the events associated with Jesus depicted in the Bible happened as described in the Bible. In particular I was addressing the very insubstantial non-Christian documentary evidence for the specific event that this article addresses. i.e. the crucifixion and whether therefore it can be stated as fact or as part of Christian teaching/tradition/doctrine - use whichever term suits. Jesus's existence can be left to one side and we can keep focus on the crucifixion alone. I have read the article Historicity of Jesus and you assume bad faith in suggesting that I have not. It states "it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe". It's unreliable evidence and would be thrown out if we were discussing any other subject. Tacitus's passage does not make it clear whether he is citing Christian teaching or accepted Roman history. As the article states "There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information". This is not original research as both of these facts are stated in the Historicity of Jesus article. These are the facts we now come to opinions. The claim that "Most secular scholars acknowledge the crucifixion" may be true, or it may not. If it is true it is currently not supported by evidence and should be backed up with a reference. Do you have one which is not just an opinion but is backed by evidence? As it stands Mr Crossan's opinion is not sufficient for stating that the crucifixion is fact. With regard Smith's claims you throw out red herrings about alleged events documented in the contents of the golden plates and the origin of the plates themselves. But I have no interest in this at all. I specifically referred to discovery of the golden plates - whereby I drew a parallel to that specific event being described by newspaper reporter some years after the event and a report by Tacitus of the crucifixion. It is on that specific third-party description of an event being regarded as a piece of evidence that I draw parallel. I have no interest in comparing the improbabilities of "advanced metalworking, horses, elephants, chariots, and cement in the America" with virgin births, transformations of liquids, spontaneous multiplication of food or dead saints wandering around Jerusalem and bodily resurrection from a sealed tomb. To be sure the Resurrection requires extra-ordinary evidence while crucifixion was common enough to require a more modest level of evidence. That evidence exists but it comes by way of Christian sources. Non Christian sources amount to a couple of unreliable passages one of which was almost certainly amended by Christians and the other of which may well have been sourced from Christians. I did not seek to state that this event did not happen but to clearly indicate that the basis of suggesting that it did happen relies almost entirely upon the Christian teaching and documents. JAC Esquire (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better now, thanks History, but "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal ascents". (Dunn, is it) must contain a typo. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe this issue has been resolved. JAC Esquire (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles