Talk:Rejection of Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rejection?
I'm not sure that the Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum episode really deserves to be described as a "rejection". Matthew says that they "did not reform", but it's not clear that this means that they actively rejected Jesus (as in the rejection at Nazareth), or that they merely ignored him. In any case I've removed the reference to Luke (which only contains the curses and not the reason for them). Grover cleveland 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Gospel of Thomas
I removed the referances to the Gospel of Thomas from the Snoptic Gospels section, Christians dont hold the Gospel of Thomas as true scripture. It shouldnt be referaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 75.14.219.167 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have read that I believe this is neutral to not incude that information. Unless you can show somewhere that the majority Jewish view includes using the Gospel of Thomas to discredit Jesus, but if it is added back it in might be inportant to note then that that arguement is invalid for Christians since the vast majority dot use the G of Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about the historical Rejection of Jesus. For the Jewish view of Jesus, see Jewish view of Jesus. For the New Testament view of Jesus, see New Testament view on Jesus' life. The Gospel of Thomas is a primary source on the Historical Jesus and is used by such Wikipedia reliable source groups as the Jesus Seminar. It would not be a neutral point of view to restrict this article to canonical books only. If you wanted a restricted article, you could create Rejection of Jesus in the New Testament. 64.149.82.253 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
(Same person as above, different computer) But my contention isnt that you cant use that or the aprochiphal book to diprove Jesus (if the Jews use them as their reasoning) but it should be in a differnt section then under a section label Snopic Gospels. If you want to include with the Luke and other Gospel quotes the term Snopic Gospel should be used since the Gospel of THomas isnt a snoptic gospel. I dont have a problem using it, just the way it is being used. Either rename the section or have seperate section.
Jewish or Musism?
Is this article supposed to be a rejection of jesus from the jewish or the muslim persective? Becuase both religiions have different reasons for rejecting Jesus, might consider clarifying the title to something like "Rejection of Jesus (Jewish POV)" and then have a seperate article "Rejection of Jesus (Muslim POV)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"continues today"
I removed the line at the top because it should not be in the lead. The lead as it is now adequately introduces the topic. The way that line was phrased implies that
1) Jesus was "rejected"-- it is an equally valid POV that the Gospels are inaccurate or that J never existed at all, so that is not NPOV
2) That the "rejection" faced by him in Roman times (i.e. he was brutally and horrifically crucified) is in some way the same as the modern "rejection" by people who don't believe in God, or who believe he didn't represent God. I, for one, do not think that mistakenly believing/saying that he was the son of God merited crucifixion or any punishment at all. Not that anything could merit crucifixion. BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is it not agreed by most sources that he was executed by the Roman authorities as a rebel leader? Heavenlyblue (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Inconsistencies with Other Wiki Pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_4 In the section on Luke in "Hometown Rejection," this page claims that the author of Luke was unfamiliar with the geography of Nazareth, whilst the corresponding section on the linked page (despite being identical in almost every other aspect) says "not unfamiliar," indicating (IMHO) a writer that rejects this writer's analysis.
I'm not sure if that's allowed or not on Wikipedia, but I like to bring these things to attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.210.163 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Subjective information and race hate image not central to theme
The page has an image titled "An illustration from a medieval manuscript. Top: Jews (identifiable by rouelle) reject Jesus. Bottom: Jews are being burned at stake." Please can this be removed as it is a race-hate image and does not contribute information to the core topic the image relates to a medieval viewpoint many centureis later and not to the rejection experienced at the time of Christ. There are also subjective comments by Jeremy Cohen and Emily Fackenheim that suggest a particular view that the Jewish rejection of Jesus is a reason to reject or hate Jews. This is not central to the main article and should really be moved into a new article focusing on anti-semitic viewpoints. Keep the article clean so it only discusses the rejection Jesus experienced in an objective sense at the time of Christ , rather than a very biased presentation of how this is used to justify a viewpoint of racism in more recent centuries. Cgullcharlie (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC) cgullcharlie 09:38, 09 Aug 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to limit the scope of the article to the gospels, it should be retitled to "Rejection of Jesus in the Gospels". 75.0.1.161 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"save in his own country"
Who do scholars believe that Jesus is referring to when he says that prophets are not honored in their own homes? Are there any Old Testament figures that this resembles? I know that there are many stories in the Old Testament of prophets facing opposition, but are there any particular prophets that he is supposed to be alluding to?24.189.108.166 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"many Jewish people"?
Is there a NPOV way to rewrite "many Jewish people" as "all Jews (with the exception of so-called "Messianic Jews" who are not regarded as Jews by anyone except themselves and their fundamentalist Protestant allies)"?.
In any event "Jewish people" is an oddly circumlocutory way of saying "Jews" and almost always raises the question of whether the writer thinks that "Jew" is somehow a deprecatory word that has to be euphemized. ("The Jewish people" when referring to Jews as an ethnic group is completely acceptable, but "Jewish person/people" just to mean "Jew/Jews" is not: at best awkward, at worst, insensitive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.3.165 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wholesale Undo
Please read what I have contributed and edit manually rather than just undoing everything that I worked on yesterday! If you have a specific point of disagreement, Rbreen, can you tell me what it is? WeAreHeWho (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the whole mass of edits consists of WP:Original Research, with personal interpretations being added without any citation from any published, let alone scholarly source. Feel free to re-insert any if you can find a scholarly citation to back them up. --Rbreen (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have just undone the (same?) edits. The old version cited Biblical scholars and other secondary sources, while WeAreHe's version only cited the Bible directly. That brings up issues of original research; it's a better route to go with scholars' interpretations of the Bible than try to write our own. @WeAreHe: If you think the changes should be made, I suggest discussing them here first; going in smaller, incremental changes rather than making sweeping changes as once; and making sure to cite secondary sources other than the Bible itself. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know I had to ask your permissions to edit out irrelevant and extraneous info, but I didn't remove any of the citations from biblical scholars or secondary sources as you said. You say my version only cited the bible directly, what you must mean is that I didn't add any citations from biblical scholars or secondary sources; I was planning to but I don't have access to my library at the moment. (Scholars all agree that earlier records are more reliable than later ones, and anyone can tell if something contradicts another thing, through common sense.) If you think that page is good enough then perhaps I'll just leave it alone WeAreHeWho (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
