a little concern
- This discussion was moved here from User talk:Christopher/AllArchives#a little concern.
On the Jesus page it says this, "The second account traces the lineage through Mary's father, actually tracing Jesus to "Adam and Eve" (Luke 3:1). But lineage was not transmitted through women back then, so double fail." there are some things wrong with this statement. First i'd like to point this out, Luke was not a Jew but a Greek, he was a convert to Judaism before he was converted to Christianity, so he didn't abide by the same rules as did birth Jews. Second, while it may be true that for the Jews it didn't go through the woman's line for the Greeks it was different. Luke did not right to the Jews as did Matthew and Mark but was writing to the Gentiles so it would have been written for the gentiles to understand. The system still runs through the mother to this day. --Whoknows (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- While I have absolutely no idea how lineage was traced in Judean times, I think it is pretty well established that none of the four gospels were actually written by the apostles. So you might want to look for another line of logic. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
actually the Gospel of John was a book that is obviously written by none other than John himself and is actually the last book that was written. While on the isle of Patmos he wrote the Revelation, later on when he was freed from Patmos he wrote the Gospel of John which he left before his death for the churches during a time of peace. Each gospel was written differently due to the circumstances of that time. The Gospel of Mark is short due to the fact of persecution of that time, they needed to be able to take what truth they could which was condensed so that they could be able to flee without having to take a large scroll.--Whoknows (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. The author is anonymous - though some Christians deny this.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. The Gospel of John is written in a way that shows a close view point of Jesus. We do know that John named himself in The Revelation when he states, Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. In the book of John, Jesus stated to Peter, John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. To which was stated, John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? John mentions this because he does see him again in vision, this connects the Gospel of John and The Revelation together. Of course I know many want to see physical proof but there is next to none physical proof that there was a guy named John who followed Jesus. If he did exist I don't think he would have left much evidence anyway.--Rimuru Tempest (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Revising The Tone of the Article
Hi there, I'm new to RationalWiki. I will provide a disclaimer that I'm "technically" Christian and not Atheist or Irreligious, however my concern on this article has nothing to do with the arguments or information that would argue against the value of Jesus or Christianity, it's the EXTREMELY sardonic and immature tone the article has compared to related articles like "Jesus Myth theory" or "Evidence For the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ".
I don't think I need to post any examples as anyone even remotely interested in thinking rationally should be able to see how very blatantly biased and intentionally offensive the language is (not the arguments or information but the way it's conducted). My concern with this is that it damages reputation for Rational Wiki and possibly extending to rationalists as a whole if an article that could be seen as a major de-facto source of information for why the concept of Jesus of Nazareth should be doubted or scrutinized. Instead of trying to provide a rational argument against the divinity of Jesus, it looks more like an atheist trying to wank himself and other atheists off.
As someone who is not an atheist, I do not see or get that appeal. Despite my religiosity, I care much more about a rational argument than a passionate one no matter what the subject and as I look through this article, I see hyper-conservative Christians and Trump-thumpers being justified in the bullshit they spread that lead to the post-Trump election we live in now. This does not help spread rational thinking, it is exclusive when it needs to be inclusive. Rational thinking, arguments, information and speech, as a form of teaching, should always be free of bias, otherwise it counters its own purpose.
I hope I've made my plea in a way that doesn't look like I'm butthurt for Jesus or anything, as well as hope I'm issuing proper respect towards the rational community here. Thank you.MeteoXavier (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)MeteoXavier
- Hello! Thank you for the non-flame criticism. I highly recommend closely reading this, this, this and (crucially) all of this — it will help you greatly on your way. Best of luck! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is much more information particular to this Article, much of which can be found here...
There is much much more information particular to this Article, of which can be found here...
I suggest adding this as a reference as well to completion.
"It is traditionally accepted that myths generally do not derive from thin air, and that the characters and stories in these myths are exaggerations, deifications, or simple mischaracterisations of events and persons that really existed and did something of some kind of note."
Maybe it is, but so what? It's hardly axiomatic, given that the various creation myths (two in the first two chapters of the Bible alone) and the roles of gods in stories (i.e. YHWH's various character roles throughout the tanakh) hardly point to historical events or people (good luck finding the historical Moses). Thereby, to concede historicity is more likely (contra Carrier) on that basis is flawed and presumptuous. --Scherben (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)