Talk:Unknown years of Jesus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

The Introduction

Wikipedia policy states that the introductory section to an article should be a summary of the body of the article. Any significant points in the introduction should therefore be expanded upon in the main article. This Intro mentions several authors but nothing is said about them further on. Links to other articles on Wikipedia are inadequate on their own. If you added any of these authors, or, if you have time to do the research, please expand on these items with complete explanations and verifiable references in the body of the article. Mike Hayes (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Movie with the Same Name

There should maybe be a disambiguation and a page about the 2008 movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341329/

I'd do it, but the previous page I created was eliminated due to lack of Notability, and thus I'm going to slow down until I've absorbed more of the Guidelines. Andreba (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is to include a section on the film in this article. I have the film on DVD but have not watched it yet. I will add something about it when I get round to viewing it. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge

The sestion on Yuz Asaf here is almost as long as his article. Let's merge them. -- SECisek 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not talking about the same period of time. The lost years of Jesus is regarding the years before he started to teach, wheras this acticle is mainly talking about what happened after his faked him death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.199.115 (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge tag, it's been 6 months and almost no discussion... the articles are about 2 different times in his life also, as mentioned above – cacahuate ^talk 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

According to holger kirsten jesus has died in Kashmir,India at the age of 80 (www.spinninglobe.net/jesusinindia.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BHChinthaka (talk • contribs) 10:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Europe

There is a well-known (round here anyway) Legend that Jesus visited the West Country with his uncle Joseph of Arimathea, specifically visiting Glastonbury. There is a similar legend from Poland but I have no details. Could this go in? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Therapeutae <> Therapute

The word 'Therapeutae' is a Greek term (Θεραπευται) related to the English word 'therapy', and means 'healers'. It would have sounded roughly like 'therapevte', while the Sanskrit term meaning 'Sons of the Elders' would have sounded like 'terapute' (Θεραπουτε?)

It has been suggested in several places that the term refers to the Essenes. The wikipedia article on Essenes notes this in the Name section. Philo's description of the Therapeutae is close enough to Josephus' and Pliny's descriptions of the Essenes that many conclude them to all be describing the same group (or at least branches of the same group). Further, Philo was writing to defend Judaism and interpret it for the Gentiles.

BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Jesus surely spent those years studying to be a Rabbi ? How else would anyone remotely listen to him unless he had some basis in their religious system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.157.49 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

Anonymous editors in the address range 12.110.22.96 - 12.110.22.127 are owned by The Summit Lighthouse.ARIN This institution is affiliated with Church Universal and Triumphant and Elizabeth Clare Prophet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If it it were indeed true that Church Universal and Triumphant would create a "conflict of interest' in editing this article, then it would have to apply to anyone in the "Jesus work group" as well who is a practising Christian, which is probably most of them. There is no rule which says that those members with a bias or special interest (any expert on any subject could be defined as such) may not edit articles. What they may not do is write an overtly biased or POV article. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If a member is inactive on Wikipedia for a period of time, she will automatically be logged out. It is possible that this is what happened in the case you are referring to. I haven't checked to see if I was the culprit but it is certainly possible because that happens to me from time to time in spite of my knowing about it. I have used Elizabeth Clare Prophet's book in my own edits because it reprints four different accounts, including both Notovich and Roerich. This makes it a useful resource because one can find in one book what one normally would have to research in several different places. I have no association with Madam Prophet. Having watched her on public access, I find her rather strange and eccentric, but her book is essentially a compilation of other writers, not her own work. Mike Hayes (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is there an whole emotional rant as the intro? Filled with terms like "new age" etc.? That's notoriously a term that "Christians" misuse to label anyone they are trying to discredit who doesn't fall into another major religion or non-religion. The research of say Nicolas Notovich has nothing to do with any so-called "New Age" ideology. The entire intro should be removed if it can't be updated to be unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think it is biased, you simply have to edit it to make it neutral in compliance with Wikipedia policy. You do not need anyone's permission to do so. Calling an article "pseudohistory" without conclusive evidence, and the evidence is anything but conclusive either way, is without question POV and therefore contrary to Wikipedia policy. Mike Hayes (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an idea brewed together in late 19th century occultism/orientalism and revived in 1980s pulp-pseudohistory. I would agree it isn't "New Age" in particular. It's just another item for the audience for whom actual Christianity, or actual history, just isn't interesting enough. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether one believes it or not is up to the individual, but a scientist (or for that matter an impartial believer or sceptic - both are possible but it requires self-discipline) looks at the evidence, not at the emotions involved. Most of this section sounds like a rant to me. It is quite understandable that traditional Christians might be alarmed when someone comes along with an idea as startling or even outrageous as this one, but that alone is not a case for or against the evidence. The manuscripts do seem to have existed, based on what I personally consider a preponderance of the evidence, but the content could still be myth not history. There is an element of faith in all archaeological research. Scientists look for what they believe is there, or conversely, for what they hope they can prove is not there - a much more difficult task if several people have claimed to have seen it. That's when faith - or denial, takes over. That is human nature. Mike Hayes (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a strong likelyhood Jesus went to India during his missing period because alot of beliefs he spread after he came back originally came from Hinduism. Bhuddism is a off shoot of Hinduism so alot of similiar beliefs between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.205.156 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Studio 54?

The only thing this article does not seem to claim is that Jesus danced with Bianca Jagger at Studio 54... But seriously, I just looked on here and the article seems to lack any references to serious historical scholarship. The references are usually self-published items or claims by groovy self-appointed teachers of some type, not by scholarly historians. Unless someone can clarify this, the article needs to get tagged as unreliable, and then the material without serious scholarship deleted. History2007 (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, a year later I have added some scholarly sources. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit promoting the film "Jesus in India"

A new editor, presumably Paul Davids, added a pretty clearly promotional edit on his film. Obviously conflict of interest but it's the promotional bit (pov) as much as anything else that was the problem. I guess we might add a sentence or two on the basis of this review[1] in the Wall Street Journal which starts with the comment " a documentary that purports to explore claims that he wandered far from home for 20 years -- but in effect is a cavalcade of crackpot". Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The film at least deserves a reference because it touches the subject, how well it is made, can be discusses separately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.64.147.248 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Advertising here is free. Right? History2007 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

IP WP:OR

An IP in Canada is adding WP:OR about the lost years being pretty long, unlike the usual "around 18 years" estimate that was there with sources - he removed the sources. So I just tagged it, instead of starting a larger hoopla. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the sources where the date of birth and death were estimated scientifically. That is only simple mathematic i.e. 37 - 12 = 25 after recognizing the scientists conclusions about the year of birth and death, which lead to the age 37-39 when Jesus was crucified. The 12 or 13 years of age is the traditional age of a boy first pilgrimage to Jerusalem noted in Gospel. That is all. I cannot help that you preferred authors were assuming as Saint Dionysius erroneously that the date of birth of Jesus Christ was year 1st of AD.--205.189.94.13 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I corrected it substracting 3 years of active teaching. The period will be 22-24 years finally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.94.11 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had previously asked you to read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. I guess you did not take that advice. What you have done now is a clear manifestation of the "perils of original research. This may be the first of your corrections. Two days later you may realize that you have made other errors. Trust me you have. The 3 year length for the ministry is not agreed upon by scholars, and you have multiple other errors, e.g. confusing the lower and upper boundaries of the scholarly accepted dates. I guess that you are no scholar. Again, you need to read WP:OR, also WP:RS and WP:V. Your reasoning is WP:OR, and not allowed in Wikipedia and you need sources per WP:V. You reasoning is both simplistic and incorrect, as you just realized. Scholars say otherwise, and the sources you removed should not have been removed in any case. In Wikipedia sources rule. The sources you removed must be restored. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not care what you think. However I see it is very difficult for you to accept you were wrong. Somebody else move the note below and I do not care. What I care is to correct mistakes. If you do not accept you errors it is you pain, as well as probable complex regarding education. Regarding me it was not necessary to use full of my academic knowledge to made the correction :) The other think is that my colleges do the same what you do - complicate subject for proofing of their professionalism :) in result making finally wrong blur conclusions. Somebody said: "simple solution is the genial one". I leave you with you private thoughts. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.64.86 (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please explain that statement to me? He seems to think I made an error. I did not. I have been left baffled... The long and short of it is that the IP has provided zero sources and does not seem to have read, or follow WP:OR. His reasoning has errors (and he figured out one of the errors) but Wikipedia does not work by reasoning, it works by sources. I do not think I can explain it to him. Time for 3O regarding this edit which removed WP:RS sources and added WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But of course I provided the sources, (the same as provided in article "Jesus". I ask you to read this article carefully - althought that was first sugested by you to me. What I think right now you read nothing at all. The sources to which you sticked just making mistake saying 18 years or so... It is obviously not to rpeat infinitly. The knowledge goes further about the date of birth and is commonly known. Sorry I discovered it befor you that the 4-6 years have to be added here. Good luck in you future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.94.13 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already asked for a WP:3O. Just wait. You have provided zero sources that say the gap is 22-24 years. You have sources for the dates of birth and death and length of ministry, then tried some simple math on those by yourself and got it wrong... You can not say I have sources for dates A and B and then subtract them myself. That is WP:OR and can lead to errors. You noticed one error of your own, but there are other errors. Yet I can not argue with you per WP:V and WP:OR. I challenge you to find a WP:RS source that says 24 years is the scholarly consensus. You will not find it. So, please wait for WP:3O. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan - I think that History2007 is correct that this is OR. Sources are provided for the suposed birth date and the supposed date of the crucifixion, yet the calculation is done by 205.189.94.13. That's OR. By the way, there's are some additional questions that may be raised: do the Gospels provided a reliable account of Jesus' life? Was there ever a person 'Jesus'? See Christ myth theory. What do we really "know" about "Jesus"? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess that is the 3O. So I will delete that one from the WP:3O page. As for reliable details in the gospels, that is not subject of this article. The Historical reliability of the Gospels deals with the gospel issues. The scholarly agreement is that very little is known about Jesus, but that there was a preacher who taught some things. As to what he did in his life, that is subject to debate and there is no agreement on the details of his life, but not the focus of this article. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are so obstinate and vindictive that it is ridiculous. Ask for the simple math whoever you want. If there other errors let me know. It is regular work for Wikipedia - DISCUSSION. For simple math you need not the source "says 24 years" it is just logic. The WP:3O need to proof the simple math is wrong - Wikipedia is not a place for voting, and setup mistakes. Once again, if Jesus was born 4-6 years earlier, and it is common knowledge already, and He was crucified on 33 AD (also common knowledge): conclusion: He was 34-36 years old when He start teaching. The three years of teaching is commonly known and counted from Gospel (exactly it is three pilgrimage to Jerusalem, made ritually every year). The age of 12/13 of first pilgrimage of a boy is also ritual according to Jewish law. Finally 34-12=22 and 36-12=24. So .... I hope it will calm you down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.105.233 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: Joshua Jonathan. The question you rise is so general issue that the article "Lost years of Jesus" should be erase at all. The problem of History 2007 is because I negated his entrance that is all. He wants his writing there nothing more. He is looking for souce which provided wrong numbers based on assumption 30-12=18 (30 would be the age of Jesus if he would be born in 1 AD). I just do not agree on the 15-18.

Response by Joshua Jonathan - WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The maths suggest that the dates and info about Jesus are exact. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IP is taking inexact intervals and doing wrong math. But in any case, he needs a source, but does not even try to find a source. I reported him on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism given that this is disruptive editing that runs into vandal action in fact. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And IP, you need to read WP:3RR and stop reverting. History2007 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Response from Pol430 -- IP, no one is disputing your calculations; you are correct that the math is simple. They are stating that the method used to arrive at the figures is one of your own making. Your assertions are original research or novel synthesis at best, neither of which are acceptable on Wikipedia. And frankly, to suggest any historical fact about the life (or death) of Jesus is "common knowledge" is a logical fallacy. Pol430 talk to me 23:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Pol430: Fallacy? Come on? It is enough to read the article Jesus to see how many sources discus the time of birth, and death and where the date goes. Just read more about life of Jesus and the reasonable publications. I propose you to find more statistical date on base of available references on article "Jesus". I can be sure it will not be fare way from my estimations. (comment was by IP)

Actually I do dispute his calculations, but debating it sans source would be WP:OR. His attempt at value extraction from intervals is incorrect math, and WP:OR as well. That is why he can not find a source. And look at how much time this math that befits Faulty Towers is taking up.... Amazing waste of time... History2007 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the math yourself History2007, OK? but do not give wrong numbers from old sources or uneducated authors. I remove you numbers living none. I am sure you will be unhappy anyway. It is your character which prevents you doing well and good. Regarding 3RR I recommend you to read it yourself, and this are such individuals like you who make the Wikipedia a place of war and sorrow. In particular yours yesterday action was very aggressive and too fast. Allow others to edit you attempting to disturb others work deliberately I guess. (comment was by IP)

Did you say "uneducated authors" used as sources? These are professors. Anyway, will ask for PP. This has been enough comedy. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

:) In general whoever he is can be uneducated :) You like kicking and biting. Unlivable. I am happy you final decided to stop you comedic behavior. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.64.86 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, they are both professors. I could even add more professors, but I guess they would also be called uneducated professors... History2007 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Jesus-article says that the birth-year is "estimated" using the nativity-accounts or a remark in John on Jesus' age. That's taking sacred narrative as an objective source. Same for the date of the crucifixion. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The dates of birth and death are estimated, of course. Scholars differ on the dates and the birth year is far less certain than the death year. By the way, the way some of the dates are estimated is complicated and is not just by looking at what the Christian gospels say because they have no direct date at all for the issues related to here. But what the dates are is really not the topic of this article, which deals with what happened in "the gap", scholarly consensus being that no one has any idea about what may have happened.

And one other point is that the entire topic of the article has nothing to do with historical analysis because there is absolutely no scholarly agreement that Finding in the Temple incident in Luke took place at all, from a historical perspective. So this is a speculative subject that deals with a biblical event whose actual occurrence has not been agreed to at all. A fringe article by all measures in any case. But now that there is page protection this pointless discussion about personal arithmetic should hopefully end. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you do not read what is written to you. The first pilgrimage at age 13 was ritual (obligatory for boys over 13). You should know better if you pretend to edit the article. Also I would like ask you to mention something about how you favourable professors (according to you) counted the 15-18 years, since if the pilgrimage did not took place (according to you professors) the gap should be at least 30 years. Please finally recognize that the article is not you private work or property. I am afride you are not qualified for cooperation, you just do not like others who now something different in what you believe. You unreasonable reverting will end bad for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.176.24 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

FOR Joshua Jonathan

You start reverting without arguments, to say it is "not constructive" is insulting. Do not behave as an AUTHORITY, since we are equal. Also the "please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" is impolite. There is chapter in 'Article Talk' you can express you view, and according to you writings you are not familiar, n fact, what is constructive and grounded. I provided you modern resources there. Counting is simple and different than can be made over 20 decades before done in favourable History2007 book. I proposed erasing conflicting old numbers 15-18 and do not introduce any. Since you conspire with History2007 I will report you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.176.24 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Read Chronos, kairos, Christos 2 by Ray Summers, Jerry Vardaman 1998 ISBN 0-86554-582-0 pages 113–129 and see a table there. Different estimates in that book. E.g. that 28AD was estimated as the 32nd birthday etc. Just read it - there are several date estimates there. I am tired of this. Enough. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer to my question. I ask how they counted the gap (or you counted on base of the table yourself). The fact that the 28AD was counted as 32nd birthday only confirm my first entrance that Jesus was not born in 1st AD, as result he would be in Jerusalem at 13 birthday around 9AD. Start teaching at 30 so the gap is 30-9=21 minimum. Any way I proposed removing the conflicting 15-18 and introduce non but you do not agree with this. It is not cooperation it is war on base for you POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.176.24 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:SYN, WP:CON, WP:CIV, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR. And create a proper account. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is that I have to "create a proper account". It is enough I provided logical and sourced editions. You have "a proper account" and I guess read the WP:SYN, WP:CON, WP:CIV, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR and work without logic but with favours.--65.95.176.24 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the best way is to not even answer to this IP because he seems to fail WP:Competence given that after repeated references to WP:V he has no source and thinks it is based on logic. I think silence will be just golden here. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if somebody have no logic arguments should keep the golden rule. But since you obstinately keep you POV edition without cooperation and consideration I will report you to proper spot. You have change up to tomorrow to remove the misleading 15-18 digits however. This is also for the sake of justice and peace not only logic.--65.95.176.24 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why create an account? To make clear that your different IP's are just one user. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please leave the table for future work

Jesus age	Year	Reference
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

--207.112.105.233 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.64.86 (talk)

Anyway, I added another source with an online link that can be seen, so that should end discussions of arithmetic which by their nature are error prone as we have seen. And again, per WP:V we should not do "personal arithmetic" here, but use WP:RS sources. There is one online now, so let it end the debate. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I prefer that every reader can count the number himself, thus I am going to construct table with appropriate resources for it. 18 years is better than 15-18. 18 is closer to the factual range for sure. I invite you to work around the table if you wish, although our relationship had to end with my reports ending my long distress.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user

The IPs which proposed such edits belong to User:Serafin, a user which has been blocked from editing. Seeing what he/she wrote above, I definitely agree that he/she had to be blocked. He/she does not understand the basics of Wikipedia, even when people tell him/her politely what these are, so it is no wonder he/she got blocked. He/she simply refuses to play by the rules of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks from me too. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu, let me know what basic of Wikipedia I do not know? So many people pretend to say me it is this or that and cannot give the proper section to which they refer. Giving a webpage to read and expecting that somebody will guess what you assume is ridiculous. Is not it. So Sir, keep your opinion about others perception for yourself. If you cannot be specific just do not speak. @History2007 and Joshua Jonathan. Are you thanked for opportunity to be idle? You should thank me for challenging you knowledge :) it is the way how you perfect yourself. Do not be afraid I will return with my questions, you will have new opportunity to study new resources.--205.189.94.12 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I will just ignore most of the above. The golden rule. You may come back, but the result will be the same as this time: a flat zero. You can come back a thousand times as sock puppets, the result will be the same: a flat zero after wasted time. A flat zero change, except wasted time. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You are already mistaken History2007. You already change for better :)--205.189.94.12 (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

When you are in the state of California, you are expected to comply with the laws of California. When you are writing on Wikipedia, you are expected to comply with its policies. Violating them leads to consequences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu It seems to me you do not understand the words: "what basic of Wikipedia I do not know?" You talk generalities and expect people will respect you. You say I do not know but what particular think? It is insulting the other person intelligence talking in generalities. You would also doubt if somebody like you is honest or using his position to push you. I hope I express myself clearly. --76.75.136.250 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My friend, the more we talk to this IP guy, the more he will respond... History2007 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede in contradiction with itself.

Third paragraph is a shambles. The phrase "almost unanimously agreed" with it's critical modifier "almost" cannot be used to support the claim that a thing has been "totally discredited by modern scholars". I'd suggest not using troublesome absolute and unequivocal terms, they tend to be seen a lot in areas where one side feels the need to obliterate any possibility of divergent opinion. I doubt that's occurring here, but still, paragraphs should at least be internally consistent.12.144.158.7 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've offered an edit (currently "under review" due to semi-lock of page) which seeks to maintain the para's thrust while removing the contradiction, I've also removed the modifier "roundly" as a dismissive editorialization. 3rd para still reads as a powerful, albeit neutral, rejection to the reader of the counter-history offered by assorted fringe or historically out of date sources.12.144.158.7 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact yes. But that is because the totally used to only apply to Notovitch and someone switched it around. This page is very hard to manage with those types of changes. It used to be:

The Jesus in India manuscript was first reported in 1894 by Nicolas Notovitch but has since been totally discredited by modern scholars.[2]

Modern scholarship has roundly rejected the travels of Jesus outside Galilee, Judea and closely neighboring areas, with Robert Van Voorst specifically stating that modern scholars have "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to areas such as Tibet or India contain "nothing of value".[3][4][5]

So that is how it may need to be again (sans roundly), I guess. But let other opinions come in and we will see. This page is a magnet for unexpected changes. History2007 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Jesus in Britain be above India?

Chronologically. The 13th Century material is before the Ahmadiyya material.

There's evidently a notable topic here - 18 years covered by two verses in Luke - and there could be some more historical Jesus type material to slot in. The Nicolas Notovich and Holger Kersten stuff could be trimmed. And why is Elizabeth Clare Prophet even in the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Chron should usually rule. I think people just threw material into this page using an advanced form of J-development model. Prophet was probably added by someone who liked her book, or her publicist - who knows... Novotich & Kersten are getting far too much real estate as well, as you said. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I feel a scythe coming. What do you think about "unknown years" - less likely, marginally, to act as a Fringe-magnet? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean to move it to Unknown years of Jesus? I think a good idea, given that the current title sounds like a lost and found department of some type. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously considering it. Just Googlebooking "unknown years" +Jesus -Paul produces real sources, try "lost years" +Jesus -Paul and see what you get. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, looking less fringey with each edit. The B Purana stuff appears to be out by 2000 years. I wonder how much Wp to GoogleBooks citogenesis is going on. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you did 2 years of improvement in 2 hours, so should keep going... As for citogenesis, it is the shape of things to come. That is the nature of this type of open, crowd sourced system. I once saw entire paragraphs in a book that had come from Wikipedia, merged in with other paragraphs. I am not going to do it, but I had elsewhere wagered that if one modifies some respectable looking PDF paper on Isaac Newton to say that his favorite cheese was Cheddar, it would eventually work its way into the Wikipedia article on Cheddar, if the paper is posted in the right places... History2007 (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was checking on some possible copyvio today and found some stuff added in around 2007 to our article and then about 4 years later showing up in a book. Not even self-published. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are entering an era where "information osmosis" will become much more pronounced as mobile devices take over. History2007 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Holger Kersten, 1981

I don't follow this section. There's a reference to his writing of a book and then a large chunk of the Purana (rather freely rendered) which is stuck in. I assume that Kersten uses this as evidence, but the text does not say so. The Purana certainly includes this passage, though not in the form given, which seems to try to minimise the extent to which this "Jesus" is portrayed as a Hindu sannyasin preoccupied by such typically Christ-like matters as chanting holy names, purifying the body and maintaining mental equilibrum (also, this is supposed to happening over in the Bengal/Tibet border). The section in the article then rambles off on a tangent and ends with a glued-on paragraph about a critic of Kersten. Either this should be about the Purana or about what Kersten argues in his book. Does anyone know how these bits are supposed to fit together? Paul B (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've worked out how these two fit together. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A case could be made that there is a confusion in the whole India section between two different claims: the view that he came to India before his ministry (to imbibe its sacred wisdom), and the view that he retired and died in India (having somehow escaped crucifixion). The first might properly form content for this article. The second isn't. The use of the Purana tale is typically by proponents of the second position, so maybe does not belong here at all. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. My understanding of the term is that it usually refers to the "pre-ministry phase", in that they suggest Jesus went to India, picked up ideas that he then taught before he was crucified. So I think the "post crucifixion" should go elsewhere, (perhaps the Roza Bal article?) in any case. That brings up the Jesus in America section. Given that it holds that Jesus visited the American natives after his resurrection, it is not part of the unknown years and should just go away. That would then imply that Ghulam Ahmad's theory is also not about the "unknown years", and does not fit. So I suggest a small separate section that just explains that Jesus in America after execution, and Roza Bal are different and should not be confused with the 18 unknown years, when he was 12-30, etc. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this. On de.wp it is the Roza Bal article which has the swoon theory material. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

On that note, does Elaine Pagels suggest that Jesus went to India? From what I recall she suggests that there may have been ideas that came from India and reached Judea, influnced Gnostics, etc. but not through travels of Jesus when he was 22-25 there. Unless it is otherwise, that needs to go as well. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, she just made some appeal to Buddhist scholars at a conference in the 1970s to help her provide proof Jesus had Buddhist influence in the 1970s. 30 years deafening silence in response. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Going once.. going twice... History2007 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Three points:

Is Levi H. Dowling just pre-crucifixion? It seems so. If so, you need to delete it from the Roz Bal page or clarify that

I think Kersten needs a little more summary (same size as Ghulam Ahmad) in a small section here, else someone will add it anyway with less quality

Notovich is still way too long and probably needs to be the same size as Ghulam Ahmad

But the page is getting much better. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

After crucifixion, resurrection

Why is this section in this article at all? The introduction specifies that the unknown years are defined as those between his childhood and the start of his ministry. Lloannna (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an unknown... pun intended... But seriously, below it also says "The phrase "lost years" is also found in relation to theories arising from the swoon hypothesis". But you are right that it less than clear. I tried to fix it but I am yet not happy with it. Maybe we need to just move "section 4" from here to the Swoon page and clean that page up as well, because FEMA has ignored it for a while, but it really needs help. The reality is that the better quality material is here because I was too lazy to clean up the Swoon page... I will ask In ictu oculi what he thinks as well. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But then it may be that "Swoon" is just about waking up, not what he did afterwards... So it may have to be a separate page and this should remain as is. And moving out section 4 will lead to even more confusion because of the way Kersten weaved his theories, etc. So now I think it is better as is, and just the terminology needs clarification. History2007 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Amusing comment about FEMA, yes the Swoon hypothesis page looks in need of relief as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But what about Lloannna's comment. I tried to clarify it, but not really happy about it. But then that is the anthem of Wikipedia in a sense, no one is ever happy about any page, but the pages are there... History2007 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki has new policy ref.'self-published works'.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:340:4202:7180:D09D:351E:9FDC:9231 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

References

The (controversial) information in this article is very difficult to verify. For example, the following should be included with the corresponding reference:

Reiner, Edwin W. (1971). The Atonement. Nashville: Southern Pub. Association. ISBN 0812700511. OCLC 134392.

~Regards, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That was done. What else? History2007 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Uhmmm... there are only 49 references to go. ;) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that I have looked more, some of the sources are not WP:RS, e.g. Glyn S. Lewis Did Jesus Come to Britain?: An Investigation Into the Traditions is by GLYN LEWIS "was born in Shropshire. Since 1991, he has worked as a photographic essayist, first in Hong Kong where he recorded the plight of people living on the streets" Not a scholar at all. History2007 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Britain

How about:

"Jesus 'may have visited England', says Scottish academic". (Film review) "And Did Those Feet". BBC News. 26 November 2009. Retrieved 4 March 2013. St Augustine wrote to the Pope to say he'd discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus. But St Gildas (a 6th-Century British cleric) said it was built by Jesus himself. It's a very very ancient church which went back perhaps to AD37

Refs redux pt. II

E. g., see: Bock, Emil (2007). The Childhood of Jesus : the unknown years (2nd, rev. ed.). Edinburgh: Floris. ISBN 0863156193.

<ref name=Losch> Losch, Richard R. (2008). All the People in the Bible : an a-z guide to the saints, scoundrels, and other characters in scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. p. 209. ISBN 0802824544. Nothing is known of the life of Jesus during the eighteen years from the time of the incident in the the temple until his baptism by John the Baptist when he was about thirty. Countless theories have been proposed, among them that he studied in Alexandria in the Jewish centers there and that he lived among the Essenes in the Judean desert... there is no evidence to substantiate any of these claims and we have to accept that we simply don't know

</ref>

I am not clear on what the issues are with the two references you mention. Bock is the example of the usage of the term, and no other info from it is used, and the Losch is WP:RS. Are you talking about the template syntax with which the reference is used in the text. In that case, my apologies, I never deal with that, for no reader ever sees it. But if you want to list them all with a different syntax, I can drop them in once you have them all done. History2007 (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't any issue with those - simply a reformat of syntax to make verification easier (name/date/source/quote). I probably shouldn't be mentioning this at all, since the policy is not to mess with an established reference format (without a consensus). ~Sorry 'bout that, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — But, there was one thing: I changed the links to English GoogleBooks instead of Italian, and removed some extraneous link-crud. [modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)]

No worries, if it is just format/internal syntax, please just list all you can find and I will add them all at once - saves time that way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

List of syntax fixes

Please list all syntax fixes here, so they can all get in at once. It will be easier that way. When you have finished, please say so and it will all go in at once. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

–Voorst, Robert E. Van (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament : an introduction to the ancient evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. p. 17. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9.

–Crossan, John Dominic; Richard G. Watts (1999). Who is Jesus? : answers to your questions about the historical Jesus. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 0664258425.

–Borg, Marcus J. (2005). "The Spirit-Filled Experience of Jesus". In Dunn, James D. G. (ed.). The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Winona Lake, [IN]: Eisenbrauns. p. 303. ISBN 1-57506-100-7.

–Maier, Paul L.; Yamauchi, Edwin M. (1989). "The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus". In Vardaman, Jerry (ed.). Chronos, kairos, Christos : nativity and chronological studies presented to Jack Finegan. Winona Lake, [IN]: Eisenbrauns. pp. 113–129. ISBN 0-931464-50-1.

More to come? ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I have added those. So unless there is anything else we should it call it a day. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks – a few changes makes a big difference! The article seems much more consistent (a common problem on WP articles is "Too Many Chefs"). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Which was your favorite chef there anyway? I thought Grandvilliers was hilarious... History2007 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen the movie -lol- was referring to the idiom. ;) ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC) & 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You must see it... Must see it... History2007 (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Luke 2:41

Resolved

The current attribution is incorrect, Luke 2:41 [NIV] is actually:

Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.

There is a WP:template for Bible verses; I've come across it before ~~(but can't find it; will keep looking).~~→ [See: Template:Bibleref2 & (superscript) Template:Bibleref2c] ~E: 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC) [modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)]

Wikisource is better, no WP:Linkrot anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good, thanks, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC) ~ (I see that it was Luke 2:42, thanks for the correction)

Unreliable source?

According to the WOT Reputation Scorecard, reference #43: "Who Is Quetzalcoatl?". Icwseminary.org. Retrieved 2012-11-16 — receives a Very poor score. (See scorecard) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and really outdated, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Any others?

I think I have touched up almost all of them now, added ISBNs etc. except the TV/film section. Any other problems you see? The one I can not figure out is New York Times (May 27, 1926). Any ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried New York Times archive search? - Actually, that NYT ref is a redundant one, but presumably more reliable than the other 2. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It was not immediate, so I was trying to talk you into doing that search... History2007 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tried search with date parameter and Jesus -- no luck. Its pretty useless as a ref without at least an article title. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I forget to tell you there was a $100 reward for that search... History2007 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The following entry is vague and non-informative (and citation needs fixing) — However, this is the only "balance" in its section: 'Rejection by modern scholarship'

However, Elaine Pagels once expressed the view that "It is possible that Jesus went to India; we simply do not know."^[34]

— This Pagels quote in the book is cited to a 2008 documentary ; the actual page number is 151 (not page 2008). ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC): ~ One might as well say: "It is possible that Jesus was abducted by Martians; we simply do not know."

And that book is published by CreateSpace, so it is self-published and not useable in Wikipedia. Needs a better source, or has to go. Do you have another source? I do not see one after a search. Most people who say Jesus went to India seem to be self-published and non-scholars who fail WP:SPS pretty quickly. But that is to be expected, given the field survey by Van Voorst per WP:RS/AC that scholarship thinks these stories have nothing of value. So I guess there are probably no serious scholars who say Jesus went to India. History2007 (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a search and there does not seem to be a good source that confirms that so I commented it out. If you have a WP:RS for it, we can uncomment it. But for now it looks like we are done. History2007 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Self-publishing is not going to go away but only get bigger. I know some very reputable persons, experts in their field who now use self publishing and POD because theirs is a niche market, they get the royalties, the books stay in print. And publishers also can be political and ty to coerce you into being main stream and stifle original thought. Consider how Milo Yiannopoulos' original publisher dropped him when he became a political hot potato, so he self published and became a best seller. And also recall that the original English translations of the Bible were essentially self published and the translators/publishers were executed. So while publishers can be useful gate keepers for keeping out intellectual riff raff they can also be the thought police. And as I said better get used to self publishing because that is going to grow. Just like the MSM no longer has a monopoly on the news with the advent of blogs, publishers no longer have a monopoly on what is published. I know that if I ever wrote a book I would self publish in order to have complete financial control as I know too many authors who got ripped off and didn't see a dime of their royalties. The bottom line is that self-publishing is no longer the hall mark of an intellectual pariah, but also of independent thinkers and people who don't want to plug into the system. 106.51.106.179 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Carpenter

The word used is Tekton, which is used generally for an engineering teacher, not a carpenter. Sometimes it is also used for a highly advanced spiritual teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)