Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance

I changed importance to high. If Crucifixion is not high importance in Christianity, then what is? History2007 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical aspects

The empty section on medical aspects has been sitting there for weeks and looks incomplete. Either someone has to write something, or it should be removed. Let us give it a week, and whoever added it can either write something, or I will remove that empty section to make the page look more complete. Thanks History2007 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have brought over the information from Death of Jesus, as it seems more pertinent in this article. It can probably still be expanded significantly from the sources listed at the bottom of the article. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly better than before. But please do not rob Peter to pay Paul by emptying the Death of Jesus page. Please add to the Death page before butchering it, since you seem to be able to write on this topic with ease. Thanks History2007 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the whole idea was to merge the information into the appropriate articles (Atonement and Crucifixion) for more precision in covering the topics. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In your scenario, is the Death of Jesus page going to survive? My best case scenario is:

1. The Theological Aspects section moves from Crucifixion to Death of Jesus. 2. The Death of Jesus page survives and is expanded. 3. The Theological Aspects section gets expanded. 4. The Atonement page stays by itself, as is, fo rit has good links in it.

My problem: I do not know how to write the Theological Aspects section, without making it purely Roman Catholic. I wrote on the astronomical issues on teh date of the Crucifixion, since I know those types of issues, but this topic is your area. So please write it and we will have a good page on Crucifixion and a good page on Death. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the pictures of the cruxifiction. It saddens me that they are falsifying the actually scene..that the flesh was torn from him body. In not one picture that has been illustrated shows this. Its a mere factor of unknowledgeable artist. How can any one really learn the truth if the people who try to uphold it alters it. If we are talking the medical aspects of Jesus Christ's death then even the illustrations should show the truth. Tamhayd (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)(Tamhayd)

===========================================================================================================

I am moving the following section to the Talk page rather than delete it completely. It is largely apologetics unsupported by notable sources or serious, balanced scholarship. Perhaps there is room for it to be improved, but right now it is adding nothing to the article.--Rbreen (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


==Medical aspects of the crucifixion==
The Gospel of John says that a soldier pierced Jesus' side, causing the flow of blood and water. Apologists claim that medical knowledge at the time would have only expected blood.[1] Some scholars[who?] have hypothesized the 'water' as pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, and maintain that this medical anomaly would have been a fact that the author of the Gospel of John would have been tempted to leave out, had he not been interested in accurate reporting. This flow of water suggests fatal heart trauma required to release pericardial fluid. Without pericardial fluid, the heart may become bruised over time (due to friction between the heart and the pericardium). (The pericardial fluid is not required for the heart to function; it merely acts as a lubricant.) Roman soldiers were trained with such diligence that it is not logical to assume that someone could have survived a piercing in this region of the body.[2]

Darkness

The article currently quotes Diogenes as saying "Either the Deity Himself suffers at this moment, or sympathizes with one who does," but the Sanders book cited doesn't provide a source from antiquity. However, John Gill cites the Magdeburg Centuries (1. l. 2. c. 10. p. 491) when he writes the following of Dionysius the Areopagite:

It is reported of him, that being at Heliopolis in Egypt, along with Apollophanes, a philosopher, at the time of Christ's sufferings, he should say concerning the unusual eclipse that then was, that "a God unknown, and clothed with flesh, suffered", on whose account the whole world was darkened; or, as, others affirm, he said, "either the God of nature suffers, or the frame of the world will be dissolved"

This seems to me to be the more reliable source, and casts doubt on the Diogenes quote from Sanders, wouldn't you agree? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope

I think it best if this article were to be as narrow as possible - only relating to Jesus' death as being by crucifixion. Therefore, date, place, historicity, medical aspects and natural phenomena all beong under Death of Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to pick this discussion up with user:Ἀλήθεια who wants this page to have date and place and the other to have theology. I think both of you guys are debate ready so I leave it to you two to debate. I do not mind either way as long as energy is not wasted. So please do not butcher the pages back and forth until an agreement is final. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with trying to narrow the scope of this article. The crucifixion is an important historical event, tied to many other related topics. The death of Jesus, on the other hand, is more of a theological event, and thus details such as the date and place are only marginally significant to that article. Try to think of this from a more neutral point of view, as in how would this event be recorded in an encyclopedia if Jesus was not God incarnate providing substitutionary atonement? Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not trying to make that argument! Perhaps its helpful to consider the John F. Kennedy assassination. Notice that the article is not titled, death of John F. Kennedy. Although the assassination certainly resulted in his death, the scope of the article is much larger and covers more than just his physical death, or even the ramifications of his physical death. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right fair enough, I guess I was thinking of this article as analogous to Bullet which killed John F. Kennedy. The theological implications of crucifixion, for example, are quite different to the theological implications of Jesus' death. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I would like to see the death of Jesus article be developed to more fully elaborate on the theological implications of the death, whereas this article really is more focused on the event of the crucifixion. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"theological implications of the death" is already covered at Atonement. 68.123.64.154 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange merger proposal - if anything, it would have to go the other way 'round - surely Jesus' death is a broader topic than his crucifixion! StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming there is evidence that Jesus' death may not have been by crucifixion? 75.14.215.58 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No. StAnselm (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there was already a vote last year: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jesus 75.14.215.58 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge They can be merged under either name or Crucifixion and Death of Jesus. --Carlaude (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW- the Crucifixion includes events other that the Death-- hence his Crucifixion is a broader topic than his Death.--Carlaude (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge to Crucifixion of Jesus. 75.0.3.248 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to Merge. These articles are in need of content and there is all this energy going into the talk page! The debate should stop, and better content should start. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As the merge inevitably happens, please try to keep the art images in order. I searched for those carefully. Some such as the Bronzino or the Caravaggio have to do with burial and not the Crucifixion, and the so it would be nice to maintain their placement. The Vout and the Veronese images were selected to show the dark sky during the Crucifixion, so they should be placed in places such as the discussion of the eclipse. The Veronese is specially nice for the eclipse. Please try to place them appropriately. Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The art images would be a reason to have the merger go the other way - i.e. a depcition of Jesus' burial would suit Death of Jesus more then Crucifixion of Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Crucifixion of Jesus. It appears somehow StAnselm and Ἀλήθεια started these two pages nearly simultaneously (cf. this edit with this one), and this article seems to have developed more efficiently. Since most of the current content of the death of Jesus article is largely redundant to the atonement article, I think it would be better to keep this one and make death of Jesus either a redirect page or a disambig page (to include Passion, Crucifixion, and Atonement). HokieRNB 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said. But the real problem is in psychology, namely:

  • Both of these guys are really well versed in scripture and hence have confidence in their point of view.
  • They have been debating scripture for years - I can tell they are good at it. So the debate may continue, unless something is done.

The best way would be for us to appeal to their Christian side not to fight and work it out so we get a nice page. Look at it this way: you are arguing over the tomb of Jesus. Stop, show respect, be friends and get a nice page please. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Heh. Well, I got in first. :) Mine was just splitting content from Death and Resurrection of Jesus, (which had been there for ages), after that article was renamed Resurrection of Jesus. Hence, the above appeal to this page's deletion is mistaken. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. All this sounds good but the dropped page should be a redirect somewhere (to the other that is kept, to "Atonement," etc.) not a disambig page.
I think we have consensus on a merge if any is inclined to begin it--Carlaude (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If an agreement is final, then fine, let us do it. What if you and I act like good Christians and do it together Carl so it will be somewhat well-rounded as a perspective? I need a day or two to free up time for it, but I can start it and you can comment on it, or you can start it and I can comment on it. But before we spend energy on it, let us be sure that those who know more about it (i.e. the two gentlemen above) are not going to object. After all, I am less of an expert on this than they are, although I can select nice images. Thanks History2007 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Talmud quote

I am glad to comment on your efforts. I do not think I could start it time-wize. --Carlaude (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will merge them in a day or two. Actualy, the text that is there is mostly good, just needs a nice merger. The part I feel uncomfortable about is the historicity section that has no text and just two quotes. The Josephus reference is relevant but needs text to go with it. But the first quote is just hanging there, and as a user I have no idea how it helps me. It is even confusing me about its intent. As a user, it seems like a liability to the article. It refers to the general Jewish views of Jesus, but how does that tell me anything about Crucifixion? There is an article Historical Jesus that was not even referenced there, so I added that reference already. I suggest making the first quote into some text about Jewish views/accounts of the Crucifixion and History of Jesus. Apart from that, the merger shoud be easy, because the text is pretty modular, and generally well written. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope my edits have addressed your concerns about adding context around the two quotes. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your new text was well written and helps the section a lot. Josephus seems like a solid case, but I looked up Yeshu in Wikepedia, and it says that there is disagreement as to it being Jesus. Again, as a "non-expert" user that fact confuses me. How does the quote prove that it was Jesus? I can keep the quote, but I do not feel like I am on solid ground here, if we keep it. Suggestions? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope my next edit clarified the issue for you. The vast majority of scholarship admits that this could be a reference to Jesus, and many argue convincingly that it likely is. Discrepancies between the Gospel accounts and this quote can be explained by the fact that the Talmud was not based on eyewitnesses, but rather "was formed as a polemical adaptation of the Christian story" (see this source). But that discussion seems out of scope for the purposes of this article. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, you are right that the Jeshu/Jesus discussion is beyond the scope of this article. And it is indeed a fascinating subject. But as a user, I feel that adding that quote weakens the whole argument. What I say to myself is: "These people start the section by saying they have an open and shut case then introduce this quote that is subject to discussion and vagueness". And I am ready to bet that in 3 months someone who is a skeptic will look up Jeshu and will add a paragraph here that this is uncertain, etc. My feeling is that we are on solid ground if we expand Josephus and Tacitus. So why open a door that may weaken our argument? My suggestion: we beef up Josephus and Tacitus and avoid the Talmud reference that will come to haunt us in 3 to 6 months. Moving the section up was also a good idea. Now if you have another Tacitus like reference that will totally wrap up the discussion without needing the vague Talmud reference. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm willing to accept the testimonies of the Gospel writers alone. However, there are some who would look discredit any non-secular source, and thus I think a source that is actually antagonistic toward a Christian understanding of Jesus merely adds to the reliability. I welcome other editors to add their opinion on this matter, but I'm not inclined to simply remove the reference because 3 months down the road someone might question it. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You know this topic better, so let us keep it, but beef it up saying that most historians think it is valid, etc. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Invitation for comment on the merger

I have now finished my first cut of the merger, by taking most of the material from the Death of Jesus page, which I still left there until a redirect gets added. Please:

  • Add any/all major comments here so they can be discussed here before any major re-structuring.
  • Feel free to correct minor mistakes in place without discussion so the page gets finished soon.

Given that I am not an expert on this topic, attention from experts will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate lead?

Is it just me, or are there two lead paragraphs which are mostly redundant? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is significant overlap in them. Please feel free to edit it, now that my first cut merger is done. History2007 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
PS, I so wish Wikepedia had an advanced form of one of the items here: List of revision control software, but for now, we just have to do it one person at a time. History2007 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new lead: The crucifixion of Jesus is an event recorded in all four gospels (Matthew 27:33–44; Mark 15:22–32; Luke 23:33–43; John 19:17–30) which takes place after his arrest and trial and includes his scourging, execution on a cross, and burial. In Christian theology, the death of Jesus by crucifixion is a core event on which much doctrine depends, representing a critical aspect of the doctrine of salvation, portraying the suffering and death of the Messiah as necessary for the forgiveness of sins. According to The New Testament, Jesus was resurrected three days later and appeared to his disciples before ascending to heaven.[3]

Ok, looks good. I added it. Please feel free to delete this type of redundancy in place. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Overview

I feel that the overview is somewhat short and at times telegraphic. My hope is that it gets expanded by 30% or so at least. Please add something to see how it progresses. Thanks History2007 (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I feel that the overview is appropriately succinct. If this article gets much more wordy, it will become unwieldy and will need to get broken out into separate articles (again). Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Atonement

I have made some adjustments but none that fix my major concerns to the Atonement section.

(1)It seem to pit the RC view of Atonement against all others.

(2)A number of thing need sources.

(3)and most of all it does not describe the Protestants view well, if at all.

Protestants (also) hold that "Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience as a Substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice of love which pleased God." but I do not know what is mean by (the judicial view) "...emphasizes God as both lawmaker and judge. All humans have broken the rules that God has set (sin), and all deserve to be punished. The only exception to this was Jesus, who received the ultimate punishment despite not having sinned. This is seen as an act of Jesus accepting the punishment that was meant for humans, meaning humans can be restored to a right relationship with God." and I do not see how it is ment to be different from the Substitutionary atonement view above.

Wikipedia Substitutionary atonement states:

Many modern branches of Christianity embrace substitutionary atonement as the central meaning of Jesus' death on the cross. These branches however have developed different theories of atonement. The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics incorporates substitutionary atonement as one (relatively minor) element of a single doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, the Roman Catholic church incorporates it into Aquinas' Satisfaction doctrine rooted in the idea of penance, and Evangelical Protestants interpret it largely in terms of penal substitution.[4]

This is much better... we should use this instead.--Carlaude 14:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no comment I will but this in. --Carlaude 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I removed the comment that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics primarily hold the moral theory with a few others thrown in. If you want to debate the issue, I can take you through Orthodox theology and its liturgy. I also added "Many" to the sentence which concerns bible expositors and the veil of the Temple. Hebrews 10:20 states that the veil refers to Christ's flesh. The viewpoint expressed in the article is not a position held across the board. For proof, it is not a patristic interpretation and I refer all to John Chrysostom, Aphrahat, and others. Gregory the Theologian states in Ep. CII that the crucifixion belongs to the veil, that is Christ's flesh (and not His Godhead); Oration XL also refers to the flesh as veil (but in this case veil is applied to every person's flesh). Gregory the Theologian also states in Oration 29, the Third Theological Oration, On the Son, that the rending of the veil refers to the mysterious opening of heaven to the resurrection of the dead. Ep. CI., refers to the flesh of Christ as the veil of the Temple, masking the brilliance of God. Athanasius has a similar position. Cyril of Jerusalem states that it refers to the flesh of Christ which suffered under crucifixion and death. John of Damascus refers to the veil as the Law. Grailknighthero (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Details and audience

Please provide comments on the level of detail in the Gospel narratives section. I find the comparison there interesting, but I wonder what audience it is aimed at. It is certainly relevant to students of theology, but the average "reader on the web" will find it too long in my view, and will just click away anyway. What about making a "Main" for that where a comparison of the accounts is provided. As is, I find myself trying to get away from that comparison anyway because it is too long and tells me nothing about the Crucifixion itself. And around 90% of those who believe in the Gospels usually believe them all anyway, and those who do not believe do not need further debate - they do not believe any of them. Students of theology, will however benefit from this comparison. But how many of those are there within the audience?

On second thought the problem may really be real estate and presentation. As is, these take up so much page space because they are on new lines. If they are reformatted into continuous text, they will just be one paragraph and ok to keep. That may be the best way. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me that an encyclopedia article on the crucifixion of Jesus should include all of the details that are provided by the earliest and most reliable sources available. The audience should probably include "students of theology" as well as anyone who wants to know about the crucifixion. If anything, fewer redundant images on the page would solve the "real estate" problem. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of marketing opinion! As I said, I think we can keep the material, provided we make it take less space. As for images, it is my opinion (and I am not always right) that dry articles bore people in a day and age when they are used to unending color as they open any magazine. So the marketing person in me always tries to add some life to text by adding images. Come to think of it, in the early days of the Church when people could not read and write images were used in Churches to tell the story. But, what if all images were removed from all modern churches? People would still go there, but the experience would not be the same. The fact is that going into a church with beautiful images provides a different experience. I think the same applies to articles. But in the long term, on this article the little real estate we are debating does not make that much difference. So maybe we should just let the matter rest.

PS. After I typed this, I saw that you did turn the list into prose. I was going to suggest even more prose, or a list with less spaces, but I will leave the matter in your hands. I think we have a good article now, and any more energy will get us very little incremental benefit. So I will leave it in your hands, and I hope you remember the marketing aspects, given that you know the theology well enough to write a book on it, remembering that the book will also benefit from a few nice images. History2007 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I go to a church with no images to speak of, and I have no issue with the experience of it. I'm not there to look at pretty pictures. I agree with Ἀλήθεια on this, in that the page looks cluttered with paintings as if the article were "Depictions of the crucifixion in Renaissance art". I think images such as this one would be more helpful to the reader. HokieRNB 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be no way to settle this debate, short of a $50 million dollar research grant into the psychology of religion. And people may yet debate it. I looked at your image and it just pains me too much. I would find it very hard to look at a page with that image ever again. It is just too painful. I think we just have to respect the diversities in the opinions and again, I would say let it be. I think all the people who spend effort editing this page, care about the crucifixion, and we should focus on that more than our personal tastes and minor differences. And we all get the same salary doing this. We have a pretty good page now, much better than 2 weeks ago,let us see how the rest of the planet reacts to it. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Records

Last words of Jesus is a good section, but logically speaking, since it is a recorded fact does it not belong as a subsection of Records of the crucifixion? Not a big deal, just a minor question of logical grouping. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the vast majority of this page is "recorded fact", so it makes sense (given the overview provided) to position the section of "last words" just prior to "phenomena". HokieRNB 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I say let it be. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comma placement in Luke 23:43

Regarding this edit, please see this comparison of five of the most widely used and most trusted English translations available today (NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and NKJV). I have reverted the change accordingly. HokieRNB 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dissertation on date?

The new text in Italics on date of crucifixion sounds like a Master's degree dissertation now, it includes WP:OR (original research) and debate. It is getting to be longer than the rest of the article. It should either be significantly summarized or trimmed or moved to the refs. It is not encyclopedic. Please trim it, or I will do so in a day or two. Thanks History2007 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried my best to reinsert the portions of the previous edits that made sense. For the most part, it appears that Kwonbbl was attempting to add a level of precision and clarity that (although potentially helpful for scholars) ended up hopelessly convoluting the text. For instance, I think it matters precious little that Luke doesn't give the Aramaic translation of "the place of a skull", since he was likely writing for people who spoke primarily Greek. I believe it is still internally consistent to say that all four gospel writers identify the location as the "Place of a Skull". Also, I think the arguments for Thursday or Wednesday crucifixions are significant enough for inclusion, but probably don't warrant much more than a passing mention. I say this to my own chagrin, for I am of the personal opinion that Jesus entered Jerusalem on Sunday Nisan 10 and was crucified on Thursday Nissan 14. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian POV

Wikipedia's own page on Testimonium_Flavianum clearly states it is a hoax, yet this article presents it as fact (source 2, for the statement "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history.") How can this article say there is little doubt of the historicity of the Crucifixion when all evidence is either 1. The Gospels or 2. Hoaxes?--81.227.145.92 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Encyclopædia Britannica and most other encyclopedias also write about the crucifixion as a historical fact, Wikipedia can not be fairly criticised here. History2007 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there are other encyclopedias around is not enough to assert that this is true or historical. Encyclopedias for most do not work on an arbitrary consensus basis, they work on sources, and so does wikipedia.--99.192.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Josephus and other historians record the fact that a Jesus was crucified so that part is fact. Whether this was the historical Jesus may be in doubt and whether this is the divine Jesus is up to each persons belief system. But yes, that a person named Jesus was crucified is a historical fact as witnessed by several historians and scholars. Padillah (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the crucifixion is in doubt. What's in doubt is the resurrection. It's the latter that makes Christianity a religion and not just a philosophy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both Padillah and Baseball_Bugs bu in any case this discussion pertains to the page Historical Jesus not this page. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus death

The sentence "Jesus' crucifixion is described in all four gospels, attested to by other contemporary sources, and regarded as a historical event" is one that is directly from a pro-christian slant so it isn't very neutral. Some of the people cited as contemporary sources, are not true contemporaries. If you were born several decades after Jesus's death then you are not a contemporary. To be a truly credible source you would need to be alive at the time of Jesus's death, and to witness the event yourself. At this time, there is not enough sources to confirm the existence of Jesus as historical fact. There may or may not have been a Christ.Mumblesjordan (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Same discussion in essence has taken place a few times in the past 2-3 years, please read archives. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not Jesus was the Christ is a debate better left out of an academic encyclopedia. Whether he claimed to be the Christ is self-evident. (He did.) However, whether there was a historical Jesus is a perfectly good encyclopedic topic (see Historicity of Jesus). Now, do your other point, when speaking of works of antiquity, one does not have to overlap in specific years in order to be considered "contemporary" (at least not by any credible historian's standards today), but nonetheless we have multiple eye-witnesses. The gospel accounts give us a Roman centurion, several women, a couple of non-apostolic disciples (or followers) in Joseph & Nicodemus, and at least one of the apostles specifically named. The textual evidence of the New Testament is staggering in relative age, in abundance, and in consistency. Ἀλήθεια 02:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you seriously using the gospel to validate eyewitness accounts??? That is absurd. The gospel also claims validity for the resurrection of Christ. Are we going to say the resurrection of Christ is historical fact too? How many non-biblical eyewitness accounts of the Crucifixion are there? There simply is not enough evidence to say it's historical fact. The sentence is clearly Christian biased and should be removed or changed. For the sake of making this a decent article, this must be fixedMumblesjordan (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumblesjordan (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Same discussion has taken place a few times in the past 2-3 years, both here and on Good Friday, please read archives. This discussion belongs on Historical Jesus, not here. History2007 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Version

I was reading the Japanese Version of the page, and was wondering what this Kanji means 磔刑.Moocowsrule (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

It means crucifixion （はりつけ）. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

lol I knew it means crucifixion I just wanted to know the Hiragana or Katakana. I'm horrible with Kanji...Moocowsrule (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule
another reading is takkei.--Timtak (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for text

Two sections in the article, (Temple V Torn and Earthquake) have been incomplete for months. I guess if they wee to be expanded, someone would have done it by now. They just make the article look incomplete, while teh rest of it is in pretty good shape now. I suggest taht either someone completes them in the next week or so, or I will just merge the two sections, tidy it up as one neat, and small section so we have a clean article. History2007 (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese legend

I think that entry on Jesus becoming a rice farmer just does not merit being in an encyclopedia. The documents have vanished according to the reference, and it seems like a hoax. In those days there were no flights from Jerusalem to Narita, and missionaries had a hard time getting there centuries later, etc. Unless there are good reasons to keep it, I will delete that in a few days. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I noticed that the same IP keeps adding that statement to other pages as well, and edits the page for the village that attracts tourists to that alleged site. Of course, we always have to assume good faith, but there is such a thing as spam to attract attention. So which is it in this case? He added it to Race of Jesus and was reverted there by some else as well. History2007 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Medical aspects of the crucifixion

Two editors have suggested that this section should be deleted. My view is that the section is poorly written, but that in the future someone else will add such a section. This section used to be larger, and I reduced it, but not having anything is an invitation to having a new section inserted and debated later. I personally do not like this section at all, but before it gets deleted please provide suggestions below. Let us wait 1 week i.e. until Jan 24 2009 for suggestions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress Report Today I decided to do it right and added several references from respectable medical sources such as Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, etc. with supporting material. There is clearly enough material that teh tags about lack of references and WP:OR etc. are no longer applicable, so I removed those. Comments will still be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant?

"Some of Barbet's theories are disputed by Zugibe. However, Zugibe's views do not directly agree with the views of the Catholic church. "

We have a difference of opinion between two experts, fair enough. But why 'however'? Why 'directly'? Do they agree 'indirectly'? What are the 'views of the Catholic church'? Dogma or scholarly exegesis? Why just the Catholic Church? Are we going to have the views of the Catholic Church on the other writers mentioned here? Are we going to have other dissenting views mentioned?

How is this accurate?

"A number of theories that attempt to explain the circumstances of the death of Jesus on the cross via medical knowledge of the 20th century have been proposed by a range of people, including physicians, historians and even mystics."

The section mentions some 20th century medical opinion - but it also undiscriminatingly mentions the views of a book written in 1847 and a book written by a woman with no specialist medical knowledge.

And who based her book on a vision no less. It seems strange to me that in a section about medical aspects there should be mention of a vision. --Timtak (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Truman Davis mentioned, since he seems to have nothing useful to add to the section?

--Rbreen (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think you are dealing with such a great level of detail about relevance that we can go on and on forever. I added 20th century because most theories are from 20th century, so Ok now I will add 19 and 20th century. Big deal! As for agreement or disagreement, it is a referenced statement, and it was interesting to me that Zagibe differs, so it might be interesting to others. And teh only ref I could find was about disagreement with the Catholic Church. If you want to spend the effort to do research and gather the views of the other Churches, be my guest. And it is interesting that there are a really wide range of people who write about these issues. Truman Davis is a physician who wrote on the topic. It is all referenced and these have made a much better section than what existed before. History2007 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

Someone commented that some images should move to a gallery. I think that is a good idea, and may eventually lead to a section called The Crucifixion in art, just as here is a section called Annunciation in art with a gallery there. I will start the gallery here in a day or two, then think of the section later. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted Sanders

The section on the darkness sounds like someone tried very hard to make the darkness sound real. They even pull in a non-Christian, Diogenes. Unfortunately, the Diogenes quote itself comes from an old, Christian source, which in turn does not document its claim that Diogenes said this. Here's what I found onlin related to the quote: "Cited in Oswald Sanders, The Incomparable Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 203. Documentation not provided."

In fact, the whole section uses nothing but primary sources and amounts to original research. Leadwind (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Page diagnosis: OCD

I think clinically speaking, this page is starting to suffer from a case of obsessive-compulsive disorder relating to references - because every sentence is getting challenged, often far beyond the limits imposed on most other Wikipedia pages. There is need for a remedy before the OCD gets more serious and every verb on the page is challenged to provide a reference.

The 2nd paragraph in the article has 7 short sentences and as many references. By the time the date of Crucifixion has been discussed there are 60 references: and yet there is still a flag on the page that there are not enough references! Hello! What is happening here?

My guess is that the unending challenges to references here are in fact a subconscious pressure to make this page become like Historical Jesus by challenging the very statements that Jesus existed and was crucified. The page Historical Jesus is already there for addressing that type of debate, and there is no need for duplicating those issues here. They just make this page less readable.

And from a Wikipedia point of view, this type of beyond the limit challenge to statements that are widely stated in other encyclopedias, such as Brittanica, etc. amounts to assuming the lack of good faith on the part of the editors who wrote this page and is contrary to the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. Wikipedia pages that discuss widely stated topics such as the Crucifixion (on which books can be found in the libraries of almost every university) need to be subject to the general level of reference requirements imposed on other topics, else they can be viewed as selective persecution if almost every sentence is required to have a separate reference.

I am therefore removing the references needed flag from the section that provides the overall account of the Crucifixion for tat account is discussed in several of the books listed on the page. And over time, I think the references at the beginning of the article need to get consolidated to start the process of healing the page from the current reference OCD that ails it. History2007 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there is a need to provide page numbers where a book is being cited, since otherwise it is impossible to verify the citation. 'Trust, but verify'. --Rbreen (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there has been at times an unreasonable burden placed upon editors of this page. I also think the references could be cleaned up a bit if there was a simpler way to cite a specific Bible book & chapter once, and then use the reference multiple times with different verses. That way, Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 would each show up just once in the reference list rather than a dozen or more times each. HokieRNB 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish festival of Passover

I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, but I came across the line "Jesus' redemptive suffering and death by crucifixion are referred to as the Passion, derived from the Greek word for Passover, the Jewish festival associated with Jesus' execution." I've deleted everything after "the Passion." Where did someone get the idea that Passover is a festival associated with Jesus' execution? Not only is that glaringly false, it makes it sound like us Jews annually celebrate the killing of Jesus. ~ 71.174.183.40

I have taken the liberty of "signing" the previous paragraph for the IP user, and moving it to the bottom of the page; no offense intended, 71.174..., but the bottom is the usual place for new additions, so we can be sure your concern isn't missed.
As to the concern itself, mmmyes, i do see what you mean. While the sentence was correct, the implication that could be drawn from it was not. Your deletion, however, has resulted in a loss of information which probably is needed; i'll have a quick shot at correcting and replacing it in a moment.
Finally, thank you very much both for editing the page and adding to this talk page; may i urge you to continue to do so ~ with an account, even (read this page to find out why ~ as it is the actions of concerned amateurs like you (and me) that make Wikipedia what it is, and are making it what it can be. Cheers, LindsayHi 07:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New old artwork

I recent uploaded File:The_Crucifixion_by_English_School.jpg from the Berger Collection, a depiction of the crucifixion dating back to 1395. Feel free to use if relevant and useful. Dcoetzee 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion as myth

Please refer to the discussion taking place at the Good Friday article. HokieRNB 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse

A statement about a lunar eclipse reconstruction was added by User:Hmschallenger and was reverted (perhaps rightly so at that time) because the way he added the reference made the date clear based on a Google search but not the eclipse. I left a message for him and he provided the link. I read the article and it does support the eclipse statement. And authors are not amatures but Oxford scientists. I have added his information back, since it referenced and is written by solid scientists. History2007 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of Capital L

After a long discussion on Good Friday user Capital L went away, with the word myth being removed from that page. A similar edit was made here today by that user. Please see the discussion on Good Friday before you revert him, because that discussion has set a clear precedence for its removal. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to call Noah's Ark a myth. Calling the Crucifixion a myth is deliberate POV-pushing. And I doubt he would have the guts to call Islam a myth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to advocate for any given side but the vehemence of your denunciation strikes an ill chord with me Bugs. Why is the crucifixion so much more believable than Noah's Ark? What makes it so much more inherently non-mythical than any other story? While I see no need to alienate a large portion of the literate world, I also feel it necessary to cite the fact that there are other religions to take into account as well. To insist that something that is unproven be called unproven is not that earth-shaking. As History2007 pointed out a precedent has been set to use "story" in lead sections leaving a narratives "state of being" to be discussed at length in the article body. Let's take that and try to propagate it to other articles. Padillah (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that L has taken a specifically anti-Judeo-Christian stance in this "myth" stuff, so it looks like a POV-push. He's hiding behind one technical definition of the word, knowing full well that to the average reader, "myth" = "not true". He wouldn't dare try that against Islam. Guess what: I can make the same argument he can, to the right audience. However, to try to call Christianity a myth (which is what he's doing by calling the traditional Easter-related events a myth) does nothing but further erode the already-shaky credibility of wikipedia. That's my main issue with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The crucifixion is also much more recent than Noah's Ark. There is evidence for the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion outside the gospels. And the Jewish organizational structure of that era, and the Roman world and its use of crucifixion, are presumably well-documented, so the trappings of the gospels are there. Not so for Noah's Ark, which is an ancient folk tale in a number of civilizations (which might actually suggest that it has a kernel of truth, but that's another issue). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I recall watching a History Channel program about Easter awhile back. They pointed out that there were plenty of guys calling themselves the Messiah, and many of them were put to death. The crucifixion of Jesus was simply one more case of a "false" Messiah being disposed of. It's the Resurrection of Jesus that enters the realm of religion and faith. And apparently Jesus is the only one of those various Messiahs that was allegedly resurrected - or at least the only one whose followers succeeded in creating a large religious following. That, and the ascension to heaven, technically fall into the "mythology" category by L's definition, but that also says "F-you" to any Christian reader. I'd be more impressed if he would do likewise with the similarly alleged ascension to heaven by Mohammed. If he's going to label Judaism and Christianity a myth, he has to also label Islam a myth, because Islam assumes the truth of many of the stories from Judaism and Christianity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well first-off, as CapitalElll pointed out, concepts can't be "myths". Second, it must be kept in mind that there is, by definition, no proof that many of these stories are historically true. Heck the bible contradicts itself several times in the Birth story alone, but that's beside the point. There needs to be a separation of the stories from the precepts of the religion. I don't remember who said it but I remember the quote: For a believer, no proof is necessary, for a non-believer, no proof is sufficient. We have compromised on "Story" in the lead and, in as much as CapitalElll abides by that we're fine. If CapitalElll would like to shore up his position he'd do well to educate himself on what is and is not historical fact ( or at least questionable fact) as well as at least a passing introduction to other religions. But we can't do much about that. Attacking his lack of knowledge is ad hominem and fruitless. Padillah (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As noted below, the best we can do is to revert the "myth" stuff as being a violation of consensus. Meanwhile, weren't there various personal attacks on Jesus? Hence the expression, Ecce Ad Hominem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to call Noah's Ark a myth. Calling the Crucifixion a myth is deliberate POV-pushing. And I doubt he would have the guts to call Islam a myth. Islam is a religion, not a story. How can I call a religion a myth? If I knew anything about Islamic mythology, I would make edits on Islamic pages, but I don't. Anyway to get back on topic, it should be made clear that there is no evidence to support that the event is a historical event. CapitalElll (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cop-out, as I expected. To call the crucifixion a lie is to call Christianity a lie, and by extension, Islam as well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Please take this discussion up with the 4 gospels (among the most well-attested works of antiquity known to man), Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny the younger, Mara bar Sarapion, and the Babylonian Talmud. You can't just inset the word myth to summarily dismiss the overwhelming majority of scholarship that exists. You may doubt the spiritual significance of why it happened, you can even argue about the details of how it happened and the chronology of when it happened , but it remains an accepted historical fact that it happened. HokieRNB 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As noted by Hokie above, the historicity of Jesus crucifixion should not be in doubt. Religious implications aside his birth, existence and death are moderately well established. Padillah (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping we would have avoided all this until the first quarter of 2010 when a new re-incarnation of Capital would have shown up. However, we have had these same discussions on the Good Friday page and Capital conceded the point therein. I feel comfortable reverting him based on that precedent. Let us rely on that debate as a precedent please and not reinvent a discussion that is as cyclic as a wheel. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is that L made this change [1] to "clearify" the situation by labeling the crucifixion a myth, i.e. a fairy tale. Crucifixion in general, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are not seriously challenged. The Resurrection is a different matter. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. The crucifixion itself is historically unremarkable and to call it a "myth" is inappropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes. But let us not allow him to get us to spend undue energy. Let us just be swift and decisive against his edits. We have precedence. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. So it has been written. So it shall be done. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I beg your pardon. Having made the assumption that the sources actually dealt with the crucifixion, I wrongfully invoked the name of Pliny the Younger as having attested to its historicity. In the passage cited, there is no mention of the crucifixion. (See here) This discovery does not in any way alter the thrust of my argument. In fact, I plan to remove these attestations from the lead paragraph and put only ones that have been properly referenced into the section on "Other accounts". HokieRNB 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, I like Hokie's rework of that section. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover or the day of Preparation for the Passover?

In Synoptic Gospels, they indicated that Jesus and his apostles had the Last Supper on the day of Passover, since on the previous day the apostles asked Jesus where to prepare for the Passover and Jesus told them to go into the city and all was prepared. (Matthew 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16 and Luke 22:7-13)(Jews count days from sunset to sunset, not sunrise to sunrise)

But in John 19:14, Pilate said the date of crucifixion was on the day of Preparation for the Passover, which means the Last Supper in John was just a normal dinner at all.

This question is important as it is related to whether Jesus was the lamb sacrifice as Paul had claimed (1 Corinthians 5:7), since Jesus can only be the lamb if he was crucified on the Preparation for the Passover, when is the time when the lambs are killed. The exact time of Jesus's cruxifixion relates to the teleological explanation of Jesus's death.

The reason why I write this is because the alternative explanations offered in this entry for this contradiction sounds rather unconvincing. I have checked the reference but found nothing specific to the problem (except for the Daily Life In The Time Of Jesus article in which the author admitted Jesus and his group counting one day starting from dawn in constrast to all other Jews was rather weak argument).

So may I remove all those so-called alternative explanations from this entry if no one argues against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijriims (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be something that explains, or tries to explain, the apparent contradiction between John and the other 3 gospels. Otherwise, you're left with (gasp!) an unexplained inconsistency in the Bible. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If the explanations are included currently with a source, I see no reason to remove them. It matters not whether you are convinced by them. HokieRNB 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason for removal is that the source is irrelevant or I should say in contradiction with the material presented in the article. For example, in p.475,in the article "Does the Day Begin in the Evening or Morning? Some Biblical Observations" - H. R. Stroes, the author clearly denied that there is a break between pre-exilic and post-exilic reckoning of the day. For the source "The Daily Life In The Time Of Jesus", it is not published by a credible publisher and the argument that there is a division in reckoning a day is not presented with source at all. In other words, it was a mere speculation.
An better alternative explanation, in my opinion, is that John was written at a much later time (about 90AD-130AD) than the other Synoptic Gospels (around 70AD-80AD) and the authors re-wrote the date of cruxification in order to justify that Jesus was the Passover lamb to be sacrificed for humanity. It is not my opinion but rather arguments presented in "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible"(2009) by Bart D. Ehrman. I don't know this alternative argument is good or not, but the author said it is widely accepted by biblical scholars.
A final remark is that not all information with a source is acceptable, it has to be verifiable, neutral point of view and contains no original research. The coverage should be mostly generally accepted facts or arguments in the academic field, not some feasible but few-supported minor arguments. See section undue weight under article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Ijriims (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hokie that there is no need for a removal. Your statement that "a better alternative explanation, in my opinion, is ... " seems to carry through the reasoning above. I am sorry, but I see no reason for removal. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I see no reason why you saw no reason for removal... That argument is not quoted from relevant sources, not a major alternative argument from the scholaristic field. Even though it can explain the contradiction, we should choose the one having the highest possibility. Anyway, I shall read your response before I take any action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijriims (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why people are advocating for removal of this information. It is currently expressed in a very neutral way, without giving it undue weight, and has credible sources. We are not limited to expressing only the argument with the highest possibility, but instead we are free to present the alternative arguments and allow readers to weigh them and make their own judgments. If there are other stronger arguments, by all means they should be added with reliable sources. HokieRNB 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just 1 person who is suggesting it. And 3 against. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I will add an additional explanation in this case, rather than removing the original one. But I do insist that the sources are not relevant, even though some of them are credible. BTW, Wiki is not about voting, one can override another's argument in quality, not in quantity.Ijriims (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope, consensus can win. History2007 (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sayings on the cross

The section on sayings on the cross includes text repeated from the Main therein. Given that the article is already long, adding additional text that is already in the Main is not justified. The article is about Crucifixion and Sayinngs have their own article. History2007 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the text you want to remove happens to give a balancing perspective from New Testament scholarship; Dunn is as one of today's foremost biblical scholars; Vermes has been described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his generation. Without this, the reader is being presented with a picture entirely based on apologetics. The only citations given are direct from Biblical sources and from two medical / religious publications, neither of which specifically support the point being made. While I am always willing to assume good faith, it gives the appearance that you wish to suppress a viewpoint you do not like. --Rbreen (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Buddy, we have played ping pong together for many months on various topics. I assume you remember the Crucifixion eclipse tournament.... Are you not tired of this? The words balance and bias have always been used in these debates in seemingly objective, yet really subjective modes. Let us see what other editors have to say, for as you know you and I are not likely to agree even on the time of day. Please stop all edits on this page (I will do the same) for 1 day for others to respond. History2007 (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Granted, but please note that simply asking HokieRNB will not be sufficient - the tone of your comment there suggests Canvassing. If you genuinely want other opinions, can I suggest you post a note asking for a third opinion. --Rbreen (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
We will wait and see. Will probably avoid the usual waste of time in these History/Breen ping pong games. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it seems pointless and redundant to duplicate an entire paragraph from another article. However, I also see the value in summarizing this critique, perhaps using just the first line: "The fact that the statements differ so much between the four canonical Gospels has caused many scholars to doubt that any are genuine because they lack multiple attestation." I also agree that any one section which has its own main article should be pared down to a minimum and let the individual articles bear the weight of the material. HokieRNB 12:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let us wait another day to see what others say, then we will act accordingly. History2007 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
New twist: As I was researching this, I found some relevant books on the topic of the "Last words of Christ" so I added them, and quoted them, both in this article and in the Main article. It seems that every time Mr Breen does an edit, I learn something new about Christian teachings and that helps both further my Christian education and improve the article. Thank you Mr Breen! But now this section got really long and needs to be summarized in just two sentences and the material just left in the Main. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre Crucifixion

Since the death of Jesus people can go to heaven after death. However, on this page i can not find what happened when a person had lead a 'good' life and died before the Crucifixion. Could someone make this clear please? Testrider (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not in the scope of this article, but a question of theology. In any case, I do not know the answer, so answers from theologists will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bible makes it clear that "leading a 'good' life" will not make someone righteous in God's eyes. In fact, Isaiah states that all of man's so-called righteous deeds are filthy rags in God's sight. In numerous places it is reiterated that the only path to a right standing before God is through faith. Before the crucifixion, that faith was in the promise that God would send a savior, and after the crucifixion, that faith was in the finished work of Jesus. The object of the faith has always been the same - the sacrificial death of God's son on the cross. I hope this helps. HokieRNB 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Friday is approaching

A prediction that I hope will not come true. About 10 days before Easter some debate or sudden edits with agitating consequences may flare up either on this page or Good Friday. It may be advisable for these two pages to be semiprotected for 20 days around Good Friday just to minimize that issue. History2007 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Friday Edit Example

It was precisely because it is Good Friday I stopped in and considered the possibility of making an edit. The article states that the crucifixion occurred on Friday. This is certainly tradition. It is also the majority view. Not because of scholarly consideration but rather most people simply believe it was Friday because that is what they were told. In my experience, discussions about the day of crucifixion easily degenerate because the issue is more complex than expected.

Confusion about when a day starts and confusion about what day is the sabbath results in making it difficult to overcome the credibility of mere tradition. Although every Saturday was a Sabbath, not every Sabbath was a Saturday. All holy days were also Sabbaths even when they did not fall on a Saturday. Passover did not always fall on a Saturday. Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation, but not in preparation for Saturday Sabbath but rather for the Passover Sabbath. In what is called Holy Week there were two Sabbaths, Passover and Saturday. The day or Passover preparation was Wednesday and Jesus is crucified on Wednesday afternoon. Come evening the next day begins and Jesus is placed in the tomb on what we now call Wednesday evening but what was then called Thursday evening. Thursday was the Passover Sabbath, and Friday was another day of preparation for the Saturday Sabbath which is also the day soldiers were sent to guard the tomb. Saturday is again a Sabbath day. What we now consider Saturday evening was back then thought of as the start of Sunday also called the first day of the week, Jesus rises from the dead sometime that evening (to us Saturday, to them Sunday). The next morning the tomb is found to be empty. There does not exist any historical evidence to identify the day of crucifixion. All historical references are to a day regarded as the day. Regarding something and documenting something are not the same. The authority to bolster my view is a matter of simple math applied to the New Testament text while comfortably ignoring tradition.

This is the only scenario that allows for both Sabbaths to be observed without violation and that allows a Sunday resurrection with a total of 3 days and 3 nights in the grave. Bob Greaves (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. These are covered in the article with the following refs:
  1. Rusk, Roger. "The Day He Died".
  2. Langford, Jack. "Christ Our Passover".
  3. Coulter, FR (2006). A Harmony of the Gospels in Modern English - The Life of Jesus Christ. Hollister, CA: York. pp. 1256–258.
I would welcome more scholarly references which discuss this viewpoint. Ἀλήθεια 12:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Neutrality

There appear to be statements throughout the article that don't quite meet Wikipedia's Neutrality Standards specifically there are a few allusions that suggest Jesus' crucifixion to be undefined historical fact. Sources cited for these areas do not necessarily meet wikipedia's reliability standards as the author may be affected by some degree of bias.

"...allusions that suggest Jesus' crucifixion to be undefined historical fact" is not quite accurate. The article boldly asserts Jesus' crucifixion to be undefined historical fact, as it precisely is. Ἀλήθεια 06:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I wanted to explain myself for reverting those well-intentioned edits. First, I intentionally changed "Jesus Christ" to "Jesus of Nazareth" as a more neutral and disambiguous title. The "...of Nazareth" makes explicitly clear which historical person is the subject of the article (much like the article on Jesus). Second, the "and the son of God" was probably OK, but I'm not sure is as universal a Christian belief as "Messiah". And trust me, I use "Christian" to cast the widest net possible here, despite my own personal convictions to the contrary. Thirdly, I brought back the piped "executed on a cross" to define "crucifixion" without having to follow the link to the article on crucifixion. Here's my rationale: I imagine the lowest common denominator coming to this article with absolutely no knowledge of who Jesus is or what crucifixion is, and I want the first few sentences to be as straight-forward and accessible as possible. If you don't agree, I welcome further discussion (or even a reversion... I promise not to re-revert you back!) Ἀλήθεια 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen so many long debates about various leads in Wikipedia. After all the debate, everyone waits 4 months and a 3rd party comes out of nowhere and changes it to something else. So no big debate is needed. I did feel that it was less straightforwad with the Messiah alone etc. I will just make a partial change then leave it there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

the basic facts

The basic chronology of the crucifixion is not under debate. It has for a long, long time been accepted as historical fact, is attested to by multiple eye-witnesses, and their primary accounts have been discussed in quite literally thousands of reliable sources for centuries. If you find statements in the body of the article that you think require sourcing (beyond a gospel reference) I would be happy to find those for you. But let's not fall into the trap of requiring every statement in the lead to be linked to a source. Ἀλήθεια 02:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this issue of "was Jesus really crucified" has been addressed before, both here and on the page for Good Friday with several participants. I actually expect this type of debate on these pages once a year or every 18 months or so. The debates addressed the fact that WP:XYZ says this and WP:ABC says that therefore.... In the end the current tone for the leads on this page and Good Friday settled down, because the question of the very existence of Jesus and his crucifixion has been separated out in a series of articles on Historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, etc. and these two articles on Crucifixion and Good Friday do not need to repeat those issues. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as it's "according to Mark" or "according to Paul," this information can be drawn from primary sources. We just need to distinguish between historical facts, such as that Jesus was flogged and executed by the Romans, and Christian tradition, such as that his body was taken care of by Joseph of Arimathea. Leadwind (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

lead needs more

The lead reads as if this article were "Crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible." It fails to address other aspects of Jesus' crucifixion: what it means in the gospels, what it has meant and still means in the Christian tradition, and what effect it had on Jesus' religious movement. There's practically no context, and this is a major event with plenty of context. Let's build out the lead, and the rest of the article. Leadwind (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a prototype here please? That would help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by a prototype? I don't have an example article to point to as a model or template. But the perfect article guidelines say to explore all aspects of a topic. Leadwind (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I meant could you just type here on the talk page the new proposed text. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Who was responsible for Christ's death?

There's no mention is this article about those responsable of Jesus' death!! So who killed Jesus? because I don't see anywhere written in this article which is about Christ's death. When you write about someone's death you have to say who was/were the perpetrator(s) There should be a paragraph in which are given all the versions.

Whether Jesus was put on a cross....

A thesis published in 2010 by Gunnar Samuelsson,[9] a Swedish theologian, "An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion", claims there is little evidence that Jesus was crucified on a cross shaped implement, and that the predominant account of the destiny of Jesus is not based on antique texts, but rather on the tradition of the Christian church and artistic illustrations.YPLeroux (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC) "Ecrasez l'infâme" YPLeroux (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

why did this man get the death penaulty?

it seems absurd that a man can recieve capital punishment from the authorities as explained in the opening paragraph and the article fail to mention for what crime(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It refers to Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus as trial. History2007 (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Assumed Truth?

This article begins by saying that the crucifixion happened. Do we have proof that it did?Thirtysilver (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The question of historicity has been dealt with many times on this very talk page, as well as Good Friday if you look through the talk archives. History2007 (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There's fairly broad consensus that a guy named Jesus (Yeshua) was executed. Beyond that, many elements are based on tradition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jesus Died on the Cross
  2. ^ Edwards, William D.; Gabel, Wesley J.; Hosmer, Floyd E; On the Physical Death of Jesus, 1986, JAMA March 21, Vol 255, No. 11, pp 1455–1463
  3. ^ John 19:30–31; Mark 16:1; Mark 16:6
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference CathEnc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crucifixion_of_Jesus/Archive_1&oldid=431818248"