Talk:Q51666

What is it? Why "historical person" is a human? --Fractaler (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly find one source about this "historical" person. All other sources are about religious character. --Infovarius (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of historians, Bible scholars, professors of classics, and so on, atheist Bible scholar Bart Ehrman included, is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist in reality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus born in April, 5 BCE has no consensus among scholars. It isn't a big outlier, but it has no consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed dates range from 7 BCE to 2 BCE, with 4 BCE being most probable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Colin Humphreys never was a historian and should not be cited to render the views of historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: Humphrey's paper is fringe, he is not an expert in the historical Jesus. He is at best a noob.

Claiming to know his precise day of death is pseudohistory. E.g. the New Testment gospels cannot agree if Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover meal, or the day after the Passover meal. So yeah, nobody knows if he was crucified on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Source: Ehrman, Bart (2010). "2. A World of Contradictions. An Opening Illustration: the Death of Jesus, in Mark and John". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. p. 28. ISBN 9780061173943. Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon), when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have removed several sources because those sources are, frankly, bunk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Q51666 User:Infovarius has restored sourcing based upon bunk sources. Please advise me how to proceed. I have initiated a discussion at the talk page. Infovarius has refused to reply at the talk page. They have also refused to reply at their own talk page.

They have argued sorry, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society is GOOD source. Astronomers are not historians, not archaeologists, not Bible scholars, not experts in the historical Jesus.

Add astronomy to w:biblical literalism (i.e. fundamentalist reading of the Bible) and we get woolly * woolly = fluffy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu There is a source, therefore I see no reason to delete this information. Hence, it would probably be best to restore it. The statement should, however, be set to deprecated rank per Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank. --Emu (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomers are better at chronology than "Bible scholars" so I insist that this source is at least as good as others. No need to deprecate. --Infovarius (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)--Infovarius (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emu, Infovarius: If a naive reading of the Bible would make the grade, we would not need Bible scholars at all. What's next? Quoting the Journal of Applied Kinesiology that Jesus died of obesity? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Naive"... You have no monopoly on these texts, and no one has. Each specialist has a right to investigate their own aspect of Bible. --Infovarius (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu If we would trust only Bible scholars we end up with absurd dates like Q70899#P569 (how do you like them btw?). @Emu: why do you suppose the claim should be deprecated? --Infovarius (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius Because it seems to be a fringe theory at best, inconsistent with modern notions of history and therefore tantamount to “known to include errors” per Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank. --Emu (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emu, Infovarius: Adam born in 4004 BCE is not mainstream Bible scholarship. Mainstream Bible scholars and even mainstream theologians agree that Adam is unhistorical. If the question is if Humphreys is a specialist in the historical Jesus: no, he isn't. Scientists acting outside their tiny specialization field are generally noobs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm the other date with several sources, showing it is a mainstream. --Infovarius (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "paranoia" does not even occur in the source article from the Independent. Pmokeefe (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. --Infovarius (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]