This article is by no means neutral, and before there is any merge, there needs to be some serious cleaning up. --Steve Caruso 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a complete mess, more of an inaccurate brochure than anything else. I'm not sure where to even begin... --Oscillate 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wave-particle duality thing reminds me more of John Hagelin than Jesus Christ. That needs to go. What we really need to do is cite the Bible, explore the writings of various theolgians (Augustine, Aquinus, Jerome, Luther, Calvin--also the Eastern ones, sorry I'm not all that familiair with Eastern Christianity), and if necessary, explain how different denominations view the divinity of Jesus. A reference to the Chalcedonian Creed and hypostatic union would also be appropriate. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And detractors. This isn't the trinity, which, I imagine, is where most of the information will come from anyway. This article needs focus, or else is should be up for VfD. The opening sentence is one good reason for either a full re-write or deletion. --Oscillate 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it needs all Christian views on this issue. Re-write definitely. Deletion? I don't know, this is a pretty important piece of Christian theology (whether you agree with it or not). Why do most Christians believe that Jesus is divine? Why do some Christians not believe that Jesus is divine? This article should answer both questions. We need to be more systematic.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are three issues, form, substance and POV. As to form, this article is a complete mess, and I doubt it can be salvaged short of a complete rewrite. As to substance, it is possible that some part could enhance the divinity article, but I doubt it would deserve more than a footnote there. Yes, the divinity of a religion's central figure is a pretty important concept, but (with a nod to Mark and Luke), the Wiki pages covering this topic for Christianity are Legion. This article needs to go. As to POV, that's much touchier subject. Can you present objective facts about mythological or religious topics? Doing so when a faith is dead is hard (Mithras for instance). With an active one, you get True Believers or Heretics and nothing else. Regardless, even if we could write it clean, the result would (and should) be deleted as unsupported soap. One last comment on Archola's post: In my opinion, if an article "needs all Christian views" it is, by dint of the reference to adherents only, hopelessly POV before it starts. Kevin/Last1in 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, we're writing about Christian theology. It need not be any more POV than any of the other articles in Category:Christian theology. As long as we respect doctrinal differences, than it is in no way POV to say that Christians believe what Christians believe. Besides the majority Nicene-Chalcedonian position, we could include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who have different views of Jesus' divinity, and there are other groups who deny it altogether. Historically, we have the Arminians, Nestorians, and a bunch of others.

I definitely agree that the current form of the article is a mess, but as for substance, there is a lot of ground to cover. 2000 years' worth, in fact. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. As others have noticed, this article is really a train wreck. In my opinion, it should be removed entirely. Or, at the very least, merged with something else. However, since I am not quite willing (or probably able) to do that, I'll have to satisfy myself with editing it.

The introduction needs to be re-written. I have removed POV statements, but it still is lacking in form.

The Biblical references should be arranged by date of composition (roughly, of course), and those dates should be mentioned. If this article is to stay on its own, and not be deleted or merged, apocryphal references should be added.

I have consolidated the quotations and removed POV allusions (including OT quotes, which predate Jesus and therefore do not apply historically).

Good luck salvaging this worthless page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtstotalktoyou (talk • contribs)

I have redirected this page to Christology. This page seems to be a POV fork and should never have been created in the first place. With controversial religious topics like this one we have to be particularly clear about the need for good references. This article had none. u p p l a n d 07:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was one way to salvage it ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. --Oscillate 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite it some day when I'll have the time. One thing, the language of the Bible is totally clear with regard to Jesus' relationship to God the Father: among them Gospel of John 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubberbrein2 (talk • contribs)

^^^^That's proof right there that the original author is highly POV, not to mention separated from reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtstotalktoyou (talk • contribs)

Are you talking about John 5:30 where Jesus says he does nothing of his own will? Or John 5:31, 32 where Jesus says he does not bear witness of himself, but another does? Or are you referring to John 5:18, where the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself equal to God and he defends himself from that "accusation" (JB) by saying he 'can do nothing by himself, only what he sees the Father doing' in verse 19? I'd agree and say it's "totally clear" that Jesus is distinct from God/the Father, that he reflects God's qualities perfectly from his time spent with Him as His first creation, and that he has been given special authority as God's chosen one. The change to redirect this article was a good one. --Oscillate 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original author aside, there is one small problem with the redirect: as Last1in pointed out, it's limited to Christians. There are non-Christians who believe that Jesus is divine; for example, some Hindus believe that Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu or one of their other gods. This article could have discussed non-Christian views of Jesus' divinity, but Christology, by definition, does not. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF

Agreed. IMHO, we need to address the systemic Christian POV in articles about Christ. No, that's not a contradiction. Many non-Christians believe either that Christ existed as an historical figure or that Christ was "divine" within their own theology, and many more are interested in the question. Further, I would think a significant (if not the primary) audience for an encyclopaedic article about Christ is non-Christians; by definition, a Christian has some basic understanding of the central figure of his or her faith while non-believers are quite likely to come to Wiki for a non-biased discussion of this extraordinary individual. Kevin/Last1in 14:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the historical Jesus is already covered in that article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the redirect. Agreed we should cover non-Christian views of Jesus, but we can do that in another article and link it from Christology. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Religious perspectives on Jesus. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]