This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. 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.
So, basically as I said, my concern is whether this material is due (and sorry, Strecosaurus, for repeating myself from my talk page). You provided us with one undoubtedly good source, but a fairly old one. If that's all we have, that doesn't strike me as enough notice in the reliable sources to warrant mention in the article. If you have more, I would love to see them! Likewise, if others think I am being overly stick-in-the-muddish here, that's fine as well. I look forward to hearing others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The problem is the language barrier, I think, that's why there were almost no English-language references of this work - until an English version was finally released (just a couple of weeks ago). It is a very well-known work in Russophone areas, however.
Hmmm. This is also tough! Sources not being in English is not, strictly speaking, a bar to inclusion, but as you describe it, it does sound to me like a bit of a niche view. Again, if this were a lower-profile article, or one with a smaller body of scholarship and sources, it would be an easier sell for me. Still would describe myself as "hesitant." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll be much more categorical. That content is entirely unsuitable. It's a novel by a writer, and a fairly unknown as well. It's the exact same thing as starting to add contents from the Da Vinci Code, or indeed from any novel by any writer. Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The novel, however, is only the illustration of the (heavily referenced) scholarly essay's points, which is most of the work (80+ pages out of 140)? (See also the review in "Nature" and my comment above.) Strecosaurus (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Even so, the work is self-published and the writer is a non-specialist (he does not hold a PhD in a relevant field), and fails WP:RS - even though WP:DUE is the bigger obstacle. Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It was only self-published at first (and only due to political problems, as mentioned in the review), its publication history afterwards can be seen in the corresponding article. I'm not sure what to say pertaining to a PhD in New Testament studies besides quoting the review in "Nature": "After that Es'kov demonstrates what a specialist accustomed to analysing fragmentary and not very reliable data can do even in an area outside his normal domain. He does it brilliantly" Strecosaurus (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Strecosaurus, just so you may understand why other editors here vote against the inclusion of this content here, let me explain a little.
What information we include in our articles and not is determined by how prominent that information is in reliable sources, i.e., in how many sources that information is repeated, how reputable these sources are (wp:scholarship always carries more weight), how much text they devote to it, etc. Now you can imagine that on the topic of Jesus, there is an enormous amount of information out there. If we were to include everything that get mentioned once or twice in reliable sources out there (especially non-scholarly sources), the article would quickly obtain the length of a multiple-volume book! That's why we practice Wikipedia:Summary style, which in huge topics like this means being ultra-selective.
Points of view which are not prominent enough for inclusion are regarded as 'wp:undue' (i.e., mentioning them would put undue weight upon them). That's why Dumuzid asked for more sources. If you can show that this novel actually gets discussed in multiple sources, especially by scholars specializing in Jesus (this is more of a condition sine qua non), you may yet convince editors to include a sentence or two about it in the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)20:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a DUE problem. I don't think Nontrinitarianism is niche and an article like this should contain some mention that large numbers of Christians do not believe in the resurrection or other magic tricks. But, I'm not sure this is the right vehicle. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC).
As I've said, only ~60 pages out of ~140 are a novel, serving merely as an illustration, the rest is a reference-rich scholarly essay, and it was praised in "Nature" as such, as a scholarly polemic/rebuttal, not as a novel. There are no prominent Russophone New Testament scholars etc in the first place, there is no such tradition thanks to the Soviet past, so this is a tough one. Other than that, it is certainly well-known and referenced in Russian-speaking culture. (And, to repeat myself, it has regularly appeared in the lists of most interesting works not yet available in English, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/3rrvdi/comment/cwqusrf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 ) I'd say it would be genuinely unwise not to include it at all, but I'll leave deciding this to more experienced Wikipedians. Strecosaurus (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
There's three problems with it: (1) it's written by a "specialist in the palaeontology and zoogeography of spiders" (2) it's a speculation on what may have happened (3) WP:DUE: it's an isolated opinion. Per DUE "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This viewpoint seems to have virtually no prominence in the study of Jesus's life. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
(2) is not quite correct - the essay (not the novel) concludes that the nutshell explanation mentioned in the edit is implied by the evidence to the exclusion of alternatives (according to this work). (1) and (3) are correct, though. (But, evidently, the language barrier is to blame, I should add. It is more correct to say "This viewpoint seems to have virtually no prominence in the study of Jesus's life in the Anglosphere.") Strecosaurus (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a list, resource or other evidence we could review verifying that this work (or at least the ideas posited by this work) are referenced frequently by reliable scholars/sources in the field, even if it's mostly those in the Russian sphere? I believe that would be necessary to address concerns (1) and (3). If so, this likely does merit a brief inclusion, with expounding in Resurrection and/or Resurrection of Jesus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Jtrevor99. No. Just no. Are we really spending time seriously discussing whether the novel of an expert on spiders should be included in the article on Jesus. For the record, far more than 99% of all academic specialist works on Jesus are not included here. A rather unknown novel by a layman certainly doesn't make the cut. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Jeppiz If those who ARE notable, reliable experts in this field lend the idea serious weight, then it deserves our consideration, regardless of the idea's origin. I am highly skeptical, given this author's unrelated field, that he has garnered much attention from actual experts. That is why I requested verification. (Assuming it cannot be provided, that is also an easy way to end this discussion.) However, if a sufficient number of noteworthy field experts provide sufficient weight to it in the Russian-speaking world as appears to be claimed, then it may belong here. Even so, to be clear: I am suggesting the IDEA might deserve a brief mention - not this specific author. The author is not sufficiently notable in this field under any circumstance. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is all very reasonable, but there is one problem - there are simply no such Russophone experts to begin with, and thus these recommendations are the best that can be. There is no Russian Bart Ehrman or Russian William Lane Craig, at all. In fact, if somebody needs the corresponding reference, it is precisely Yeskov who is usually referenced (the language barrier works both ways) - here is a random example: https://en.top[]war.ru/192084-zenitnaja-raketa-stala-prichinoj-izrailskogo-udara-nanesennogo-po-sredstvam-pvo-sirii.html?ysclid=l6ci0ebs8h357957898 (it's a machine-translated Russian-language thread, ctrl+f "Kirill" to find the corresponding comment - but remove [] in the link name first). Strecosaurus (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Jtrevor99, a quick search at Google Scholar shows that the author is not well cited - and the few citations he has are for his research into spiders. Can we drop this now? This is by far the strongest discussion I've seen in a decade at Wikipedia, somehow discussing whether an obscure novel by a layman should be given much more weight than the research of most trained scholars in the field.Jeppiz (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Jeppiz I too have been unable to find anything in the past couple hours, Russian-originated or otherwise, that would convince me to include. It certainly has been a strange (and strong) discussion, but I'm satisfied there's been due diligence here. And, perhaps, an overreaction on my part in response to frequent and recent allegations on WP that I have a pro-Christian bias (despite trying my best to prove and nurture the opposite). Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, as I've explained, precisely those positive recommendations that are *possible*, exist. About the best I can offer at this point is user Jeppiz himself lavishly praising Yeskov as a genius, see below :) [That, and you can read this work yourself and see if it has merit, don't take anyone's word for it.]
Nevertheless, user Jeppiz is reverting my mention of this work [very natural, as it recently came out in English] in *every* article, not just this one, featured and all. That seems a little unfair, as if it's completely marginal trash and all the articles on related topics would benefit from the removal of its mention. Would you say that's justified? Strecosaurus (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a reference-rich scholarly work praised in "Nature", not an obscure novel, plus, again, the obscurity is solely due to the language barrier. In Russia it is by no means obscure. Strecosaurus (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW I have also asked a professional apologist at "Reasonable Faith" to give his opinion, and, quote, he called this "advanced atheistic arguments" and called Yeskov a "decent atheist apologist". Strecosaurus (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How can (2) be "not quite correct"? No one knows what happened at that time. There is no material evidence only, at best, the hearsay evidence of the gospels. It has to be, by definition, speculation. I think this is where the "specialism" in the "palaeontology of spiders" comes into play. Of all the people whose speculation on this should be given due weight, should we really be giving pride of place to an expert in prehistoric arachnids. Sorry, no. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Probably as valid as the sources for resurrection. Which is why we need more balance. Again, not sure this is the right vehicle. Might find more in the extensive article on nontrinitarianism. 22:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk)
The only sources to the alleged resurrection are in the New Testament. Everything else is analysis or interpretation of those sources - including spidey-man's theories. It's not necessary to put forward spidey-man's speculation to disbelieve in the resurrection. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
20 years ago I would have written a devil's advocate screed about Josephus here, but I am old and don't have the energy anymore. Probably better this way! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
A little problem is that user Jeppiz is reverting my mention of this work in *every* article, not just this one, featured and all. That seems a little unfair, as if it's completely marginal trash and all the articles on related topics would benefit from the removal of its mention. Strecosaurus (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
So, I will be happy to take a look at any other articles you like, but fair warning that I suspect I'll lean toward Jeppiz's view: and this is not at all because what we're talking about is marginal trash. There is a lot of good and valuable material that is nevertheless not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, where we aim in many ways to be kind of boring and obvious. Is there one in particular you would point me to, or should I just peruse your edits? Let me know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Then... shouldn't we delete the original article on this work? Surely if it's not a notable scholarly polemic to even be a single reference anywhere, then the more so it is not notable enough as such (and that's what it was praised for etc, anything else like its literary quality is even more marginal) to be a whole article? As you said, "There is a lot of good and valuable material that is nevertheless not appropriate for a Wikipedia article"? I mean, I would not oppose its deletion - the deletion of the article on it itself - as that would be actually meaningful and consistent, and to be honest I'm struggling to make sense of this otherwise (but again, I'm far less experienced as a Wikipedian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a big difference between having an article on a book and having something inserted about that book in every article dealing with a subject that is also present in the book. When it comes to the threshold for having an article, Wikipedia is incredibly –some would say, notoriously– inclusive. We have articles on just about anything. But by the same token, the fact that we have an article on a subject does not ipso facto make that subject more notable.
For core encyclopedic subjects like Jesus, the threshold is very high, and we tend to be very exclusive: it needs to be much, much more notable to be included here on this page which gets 13,228 views each day than merely to have its own entry which is visited by 27 people per day.
Nor is it only about page views: like I explained above, if we would include everything that is just as notable as The Gospel of Afranius, the article would become unreadably long. It's a matter of practical necessity. Perhaps one needs to be a more experienced Wikipedian to fully grasp that, but just take it from us then. Coming to an article with one pet peeve, while understandable from a human point of view, is almost always the wrong approach. Instead, one should read multiple sources (in this case, prominent scholarly books and papers) about a subject, and then report the core message repeatedly found in a significant proportion of these sources. If there are very few sources, it may often be due to include something only found in one or two sources. When there are hundreds upon hundreds of sources, the case for proportion is very different. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Apaugasma said it better than I could have, but I wanted to apologize for my inartful "not appropriate for a Wikipedia article" phrasing, Strecosaurus, because I can see why you took it the way you did. But as mentioned above, I certainly think the article is appropriate, it just may not be as used in other places. Being notable does not automatically make something a significant viewpoint, as said above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Strecosaurus, it seems like a very curious and unlikely coincidence that the user campaigning hard to include a novel about Jesus by a palaeontologist happens to have a user name straight out of palaeontology. As per WP:COI, if you are Kirill Eskov, or if you're closely linked to him, you should disclose that and, ideally, not edit material related to Eskov. (PS if you are Eskov or if you know him, please pass on my deep admiration for his work. While not WP:RS, some of his writings are genius)Jeppiz (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently Yeskov doesn't speak English (otherwise he wouldn't wait 27 years to see the English version of his most important work), so no, I'm not Yeskov :) Which writings do you mean, "The Last Ringbearer", his other major work? Strecosaurus (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Judaism’s Constructive, Informative Perspective of Jesus
To describe it as crystal clear as possible. The Judaism Perspective section of this article states, "Judaism rejects the idea of Jesus (or any future messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity", but this does NOT at all cover the fact that, "Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry,[1][2] and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.[3][note 1][4][5][6][7] This is a very short, important, on-topic addition to the article. To put it far more clearly, indeed crystal clear, the fact that "Judaism rejects (forbids is far more accurate) the idea of Jesus (or any future messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity", does not at all clearly affirm that "Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God." These are two totally different points. In other words, to put it as crystal clear as possible, Judaism "rejects", "forbids" (and "considers") many ideas, beliefs, actions, violations of commandments, capital crimes, sins, etc., in various ways, but most are not considered (and forbidden) as a form of idolatry. In this case on-topic, Judaism considers (and forbids) the worship of Jesus (the topic of this article) a form of idolatry. I hope you and other editors understand clearly the differences and points, and that this is not at all disruptive. Thank you and all other editors.108.30.240.77 (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
References
^Kaplan, Aryeh (1985). The real Messiah? a Jewish response to missionaries (New ed.). New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth. ISBN978-1879016118. The real Messiah (pdf)
The "Jewish Perspective" section already appears to cover this, by stating, among other things, "Judaism rejects the idea of Jesus (or any future messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity", with citations and links that expound more on the very points you describe. How would you propose changing this, keeping in mind that it needs to be kept relatively short and on-topic? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe this either the 3rd or 4th time this IP has made near-identical (word-for-word) posts in recent months. They've received that same response as above previously. I think this is now disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your response. This is not at all disruptive whatsoever, and I will explain it as clear as I can. What you quoted from the Judaism Perspective section does NOT at all cover the fact that, "Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus, the topic of this article) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God." This is very short and on-topic. To put it far more clearly, indeed crystal clear, the fact that "Judaism rejects (forbids is far more accurate) the idea of Jesus (or any future messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity", does not at all clearly affirm that "Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God." These are two totally different points. In other words, to put it as crystal clear as possible, Judaism "rejects", "forbids" (and "considers") many ideas, beliefs, actions, violations of commandments, capital crimes, sins, etc., in various ways, but most are not considered (and forbidden) as a form of idolatry. In this case on-topic, Judaism considers (and forbids) the worship of Jesus (the topic of this article) a form of idolatry. The additional, "considering Jesus a deity would be forbidden according to Judaism" is perhaps redundant and repetitive. I hope you and other editors understand clearly the differences and points, and that this is not at all disruptive. Thank you and all other editors.108.30.240.77 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Describing Jesus' birth date...
Hi, I'm a total newbie to the world of wiki edits, and not an expert whatsoever, but when I saw this page the other day it struck me as odd to describe Jesus as born in "4 BC" and not to mention that the notation "BC" (as well as AD) is in fact a reference to his birth ("Before Christ"). He is such an influential figure (regardless of anyone's religion), and the influence of (the myth/reality of) Jesus had a massive impact on world history, including on how we count our years! 2023 is technically 2023 since the birth of Jesus. (+/- a few years perhaps.) It seems weird not to mention that, yet to use the notations BC and AD in the article. 108.18.122.59 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, this is an understandable and evergreen complaint. It is one of the reasons I would personally prefer that we use BCE/CE dating, to "decouple" it from any purported historical event, but that view has not won the day to this point. We are, therefore, left with this slight bit of cognitive dissonance that we base our dates on the work of Dionysus Exiguus that we now believe to be a bit off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm totally with Dumuzid here. It makes absolutely no sense to use a mistaken birth date for Jesus to describe the birth date of Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Jesus was resurrected 40 days after his death and is still alive is a theological claim, i.e. a subjective belief, not a historical fact. We're not Sunday school. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023 (2)
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am interested in making a few additions to this page using the Book of Mormon as the source. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. Like the bible it testifies of his life, and his mission.
Kcm1234 (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
While agreed with the above editor, a small one or two sentence summary under Perspectives --> Christian entitled "Latter Day Saints", "Mormonism', etc., with reliable SECONDARY sources may be reasonable. That said, the article already links to the relevant pages and is (over)long so I'd have to see a well-written suggestion here before supporting any change. To be clear: such a sentence would need to summarize the denomination's perspective and not quote from Book of Mormon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to add the following sentence to the second to last paragraph in that section (Perspectives --> Christian).
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. Kcm1234 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, your question has been answered and you changing it back to "no" is disruptive. You may not like the answer, but an answer has been provided. And no, we are not inserting a link to the Mormon church, nor is there any reason to mention that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is a testament. That information is relevant to Mormonism, not to this article. Jeppiz (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, stop adding external links to the LDS church in your posts. As they serve no purpose for the discussion, it's hard to believe it's not to drive web traffic. Jeppiz (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
+1 to your proposed version. I think breaking it down this way is clearer. Maybe give it a little more time just in case anyone has qualms, but I tend to think this will win the day. Thanks and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I support the idea, though there is a problem. We cannot say The only detailed records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels, which feature in the New Testament since most gospels are not part of the Bible. The four most famous, and almost certainly the four earliest, are. There are many more gospels, though. Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I’d support Dumuzid’s edit. I’d also support it over other wordings such as “most ubiquitous”, “most examined”, or “earliest”. Good suggestion from OP here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
If we mean the Four Gospels, we should say so. I think as far as most specialists are concerned there is a vast difference in the likely authenticity of of the 4G and the various later ones, so I don't support Dumuzid's version. Johnbod (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I support the new wording, but perhaps a small change could solve Johnbod's issue above:
"some uncertainty" seems like an overly cautious way of putting it - the reality is surely a fairly extreme degree of uncertainty? I propose using "uncertainty" without any additional modifiers, rather than qualifying the 'uncertainty'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the thoughtful commentary--without meaning to steal Anywikiuser's thunder, perhaps something like: "The only extant detailed records of Jesus' life are contained in the Four Gospels of the New Testament. There is little evidence to corroborate the historicity of these accounts." Just a thought! Feel free to discard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
That had occurred to me, DeCausa, but I worry that "canonical gospels" might be a bit too jargon-y for the median reader? I am happy to go with consensus if I am just being overly cautious. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, is it correct to refer to the 4 Gospels in this way i.e. "only"? The non-canonical gospels do give details of Jesus' life. They, maybe, have less "historicity"/reliability, but they're there. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Some modifier might be added, but it would be more true to say that "they certainly are regarded as having much "less "historicity"/reliability", when they are not just repeating the 4G, which is much of the time. Can you point to any biographical detail found only in them that is widely accepted/taken seriously by specialists? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
No, but why is that relevant? The point of the passage appears to be to question the "historical reliability" of the Gospels, is it not? In that context, I don't see the relevance of saying we're only talking about the ones that "are taken seriously" when it can just as correctly say they are all in doubt. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
It is totally relevant when we are talking about "detailed records of Jesus' life", which the other gospels mostly don't have at all, or they copy the 4G, or they are pretty generally regarded as much later fan fiction, as with the Infancy Gospels. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, so in my original suggestion, "detailed" was doing a lot of the work. And I may well have been letting my own knowledge get the best of me--for, as Johnbod says, the non-canonical Gospels just generally aren't taken as seriously in historical terms (let alone genres like "sayings gospels"). I still favor my wording as leaning heavily on the canonical gospels (however we name them), but perhaps an addendum in another sentence that says, essentially, "nor have any accounts from non-canonical sources been verified." Again, thanks everyone, and rip me apart as I deserve. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with that but for the "yielding uncertainty" language which strikes me as a bit odd and clunky (no offense intended, of course). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
It's just copied from the existing proposal - I'm not attached. My only perspective is we don't need to get bogged down in cannonical v non-canonical. DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps change to “Biblical researchers have expressed some uncertainty…”? I think changing to active voice will remove the clunkiness. Alternatively, “Biblical research has generated questions…” Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I support the updated version provided by Ficaia, and agree with Iskandar323 we should say "uncertainty" without any quantifier. Jeppiz (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A revised version, taking on board the points raised:
I support Anywikiuser's version, noting that "academic research" is much better than "biblical research". I oppose Wdford's revision with the "alleged supernatural events", which makes things much messier. (The word "supernatural" is only used once in this article, and that isn't in reference to Jesus' miracles. It isn't at all the in the Historical reliability of the Gospels article, either. Basically it is a term that has fallen out of favor with everyone.) StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't like "in the Gospels, the best known of which feature in the New Testament of the Bible", as above. "best known" is a weaselly understatement. Johnbod (talk)
'Best known' is apt; no need to overemphasize the religious fixation on just four. From a historicity perspective, a full accounting of all the gospels is required, and the other gospels provide a veritable wealth and great diversity of information. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"Canonical gospels" should be included somewhere in the sentence, as previously proposed by DeCausa. There is an entire subsection titled and dedicated to the "canonical gospels" so they should be mentioned in the lede. Why not this revised version: The only detailed accounts of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels, among them the canonical gospels which feature in the New Testament of the Bible. SanctumRosarium (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree: "best known" is weaselly. The fact is, by any standards of notability the canonical gospels dwarf all the rest. How about "especially" the canonical gospels? StAnselm (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I still don't see what narrowing it to the 4 canonical Gospels adds. If you delete "four canonical Gospels, part of the New Testament of the Bible" from the above it's just as accurate and just as informative. Accounts of Jesus' life are contained in the non-canonical gospels. The fact that that they are either derivative of the cananonical gospels or less credible is neither here or there for the point being made. It's unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, the phrase "New Testament" is currently present in the sentence. It feels like something important to retain, since there is a section in the article called "Life and teachings in the New Testament". (Indeed, "Canonical gospels" is also a section.) StAnselm (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a general point in the lead, not in a section about the New Testament or the canonical Gospels. By definition, this is (in the lead) a broad statement for the general reader. Getting bogged down in which gospels are being referenced when the statement legitimately applies to all gospels really feels like unnecessary pedantry/verbiage that doesn't benefit the reader. Sorry. DeCausa (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I was just going to add that qualifying it as limited to the 4 gospels is misleading: one might think from that wording, if one weren't familiar with the topic, that the non-canonical gospels are not subject to the same level of historical doubt. DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. I see there is a lot of support for a change, but disagreement on whether to refer to the four Gospels or leave it more ambiguous. Where should we go from here? Anywikiuser (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents and it should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic and it should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If you don't mention the canonical gospels in the lede, you basically fail to cover the longest section (check section sizes), which is Jesus#Canonical_gospels. How could anyone argue that "canonical gospels" should not be mentioned in the lede? SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
In this section, there is mention of Jesus' brothers and unnamed sisters, but should there also be mention of Joachim and Anne, his maternal grandparents? And although he is mentioned multiple times in this article, there is no reference of John the Baptist's relationship to Jesus, being that he is a second cousin. I think that this section of the article could be expanded a little; there is limited information on Jesus' family, so I think that the information we have should be mentioned. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
So, my gut would be that the relationship to John the Baptist certainly deserves mention, but Joachim and Anne are going a bit further than we need (despite their later artistic importance!). I am curious though about a "second" cousin. I understand "cousin," but I am not sure how you arrive at that specificity. If you don't mind enlightening me, I would be grateful! Happy to hear others' opinions and whether I am simply wrong on either or both calls. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
As far as I’m aware, the Biblical account (Luke 1 especially) only states that Elizabeth and Mary were “relatives”. I think the idea that Elizabeth was Mary’s aunt, and thus John and Jesus were second cousins, comes either from Quranic tradition, or extrapolation based on Elizabeth’s significant age compared to Mary’s. But the Quran appears unclear on this point. Either way, I’m not sure we can say definitively that they were second cousins - only that they were related and nearly the same age. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Only to the extent that I would be more comfortable leaving the specific relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus undefined, since that has always been a bit unclear, so far as I know. Other than that, I support that inclusion but lean against Joachim and Anna (though will not be upset if they are included). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
"Jesus' maternal grandparents are named Saint Joachim and Saint Anne in the Bible and are first mentioned in the Gospel of James.[1] The Bible also records that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist.[2] Non-biblical contemporary sources consider Jesus and John the Baptist to be second cousins through the belief that Elizabeth was the daughter of Sobe, the sister of Saint Anne.[3][4][5]"
As I have said, I lean against those inclusions, but I am not dogged about it. Assuming you can find anyone else who agrees, I would consider that a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
My opinion matches Dumazid’s on this. I’m generally against including since it seems too speculatory but I don’t strongly oppose either. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright. I think I'll still add it, but is there any way that you think I can change it to gain your support/make it less speculatory, but keep the basic material? (Just asking because I don't want to make anyone too upset in my edits.) - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I would encourage you not to add it at this time, as you basically have two "soft no" votes. I am certainly okay with adding something about the idea that John and Jesus were related in an unspecified way, but I would wait on the rest until you have more of a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to ask anything you like! Joachim and Anne just feel a bit attenuated to me, both in their relationship as grandparents and their placement in tradition. The tradition is early, but certainly post-canonical gospels. Seems unnecessary to me, but as I say, I also understand the counterargument so if consensus goes against me, that's fine. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, alright. The reason I think that Joachim and Anne should be mentioned is because they are mentioned in the Bible as Jesus' maternal grandparents, which is pretty notable considering the lack of knowledge we hold on his family, but also because it offers an explanation (as I gave in the suggested prose above) to Jesus' relation to John the Baptist. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus never existed, this article must show him as a fictional mythological character, this encyclopedia will lose credibility if it doesn't, this isn't NPOV Jamesman666 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
See WP:NOTTRUTH. Wikipedia writes articles based on general consensus of reliable sources, not "the truth" per se. Proceed to demonstrate to us that a consensus exists amongst reliable sources that Jesus never existed, and this can be updated in the article.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Holding the position that Jesus didn't exist is currently very small minority amongst professional scholars and historians – Christian and non-Christian. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The reliable sources that indicate that are already cited in the article. You would do well to read them. Do not state your opinion as if it is fact. That opinion, which disagrees with a supermajority of secular sources including those cited herein, is irrelevant to this article. This article, like all of WP, relies on reliable sources to establish fact - and they disagree with you. You would also do well to browse the archives of this Talk page, where posts identical to this one have been made and refuted multiple times. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not in the article, it merely states it without any evidence. All the source are 7 guys who state that most scholars believe he existed without any evidence, just giving their own opinion. Show me the poll that every scholar of antiquity believes he existed. The existence of a historical figure should not rely on hearsay and the imagination of a handfull of people who lived 2000 years after they supposedly lived. Jamesman666 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a fact Jesus never existed, and you cannot prove the majority of secular source’s accept the existence of Jesus, no non-Christian contemporary sources support the existence of Jesus, he has no existence outside the Christian mythology, and this encyclopedia loses it's credibility attempting to appease believers of Christian mythology. Jamesman666 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this discussion should be closed. You state that Jesus never existed; where is your proof? Editors having to respond to these comments again and again is stagnant. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the lead for this article doesn't link to the Hebrew article in the second parentheses. Should {{lang-he}} be used, i.e. '''Jesus Christ''' ({{langx|he|יֵשׁוּעַ המשיח}}) to produce "Jesus Christ (Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ המשיח)"? SWinxy (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This section needs some modifications to provide a balanced coverage of each religion's views on Jesus.
Two sections are dedicated to the Druze faith and the Baháʼí faith, while the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, which have more followers and very distinct views on Jesus, are only briefly mentioned in the same sentence without any description of their perspective.
There is a misleading statement regarding the Baháʼí_Faith, claiming that "it is similar to the Christian concept of incarnation", whereas the source actually says that "Jesus incarnated Gods attributes", not the same thing. Another dubious statement is "Bahá'í thought accepts Jesus as the Son of God", whereas the source says that "Shoghi Effendi accepted his 'Sonship and Divinity'", not exactly the same thing. The first source says that "The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body".
Also, there is a section entirely dedicated to the comments made by an Isma'ili historian with only one source and no established notability, it should be deleted.
Section title "Perspectives" to be renamed "Religious perspectives" to better reflect the content.
Any other opinion on these proposed changes? Maybe by making one change at a time other editors will have the opportunity to react. Here is a schedule for the changes, from the least to the most contentious:
delete "Isma'ili faith" section
rename section "Religious perspectives"
summarize "Druze Faith" in three or four sentences
summarize "Baháʼí Faith" in three or four sentences
transfer "Druze Faith", "Baháʼí Faith" and "Manichaeism" to "Other"
Your edits make sense and seem like they would better balance the article. I am not sufficiently versed in Baha’i to understand “Son of God” vs “Sonship and Divinity” (Effendi comment), and that was the only piece I was unsure on. I trust your judgment there. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
There are misleading or doubtful statements in the article regarding how Jesus is viewed in the Druze faith.
The first sentence "In the Druze faith, Jesus is considered the Messiah and one of God's important prophets [452][35]". The first source doesn't says that Jesus is the messiah, the only statement regarding Jesus in the book is that he is part of the Seven Major Prophets. The other source says "It was the true Messiah, Hamza, who directed the deeds of the messiah Jesus, but when Jesus strayed from the path of the true Messiah, Hamza filled the hearts of the Jews with hatred for him". Which would mean that in Druze faith Jesus is considered a false messiah. Therefore it would be better not to use "messiah" when describing how Jesus is considered in the Druze faith as is can be confusing and misleading.
Another misleading statement is "the belief that Jesus delivered the true Gospel message", which could imply that the Druze faith accepts the Gospel message, whereas the source actually says that "he delivered what Druzes view as the true message." The source doesn't explain what is the true message and it doesn't refer to the Gospels.
Regarding the statement that "Druze believe that Hamza ibn Ali was a reincarnation of Jesus", the source says: "They further believe that Hamza ibn Ali was a reincarnation of many prophets, including Christ, Plato, Aristotle, and Adam". However, as the true Messiah/Christ in Druze faith is Hamza and not Jesus, the source probably refers to Hamza when it says "Christ", and not Jeus. It would be better not to include such a doubtful statement.
Therefore, it would be better to focus on the fact that Jesus is considered one of the Seven Major Prophets in the Druze faith, which is the only statement that all sources agree on. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Minor changes in the lead section
This is a discussion about the last paragraph of the lead section, summarizing non-Christian perspectives.
In the sentence "Jesus is also revered in Baha'i faith, Druze faith, Islam and Manichaeism", these four religions are not listed in any logical order. Here are two possible orders to improve it:
chronological order: "Jesus is also revered in Manichaeism, Islam, Druze faith and Baha'i faith."
current number of followers: "Jesus is also revered in Islam, Baha'i faith, Druze faith, and Manichaeism."
the sentence could begin with "Jesus is revered as a prophet" instead of "Jesus is also revered", it would provide more information about how Jesus is revered in these four religions.
Judaism should be mentioned first in the paragraph, as it is the case in the "Perspectives" section and because its views on Jesus precedes other non-Christian views. Move the last sentence to first: "Judaism rejects the belief...", then continue with "Jesus is revered...".
I neither support nor oppose the last changes you mention, but I think in the lead, they should be listed in alphabetical order. In my opinion, listing them by largest number of followers gives connotations that the article would be referring to the religions as if they were "better" by having larger numbers. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
That's right! The chronological order should still be an option though. The "Perspectives" section is presented in chronological order. SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm okay with chronological order, though for me it's not really an improvement, more of a lateral change. To make the order meaningful, we would have to explain it, which I think would be too much. All that is to say, chronological is fine. Happy Friday, all! Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not about better, it's about greater due weight in policy terms. More populous religions are almost invariably more discussed, and hence, more deserving of space. I would frankly question the presence of Manichaeism altogether, since it is wholly unclear if that religion still exists - outside of some murmurings about closeted followers in China. Aside from the weighting point, the Baha'i faith and Druze faith quite obviously both follow on from Islam and emerged in an Islamic setting, so they revere Jesus in the same way that they revere Muhammad, by virtue of them being built on the Abrahamic faith model of specifically Islam, so they should really come after - to that end, I suppose the chronological order achieves the same end - though again, as I mentioned, I would drop Manichaeism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Here is a revised version for the last paragraph in the lead, in a list format to make the comparison easier:
Current version
Jesus is also revered in the Baha'i faith, the Druze faith, Islam and Manichaeism.
In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement. Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.
In contrast, Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.
Revised version
Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.
Jesus is revered as a prophet in Islam, the Druze faith and the Baha'i faith.
In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement. Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.
This could be an improvement as compared with the current version because:
it makes sense to mention Judaism first, because Jesus was Jewish and presented himself like the messiah awaited by the Jews. It is a very significant information for the readers to know that Judaism rejects Jesus and such information must be emphasized.
there is a logic in listing other religious views chronologically and according to their historical significance, rather than alphabetically/randomly.
the fact that Jesus is revered in these religions as a prophet is a significant information for the readers and it doesn't add too much text. Writing that he is "revered" without further detail is too vague as one can be revered as a divine being.
manichaeism is no longer mentioned, as it is not a significant religion today.
I disagree, the religions where Jesus has a prominent role should be listed first. Jesus has no role in Judaism except at most as one of many failed messianic claimants. Erp (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Would like to also add his Jewish name as to which he was referred when he walked upon the Earth: Yeshua. This will give jewishness to "Jesus" as he was born a Jew, died a Jew, and ascended into have as the Jewish Messiah. Please allow his Jewish name to be reflected to give more truth and context to this amazing historical and spiritual figure. Mauriece212 (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You cannot use one source to say all scholars agree that Jesus existed. Plenty deny he existed. Written material on Jesus was created over a century after he was claimed to have lived. Various positions exist for and against Jesus being a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.232.104 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
To the IP editor, it would seem you are from Canada. Wikipedia is based in and has a preponderance of editors from the USA, a country where challenging the existence of Jesus is difficult, for a lot of reasons. I have a view based on experience that, were it based in a country with a lot more people willing to openly declare their atheism, Wikipedia's position would probably be different. Cultural background can lead to people coming to different conclusions from seeing the same evidence. I also know that even writing what I have just written may well trigger a barrage of precisely the sort of thing that happens a lot in the USA. Don't try to fight the battle too hard here. Different conclusions can be found elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think this is useful. I am an atheist. But, the preponderance of scholarship say he existed. So, I accept that. I also, personally, think he was a hell of a great guy -- and philosopher; albeit his basic philosophy can be found in many religions dating centuries before and after, Abrahamic and not. I don't think he was a god because there is no such reliable evidence. Look, it's easy. Just follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ignore your own beliefs. They don't matter here. What matters is what we find in reliable sources as we document human knowledge -- right or wrong. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The preponderance of scholars don't say he existed, that is a lie that has been repeated constantly. It's the bandwagon fallacy and is not evidence of anything Jamesman666 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
HiLo48, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NPA apply to you as much as to any other user. Your personal speculations on other users' motives violate both policies. Personally, I've never sat foot in the US. It just so happens that we go by reliable sources here, not personal opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's one of those attacks I predicted right there. I made no personal attacks. I made a couple of non-controversial observations, and advised the OP to not waste their time any further here. But someone felt the need to come on rather strong against what I wrote. I see a personal attack upon me. No doubt that other editor won't. This IS a fraught area. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
HiLo48, just another atheist here. There's a big difference between saying "some kind of Jesus figure existed" and "religious claims about Jesus are true." It's generally agreed that Paul's letters were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime, so for me, it's just Occam's razor to say there was probably some sort of antecedent there. But, more importantly, it is the general (but by no means unanimous) opinion of scholars on the subject that there was, at some point, a "Jesus guy." I would respectfully suggest that you're actually importing some fraughtness here unnecessarily. As Gråbergs Gråa Sång hinted, there are other articles more directly on point for that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote in my initial comment more carefully. At all times I was talking to the IP editor who began this thread. I spoke of the reality that groups of people in less Christian countries than the USA see the same evidence, and come to different conclusions. I made no claims that your comment there is a valid response to. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Atheist from Britain here. I'm not aware of what you are saying on the specific issue of the historicity of Jesus. As far as I can see the article reflects a global position of scholarship - nothing to do with the US. It's a red herring. (Btw, as an aside, my experience of editors from the US is that the majority are significantly more to the left and areligious than the usual perceptions of Americans.) "This is a fraught area". Not really. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Another atheists here, actually it is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars in the field, including non-Christian scholars, that Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. A resurrection is a different matter and even many scholars who happen to be Christian would say that is a matter of faith not history (note these scholars don't take the Bible as factually true in everything in contrast to fundamentalists). Erp (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Question about general policy
I figure that since Wikipedia has a general policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) , it has a general policy about biographies of religious figures--can I get an explanation of the general gist of that? Figured this was the best place to post this. 2601:44:180:98B0:640F:423:D946:5F84 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
It's a bit of a hard question to answer in the abstract! If you could be more specific, I'd be happy to try to help. There is MOS:RELIGION, and there have been proposals through the years for more substantive sorts of guidelines, but largely it is a matter of consensus on a case-by-case basis. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a whole policy per se, but there is WP:RNPOV. There are many kind of religious figures, some are mythical, some probably existed, some absolutely existed, some we have photos of. The goal is to summarize the WP:RS that exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The only other relevant policy material I can find is on notability, such as at WP:BIO. Obviously, Jesus and other founders of major religions would meet these requirements. Thus Wikipedia's policy for religious figures appears to match that for any other historical figure, regardless of beliefs on whether said figure is still alive. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't Jesus born in Bethlehem?
Why does the infobox not list Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace? Of the two books in the Bible that describe Jesus' birth, Luke and Matthew, they both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I know the Bible isn't exactly the ideal source, but wouldn't that be enough to put it as his birthplace? I am not a part of this article's editor-base so forgive me for my lack of knowledge. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
"I know the Bible isn't exactly the ideal source, but wouldn't that be enough to put it as his birthplace?" Hell no. The article on the Nativity of Jesus specifies that both contradictory nativity narratives are of doubtful historicity:
""Many modern scholars consider the birth narratives unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two different accounts which cannot be harmonised into a single coherent narrative."
" More generally, according to Karl Rahner the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or subsequent life of Jesus with the secular history of the age. As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narratives for historical information."
"According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin. Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have proposed a birth at Bethlehem of Galilee, a site located 7 mi (11 km) from Nazareth at which remains dating to the time of Herod the Great have been excavated."
I don't buy into Bethlehem of Galilee, but I think Oshri was right that Bethlehem of Judea was uninhabited. Since the part with Bethlehem of Judea is a falsifiable statement, while the part with Bethlehem of Galilee is pure hearsay. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: That is not true, archaeologists have found lots of pottery remains dated to the Herodian period (see [1], at 3:16), which indicates that there was settlement activity in Bethlehem of Judea during Jesus' lifetime. Potatín5 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see someone still reads his journals, which are often better than many of his novels. My copy was stolen by a house-guest, and is much missed.
The most probable reason for the dissonance in the Gospels as to his birthplace is that Jesus was of Nazareth, and the early Jewish-Christian community's messianic beliefs were contested by fellow-Jews, who cogently argued that the traditional criteria for a messianic birth require Davidic descent (hence the fabricated genealogies) and the Tanakh places David's birth or origins in or around Bethlehem. But what then, was a carpenter's family doing so far south? Oh, the census required their presence there (which historically places his birth in year 6 c.e., people forgot precise dates back then, just as young people do now. But since the historical figure was remembered as living around the end of Herod's reign, a story developed that Herod killed newborn candidates for the messiahship. This happily framed Jesus in the heroic mold of the myth that a national saviour always undergoes a lethal threat at birth (Oedipus, Cyrus, Moses), and also kickstarted the Egyptian motif, a reverse Exodus, to make the whole yarn resonate, as ancient stories do also elsewhere, with archetypal motifs of past legends of identity formation. Thus patched up over reelaboration in the various communities, it would ring more sonorously on the heartstrings of other, more diffidentJews who were otherwise less disposed to accept this novel variation on a core set of stories at the heart of Jewish identity.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Not really 'mine' (no idea is anybody's - there's always a hidden history to our opinions). But it sums up reading I did around 15-16 to give some scholarly veneer to pagan views my Catholic school found disturbing and corruptive of other classmates. It came to a head when, forced on a retreat and obliged to 'confess', by that point I had nothing to confess, but spent the 15 minutes asking the priest to explain why the Church had been so harsh with one of their own, Alfred Loisy, about whom I'd read in a worn copy of the Hibbert Journal picked up on a firesale of books in Warrandyte (I had to wag school to get them). Boy, did that upset the dear fellow. He got up and abruptly left the confessional, thank goodness. But what I wrote above, in so far as I can recall, possibly reflects reading commentaries on allusions to Jewish sceptical questioning of Jewish Christians in, for example, John's Gospel, and also Joel Carmichael's The Death of Jesus which I snapped up and devoured in a day when Penguin released its edition sometime in 1966. I'm sorry. I'm really short of time these days. I should though add that the answer to the query below is that the NT version’s construction was influenced by the words in Micah 5:2 stipulating prophetically a messiah born in Bethlehem (Judea). Since Matthew was written by 'Matthean' communities generations after the ostensible events and quite some distance from Palestine (anywhere from Damascus to Antioch and perhaps both), they probably had little knowledge of the Galilean Bethlehem proximate to Nazareth. Bruce Chilton in his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography , Crown Publishers 2002 ISBN978-0-385-50544-4 pp.7,9. notes that such a site (implying a long prehistory of use or settlement prior to Jesus’s time) is attested at Joshua 19:15, and that recent archaeology has ascertained that this Bethlehem has ruins datable to the Ist century CE. No doubt here he is drawing on Aviram Oshri’s original published results ( “Bet Lehem of Galilee,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 18 (1998). Reasonably, he goes for this Bethlehem as probably behind what diaspora Jews confused with its Judean sister.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Objective3000, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You are misunderstanding me. I do not want to cite that website in the article; my point was simply to refute @Tgeorgescu's claim that Bethlehem of Judea was uninhabited during Jesus' lifetime by pointing to an interview where one of the excavators at the site (Shimon Gibson) says that archaeology shows it was inhabited at that time. That was all. Potatín5 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that, as modern scholarship is uncertain on Jesus's birthplace, the article should not present a definitive view on where it was. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
See the footnote beside Joseph's name in the Infobox. We would need an independent, reliable source to change it. The Bible does not fit that definition. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
While Joseph isn't mentioned in the lead, he is in the infobox. I see no reason to alter the infobox: it identifies Joseph as the father, with the footnote that Christians see the Holy Spirit as the father and thus Joseph as "adoptive". Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not sure what is being asked in this edit request. The article already refers to Jesus as the son of God. Please re-post if there's a specific (and reliably sourced) amendment you'd like made. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The Miracle of Resurrection
Some scholars, notably Scholem Asch, have re-interpreted the life of Jesus and described the crucifixion as a painful and bloody mock event, in which the Jewish and Palestinian followers rescued Jesus, while the Roman and Temple authorities were duped into believing that the crucifixion happened. In this regard it is worthwhile to re read the book The Nazarene, by this author and re-interpret the Gospels.
If the crucifixion was a mock event, then it explains how Jesus appeared again to his followers and disciples. To avoid recapture Jesus and John may have emigrated to Patmos, with friends of Luke to look after them. Such a re-interpretation would indicate Jesus as co-author of the four Gospels and his brother James (in Jerusalem) being the Editor of the New Testament. The early life of Jesus, as described in the four Gospels would have been written by Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus. JohnEC Jr (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
As previously noted, and as outlined in the article on him, Asch was an essayist and novelist, not a reliable source or scholar in this area. Are there a number of RSs that lend credence to Asch’s theory? If not, this is likely WP:FRINGE and so does not belong in the article. Prevalent Jewish thought on Jesus also seems adequately covered in the article (in my opinion). Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It has been suspected that in exchange for religious freedom in ancient Israel, the Roman authorities took a commission from the offerings at the Temple. Considering the behavior of Roman Caesars before Constantin I, their cruelty and adamance has been researched adequately already. Since his family had already turned christian, Constantin I also turned christian, albeit on his deathbed.JohnEC Jr (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia's guideline on Talk pages, this page is about improving this article. If you have a concrete proposal for doing that, that would be welcome, like: "Remove this paragraph", "add this sentence", "change this to that", "add a section about weeds in Judea", whatever. Simply expounding in a general kind of way on stuff you know about or have read, doesn't help. Because of past disruption by people who come to Talk pages of Wikipedia articles on religion with their own motives that don't include improving Wikipedia, especially when they come to central topics of major religions like the "Jesus" article, there is frankly a fair bit of frustration among other editors, even suspicion, about why someone is here and what they are about. That's unfortunate, but it's also human—I'm sure you can see that. You can help allay that reaction, by making a very specific and concrete proposal for an addition, deletion, or change, and other editors will give you feedback. I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
There is more than one view of the miracle of resurrection, and this is under review elsewhere. When they are ready, they are welcome to make additions here, since Wikipedia is for everyone with a genuine interest. no reason for them to be left out or forgotten, medical doctors included.JohnEC Jr (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sheanobeano: It might surprise you, but Pope Benedictus XVI agrees with circa 4 BCE. There is no official dogma in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism that Jesus was born in 1 CE. While born in 1 CE might be a popular superstition, it is not what the Church teaches. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
"While born in 1 CE might be a popular superstition" Not a superstition, an estimate by Dionysius Exiguus (6th century). We don't know what he based his estimate on, but it did not take into account the chronology of Herod the Great's reign. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the reasoning is that when someone types christ into WP, the Jesus article is what they're after, in general. Therefore, the current redirect is mostly helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yeah, maybe, but despite both words refer to the same person, theologically and enciclopedically speaking they're not exactly the same concept. Btw the page Christ (title) has a link to Jesus right at the beginning of its lead, so the people looking for that page could still easily find it. In other words, redirecting it shouldn't generate any confusion, but – if necessary – we could also place a disambiguation note on top of the article. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 02:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Veery few readers are likely to want this rather advanced article, which gets c. 630 views a day, vs 11,300 here. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not the issue - rather, it's proof of the point made by Grabergs and Johnbod. The article has 119 redirects because it's popular and very frequently sought - not the other way around. Look at the stats for the redirects themselves for proof. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some scholars, notably Scholem Asch, have re-interpreted the life of Jesus and described the crucifixion as a painful and bloody mock event, in which the Jewish and Palestinian followers rescued Jesus, while the Roman and Temple authorities were duped into believing that the crucifixion happened. In this regard it is worthwhile to re-read the book The Nazarene, by this author and re-interpret the Gospels.
If the crucifixion was a mock event, then it explains how Jesus appeared again to his followers and disciples. To avoid recapture Jesus and John may have emigrated to Patmos, with friends of Luke to look after them. Such a re-interpretation would indicate Jesus as co-author of the four Gospels and his brother James (in Jerusalem) being the Editor of the New Testament. The early life of Jesus, as described in the four Gospels would have been written by Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus. JohnEC Jr (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The content and story may be more relevant than the author per se. Also, of course they knew how to rescue a Rabi or lame the Roman Legions.JohnEC Jr (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This topic was already discussed conclusively and archived in June/July. Were you hoping for a different answer by posting the exact same thing again? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The history has not changed. Neither has medicine nor resistance against the occupying Romans. The latter were lamed with sweetened wine and much more.JohnEC Jr (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Neither has the fact that, as was discussed previously by every editor who replied, that this is a fringe theory by a non-expert. It only belongs here if you find reliable sources. The answer has not, and will not, change on this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Anything related to "the miracle of the resurrection" is story-telling. All we can do as an encyclopedia is provide the opinions of the most prominent scholars as to related events at that time period. Sholem Asch does not appear to be among those scholars. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia, the source is always relevant. If this article was about the story of Jesus as told by a particular sect; that might be different. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
“The story is more relevant than the author.” By that maxim, we should include equally fringe theories by unreliable sources such as “Jesus was a space alien”. We are all trying to be patient, but your refusal to listen to the unanimous response from several editors that describes WP’s requirements for sourcing, especially on such an important article, and your bringing this up multiple times in the hope for a different answer, flirts with WP:POV pushing. For at least the sixth time, this only belongs if you can find reliable sources that cover this. Asch is, for reasons covered in the multiple prior responses by multiple editors, not a scholar or WP:RS in this field. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Is Scholem Asch not a source. Why not? Was there only one Rabi to be rescued from the Romans? There was a system in place! Scholem Asch knew but why does no one else seem to know or want to know?JohnEC Jr (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Which of you has read this book, or spoken with a qualified academic on this topic. Would you like to write to the Church in Jerusalem, instead of arguing here, and pretending to be learned scholars.JohnEC Jr (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
You have proven you are only interested in wasting the community’s time. There is no point in discussing this further. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Accusations on your talk page of "unprofessionalism and racism" by those whose comments you tried to strike here, along with refusal to listen to WP policy and more experienced editors' unanimous responses, along with repeatedly posting the same content, are significant enough that I am raising an admin incident regarding this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Read the book, and then talk. Without knowing, what exactly are you saying? Scholem Asch wrote more than thirty books. Which ones have you read.JohnEC Jr (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. He's a novelist and it's a work of fiction. It has no place here and you are wasting everyone's time. DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The official records with Pontious Pilate and the Temple have been lost over the centuries. The real story is retained through verbal and oral history, from generation to generation. May be the ancestors of Sholem Asch were also rescued this way from crucifixion. Many Rabis and sons were rescued from the Roman rascals, in a variety of ways, including sweet wine.JohnEC Jr (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What Jesus taught about money and wealth
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to edit this page in order to expound on what Jesus taught about money and wealth, as it was a large (although often overlooked) focal point of his teachings. The page even shows an image of Jesus speaking with the "rich young ruler", but it makes no mention of what Jesus said to this man regarding his need to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. Jesus taught this same thing to his disciples, the pharisees, and a large crowd of people following him. And in his sermon on the mount he talked extensively about money in relation to one's service to God, and God's ability to provide the things money normally buys (food and clothing). Brownt20 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see how my request to edit the article amounts to "personal opinion". I'm talking about simply inserting more of Jesus' teachings into the section labeled as "teachings". If the Bible is not a source of Jesus' teachings, then there are many other teachings in this article which should be considered invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownt20 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment re: The Bible is not a reliable source: In order to better explain this to new editors such as @Steven1107: it's probably best to define terms for them. When "we" (Wikipedians) say "reliable source", we mean that something is suitable for citing what is stated in an article. For anything that is interpretive in nature, a WP:SECONDARY source is necessary. In the instance tgeorgescu is refering to, the Bible is the WP:PRIMARY source and does not explicitly say what you're saying it says - it's an interpretation. If you intend to say anything other than "the mystery of God is fulfilled in the days of the trumpet call by the 7th angel", then you need a reliable secondary source. To say that "biblically" or "scripturally" this means "completion" is interpretive. Secondary sources must meet the qualification of WP:RS (although a minority viewpoint could potentially be included, but in such a case, it would have to be WP:ATTRIBUTION rather than simply stated as fact). To sum up, when writing about something the Bible says, unless what you are adding is explicitly stated in the text, then you must have a reliable secondary source to cite. If you don't understand why, then go back to what I stated above and read the linked policies until you do understand it.
That being said, some of what is in this edit is OK, because it's straight from the text and is verifiable without interpretation; but some of it is very clearly not. For example: "third trimester of her pregnancy" - the text does not say this explicitly. It would seem to be implied since she gives birth right away, but it's not stated. Some of the other things are OK because they are stated in the text. If you don't understand what's OK and what's not OK, ask. But don't simply re-apply your exact edits when reverted - that's edit warring and we take a dim view of that. We are a collaborative environment. If your edit was reverted, pay attention to the reason given, and discuss on the talk page if you're not sure. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Per Butlerblog above: the article Christian views on poverty and wealth may provide some secondary sources that would pass muster. The New Testament section of that article uses far too much primary sourcing, but several of the secondary sources appear reasonable. Alternatively, one could simply link to that article from this one. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There is also more detail on Jesus' teachings in the Ministry of Jesus article. This main article on Jesus is better suited for discussing scholarly attempts to summarise the key points and flavours of his teachings rather than individual tidbits. I'm not opposed to having more discussion of his teachings on this article, even though the article is rather long. But it needs to be reliably sourced from academic biblical scholars. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Surrendering one's life to Jesus
The article is missing the topic on surrendering one's life to Jesus, also called giving your life to Jesus (often in form of prayer, for example the so-called "Salvation Prayer" or "Sinner's Prayer"). And as an example see this message with the salvation prayer in 100+ languages: https://message-for-you.net/languages/77.8.49.228 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I do agree that the aforementioned website does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, but I would like to state for the record that I enjoy the image of a beagle carrying a letter with (presumably) a message about Jesus in its mouth. Connor Long (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2023
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The eyes in the picture of Jesus are different, the right one is comparable to a robotic eye.
[1]
Please ensure a better picture or allow me to do it.
Ekamb (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Thank You. Ekamb (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: That painting is the earliest known depiction of Jesus Christ as Pantocrator (literally ruler of all) that survives. It is regarded by historians and scholars to be one of the most important and recognizable works in the study of Byzantine art as well as Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christianity. (taken from Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)). I see no good reason to replace it. Tollens (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There are no descriptions of Jesus and cameras were in short supply at that time. A likely closer image is from a forensic anthropologist[1]. But, the current image is probably the best we can do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The current translations of "Jesus Christ" are listed in this article as follows: Coptic: Ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ Ⲡⲓⲭ́ρⲓⲥτⲟⲥ; Geʽez: መሲህ ኢየሱስ; Greek: Ιεσους Χριστος; Hebrew: ישוע המשיח; Latin: Iesus Christus; Slavonic: Исус Христос; Syriac: ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ. I have bolded the Greek translation to highlight it.
In regards to the Greek translation, It is normally written as "Ιησούς Χριστός" (not "Ιεσους Χριστος") and would be transcribed as "Iisoús Christós". "Ιεσους Χριστος" is not the typical translation (as far as I'm concerned). Not only does the way It is written mean that It is pronounced differently to what It is in modern Greek, but It lacks the stress/accents used in the Greek language, making it ungrammatical. For example, here is the corresponding article in Greek: Ιησούς Χριστός. I don't believe that is the way It was written in Koine Greek either, though I could be wrong. When putting It into this translator, for example, it shows this.
Fixed. Really the epsilon is just a typo, introduced with this edit. It was a rather bold move to introduce all those names, but I have no particular opinion of that. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
On this wiki page it said that Jesus died of crucifixion. Jesus was crucified on the cross and he came back to life . He never died of crucifixion.Malaquia100 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Every tenet of Christianity (and secular history) understands that he died on the cross. Find one reputable source that denies the crucifixion outright. (Because that appears to be what you are trying to do?) 73.82.6.199 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You are responding to a blocked editor. In any case, this article is about Jesus. There is another article about Jesus in Christianity. Scholars agree that Jesus lived; but they do not agree that the Bible is historically accurate. The majority of people in the World do not believe in his crucifixion. For example, The Quran says he was the Messiah, created miracles, and was virgin born. But, says he was saved by god and went to heaven, not crucified. Even within Christianity, most Unitarians do not believe in any aspects of the trinity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
He did die physically according to Christian teachings. And also, Christians believe his spirit continued to live after his death in Hades, and returned to his body on the Resurrection. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
According to official Catholic, Eastern Orthodox etc. dogma, he wasn't dead as to not exist, but, instead, went to Sheol to free the souls of the 'righteous' so that they could then go to Heaven. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we're getting a bit unduly christological here, but death as to at least part of his nature is pretty fundamental in Western Christianity. See, e.g., the Apostles' Creed (...who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried....) Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid That's just basic Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and basic christianity 101 tbh. It's called the Harrowing of Hell. Jesus can't die in the literal, atheist, human sense, as he's god and god can't die per definition, else he wouldn't be god. According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, he only appeared as to be dead but, as I said, went to another dimension (Sheol/Hades, both terms are used in the Bible as synonyms) and 'freed' the souls of the 'righeous' who were trapped there together with the 'unrighteous'. He didn't die, as to die literally means to stop existing, only his physical body died. There's no soul sleep in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. And his 'sacrifice' wasn't a sacrifice, as, according to christianity, his body was resurrected three days later and he became a king in 'Heaven'. The definition of sacrifice means giving something away for whatever reason, knowing that you will never again have it or, atleast, not soon. Not after three days. And getting a huge reward after that as a bonus. Everything is messed up in christianity, all the basic definitions of things, but that's another topic. Anyway, this isn't Reddit so, I won't further participite in this talk. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Since Jesus Christ was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and executed, can we include that he was a convicted criminal? I saw, for example, the entry on Jeffrey Archer says he was a convicted criminal. Same for others, in the interest of accuracy of what happens on this planet. So we should say the same for Jesus too, just to let people know the reality of what they speak of. Confuzd420 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
He was probably executed for sedition, so, yes, he counted as a criminal, whether such judgment was just or unjust. Claiming that he is the Messiah was a declaration of war against the Roman Empire. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
There is no doubt he was executed as a criminal, but we should avoid using modern terminology, especially if it is just to make a point. We also can only go where the sources go. Any discussion beyond that strays into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
No, we can't conclude it, but if you have some really good WP:RS that says so, it may be worth noting it somewhere on WP. It's possible it's a view scholars have found interesting and discussed for decades. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
According to Burial of Jesus: "Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death, a view which is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature."" Pilate cycle: "The Anaphora Pilati is largely an anti-Jewish work. The miracles of Jesus are plain and obvious to Pilate as more powerful than any the Roman gods provide, yet the Jews blindly reject Jesus and demand his punishment, despite being unable to convict him of a single crime. Pilate only allows the execution to proceed to prevent a rebellion." See also Pilate_cycle#Acts_of_Pilate_(pagan). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
One more accuracy
Can we include that Jesus was a suicide person (indirect suicide)? The idea is to possibly add a category: Category:Ancient suicides. This is a serious post. Justification:
Seems like Mental health of Jesus is the place for any WP:RS musings on that, and it seems to have some. In this article it probably fails WP:PROPORTION, and without any content in article, no category. See also WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.
Per your source (which seems quite decent), "There is a potential parallel of Jesus’ beliefs and behavior leading up to his death to that of one who premeditates a form of suicide-by-proxy.", that's not the same as "Jesus was a suicide person", is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion it's the same thing though. Anyway, it is enough to read the fragments of the Gospel that I have indicated. But I understand - WP:RSPSCRIPTURE - "Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research." I don't know of any other scientific sources that discuss this topic (I'm not saying they don't exist), and this source, as you can see, is debatable. Maybe in the future the topic of Jesus' possible pursuit of death will be clarified. And then we will add this category. Wikipek (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
You can try looking at archive.org and in the WP:LIBRARY. Obviously the notion exists and can be written about on WP, perhaps you can even make a keepable "Speculations on Jesus and suicide" or some such, but IMO getting consensus to include a mention on it in this article will be hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You have an error and it's so bland. We KNOW he was the Son of God, and the error is that he was arrested first by Jewish Soldiers, then turned over to Roman Authorities after the Last Supper. He was put before Herod, and then back to the Roman to Pontius Pilot, where he was scurged, his robe was hangled over, and then a crown of thorns was placed on his head. Pontius Pilot then gave the Jews a choice after "washing his hands", two were put before the people. The Jews insisted upon Jesus Christ to be cruxcified. Pontis Pilot didn't put Jesus Christ to death at the main venue, It's the Jews who more than once insited in Cruxifiction. Jesus Christ forgave them dying on the cross. 2600:6C5D:B7F:278D:B93B:7157:E988:52ED (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, we don’t “know” anything about details from 2,000 years ago, and certainly about the existence of gods. Much of it is apocryphal. What has been included is cited to a former professor of religion. You are welcome to discuss additional reliable sources WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
You know because Rome took accurate records. You know there is a continuity and it is always will be anno domini. B.C. and A.D.(Before Christ, and after Christ.) You know because if you are human you are breathing in and out, you exist because the Holy Bible tells you God made human beings. Someone didn't just pull you out of a hat. People can't make birds, bees,flowers, and trees. They can mess around, but they can't make them. God did that. BELIEVE... 2600:6C5D:B7F:278D:2DDA:5D6D:1E39:CEA1 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is core doctrine that Jesus is God incarnate
Tangential (near forum-like) thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So saying that “most Christians” believe that He’s the incarnation of God the Son implies that there’s a minority group that don’t, which simply isn’t true. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other denominations that deny the doctrine of the Trinity are, by definition, not Christian. MartianDeadman (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
You know by saying things like that you're going to make it much less likely you attract support for your proposed change to the article, right? AntiDionysius (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
What? If Christians are those that simply claim to be Christian, then why would socialists not be those that claim to be socialists, regardless of what they actually believe in? MartianDeadman (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to debate you (which also isn't to say it's a good argument; it isn't), I'm just telling you that Wikipedia works by consensus. Your object here is not to "win", it's to convince people to support your preferred course of action. When you make Nazi comparisons, you make that harder for yourself. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Because it is, so far, the best way we have figured out on this project to make an encyclopedia by anonymous people who involve themselves when and if they please. You will probably not be able to convince other Wikipedians that "because MartianDeadman said this is the definition" is a better way. There are other views, and perhaps even non-Christians have views on this? More at WP:CONSENSUS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
No, MartianDeadman is definitely right, Signed a random Wikipedian. I don't mean to argue MY specific version of Christianity should be cannon on this site, but the thing that is the core idea to the Bible should be. The entire point of the Bible is the coming of Christ as redemption for a sinful mankind (John 3:16, Matthew 17:5, Matthew 11:27, Luke 1:35, etc). if he isn't God's Son, part of the Triune, and wholly God and wholly Man, Christianity fundamentally doesn't work. Just because someone SAYS they're Christian is absolutely meaningless if they don't at least believe John 3:16 to be true:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
That's like- The whole point to being Christian. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I understand I'm not the only opinion, but to appeal to every single person would dilute the definition of Jesus down until he's just some guy. We can discuss every other controversial Christian doctrine a different time, and I'm personally content and agree it shouldn't be 'my way or the highway', but this is the one thing that makes Christianity, you know, CHRISTianity. 11Penguins (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Have you considered that you do, in fact, "argue MY specific version of Christianity"? You've set your own arbitrary definition of what is within and outside the definition of Christian. It may be a very mainstream point of view among Christians but it's still a subjective and arbitrary definition. You think it's indisputably logical and inevitable. But so do those who think of the definition of "Christian" much more restrictively, like the adherents to the Westboro Baptist Church or more expansively like non-Trinitarians such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. To those of us who think Jesus is "just some guy", your drawing that particular line in the sand makes no more sense than any other, in my opinion. You are trying to make an absolute when there isn't one. The only true absolute here is whether or not someone claims to be a Christian. That can be objectively tested. Everything else is belief, opinion, miasma .... DeCausa (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I agree it is just a matter of claiming to be a Christian, but it has already been pointed out that it is what sources say. In any case, anyone who thinks that Christianity has always been only Trinitarian really should be reading up on the Arian controversy for starters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Texas briefly denied the tax exempt status of a Unitarian church based on similar thinking -- until someone read the First Amendment. There are many flavors of Christianity and other religions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
the Nicene Creed which by consensus is the document that all real Christians must abide by, with the exception of a few small denominations that use other creeds, but contain the same information, says that Jesus is god and thus any that don’t believe that are not Christians, so the word “most” should indeed be replaced with “all” or just entirely removed. But if you need a verse from the Bible just look to Romans 10:9-10 “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.", that very clearly states that to be saved, and thus be Christian, you must confess that Jesus is lord, which means saying he’s God, along with believing that he was raised from the dead by God the Father. Thus groups that do not believe the Jesus is God aren’t Christian and the change stehst have been suggested should be implemented. And even if the rules say you can’t change it, the existence of that line in the paragraph is an insult to real Christians and is spreading false information. 2600:100C:B037:FA39:3485:91C8:B039:B895 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
To say that "the Nicene Creed which by consensus is the document that all real Christians must abide by" is very obviously factually untrue. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Nope, the Nicene Creed is one interpretation of the Bible, among many other interpretations. Wikipedia does not kowtow to theological orthodoxy, which anyway is in the eye of the beholder. As Bart Ehrman stated, the Twelve Apostles taught nothing similar to the Nicene Creed. And quite probably they knew nothing about the Holy Trinity. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the authors of the Nicene creed would certainly view Wikipedia as heretical. That is not our problem, though. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@MartianDeadman yeah, you're not going to be able to do that here. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to wage an informational campaign. It is an encyclopaedia which reflects the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. And the world generally categorises Mormonism as a kind of Christianity. So Wikipedia does too. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
More specifically, reliable sources tend to do so. I’ll also note that, as a Christian, I have been taught I am not qualified to judge (Jude 1:9) - nor are my personal beliefs on this topic germane. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
J Christ redirects here. I've added a hatnote to J Christ (song), which is recommended for an ambiguous redirect; see WP:SIMILAR, WP:HATREDIR. Reverted because of "the song is controversial and disrespectful towards Christianity", which is not part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. @Jtrevor99:@RileyXeon: Can you please explain the justification for us to disregard a widely-accepted guideline in this case? 162 etc. (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
There may not be official policies, but there are WP guidelines - see for example the WP:HATESPEECH essay which may be applicable here. Saying a mere redirect or disambig may be “hate speech” is pretty extreme - and I would generally argue against it. But I was personally involved in a similar question on another article a few years ago, where the point that “if a group finds this redirect offensive, we need to be very careful before overruling that group” persuaded a number of experienced editors. Unfortunately, I cannot find that discussion now - it is probably buried in an archive.
All that said, my point was not that the prior reverter’s reason was sufficient for exclusion per se, but that the reason stated PLUS the fact at least 4 editors have gotten involved to date, and clearly do not agree, are together sufficient to warrant discussion first. The discussion is to prevent the emerging edit war. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
My opinion: now that you’ve explained why you restored the redirect, it makes sense and I am fine with retaining. But your lack of an edit summary made your justification unclear. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't care about the song possibly being offensive to some. I just don't understand why we would provide an advertisement for a song that came out a few days ago on an article about someone from 2,000 years ago. Google directly links "J. Christ" to page about the song. How many people wanting to see this article type "J Christ"? We could just remove the redirect. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe that the song should be moved to J Christ, per Onorem's comment above, which would probably solve both problems here as there would be no need for a hatnote. Willing to open this move discussion if others agree... – GnocchiFan (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as the redirect J Christ barely saw any usage at all prior to the release of the song [2], and it's not really a common term to refer to Jesus, I would probably be in favour. 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Cannot comment on the technical category stuff here, but OP is definitely right that the two subcats are just factually incorrect and unsupported in the article body.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Because he was not Palestinian in any sense. He wasn't Arab. The official name of the holy land in his times was not Palestine. He himself as a Jew definitely did not call this land Palestine (this was the Greek foreign name of the land) and didn't refer to himself as Palestinian. The word Palestinian doesn't appear at all in the Bible. No ancient source describes Jesus as Palestinian. In fact I doubt very much if there was even one person who described Jesus as Palestinian before the 20th century. Prove me wrong. Vegan416 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
1. Nevertheless it wasn't the official name of this land in Jesus's times. The official name the Roman rulers gave to this land in Jesus' time was "Judea". See here:
2. In fact "Palestine" was never the official name of this land before Hadrian gave it that name in following the Bar Kokhba revolt circa 135 AD. While some Greek historians called the land Palestine, the official name the Greek rulers gave it was Coele-Syria until the Hasmonean dynasty replaced them in the second century BC.
Should we include a picture of JESUS in the article?
There is no record of any picture of Jesus, by which we may know how he looked. This is true for many historical figures. I know it is essential for a topic to have a main profile picture if you will, but it should be more abstract, maybe a symbol or something. Ai777 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The many depictions of Jesus is a subject area in its own right so having a a picture of an important depiction of Jesus seems entirely appropriate. Note this also holds true for many articles about other people (e.g., saints, Classical philosophers) Erp (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
yes, indeed, that is very true, as I made known in my original comment, but I created this topic. The mention of this is due to Wikipedia's commitment to verifiability and so, deals strictly with facts Ai777 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
So what is not verifiable about this being a picture of Jesus done several hundred years after his death? There is no claim of it being an accurate depiction of the original Jesus. However this picture is instantly recognizable as being of Jesus (the iconography alone does that); it is very much a symbol of Jesus even if not a photograph of him. Erp (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The weirder thing is some people really wrote that non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus is now "firmly established" as if it's a clear fact with Jesus' DNA as the evidence. Natsuikomin (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Birth date
Most people believe Wikipedia Talk is just for angry people wanting to change something, but it's also just general discussion on the topic.
Did you know that no one actually knows the day Jesus was born? December 25th was decided in the year 336 because of the winter solstice, and pagans having a holiday the same day, to help them with conversion. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the post. Actually talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, and not for general discussion of the topic. While the above info is interesting im not sure it's especially relevant to improving our article on Jesus. Do you have in mind an edit that you'd like made to the article text? -- Euryalus (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Specificslly where it says december 25th and january 7th and how his birthday is celebrated then. I cant write it, but maybe put :December 25th was a date decided in the year 336 by (not sure who) to coincide with the winter solstice and the pagans having a holiday on the same day." IEditPolitics (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Over-detailed for the lead. In the Chronology section we state that the year of his birth is not precisely known, but don't explicitly clarify that the time of year is also unknown. Probably room for improvement there. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the editor who mentioned January 7th as one of the dates where Jesus birthday is celebrated annually. I knew about this information but never noticed the information in Wikipedia. What surprises me is that Wikipedia has so many "knowledgeable experts" claiming but they were not aware of another date celebrated in other half of the world. This really indicates so many experts here have half-knowledge. Chintu89 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I will also point out that December 25, 1BC was also chosen in part because that places Jesus' circumcision and naming ceremony, the brit milah, on January 1, 1AD. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jtrevor99@Chintu89 This page is not for discussion of Jesus, his birth, etc, it’s not a forum. Please if you wish to make such arguments bring reliably published sources you want to use. Otherwise it doesn’t matter what you say, it shouldn’t affect the article. Doug Wellertalk19:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions for improvement of the article are the intended use of the Talk page. I cannot speak for Chintu's comment, but I thought it was clear that was my intention. Even now I am searching for an RS for this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Update: I deleted your comment from my Talk page as you were wrong here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but it wasn’t clear to me but I accept that you were. If you’d said you were looking for a source I would not have commented on your post. Doug Wellertalk19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you read the epicly long note b) at Christmas. "December 25th was a date decided in the year 336 by (not sure who)" is not correct. The Orthodox church calendar did not follow the Adoption of the Gregorian calendar - to them January 7th is 25th December, though I see much of the Ukranian churches moved last/this year. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
To simply use “common knowledge” and a (very) poorly worded note is not something to back up your claim. Come back with a reliable source that shows it being definite. If not, don’t use the hypotheticals. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The Miracle of Resurrection
Some scholars, notably Scholem Asch, have re-interpreted the life of Jesus and described the crucifixion as a painful and bloody mock event, in which the Jewish and Palestinian followers rescued Jesus, while the Roman and Temple authorities were duped into believing that the crucifixion happened. In this regard it is worthwhile to re-read the book The Nazarene, by this author and re-interpret the Gospels. If the crucifixion was a mock event, then it explains how Jesus appeared again to his followers and disciples. To avoid recapture Jesus and John may have emigrated to Patmos, with friends of Luke to look after them. Such a re-interpretation would indicate Jesus as co-author of the four Gospels and his brother James (in Jerusalem) being the Editor of the New Testament. The early life of Jesus, as described in the four Gospels would have been written by Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus.Jesus12disciples (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe that some people really wrote comments on the infobox saying that no further comments required regarding the cause of Jesus' death. I'm sure no one can provide trusted evidence that it was really Jesus, Son of Mary, that was crucified on the cross that day, but can I add a note in parentheses as follows: (believed by Christians) after the word 'Crucifixion'? Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say the crucifixion didn't happen. I said there's no direct evidence that it was Jesus that was crucified on the cross that day. Natsuikomin (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It's bad. History has deliberately been changed at the time after the man that was thought of as Jesus was crucified because irresponsible people wanted to gain something from changing it. And now sadly, the change of history has been considered encyclopedic information at the present time. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but both historical and empirical evidence suggest that Jesus was crucified that day, that it was Jesus son of Mary, who was crucified Ai777 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
And Herodotus has a fool-proof way of getting gold away from the ants (which are the size of foxes) that hoard it. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The cause of Jesus's death is known to have occurred due to crucifixion, widely reported by gospels as well as Tacitus and Josephus. I understand your Islamic religious point of view, but Islamic sources are not considered reliable due to them being written 5 centuries later and that too by people not related to Jesus or his followers. But You can add your own suggested previous note in parentheses in the Islamic view point section :(believed by Muslims) before crucifixion. Chintu89 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
As Doug says. The Testimonium Flavianum is widely seen as a later Christian interpolation, and honestly, reading the text it is hard to believe otherwise. Josephus' other cryptic mention of Jesus does not say anything about crucifixion. Tacitus, meanwhile, is quite clearly reporting the beliefs of the Christians he was aware of in Rome as a backdrop to Nero's persecutions. By my lights, the best evidence is contained in Paul's letters, but I would still stop well short of "is known to have occurred." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The Gospels are the only known documents from history through which we know about Jesus. Most of the details about Jesus life written here on wikipedia is taken from the Gospels including his name and title. Tacitus and Josephus aren't important for Church theology but they are important for Biblical scholars to study the historical figure of Jesus. Chintu89 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
While Paul doesn't go into great detail, to the extent his epistles are genuine, they are in fact our earliest witnesses to any information about Jesus. I would therefore say "only known documents" is a bit much, but to each his or her own. Dumuzid (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
yes, that's correct. I have noticed that many of the sources listed on Wikipedia, for events that happened during the life of Jesus are taken from the gospels. Ai777 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
"The Testimonium Flavianum is widely seen as a later Christian interpolation" There's no consensus that it is a Christian interpolation. It is still being debated.
"Paul L. Maier and Zvi Baras state that there are three possible perspectives on the authenticity of the Testimonium:
It is entirely authentic.
It is entirely a Christian forgery.
It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus"
So it could be true or it could be false. Josephus was also may be or may not be referring to beliefs of Christians of his time since he was acknowledging resurrection after crucifixion "Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him." If he had mentioned crucifixion and not resurrection, the scholars would have considered it has 100% authentic. But again most scholars agree that he was crucified. Chintu89 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
"The Bible and the Quran are both rated generally unreliable" we are not talking about historicity of religious scriptures, The discussion here is about what is more reliable document about Jesus life and that's of course Gospels because they were the first written and closest to Christ era. Chintu89 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, we're way off of article topics now. I would propose that we keep the language as is and close this discussion for the good of all involved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree, I was just questioning how people consider modified history as reliable reference. But I understand it, we've been around 2 thousand years ahead, so hard to verify it. Natsuikomin (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
"Sorry, but your strong desire that Jesus was crussified wasn't made happened. Instead, Jesus' father saved him from the crucifixion." Please provide the document or manuscript which says that. Chintu89 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I've been closely examining the portrayal of Jesus within our article on Him. While it is widely recognized that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, I propose that we also emphasize his role as the founder of Christianity. This perspective is supported by a wealth of scholarly discussion and historical documentation, which suggests a more direct involvement of Jesus in establishing Christianity's foundational principles and practices.
The argument for considering Jesus not only as a central figure but explicitly as the founder of Christianity is grounded in:
- **Historical Evidence**: Accounts from the period directly following Jesus' life show his teachings and actions laid the groundwork for the development of Christian beliefs and community practices.
- **Scholarly Consensus**: A significant body of scholarly work focuses on how Jesus’ message and leadership catalyzed the formation of Christianity.
- **Theological Analysis**: Theological discussions often highlight how Jesus’ directives to his followers and his teachings serve as the cornerstone of Christian doctrine, signifying his role in founding Christianity.
Given the depth of evidence supporting Jesus as the founder of Christianity, I believe it is crucial for our article to reflect this dimension of his role. This would not only enrich our content but also align our representation with historical and scholarly insights.
I propose we discuss potential revisions to the article that incorporate this perspective, ensuring our narrative is comprehensive and grounded in verifiable sources. I am open to collaboration and dialogue to refine this approach and welcome any additional sources or viewpoints you may offer.
Thank you for considering this proposal. I look forward to a productive exchange of ideas and hope we can work together to enhance the accuracy and depth of our article. Ai777 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Generally, there's no census or agreement that Jesus founded a religion called Christianity. Christianity developed as an organized religion during the reign of first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine. Chintu89 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Sources
^Kee, Alistair (30 April 2004). "Nietzsche and Christians with beautiful feet". In Hackett, Jeremiah; Wallulis, Jerald (eds.). Philosophy of Religion for a New Century: Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 166. ISBN978-1-4020-2073-5. Jesus was not a Christian. The religion of Jesus is quite distinct from the religion about Jesus.
^Sources for Mary Magdalene is the founder of Christianity:
Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). "18. Mary: The Residual Questions. Question Two: Was Mary the First Apostle?". Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (in engleză). USA: Oxford University Press. p. 253. ISBN0-19-530013-0. Archived from the original on 2011-12-28. Retrieved 21 September 2011. Were there other women apostles? Other women who understood themselves, and were understood by others, to be commissioned by Christ in order to spread the word of his death and resurrection? We know of at least one other, one who could be thought of, in fact, as the original apostle: Mary Magdalene. Mary is called an apostle by some early Christian writers. ... Mary and the others, therefore, could be thought of as "apostles sent to the apostles," a title that Mary herself came to bear in the Middle Ages (Latin: apostola apostolorum).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
yes, Mary Madeline and Polly apostle were instrumental, but they built their teachings on the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ Ai777 (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
In case of Mary: she was the first person to think that Jesus was resurrected, i.e. the core Christian belief. In case of Paul: he reshaped a tiny Jewish sect into a religion for Gentiles. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mosesheron: What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mosesheron: As for the comparison with Jesus, we are actually treating both in the same way, by giving the academic view rather than faith. Christians believe Jesus founded Christianity; we don't say that because many scholars argue that Jesus never saw himself as God or intended to break away from Judaism. Scholarship holds that a claim can be made that it was Paul who founded Christianity after Jesus's death. There is no such scholarly debate over Muhammad; no scholar AFAIK argues that Islam what founded after Muhammad's death by someone else. Jeppiz (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
as for Mohammed and Joseph Smith, the descriptions of the articles them as founders of Islam and the latter day saints respectively Ai777 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The point being: for Muhammad and Smith, scholars are unanimous they founded their own religions. About Jesus there is no such unanimity. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
while it's true that there's no scholarly consensus on that, many historians, and theologians point out that Jesus, life, teachings, death, and resurrection, were the impetus of the Christian faith Ai777 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
you are totally right, this was unproductive. it was merely a suggestion of a change of description for the article.
whoever has read the Bible knows this, whoever hasn't, let him read it.
”Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.”“
John 8:58 CSB
”I and my Father are one.“
John 10:30 KJV
”Jesus replied, “I have been with all of you for a long time. Don’t you know me yet, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?“
that is correct, JESUS did not write the gospels, but they were written by people who lived and worked closely with him, and who were in position to understand his teachings. Ai777 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Nope, modern Bible scholars (of the WP:CHOPSY sort) gave the lie long ago to "they were written by people who lived and worked closely with him, and who were in position to understand his teachings."tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Central figure is obvious. Founder not so much. Without general agreement among scholars, I don't see the addition useful. (Personally, I think the religion obscures the teachings.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
”Let those who don’t have God’s approval go without it, and let filthy people continue to be filthy. Let those who have God’s approval continue to have it, and let holy people continue to be holy.”“
"Founder" is like Bill Gates, Col. Sanders, John D. Rockefeller, et al. What RS calls Jesus the "founder"? Using it as proposed here would misrepresent and contradict the central content of this article. SPECIFICOtalk16:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
while Bill Gates and Colonel Sanders we're certainly important figures in their own fields, they are not comparable to JESUS, because they did not found a religion or a belief system. Ai777 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Per all the others here, "founder" seems inapposite to me. Jesus' pronouncements, as much as we have them, were mostly gnomic and abstract. They do not give concrete advice for any church or institution. In fact, I believe the word "church" appears in only two gospel verses, both from Matthew, and neither is particularly instructional on what that church should be (e.g., "upon this rock I will build my church"). So, I also believe that 'central figure' is a better description. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
While JESUS may not have called for the creation of a church or institution, his teachings laid the foundation for Christian beliefs and practices. And after, his disciples and subsequent followers gather together to form groups that followed his teachings. Ai777 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, and in the scenario you describe, it seems to me more natural to call the disciples "founders." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
once again, I apologize, not for what I said, but for all of you. this had nothing in absolutely to do with theology, but it had to do with historical facts, as we all recognize that Jesus did exist, the argument lies whether he was the founder or central figure of Christianity. I was not trying to convert any of you to Christianity, nor was trying to force you into any church, as my opinions are based on facts and historical events, not seminary. no one is kicking me out, I myself I am ending this discussion, knowing that my time is too valuable to be spending here. I didn't enter this discussion, because I had nothing to do, I became a member of Wikipedia to fix mistakes and errors. If Wikipedia is anything, it is factual, and has accurate facts to back up everything it claims. Yes, indeed, Wikipedia is ambiguous, and does not tend to lean to one side or the other, but at least, if we're going to write articles, let's write them right. Yes, I am a Christian, but facts are facts, whether we like it, or not. Again, I don't mean it as an insult to anybody who is reading this, but it's true. I wanted to make Wikipedia a better place by improving articles, just like all of you and not just Christian articles but I was also improving many other areas of Wikipedia and there are many other things that I have improved in my time here and I i'm glad for the contributions that I have made. so I'm signing off, once again, I apologize that my comments were misunderstood and I pray that God bless you and all your families. Ai777 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I respect your perspective but Jesus being "founder of Christianity" is too bleak to be true. This subject is like a vast ocean. It took a lot of centuries for Christianity to develop as we know today. No one person was its founder. So many apostles, church elders, early Christians to Bishops, so on and innumerable others have been involved in the development of Christianity. It is better we leave it there. Chintu89 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In death, change the blank space next to the “crucified” too “accessed” or “ascended into heaven” because Jesus rose into heaven as said in Luke 24:51 Bob12357 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I think having the title “Rabbi” is a weird choice to have as the main title directly under the name Jesus. Of all the the titles he holds that is probably the least significant. Probably was best to just have it say Jesus.
"Herodian kingdom, Roman Empire" as birthplace in lead infobox
The Herodian Kingdom was a client state of the Roman Empire, and its territory would only be later annexed to Rome. The phrasing in the infobox seems to imply that the Herodian kingdom was a part of the Roman Empire. It's like when someone writes, "Ontario, Canada"- the phrasing is meant to show Ontario is within Canada.
I propose that "Roman Empire" be removed and an efc added that explains that the kingdom was a Roman client state, or that the line should read "Herodian kingdom (a client state of the Roman Empire)".
Evaporation123 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5 February 2BC Birth of Jesus Christ confirmation with 100 percent certainty
5 February 2BC , this is the new decisive date of birth of Jesus Christ. This is confirmed by Jesus Christ himself , known then as Jeshua of Nazareth , in his meeting with Governor of Judea Pontius Pilate , in his own words , "I was born the same day that Augustus Caesar gave peace to the Roman Empire" and this is confirmed by the letter Governor Pontius Pilate wrote to Caesar Tiberius. It is therefore decisively confirmed by the Government of Romans , directly by the writings to Caesar from the responsible Governor , that 100 percent accurate that Jesus Christ was born on 5 February 2 BC. 197.184.170.31 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
tgeorgescu beat me to it -- this is a well known bit of (probably medieval) Christian pseudepigrapha. Thus, with all due respect, I'd say it's less than 100 percent certainty in my book. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
And a reason for skepticism: unless they were highly literate, Ancient Jews probably had no idea which day Augustus Caesar gave peace to the Roman Empire, since it required knowing historical facts and converting between different calendars. There was no telegraph then, so news traveled slowly. And, if news traveled fast, they did so for client kings, not for illiterate peasants from a village in the backwaters of Galilee. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This phrase in the lead seems a bit odd to me - it’s a convoluted way of saying “believed”, but also carries some potentially undesirable connotations (that belief in the resurrection is a later addition to the religion and not a central tenet, or that the earliest narratives were uncertain or ambiguous about it).
Is there an existing consensus regarding the use of the phrase?
So, I am mostly with you--though I will say I see that usage as being temporal in nature, i.e., belief in the resurrection was not immediate. But being that it is already central to Paul, I am not sure that's the most important detail. So I would be fine with a change to "believed." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's the meaning at all. It's clearly referring to his immediate followers i.e the disciples etc at the time of the crucifixion - not subsequent Christians. Per the biblical story they only "became convinced" after seeing his reappearances, putting fingers in holes etc. The wording is fine. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
My reading matches DeCausa's - that phrasing seems to point clearly to immediately after his death, before he reappeared to his believers. I would be okay with changing "After his death ..." to "A few days after his death ..." to better communicate this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I was about to question why it needs clarification when no one has raised this before...and then I saw that this was only changed in December[4]. The editor, in that and other edits,[5][6] ignored the hidden message request to raise changes to that paragraph on the talk page first and marked them as minor edits. In fact, they seem to habitually mark their substantive edits to the article as minor.[7]DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, although the accounts of the "convincing the disciples" bit come from said disciples or their fellow believers and probably don't meet the criteria for a WP:RS. From a purely historical perspective we know that the belief arose but nothing about the process by which it happened, so why add such qualifiers?
To be fair the cited source for that sentence (Sanders, 1993) does say "His followers saw him [after the resurrection]. These resurrection experiences convinced them that Jesus would return and that in Jesus' life and death God had acted to save humanity." so I think the "becoming convinced" is supported. DeCausa (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024
This edit request to Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and honored Jesus as the prophet to whom the Gospel was revealed, the heralder of Muhammad, and a Spirit and Word from God,[28][j] but they does not consiered him as neither God nor a son of God.
The article says that Pontius Pilate crucified Him... but Pilate doubted it and wanted nothing to do with it and delivered Him to the people. Should that not be added? Penelope Grayson (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. Really the epsilon is just a typo, introduced with this edit. It was a rather bold move to introduce all those names, but I have no particular opinion of that. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Draft:The J Man has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § Draft:The J Man until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Done Part of a poor quality recent edit which has been reverted. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
