Talk:Responsibility for the death of Jesus

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
	This redirect is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This redirect is supported by theology work group.

Why is it that a page on Deicide belongs on wikipedia yet any attempt to make a similiar page on the connection between circumcision and antisemitism gets censored against wikipedia policy? Sirkumsize 03:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Wiki users value their own(potentially pointless) opinions over crystal-clear facts. There is no way in hell this article conforms to a good quality. SAM-EL

I've attempted a major clean up and re-organization. It still needs some work, with some expansion and citations, but hopefully it is better. Should the clean up box be removed? 209.145.162.130 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this topic could use a disambiguation page. I'll defer to someone who has that particular expertise to make the changes. --Donperk 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khazars note

If the Khazar theory of those Barbara Streisand-ish people are right, then that puts a damper on deicide, as no Khazars were in Jerusalem.

22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Not only that, but some Palestinian nationalists claim that in addition to today's Jews being merely converted Europeans, the Palestinians are the true descendants of biblical Jews. Which puts "His blood be on us and on our children" in a new light.

Note: this user does not condone Christian persecution of Jews, Palestinians or anyone else, since if God exists, it's unChristian, and if God doesn't exist, those biblical quotes are all lies. 41.243.126.155 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler

A spoiler warning would have been nice for the preacher books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.50.2 (talk • contribs)

Added. -- Klacquement 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Realms

Time of troubles - when Ao casts the gods down to the mortal plain includes multiple instances of deicide.

"the worst religion they could think of"?

Without a citation, this parenthesized comment should be removed as it reeks of being a personal POV, not an historical one.

During the period cited it would be more likely that Protestants would classify Witchcraft (consorting with Satan), Islam/Muhammedism (the arch-enemy of Christendom during the Crusades) and Catholicism (the reason for the Protestant Reformation) as being the least suitable of religious doctrines. --Donperk 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Christian focus

Not that Christianity isn't an important subject of this concept, but I am sure other religions have stories or mentions of deicide. If this article has an "...in fiction" section, there's no reason it shouldn't contain a decent, well-researched analysis of deicide in other belief systems, besides Christianity. I will look into the subject, but I would also like input and help from other editors. --...Wikiwøw 02:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemove

I've moved this page from Deicide to Responsibility for the death of Jesus, and refactored the non-Jesus material back to Deicide. jnestorius^(talk) 14:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deicide & Divinity of Jesus

While it does seems a bit of a stretch to go from belief in Jesus's divinity to an outright accusation of Jewish deicide, there should perhaps be discussion on the inherent tension between the doctrinal obligation to strongly affirm the divinity of Jesus against heretical proponents of Arianism and the ethical requirement to oppose a purely political brand of antisemitism. ADM (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logical error in Page's Content

At the reference to John 13:26-30, there is a distinct fallacy of the post hoc ergo propter hoc class.

Specifically, "has Jesus give Judas a dipped piece of bread which causes Satan to enter him."

The word after is explicit in John. Yet after has clearly changed to a notion of causation within this article.

The text is in fact [13.26b-13.27a]:

And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

And after the sop Satan entered into him.

This is really terrible and ought to be emended at once. Apesteilen (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Herod Agrippa

I found a strange text claiming to originate from Herod Agrippa, in which Agrippa personally takes the blame for crucifying Jesus, and then declares that he is about to found a secret society in order to hunt down the remaining apostles of Jesus, whose influence is said to be growing. This could maybe be mentioned as part of the conspiracy theories surrounding the actual names and identities of the Judeo-Roman authorities. [1] ADM (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scritical?

What does the word "scritical" mean (para 2, line 2)? I can not find a definition of it thorough Wiktionary or Google. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]