Talk:Jesus/Archive 131

Archive 125

←

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

→

Archive 135

Sentence broken

Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but not all hold a negative estimation of him; Richard Dawkins, for instance, refers to Jesus as "a great moral teacher",[417] while stating in his book The God Delusion that Jesus is praiseworthy because he did not derive his ethics from biblical scripture.[418]

The "because" or the last "not" makes little sense to me. Should it be "even though" instead of because? I would prefer to split up the sentence to make the content of it more clear but I cannot do it thus I do not know what the author wanted to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.16.107.166 (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins, demonstrating his knowledge of theology, really does believe that Jesus didn't bother much with the Hebrew Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins' suggestion that Jesus did not derive his morality from the Hebrew Bible is not a claim that Jesus did not reference (or "bother much with") the Hebrew Bible, and hence isn't supportive of any assertion that he lacks knowledge of theology (which is irrelevant). Dawkins' point is that biblical anecdotes about Jesus doing things like healing on the Sabbath surpasses the less forgiving 'morality' of the Mosaic law.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the thread above this, I don't think the sentence about atheist views on Jesus and Richard Dawkin's comment on Jesus should even be in this article. That section is about religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins does not represent all atheists. Therefore, the sentence should be removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence about atheist views on Jesus is okay. But the Dawkins sentence should definitely be removed, because it's an evaluation of Jesus' moral teachings, a completely different topic from what the section is about.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That being said, the sentence about atheism and Jesus should be removed, since the section is about groups that have Jesus as part of their faith rather than groups that don't. And because atheist views on Jesus should be obvious and goes without saying.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the Dawkins material; the section is called "Perspectives", not "Religious perspectives". Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We can rename it to "Religious perspectives" if you want. I'm okay with that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the name of the section, and no reason to. Softlavender (talk)

A better section title is a perfect reason to rename it. Not sure why you keep saying there is no consensus or why that matters when no on has objected to the removal.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The section is not strictly about religious perspectives. There was no consensus for your removal of cited text, and it was reverted, so there is obvious objection to the removal. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the disputed sentence should be kept; it provides useful context for understanding atheists' views on Jesus. Dawkins is, of course, completely off-target with his anachronistically Pauline assertion that Jesus "did not derive" his moral teachings from the Talmud, since that is, after all, precisely what Jesus did. (The "Golden Rule" comes from Leviticus 19:18 and the mandate to care for the poor and the oppressed is a continuation from Second Isaiah. Jesus expanded on these precepts, but the basic skeleton was already there.) This does not really matter, though, because Dawkins is still a noteworthy proponent of atheism and I am sure there are plenty of atheists who would agree with his faulty assumptions. As best as I can tell, in this sentence, he is not being used to represent the views of all atheists; he is just being used as a noteworthy example of what some atheists believe. While it is indeed obvious that atheists do not believe Jesus is God incarnate, their other views on Jesus are not so obvious and I do not mind the article taking a few sentences to explain those perspectives. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The section should be about Jesus' "status" in various groups, not how certain individuals think about Jesus' teachings. Russell, an atheist, was very critical of Jesus' teachings. Should we also include what Ghandi thought about Jesus and his teachings? What about Karl Marx? Choosing which who to include and who not to becomes arbitrary. That being said, we might need to remove the sentence about the Dalai Lama and the one about Indian guru for the same reason.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Jesus the person. There are articles about Jesus Christ. Seems to me this article would be a lot cleaner without too much religious speculation, theology, and philosophy. Dawkins has interesting things to say. But, I don’t think this is the correct article. I am still concerned with the emphasis on Christianity here. Jesus was considered the penultimate prophet and the harbinger of the end times in Islam; if I remember correctly. And yet, the article appears to suggest that Christians ‘own’ Jesus, and that there is one way to view his existence. Just my impression. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus was considered ... the harbinger of the end times in Islam; if I remember correctly." you can read the article if you like and find exactly that stated in the section "Perspectives" under "Islamic" - Most Muslims believe that Jesus will return to earth at the end of time and defeat the Antichrist. There is a paragraph in the lead, a section of Islamic perspectives and a referral to the article Jesus in Islam.Smeat75 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• @FutureTrillionaire:The section should be about Jesus' "status" in various groups, not how certain individuals think about Jesus' teachings. I'm curious about this. How exactly do you believe a person's "status" would be formed if not for the individual group members' opinions about his teachings? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We need a RS that states what the group believes about Jesus.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, ignoring for a second that this doesn't address my question; Atheists are not a cohesive group. One can only point to the views of prominent atheists to show the attitudes of atheists. Contrary to what many religious people seem to think, there is no Atheist Manifesto which all atheists subscribe to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We could perhaps use Richard Dawkins as an example of a positive atheistic perspective on Jesus and Bertrand Russell (or someone else) as a example of a negative perspective. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That would work for me. I know there's no shortage of atheists slamming Jesus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we should include religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. It doesn't make sense to include atheism or groups that don't include Jesus as part of their religion with the exception of Judaism, but that's only because Jesus was a Jewish and Christianity branched from Judaism.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Since we're continuing to ignore my question above, let's move on to the next one and see if it gets a better response. Why should we limit that section to religions that include Jesus in their doctrine? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We can include the sentence about atheism rejecting Jesus' divinity if we really want to (although I think it's unnecessary). But the sentece about Dawkins should definitely be removed. Including the opinions of individual atheists on Jesus' teachings makes no sense. If somebody had an opinion on Jesus' public speaking skills, should we include that as well? What about somebody's opinion on Jesus' sense of fashion? What about Gandhi's view on Jesus? What about Stalin's view on Jesus? They're all off-topic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a good reason here. Slippery slopes exist, but not every slope is slippery. Your implication that if we don't use your standard, we don't have any standard is pretty obviously false, and I'm not even close to being convinced that Stalin and Gandhi's views are undue anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The good reason is whether or not its off-topic. The section is about Jesus' status within a group, not about what certain individuals think about his teachings and actions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That still doesn't provide a good reason. You're just reiterating your conclusion that it's off topic. I'm asking what it is about the section that makes you think it's off topic. I'm really not seeing how a section covering what people think of Jesus is off topic to our article about Jesus, and the suggestion that only the views of Abrahamic religions should be included really looks like a serious NPOV problem.

Which then brings us back to the first question I asked you, which you never really answered. How else would someone's status within a group be defined except as the aggregate opinions of the individual members of that group? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We do it by looking at the religion's doctrines. Atheism does have a "doctrine" on Jesus (i.e. he was just a human). That's all there is to the doctrine. This doctrine doesn't say how Jesus' moral teachings should be viewed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Atheists don't have any doctrine. Many of them don't even believe Jesus was just a human. And in case you haven't noticed, this article is Jesus, not Christology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course they do! They believe that God doesn't exist. That's their "doctrine".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Many atheists would fiercely argue that their lack of a belief is not the same thing as the presence of a negative belief. But even glossing that over, that's not doctrine. That's a definition, not a doctrine. A doctrine is codified and accepted. But there are also self-professed atheists who do believe in God, but just don't like God very much (these sorts are often held to be the majority of atheists by religious apologists, but they tend to be a minority in fact). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I put "doctrine" in quotation marks. There's worldview, and then there's people who believe in that worldview.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Atheism is no more a doctrine than atoothfairy. Your simplistic claim that all atheists doctrinarily believe gods don’t exist (maybe worse that a particular God doesn’t exist) indicate a misunderstanding of the term. A person can be an atheist without belonging to any group or having been taught any doctrine or having ever even thought about the subject. Objective3000 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Status within what group? It isn’t simply about atheists rejecting divinity. It’s about various groups that reject the divinity of Jesus, but still believe him to be a great teacher. Some atheists, secular humanists, Unitarians, etc., reject the Trinity, or anthropological gods in general, or any god concept, but still respect his teachings. Some reject both. To add a bit more complexity, there’s Jews_for_Jesus. Again, since this article is about Jesus the man, I think it concentrates too heavily on one group when there are several different views of Jesus. Objective3000 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that's interesting. Some people (Christian and non-Christians) like his teachings. Some people (Christian and non-Christians) don't like his teachings. But it's a different concept from Jesus' identity in certain religions, so it would have to belong to a different section. But then the questions becomes "whose opinions should we include?". People will start adding the opinion of every significant figure.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of this is covered in Christian_atheism. Objective3000 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion is reminding me of the Jefferson Bible; Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted (and published) his own "Bible" together about Jesus, removing all the miracles and supernatural stuff. Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Much along the lines of some versions of Unitarian Universalism. Objective3000 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't think up a good source off the cuff, but "Jesus was a mortal teacher, not a divine miracle worker" is the line toed by the pastor of my local Unitarian church. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think most Unitarians believe the miracles were apocryphal. I think most adherents to Islam treat this another way. Jesus conducted miracles, but not by his own power. It was God working through him. Objective3000 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is growing hopelessly off-topic. It does not matter whether or not atheism is a religion nor does it matter if it has "doctrines." The question we are discussing here is the question of whether or not to include a brief sentence on atheistic perspectives on Jesus's teachings. I think that, amidst all the confusion over lingo and terminology, FutureTrillionaire has actually made a number of very good points. It makes perfect sense that the section should only discuss religious groups who have an official or orthodox position on Jesus. Since atheists do not have any kind of official position on anything other than disbelief in the existence of a deity, and certainly do not have any unified stance regarding Jesus's teachings, it makes sense to omit them from this section. After the past few hours of debate, I am now fairly well convinced that the sentence in question should be removed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So can you answer the question that FutureTrillionaire hasn't? Namely, Why does it make sense to you that only religious groups views are relevant? Jesus is certainly more than simply a religious figure in the West. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: To answer your question, the reason why I do not think the sentence should be included is because atheists do not have a unified position on Jesus and trying to cover every perspective that any atheist has ever held on the matter is simply WP:UNDUE. To give an imperfect but adequate analogy, including atheistic views on Jesus here would be a little bit like including Christian views on Confucius in the article about him. Quite simply, Christians do not have a unified position on Confucius; depending on which Christian you ask, you will receive very different answers. Some would tell you that he was a false prophet; others would tell you that he was simply a wise thinker and philosopher. Trying to incorporate every possible perspective into the article would simply be inappropriate, especially since the people who care about Confucius the most are not primarily Christians, in the same way that the people who are the most concerned with Jesus are not primarily atheists. It really has nothing to do with religiosity at all and really much more to do with having a unified perspective on the matter. If there was an official consensus among atheists regarding Jesus's identity, then it would certainly be worth including, but, since there is not, there is really nothing we can say on the matter without giving undue weight to a plethora of minority perspectives. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Thank you for that. That is a very cogent answer. I do, however, think it overlooks the relative pervasiveness of Jesus in Western culture; Confucius is well enough known, but Jesus is -quite literally- idolized. Jesus' teachings pervade Western notions of morality and mythology. A number of our holidays center around events purported to be a part of Jesus life. We swear oaths in court on the bible. Indeed, here in the United States, it is extraordinarily difficult for anyone not loudly proclaiming a well-defined love and respect for Jesus to hold a public office, even in the most progressive areas. The majority of atheists in the West were not even born into their religious views, but rather "deconverted" from some form of Christianity. To steal a phrase which was made popular by Dawkins himself; atheists are, for the most part, 'cultural Christians' to much the same extent that religious Christians are. So I don't believe that analogy holds up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Two good answers. I think the fact that atheists have different views is important, as well as the fact that Jews and even Christians have different views of Jesus. Most Christians may not realize this. It should be possible to put this across succinctly without going into detail. Objective3000 (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: You have made a good point in your statement that many atheists are of Christian background. Here is a possible compromise: we can remove the current sentence and replace it with something more along these lines: "Atheists have mixed mixed views on Jesus's identity; many, such as Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens have labeled him as a fraud, but others, such as Richard Dawkins, regard him as 'a great moral teacher'." This way, the sentence will focus on Jesus's status within atheists as a group and will convey that positions are mixed. It will also give examples of a few of the most prominent perspectives, without dwelling too much on individual opinions. We will need to find citations to support these statements, but that should not be very difficult. FutureTrillionaire, what do you think? --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

In principle, that looks like a net improvement. However, Russell's views on Jesus were much more aligned with Dawkins', see Criticism of Jesus#Bertrand Russell. And I believe it would be easier to source claims that Hitchens believed that Jesus was immoral than to source a claim that Jesus was a fraud (see Criticism of Jesus#Christopher Hitchens). But aside from those, the notion of a single sentence outlining multiple views is a very good one. I think maybe stating Dawkins' and Russell's views first, then Hitchens would be the best wording.

"Atheists have mixed views on Jesus' identity; many, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins have regarded him as a great moral teacher, while others, like Christopher Hitchens have criticized his teachings as "positively immoral".

" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the Barack Obama article have a section on "views on Obama"? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

See Public_image_of_Barack_Obama Objective3000 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The point I was making was that we don't see things like "Richard Dawkins' views on Obama" or "[other notable figure]'s views on Obama". When the article is presenting "views" on Jesus, what is meant by "view"? A "view" in this context is a religion's official position on Jesus, not "view" in the generic sense of the word.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Has Richard Dawkins even expressed an opinion on Obama? I know he's expressed an opinion on Jesus. I also know that his books address religion, and that he is very notable for his views on religion. Since your point relies on the assumption that Dawkins is just a random public figure who has nothing to do with religion, I think it's safe to ignore it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

When this started, I didn’t see any reason for Dawkins or atheists in general to be mentioned. FT has caused me to lean in the opposite direction. There is a general view that atheists have a certain viewpoint regarding Jesus. (As well as Jews, Muslims, Humanists, and even some Christians.) This viewpoint is by no means universal among any of these groups. This is an article on Jesus. It now appears to me that it is an encyclopedia’s responsibility to disabuse people of commonly held, incorrect “facts”. Objective3000 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: It sounds like what you're is asking for is content regarding Jesus' legacy in Western culture. This has been discussed in the talk page before. People have proposed that we add a section called "Legacy" for this article detailing Jesus' cultural legacy. In the past, this idea has been rejected because Jesus' legacy is really just the legacy of Christianity. However, I'm open to this idea. @Katolophyromai:: Regarding atheists with a Christian background, are you referring to Christian atheism? We can add a sentence or two about Christian atheism and Christian deism (defining what they mean).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. I have no idea how you got to that from what I've been saying. Please see my most recent comment for what I'm discussing. If you have questions, feel free to ask them. I, for one, have a habit of answering questions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This is what you said: "atheists are, for the most part, 'cultural Christians' to much the same extent that religious Christians are.". I think this is an exaggeration, but yes, some atheists do call themselves cultural Christians. I can see an argument for including something about cultural Christians in the section, but "Cultural Christianity" itself doesn't have an official position on Jesus. Christian atheism and Christian deism makes somewhat more sense. You'll have to give an example of how exactly you want to word it. AFAIK, Russell and Hitchens are not cultural Christians.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A nit. I wouldn’t say atheists are, for the most part, 'cultural Christians' as this ignores 100 million Chinese atheists. Western atheists maybe. Objective3000 (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, glad we can agree.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 I was being specific to the Western world and I said so in my comment. FT has left out the preceding sentence which contains the distinction.

FutureTrillionaire Are you even reading my comments? Twice now, you've declined to answer a politely worded and very relevant question, and now you're saying I need to show you what I've already shown you. And throughout, you're opposing just about everything I say (even going so far beyond reasonableness as to exclaim "Of course they do!" when I pointed out that atheists have no doctrine), for no apparent reason other than a possible POV push to minimize the views of atheists. You're really making it difficult to assume good faith with you, and you've already managed to convince at least one editor that you're wrong through the way you're engaged here. Try reading my comments and clicking on the links I provide instead of just arguing with whatever you imagine I might be saying. If you can't bother to respond to what I'm actually saying, then kindly bow out of the conversation and leave it to those of us who can communicate with each other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow, perhaps I'm not the best at communicating, but I don't appreciate being attacked like this. I did read your comments, but perhaps I misunderstood some of them. Anyways, a while back, I did include a section called "Criticism of Jesus", which included the opinions of Russell and Hitchens. But it looks like someone strangely deleted that two months ago:[1] I don't agree with adding Hitches and Russel in the religious views section, since they're not cultural Christians, but I'm okay with having their opinons in a new criticism section. Adding pro-Jesus and anti-Jesus atheist views in a single sentence in the religious views section doesn't address the issue of why we are adding a worldview that doesn't have an official position on Jesus (see Confucius example). --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you do not appreciate being called out on your inability or unwillingness to take the time to read others' comments, respond to their questions and make a good faith effort to understand what they're saying, then you really only have yourself to blame for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@FutureTrillionaire: I mean no disrespect, but you seem to have completely misunderstood everything MPants just said. He said nothing at all about wanting to include a section on Jesus's legacy. The "cultural Christians" quote, which you seem to have become rather fixated on, was clearly only intended as an example to support his much broader argument for why including information about atheistic views on Jesus in the article Jesus is different from including Christian views on Confucius in the article about him. Essentially what he appears to be saying is that, because Christians and atheists coexist in large numbers in western societies, it is noteworthy to mention the atheistic perspective on Jesus's status. Now, returning to the question at hand, I am interested to know what you think of the revised sentence that MPants and I have created:

"Atheists have mixed views on Jesus's identity; many, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins, have regarded him as 'a great moral teacher', while others, such as Christopher Hitchens, have criticized his teachings as 'positively immoral'." --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I'm not in love with it but I think that's an okay temporary measure. In the future, there should be some reorganization of the article so that there is one section for religions that include Jesus, and a separate section for the opinions of various individuals on Jesus (e.g. Dawkins, the Dali Lama, etc.).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: I will admit that I am not completely in love with the idea either and I do not feel that MPants has fully addressed all of my objections above, but this is how compromise works; both sides have to give a little. Compromising on this issue and reaching a consensus is a much better alternative to arguing here on the talk page indefinitely. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I added the revised sentence into the article, but I changed it slightly to combine it with the previous sentence, which stated "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity." This is the version that is currently in the article: "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but many, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins, have regarded him as "a great moral teacher"; others, such as Christopher Hitchens, have criticized his teachings as "positively immoral"." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks great to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I accidentally omitted the statement of the fact that atheists' views on Jesus are diverse. I figured that it was probably implied by the fact that two different perspectives were listed, but I decided that it is better to state the obvious than run the risk of people misunderstanding. Here is the most recent update: "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but widely disagree on other aspects of his status; many, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins, have regarded him as "a great moral teacher". Others, such as Christopher Hitchens, have criticized his teachings as "positively immoral"." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

• Comment: This article is about Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personage. It is not and should not be restricted to commentary and opinions of religious persons or groups. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is about Jesus in general. If you are looking for an article that is exclusively devoted to the historical Jesus, I recommend the article Historical Jesus. In any case, the article is certainly not entirely devoted to perspectives on Jesus in various groups. This whole discussion has all been about one sentence (which has actually now been broken up into two sentences). The vast majority of the article is devoted to historical perspectives on Jesus. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, this article is about Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personage, as opposed to Jesus in Christianity. It is not and should not be restricted to commentary and opinions of religious persons or groups as opposed to non-religious persons or groups. Historical Jesus is about the historiography and historicity of Jesus. Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

With all three pages on my watchlist (though I don't think I've ever edited Jesus in Christianity), I can say that Softlavender is correct: Historical Jesus is generally about the historicity, research and historical scholarship. Jesus in Christianity is about Christology as it applies to Jesus, and this article is as much of a biography as we can make of him.

That being said, I don't think you caught on to what was being discussed here, though I don't blame you, given the huge thread with multiple sub-threads. I'd likely not have caught on either, had I come in this late. As Katolophyromai said, we have been mostly discussing one sentence which they and I had re-written and they have added to the article already. We also discussed the appropriateness of the subsection Perspectives - Other and its focus. But the discussion seems to be at an end, unless someone has a cogent new point to make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of what this thread is about, which is whether the viewpoints of atheists (such as Dawkins) should be allowed in the article, and the fact that FutureTrillionaire tried to remove them without consensus. Some users seemed to be repeatedly arguing that the views of atheists do not belong in this article, but there is no logical basis for that position, given the nature and scope of this article. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire took these sentences out without consensus? There was no consensus to put them in there in the first place. So hutchens wrote a book and criticized Jesus, so what? If it goes anywhere it goes under the article "criticisms of", just like other religious figures have criticisms pages like Criticisms of mohammad etc.Aceruss (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2017

TheMrCow2004 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2017 (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. Objective3000 (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources on "life and teachings" only cited with reference to details on his life?

@Softlavender: With reference to this edit, I don't think you fully understood my rationale. The canonical gospels are the only substantial sources for Jesus's biography, but in reality most of the biographical information scholars take from John, M and L is simply corroboratory of material whose best attestation is in either Mark or the non-Marcan common tradition behind both Matthew and Luke, and the letters of Paul do provide a significant corroboratory source for Jesus's teachings, arguably more so than the canonical gospels in some ways. The same goes for the Gospel of Thomas -- most scholars take it to be the oldest Christian writing or very nearly the oldest outside the New Testament, and probably older than a lot of the later material in the New Testament (the Petrine and Pastoral epistles), and the only reason it isn't considered a good source for the historical Jesus is that it doesn't give any biographical details. But scholars still treat it as a good independent witness to verify material about Jesus's teachings. The two minutes or so after this point addresses this all pretty succinctly, and this example was in my head when I made the edit.

The paragraph in question neglects to mention any of this, because with the exception of the two-word phrase that I excised and you restored, it has nothing to do with his teachings specifically and is focused entirely on his biography. I think if you really want to say that the canonical gospels are the best sources for the life and teachings of Jesus, you need to nuance it by explaining that the letters of Paul are better (earlier, more authoritative) sources for some aspects of his message (that he was against divorce in some fashion) and that the gospels are not all equally valuable from this point of view (Matthew and Luke, when they agree with Mark more than each other, are essentially useless as independent witnesses; John is useless when he disagrees with the other three; Thomas is about as good when it comes to Jesus's teachings, if not his biographical details, as John).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason, and no consensus, to remove the words "and message" from that sentence. If you want to add other, less substantial sources for his message (as listed, for instance, in the citation provided [2]), you could do that. Obviously Jesus's teachings are more significant than the details of his life (except possibly for the crucifixion), so this article has to mention the teachings and where they are presumably found, since he was an oral teacher and did not write anything down. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Jesus's teachings are more significant than the details of his life (except possibly for the crucifixion) Depends who is reading, I guess. I'm not a Christian, but love history and am always trying to work out what can be said about this or that obscure historical figure (and Jesus of Nazareth is an obscure historical figure, even if later people elevated him to divinity status) and what the sources for this information are (I wasn't quite seething with rage when I saw my unfinished "Sources" subsection here get misinterpreted as an awkward attempt to fill out our own coverage of that biography, but I was close).

By the way -- if the most important thing about Jesus's life really is his teachings, then why does this article not even use the word "divorce" once? I mean, it's literally the best-attested facet of his teaching, being in Mark, Q and Paul, and is actually used (in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, mind) as a piece of evidence that he couldn't have been married himself.[3] I never really thought about it, but that is a serious, frickin' oversight; enough that it kinda makes me wonder why no one brought it up in the (extremely short, given the prominence of the topic) FAC back in 2013 and whether the article should be delisted. (I've wondered about this before, but for different reasons, mainly that the lead obviously has nothing more than an accidental connection to the body, as they were written based on separate sources.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about his teachings (there are other articles on that), it is about Jesus, but the most important thing about Jesus is his teachings, so the article has to mention the fact of his teachings and where they are presumably found. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't check until now since it's completely peripheral to my main point (no idea why SL honed in on it), but the word "divorce" doesn't appear in Ministry of Jesus (to which Teachings of Jesus redirects), Historical Jesus, or Historicity of Jesus (which everyone told me back in 2014 is not just about whether he existed or not but also about the historical reliability of our sources on him and what they can tell us about his life and teachings). If you want to argue that a peripheral detail like this doesn't belong in the central "hub" article ... well, I would say you're wrong to say it's peripheral. But where does it belong? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you were already planning on reverting my edit, why did you encourage me to make it? I seriously don't understand what the game is here -- we have to mention both his life and his message in the opening sentence of the section, but we must go completely out of our way not to mention any aspect of his "message" throughout the rest of the section? I removed the word "message" from the lead sentence because I had noticed the odd neglect of his message in the rest of the section, and had decided to go with the path of least resistance on what I knew was a controversial article, then you told me above that you would be more amenable to the path that I had initially avoided because it was a more substantial change (If you want to add other, less substantial sources for his message [...], you could do that), but when I tried that you reverted it with the claim that I had "no cause" to add that content, having previously stated that I had "no reason" to remove the other content. What about the hundreds of words of reasoning I've already provided here? Did you even read it? Your claim that the best-attested teaching of the historical Jesus (as demonstrated by me above) is "one minor[,] supposed teaching from Jesus" (emphasis and punctuation to clarify that the emphasis is on two separate points mine) would appear to indicate so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way: Could you stop making reverts that consist entirely of "no consensus -- please discuss" or "no reason". Demanding discussion from a party wishing to make an edit for which they have already provided a reason, when you are not willing to explain why you disagree is really unhelpful, and saying "no reason" when a reason has been given in the form of an edit summary and sometimes also a talk comment is even less helpful. You need to provide a counter-reason that isn't just "no consensus"; even "I personally don't like that edit" would be more helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary: "no cause to highlight one minor supposed teaching from Jesus; this article not about Jesus's teachings". The Pauline epistles are also already mentioned in the previous sentence. In addition, the citation is non-RS, it has no author and no identifying factors other than it is from "Open Yale Courses", is called "Introduction to New Testament", and was recorded in 2009. It's not a good idea to cherry-pick one divisive and certainly non-canonical supposed teaching, sourced to a non-RS, and place it in the paragraph about the major sources for his life events. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick it. Dale Martin did. And it's in all three synoptics and the letters of Paul, so I can't for the life of me figure out what is "non-canonical" or "supposed" about it. Martin's lectures, published on Yale University's official YouTube channel, are definitely an RS, and you are outing the fact that you didn't actually click it at all. Also, you still aren't getting my main point, despite having reverted both my attempts at compromise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I clicked, listened, watched, and made every effort I personally could think of to determine the professor, and found no indication anywhere of who is speaking. This is in addition to the fact that this is cherry-picking a divisive and explosive and certainly not-agreed-upon tenet and trying to highlight it in an article which is not about Jesus's teachings. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's not going to introduce himself in lecture 13, but the name of the playlist is "New Testamenf History and Literature with Dale B. Martin". Sorry for not linking in the playlist: I was assuming that you understood that a lecture by a Yale professor is a reliable source and would not wikilawyer over my not having told you the name of said professor, and prioritized linking the exact moments he says what I cite him as saying. If you want something more clickable and "Ctrl+F"-friendly, there are transcripts of every lecture in the series here. Anyway, he's a fairly well known professor of New Testament at one of the most prestigious universities in North America, so if he "cherry-picks" a "controversial" and "certainly non-canonical" teaching, it's not unreasonable for Wikipedia too to cherry-pick the same. As FT says below, Paul does not provide direct attestation to a whole lot of Jesus's teachings -- if you can find another one that has been noted in a reliable secondary source, I'd be happy to accept that one instead.

Please also note that I'm not a Christian, nor an opponent of Christianity, nor an opponent or defender of divorce, so I have absolutely no dog in this fight -- if you were implying above that by "cherry-picking" a "divisive and explosive" teaching I was trying to push some kind of political, social or religious agenda, I would ask you to stop implying that. I was trying to make the text of our article make sense, and you were the one who told me to make the edit you are now calling "divisive and explosive". I already told you that my preferred version would simply not say "sources for ... his message". It was your idea to instead say somethinf about said message. Or at least, I was assuming your first reply was a compromise proposal -- I guess it's possible you were just wasting my time with a comment that had nothing to do with improving the article, in the hopes I would give up and go away.

Anyway, what does "non-canonical" mean when you use it as you did above? Jesus having forbidden divorce in one form or another is in at least three of the canonical gospels, as well as one of the canonical letters of Paul. I may personally like the Gospel of Thomas and other apocryphal texts, but what that has to do with this discussion is beyond me. For that matter, what does "certainly-not-agreed-upon" mean? You've been questioning the reliability of a Yale professor throughout this "discussion" (gonna ping User:MjolnirPants at this point, since he can vouch for Martin's reliability having been already established, or rather accepted as a given, in previous discussions), while refusing to cite a single source in support of your own highly-dubious (I'd go so far as to call them nonsensical) claims, such as that passages accepted as part of the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and 1 Corinthians by every major Christian denomination are somehow "non-canonical". Yes, if you're a Christian but you hold a modern view of marriage and divorce, you're perfectly free to believe Jesus never said the things attributed to him in these texts (unless you hold to inerrancy), and I fully support your believing this (I'm pretty sure this is what my mom believes). You're also free to be a Christian, believe Jesus did say the things attributed to him, but believe that he was addressing a particular cultural context that is no longer relevant. But that doesn't justify your referring to the content of texts that are canonical for pretty much all Christians as "non-canonical", nor insinuating that your fellow Wikipedians are pushing some kind of opposite agenda when they have clearly outlined a policy/RS-based rationale for their edits.

And you still have not justified your proposing a compromise above, then changing your mind once I implemented said compromising and reverting a second time. This looks very much like tendentious edit-warring.

On a completely unrelated note, Martin goes into some detail on his views on marriage and the nuclear family, though only by implication also divorce, in this video. Sorry, I've only watched it once and that was almost a year ago, so I don't remember exactly where, but I think it was in an audience Q&A near the end. I'm still torn on whether that material belongs in our article on him, let alone a completely unrelated article like this one, but I don't feel comfortable elaborating on the personal views of someone I've never met, and thought a link to a primary source might be better, since you seem to be (?) somewhat interested in that topic.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I never told you to make that edit. Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You're making it really obvious you are not reading my comments. It's inconceivable that you clicked on this page, read through a 780-word comment (let alone clicked any of the ELs), decided in a fair and reasoned manner that the only part that merited a response was the bit I happened to write in boldface, and penned your response, in a mere 19 minutes.

You said in your first comment in this thread: If you want to add other, less substantial sources for his message[...], you could do that. Now, I interpreted this to mean "include the material about his message that comes from less substantial sources than the synoptics, as opposed to removing the word message from the opening sentence".

I guess (now that you have directly claimed you didn't mean that) you probably meant "list more NT and extracanonical sources that aren't already mentioned", but for me to assume off the bat that you meant that would have been an AGF-violation, since the only way you could mean that would be if you were deliberately making off-topic comments while ignoring what I was actually talking about.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The letters of Paul don't contain that much information on Jesus' teachings. In fact, they contain any of Jesus' parables. The gospels are still the best source for Jesus' teachings. Regarding Thomas, most scholars date it to the 2nd century (I added sources to the article to support this, sources that have counted the scholarship opinion), and agree that Thomas cites material from the canonical gospels. Bart Ehrman says that Thomas was written after the gospels [4]. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If "message" is too vague, we can change it to "teachings".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehrman and Martin both date Thomas to the early second century, earlier than any of the other apocryphal gospels and not much later than the canonical gospels (which, with the exception of Mark, they date to between 80 and 100), and consider it to be independent from them (Martin explicitly says in the above-linked lecture that "some scholars" believe Thomas may have known the other gospels, but if he meant "most" why would he say "some"?). I would like to see a source that says most scholars [...] agree that Thomas cites material from the canonical gospels and do not date it significantly earlier than "the rest of the gnostic gospels" (scare-quotes because classifying the work as gnostic is controversial). I can't see page 56 in the GBooks preview of Keener. The GBooks preview of Evans 2008 doesn't have page numbers, and while it does date the gospel of Thomas no earlier than the end of the second century, but I can't find a "most scholars" reference, and even if I could it might be worth noting that Evans is or was a member of the Ehrman Project, a group of very conservative evangelical scholars, and Baker is an evangelical publisher, so "most scholars" when used in that book could very possibly refer to "most scholars if we include everyone of our theological persuasion who holds a PhD in a relevant field, plus famous critical scholars who teach at the best universities in North America, but not critical scholars who are not famous". Eerdmans' website, unlike that of Baker, doesn't say "we are an evangelical publishing house", but Keener does teach in an evangelical theological seminary. I don't have time at the moment, but I'll check Ehrman's NT introduction textbook later to see if he agrees with what you quote Keener and Craig as saying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the original edit (removal of "and message" from "The only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus are the Gospels of the New Testament"), I'm not against this edit. Sanders does say this in the Britannica article (and I think he's right), but the rest of the paragraph does only talk about the life of Jesus. Ultimately, it doesn't really make much of a difference.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: Thank you for clarifying, but unfortunately now that that edit has been reverted, saying that you are "not against" the edit doesn't really solve anything. I agree that it doesn't really make much of a difference (unlike adding discussion of Jesus's teachings to the rest of the section), but I just think it looks really silly the way we have it at present. If Softlavender were willing to explain exactly what she found so objectionable about the original (arguably minor and stylistic) edit beyond "it's in the title", perhaps I could address her concerns, but I'm finding the above back-and-forth somewhat inscrutable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've only skimmed over this discussion, so I can't weigh in with any detail. I can say the following: I didn't find this edit to be controversial in any way; Jesus's Q&A about divorce does appear in Mark, Luke, M and Q according to scholars and my best recollection (I've been reading mostly fiction the past few months); and Dale Martin is widely considered to be a highly qualified expert, and is, in fact, the person giving the lecture in that video (I've met him in person; he seemed like a very nice guy). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Christians who do not celebrate Christmas

Quite a few. This source[5] estimates 27 million, which is a tiny minority of course. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That user-generated article is unreliable and inaccurate. For instance, Seventh-Day Adventists do celebrate Christmas (I know several of them in my area, one – who was a missionary for them for years – has been my housecleaner for the past 10 years; plus a simple Google search will put that fallacy to rest). Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's unreliable and inaccurate - it misses, for example, the fact that traditionally Presbyterianism did not celebrate Christmas. Denominations like the Free Church of Scotland still don't. StAnselm (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I would chime in and point out that there are tons of Christians who do not celebrate Christmas. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, typically do not celebrate Christmas, which most of them regard as a pagan holiday. (One of my friends used to date a Jehovah's Witness and I have heard her complain several times about how he and his family refused to celebrate Christmas or Easter.) In fact, Christmas has not been universally celebrated historically either. In the 1600s, the Puritans actually attempted to ban Christmas altogether because it was closely associated with widespread drunkenness. As recently as the 1800s, most Quakers did not celebrate any holidays at all, because they believed that every day was inherently sacred and that to regard any particular day as being more holy than any other day was an act of idolatry. Anymore, they seem to have largely abandoned this idea. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Also depends on what you mean by “celebrate”. I think most Unitarians celebrate Christmas because it’s an excuse to eat, drink and be merry. But, most of them don’t believe Christ was a god. In any case, it’s quite absurd to claim there are no Christians that don't "celebrate" Christmas. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the article reflecting the consensus to acknowledge that not all Christians celebrate Christmas are continuously being reverted. Plumber (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

I just want to say that Jesus was not a jewish preacher he was the Son of God. His name was Jesus Christ the Son of God. Sh4vida (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Jesus was Jewish, and He preached repentance to His Jewish people first in power before He ordained St. Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles Prettyfawn (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

ATTENTION: AUTHOR, please edit Christ Jesus’ birthplace

The author should edit his article to include Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace because when I asked Siri on my iPhone when Jesus was born, it pulled up this article and quoted that He was born in Nazareth, which is a lie according to the 2nd chapter of Luke in the Holy Bible’s New Testament. Prettyfawn (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read the article you see: "Matthew and Luke each describe Jesus' nativity (or birth), especially that Jesus was born by a virgin Mary in Bethlehem in fulfillment of prophecy." This is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Genealogy and nativity" section, where it'd be expected to be. Neither John nor Mark address Jesus's birth, so these are the sources we have. The information box at the top says: "Born c. 4 BC, Judea, Roman Empire". When Siri or Google provide this type of summarized information it is important to understand that it draws from a wide variety of web sources and not necessarily all the information is coming from the same place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

Here is the text, taken directly from the wikipedia article:

Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return...

Here it is again, with my suggestion for grammatical improvement. I suggest adding the word, "from", which you will find within the last few words of the following:

Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, from whence he will return...

That is all. Thank you. ~~ Jake7777777 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not want Ian Thompson commenting anything about me on this page!

I do not want Ian Thompson commenting anything about me on this page!!! Ian Thompson is nothing but an emotional adverse mess in my life!!! Celiaescalante (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This WP:SPA is trolling. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Christocentric POV

This is a revival of a discussion in June archived for inactivity. Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam is given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism. My good faith edits on Jesus' role as the Messiah in two similarly-sized religions should be reflected per NPOV. The current lede has a "separate but equal" vibe. Plumber (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with plumber's grievances about his edits being reverted. By not including information about Islam and Jesus in the lede, the article has a pretty clear bias towards a Christian perspective. But since those are not the only prevailing perspectives of Jesus, it pretty clearly violates NPOV, in my opinion. --Potato muffin (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I can only find two explanations for Potato muffin's comment above, either he doesn't know what "lede" means or he hasn't read it, because there is a whole paragraph in the lead "the section before the table of contents and the first heading" which includes information about Islam and Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Smeat75. As the page you linked clearly states, a good lead should be about 4 paragraphs. The separate but equal status quo is six paragraphs, with my revision much closer to an ideal lead both in this regard and involving NPOV. Plumber (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Plumber on this as well. The lede feels like it's violating NPOV by devoting equal space to Jesus in Islam and Judaism, when it makes more sense to do so with Jesus in Islam and Christianity given population numbers. ShrimpHeavenNow (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a featured article, so if there were some sort of hard and fast rule about the number of paragraphs in the lead, or an obvious POV problem, it would not have achieved that status.Smeat75 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

When I got this article to FA status a few years ago, the lede was only 4 paragraphs (see [6]). But then people kept adding stuff to the lede so it became longer. Take a look at that version. Do you like it better? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I must say I'm strongly inclined to agree with the user Plumber above. While Jesus is infinitely important in Christianity, I feel that there needs to be more focus on his role in Islam, in line with Plumber's argument. Stamboliyski (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a vote. I'm seeing two accounts registered to comment on this topic and now a user who, after a year of inactivity and no prior edits to a religion article, has decided to come here. Why on Earth would this issue result in behavior that looks like off-site canvassing? No comment on whether Christianity and Islam's views on Jesus should be one paragraph distinct ones, just observing something. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson is right. This looks a lot like either canvassing or sockpuppetry. We have two users with brand-new accounts and a third user who has been inactive for over a year suddenly popping up to agree with a user who has strong convictions about the subject. This is definitely quite suspicious. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There's something very fishy going on here. ShrimpHeavenNow says in his user page that his old account is User:Beanbeanbean, whose contrib history shows that he created Plumber's talk page 10 years ago.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen (admittedly more malicious) accounts lumped together at SPI on more coincidental evidence than that. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So file an SPI as per DUCK, or find a CU. But, quite correct that it doesn’t affect the argument. I still think the article has a biased emphasis. Objective3000 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oof, now I feel almost offended. This is indeed not a vote. I hope you'll forgive me for taking an interest in a figure who holds a lot of importance to me, and refrain from unfounded accusations. I haven't been inactive, just dormant. I still take an active interest in topics that matter to me. Stamboliyski (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, why was I included in this investigation? I haven't commented on this issue in months and yet I also got accused of being part of this sockpuppetry or canvassing effort. I think this looks transparently like a bad faith effort to derail from the issue and dismiss the support Plumber has had. -Hemavati (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I will comment that the timing of your diff WAS suspicious and in line with confirmed sockpuppetry/canvassing I've seen on other articles. You were absolved of any wrongdoing, so frankly I wouldn't worry about it. Heck, I've been accused of sockpuppetry and this is the only account I've had in 10+ years. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have also been here for ten years, but this is the first time I have been accused of sockpuppetry. The same user who did so had previously attempted to hide the original discussion, so I am reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt. Those in favor of making the changes originally were accused by proponents of the status quo of acting in bad faith, subjected to personal attacks ("Muslim sympathizers"), and so on; whenever the subject is brought up there is a concerted effort to derail it by one method or another. Plumber (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a vote; there doesn't seem to be any disagreement here about this page having a biased POV in favor of the subject's role in one religion of ~1 billion people at the expense of another with ~1 billion people. Plumber (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Despite this consensus, the edits were reverted again without explanation. Plumber (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a consensus considering the Sock Puppet accusations. Some of the users that discussed previously probably aren't interested in discussing this again. Best to start an RfC if you want this to move forward.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

File a CU or an SPI (W:DUCK) if you suspect sockpuppetry. I've never engaged in such things on a wiki and I don't plan to anytime soon. No one has raised any objections to the edits themselves. Plumber (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"No one has raised any objections to the edits themselves." Not true, I have,several times, and as FutureTrillionaire says, there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over on a talk page, so I don't need to say I do not agree with your proposed revision more than the at least three times I have already said it. And stop edit-warring.Smeat75 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumber --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• No socks found. Plumber (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not entirely convinced by the simplistic ~1 billion vs. ~1 billion argument. Not saying it's entirely irrelevant, but nor do I find it to be the only aspect to take into account. There is no denying that Jesus is much more central to religion focused on him, than to one focused on Muhammad. True, Muslims consider Jesus important and hold other beliefs about him than Christians. Keep in mind, though, that Muhammad has been enormously important to the history of Christianity (both by Muslims occupying large previously Christian areas and by Christian and Muslim theological arguments). Christians believe Muhammad was a fraud, yet I would be very reluctant to suggest we give that view equal prominence in the article on Muhammad as the Muslim view. Jesus and Muhammad are, arguably, the two most important people to have lived for their role in shaping the two largest religions, and many people will have many views on them. While recognizing that fact, I still think it makes sense that the article on Jesus gives prominence to the Christian view and the article on Muhammad to the Muslim view (just a I find it logic that Moses should have a mainly Jewish perspective despite being important to both Christians and Muslims.) Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with your sentiments, which is why the revised edits still give more prominence to Christianity than Islam. The previous status quo's imbalance is such a violation of NPOV that it nearly equates Jesus' important role in Islam & his absence of a role in Judaism. This also leads to redundancy that hurts readability—instead of one sentence with the commonalities of Christian and Muslim views of Jesus (Messiah, ascension, etc.), these are segregated by paragraph. Plumber (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems like the crux of the matter is WP:WEIGHT, and there are two opposing viewpoints: 1. NPOV requires equal treatment of Christianity and Islam in the lede due to nearly equal numbers of adherents. 2. NPOV requires greater treatment of Christianity than Islam in the lede due to the relative importance of Jesus in the two religions. NO ONE, thankfully, is arguing that Islam does not belong in the lede at all, as that would be clearly fallacious. Personally, I find 2 the more persuasive, but until editors can come to an agreement on this, this controversy will continue. I suggest a WP:DRN if it cannot be resolved here soon. Jtrevor99 (talk)
  • I agree with you that per WP:WEIGHT 2 (greater preference to Christianity) is preferable to 1 (equal treatment). When these edits were first dicussed months ago, they were more in line with 1, but we reached a compromise. Unfortunately, the compromise was continuously reverted, with those in favor of a change being met with uncivil accusations instead of factual objections. Now, after passions have cooled, there is a clear supermajority in favor of changing the status quo to a 2-based solution, because the status quo is such a severe violation of NPOV. Instead of Christianity having greater weight than Islam, as everyone here seems to agree on, the lede features Islam having slightly greater weight than Judaism (where Jesus is irrelevant entirely.) To me, the issue seems to be largely settled based on the consensus-driven discussions I have been involved with in the past — there is a supermajority in favor of a compromise, with a small minority opposing the changes. Plumber (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems we have a consensus. Plumber (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The compromise edit as is still seems too Christocentric. I preferred to have all Abrahamic doctrine in one paragraph, but if we keep it to multiple paragraphs as it is now, some sentences on Jesus in Islam could simply be moved up to the lead. Plumber (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not a compromise edit. That's just the edit you've been trying to make for months. Much of the changes in the edit (e.g. changes to the 4th and 5th paragraph) were never discussed. Stop trying to claim there is consensus and compromise when there is none.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a wide consensus here, which you do not support. This does not mean you can unilaterally revert the new consensus. I would welcome a further discussion on the actual points of debate, however. Plumber (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that a consensus exists above. I do not see one. Although this is not a vote, my brief (and possibly inaccurate) count shows 5 in favor of changes, 6 against, and 1 neutral. For: Plumber, Potato muffin, ShrimpHeavenNow, Stamboliyski, Objective3000. Against: Smeat75, FutureTrillionaire, Ian.thomson, Katolophyromai, Jtrevor99, Jeppiz. Neutral: Hemavati. Obviously I may be biased because it's my preferred position, but I would give greater weight to the established editors of this article. That said, I think it's the degree of changes that is under debate, and the approach you're taking. With something as sensitive as this article, it's best to draft the changes here, and come to a consensus on the actual wording/changes, rather than to just make them. THAT I would be in favor of. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not neutral, I was on Plumber's side about the issue, I just hadn't been involved in this conversation for a couple of months so I found it odd that I was included. But I definitely agree with Plumber's take on how the lede should include the importance for Islam. --Hemavati (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we were including users who also wanted a change to the lede for being too Christocentric, but if we are: in addition to the 6 users on record of opposing the current revision in this section, Lipsquid, User:Isambard Kingdom, Erp, Eperoton, Alexis Ivanov, and Cookie Monster have also recently sought to change the first paragraph to include a mention of Jesus' role as a Messiah, prophet, and messenger in Islam. Plumber (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that drafting changes here would be a good idea. The principle is the lede is in violating of WEIGHT by giving nearly as much presence to Jesus in Islam as Judaism. The first paragraph doesn't mention Islam as all. A previous suggestion by FutureTrillionaire to combine doctrinal aspects of Christianity and Islam (Messiah, virgin birth, etc.) was a good one; unfortunately he reverted the compromise in the beginning of a pattern of goal-post shifting. In my view, only you have opposed properly (with Smeat75 & FutureTrillionaire using ad-hominem attacks both now and in the archived discussion, instead of commenting on the merit of the changes), with 6 others supporting aside from the neutral Ian.thomson and Katolophryomai (whose objections to the process have been resolved.) Plumber (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"with Smeat75...using ad-hominem attacks both now and in the archived discussion, instead of commenting on the merit of the changes". I strongly object to that statement and would like to know what you are talking about. See WP:NPA - " Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."Smeat75 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for the mistake! I somehow confused Smeat75 with 209.182.115.214. How embarrassing! x.x Plumber (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread and its intention and precise request(s) seems unclear. Unless someone can state clearly what they want (with suggested precise text changes provided), and why, and unless there is substantial agreement to that, this thread seems to have no consensus for change. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

My edit recently reverted is a good place to start, although I think it can be improved by further discussion. Plumber (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• • If you are responding to me, you should indent your post to indicate that. Also, since you have not provided the requested suggested precise text changes, nor supplied a specific WP:DIFF, the matter is still unclear and there is certainly no consensus for change. I suggest we all consider this matter stale and unsupported and move on. Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: There was no consensus to change the lede when Plumber suggested it back in June, and there's still no consensus now. If you really don't want to drop the issue, Plumber, you should start an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Going back to the roots of the debate, I feel a simple addition such as this one was the right place to start. My preferred compromise (left) attempted to resolve the earlier discussion over the word Messiah by clarifying that they mean different things in Christianity and Islam. It also included FutureTrillionaire's past suggestion of merging common Christian and Islamic doctrine. Figuring out the wording of the changes seems to be the main obstacle ahead to a clean revision, since there have been at least 12 users (Lipsquid, User:Isambard Kingdom, Erp, Eperoton, Alexis Ivanov, Cookie Monster, Plumber, Potato muffin, ShrimpHeavenNow, Stamboliyski, Objective3000) over the past few months to find the lede to be biased in favor of Christianity, with three (StAnselm, Smeat75 and Jtrevor) in current legitimate disagreement over what appeared to be a consensus to include more information on Jesus' role in Islam in the lead. I said there seems to be a consensus above, and no one objected for over a week or two; in the previous months a RfC ultimately had the same lack of response. The discussion is making great progress and I feel this revision by David Eppstein is a fine replacement of the status quo. I would prefer to combine the doctrinal paragraphs into one paragraph per W:LEAD, but am open to suggestions here. Plumber (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There may be some misunderstanding/miscommunication over the word "lead". In WP:LEAD, it means the whole section, but I think some people have been using the word to refer to the the lead paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Plumber, I can't find the RfC you refer to; could you provide a link, please? StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

All, I would suggest a WP:DRN at this point. The discussion has been continuing for two months without completion. WP:DRN is an appropriate venue for civil discussions where well-intentioned authors cannot come to a consensus, which I believe describes the present situation. Meanwhile, I thank everyone for continuing to be civil and WP:HERE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN filed. Hopefully we can get this resolved soon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: The DRN request was obviously closed as unfeasible and unwarranted. That said, there doesn't seem to be any cause for an RfC either, as there is only one editor pushing for a change and said change(s) has been rejected by numerous neutral experienced editors. If the editor who wants the change wants to open a clear, precise, brief, neutral WP:RFC, let that be their choice and their action. As it is, this lengthy thread appears to simply be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of that editor. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good advice. My apologies for the premature DRN but I was unaware of the RfC option. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, at least 12 people so far vs. 4 editors are pushing for changing the first paragraph to include Islam rather than keeping it in a Christocentric POV. ShrimpHeavenNow (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Except for Stamboliyski, no editor with any article-space edits has agreed with Plumber in this thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just going to chime in to this discussion to mention that a reasonable compromise to this dispute would be to implement the David Eppstein revision shared above. Potato muffin (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No consensus for that. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And The only change David Eppstein made there was to replace the words "A majority of": [7], which is no longer even applicable in the current neutral and accurate sentence he added that to. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The current sentence is inaccurate and another violation of NPOV. It implies everyone in the world celebrates Christmas, or that all Christians and no non-Christians celebrate Christmas. Plumber (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

12/16 participants in the discussion expressing displeasure in alleged bias of the lead seems to be a consensus; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have yet to see any opposition to the David Eppstein revision on the basis of content — what exactly makes the current lead not a NPOV violation compared to that revision? Plumber (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Except for Stamboliyski, no editor with any article-space edits has agreed with your changes to the article. And please for heaven's sake learn to provide WP:DIFFs. The only change David Eppstein made there was to replace the words "A majority of": [8], which is no longer even applicable in the current neutral and accurate sentence he added that to. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No relevant criticism has been addressed. This is not a site where only editors can read articles. Plumber (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

To the minority of editors here opposed to the changes: are there any of you who have any text-based objections to this aforementioned compromise? Plumber (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Until you state what specific text you are talking about, or provide a WP:DIFF, no one can know precisely what you mean. Also, except for Stamboliyski, no editor with any article-space edits has agreed with your changes to the article. Softlavender (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"Christians believe him to be the Son of God ...."

As with celebrating Christmas (discussed a month ago), not all Christians believe Jesus was the "Son of God". I can name several Christian groups that do not believe this, so we need to say "Most Christians believe him to be the Son of God ...." Softlavender (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Support this change, especially if a citation is given inline which explicitly says something like that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree O3000 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with an exact fit of a citation that would cover all angles, but I think we can make the change and then cite later if needed. I don't really know what to search under to find a comprehensive citation. Here is some stuff I picked up; don't know if any of it helps:

• http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-divine/ origins of the concept
• http://www.mvucc.org/ten-things-people-think-christians-have-to-believe-but-dont/ perspective from a United Church of Christ site
• https://books.google.com/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA203 random book page

Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unitarian/Universalists sites may help. O3000 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; I didn't check any (I merely did a generic search). There also many other so-called denominations that do not believe Jesus was the Son of God. I'm kind of tired of searching right now ... :) Plus the thing I liked about that UCC link that popped up is that it doesn't say "we" (meaning this specific sect) believe such and such, it says Christians don't have to believe such and such. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Making the change and finding a more comprehensive citation if needed sounds reasonable to me. I just think that as many people gave the misconception that verification in the lead would be useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood; I'm not great at researching theology though. :) Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a hurry here. Any claim that all people of a certain creed believe the same things is absurd on its face. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have reverted the addition. I do see and emerging consensus here, but a much more thorough discussion is neeeded to change a long-standing consensus on a featured article. The thing is, "Son of God" is a very soft wording already - most, if not all, groups who reject the deity of Jesus are happy for him to be called "Son of God". Secondly, the sources above a very weak. We would need a clear reference from a Christian group rejecting the concept. The UCC site cited above does not do this. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And we also have to consider the difference between Chistian ethos and religion. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

" The thing is, "Son of God" is a very soft wording already - most, if not all, groups who reject the deity of Jesus are happy for him to be called "Son of God"." I strongly disagree; the phrase "Son of God" is wikilinked to an article which immediately states "In Christianity, the title Son of God refers to the status of Jesus as the divine son of God the Father." So Son of God as defined by Wikipedia is thus the divine and only Son of God. "We would need a clear reference from a Christian group rejecting the concept." No, we wouldn't. A Christian is a self-described follower of the teachings of Jesus, and it is manifestly untrue that all Christians believe him to be the Son of God. There is no "consensus" to keep inaccurate wording that has never come into question, and since it is manifestly false, it needs to be changed or reworded. As O3000 states above, "Any claim that all people of a certain creed believe the same things is absurd on its face." Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God; the doctrine didn't even come into being until after his death. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Divinity, not deity. Groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses to reject the idea that Jesus is God, still believe that he's the Son of God, and indeed make much of it ("Many who believe that Jesus Christ is God have difficulty explaining why he is called the Son of God. Logic suggests that he cannot be both"). And "Christians believe" does not have to mean "All Christians believe"; it can mean "Christians generally believe". The point is, the phrase "Son of God" was chosen for the lead for a reason; it's pretty much the lowest common denominator of Christian belief. StAnselm (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. As stated above, many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine, and to state that as a fact in Wikipedia's voice is egregiously inaccurate. "And 'Christians believe' does not have to mean 'All Christians believe'; it can mean 'Christians generally believe'." No, it's an absolute statement, just like "Christians annually celebrate his birth on Christmas", which we changed seven weeks ago because it was inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It may have been "stated above" that "many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine" but do you have a citation? Is there any evidence for that? StAnselm (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Here[9], are separate statements that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian but did not believe in the divinity of Christ. If you read The Jefferson Bible, it discusses the life of Jesus in 100+ pages with no mention of divinity or miracles. O3000 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say Jefferson was a Christian; it quotes him as saying that he was a Christian. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, TJ said he was a Christian. You don’t need a license to be a Christian. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"It may have been "stated above" that "many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine" but do you have a citation? Is there any evidence for that?" The early Christians did not; that concept was invented by Paul and then dogmatized at the Council of Nicaea. Likewise, since the the mid-1800s (Christian Science, etc.) many Christians have rejected the divinity of Jesus. This is in addition to individual Christians like Jefferson, etc. Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not even sure what son of god means. I think the original word for son in Aramaic or Greek had a broader definition, including those taught by a master. And some religions consider all of humanity sons of a god. And if someone claims to be a believer, but doesn’t fit an exact definition by a religious organization, who gave them the power to claim they don’t fit a broader religious classification? If we state that religious organizations can declare someone is a nonbeliever, then depending on the source, 80%-98% of American Catholics may be ruled non-Catholic as they have used some form of birth control. And, even excommunicated Catholics are considered Catholic and Christian at this time. We simply cannot claim that 100% of any branch of religion must fit into a specific pigeon hole. To not use a qualifier, sources must show that all adherents fit the claim. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

lots of sourced over at Nontrinitarianism.--Moxy (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

[Note: I don't have time to read the above discussion, so I'll drop my thoughts here]. The term "Son of God" does not necessarily imply divinity. While there are groups that reject Jesus' divinity, I can't think of any groups that reject Jesus' title as "Son of God". Asking for a source for that sates that all adherents believe that Jesus is the Son of God might be difficult because of the ambiguity of the term. My guess is that all Christians agree that "Son of God" is one of Jesus' title (since that is what the Bible says), but some might have different interpretations of what "Son of God" means. I think it's best to change the sentence to "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament."— Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureTrillionaire (talk • contribs)

All Christians do not accept every word of the Bible (only Fundamentalists do). And we've already noted several Christian groups and individuals who do not agree with the "Son of God" appellation. That said, as long as we include the word "Most", I would accept "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament." or something along those lines. Softlavender (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The UCC wiki article says this: "The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior." The other links you provided discusses Jesus' divinity, not Jesus' title as "Son of God". My issue with changing it to "Most Christians believe him to be the Son of God" is that I can't think of any groups that reject the title itself, since the title doesn't imply divinity. I'm glad that you can accept the compromise I provided.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with most anything so long as the first word is most. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In any case, we know for a fact that not all Christians (individuals or groups) "believe him to be the Son of God", so whatever we write, we have to use the word "Most". Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And, I’m not even willing to state that fundamentalists all agree, as the Bible contains contradictions. And, a pope or two have stated that parts of the Bible are apocryphal. Various doubts long preceded a nail on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. And I’m not even going to the origins of Christian dogma. We’re an encyclopedia, not an encyclical. Folk are allowed to believe what they wish without WP saying they don’t belong in a particular club. But, most works. O3000 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I support using "most Christians" - in fact, I would change it to "Most modern Christians" because it was not true at all times in Christian history. The full details of Christology are too involved for this article, but "All Christians" would be misleading. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Most modern Christians is better yet. O3000 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You got a citation for that? StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with "Most modern Christians", because that implies the belief that Jesus is the Son of God is a new, modern belief/outlook (which it isn't, it goes back to Paul or at least to Nicaea). I think what you are trying to imply is that some modern (as opposed to pre-Enlightenment or whatever) Christians do not accept/believe Jesus to be the Son of God, but that's not the way to express it. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Gospel" in introduction

In the second section, the "historical reliability of the Gospels" is mentioned, without (or far before) the term "Gospel" is presented as an account of the life of Jesus. It is probably not right to just assume familiarity with the term. To fix this, at least some of the structure of the second section would have to be changed. Perhaps it could be parted in two, one outlining the life of Jesus, and one discussing historicity and sources? St.nerol (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is serious issue. If the reader is not familiar with the term, they can click on the wikilink. The lede is already very long, so I'm not comfortable with adding more sentences.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FutureTrillionaire. I think it is safe to assume that most people will have at least heard of the gospels. If they have not, there is a reason why we have wikilinks. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The Infobox Should is Misleading

Simple, if you can date the age at birth, then you can date the age at resurrection and ascension.

Why even put an info box?

The info box makes Jesus sound dead and out of reach. Anyone can point at the figure and say Jesus is dead, do it is insulting to followers of Christ.

Making certain mistakes shows lack of comprehension. If one takes the time to read the entire Holy Bible, one would demonstrate an understanding of reality. Celiaescalante (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the historical figure known as Jesus. There is no empirical evidence that "resurrection" and "ascension" exist in reality. You'd have a better case at Christ (title). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read Homo unius libri, attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas. As an encyclopedia, we are not here to follow or proselytize the beliefs or books of one of thousands of variations of belief systems. We simply describe them. And, as NeilN states, this particular article is about Jesus the person. (Although it goes off-track now and again.) O3000 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

2A02:C7D:31B9:FE00:80DB:3589:AA4D:8052 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what you want changed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Location of Jesus' birth

Dosen't the New Testament state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Jesus could have been born Nazareth as well. Why isn't this information mentioned in some kind in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardElric2016 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The information that the Bible states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is in the body text of the article (Jesus#Genealogy and nativity), but since the Bible is an unreliable source for facts about the historical Jesus, only the overarching known scholarly facts are in the infobox. His hometown is listed as Nazareth in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

the Bible is an unreliable source for facts about the historical Jesus That's actually not entirely true, but close enough for what we do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MPants – however, scholars cannot agree on the historical Jesus' exact place of birth, so we exclude Bethlehem in the infobox. CookieMonster755✉ 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I still assert that he was born in Hoboken, NJ, and nobody can prove me wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The (pretty interesting) FAQ points to this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the clarity. Though on Buddha's infobox, his traditional place of birth (Lumbini) is given though it explicitly mentioned that this is a traditional claim. I don't see why we can't do the same for Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C300:3BD2:9563:81E4:5A4C:214B (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, which deals with facts, and this article is about the historical person known as Jesus, and problems or issues with other articles should be addressed on those articles, not here. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I didn't know that mentioning the traditional place of birth in the infobox was such a big problem. And of course I know this is an encyclopedia which deals with facts. The fact is that the NT states that Bethlehem is the birth place of Jesus. Whether that's historically accurate I cannot say and wasn't my point to begin with. I was merely comparing the two articles as the one I compared it to (Buddha) did mention the traditional place of birth in its infobox. I was just looking for some consistency in this website.

The discussion regarding the birthplace in the infobox was discussed back in 2011. I think it would be appropriate to open a request for comment regarding that to see if consensus has changed. CookieMonster755✉ 16:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board with that. I actually agree with the IP; the traditional place of birth should probably be put in the infobox, though we might want to also mention what historians believe his place of birth to be, as well (Nazareth). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants let's start a request for comment form regarding the birth location. CookieMonster755✉ 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A RFC does not trump WP:RS/AC. We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. If anything, the case for Bethlehem is even flimsier now. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued that Bethlehem is actually the correct birthplace. Any reliable source will agree, however, that it is absolutely the traditional birthplace. As I said above, I think we should show both the traditional birthplace and the scholarly consensus (Nazareth). That wouldn't contradict any RS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, people are positing that certain locations are correct (i.e. "the truth"). There are articles on Jesus the person and Jesus the figure in various religions. I should think this article should take a scholarly view, and religious articles as presented by related religious texts -- all with proper qualifying footnotes. O3000 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

e.g. the article on Jesus the Sinatrarian should list Hoboken. O3000 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There's the one editor preaching The Truth™, but they haven't posted in a couple days. But neither me nor the IP, nor CookieMonster have advocated for it. I know that even if we do list Bethlehem as his traditional birthplace, we need to be explicit that it's the traditional. And as I said, I'd also want to mention the scholarly consensus, and mark that one as exactly that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have to look for the alleged census that is mentioned by some religious sources. It is alleged, since Joseph is said to have been born of Bethlehem, that the whole family would need to travel there to be counted. It seems only logical that we look for some record of such a journey (or even such a census), before making any statement as to where "Jesus" was born. Therefore, I propose the actual page read "Nazareth/Bethlehem(unk.)" to demonstrate that there are multiple possible locations.R0tekatze (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Insufficient support within the New Testament as well. The Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Gospel of Mark claims that Jesus was from Nazareth, and does not mention anything about Bethlehem. The Gospel of John explicitly claims that Jesus was from Nazareth, and its first chapter has a character questioning: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John does not mention Bethlehem either. The Gospels also disagree on Jesus' family background.:

• Joseph, father of Jesus is a relatively major character in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, receives a brief mention in the Gospel of John, and is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in the Gospel of Mark. In Mark, Jesus is repeatedly called "Mary's son" and no character mentions a father for him.
• Mary, mother of Jesus is a relatively major character in the Gospel of Luke and (to a lesser extend) Matthew, gets three passing mentions in Mark (where she is otherwise insignificant), and is a minor, anonymous character in the Gospel of John. Also the story of the miraculous conception of Jesus and Mary's supposed virginity turns up in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, but is completely absent in the Gospels of Mark and John.
• The Brothers of Jesus are named in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, briefly appear in the Gospel of John, and are only mentioned once in the Gospel of Luke, which otherwise ignores them. In fact the narrative of Finding in the Temple in Luke strongly implies that 12-year-old Jesus was an only child.
• A number of unnamed sisters of Jesus are mentioned as residents of Nazareth in the Gospel of Matthew, and are briefly mentioned in a scene in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus seems to be rejecting his own family. The Gospels of Luke and John mention no sisters at all.
• A maternal aunt of Jesus is mentioned, but not named, in the Gospel of John, where she is present in Jesus' crucifixion. The implication is unclear, but tradition identifies Jesus'aunt with Mary of Clopas, a character who appears in the next verse of the same chapter. The character does not appear in the Gospels of Luke, Mark, or Matthew, though there have been attempts at identifying her with minor female characters from these gospels. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have to look for the alleged census that is mentioned by some religious sources. No. That would be original research. It's not our job to confirm or refute the scholarly consensus, only to report it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Either Bethlehem or Nazareth should be listed as the birth place, not both of them. Scholars are split on the birthplace, though many advocate that he was born in Nazareth. I only suggest a RfC, and did not advocate for one or the other at this point. CookieMonster755✉ 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If scholars are split, who are we to pick one? I hope we can avoid an RfC as it will be difficult to close. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen a scholar claim that the scholars are split. Ehrman has written that "There is no way that this can be historically correct." referring to the traditional birthplace of Bethlehem, and the worst (accurate) criticism I've ever heard of his work is that he's done nothing more than parrot the scholarly consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, since there is no consensus to start an RfC, then one should not be opened. It seems like the current setup works. CookieMonster755✉ 16:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current setup is completely acceptable. Listing Jesus's place of birth in the infobox would be opening an unnecessary can of worms. It is fine to simply state that Nazareth was his "hometown," which is something that everyone - evangelicals and scholars alike - will absolutely agree on. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Age at death

If Jesus was born in 4 BC in the second half of the year and died in 30 AD or 33 AD in the first half of the year, then he aged 32 or 35, not 33 or 36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.66.190 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

See Year zero. O3000 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that the info box should be changed because he is not dead today, he is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyDust81568 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

As a Christian I also believe that, but of course such a statement does not belong in an academic setting. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a religious belief that cannot be added to an infobox, though you are free to hold personal beliefs. Cheers, CookieMonster755✉ 01:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm an atheist, but I actually think that's a funny and somewhat useful idea; doing something to indicate that Jesus is alive every Christmas (but only on that day). It would be cute and a little funny and would help spread good will and cheer, and if there's one thing the surly herd of neckbeards here need more of, it's good will and cheer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• It would be very cute, @MjolnirPants: I don't think other editors would allow such a kind-hearted gesture on an encyclopedia, though. Maybe for April Fools day. I know Wikipedia gets into the spirit of that. CookieMonster755✉ 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably not, unfortunately. See "surly herd of neckbeards" above. Sigh. But at least with one Christian opposing and at least one Atheist supporting the notion, nobody could point to it as any kind of religious ideological disagreement if we ever had a serious discussion about it. Just disagreement as to whether it's "appropriate" (read: self-important enough) for the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• What the infobox says is accurate - Jesus was most likely born in 4 BC and died by crucifixion in 30/33 AD. Christians (myself included) believe that Jesus was alive before that time as God the not-yet-incarnated Son and after that time as as the risen savior, as the article also explains. -- LWG ^talk 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Atheist? An atheist writing an article on Jesus Christ is like visual impaired person (since birth) writing about The Birth of Venus. It's possible, but there's no first hand experience. You need to believe to edit your work; sooner or later, you have to feel the truth! Celiaescalante (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For example, you can't report an Earthquake if you don't believe how an earthquake feels. If an Earthquake hits town, some of the town people are going to feel it and other's who lacked sound judgments did not. You NEED to BELIEVE in Earthquakes to report the ACCURACY of earthquakes! It's an OBSERVATION! Celiaescalante (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Celiaescalante: There's a difference between believing that Jesus was God and believing that Jesus, as a historical human, existed.

And at any rate, the site doesn't care about user experience and does not use it -- all we do is cite and summarize professionally-published mainstream academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not die??? What??? He died, resurrected and Ascended!!! Add the dates, Communist Atheist Public School Robots! Celiaescalante (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Celiaescalante: Personal attacks are not acceptable here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

They'd be more acceptable if they were even remotely insulting, to be honest. Funny counts for even more than that. "Communist Atheist Public School Robots" is just boring. Try "bloviated fucktard" next time; the contrast of highbrow and lowbrow verbiage can be amusing to some. Or go for something less direct and more descriptive, like "you wouldn't know Jesus if he made passionate man-love to you on a bed of roses." Or possibly go for the ultimate insult and tell me exactly how fat my momma is.

Or (and this one is a longshot, I know) you could try to engage with the patience and civility your religion encourages you to adopt, and which aren't a violation of our behavioral guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesus died at the age of 31--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC. Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin "One for Jesus" (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"

Ah, this crazy book.[10] To quote the Amazon blurb, "This book is the Bible's Bible because it used God's original fiscal calendar for Adam to the birth of Jesus Christ. This calendar present the true before Christ (BC) date. This book shows when God's original fiscal calendar was change into Israel's original fiscal after Israel coming out of the land of Egypt. This book also agrees with the historical writing of the catholic priest St. Bede who predate the birth of Jesus Christ using the founding of the Romans Empire calendar Ab Urbe Condita (A.U.C.) Thus, this book used all of the original fiscal calendars to prove the beginning of In the year of our Lord original fiscal calendar beginning at the birth of Jesus Christ". Doug Weller talk 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I got my copy from Barnes and Noble "One for Jesus" (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus" Is the Ecclesiastical History of the English People crazy as well? "One for Jesus" (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"

Are you suggesting that a source's credibility is dependent on whether it is stocked in Barnes and Noble? Or what? Britmax (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely no. Just a comment to show how crazy the comment was, about amazon above yours. 2601:406:4E02:467D:993D:EE:266:6ADE (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"

Born, Died, Resurrected and Ascended

Add to the table age/date Resurrected and Ascended. Those are vital information. Celiaescalante (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus Celiaescalante (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus Celiaescalante (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't make Emmanuel sound like a Disney character. He is a famous person and not a fictional character.

If you don't believe in honorable sources, then that makes Wikipedia sound like an unreliable source. Celiaescalante (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"The resurrection of Jesus or resurrection of Christ is the Christian religious belief..." Not fact or history. And cool it with the name calling please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Celiaescalante: Wikipedia does not cite itself. While I am a Christian, I understand that if we present one religion's doctrines as empirical history, we have to do so for others. Would you be fine with us presenting Aiwass reciting Liber AL vel Legis to Aleister Crowley as historical fact instead of Thelemite belief? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a biblical theology class. Please be mindful of neutrality policies on Wikipedia. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesus ascended into heaven on Friday May 28, AD 31.--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"

This book "Why Jesus Didn't Resurrect on Easter Sunday" by Clarence Boykin proves when Jesus death, burial and resurrection occurred, starting from John 12:1 six days before the Passover to Jesus death on Wednesday April 14, AD 31 to His resurrection on Saturday April 17, AD 31 and the first day of the week Sunday April 18, AD 31. Then to Jesus ascension 40 days later on Friday May 28, AD 31. The Jewish original calendar month April has 30 days; and May has 29 days. Do the math. 2601:406:4E02:467D:993D:EE:266:6ADE (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"

A self-published book with no less than three grammatical errors and one spelling mistake in the two "sentence" blurb. That's a winner of a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you heard, ever learning and never coming to acknowledging the truth? The Scriptures with the calendar months support the truth, not grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. "One for Jesus" (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"

If you're here on Wikipedia to prosthelytize - don't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Jesus was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC and crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD

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.

---

We now know the actual birthdate of Jesus: Saturday (Sabbath) April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC (see astronomer http://MichaelMolnar.com ). The Knights Templar discovered it in 1128 when excavating beneath the Temple Mount. It's been encoded by Freemasonry, e.g. in 1717 4 London Lodges created the first Grand Lodge, the design of golf's Old Course, July 4, 1776 / 17 Tammuz (4th month), Empire State Building is 417 yards high, former 1 World Trade Center was 417 meters high. Jesus was lashed 39x and crucified on the first day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. He was 34-years-old and turned 35 ten days later. 2601:589:4700:97D0:C129:9F7B:16E0:CDCC (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Speculation/opinion. O3000 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no basis to believe these (alleged) Templar discoveries are any more accurate than any of the other POV/OR data that has accumulated in the past 2000 years on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is long-term abuser User:Brad Watson, Miami Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC.

        Chart 50-1

• Jesus Was Born in Zero BC/AD

11-February/Shebeth 753 AUC 11-February/Shebeth 974 AE = After Israel coming out of the land of Egypt 2-February/Shebeth 3719 WC = World Calendar

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 "One for Jesus"--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to share the source of your information with us. Britmax (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin"One for Jesus" (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"

Impossible, there never was a year zero in either the Gregorian or Julian calendars. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, zero had dubious meaning at the time 0#Classical_antiquity. O3000 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2018 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Change Jesus' Birth Year from 4 B.C. to 0 A.D. Greasy Reptile (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There never was a year 0 A.D. The year after 1 B.C. was 1 A.D. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not done: As per Mediatech492 above, and sources say 4 BC. O3000 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesus was born in zero BC/AD if you understand the beginning of a new fiscal calendar. So, zero BC/AD is really the beginning of months because John the Baptist was born in 6 months BC and Jesus was born six months later.--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"

Oh, boy, here we go again: year zero. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Zero BC/AD is the same as the first day of Creation. So, when know that number of years from Creation to the birth of Jesus equal BC/AD that 3,719 years one month. "One for Jesus"--"One for Jesus" (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC. Source Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin "One for Jesus" (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"

Very meaty page full of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.--Moxy (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"John the Baptist was born in 6 months BC"

How do you know when John the Baptist was born? The only reliable source we have on him is Josephus, and he does not mention the age of John at the time of his execution. Simply that he was executed at Machaerus. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

requesting source quotes for Jesus is Jew claims

In many cases we have statements here with sources after them, but the sources are not cited in a clear enough way that we know which portion of them is being cited, when it comes to books. I am hoping for some page numbers and actual excerpts to expand these parts. For example:

• "was a Jewish preacher and religious leader" and "was a Galilean Jew" (appears twice) and "Jesus was Jewish" all link to "Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia: First Fortress. pp. 20, 26, 27, 29"

While the book exists on Google Books, there is no preview so no way of telling what is on those pages. It would be helpful to know an example of what is on these pages. Given that they're mostly saying the same thing as the book's title (with one elaborating 'Galilean' the other 'preacher and religious leader', both of which I think we could establish using other sources) I'm not sure why 4 separate pages need to be cited. Can't we pick the most prominent one that best demonstrates whatever argument it was that Géza Vermès was making and quote him? ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nazareth is in Galilee, so pretty much any source connecting Jesus to the city depicts him as a Galilean. A number of sources also point that several of the people associated with Jesus were fellow Galileans. Saint Peter, Andrew the Apostle, James, son of Zebedee, John the Apostle, and Matthew the Apostle were all said to reside in Capernaum, a fishing village in Galilee. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What. The Fuck?! Is there even some bizarre conspiracy theory claiming Jesus wasn't a Jew? I mean, I get that he's usually portrayed as European (or Black, or Asian, depending on where the portrayal was made), but I've never heard anyone express any doubt over his actual ancestry before now. I don't see any need to reinforce this. Even if I'm wrong and there is some fringe group doubting Jesus' Jewishness, they're too fringe for us to consider them here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The main sources I've seen for the argument that Jesus wasn't Jewish are either white supremacists or black supremacists. Both will ludicrously hair-split between Israelites (which they imagine to be either white or black) and Jews (who are in some third category), and pull some one-drop rule deal to argue that Jesus was really either Egyptian (if black) or Hittite (if white). (Though the black supremacists at least use the one-drop rule in an inclusive manner such that, despite me having pretty solid British ancestry, my advocacy for Nazi-punching could lead me to be identified as just "really really light, but still black".) This is not to say that this is necessarily what OP is getting at, however. I think it's enough to say that WP:BLUE renders the current version sufficient, even if clearer and stronger sourcing is always welcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed a weird request. But see also Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus#Jewish background where his mother's Jewishness is being questioned. Of course, if his mother wasn't, then he wasn't. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't say it's surprising that supremacists would argue this, but I've never actually seen it done before outside of tongue-in-cheek rants on white supremacists sites. I didn't think they actually believed it, just that they thought it pissed off non-nazis. But I need to stop now because your small aside is making me nostalgic for the days when there really was a neo-nazi group in my neighborhood and nazi-punching was less of a funny meme and more of an occasional pastime. <sigh> Good times... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As Doug Weller says, there's a similar discussion about Mary, though please note it's been started by the same user. So we have one individual user arguing this topic. I'd respectfully suggest it may be more of an issue with that user's interpretation than anything else. There is no scholarly disagreement whatsoever on this topic. Besides, the claim is well-sourced already. Jeppiz (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "Positive Christianity" promoted by the Nazis back in the 1930s and 40s claimed that Jesus was not Jewish and that he was actually an Aryan hero who exposed the "lies" of the Jewish people, but that the Jews crucified him because he posed a threat to their evil plans for world domination. Obviously, this has never been a mainstream religious or historical interpretation and, since the Nazis lost in World War II, it has been mostly relegated to the dustbin of really weird Nazi pseudohistory. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

On a less racist note, there is the historical novel King Jesus (1946) by Robert Graves, where Jesus is depicted as a secret son of Antipater (c. 46 – 4 BC), as a grandson of Herod the Great (c. 74-4 BC), and as having partial ancestry from Edom. Graves depicts a Jesus who has a serious claim to the throne of Judea and the leadership of the Herodian dynasty, as Herod's senior living heir. Our article on the novel is a rather poor stub. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

Icantthinkofanyotherusername (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I wanna change this on the second pagaragph theres a grammar eroorm

 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. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC Jesus supposed return

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.

---

Here are some intersting coincidences. 2015 is "TO" (twentiieth letter in the alphabet and fifteenth). History of the world goes TO this point. John 20:15 is the first time Jesus speaks after his death. Revalation chapter 20 has 15 verses, with 20:15 being the most scary text of all in the Bible. Mathews 5:13 speaks of salt losing its power. What does Jesus mean by salt? Probably faith, since this is the most central theme of his teachings. Thus he speaks of losing faith. 5:31 speaks of divorcing your wife, your life partner. Your life partner, true for all humans is this world we live in, thus divorcing this world, the end of the world. Now 5*13*31=2015. Strange coincidences, or is there some hidden meaning? Since the world did not end 2015, GOD MUST BE DEAD. (As Nietzsche said)Per in Sweden (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC) edit Per in Sweden (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for my bluntness, but is this some kind of joke or are you really serious? Bible code is complete nonsense; if you look hard enough, you can find "codes" or "hidden messages" like this in anything, even a lump of swiss cheese. It is caused by a psychological phenomenon called pareidolia. By the way, you do realize that the chapter and verse numbers we use today are not part of the original Biblical texts, right? They were added in the Early Modern Period for the simple convenience of being able to cite specific passages without quoting them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

My personal theory is that Flying Spaghetti Monster killed God in a cosmic fight. ;-) Per in Sweden (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC) On a serious note, see Existence of God talk page.Per in Sweden (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Indentation added Per in Sweden (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC) As for chapter and verse numbers, it does not matter when they were made, see God controls fate through controlling quantum randomness, thus quantum randomness is not random but controlled by God to suit is plan for the the fate of the world. Per in Sweden (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (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.

Main image

In this edit the main image was changed to Christ Pantocrator (Sinai), the oldest known Pantokrator. It was reverted here, since "major changes should be discussed on the talk page". As the revertor also pointed out, the Sinai Pantokrator is "clearly more historically significant". It is also a less stylized and more realistic image, but nontheless of great aesthetic worth. I therefore think the change was for the better. More opinions? St.nerol (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm indiffrent. I prfer the old image from an aesthetic standpoint, but the proposed replacement has obvious merits, as well.

FWIW, I agree that such changes should be discussed first, but also that there's no foul in being bold. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

On the whole, prefer the old (Sinai). I think we have had Cefalu for periods in the past. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the image very couple of years, but in the last poll, the Sinai Pantocrator lost out to the current image. A number of editors thought it had a symmetry problem. So we would really need a new poll, I think, to form a new consensus. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I see! The asymmetry is usually interpreted as symbolic – as representing the mild and harsh sides of Jesus (or alternatively as a theological expression of his human and his divine aspect). It seems to be the major stilistic choice in an otherwise quite realistic portrait. (In the old discussion I can see tree users commenting on it, whereof two regarding it as problematic and one regarding it as unproblematic at a larger-than-thumbnail size.)

I'm unfortunately not familiar with how to start a poll.

St.nerol (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After looking at both and considering their respective historical significance and aesthetic merits, I strongly prefer the Sinai Pantokrator image as more historically significant, probably more accurate (the current image looks almost blond), and in my opinion better aesthetically (the asymmetry being, as has been pointed out, a deliberate artistic choice). I am of course willing to defer to consensus if the community prefers the other image, but if everybody here is either mildly indifferent or cautious of someone else who might hypothetically oppose the new image, I say let's Be Bold and then discuss it with anyone who strongly opposes when and if they object. -- LWG ^talk 14:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, I would caution making any major changes to the article, including the image in the infobox, without some sort of wider community participation, though I don't wish to tell you to not be bold. While I'm indifferent to the image used, I feel that more persons should weigh in before a change is made; but if you feel that changing the image now is your prerogative, so be it. Javert2113 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the Cefalù Christ Pantocrater mosaic (the current main image) because I think it looks better, but I am not strongly opposed to the Sinai icon, which definitely has very strong historical significance as the oldest surviving icon of its type. I do not like the fact that the Sinai icon is asymmetrical, but I understand that, obviously, this was an deliberate artistic choice on the part of the icon-painter to represent Jesus's dual nature as both God and man. I also do not like the darker colors of the Sinai icon; whereas the Cefalù mosaic is much brighter and more colorful. The Sinai icon is obviously much more worn because it is much older and I think the wear detracts from its visual appeal. Obviously, no one knows what the real, historical Jesus looked like (probably nothing at all like the handsome, long-haired, bearded Caucasian man he is usually depicted as), so artistic quality and historical significance are the main criteria for determining which image we should select. I would be fine with either image, but I would prefer the Cefalù. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Cefalù image per prior consensus. The argument that the hair is "almost blond" is a bit strange. There are light highlights, yes, but the hair is brown, and other photos show it almost black[11], so it appears to simply depend on how the mosaic is lighted when photographed. Since I assume this has to do with whether he looks Middle Eastern or not, I might point out that not all Middle Easterners have or had jet black hair. More importantly, the current image is easy to read at thumb size, which isn't as true for many of the other contenders. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

Add Jesus Christ Superstar to section "Depictions of Jesus". This is a valid depictions of the character Jesus Christ TakumiTheFox (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The section, which is actually entitled "Artistic depictions of Jesus", is clearly about literal depictions—e.g., paintings, iconography, and so on. Jesus has been portrayed in various dramatic works, and it certainly would be undue weight to mention one of them in this overview article. We do have articles on both the stage play and the movie, and there is a category, Cultural depictions of Jesus, that includes other articles where mention of one or the other may be more appropriate. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Traditional Dates and Place Of Birth

Why isn't the Blub allowed to be reflective of the traditional birth date(1BC) and place of birth (Bethlehem) or at least contain this Information in notation form? This seems dubious to me that it isn't included in the infobox. Colliric (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Colliric: His birth date is not given as 1 BC because the traditional date of his birth is actually 1 AD. In any case, that is not given here as his birth date either because he was definitely not born in that year. The modern Anno Domini dating system was devised in the fifth century AD by a Skythian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (sometimes Anglicized as "Dennis the Little"), who calculated it based on Easter calendars. The problem, however, is that Dennis made a mistake: Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who we know for certain died in 4 BC because the Jewish historian Josephus correlates his death with a lunar eclipse that occurred shortly before the Passover, which, based on astronomical calculations, we can date precisely to 13 March 4 BC. Although not everything in gospels is historically accurate, especially when it comes to Jesus's early life, there is no good reason to doubt them when it comes to this issue of date. Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was "about thirty" at the beginning of his ministry, which Luke dates precisely to 29 AD. This, however, is probably just a rough estimate and, in all likelihood, he could have really been anywhere between the ages of thirty and forty. According to John 8:57, Jesus was "not yet fifty" during his ministry, which indicates he was probably closer to the older end of this range. Based on this information and other facts, most scholars agree that Jesus was born sometime between 8 BC and 4 BC.

As for the location of his birth, most scholars regard the account of him being born in Bethlehem with strong skepticism. The Gospel of Mark, our earliest and therefore most reliable full account of Jesus's life, states that Jesus came from Nazareth (in Mark 1:9), but never mentions Bethlehem at all. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew both try to present Jesus as having been originally born in Bethlehem, but having grown up in Nazareth. The problem is that they present two completely different and contradictory accounts of how that happened. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem because that is where his parents originally lived before they were forced to flee into Egypt to escape the Slaughter of the Innocents. This is unlikely to be historical because it clearly tries to portray Jesus as a "new Moses". The author of the Gospel of Luke, however, invents a bizarre and implausible story about how Mary and Joseph originally lived in Nazareth, but had to travel to Bethlehem for a census (apparently the Census of Quirinius which occurred in 6 AD, far too late to have actually coincided with Jesus's birth). Aside from Luke's account, there is no record of any Roman custom requiring each person to return to the place of his birth to register for the census and such a law would not make sense, because there is no reason why people could not have just been counted for the census where they lived. Furthermore, such a requirement would have thrown the empire into chaos, since you had, for instance, people born in Syria living in Britain, and many people would have had to travel across the whole Roman world to arrive back at their place of birth. Finally, the Gospel of John, the latest of the gospels, written independently of the Synoptics, does not describe Jesus as being born in Bethlehem and even implies that he was not, since, in John 7:42, a group of Jews object to Jesus's Messianic message, stating "Does not the Scripture say the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" This clearly implies that, either Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or, if he was, apparently most people did not know about it. The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are therefore seen by most scholars as legends invented to make Jesus fulfill Jewish expectations about the Messiah. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You may notice that our infobox does not say where Jesus was born; it only states that Nazareth was his "hometown", which is a basic fact that is effectively certain and few reputable historians would try to dispute. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I am going off the Roman Catholic date for Jesus Birth, which in fact is 1BC. He died in Roman Catholic tradition in 33AD on 15th Nisan at the age of 33, this means he was born traditionally on December 25th 1BC. 1AD would make him 32 at his death which is traditionally incorrect based on the date of Christmas. He died at 33 years old. I accept your other information as fine. I still believe his traditional dates and birthplace should be noted in a subnote. Colliric (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jesus the person. It is not about how various religions look at him. There exist other articles about that. Here, we will stick to the respected historians. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Colliric: We do not know Jesus's exact age when he died. None of the gospels state how old he was. The idea that he was thirty-three is just an assumption based on Luke's aforementioned statement that Jesus was "about thirty" at the beginning of his ministry in 29 AD, plus the three years, since the Gospel of John describes Jesus travelling to Jerusalem for the Passover three times. There are serious flaws with this assumption, however. Firstly, there is no reason to assume that the Gospel of Luke is giving Jesus's exact age (and the fact that he uses the Greek word ὡσεί, which means "about," severely undermines any argument that he is). Furthermore, the Synoptic Gospels, the earlier and therefore more historically reliable of the gospels, only mention Jesus travelling to Jerusalem for the Passover once at the end of his ministry, and it is only the Gospel of John, the latest of the four canonical gospels, that describes him doing it three times. Finally, the three Passovers that John describes do not rule out the possibility of other Passovers that are not mentioned. Really, historically speaking, we can only sure of the one Passover mentioned by the Synoptics and cannot know how many other Passovers there may or may not have been.

25 December is definitely not when Jesus was really born; it is just when we choose to celebrate it. None of the gospels say anything about the date of Jesus's birth, nor do any of the earliest extant Christian texts. It was not until the third century AD that Pope Julius I (337-352) decreed that Jesus's birth would be celebrated on 25 December, but that decision was based more on the politics of the day than on trying to objectively date when Jesus was actually born. In 274 AD, the Roman emperor Aurelian had declared 25 December the birthdate of Sol Invictus, a sun god of Syrian origin whose cult had been vigorously promoted by the earlier emperor Elagabalus. Julius I may have thought that he could attract more converts to Christianity by allowing them to continue to celebrate on the same day. 25 December also falls around the same time as the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was much older and more widely celebrated. (Indeed, many of the customs originally associated with Saturnalia eventually became associated with Christmas.) Julius I may have also been influenced by the idea that Jesus had died on the anniversary of his conception; because Jesus died during Passover and, in the third century AD, Passover was celebrated on 25 March, he may have assumed that Jesus's birthday must have come nine months later, on 25 December. We do not know exactly when Jesus was born; we just have an approximate date range. This is common for historical figures from distant antiquity; for instance, no one knows exactly when Socrates was born either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Messianic Judaism should not be mentioned as being part of Judaism, a sit sis considered by nearly all mainstream Jewish movements to be Christian. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the self identification as Jewish is more important than what others think of them because Christians mostly believe they are Jewish(and possibly Both), given that Jesus is traditionally also a Jewish Rabbi to Christians. So the arguement they are Jewish is strong, and they self identify as Jewish. They also ARE literally Jews by their cultural background. Your arguement is reversable. Christians believe they are Jews(but also devout followers of Rabbi Yeshua so also Christian). So no, they should be identified by self-identification and cultural background. Colliric (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you have edited this out. You are making a mistake. Please revert you edits. Messianic Jews self-identify as Jews and are identified by Christians as being Jewish(and possibly Both in restoration of the beliefs of the first century Jewish sect). The opinion of mainstream Judaism is not relevant. This is the exact same thing as calling Mormons and Jehovah's Witness not Christian Groups (by self-identification). Wikipedia goes with Self-identification most of the time(both those groups are listed as Christians despite mainline Christians mostly saying "they're not"), and that should be respected here too in relation to the Messianic Jews. I Have decided I will restore this, as you need to use other Religious articles as examples when editing. Wikipedia goes on self-identification.Colliric (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enoughScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No wait. "Literally Jews" implies that you think ethnicity is what most makes a Jew, at which point I have to doubt the productivity of your edits. A lot of the other things you said are also questionable, such as "the opinion of mainstream Judaism is not relevant" when Wikipedia in truth does not list Messianic Judaism as Judaism. You have also been repeatedly accused of being an Anti-Semite on your talk page. I'll revert you back, and don'tut it back without getting actual consensus.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses as Christians on the basis of "self-identification" despite the fact all mainstream Christians pretty much reject this claim.... The view of mainstream Christianity is not considered relevant in those cases. Explain the difference properly please. Why is this self-identifying sect of Judaism not allowed to self-identify on Wikipedia like LDS and JWs do in relation to Christianity(To most maimstream Christians, these two groups reject Trinitarian doctrine therefore are not Christians)? Or else expect to see this restored soon. I get the feeling you have some kind of agenda against them. I think you may be bigoted against them.Colliric (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Funny thing to say, especially without me saying anything about Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that Wikipedia identifies Mormons and JW's as Christians, while it does not identify MJ as JudaismScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why... Note how in the articles for JW and Mormons how they basically state "Mainline Christians do not consider them Christians because they deny the Trinitarian doctrine". The reason Wikipedia identifies them as "Christian" is because those groups self-identify as Christians. Messianic Jews self-identify as Jews, Wikipedia identifies them as "Syncretic"(mixed) due to the unusual nature of them being Jewish but also believers in Jesus(Yeshua) as the Messiah. However, although this is slightly different to the case of JW and LDS(who consider themselves just Christians), it's obvious most non-Jewish people consider them Jewish and they themselves consider themselves Jewish, both Religiously and Ethnically. Christians consider them mostly religiously Jewish-Christian and even use the word Nazarenes(in reference to the similar older Jewish sect) to describe them. It is simply far more easy to describe them as Jewish in like manner to the other examples of fringe Religious groups that self-identify with an overarching mainstream group. Frankly don't take this the wrong way, but I think your edit there was too pedantic. Obviously someone is going to restore this one day as it is more correct to treat this group as a Fringe Jewish group(not accepted by mainstream in same manner to JW and LDS isn't to Christianity) that may also be a fringe Christian group, Wikipedia describes them as mixed(Both Jewish and possibly Christian) and ethnically Jewish.Colliric (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As a bit of an aside, much of Messianic Judaism was turned into an essay last year by a connected contributor, I think a pastor. It even has a conclusion section for part of it. I've mentioned this on the talk page and frankly I think the text he added (which I've linked to) should be removed. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism

"Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah" is POV since Christians would argue that Jesus' Messiah-ship is in line with the Jewish tradition. Also, Christianity can be said to be a denomination of Judaism, as Christians claim heritage to the Jewish tradition and Christianity can be traced back to Jesus who himself and his followers themselves are Jews, so Rabbinic Judaism is a bit better..ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope that is not supported by the sources in the article now. I suggest you self-revert, and quickly. This is a featured article and you are going to get blocked.

see btw Votaw, Clyde Weber (1905). "The Modern Jewish View of Jesus". The Biblical World. 26 (2): 101–119. JSTOR 3141136.

For your information my edits have already been reverted.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by seeing that source? Do you suggest using "Modern Judaism" as opposed to "rabbinic Judaism"?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Christianity grew out of Judaism and began as a Second Temple Judaic sect in the mid-1st century.

Here are sources

References

ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this supports the change you are trying to make here and I also second the suggestion that you self-revert [12] -the article already mentions Messianic Jews They are ineligible to make aliya, because while they consider themselves to be Jews, is it not accepted that a Jew can believe in Jesus. maybe this should be added somewhere to the articke, but I don't think the statement of Jewish beliefs is inaccurate.

References

Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(On Messianic Judaism, unrelated to this discussion and completely unrelated to the self-revert thingy, no one seems to support that they are generally considered to be Jews by mainstream Jewish movements, so I am going to remove them from the lead). Well Christians believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old testament prophecies (as stated in the article ), so they in a sense consider themselves to be the "real" religious Jews. Any more thoughts?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On Seraphim's info, it is from the point of view of one side of the debate, and per WP:POV, we shouldn't support any side.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes supercessionism has been a thing but there are lots of contemporary Christianities that do not view the covenant with the Jews as dead. (the basis is Paul's statement in Romans that through Jesus people who follow him are "grafted onto the vine" of the existing covenant). So the blanket statement is not accurate.

You have left the "Judaism (Pharasaic}" there in the header. Again please remove that. That section is about contemporary judaism and the pharisees stopped existing a long time ago. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Rabbinic Judaism" would be in order?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Jesus (the) Christ

"The" is in parentheses because it is not actually part of the term but is there to much better understand the meaning of the term, so no it doesn't imply that it is common.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, apparently I did not use the correct punctuation. It should be like this : Jesus [the] Christ.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please wait until you get consensus for your proposal here. You could start by demonstrating that it's a commonly used phrase. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I second StAnselm's statement. Please do not re-add this. There is no concensus. Colliric (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it necessarily implies that it is common. All I wanted to do was provide something explanatory. usng squar ebrackets make sit clear that it is not part of the term and thus not common, unlike Jesus Christ.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It clutters the page, therefore is unnecessary, a little ugly and grammatically bad. The likelihood of it being rightly removed by a future editor cleaning up the article grammatically would be high. Therefore should not go back in. Colliric (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How is it grammatically bad? Also, it being unnecessary because it clutters the page is fallacious, it should be "

It is unnecessary, therefore it clutters the page." You have to start by providing proof that it is unnecessary.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Clutter is not only about winning a content dispute, its about legibility and readability, which are part of what we are discussing regarding the lede and how many aka's to include. Like whether to use serif or sans serif fonts. [13] — this is just as important as providing proof that it is unnecessary but unfortunately it's not taken as seriously.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I still need proof for it being grammatically bad and unnecessary.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• we are talking about this diff, where "(the)" was added to the alt name in the lead, "Jesus Christ", so it read "Jesus (the) Christ". No sources have been brought to show that this is common or nearly as common as the name without it. I don't agree with this either, and I see no chance of this getting consensus. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it is hardly used in English at all - we all know that, & he says as much above. His point is that a fuller literal translation of the name into English would include a "the". Christ (title) begins "In Christianity, Christ{{refn|group=Notes|1=Pronounced /kraɪst/. From Latin: Christus, via Greek: χριστός, romanized: khristós, lit. 'anointed, covered in oil'; calqued from Imperial Aramaic: משיחא, romanized: məšīḥā or {{Lang-he|מָשִׁיחַ|lit=the anointed one;", and a full translation into English would be "Jesus the annointed one" rather than "Jesus annointed". This is not controversial; the question is how and where we should deal with it. At the moment the 3rd para of the "Etymology" section covers it (rather well I think). This seems ok, as merely adding a "[the]" raises more questions than it answers. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to add the word "the" to the name in the lead. He is almost never called "Jesus the Christ" in English; simply "Jesus Christ" is far more common. Calling him "Jesus (the) Christ in the first sentence is just going to confuse people. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"[the]", like the one in square brackets (not the parentheses as said above), is only explanatory and is not going to be taken as part of title (that's what square brackets are for in the first place).ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeshua Ha Mashiach

Yeshua Ha Mashiach redirects to this article, so I added it to the lede as an aka — this was reverted for not having consensus — I think an alternate name that redirects here should not be excluded from the lede or article and right now it is not mentioned at all...Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

what is it even? Guessing "Jesus the Messiah" in ? Yiddish. Lots of things redirect here, I'm sure, and they shouldn't all go in the lead, especially when explanation is needed. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it is technically actually the equilivent of "Jesus Christ" in Aramaic, the language Jesus is believed to have spoken. Yeshua is his original historical Aramaic name(Jesus is a transliteration to English from the Greek version of Yeshua), and "HaMashiach" literally means The Messiah, however by tradition this is translated first into the Greek of the NT as "Christos" then is translated to English as "(The) Christ". Yeshua Hamashiach is "Jesus (The) Christ" in English (and obviously can also be "Jesus The Messiah" as a direct translation well, but most use the traditional translation of "Jesus Christ"). Colliric (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Well, we don't have many Aramaic-speaking readers, so I still think this isn't needed in the lead. Whether Jesus's Aramaic-speaking disciples, never mind other people around, called him "the Messiah" in his lifetime, is of course a rather controversial point, with arguably little or no firm evidence. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We could have something in the footnote for "Jesus Christ" giving the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic forms. StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection to that, if referenced and it is made clear the Aramaic is not directly from any primary source. For that, can't we just use "Yeshua"? Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I vouch for "Yeshua". Perhaps "Yeshua, known in Greek as Jesus" would be a productive change?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source saying that this is what he was actually known as. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentary.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would help if everyone paused for a moment to consult some WP:RS. My understanding is that Jesus is known as Jesus primarily in English . I would support adding Ἰησοῦς and its transliteration to the lede, but I strongly oppose the addition of known in Greek as Jesus.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a source that says just that . I will add it for the moment, but revert it if you want.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the unilateral changes that were made mid-discussion. I also just noticed the Greek is already in the article, in a footnote, so I think other editors were thinking about whether that footnote should be expanded to include the Aramaic as well.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please instead link to Yeshua (name) as linking to Joshua makes the opening confusing. Joshua is used mostly for "Yehoshua" in Aramaic. Jesus is reserved as a transliteration mainly for "Yeshua". It is not correct to put "Joshua" there due to it being confusing. Please fix it.Colliric (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8880:587F:49E6:4DA9:E968:B9D8 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes Yeshua is already in a footnote and is wikilinked there. This is English WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, however we must at least put Yeshua in a bracket over at the infobox.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I am opposed to alt name clutter - there is no doubt who is being referred to here. It is not clear on what basis you are saying "must". What policy or guideline says we must? Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By "must" I mean an essential thing to do. Historically, Jesus is Yeshua.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you should be blocked from editing this page at the moment. You are editing a bit too rashly, and may be in violation of WP:NPOV. It is not essential, everyone already knows it is the same individual which makes the information surpuflous and unnecessary to add to the infobox, except in notational form(which already has). Colliric (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Nothing to do with this section, and not in violation of NPOV. Also, you are the one who suggested this in the first place. "Yeshua" is needed for historical critical thinking.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it is not in the infobox at all, even in notational formScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)