Talk:Jesus/Archive 133

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Faith described as truth

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.

---

The beginning of the article reads as follow: "Jesus was a...". I think it should most definitely be changed to: "According to christian faith, Jesus was a..." I think that faith should never be described as truth in an encyclopædia, it not being a religious writing. The article may contain more examples of describing biblical content as truth, which should also be changed. The bible is not a history book, but should be regarded as mythological and written about as such in an article like this, which should remain neutral to religious wiews.

Regards

Rolling Phantom (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you say is entirely incorrect. The full phrase reads "Jesus was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader". That's not what Christians believe, it's just a simple historical fact. Faith has nothing to do with it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you verify that with any other source than the bible or the quran? Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that most literature agrees on his status as a historical figure. Perhaps "scholar" should be substituted for "preacher", for several reasons: 1) "preacher and religious leader" seems somewhat redundant; 2) during dialogues with other Jewish authorities on theological matters, he's referred to as "rabbi", which in this context would probably be translated as "scholar", and 3), the term "preacher" conjures up not an image of a first century mystic, but of a 20th century Evangelical Protestant in a blue suit and thinning pompadour... P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you equating preachers with leaders? I wouldn't assume a preacher has political and administrative authority, wealth (ex officio and personal), or a hierarchy of subordinates. The bishop in my hometown has a limo, chauffer, and dresses with gold jewelry while preaching poverty. He has power over every priest in the entire region, over the secular staff of the various churches, and over various organizations owned by the church (such as the local home for the elderly and invalids). Now that is a leader, with wealth and power. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, most christian litterature agrees that he was a historical figure. Few others. Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "religious leader" doesn't imply wealth, power, or hierarchical authority: merely followers. I'm not sure what the word "preacher" means to everyone, but here it usually implies the person who leads a Protestant congregation, irrespective of his (or her) actual title. A preacher might be part of a hierarchy within a larger church, or the leader of an independent church with no special rank or privileges beyond his religious leadership. But in this phrase I don't see that the word "leader" needs to mean any of the things you mentioned; many people described as "leaders" lack one or more of them. "Civil rights" leaders often lack all of them; I would say that so do some "religious" leaders, "labor leaders", and other sorts. I would say that "preacher" by definition fits within the category of "religious leader", although the word itself seems out of place when speaking of someone living in antiquity. Likewise, although he's referred to as "rabbi" in at least some translations of scripture, "scholar" would seem to be the best word here, since it's a more general description and doesn't risk confusing the intended meaning with a modern interpretation of the word "rabbi". P Aculeius (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, we will not use the word 'scholar'. Not unless we first find some authoritative sources using it. To me, a scholar means someone who has studied, done a PhD and research (in modern usage). Even in ancient usage, it would be expected that a 'scholar' was far more educated than the average person. We have no firm evidence that Jesus could even read or write. He might have, or he might not. He may well have a been an illiterate monolingual Aramaic-speaker from a small village. There is nothing in the historical sources to contradict this. 'Preacher and religious leader' is accurate and in line with the language used in scholarship. Scholar is neither accurate nor used in the academic literature on Jesus. Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1, there's no reason to shout. Nobody else here is shouting. 2, where are you getting this definition of "scholar" from? A scholar is someone learned in a field of study. You don't have to have a PhD be multilingual, or even literate, as you suggest. The subject here is religious scholarship, which even a layman can recall that accounts of Jesus' life state that he excelled in, debating the finer points of Jewish theology with the experts when he was only a child. Throughout his life he's supposed to have been consulted on matters of the law. That's scholarship in its basic sense. The word "preacher" is the anachronism here, in addition to being redundant. P Aculeius (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said, please present sources describing Jesus as a "scholar". Then we can discuss them.Jeppiz (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You're getting hung up on the word and not paying attention to the meaning. Just perusing the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus is addressed repeatedly as "didaskalos" and "Rabbi". The former is uniformly translated as "master" or "teacher", the latter translated "master" or left as "Rabbi". The word "rabbi" literally means "a master of Torah", i.e. one who has studied and teaches the law. You could reasonably use "teacher" in the opening in place of "preacher", since it's the word most often used in modern English translations; "master" is suitable as a form of address, but it would be confusing to open the article with "Jesus was a first-century Jewish master", because in that context it reads as though he had legal authority over someone. I suggested "scholar" as an alternative because it implies his study and knowledge of the law, rather than a general acceptance that his teachings were correct. It seems like a more neutral way to describe the same basic concept. Plenty of modern scholarship equates Jesus with a rabbi; for instance Bruce Chilton's 2002 Rabbi Jesus: an Intimate Biography. But again, the purpose of the lead is to explain the subject of an article briefly, not to confuse the reader with terms that might be understood with a different meaning. A rabbi is by definition a scholar of the law; Jesus was plainly learned in the law and so referred to as a rabbi by his contemporaries; calling him a scholar is no more than a plain description, whether or not the particular word is chosen by other authors. But if you prefer "teacher", then fine, use that. It's still a better introduction than "preacher and religious leader". The present sentence reads like you were introducing "automobile" as "a vehicle and form of transportation". P Aculeius (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The uncharitable description, yet strongly supported by WP:RS/AC would be "apocalyptic cult leader". Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"The bible is not a history book" The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books, from different eras, authors, and genres. The historicity of specific information has to be determined by our sources, not by us. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That has no relevance. Little other sources exist to prove biblical writings true, other than other writings within the same bible. Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"didaskalos" (διδασκαλος) is a Greek term for teacher, and is used elsewhere in the Septuagint and the New Testament as well. See here for specific verses: https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=διδασκαλος&diacritics=off. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly all christians and do not have a neutral wiew on the article, that appear strongly biased for someone who does not share your beliefs. I understand that the article should remain semi protected, as the character within it is susceptible to vandalism. However, I suspect that the persons administrating it are biased and should not be in a such position, as little as a goat should guard a sack of oats from being eaten by itself. The same bias was present in the Norwegian version of the page, which I changed and got a thanks from the administrator. That is obviously not possible when the administrator is biased. Will you allow me to change the article or do I have to seek a higher level?

Rolling Phantom (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That Jesus existed as a human being is a fact of history and has nothing to do with religion. Saying "all the rest of you are obviously Christians and therefore biased is a personal attack and forbidden here. We are not "administrators", at least I am not, but just editors like you. Go ahead and seek "a higher level" and see where that gets you.Smeat75 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It cant be regarded as a "fact of history that has nothing to do with religion" because the only source is a religious book. And no, accusing a group of people of not having a neutral point of wiew is not a "personal attack", nor would it be so if only one person was mentioned. A personal attack is things like name calling, implying low intelligence, or other unfavorable ways of adressing a person. This is vastly different from critizism about this persons point of wiew in a matter. Rolling Phantom (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rolling Phantom:, it might be beneficial for you to read Talk:Historicity of Jesus/FAQ, and Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive index for the many, many conversations and conclusions that Wikipedia has come to regarding this and similar topics. You're treading ancient ground, here. --Equivamp - talk 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"You are clearly all christians and do not have a neutral wiew on the article, that appear strongly biased for someone who does not share your beliefs."

I am not a Christian, but an atheist. I don't particularly like Jesus as depicted in the Gospels, a thug attacking innocent merchants who were just earning their living. But Wikipedia is not a place to color the articles with our personal views on any topic. We follow the sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What sources? If you are an atheist, you cant possibly agree on that the existence of a Jesus that was crucified 2000 years ago is a "historical fact", and even less so that he founded the christian religion. It has no source other than the bible. The only historical fact here is that many people were crucified by the romans 2000 years ago. I refuse to believe that "most ancient age scientists agree on that he existed" They have to agree on that it cant be excluded that he existed. Pontius Pilatus is likely to be a historical person, as he is mentioned in other sources, and that is the closest they got. I will have to find a responsible administrator then. Rolling Phantom (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Phantom, Historicity of Jesus is where this is covered. Something tells me you are not familiar with the material there. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles like this attract two kinds of troublemakers: Christian fundies and atheist fundies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sooooo true :P - FlightTime (open channel) 15:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian either; but Jesus is mentioned by sources other than the scriptures, and there's a basic scholarly consensus that he existed, and that some of the things attributed to his life probably occurred; for instance the general direction of his teaching, the names of some of the people associated with him, and the occasion and manner of his death. You're not required to believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, raising the dead, curing lepers, feeding the 5,000, or that Jesus himself rose from the dead after three days. The article doesn't claim any of these as fact; merely that they were attributed to him by the various writers whose testimony forms the narrative of his life. Maybe all of these things are embellishments, the way that the hero tales of antiquity, the medieval lives of saints, and folkloric figures like King Arthur or Robin Hood might be based on a kernel of truth so disguised by "good storytelling" that the original facts have become almost unrecognizable.

Many people nonetheless believe them as articles of faith, and as long as Wikipedia doesn't claim that mystical occurrences really happened, but states neutrally that they were reported by various chroniclers, that's fine. We can report as fact that Jesus was a first-century religious leader, even if many of the details of his life cannot be proved, because that's the consensus of the scholarly community. If that consensus changes, then we would say that he is "said to have existed" or "claimed by early Christian chroniclers to have been". This wouldn't affirm or deny his existence or anything attributed to him; it would merely report what has been written about him, the same as articles on mythology and folklore generally report "the story" without passing judgment on its truth.

Now, as for your assertion that everyone else who opposes your point of view is biased is somewhat self-serving, to say nothing of whether it might constitute a personal attack. I for one don't worry too much about being accused of bias in this context, because I think that any neutral arbiter will dismiss such an accusation. But some of what's gone on in since the original RfC was posted has crossed over the line, and if you're connected with that, I suggest you rethink the way you make assumptions about other editors and their motives. I'm not one to appeal to authority to smite mine enemies, but I can't speak on behalf of other editors here, and I'm reasonably sure you won't find much support for those accusations from any administrators who intervene.

You're not required to be an expert on topics like these in order to have an opinion; that's part of what these discussions are for: to identify relevant points and evidence in support of various positions. But even a cursory search on Google, or in other encyclopedias, to answer the question, "was Jesus a historical person?" would demonstrate that there is a scholarly consensus, independent of his alleged divinity or whether any of the miracles associated with him occurred. To continue to argue the contrary in the face of that consensus suggests that the facts aren't important to you; only your point of view. I'm not saying that's the case; merely how it appears. Perhaps it's time to do some reading on the topic and reconsider your position, as well as how you deal with other editors who don't share your point of view. P Aculeius (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe in science, so obviously I do not believe in a supreme being, however I do think that many instances in the bible are from true facts as you mention. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• We also have no sources from Alexander the Great's lifetime about him, just stuff from well after he died which had clear political motives for claiming he existed. Don't bother arguing they were derived from earlier sources, the only (purely hypothetical) contemporary source on Alexander was Cleitarchus, whose work can't be shown to exist either and was noted for being full of fiction even if it did exist. Don't bother bringing up Callisthenes, his existence is dependent upon Alexander's. And even if we wanted to trust the sources we do have, they're just later copies which we can't absolutely prove were really written by the claimed authors. Alexander was worshiped as a god right alongside Zeus, and as we all know, scientists of all stripes agree that science proves God isn't real, so clearly there were absolutely no warlords in 4th century Macedon named Alexander who might have inspired legends about the supposed Alexander the Great. The only reason the administrators make the Alexander the Great article say he existed is to avoid offending Muslims and Greek or Malay nationalists. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"claimed by early Christian chroniclers to have been".

This wording would equate the Gospels with chronicles or annals, and could be misleading. These authors did not set out to write a year-by-year account of either their main subject (Jesus), or the region where he lived. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why this is up for debate, as I wasn't proposing language for the article. My point was that while much of what is said of Jesus depends on acceptance of things that science cannot support (although I don't think that science disproves faith; it simply doesn't apply because the claims of faith cannot be tested by scientific means), and therefore those things are not and ought not to be stated as fact by the article, other things are accepted by a consensus of scholars without depending on any religious belief, and therefore can be stated as fact. My comments were aimed at Rolling Phantom, since he doesn't seem to believe that anything about Jesus is known from sources other than scripture, even his existence; and the implication that simply arguing for the historicity of Jesus proves Christian bias on the part of the participants in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That is indeed exactly what I'm implying, sir. I will even take my implications a step further and imply that the scholars that agree on that Jesus has existed are also biased, even if they claim not to be so or that the consensus has nothing to do with the religion they were brought up in. Which is understandable, since representatives of this religion have threatened with severe punishment for disbelieve in his existence. No scholar can agree in any more that it is likely that he existed given the evidences. The sanest thing to state would be that his existence cant be dismissed. There was someone that came up with something like "If a thousand men states something wrong, its still wrong. Truth is not dependent on opinion". Still, these thousand men has the power to have it their way, when few to none oppose them and those who do cant change something behind their lines, because they are in charge of what happens there. So I guess theres nothing to do with it then. Have it your way.

Rolling Phantom (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RGW and WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that these "reliable sources", yet they are numerous and regarded as truth by those who read them, arent necessarily very reliable in reality. As a natural consecvence, finding a reliable source on the opposite is equally impossible. That Jesus have lived cant be denied, since there is even less proof of it than there are indications of that he did.

Rolling Phantom (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If "have it your way" means "go with the vast majority of scholars on the subject" then yes, we will. Thanks for asking. Britmax (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the vast majority of scholars on the subject really believe in what they do. As an example of the opposite, one can mention scholars on crop circles. What they do is officially consensually regarded as pseudoscience, but if they arent outright lying about some details, they have more credible proof than the afore mentioned group. That will not make a scientist who firmly believe the circles are made by pranksters change his/her opinion, nor will it change the truth. Rolling Phantom (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't believing something is the truth regardless of what others think about it kinda the definition of faith? ;P Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Not believing it is on the other hand lack of such faith. Rolling Phantom (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2019 (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.

Interjection?

Among the most common references to Jesus in many languages is through interjection any of combination of his names. I'm wondering where mention of that is on Wikipedia since I can't find it in this article, which should at least direct readers to article that is about Jesus and/or Christ as an exclamation. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Blasphemy#Christianity ResultingConstant (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

The paragraph starting with "Christian doctrines include the beliefs" is completely bold styled. There's no comment stating why in the article source, and it looks very out of place in the article! Looks like it was this revision that added the change. My request is to remove the bold styling tags surrounding this paragraph. DrakeLuce (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed, thanks for pointing this out! aboideau^talk 17:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Most Christians"?

The third sentence of the lead reads "Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament". The chosen wording "Most Christians believe" seems a bit weird to me. If the article is to take into account the fact that not all Christians (i.e. people who belong to the religion of Christianity) believe the same things, can it really be as bold as to claim that most of them think of Jesus as the Messiah? It seems to me that that is an extremely intimate matter of faith, varying with each Christian, and a reliable query asking "Do you think Jesus is the Messiah?" cannot have been and never can be conducted.

I suggest that the sentence is changed to something along the lines of "Christianity teaches he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament", with a link taking the reader to Christianity.

Mighty47 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This article isn't about Christianity -- it's about Jesus. I think the statement that most people who call themselves Christians believe him to be the Messiah is well established. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If the suggested change is accurate then the current phrasing is also accurate (moreso, even).

The current phrasing covers groups like Jehovah's Witness, which call themselves Christian, hold Jesus in high regard, but do not believe Jesus to be God. The suggested phrasing excludes non-Trinitarian groups. Wikipedia doesn't take stances on theology, it just summarizes mainstream academic sources, which largely take an etic stance on the matter of what groups are or aren't Christian.

"Christ" is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Messiah," a term repeatedly applied to Jesus in the Christian New Testament. How Christians interpret the phrase and its use can indeed vary quite a bit but if someone:

• does not believe Jesus to be the Christ/Messiah in any possible sense of the word,
• believes that the Christian New Testament use of the term is fundamentally incorrect no matter how it's interpreted,

...then it's fundamentally inconsistent for that person to call themselves a Christian.

Even ignoring that, the current phrasing better allows the possibility that there are people out there who otherwise adhere to orthodox Christian beliefs but have not found an interpretation of the word "Messiah" in relation to Jesus that makes sense to them (even if they otherwise believe Jesus is the Christ but don't understand that "Messiah" is just those that word in Hebrew). The suggested phrasing only allows the interpretation that Christians can only understand Jesus as the Messiah (which you admit is not proven). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"The current phrasing covers groups like Jehovah's Witness, which ... hold Jesus in high regard, but do not believe Jesus to be God." Muslims also hold Jesus in high regard, does this mean Muslims are Christians?PiCo (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Not unless they consider themselves to be so. Note the statement doesn't state anything about anybody who doesn't call themselves Christian; it is only stating facts about those who do call themselves Christian. If x then y does not imply if y then x--Erp (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of name Jesus

Should this article point out nearer to the beginning of the article that in the original Aramaic the name Jesus means "God saves"? Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why? The main article is Jesus (name) which does explain that. It is among a group of related names with this meaning, such as Yeshua, Joshua, and Isa. It also happened to be a very popular theophoric name among Jews during the Second Temple Judaism-period. Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Most Christians Believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God

This article says that most christians believe that Jesus is incarnation of God, but this is incorrect, because the most christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God and it's not just non-trinitarians denominations who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the most catholics believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. An example is me and my family, me and my family are catholics and we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God and the most people i've met believe that Jesus is the Son of God and these people are catholics, so the most christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. 168.0.233.64 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Father=God. Son=God. Holy Spirit=God. But Father isn't the Son or the Holy Spirit, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is against the logic of those who claim it; not against the logic of god, because god wasn't recorded claiming anything. For important sections we add and enrich a controversy paragraph. The claims of man (humans) aren't god's words; and if they were we need rigorous proof; not merely a Hindu text provided as proof that humans have many traditionally taught opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:411b:b500:b47b:9502:e830:6ff2 (talk • contribs)

I cannot understand what you write. Write it clearly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge, which is to say human understandings and beliefs. This article is about Jesus the person. As he is a religious figure, it also includes some popular religious perspectives of Jesus. The Trinity is likely the most popular of those perspectives. There is no purpose in debating any logic behind these beliefs. We just document. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

But my family is catholic and my family taught me that Jesus is the Son of God, not God and the most other catholic people that i know also belive that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. 168.0.233.1 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What matters at Wikipedia is what reliable sources say that most Christians believe. Your experience of what Catholics or other Christians believe is not relevant to what Wikipedia will state, because Wikipedia only reflects what reliable sources say on the topic. In this particular case, the statement that most Christians believe that Jesus was/is God is supported by two sources: Christianity: An Introduction by Alister McGrath, and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee by Bart Ehrman. You'll have to defer to those sources if you want to find out why they made the assertions. --Equivamp - talk 02:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What I would like to know is whether the IP really thinks there are two gods or if he is saying something completely different. I know that not all Christians are trinitarians. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggest you check the question with your priest! Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

But the statement that most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God is true and is supported by many movies, series, cartoons, musics, games and other things, in many movies, series, cartoons, musics, games and other things, when they mention Jesus, they mention Jesus as the Son of God, not God, so the most christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. 168.0.233.108 (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You need reliable sources, not games, cartoons, or your own observations. And, as shown below, son of god and god are not necessarily contradictory. O3000 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is many other examples that mention Jesus as the Son of God, not God, other exemple is a movie about Jesus and the movie is called Son of God and other example is in comedy shows that make satire of christianity, like South Park, look in this article about Jesus in South Park Archives, the link is southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus, the most christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. 168.0.233.201 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The
Father

The
Son

The
Holy
Spirit

The "Shield of the Trinity" or Scutum Fidei diagram of traditional medieval Western Christian symbolism

Copy/paste from Trinity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism--Moxy (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in that fight, it is just that this is what most Christians believe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to remind us all that there are many articles in this constellation, and that context is important. What is useful in a discussion of Christian Mythology; Christian dogma; Christ; Jesus; the Historicity of Jesus; and even more granular, the divinity of Jesus etc... it's not necessarily good for THIS article even if it is great in THAT article. User:Pedant (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Should Bahá'í have their own section on the level of Christianity, Islam and Judaism?

There's only 5-8 millions adherents, shouldn't they be in the "Other" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.234 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

change "the central figure of Christianity" back to "the central figure of Christian mythology"

I want to change "the central figure of Christianity" back to "the central figure of Christian Mythology". My reasoning is that this long-standing phrase better describes the subject of our extensive Jesus constellation of articles. Christianity is a part of Christian Mythology. Everything notable about the Jesus to whom the article refers, from first century Palestine, is from Christian Mythology, or comes after the events of the Christian myth. If there was discussion about the removal, I'd appreciate a pointer in that direction. I'll assume consensus in a short while and be bold... User:Pedant (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here (not least is the idea of assuming consensus). Most significantly, I'm not sure what the change "back" means. I've just looked at the article at the end of each of the last three years, and all have "Christianity". This is undisputedly the stable version. When was it changed? StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Certainly oppose this change. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Is he the central figure of Christian mythology? Discounting myths derived from Jewish mythology, Christian mythology includes many mythical narratives about "Christians saints and heroes" (such as Abgarus of Edessa and Saint George), about magical/mystical artifacts (such as the Holy Grail, Holy Lance, and the Shroud of Turin), and about angels and demons. Not every tale is about Jesus himself. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• oppose Christian mythology is a subset of Christianity and not vice versa. Also Jesus is the central figure of Christian ritual as well as mythology.--Erp (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Well, he's both. But, kind of a waste of time as you'll never get consensus for a change. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• oppose: the main point is Christianity, while the mythology is just a small part of it. JohnThorne (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Bethlehem

My edit saying Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem has been reverted despite numerous biblical and extrabiblical passages that directly say Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This was supposedly for not being neutral. Can facts ever truly be considered neutral? Primal Groudon (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, see archives. The germane policy is WP:RNPOV and the WP:RS/AC is that there is no consensus upon where Jesus was born. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The article does still say, in the Nativity section, that, per Luke: "When Mary is due to give birth, she and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Joseph's ancestral home in Bethlehem to register in the census ordered by Caesar Augustus. While there Mary gives birth to Jesus .." That seems fine - it quotes what this particular gospel says, but does not state this as a proven fact. Wdford (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Bethlehem a city - it was tiny. As for Jesus being born there, the only evidence for that is the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, which are late and demonstrably fictional (both are based on Old Testament tropes anout the messiah). You can, however, say that the Bible says this.PiCo (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Prophet of Islam

The opening paragraph desribes Jesus as the Central figure of Christianity, but fails to mention that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, the second most recent prophet of mainstream Islam (the most recent being Mohammed). Should we add that to the first paragraph? Cityrailsaints (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ: Corrections

• For Jesus' parentage, you must list God as His father as Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until a few months after their marriage (in their time, having intercourse before marriage would be seen as unclean practice. Also, Joseph couldn't have intercourse with her while she was pregnant with Jesus due to other traditional standards.)
• For Jesus' position, you can put religious leader and head of Christianity; but then you would also need to put Son of God or just God as that is the claim that is presented in The Bible, a historically accurate documentation of ancient times.
• While there are links to various religions to Christianity, they do not share a common baseline concept. For example, Islam follows Allah, the god that Mohammad perceived from an angel; Jews and Christians follow Elohim or just God, but they also have a varying perspective of God due to differences in beliefs and interpretations of historical prophecy. This is what brings about Messianic Jews and Orthodox Jews. Christians also have variations, but stick to a base idea of God; the only issue is interpreting the meaning of Greek and/or the literal understanding of the messages told. Ink Page (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not done None of those are "corrections, they represent a Christian WP:POV. This article addresses Jesus from an academic perspective, not a religious one. Jeppiz (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

The Bible clearly states that Jesus "died for our sins" 1 Corinthians 3. The current sentence on Wiki implies that he died "to achieve atonement" for his own sin. I recommend that "died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement for sin" is changed to "atonement for people's sins". Cws3rd (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for such a potentially controversial change first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Significant figure in other religions

The opening paragraph describes Jesus as the central figure of Christianity, but fails to mention that he is also a important figure in Islam. Added that to the first paragraph. Maxforwind (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed before, and the consensus has been not to include it. Consensus can change, but it needs to be discussed here first. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus' role in Islam is discussed in the lead, as it should be, in the final paragraph.Smeat75 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Small but full-of-information collapsed 'Resurrection appearances' template reverted

{{Resurrection appearances}} Had brought this wonderful 'Resurrection appearances' template to the page (more information per square inch than any template I've seen on Wikipedia, found it on the article Resurrection of Jesus and realized its usefulness here) and was reverted by a good faith edit because of page length. I think the template should stay because of its extremely relevant content to the section, because of its small visible space, and because it would not be counted as page length (categories, notes, and things like this do not count when figuring page length). The good faith objection noted, but seems worth discussing and asking for its use here. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Can this be solved by making it an actual template instead of a long coding entry? Will create the template to see. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually better with the full coding, as it does not have to include the standard template 'View-Talk-Edit' links. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making a good and detailed argument. Despite that, I am not entirely convinced. The expanded template is long, and I must say I don't really see that it adds all that much to this article. After Jesus's death, some of his disciples thought they saw him (whether they really did or imagined it is not for WP to say). I don't think this article needs to go into detail about which Gospel says which person saw him in which context. Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the template but it would probably best to put it in this article instead of here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. The expanded template is long, which makes it all the more interesting being tucked away in a such a small box. The size of the box makes it portable to several articles which focus either whole or in part on the specific topic covered by the template: Jesus' alleged resurrection. It wouldn't be applicable on this article itself if there wasn't an entire section devoted to this topic and these reputed incidents. But because that section exists, the small addition of this box seems entirely appropriate and encyclopedically interesting to readers who happen to pop the box open (as I did, and was pleasantly surprised at the results). [EDIT: For a visual of where the template would be placed: in this section, tucked right under the presentation image.] Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Joshua Jonathan has taken the loose coding and created a new template from it, {{Resurrection appearances}}. This should remove the initial objection to page length if coding is being counted (although templates do not count for page length when calculating it for page-length purposes). Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 and Jeppiz, since there aren't many responders, and Joshua Jonathan has done a comprehensive makeover of the template since the discussion started, do either of you still mind the placement of the template which would be tucked just under the image? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem with it. I never felt strongly about it anyway. Let see what Jeppiz has to say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The template seems to cause trouble on mobile so the link to it has been coded and used on its pages:

See also: Overview of resurrection appearances in the Gospels and Paul (table)

. Since this discussion seems to have stalled out, and the concern was about using the template, I'll place the above link under the section header on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman argues that the first passage in Paul is a pre-written tradition. In other words, it's part of the oral tradition passed by Paul to his churches (the way it's structured and presented in Paul looks like an oral formula). Some have done the math based on when Paul met the apostles according to his own account, but the exact date is speculation and I don't really trust said scholars as Ehrman. Barjimoa (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Small change in protected section

The phrase "Jesus will judge the living and the dead[32] either before or after their bodily resurrection," should read "either before and/or after" as the citation on the word "before" indicates. Scorde (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

Date of Resurrection: 3 days after death (A.D 30-36) 124.19.8.78 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a consensus among historians that he was resurrected at all? --Equivamp - talk 03:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Not confirmed to be resurrected. Just another Christian tall tale. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The most influential person in history

LMAO. A featured article? What a joke. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Just need to read a few books on the topic ..Steven Skiena; Charles B. Ward (2014). Who's Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank. Cambridge University Press. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-1-107-04137-0....feel free to educate yourself.--Moxy 🍁 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to delude yourself in your own little world. Thanks for the personal attack by the way. I understand your fragile ego too well. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, we all know your Jesus is a joke, even if there is any reliable so-called ranking can be achieved. Founded a cult, wrote nonsense based on his mental illness, and pathetically died on a cross. Read books like The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History. By the way, no serious, non-deluded scholar outside the Christian cult would consider a ranking of so-called historical figures. Jesus vs Mohammad? Jesus vs Buddha? What's going on here. Certainly, for most people outside of Christian countries, which is 80% of the world's population, Jesus is just a joke, considering they know him in the first place. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If you finished insulting Moxy, can you clarify what changes do you want to make to the article? Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As an atheist I am puzzled at the influence of this one person....but we can only follow what the sources say. And no matter what I think or the IP thinks a scholarly book published by Cambridge University written by professors outweighs anything I or the IP have to say on the topic.--Moxy 🍁 21:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Some above may have read more into "influential" than is warranted. It does not mean necessarily that anything the person did had specific influence, but rather that they are the focal point of a massive amount of downstream historical content. Outside of history, Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam have an incomparable level of influence but nothing about them either is special or known, other than the likely part of Africa they lived in. Christianity led to Islam and the two are unparalleled for influence over the last millenium justifying the claim for the ending period. It just seems odd if you think human society overall is more advanced than in fact it is. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that history isn’t over, (and the IP’s nastiness); I never liked concepts like “most influential person in history”. Maybe it was my old friend Zaknar who invented cooking two million years ago. Maybe it was someone that killed a guy that would have become the most influential person. Maybe it was the guys behind formalizing Christianity and thrusting Jesus into history. Maybe it’s that butterfly that created a tornado. I don’t think the sentence is needed. O3000 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This fairly recent insertion, by an editor who had ~ 100 edits at the time, is poorly sourced, and an obvious violation of WP:LEDE; all material should be summarizing the body of the article, not introducing new ideas and sources. I'm astonished it has lasted this long in this FA. Is there any reason why it has not yet been removed? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Poorly sourced?? That's way of the mark.... he's an award winning- world authority on the New Testament.....and we have another source from Cambridge University with a world-leading Professor stating the same. That said have no problem with moving the info.--Moxy 🍁 19:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "poorly sourced", because a claim that big would need far better sourcing than just one or two New Testament experts. It's also weasel-worded and fairly meaningless; "widely described"? "most influential"? WP:WEASEL, and how could one possibly measure that anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This is very concerning hearing this from a long time edior. The Oxford University publication is backed up by The Cambridge University reference that has nothing to do with anyone related to religion and any search will yield many academic results. We are here to regurgitate what multiple academic sources say not omit information based on our opinion of the wording of the sources. ...let's quote your link "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies."--Moxy 🍁 20:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Very concerning"? No hyperbole required here, thanks. The wording of the insertion in the lede is problematic for exactly the reasons I've stated, and which you have not yet really addressed. "Any search will yield many results"? Great; do that search, provide the high quality sources backing up the claim that Jesus "is widely described as the most influential person in history". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and keep in mind, we currently have a statement by Richard Bauck, and the book Who's Bigger?, by a computer scientist and Google engineer who ran English Wikipedia articles through an algorithm they devised. To quote from that article "While acknowledging the bias against non-Western figures and disavowing any special authoritativeness etc." Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As said above ...I agree move to body. I can write some stuff up for the body bases on many different sources....but the problem is what do YOU consider reliable...as most editors will think award-winning authors published by Oxford University and Cambridge University would be just fine....what are you looking for as in a source... a study?.... do you have a publisher or Institution or an author in-mind? --Moxy 🍁 21:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be framing thisas me vs "multiple reliable sources", which is, of course, the opposite of what is happening here. We have two sources, and they're perfectly fine to use in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE etc. where appropriate; that is, in fact, what I'm arguing for, and what you appear to be objecting to. Now, if you could bring all those other "many sources", that would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Again agree not in the lead (for the third time). First two books off a scholar search....these be acceptable to you?..Professor of religious studies, Delbert Burkett (2011). The Blackwell Companion to Jesus. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-1-4443-5175-0. and Professor of Biblical and Early Christian Studies, Markus Bockmuehll (8 November 2001). The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-521-79678-1.

We seem to be talking about one source for a statement that something is widely considered. How can one source be such? And this is for a rather dramatic statement. And, it seems to be focused on the Western World. Add the words “one of” and stick it in the body. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually it was 2 now 4 and anyone can search....all should be investigating. I also have no problem with "one of" ...really odd so much backlash.... you would think everyone would want to know why hes so influential.... I find any deity very interesting and even more interesting is how they were influential.--Moxy 🍁 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Deism is indeed fascinating. As this is supposedly a bio, and not about religion (I keep hoping), that bit of psychology/sociology doesn’t belong here. I’m sure there are articles about the influence of religion. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Two major bios above both start with his influence.....with minimal mention of relics as we have here. Just to be clear we have a section on relics but not on his influence....looks to me the opposite of an informative bio. --Moxy 🍁 01:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also ignored the hidden text asking folks to come here first. I removed, although discussion can continue. Not particularly happy with the short sentence that remains. O3000 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that first paragraph looked like that for at least a year. The edit in question looks very similar to this edit, by an editor who worked very hard to insert a similar idea into the same spot of the lede, and was banned for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, a bit of Nietzsche. I like it. Not here. O3000 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

4 BC --> 6–4 BC & AD 30 / 33 --> AD 30–36

According to Chronology of Jesus, most scholars believe that he was born between 6–4 BC & crucified between AD 30–36. I would have an edit to replace 4 BC with 6–4 BC & AD 30 / 33 with AD 30–36, but I want to hear your opinions first.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be unaware of the current usage which succinctly captures this with the annotation "c.", meaning circa. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The "c." annotation will be retained.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The estimation of birth is mostly based on the Gospel of Matthew, which places the Nativity of Jesus within the reigh of Herod the Great (reigned 37-4 BCE). Josephus associate's Herod's death with a lunar eclipse which took place on March 13, 4 BCE. The estimation of death is largely based the information that Tiberius was still alive at the time of Jesus' death (the emperor died in March 37), and that Herod Antipas was still reigning in Galilee (the Tetrarch was deposed and exiled in 39). Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Split?

This article is now 215,956 bytes. Any thoughts on a split or in the alternative, a serious trim in light of all the links to sub-articles? just asking. Manannan67 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

my thought is that will just be an invitation to grow more fluff under a new outline, the size in a single article may be inhibiting that. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

DRKay and I just removed over 4k of recently inserted OR, so it's now down to 211,350 bytes. Further judicious pruning should get it under 200,000 bytes. Keep in mind, also, that a large portion of those >200k bytes are Notes, References, and Bibliograpy. The actual amount of prose isn't overwhelmingly large, considering it's an FA on an important topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Justin Martyr and the Memoirs

According to Justin Martyr the Memoirs of the Apostles or simply the Memoirs were called gospels to non-Christian readers. Miistermagico (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Roman citizen?

A birth he was legally a citizen of Roman empire, shouldn't the lead reflect this? As in he was a Roman-Jewish preacher.Thecitizen1 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ancient Rome did not have birthright citizenship. Editor2020 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Not at this period; it did some time later. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Jesus in non-Christian faiths

In the Jesus article it says "He is the central figure of Christianity." add that Jesus is an important figure in Islam as well? I'm aware he is mentioned below in the article in the section, however I think it's important to refer this fact in the first sentence.

I think it's very important considering Islam is the only non-Christian faith that believes in Jesus as a prophet of God and makes it an article of faith. Your opinion? Ndnenvjde (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. Please review the Archives. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Struck sockpuppet edit. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Greek name, transliteration vs. romanization

Which is preferable? The language template in the lead currently includes translit=Iesous. Now, this is the correct transliteration (though we might want to add a macron to the eta if we keep it this way). Due to the template function, however, this is marked as the romanization. This is not the classical romanization, which would be Iēsus, as ου -> u. Granted, the template simply reads "romanization," which could be ALA-LC, but I think most people would expect the classical romanization.

tl;dr I suggest either separating the transliteration from the language template (so it does not read "romanized: Iēsous") or changing the transliteration to the classical romanization (so it reads "romanized: Iēsus"). It may be of value to to do both. anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Emendation to the former of my two suggestions: use Template:Lang-grc-x-koine instead of Template:Lang-grc, since the later specifies Koine and would read "transliteration." anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit again: I was wrong; that template will still read "romanization." anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

So the minority of the Christians that don't believe the trinity is true are called Oneness and the reason is that they see how one self can see the trinity BUT have the understanding that the bible(God's Word) says "The Lord God is one Lord". CountryGamer3000 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please gain consensus. O3000 (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

The consensus infobox image was just replaced[1] by Rush922 without discussion, so I'll use the opportunity to remind people that though earlier images have constantly raised discussions and edit wars about ethnicity and so on throughout the years, the current Byzantine image has been in use for a long time (since 2015) with no complaints, which indicates we should stick to it for the sake of stability. It seems most people can accept it, so there is absolutely no reason to switch to American 19th century paintings and so on. The current image is ethnically ambiguous enough to please most "factions" (it looks like a generic, Mediterranean man, which should fit the bill). FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize there had been a consensus on the picture (some pages don't have such), so I just thought a more realistic picture would have been more inviting. Had I known it, I likely wouldn't have changed it just like that. That being said, if the picture should not be changed, then there should be a clear warning on the Infobox' 'edit source' section to refrain from doing so. When I saw it, all it said was " Note: Please do not expand this infobox. See the FAQ on the talk page." Since it said 'expand' - I took that to mean "don't add any more info subsections (i.e. birth place, age, etc)." I didn't realize it extended to changing the picture (changing doesn't mean 'expand' necessarily). And now, even as I check the FAQ, there is nothing there at all about the picture or having reached a consensus. So to prevent such a thing from happening later, I suggest the main editors here think about either including a "do not change the pic, as it has been reached by consensus" warning tag in the Infobox 'edit source' page, or including such a warning in the FAQ, or both.

That being said, since it's been a few years since the profile pic was set (the consensus was reached in 2015), why not change it to something different now that most can agree upon? Why not, instead of reaching consensus on just one picture, reach it on several pictures that you can alternate between, switching one out for another after a few years or so? That would make more sense and keep the article and profile pic from becoming stale.

Another thing - even if you choose a pic that isn't 'neutral-looking' in terms of his features or ethnicity (i.e. choosing a Romantic-era painting) why not just clarify it with an Infobox tag that says something similar to: "this profile pic was chosen by editorial consensus. It may not necessarily reflect what your ideas of Jesus' ethnicity/image was, but there is no certainty in any case as there is no surviving evidence of his appearance, so people's varying interpretations can be respected. As this picture is pleasing enough to have reached consensus, please respect it." That seems like a fair compromise, IMO. Just a thought.Rush922(talk) 11:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, the problem before we chose the current picture was that we would get edit warring and complaints about how he was depicted; that hasn't happened with this image, which shows we've hit a sweet spot. So in my opinion, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In any case, if we want to change the image, it should be discussed on the talk page first, not unilaterally changed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You said: "In any case, if we want to change the image, it should be discussed on the talk page first, not unilaterally changed." Yes, that's exactly what I said. Discuss it on the talk page first, come to a consensus if needed. But the reason I was able to unilaterally change it was because there wasn't a warning tag or anything in the InfoBox or even the FAQ page. Please make sure you or one of the other major editors add it so it doesn't happen in future. Thanks.Rush922(talk) 12:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:People whose existence is disputed

I don't know much about this. I just figured someone who lived 2000 years ago might be in dispute as to their existence. And inclusion in that Category is not an assertion that they did not exist, rather it raises the possibility that they may not have existed. Finally, sources are in dispute on the point. "Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable."[2] Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggest reading Historicity of Jesus and other articles we have then. Questioning the basic existence has been pretty much WP:FRINGE for quite a while, & we should not categorize on it. Historicity of Jesus is in historicity cats related to this, & personally I would mind it being in the "people" one, though not a bio. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Aramaic

The mention of the Aramaic language can be an internal link. Maybe someone can edit this. Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Names

With this edit I removed a portion of text that had been added only in the past week: "also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, Immanuel, Isa, or Yeshua"

The names Isa and Yeshua are given in the first footnote, and the latter is repeated in the last paragraph. I think that "Immanuel" is unsuitable for inclusion in the first sentence because it is essentially a religious title, not an alternative name, and giving priority to this name is inappropriate for the introduction of an article that focuses on the historical Jesus. --Hazhk (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Home Town of Jesus

It Is published that the home Town of Jesus of Nazareth Is Nazareth. According to the profecy of the old testament confermed by the gospel Bethlehem is the Town in which Jesus was born and Nazareth the town in which Jesus lived after the holy family came back from Egypt. Jvsph (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Judaism's View

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.

---

It isn't even the least bit debatable that these basic, fundamental facts of the utmost importance absolutely belong in the lead, and in the article as well. Multiple editors also "went with me." This actually is very "minor" because it already exists in the article under "Jewish" views on Jesus and Christianity. However, facts of the utmost importance (with factual sources cited) belong in the lead. Multiple editors also "went with me" and I see no "discussion" on this on the talk page. Where are all the "major, controversial" objections of this on the Jesus talk page? I see nothing at all. If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section. Why are some people having a visceral reaction when these core principles and basic, fundamental facts (with factual sources cited) of the utmost importance are in the lead and article?Peteski132 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2019 (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.

January 1, 1AD

As mentioned over at Talk:Christmas, I was trying to decide whether adding a note on the reason December 25, 1BC was set as the traditional day of his birth. Sure, it was a pagan Roman holiday, but it was also because January 1, 1AD - the first day of the new era - would correspond to Jesus’s circumcision, I.e. the day he would be named and formally accepted as a member of the Jewish community. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the placement of this for me? I am on mobile and cannot seem to do so. Not sure why the new section appeared under a hat. Thanks in advance. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Akiane Kramarik painting

Hi can you please add Akiane Kramarik's work "Jesus" to the Jesus artwork page. It seems to be in acceptance among a wide group of people and was featured on Oprah and I'm sure she would appreciate it Gev-owen (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't seem to upload it because my account is new. Gev-owen (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We can't use it since it does not have a free license. In any case, it is hardly of any historical significance. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Judaism's Perspective -

This is not my personal point of view; this is Judaism's point of view completely corroborated by the Jesus, Judaism's view of Jesus, Christianity and Judaism, Rejection of Jesus and Messiah in Judaism articles, and just as importantly, fully corroborated by an endless amount of reliable sources.ShivatTzion (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are of extremely low quality. For example, it says that all Jewish rabbis believe that God is not a person, etc.RotarenegEmem (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I wrote that? Of course God is not a person according to Judaism - all stripes of Judaism. Jewish rabbis what? Jews what? Many Jews -and of course many non-Jews for that matter- throughout history have committed all kinds of terrible sins, that doesn't mean Judaism condones it; and this is strictly about Judaism's perspective/views of Christianity/Jesus. Many Jews and non-Jews have worshiped numerous idols in every form - golden calf, baal, people, Jesus, Haile Selassie, famous rabbis, their own rabbis, money, and an endless amount of others; that doesn't mean that Judaism condones that either. This is strictly about Judaism's perspective/views of Christianity/Jesus. Your problem is with the fact that all denominations of Judaism totally reject the divinity/messiahship/trinity claims of Christianity/Jesus. I can understand if you don't agree or want the actual Biblical verses listed because they can be interpreted in any way by anyone, but this is strictly about all denominations of Judaism's perspective/views of Jesus/Christianity. How do you think that every denomination of Judaism comes to the same conclusion (interpreted; interpretations) basing their total rejection of the divinity/messiahship/trinity claims of Christianty/Jesus? Read the Judaism's view of Jesus (with Biblical verses listed both in the article and as references) article with all the reliable sources cited for your answer. And I NEVER wrote nor edited even one word in the Judaism's view of Jesus article, none, not one. My edits are completely corroborated by the Judaism's view of Jesus, Christianity and Judaism, Rejection of Jesus and Messiah in Judaism articles, with an endless amount of reliable sources cited.

I will list some for you directly from the Judaism's view of Jesus article, as well as directly quoting the article. Of which I never wrote nor edited at all. What are your problems (or lack thereof) with this article and reliably sourced references? I quote: "Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaic beliefs, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'anit 2:1). thirteen principles of faith includes the concept that God has no body and that physical concepts do not apply to God. It is a central tenet of Judaism that God does not have any physical characteristics; that God's essence cannot be fathomed. The Jewish Messiah is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace and understanding where "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, leading the nations to "end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel". Ezekiel states the messiah will redeem the Jews. No divergence allowed from the tenets of biblical Judaism. As traditional Judaism believes that God's word is true eternally, one who claims to speak in God's name but diverges in any way from what God himself has said, logically cannot be inspired by divine authority. Deuteronomy 13:1 states simply, "Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you; neither add to it nor take away from it." What are your problems (or lack thereof) with all these words written in the name of Judaism (with reliable sources) in this [Judaism's view of Jesus]] article?

Here is some more for you in the Messiah in Judaism article: Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth." And since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards), he was not the Messiah. What are your problems (or lack thereof) with all these words written in the name of Judaism (with reliable sources) in this Messiah in Judaism article? Also, why are you selectively leaving in Biblical verses (Deut. 6, Ezek 37, Isa 2, 43, etc) in the Jesus article referring to the Oneness of God and Jesus not fulfilling messianic prophecies, when these Biblical verses can be interpreted in any way by anyone? You are totally contradicting yourself.ShivatTzion (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

Suggest adding the word "Sunday" after the sentence in the third para that reads, "His crucifixion is honored on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter." Jungle Bob 99 (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request for Jesus' name in Arabic

A request to edit the footnote for Jesus' name:

Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς, romanized: Iēsoûs; Hebrew: ישוע‎, romanized: Yēšū́aʿ; Arabic: عيسى‎, romanized: Isa

to include the Arabic variant يَسُوعُ Yasua used by Arabic speaking Christians. (عيسى Isa is the Qur'anic spelling)

Revschaef (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Suggested change: Remove "most" from this sentence: Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (the Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.

Sorry to do this but I just felt like it was relevant. The first paragraph states that "Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (the Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14]"... I would argue that this is the core fundamental belief of Christianity and that if there are religious practitioners that do NOT believe Jesus was the son of God, that these people are not Christian. To say that "most" Christians believe this is like saying that most astronauts believe that outer space is real. It's a fundamental belief of the religion that Jesus was the son of God. Mkresge1983 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"He preached orally"

Is there another way to preach? Kaldari (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. While many think "preach" implies speech, it doesn't. "Preach" is more a synonym for "exhort", which can be done orally, through the written word, or in other ways. (Look up the definition of "preach" to make this clearer.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Christology

Template:Christology has been nominated for merging with Template:Jesus. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The only records of Jesus’ life

“as the only records of Jesus's life are contained in the four Gospels.”

This statement in the first paragraph does not seem to be accurate as other non-Gospel accounts notably by the Jewish historian Flavious Josephus also contain accounts of Jesus.

I propose that we amend that section to remove the word only and identify other non Biblical accounts that are already accepted by scholars as credible accounts. Mooste (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, lots of scholars give accounts. But, I assume this is referencing people who were alive while Jesus was alive and could give personal accounts. Flavious didn't quite make it. Perhaps it could be a bit clearer. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

According to the infobox, Jesus was born in Betlehem. However, lots of scholars on the Historical Jesus suggest his birthplace to be Nazareth, given that all of our sources call him "Jesus of Nazareth" (and in the jewish tradition "of" indicated the birthplace; see Paul of Tarsus, Mary of Magdala etc.). According to Bart Ehrman and several other scholars, only two gospels have a controversial/mythical nativity of Jesus in Betlehem, and probably do so to "change history" and have the Messiah born in the city of King David, while the other two gospels imply that he was born in Nazareth. For this reason, i think that the birthplace in infobox should be "Betlehem or Nazareth". Barjimoa (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"only two gospels have a controversial/mythical nativity of Jesus in Betlehem" The Nativity of Jesus already explains that only the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew have nativity narratives. The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John start with an adult Jesus, and don't even provide a genealogy for him."

As for his birthplace:

• "Scholars consider the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus and probably not historical. While Géza Vermes and E. P. Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction, Raymond E. Brown sees them as having been constructed from historical traditions which predate the Gospels. According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin. Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have proposed a birth at Bethlehem of Galilee, a site located seven miles from Nazareth at which remains dating to the time of Herod the Great have been excavated. Armand P. Tarrech states that Chilton's hypothesis has no support in either the Jewish or Christian sources, although Chilton seems to take seriously the statement in Luke 2:4 that Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem." Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

What counts as a religious leader?

What counts as a religious leader? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:992A:724D:E027:7278 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Religious Leader redirects to Clergy, which you may find helpful. GoingBatty (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Contrary to commonly held belief, depiction of any prophet is a serious sin. I am requesting for any depictions of Christ to be excluded from the official page. Thank you. Propogator.ofTruth (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Propogator.ofTruth:  Not done: see the response you received at Wikipedia:Help desk#Removal of Depiction of God. GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

People have made depictions of Jesus Christ on the cross as paintings and crucifixes (crucifigi?) in churches for several centuries and are still continuing to do so. If depiction of any prophet is a serious sin, why does this happen? JIP | Talk 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Other religious groups

Could the opener be amended to include something like "Other religious groups entertain a variety of perspectives on Jesus?" The opener doesn't summarizes religious perspectives on Jesus outside of the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish perspectives.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Such a statement would add nothing meaningful. If you have specifics about other major religious groups' perspectives, go for it. Jtrevor99 (talk)

And perhaps you also need to mention that some groups ignore the alleged existence of Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I echo Jtrevor99 above, if you have specifics about other major religious groups who ignore the "alleged" existence of Jesus, cite them, although I cannot imagine how any group can possibly have a policy of "ignoring" someone or something. "Hey, we are going to ignore the 'alleged' existence of Jesus!" but such a statement or policy isn't ignoring it, it's making a statement.Smeat75 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this suggestion is that outrageous. Although, a specific suggestion based on RS would be useful. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My only objection is that a statement like "Other religious groups believe many other things" doesn't add anything of value to the lead. I've no objection to a brief summary of other religious, or non-religious, groups' views, provided it gives a decent amount of detail. A single sentence that highlights some of the viewpoints from Bahai, Hinduism, etc., wouldn't be out of the question; but any statement on groups denying Jesus' existence should include the consensus nonreligious scholarly view that historically, he did exist. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have considerable interest in The Dreaming in Australian Aboriginal culture. Given that is a set of beliefs that predates all of Christianity. It obviously ignores Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would the article be improved by including the non-existence of references to Jesus in a tradition that predates him? RedOak350 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, this conversation seems to have died. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Who were the Scribes?

The text here seems to assume we know who the scribes were. As far as I can tell, a vague political faction within the Jewish clergy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

They were the temple bureaucrats - they combined the functions of librarians, secretaries, accountants and historians.Achar Sva (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: Good question. I've added a wikilink at the first occurrence of "scribe". Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Extremely non-NPOV article

The article seems to have largely been written by worshipers of its subject. It makes extremely bold claims (eg "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically") and then justifies them by linking to a whole lot of articles also by worshipers of its subject. Garth M (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Garth M: Please see WP:RS/AC and WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Garth M: I agree with you, but this topic is an echo chamber for believers, who can't see that having such a biased viewpoint on display is actually damaging to their cause. A lot of polite POV pushers who stay just within the Wikipedia rules. It won't change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And WP:POVFIGHTER. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at the talk page of Census of Quirinius and then tell me that I am a "worshiper" or "believer ". It is really a WP:PA. I am a believer in history. Smeat75 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

While several of the editors of this page would be correctly characterized by HiLo48's aspersions, the archives on this and related pages (Christianity, for example) prove that most of the long-time editors of this page are indeed interested in scholarship, history, and following WP's policies, not just technically but fully. For example I recently got in a protracted debate on Christianity where I rolled back pro-"believer" edits because I felt they fell afoul of WP policy. As a result I don't worry about others' labels or mischaracterizations. As for this article: I argue that a full understanding of what Christians think of Jesus is pertinent to WP's mission, and if they are not stated in this article, they would not be stated anywhere. Even so, more than half of the article covers scholarly, historical, and non-Christian religious views of Jesus...moreso, I would say, than articles such as Muhammad do. Finally, we have Historicity of Jesus and similar. In short, I don't buy the "biased POV" argument against this page, and in fact, believe stating there is one is itself POV. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The preceding two posts support my position. Note that I cautiously did not say ALL editors in my comment. But I know this isn't worth pursuing. BTW, noting that this article is better than Muhammad is not a great claim. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We live in strange times when we see TGeorge described as a believer.Achar Sva (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do believe in God (Spinoza's God, not the Abrahamic God). Otherwise I am neither pro-Christian nor anti-Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020

It is known that Jesus did exist as a man on earth. The article discusses his identity from the view of Christianity, because as a mortal man there is nothing interesting to say about him. (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

Please change the chart comparing "Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels" and "Jesus in the Gospel of John". Change "Jesus does not exorcise demons" to "There is no mention of Jesus exorcising demons". Change "Peter gives no confession" to "There is no mention of Peter confessing who Jesus is". Change "Disciples do not pick grain on the Sabbath" to "there is no mention of disciples picking grain on the Sabbath". Change "Jesus was not transfigured" to "There is no mention of Jesus being transfigured".

It is not stated in the Gospel of John that Jesus or His apostles did not do these things, as inferred in this chart, but that there is no record of them doing so in the gospel of John as there is in the Synoptic Gospels. (Witherington, Ben (1997). The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-1544-9.) Dannybateman (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It would simply make bad prose. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Judaism's Position

Dear Jewish editors, please refrain from overrepresentation of your specific religious views in the articles lead paragraphs. The position of your religion is better represented further down in the body of the article. The position that your religion rejects Jesus as the Messiah because of the messianic prophecies(and was "neither Devine nor ressurected) is adequate enough a summary for the lead. This is not to downplay Judaism's position, but it should elaborated on in the "Judaism's position" section of the article. The opening paragraph should only contain a very brief one sentence summary. Islam's viewpoint should be elaborated more in the lead, due to their belief Jesus is the Messiah, than the dismissive view of Judaism.

This, to me at least, is like if I go and edit Rabbi and put the fact Christians and Muslims consider Jesus the greatest Jewish Rabbi of all time into the lead article instead of in the "New Testament" or "In Christianity" section. Colliric (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Colliric: you don't need to assume that all information about Judaism was added by Jews. Statistically, it's more likely to have been added by a gentile. This site isn't based on the assumption that users are here to make their religion's views the most prominent on the site. Instead, a variety of users who may or may not belong to particular religions give due weight according to what sources give. Using WikiBlame, we can see that TheCherryPanda expanded that sentence. Considering they edit on the Sabbath, and there's nothing else relating to Judaism in their edits, I doubt TheCherryPanda is Jewish. In this case, the source cited doesn't go on to the extent that TheCherryPanda's revision did, which is why I didn't restore it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok yes I accept that is possible. Colliric (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ’s name

Although the New Testament names the savior as Jesus Christ, this was not his true name. He was noted to be a Jewish preacher and a messiah, but no one actually knows his real name. Unfortunately, there was a cascade of language translations that altered the name to Jesus Christ from its original form. Historians have traced Jesus back to the Hebrew name ‘Yeshua’, but the last name, ‘Christ’, is more of a title than a last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.99.12 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article Christ (title)? Dimadick (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Searchable archives

I wanted to look at an old discussion, but it doesn't apper the archives are searchable anymore? Any way to get it back? FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk, doesn't the search box a bit above the archive links work for you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I now see it's among the wikiproject templates, but should there also be a search bar by the individual archives on the lower right? FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Add Jesus has risen 3 days after death. 69.207.174.138 (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The resurrection story is already covered section 2.7. O3000 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and lead sentence change

I would like to change the infobox to correct the place of birth and death. In the Bible, it states where he was born and died. He was born in Bethlehem, which is part of Judea. However, he was not crucified in Jerusalem. Instead, he was crucified outside of Jerusalem in a place called Golgotha. My sources are the Bible. I also want to change the lead sentence from "Jesus (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "Jesus (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, was the son of God, and a religious leader, leading 12 disciples". Again, my sources are the Bible. Please leave comments below. Thanks! --Weatherman1228 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bible is not a reliable secondary source for anything except for what the Bible says. You would need to provide scholarly sources. The changes you are requesting have been discussed. See the archives at the top of this page.

Objective3000 Why is the Bible not reliable? It is true. ---Weatherman1228 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Jesus was the son of God" and 'the Bible is true" are religious statements. This is not the place for them, utterly ridiculous. You need to acquaint yourself with what wikipedia is and how it works.Smeat75 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Weatherman1228: The Bible is a primary source, which requires interpretation from a non-primary source. We avoid interpreting primary sources because we don't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

There is a table where the similarities and differences are listed between the synoptics and John's gospel. I would like the following to be added to that table on both sides:

Jesus heals on the Sabbath [Matthew 12:13], [John 5:8-9] The Pharisees persecute Jesus because he heals on the Sabbath [Matthew 12:14], [John 5:16]

These additions are very important because all the gospels emphasis the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees on these Sabbath healings. Furthermore, they are also some of the most important similarities between John and the synoptics. Peytonhanel (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please also provide reliable sources to support your proposal. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

kindly add pictures of an ACCURATE Jesus, who is black. wikipedia says to make a change, you need to have a valid reference. my reference is the Bible. read the book Revelations, "skin of bronze". that is definitely white. thank you.41.113.236.156 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There may be a point in that we overwhelmingly use 19thy century European depictions, maybe there could be a better balance of depictions from all over the world, time, and in different styles. But I don't think we should lean in any particular direction regarding phenotypical features, though Jesus would most likely have looked like what he was, a Middle Eastern Jew. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Birthplace

Even though there is no scholarly consensus on the exact birthplace of Jesus, the Bible states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I argue that Bethlehem should be listed, however with a footnote explaining the uncertainty.

If the page for Kim Jong-il can mention one of his supposed birthplaces as Mt. Paektu according to North Korean state propaganda, then it would not be unreasonable to label Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Niqqud in the Hebrew name

Is there a historical reason for the Hebrew name in the article not having niqqud? It can be added easily if it's trivial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladabudi (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Messiah ben David (Christianity)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Messiah ben David (Christianity). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Messiah ben David (Christianity) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Birthplace, again asked

I'm going to ask again, because the last time I asked nobody answered. According to the Bible and popular Christian tradition, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Therefore, Bethlehem should be listed as Jesus' birthplace. Yes, there may be no scholarly consensus on the birthplace of Jesus, but we could easily add a footnote reassuring the reader that the birthplace of historical Jesus is not confirmed.

Moreover, if Kim Jong-il's infobox can cite North Korean state records for his birthplace on Mt. Paektu, then surely this page can cite popular Christian tradition and the Bible as one record of Jesus' birthplace, in this case being Bethlehem.

HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. You're right that Kim Jong-il's article cannot do that, but two wrongs don't make one right. His birth in Betlehem is a matter of belief, not fact nor academic consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@HyettsTheGamer2: Did you know you may be able to answer your own question? At the top of this Talk page, there is a pointer to an FAQ that mentions this exact question (#6b). Also, in the Talk archives here, there are several discussions, along with a handy note: Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting..

Here are links to some discussions about this very question:

• The one, from 2011, is mentioned in the FAQ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_116#Birthplace_in_infobox
• And here's one from way back in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_101#Infobox_vs._the_historical_Jesus
• And this one raised the question in an edit request earlier this year (2020): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_133#Edit_request

Regarding Kim Jong-il's officially claimed birthplace, I don't see a problem with it the way it's handled in the article now. Because an official DPRK document is cited, and two other likely birthplaces are listed, I disagree with the statement that Kim Jong-il's article cannot do that. (I'm not going to debate here how totally FUBAR the DPRK's government is, since that's a personal opinion.)

Please read the above material. After doing that, if you still have a question, come back here and discuss it. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Modern Place Names

Just in case anyone is confused, when the Bible speaks of Asia, that is Asia Minor, also known as Anatolia, which is today Turkey. The Seven Churches of Asia were actual churches in Western Anatolia (west coast of modern day Turkey). When the Bible speaks of Cana for the wedding feast, that is in modern day Lebanon. When the Bible speaks of Babylon, that is modern day Iraq. When the Bible speaks of Samaritans, those were people living in what is modern day Syria, because it was named for Aram, hence the Aramaic language. When the Bible speaks of graven images, it was referring to doing actual engravings of art, the specific context was to completely refrain from making idols and likenesses of things in the heavens, the earth, and the waters beneath the earth. The archaeology is everywhere. You have to be willing to research and admit when you've spoken a lifetime of ignorance to be humble scientists.Jakewayd (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 9 August 2019

"when the Bible speaks of Asia, that is Asia Minor, also known as Anatolia, which is today Turkey." My memory of the New Testament is hazy, but I was under the impression that the reference was to Asia (Roman province), covering areas of western Anatolia.Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this simply demonstrate a poor, out-of-date translation? Would we accept it for any other book? HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not "God the son" But the Messiah

The messiah according to the old testament. Christianity believes in ONE God. Small difference that goes a long way. If someone can change "God the son" to the Messiah. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:8DC1:25BC:154:7A04 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the Holy Trinity (i.e. the Triune Godhead)? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is the same meaning Christ's disciples reffered to him as the "Messiah" the Son of God. There are many names of Christ such as: "I am" "the Messiah" "the son of man". Christ proving that he is the son of God comes from the famous biblical verse in John

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting eternal life" -John 3:16 Paokfc17 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Gesù" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gesù. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Gesù until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Jesús Cristo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jesús Cristo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Jesús Cristo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Jesus Cristo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jesus Cristo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Jesus Cristo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Can a pop up box for this page be made when searched. JohnathanJohantahn (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

​It's not quite clear what you're referring to, but if you're referring to the boxes shown on Google then that's not something we can influence, it's just something Google's algorithms decide on. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated infobox image

I boldly updated the infobox image. Realize that pretty much anything on this page could be controversial so just a brief summary of my thoughts: by moving to the Sinai Pantocrator we’re moving to arguably the most famous image of Jesus in art, certainly more recognizable than the previous one. It keeps the Eastern depiction so it’s status quo on that front, plus while Orthodox, the image is revered or at least appreciated in most Christian sects. For me the biggest factor was that the architectural distortion of a dome on an image that is usually akin to a portrait isn’t ideal for one of the more significant articles on the project. If you want to address the poor quality of the prior image for use as a primary biographical depiction (as compared to decorating a building), the Sinai Pantocrator seems to be the most natural and least controversial replacement. Plus it’s just more well known, which is a strong argument on its own. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is needed, considering that choosing the previous image, which I have now restored (you should start a talk page discussion first if you want to break with long standing stability and consensus, not after you've done it) took a long discussion, and has surprisingly left us with no complaints since (considering all the pitfalls of ethnicity, style, denominations, etc.), unlike many of the earlier images. Again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can already see reasons why the new image would draw complaints, so let's just spare us the bother. If we do want to get a new image, it should be by vote, with more than just one contender. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, it is broke: the current image really isn’t suited to be the main image in a biography. The impact of the dome is pretty bad. You don’t really need a vote if there can be agreement to use a different image without non-procedural objections. Also, WP:BRD is a perfectly acceptable way of getting consensus. Edit first then discuss has a much higher success rate at improving the project than discuss and vote before acting. Anyway, the stable image is not well-suited for this purpose and I think my edit was an improvement. Hopefully we can get a consensus for the change without the need for an RfC or formal multi-candidate vote. I’m open to options, but the existing one isn’t ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: we don't do process for the sake of process; rather than chiding someone for following our guideline, why do you think the existing image is superior? VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Consensus. If a suggested edit goes against previous consensus, it is best to discuss it first. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, as there’s three people supporting the new image, one that’s neutral and thinks either works, and a procedural objection, I’m going to go ahead and restore it, as that’s how rough consensus works on most article talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And in the absence of such reasons, my vote is for the new image. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion in that I think either image would work well and assuage most previously expressed concerns. But in the prior discussion (archive 126, about halfway down), one version of Pantocrator, and four of Cefalù Pantocrator (out of nine total), were considered in a straw poll. Pantocrator was weakly rejected due to perceived asymmetry, which (a) I do not find compelling, and (b) could be addressed with judicious cropping. Meanwhile, it is likely votes swung in favor of Cefalù Pantocrator simply because it represented nearly half of the considered images. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t find the asymmetry that compelling to the point of needing to crop, and like I mentioned above, I find the dome effect on the Cefalù image to be worse. I also wouldn’t have any objections with someone doing a crop on the Sinai image and updating it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Link for convenience: Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#New image. VQuakr (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Jesus’ Age At Crucifixion

If Jesus was born 4BC and died 30AD - a common scholarly position - he may not have had his 33rd birthday prior to the crucifixion, making him 32. In fact, as the crucifixion generally is held to have taken place in April, it is statistically more likely he was 32 than 33. Yet my edit to this effect was reverted, and the reason given was essentially “this is no place to do your own math”. I have no problem with the revert if scholarly sources actually state he was likely to be 33 to 36 years old. But (1) I am not aware of any that explicitly state the age, only the birth and death years, and (2) even if they do, do they state “33 to 36” as we have in the infobox, or do they instead state “33 or 36”, to match the general consensus on 30AD or 33AD death year? This is a genuine request for info. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As no-one is sure what year exactly he was born, and such precision was not considered as important then as it is now, approximately is all we are ever going to get. Sorry about that. Britmax (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's an argument in favor of WIDENING the target, like I'm wanting to do. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sensibility of CE/BCE dating system for birth date

What's your take on whether using the CE/BCE dating system would be more sensible to avoid the "Christ born 4 years "Before Christ"" thing Finite Fleet (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The Anno Domini system is based on a 6th-century dating error, and is irrelevant to discussions on Jesus' birth date. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I asked that question with existing and full awareness of Dionysius Exiguus's limitations. I was just thinking that based on the nominal ("relating to or consisting of names") significance on which AD/BC was founded, it might be more sensible to use CE/BCE, which in a sense, a sense proceeding from formality or precision, more strongly encapsulates the origins of the numbering system while also acknowledging the aforementioned limitations. Finite Fleet (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I see insufficient reason to change it. The BC dating was based on when scholars thought Christ was born in the 6th century, making it relevant here, and don't see that it creates confusion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this addresses my point. Finite Fleet (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It's simple. When the BC/AD system was set, scholars didn't think Christ was born "before Christ". And if anyone actually was confused over usage of a dating system set based on the life of the person in this article, I'm sure we would have heard about it before now. In short, you have not provided a sufficiently compelling reason to change it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think implementing BCE/CE is better because of secular representation and consistency. ImperialLeviathan (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is internally consistent. We don’t mandate BC/AD or BCE/CE. It also makes little sense to avoid using the BC/AD system on the article about the person whose approximate year of birth both BCE/CE and BC/AD are based on. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I love the new painting of Jesus!

Cefalù Pantocrator retouched

It's a lot brighter and clearer than the old one! 😊 Félix An (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of it. It's dark and stretchy. The old one is better. GeraldWL 12:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mm, I also preferred the old Pantocrator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

But the new one is the "original" painting of Jesus. The one from the OG Saint Catherine Monastery. Rantemario (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Krístús redirect to this page

Baha'i faith calls Jesus, Krístús and there no page for Krístús so since it Jesus it should redirect to this page. Doremon764 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Krístus accually icelandic for Christ Doremon764 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. I set up a redirect on Kristus which also covers Kristús. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Don't you think the page of Jesus should also be edited only by extended confirmation users just as other religion pages are such as Muhammad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetorockknowlege (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Does the level of vandalism justify it? Please sign your posts (4x ~). Britmax (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If the page sees continued disruptive editing from autoconfirmed editors (like was the case with the Muhammad article) it is possible to request protection at WP:RFPP – Thjarkur (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Jesus is king over every thing. 98.121.35.217 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

April 7, 30 / April 3, 33

An addition to the Death date, to have it read "April 7, 30 AD or April 3, 33 AD" was reverted on the basis that it is "unconfirmed by modern scholars". However, the citation used in the Infobox - Humphreys & Waddington 1992 - states in part "This date, 3 April AD 33, is supported by many scholars. However, not all scholars accept that AD 33 is preferable to AD 30, and the date 7 April AD 30 is also strongly supported", with references to Hoehner, Finegan, and others to support that statement. Thus, we have a problem: either we accept the cited article's statement that not only 30 or 33 AD is likely, but April 7, 30 or April 3, 33 is likely; or, we dismiss the article, and need a different citation for "30 or 33 AD". Thus, I see three possible courses of action:

1. State "Likely April 7, 30 AD or April 3, 33 AD";
2. Keep "30 or 33 AD", and change to a different citation that does not support statement (1);
3. Revert to the earlier "circa 30 to 33 AD" that was rejected in prior discussions (see archives).

Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

FA?

This is not how an FA is, at least how I expected. The lead has too much citation overkills, and so is the body. Leads are best to have no citations unless the claims are controversial or not stated in the body; a lot of them are uncontroversial and stated in the body. I wanted to resolve it, but the invisible comments and page notice whooped me back. GeraldWL 07:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with this article, but I'd assume the citations are included in the lead because the topic may be seen as controversial and therefore clear sourcing is needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but not till that many. There are a lot of uncontroversial claims that have been covered about in the body, which makes no need for citations in the lead. GeraldWL 13:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Citations on seemingly uncontroversial statements are there because many of those statements have been challenged over time, mostly because of the nature of this article's topic. For example, there have been repeated attempts by editors to dispute that Jesus even existed, despite a large majority of secular historians agreeing that he did. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

But five citations proving that Judaism doesn't think Jesus was divine. Really? StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of excessive citations on the same point. I'm arguing in favor of having at least one citation where citations are present. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

Change Jesus[e] (c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,[f] was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader.[12] He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (the Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14]

to Jesus[e] (c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,[f] was a first-century Christian preacher and religious leader.[12] He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (the Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14] 71.169.176.57 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, source 12 refers to Jesus as a Jew, so changing that to Christian would need a new source. RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And it doesn't make sense anyway for Jesus to call Himself a Christian. Karl Marx didn't call himself a Marxist. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Jesus born in Bethlehem

Wasn’t Jesus born in Bethlehem to be more specific? And Roman Empire should a have a direct link to the page. Jdietr601 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jdietr601: See the FAQs (above). Specifically, question 6b. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

– the section Genealogy and nativity says that Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born in Bethlehem – Roman Empire is linked in the infobox and in the section Judea and Galilee in the 1st century – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I know but it should say that right next to where it says he was born. Jdietr601 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Change "Crucifixion" to "execution"

Is there really any historical evidence at all that he was killed on the cross? If we go by beliefs only, then we have to consider Islam, the world's second largest religion, says he wasn't crucified on the cross. We know he was executed, but no evidence he was crucified on the cross. Peace. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that argues that he died any other way? Britmax (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

– the article covers both the Christian belief that Jesus "died by crucifixion" and that "Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified" – the only source for the crucifixion is the gospels dating from the late first century – there has been a great deal of debate over whether or not the gospels are eye-witness accounts (see Historical reliability of the Gospels) – if there is no historical evidence at all that he was killed on the cross, nor is there any historical evidence that he was not killed or crucified, but "physically raised into Heaven by God" – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah what I'm saying is: we should replace the "Crucifixion" in the infobox to "executed". Doesn't it make more sense? ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The writings of Paul are the earliest that record that Jesus was crucified, which was an attested mode of killing by the Romans. 1 Corinthians 1:23 "but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness," 1 Corinthians 2:2 "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." Islam comes around a few hundred years later. Hardyplants (talk)

So, let me get this straight... You are saying we should accept the Christian narration as a fact because it's old? If you take the Christian Bible as a source, why not just write "Jesus is the son of God and the messiah" in the article? The Bible is not an historical document.

Also - I never said we should write the Muslim narration in the article, like you make it seem like... if you read my original post you'd see I said "If we go by beliefs only", and everyone knows we do not do that on Wikipedia.~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 14:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adigabrek: I was having trouble following who said what, so I properly indented the replies here. Please increase your indent level by adding a colon (one more than the preceding comment's) or using the {{outdent}} template. (To all: if you disagree with my indenting here—or if I screwed up somehow—feel free to revert this edit.) Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(This is a mobile edit so forgive that it breaks the indenting you just fixed.). Reasons not to change: (1) The Biblical accounts are largely considered secondary or at worst, tertiary sources. That is superior to a source written hundreds of years later by those who never lived in the time in question. (2) While there are questions on the authenticity of the passage in question, Josephus supports specifically crucifixion. (3) Crucifixion is likely per Josephus even if the disputed passage is disregarded, as it was a common punishment for insurrectionists or other such enemies of the Roman Empire. While no source we have can be considered inarguably authoritative, then, the weight of available evidence is in favor of crucifixion, and sources that suggest changing it are weaker than those in favor of keeping. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Adigabrek, what you suggest is in violation of WP:OR. Whatever you believe, or what Christians believe, or what Muslims believe is all secondary (though the latter two views should be mentioned). What matters is what academics say, and there is a very strong academic consensus that Jesus was crucified. If you have good academic sources saying something else, please present them. Jeppiz (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I lost faith in this discussion after I saw that everyone is still pretending I said something I did not, even after I clarified it. Therefore I'll be leaving this discussion. Peace ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary: we showed you that enough support exists for "crucifixion" versus "execution", whether you go by "beliefs only" (as you put it), religious texts, historical scholars, RSs, or available (though admittedly oft-disputed) historical sources such as Josephus. It's clear what you said. We simply refuted both that and potential counterarguments at the same time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The crucifixion of Jesus is confirmed by Tacitus and Josephus. However, the allocation of blame to the 'Jewish authorities' is a theological argument, not a historical one. It ignores how substantially the Christian narrative shifted from the earlier Christian writings of Mark to the later writings of Matthew and Luke, who turn the blame to the Jews (see ). Extra-biblical sources like Tacitus place the blame solely on Pilate. There is considerable evidence that suggests Christian amendments to Josephus's writing where he says 'by our authorities' presumably in reference to the Jews. The Agapian text in Arabic of Josephus makes no mention of the "authorities" and says merely "Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die" (for fuller context, read ). The majority of scholars consider the bulk of Josephus as accurate, but the adding of the "authorities" section having undergone Christian interpolation (see scholarly opinions on the difference in ). I recommend adding an amendment in the likes of "Chrisitan tradition and gospel blames the Jewish Authorities for reporting Jesus," at least including some of the historical context for how the narrative shifted. More attention is required also to the conflicts ongoing in Judea between Pontius Pilate and the Jews like Philo's Embassy to Gaius episode (Embassy to Gaius 38) or Josephus mention of another similar conflict. I can't help but feel that the structuring of the sentence has some theological motivation behind it by saying plainly "reported by the Jewish authorities" without including serious historical context. ([User: Shane]) 17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Hi, I want to change something, you had written that Jeusu died at 30-33years I think you write like this. But this is wrong because Jeusu did never die, he died and rose in the third day. he is alive and will live for ever. 207.189.202.19 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This is written as a neutral encyclopedia article, not a religious document. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Christian Bible and creeds and your very own post admit that Jesus died: without that death there would not have been a resurrection. It's of no offense to Christianity to say that Jesus died. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In Life and Teachings subheading - Canonical Differences

This article takes the position that Peter does not confess that Jesus is the Messiah. While this is sourced position (#103, Witherington 1997), it's not the only position. Does anyone know of a scholarly source that opposes this view?

I argue that Peter does confess Jesus as the Messiah in the Gospel of John using an indirect appellation. The passage in question occurs after the "I am the Bread of Life" discourse, after which—according to the narrative—many of his disciples stop following him. Jesus asks those who are left if they would go away as well, but "Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68-69, ESV)

The use of appellations is not foreign to Jewish thought. It seems to me that the phrase "The Holy One of God" would have been understood by Jewish contemporaries to refer to the Messiah, and not to Elijah or any other prophet, save for perhaps Moses.

Of course, this is just my own view and so is not suitable for the article itself, but surely there must be a trusted source out there that takes a similar view. My contention with the current state of the article is that leaving it as-is suggests a further separation between the Synoptic and 4th Gospel than actually exists. 50.110.218.93 (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

On this page it needs to say Jesus has been resurrected. Source: the Bible. 105.1.154.226 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a secondary source for facts like that. You'd need reliable secondary sources to cover that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally believe that he was ressurected, but you can't just say this like everyone believes it. It's Wikipedia. It should say soemthing, "It is a Christian belief that Jesus was ressurected." Ejkrause (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bible is not a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Wasn't Jewish / Wasn't a Jew

Although this is against the popular narrative, Jesus Christ was not a Jew! Jews practice an entirely different faith from the one that Jesus promulgated and in fact created, and Jews don't even believe in the divinity of Christ nor in the doctrines of the Trinity at all. The biblical context of the word "Jew" originates from the Greek word IEWE, which was used to describe the people of Judea, which is where the word Jew comes from. Jews who practice religious Judaism, follow Talmudic law, and adhere to a faith similar to the Pharisees (whom Jesus repeatedly condemned and 'called out' throughout the Gospel, see Matthew 23:33, Luke 11:37-54, etc) are not in any way comparable to Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been addressed numerous times - see several of the archives. You are incorrectly conflating the genetic "Jew", cultural "Jew" and religious "Jew". Jesus was incontrovertibly the first, and according to both the Bible and a supermajority of RSs the second. Thus the third is a moot point. (Besides, you couldn't call him a "Christian": he cannot be his own follower.) In short: there is no "narrative" here, only facts. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesus here is the Jewish Messiah, sent from the Jewish God, in fulfillment of the Jewish Law. Jesus as the Messiah gives the true interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures to his Jewish followers and he expects these followers to keep the Jewish law even better than the scribes at the Pharisees.

— Bart Ehrman, History of Christianity—Lecture 6: The Gospel according to Matthew (part 2)

Yup, mainstream Judaism does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but however highfalutin that claim is, it is not blasphemous (there were more Messiah claimants at the time and they did not get killed for blasphemy; there is nothing intrinsically blasphemous in claiming you are the Messiah).

Qureshi, Nabeel (8 March 2016). Answering Jihad and Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus Collection. Zondervan. p. PT329. ISBN 978-0-310-53169-2. 66. "For Jesus to say, 'Yes, I'm the Messiah,' is not a blasphemy; there's nothing blasphemous about calling yourself the Messiah, anymore than it's blasphemous to say, 'Yes, I'm the president of the United States,' or, 'I'm the president of the Southern Baptist Convention.' I mean I may not be, but it's not a blasphemy to say I am, there's nothing illegal about it. There were Jews that we know about who called themselves Messiah and there were Jews that we know about that the leading religious leaders of the Jews called the Messiah. 'Messiah' simply means a future ruler of the people; it's not blasphemous to say so" (Bart Ehrman, Historical Jesus, The Great Courses, course 643, lesson 21, 24:42 — 29:06, http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=643). {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

ZoomerEnlightenment: It's perfectly true that Jews don't believe in the divinity of Christ or in the Holy Trinity. Neither, however, did Jesus. Achar Sva (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless you are in direct communication with him (Are you??) I’m not sure such a definitive statement is possible, I think if you separate descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels from the rest of the New Testament I think you can argue that Jesus didn’t do anything which is inconsistent with being a religious Jew of the time. DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a classic view among the scholars of the historical Jesus: Kee, Alistair (30 April 2004). "Nietzsche and Christians with beautiful feet". In Hackett, Jeremiah; Wallulis, Jerald (eds.). Philosophy of Religion for a New Century: Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 166. ISBN 978-1-4020-2073-5. Jesus was not a Christian. The religion of Jesus is quite distinct from the religion about Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, the view I expressed is the consensus of contemporary NT scholars. Jesus does become a divine figure in the Gospel of John, but not in the first three gospels; Paul doesn't regard him as divine, but rather possessing a status in heaven which all who believe will share; and the trinity is nowhere to be found. Achar Sva (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think any scholar has definitively determined “what Jesus believed”, as you stated. There is, however, scholarship on how Jesus is presented in the New Testament. DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

51.253.38.188 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is not only regard as the leader of Christianity but the as the God.please try to consider this

 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. Looks to me like the Trinity seems adequately explained in the article. --Volteer1 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

98.114.254.117 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Jesus Christ birthplace is believed to be Bethlemen.

 Not done: This has been discussed numerous times on the Talk Page. See archives. Bethlehem is mentioned as Jesus's birthplace according to the gospel nativity accounts, but few if any reliable extrabiblical sources support this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Midnight inquest before High Priest, Morning arraignment by the chief priests and elders, trial before Pilate and Herod

This is important and currently missing from the article, it shouldn't be reverted. If my "English" is bad, fix it instead of reverting WP:PRESERVE, WP:PARTR.

The synoptics concur that early the next morning, the the chief priests and elders gather and decide to arraign him before Pilate.  Only in Luke's account is there an investigation, in which the ask Jesus if he is the Christ, to which he responds "from now on, the son of man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." They ask if he is therefore the son of God, and he responds, "you are right in saying that I am."  They then take him to be tried by Pilate for sedition.Jaredscribe (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Also there is no (good) reason to revert the inclusion of the Jewish law on the conduct of capital trials:

The Sanhedrin was a Jewish judicial body,[213] and the talmud's Sanhedrin (tractate) 32a reads: Hebrew: דיני נפשות דינים ביום וגוםרים ביום‎, lit. 'In cases of capital law, the court judges during the daytime, and concludes the deliberations and issues the ruling only in the daytime'.

Jaredscribe (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered editing the Wikipedia in your native language? Wikipedia:Competence is required#Responding to suspected lack of competence.--Moxy-

WP:PRIMARY: in the way you’ve worded it you should use a secondary source. (E.g. “The Synoptics concur”, particularly but not only, because one is missing; and “Only in Luke”. Even if corrected it still should be secondary. again on the Sanhedrin point, a secondary source should be used to clarify the relevance (context and historically) to Jesus. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There is very good reason not to include what became Jewish law re the Sanhedrin trial. Apart from the WP:OR aspect of wedging in primary source material into what is a paraphrase of another corpus of writings, the Jewish laws find their classical formulation in a much later period. They may be authentic reflections of what was the case centuries before (though we know many cases were they are not), but only a solid academic secondary source citing those laws in the context of the synoptic mention of a trial can provide the technical warrant for such inclusion. Whatever Sanhedrin (tractate) 32a states, Moses Maimonides, the highest authority on Jewish law, still maintained that a figure who appears to be identical to the Jesus of the gospels, was put to death by a beth din on Passover eve, which your edit suggested was impossible in law. It's for reasons like this that editors should not fiddle around inserting original research. Everything here requires a quality source apposite to every point in the narrative.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mishna (which is quoted here) was written down in the same period as the gospels, and transmitted orally even earlier, and this one was accepted as is by later authorities. For example, according to Maimonides his "classic formulation" of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah - which as Nishidani observes would be probably the best secondary source, He quotes that mishna Mishneh Torah: The Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction 11.1 "A capital court must convene during the day and conclude during the day... A capital court may acquit the same day, but if they judge guilty they must wait for the following day (to announce the verdict)" I quoted the Talmud instead, because it is a source roughly contemporaneous with the gospels, which are quoted in this article. But I'll go ahead and quote Maimonides instead. Yes, he did assume that Jesus had been tried and found guilty by a Jewish court, but there is no evidence that he ever read the gospels (which were suppressed by the Roman church at the time, not available to non-clergy to read). Maimonides was judging not the historical Jesus, but the Jesus of faith as represented by the church who declared himself God and abrogated the Torah. Although the historical Jesus represented in the gospels did neither of these things, he would have been a heretic if he had done them, and in this sense Maimonides judged correctly. But none of this is relevant to the point of whether "Caiphas's court", or the morning "council" as depicted in the gospels conducted a trial according to Jewish law.Jaredscribe (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? According to both the talmud and Maimonides - and despite the Jewish antipathy toward the Jesus of faith, the council that arraigned him in the morning before Pilate would not have been a lawful "sanhedrin", but by that body's own laws it would be rather an unlawful assembly. Even more so the midnight inquest at Caiphas house where he was supposedly tried for "blasphemy". I'm sure I'm not the first scholar to observe this. This is not to deny the historicity of the account - they could have been breaking the law. Supporting that theory, its also well known that the high priests who condemned him were Sadducee heretics and Roman collaborators - Caiphas had been installed by the roman procurator, according to Josephus. (I added this fact to the article) The house of Annas is depicted elsewhere in the talmud as oppressing the people. In no way can the Jewish people as a whole, or the Pharisees (who later defended Paul in the sanhedrin) by held responsible for the crimes of that "council", if it can even be called that. But instead of making this clear, the article makes every insinuation otherwise. It misrepresented the talmud on Yeshu, and I corrected that. Not even close to WP:NPOV, before I got here in 2021. More like anti-jewish propaganda of medieval quality. By the way, WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is what you are trying to convey (and I’m not making any comment on that one way or the other) you should definitely not be doing so via primary sources. You need to support your edits with secondary citations. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mishna (which is quoted here) was written down in the same period as the gospels, and transmitted orally even earlier, and this one was accepted as is by later authorities.

No. You are playing fast and loose with dates, which should not be devoured like the fruit, but masticated carefully. Judah ha-Nasi's redaction of the Mishneh occurred approximately a century after the final form of John's Gospel (putting aside the issue of last chapter of Mark, which is only attested for around 180 CE). The 'authorities' we accept are contemporary scholars of early Judaism writing according to the methodologies of modern historiography.

Secondly, the bolded part is question-begging, in repeating the Talmudic gloss that it was organized by Hillel the Elder, whose floruit is roughly contemporaneous with the putative date range for the birth of Jesus. All this overlooks the fact that such texts, like the Gospels over their 50 year span of tinkering, were constantly reworked from several distinct oral and written traditions (like the Tanakh itself), and what we get with Judah ha-Nasi's recension is the final arbitrated form. Take any one passage that appears to attest to an historical datum, like the events at Yavne, and scholarship will give you a huge range of commentary outlining various theories for the date of composition, or the reliability as an historical datum for the events referred to, of this or that element. So your problem is using an orthodox set of takes on the primary text, and ignoring the scholarly analyses of these books. That is why you need a secondary source linking the Sanhedrin tractate to the putative event recounted in the synoptics. I'd help you with my copy of Joel Carmichael's Death of Jesus (1963) which, from memories of reading it 56 years ago, used such details to challenge the veracity of the Gospel account. But at the moment, I can't find it where it should be in my stacks.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What if the dates are sundaes? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Birth

Jesus birth and death dates are out of line with most scholars. Jesus birth was 4 B.C - 6. B.C. and death was A.D 28- A.D. 30 (of course B.C.E and C.E should be used in line with guidance.) TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Going by the notes in the infobox, what is stated about birthyear there seems similar to what you say. On death, you'd need some good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It just seems odd that the death is marked as disputed but not the birth, when both the birth and the death have a margin of error. TheeFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The margins of error are different though - the death is not "30 to 33" but "30 or 33". And no - the guidance says we should use BC/AD. StAnselm (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid established encyclopedias and most articles say born from about 6 B.C - 4.B.C (check britannica) and that is a bold claim to say 30. A.D or 33 A.D as any time from 30.A.D -33.A.D is better as you are arresting that he could only have died on those 2 dates, which is less plausible. TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• asserting TheeFactChecker (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll go further: it was either April 7, AD 30, or April 3, AD 33. Those were the only two years where the Passover fell on a Saturday. See Chronology of Jesus StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Note also that reliable secondary sources are generally prefered over WP:BRITANNICA when availabe. On this topic, they are available (not saying I know what they are). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know how to put references in but even the wikipedia article chronology of jesus says 4-6B.c with 5 references "on this basis, assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.[1][2][3][4][5]" TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

On adding references, try WP:TUTORIAL. It's a very good skill for a WP-editor to have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your other point about death (but this section is mainly about birth, hence title) TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

John P. Meier (1991). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, v. 1; The Roots of the Problem and the Person, ch. 11, ... "A Chronology of Jesus Life," pp. 373–433. Anchor Bible Reference Library.
Dunn, James D.G. (2003). "Jesus Remembered". Eerdmans Publishing: 324.
D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo & Leon Morris. (1992). An Introduction to the New Testament, 54, 56. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Michael Grant. (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p. 71. Scribner's.
Ben Witherington III. (1998). "Primary Sources". Christian History, 17 (3), 12–20. TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There's also Date of birth of Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes but these 5 references prove that Jesus was born between 4 - 6 B.C. I believe it is unbalanced to have 30 or 33 A.D for his death, but no range for birth. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, but we have two reliable sources saying the consensus of scholars is for 4BC. Having that with a "circa" in front of it is adequate for the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why then not just put a.d. 33 as his death date then. I don't get the inconsistency of Wikipedia articles. TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus in choosing between 30 and 33. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam in the Lead ¶

I was about to make two changes that I thought were non-controversial, but as soon as I opened the edit window I saw the warning, so I'll pitch them here first, & then toss in a third potentially more controversial change. The final ¶ of the lead section currently has the following:

In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the messiah… Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, but was neither God nor a begotten God. The Quran states that Jesus never claimed divinity… Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that he was physically raised into Heaven by God.

The bold marks points where I'd like to change the wording:

1. (often referred to by the Arabic name `Isa): Isa is not a transliteration of "Jesus"; it is a transliteration of عيسى, but what's important in the context of the sentence is its contrast with the name used in the title of the article—not the distinction between Latin script & the unmentioned Arabic script. Another possibility would be (often referred to as Arabic: عيسى, romanized: `īsā).
2. …nor begotten of God: There's a redundancy in referring to Jesus as a 'begotten God' in the context of this ¶ that obscures that there are two key points: First, that Jesus is held by Muslims not to be divine (already addressed earlier in the sentence); second, that he is held not to be the son of God. It is true that Muslims hold that Jesus is not a begotten god, but he was begotten so this phrase as it stands adds nothing but confusion.
3. Most Muslims do not believe…: This one may be more controversial. There's a minority position within both Sunni & Shi'i Islam that Jesus was in fact crucified, & an even less common position that he died on the cross. (Dr Ali Ataie has a fascinating lecture on this topic for anyone who's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-JthSnyic. The lecture in part summarises Todd Lawson's The Crucifixion and the Qur'an, which would be an appropriate citation for this sentence in the lead.)

Please let me know if you object to these changes. Pathawi (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. These all sound like helpful changes, and I have no objections. StAnselm (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I also concur with these changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pathawi: Good points!

1. Yes, "transliterated as Isa" is incorrect, and should be replaced. However, "Arabic name" also isn't entirely accurate, since Arab Christians call him Yasūʿ (يسوع, the Arabic WP has articles on both the former name and the latter). Most accurate would be often referred to by his Qur'anic name ʿĪsā.
2. Your point is absolutely correct, but I think nor begotten by God would be clearer?
3. Yes, but this would need an explanatory footnote to go along with it. Ideally, we should also like to refer to some more sources than Lawson alone. Perhaps something useful may be found in Islamic views on Jesus' death and in Jesus_in_Islam#Death? This whole question of Islamic docetism is fascinating, but also rather complex, so tread carefully.

Finally, please hold in mind that for every change in the lead, the section Jesus#Islamic needs to be changed too, which especially in the case of 3. may prove to be a bit of a challenge. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine with all these modifications. I suspect 'begotten of' came to my mind because it's the consistent KJV wording & that of the version of the translation of the Nicene Creed used in the church I grew up in. It's antiquated language that doesn't need reproduction in this context; in fact I think the simpler 'nor a son of God' might be preferable. I like your choice of 'Qur'ānic' over 'Arabic': I had struggled for wording to accommodate the naming difference between the faith traditions, but ultimately decided it was unnecessary detail for the lead. Your suggestion is preferable. I don't think the section changes should prove all that challenging. Pathawi (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the "begotten of" formulation is an artifact of the 4th-century Christian controversies over the nature of Jesus' divine substance, but those are of course largely irrelevant in the Islamic context, where it is not just consubstantiality but rather Jesus' divinity itself which is denied. Nevertheless, the term "begotten" has remained central to the Islamic discourse, which tends to speak in terms of God not begetting anything (e.g., in al-Ikhlas) rather than of him not having a son, and since God definitely created Jesus in the Islamic view, the denial of begettal could and probably should be read as a denial that Jesus (or anything really) proceeds from God. On the other hand, while the Qur'an tends to be concise and call prophets by a single name, Jesus is most often referred to as Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary), which clearly functions to stress that he was 'just' the son of a human being. But what is perhaps more relevant here is that the formulation nor a son of God may be clearer to the lay reader than nor begotten by God. Anyways, I think you can just proceed with your proposed changes, which definitely constitute an improvement. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thanks for making the first two changes. I was going to give it a week to see if anyone else weighed in. I still will on the third. Pathawi (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Pathawi, I very much admire your patience, but I fear that I could not wait for so long. I worked a whole day and a whole night on preparing new content for the Islamic views on crucifixion, so I just put it in. Any comments are of course very welcome! Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Was Jesus literate?

I remain curious about whether Jesus was himself literate. But Spencer McDaniel is likely correct in writing that "Ultimately, of course, I don’t think it is possible for us to know for certain whether the historical Jesus was literate or not." [ https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/11/27/was-jesus-literate/ ] Oh well. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

John 7:53-8:11 describes Jesus writing on the ground (some sources say sand) with a stick, and from the quote it reads as if he was quite busy and writing more than a simple mark or drawing. A sign of biblical description literacy. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And Luke 4:17-21 has Jesus unrolling a copy of Isaiah and reading from it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If I recall, McDaniel's article has commentary on those, but either or both of you might disagree with him. As a lifetime non-evangelical/non-proseletyzing atheist myself, I'm agnostic about what McDaniel wrote. (But Jesus the loving compassionate person was definitely wonderful, IMO.) I will NOT add the "literacy question" to this WP article, as it isn't important, but has the potential to instigate an "edit war". Acwilson9 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hyperlink for the Gospel of John

In the section "Life and teachings in the New Testament" under the subsection "Canonical gospels" the Gospel of John should probably be hyperlinked in the parenthesis as all the other gospels are. Aspets (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Aspets

You know what I like about you, Aspets? That was an easy & uncontroversial thing to fix without any extended debate. Done. Pathawi (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A breath of fresh air :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)