![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 120 | ← | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Were the early Christians lying when they said that Jesus had risen? That's a fair historical question. This is what an RS says:
The Gospel reports contradict each other, which suggests competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=276-281}}
If an RS says it, we need a good reason to exclude it. Otherwise it's POV editing to cherry pick our RSs and include only the stuff we like. FutureTrilliionaire, can you justify deleting this information? Can you cite a WP policy or guideline when doing so? Something more than the beliefs and experiences of the editors? If all you have is editors' opinions, that's not enough. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 01:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presumably we're all here to make this page as good as it can be, and not to defend one or another POV. With that in mind, I hope that other editors will be happy to hear that there's a bunch of good information that we can add to this page to improve it. This information is covered in RSs, so we should cover it. Anyone mind if I add it in? Maybe certain editors will want to know what the missing topic is first. Maybe they think their own opinions about this topic are more important than what the RSs say. Does anybody feel as though their experiences and beliefs trump RSs, so I should get an OK from them before adding the information? Or is everyone cool with information being added, provided it's the sort of thing that RSs cover. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is technically accurate. The traditional Christian belief is that the Third Gospel was written by Luke the Physician, a travelling companion of Paul, who became a follower of Jesus some time after the Latter's death. I'd hardly call him "close to Jesus". I know what is probably meant by "close" is something like a "six degrees of Jesus" type thing as opposed to the modern scholarly view that it was written by an anonymous Christian in a different part of the world, or that he was "close" in a chronological sense, but this really isn't made clear by the text, so I'm changing it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently the introduction says:
Could someone please exchange with this:
I have more grumbles, but let us start with this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.138 ( talk) 12:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with Hiriji's request, we can add Nicene Creed reference 19 (Encyclopaedia Britannica). But before implementing, please grant Hiriji 48 hours to deliver his/her own solution. Thus, in the case that Hijiri does not deliver until January 23, the change would be from this current version:
to this new version:
-
The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new sentence in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.
"Nicene Creed, a Christian statement of faith that is the only ecumenical creed because it is accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. The Apostles’ and Athanasian creeds are accepted by some but not all of these churches."
How about instead of citing primary sources ourselves, we cite expert secondary and tertiary sources? There are plenty. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If I were to decide to file a notice on the Admin Incident Noticeboard, who would want to be part of that discussion? I would list StAnselm, LittleJerry, FutureTrillionaire, Farsight001, and Jeppiz. Sundayclose, would you want to be in on it? Johnbod, you said you're done talking about this, I think. Anyone else? It's a big topic, and I don't want to leave anyone out. The topic is whether it's OK for us to describe Jesus in our own way instead of the way the RSs do. I tried settling this with conflict resolution, but the case was closed when moderators recused themselves and none volunteered to moderate. The editor who closed the case said that the AIN would be my other recourse. Alternatively, someone could give me evidence that shows me I'm wrong, and then I wouldn't bother with the AIN. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution has a number of steps and noticeboards that you can use, and they will be more productive than AN or ANI. I suggest you use that process, as instruction to do so will nearly certainly be the outcome of any post on ANI.
For what it is worth, I'm in favor of "facts first" and having the historical section first. The gospel accounts seem to be given undue weight. That said, I'm supremely disinterested in contributing to this discussion. Prodego talk 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
LittleJerry won't help me phrase my opponents' viewpoint. Can someone else help me? Can someone complete this sentence? "If Tweet is allowed to have his way with the page, it will be a disservice to the reader because..." I say the current page is a disservice because its description of Jesus diverges sharply from the description found in RSs. What's a charitable way to phrase the other side of the issue? I'd like to be able to state the opposing viewpoint fairly. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The incident report is live on the Administrators' Noticeboard here. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with the Gospels section that it's hard to know where to start. Here's a tag I added to the section. I'm putting it here because it's likely to be deleted by one or another defender of the Gospel accounts.
![]() | This section uses
texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to
secondary sources that critically analyze them. |
Scholarly commentary that critically examines the Gospels has been excluded from this section. We should put that commentary in. For example, Matthew's proof texts from the Old Testament are taken out of context, as was common practice among 1st century Jewish religious writers. That commentary has been deleted from this section. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure what the fuzz is about. Virtually all serious research use the gospels and other early religious texts as sources. So on the one hand, we should not source any claim to the gospels themselves, but we should source the claims to researchers and if they refer to the gospels then that is not a problem in any way (provided they are serious researchers). Jeppiz ( talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Farsight001, you reverted the primary-religious-text tag from the Transfiguration section. According to wp:brd, you should be able to explain why. Reference to a policy or an RS would be appreciated. It's against WP policy to rely on primary religious texts the way we do here. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The admin noticeboard gave me the resolution I've been looking for, and I'm ready to set aside my objections to the layout of this page. The RfC and NPOV board gave us contradictory directions, and the dispute resolution never got a moderator, but on the admin noticeboard several editors weighed in. My hardest questions still don't have answers, but I got enough of an answer to be satisfied that I got my "day in court." One editor complimented us on our exceptional civility, so we have that going for us. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Any requests? Obviously I have my own ideas about how to improve this page, but this is a big topic. Does anyone have any issues or topics that they'd like me to research. I have good RSs on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible. Is there a topic you think we should add, or an existing topic we should expand on? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan. Yes, thanks for your kind offer. I am concerned that there is no mention at all (!) of the very oldest statement on Jesus, which is 1 Corinthians 15:3, which is estimated to within 5 years of the crucifixion (so before AD 40), older than any of the letters or gospels or Roman/Jewish sources.
As you probably know, bible scholars consider this to be the earliest available statement on Jesus, based on Paul's use of the Aramaic name Kephas for Peter. So as an ancient source it is important both for the "Atheist" and the "Christian" sections of the article.
I therefore suggest you insert 1Cor15:3 (along with an appropriate "Christian-biased" secondary reference) into this existing Christian sentence
Likewise, please also insert 1Cor15:3 into the Atheist subsection "Post-crucifixion", alongside an appropriate "Atheist-biased" reference interpreting 1Cor15:3.
Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.44 ( talk) 10:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Christ myth theory section is currently a stub. It mentions the existence of the theory, but fails to summarize any of the arguments for or against it, or the debate over the reliability of the primary sources. It could use fleshing out. Dimadick ( talk) 10:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm added 1 Corinthians, and I fleshed out the Christ myth section. Any other requests? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Our article on the term son of man indicates that the Greek term used in the New Testament is "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου". "υἱὸς" does mean "son", but the term "Ἄνθρωπος" (Anthropos) is Greek for "human" or "human being". "Man" as in "male human" is "ἀνήρ" (aner) in ancient Greek and "άνδρας" or "άντρας" (andras or antras) in modern Greek.
Should not the text address the distinction in meaning? Dimadick ( talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mxz50006 ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I Think Jesus was really Asian, therefore we need to make some changes. Marry was straight up Asian that makes Jesus Asian too. Thank you.
I copied the following unsigned post from the section above, entitled "NPOV in the Lead Section." TheCensorFencer ( talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made a brilliant suggestion which was sadly neglected and then quietly archived recently. Here it is resurrected (on the third day, methinks):
The change would be from this current version:
Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]
to this new version:
Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), [1] includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.
The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new sentence in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.
-end of copied post-
Can somebody change an inaccuracy? In the second paragraph of 'canonical gospel' Jesus's brother James is mentioned in an inner circle of three with John and Peter. Rather it was John's brother James, not Jesus' brother, James who was in the inner circle. Jesus's brother James later became head of the Jerusalem Church but he wasn't one of the twelve, let alone the three. Thanks. 41.242.163.82 ( talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd support additional notes outlining other "Christian beliefs", with any associated caveats such as "most" or "many" or "the majority of" along with "some", "certain groups", etc.
References
Hello, all. In reading the lead section of this article, I noticed a couple of things that I think should be changed:
1) In the first paragraph, Jesus is established as a figure in (specifically) Christianity, while the fact that Jesus is a figure in the other (major) Abrahamic religions isn't mentioned until the last paragraph. In the intervening body of the lead, the subject is changed to the historicity of Jesus, then changed back to Christian views and history regarding Jesus for another 1 1/2 paragraphs. From my perspective, the overall thrust of the lead gives the impression that the claims made about Jesus by Christianity are somehow more valid and proprietous than those made by Islam or Judaism. I propose we merge the first and last paragraphs to cast Jesus as a figure from a plurality of Abrahamic religions, like so:
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to AD 30–33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, is an important figure in most of the Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, most denominations hold Jesus to be the Son of God. Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or "Christ", anglicized classic Greek for "the Anointed One") of the Old Testament. In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. Jesus is also a figure in Rastafarianism and the Bahá'í Faith.
2) In the second paragraph, the article moves seamlessly from discussing a religious perspective (several, if my proposed change is made) to stating that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." Without explaining that the historical Jesus that RSs agree existed is not necessarily the same as the religious figure of Jesus, this phrase is misleading. There is certainly no consensus among RSs that there was a Jesus who was the Son of God; but this is the impression currently given by the layout of the lead. I propose we replace the phrase "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically," with these sentences:
Virtually all modern scholars hold that there was a man in first century Judaea who led a movement that eventually became the early Christian church. This man's name was probably Yehoshua (anglicized classic Greek: Jesus); and his life, at the very least, had parallels with that of the Jesus figure in the New Testament. There is disagreement among reputable scholars as to whether this man was also the Son of God, and whether he performed miracles. Nonetheless, historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be the best sources. . .
I just want to say that I'm aware that this can be an emotional subject for many people, and I don't want or mean to cause any offense. Also, I have read some of the recent discussions and ANI on this page, and I know that patience may be a bit thin at the moment. Don't let my name fool you, I'm a big fan of harmony. :) TheCensorFencer ( talk) 05:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
[Content moved to new section]
Ok, here's my revised proposal for the first paragraph. I changed "most of the Abrahamic religions" to "a number of Abrahamic religions." I just added a citation to the Judaism sentence in the actual lead, and I found citations for the Rastafari/Bahai Faith sentence. There are now citations that discuss each of the five Abrahamic religions in my proposed first paragraph, and the fact that each religion has a relationship to (their own idea of) Jesus. The citation for Rastafari leaves something to be desired, but Rastafari is so lacking in official doctrine that any study of it is almost certain to have some degree of anecdotalism, and the sources are somewhat rare and generally low quality. For your consideration:
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to AD 30–33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, is an important figure in a number of Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, most denominations hold Jesus to be the Son of God. Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or "Christ", anglicized classic Greek for "the Anointed One") of the Old Testament. In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. The Bahá'í Faith considers Jesus to be one of the seven manifestations of God. [1] Jesus is important in some forms of Rastafari, though not important in others. [2]
Agreement? Criticism? Indifference? TheCensorFencer ( talk) 02:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
TheCensorFencer, "I would be interested in any advice you have for me." Well, I'm flattered. If you are serious about putting some effort into improving this page, I'd also like to see user:StAnselm advise you. Here's my advice.
References
Why do we have this range of 7-2 BC? We cite two reliable sources that say the consensus is c. 4 BC. Do we really need the outliers of 7 BC and 2 BC in the infobox? Wouldn't the variation be covered in "circa", anyway? St Anselm ( talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose to change this sentence in the lede:
His birth is celebrated annually on December 25 as a holiday known as Christmas.
to this:
His birth is celebrated annually on December 25 (January 7th in some eastern churches) as a holiday known as Christmas.
Airborne84 ( talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The Epiphany of Our Lord is on January 6. This might have confused some people. Epiphany comes from the Greek for, "Manifestation", and commemorates the appearance of the magi, or the "manifestation" of Christ to the Gentiles. The magi did not appear on Christmas night as is thought by some. And (I have been told) that the Epiphany is celebrated with more solemnity in certain places than Christmas. 74.90.110.7 ( talk) 19:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the main differences is the December 25 of the Gregorian calendar and the December 25 of the Julian calendar. The two calendars have diverged and Julian trails the Gregorian dates by 13 days. While secular states have largely adopted the Gregorian one, many religious communities still follow the Julian one as part of their tradition. This category includes the Old Calendarists and quite a few others.
It probably does not help that the "secular" Gregorian calendar is named after Pope Gregory XIII, since many of these communities consider the Popes to be heretics or heresiarchs. Dimadick ( talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"He will come again to judge the living and the dead." It's right there in the creed. We need a source if we are going to say that it isn't true that most Christians believe it. Mangoe ( talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
After strong opposition by Airborne84 to my original suggestion, the change would be from this current version:
− −
Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]
− − to this new version:
− −
Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), [1] includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. The creed remains in active use in most Christian churches worldwide, [2] while a small minority, principally Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, adhere to Nontrinitarianism. All Christians can be said to believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28]
− −
Happy now, Airborne? (Just between ourselves: someone can later sneak away the meaningless "unique significance" statement while you are not looking.)
The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new paragraph in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.
I think the word 'many' could replace 'most'. The use of creeds is not common in many non-liturgical services and certainly it would be difficult to evidence 'most'. johnmark† (talk to me) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I have some concerns regarding the second version, chiefly that it seems to states without doubt that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians. That is one POV, I'm sure some people hold that view. Another POV is that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians, which is the view of pretty much every Christian I've heard commenting on the matter no matter if they are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus's birth name is Jesus Christ.
24.118.250.2 ( talk) 05:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi IsambardKingdom. I am the editor who first requested the mention of the Nicene Creed in the "doctrine" paragraph, changing this old version:
Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]
to this new version:
Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), [1] includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. The creed remains in active use in most Christian churches worldwide, [2] while a small minority, principally Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, adhere to Nontrinitarianism. All Christians can be said to believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28]
The new sentences need to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new paragraph in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article..
Now that Airborne is satisfied with this version, you (IsambardKingdom) remain as the principal objector. Essentially your actions (and non-actions) are making the Jesus page a mass (no pun intended) of contradictions. This is great for perhaps a few Wiki readers who seek to escape Christianity psychologically, but for the majority of Wiki readers who simply seek information, you are doing a disservice. For example, I am not a Muslim. But I am keen to understand why so many Muslim women wear veils. I therefore expect that Wikipedia points me towards a document or historical incident which explains the veil tradition. I expect no less from a Wikipedia page on Jesus which, in its lead paragraph, spills considerable ink over Christian doctrine (not "current Christian beliefs" as you keep implying). And the Nicene Creed of AD 325 is a pre-eminent documented and datable milestone of Christian doctrine.
Even WdFord is now curious about the Nicene Creed - there is nothing as seductive as forbidden fruit. And before you know it, Wdford will convert to the wrong religion and we will have to burn him/her at the stake. To avoid such a course of action, I politely request that you implement the Nicene Creed suggestion as above, and perhaps write your own separate paragraph on "Current Christian beliefs". 86.170.121.185 ( talk) 07:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit late to join this discussion, but I'd like to point that there are a few more complexities about the Nicene Creed that have not been mentioned yet in the discussion.:
I just thought I would polity bring up, that there is a discussion about Jesus' earthly/foster father Saint Joseph, which proposes moving the page to Joseph (husband of Mary). CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Allthough the New Testament probably mostly was written in Greek, it is evident from that text that Jesus was/is a Jew in the line of Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, Judah and David. By interpreting the prophecies in the Old Testament (The books of Mozes, Psalms en Prophets) the most likely Jewish name of Jesus (,if he really was the anounced HaMashiach), is Yehoshua, or in dayly spoken language simply Yoshua or Yeshua. The full reference "Jesus Christ" best is translated back to Hebrew as "Yeshua HaMashiach", in which case Christ and ha-Mashiach obviously are not surnames, but additions to clearly express which of the many Yeshua's one is referring to. Yeshua was in those days a quite common name. The Jewish refernce most likely was Yeshua ben-Yosef, which translates to english as Jesus son of Joseph. In about each and every other language the name Yeshua was difficult to pronounce, uncommon in writing, or even impossible to write because of lack of proper characters. For that reason about every translation of the new testament contains a (slightly) other name, to support easy writing, reading and pronounciation by people for which those languages are native. For more details also see Wikipedea "Yeshua (name)"
(Who can add that for me in a proper way, since i am not common to the procedures of editting text in wikipedea, nor am I a native English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinus747 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to fix this? If you look at the end of the page, there is an inline cite (sfn) to Theissen & Merz 1998. I think it's because they are placed inline in the references section. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The Bibliography includes a bunch of minor books from also-ran authors. It's a service to our reader to point out which books are taken seriously by scholarly sources. People who don't like the scholarly consensus on Jesus might object because they don't like the same books that scholars like, but WP is based RS, not on the opinions and experiences of us humble editors. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Round picture with transparent background showing mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity.-- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The article stated that Jesus did not fulfil the prophesies of the Tanakh but the source given did not make this claim (see: In History - Crucifiction), [3] making a different one instead. I put the reason stated in the article, removing the previous one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxavar ( talk • contribs)
Ehrman, Bart (2006). "Jesus, Judas, and the Twelve in the Gospel of Judas".
The lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: a new look at betrayer and betrayed. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 124.
ISBN
978-0-19-531460-1. Retrieved 25 July 2010. This is because — as I indicated in an earlier chapter — Jews who were expecting a messiah were certain that he would be a great and dynamic figure who would execute God's will here on earth, such as by overthrowing God's enemies in a mighty act of power. And was Jesus like this? Quite the opposite — rather than being a powerful warrior who drove the Romans out of the Promised Land, Jesus was an itinerant preacher who had gotten on the wrong side of the law and been unceremoniously tortured and crucified by the enemies of God. He was the furthest thing imaginable from a messiah. I try to illustrate to my students the kind of gut reaction most first-century Jews had to this claim that Jesus was the messiah. Imagine that someone were to tell you that David Koresh was the almighty Son of God, the Savior of the world. David Koresh? The guy at Waco who was killed by the FBI? Yup: he's the Lord of the universe! Yeah, right.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
00:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Jeppiz, about my edit, in the very article says "Mainstream Judaism". Rupert Loup ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
2.9.1 (Activities in Jerusalem) Please add a second occurrence of the word *when* so that the sentence reads as follows:
"Also in the Synoptics, Jesus comes into conflict with the Jewish elders, such as when they question his authority, and *when* he criticizes them and calls them hypocrites."
As of now, this sentence conveys the idea that, according to the synoptics, Jesus lost his composure and his immediate response was to criticize the elders and call them hypocrites. Actually, Jesus' use of this word in the temple during passion week is recorded only in Matthew, and with many calm, reasonable responses in between (Matthew 21:23-22:46). Mark and Luke record only the calm, reasonable responses.
I'm only speaking up because this portion of the article is specifically about what the New Testament says. We know the Jewish version of what happened with this guy is very different. If this portion were not specifically about what the New Testament says, I would expect it to be more sensitive to the Jewish version of events. However, because it's about what the New Testament says, it needs to say what the New Testament says. This is probably true in many places. This is just the one I happened to notice as I was skimming.
MGhilarducci ( talk) 10:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Michael Ghilarducci My denomination is Laodicean. I know that's not a real denomination. But it'll do. :)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Theissen & Merz's textbook Historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar's Five Gospels, and other tertiary sources all draw attention to a small number of outstanding sources for this topic. Since these tertiary sources help their readers in this way, and since we're supposed to cover a topic from every angle, how about we help our readers with a similar list? One problem is that the outstanding sources tend to promote mainstream scholarship, so I predict that editors who oppose mainstream scholarship will dislike the idea. I'd be happy to see the top non-mainstream sources mentioned, provided they're properly cited. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why the death location is not in the infobox. Do not all scholars believe that he died outside of Jerusalem? CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 06:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
it says circa 4 for his birth but then says 30-33 for his death...should it say circa 30-33? is there definitive proof he died precisely in that timeframe or could it have been 29 or 34?? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 12:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The non-biblical sources may be fact, but I don't there would be universal agreement that the information in the Bible is a "fact". And I think "circa" needs to remain for that reason. Barring any amazing discovery of additional evidence, there will always be some uncertainty. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The article picture that has been used is a Caucasian fraud later perpetrated by Pope Alexander VI using his son Borgia. "Insisting Jesus was White" "Jesus Face of the Italian Mafia". Jesus is a Brown Jew according to the best sources. "The Real Face of Jesus Christ." Also, most Christians hold that Jesus Christ is God in human form:
"I and the Father are one.” - "John 10:30"
I fixed this with a more accurate earlier picture from Syria and need editors to discuss this racism problem - Adasegogisdi ( talk) 18:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a general European fraud "Jesus was black". The point is that the picture is not racially accurate and is biased based on the best modern research. "Popular Mechanics" - Adasegogisdi ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Folks, let's not try to reinvent the wheel. Just a few short months ago, there was extensive discussion and a consensus reached for the current image, including discussion of skin tone. I realize consensus can change, but I implore everyone to read that discussion, which can be found at Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#New image. It will take a lot to overturn that consensus. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 22:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
the only thing significantly unrealistic about the image is the hair imo...the eyes, face, skin color seem reasonable...but the hair is certainly ridiculous looking..a better image could probably be discovered but this one isn't the end of the world either.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 00:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I would support using Akiane Kramarik's Prince of Peace painting, only if we could use a fair-use image of it, which is highly unlikely. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
A study on the 2001 BBC series Son of God attempted to determine what Jesus's race and appearance may have been. Assuming Jesus to be a Galilean Semite, the study concluded in conjunction with Mark Goodacre that his skin would have been "olive-coloured" and "swarthy".I am sure we can all agree, that Jesus was not white. Like I said, I am only here to participate and make comments, so we can all work together on a solution. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 20:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnacein chapter 1. Though Wikipedia can't rely on the Bible as "reliable" sources, that verse may imply darker/olive skin, and of course, people have different interruptions of that verse. Some think it is his heavenly look, and that vision of what he looks like in Revelation does not apply to what he looked like while he was on earth. I better not spew to much off topic information, but just trying to stir the conversation and try to input into the discussion. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 20:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks. He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." 53:2
"His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters." "Revelation 1:15" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adasegogisdi ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Finnusertop User talk:Finnusertop, what controversy could possibly arrive from putting non-theistic views of Jesus on the lead? Besides, all the views expressed in the lead are those from the religions that revere Jesus. Surely the lead could use some information on how disbelieving atheists see Jesus Christ. Gonzales John ( talk) 16:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
By last August, we had reached agreement on a couple points as part of a compromise on treating the Gospels. [1] Here they are again.
Now that someone has re-merged the Gospel accounts, St Anselm and others say that no agreement was ever reached. In that case, these issues are all open again. Can we please stick with the way the Gospels were, and not open up all these issues again by merging the accounts and vacating the agreement? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Jesus's parents were God (not Joseph) and Mary. Correct that mistake. God has no DNA so Jesus has only one set of chromosomes and his cellular transcription works just fine due to magic (or miracle as the ancients used to say). I wonder why that doesn't work with syndromics (syndromatic people)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4108:B700:7006:1E3A:DCA4:BE2C ( talk) 23:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This gospels section merges four primary accounts into one. Are there reliable sources that address the topic of Jesus this way? Or a policy that says we should do so? I understand that many editors will have personal reasons for wanting to merge the accounts, but I'm asking about a policy or RS. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
History of consensus on treating Gospel accounts.
Here's the conversation that St Anselm, Jeppiz, FutureTrillionaire, and others engaged in, the one that led to us making the Gospel accounts separate.
November '14. Introduction to the issue: [3]
January '15. Continuation of discussion, St Anslem joins in, Jtrevor acknowledges that he is not to remove the POV tag until the issue is resolved. (Nice to see policies being followed.) First compromise is to remove John, but FutureTrillionaire prevents that change. [4]
March '15. Continuation of discussion, Brandmeister acknowledges that the take on the Gospels is the Christian perspective. Since the agreement to remove John didn't work, we go to Plan B: separating the Gospel accounts. [5]
April '15. Short thread: [6]
April '15. Issue resolved and edits are underway, with feedback from other Brandmeister, who had opposed the changes: [7]
August '15. Summary of compromise, that is, how we deviate from reliable sources in favor of Christian sensibilities. These are compromises I agreed to as part of the consensus on keeping the gospel accounts separate: [8]
Since there was no consensus to make a big change to the page (merging accounts), I volunteer to set the page back the way it was, at least until we have reached a new consensus. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 13:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm, you used to say that major changes shouldn't be made without consensus. Merging the accounts was a major change made without consensus. Do you still oppose major changes made without consensus? Or are you reconsidering your policy now that you agree with he major change made without consensus? Since this major change was made without consensus, how about I change it back until we reach a new consensus? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
1972 Encyc Judaica references the likely rabbi of Jesus, one Joshua b. Perahyah. Perhaps it is not the prevailing view of Jewish scholars currently, however, the section is the general Jewish view and deserves due weight. The source is authoritative in Jewish matters. The rabbinic literature is silent on the education of Jesus in the first couple of centuries and the search for his teacher afterwards might be conjecture, but it is the Jewish view of Jesus. For a list of recent Jewish scholarship see https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/greycloud/lists/3666347 Church of the Rain ( talk) 20:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyone opposed to me adding " Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua" to the lead between the pronunciation and the Greek? This was Jesus' "real" name even more than the Greek was. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's relatively well established by forensic doctors that Jesus died of pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, explaining why blood and water came out of Jesus' side when the Roman soldier thrust a sword into his side in John 19:34 e.g. http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html Why isn't this included? 114.75.205.39 ( talk) 10:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You folks deserve a specific example of what I'm talking about when I say that the Gospel accounts are merged. Please see the crucifixion and entombment section. This section takes four different crucifixion accounts—each written to stand alone—and merges them into one account as if they're telling the same story. But there are at least two distinct accounts, possibly four. Whoever merged these accounts also dropped out the elements that contradict each other from Gospel to Gospel. This is traditional Christian practice, to merge Gospel accounts into one by papering over differences. Who was with Jesus when he was crucified? Did both robbers rebuke hm? Where were the disciples? The Gospels contradict each other on these counts. The big one is, did Jesus suffer and cry out in despair? Mark and Matthew say Yes. Luke and John have Jesus accepting his crucifixion without complaint and then dying not from asphyxiation but by an act of will when the time is right. Historians pay attention to these differences because they're informative. It's Christian practice to minimize these differences. As WP editors, it's not our place to pick and choose from four primary documents, creating a new narrative with the elements we like and leaving out the details we don't like.
Do I feel moved to add in the details that have been left out? Maybe. Or maybe I can let the Gospel section be for now. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
We can avoid OR by letting each Gospel speak for itself rather than using our own judgment to edit the four accounts into one. That's what the page does with the Open Tomb accounts, which are also contradictory. What do folks think? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 120 | ← | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Were the early Christians lying when they said that Jesus had risen? That's a fair historical question. This is what an RS says:
The Gospel reports contradict each other, which suggests competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=276-281}}
If an RS says it, we need a good reason to exclude it. Otherwise it's POV editing to cherry pick our RSs and include only the stuff we like. FutureTrilliionaire, can you justify deleting this information? Can you cite a WP policy or guideline when doing so? Something more than the beliefs and experiences of the editors? If all you have is editors' opinions, that's not enough. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 01:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presumably we're all here to make this page as good as it can be, and not to defend one or another POV. With that in mind, I hope that other editors will be happy to hear that there's a bunch of good information that we can add to this page to improve it. This information is covered in RSs, so we should cover it. Anyone mind if I add it in? Maybe certain editors will want to know what the missing topic is first. Maybe they think their own opinions about this topic are more important than what the RSs say. Does anybody feel as though their experiences and beliefs trump RSs, so I should get an OK from them before adding the information? Or is everyone cool with information being added, provided it's the sort of thing that RSs cover. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is technically accurate. The traditional Christian belief is that the Third Gospel was written by Luke the Physician, a travelling companion of Paul, who became a follower of Jesus some time after the Latter's death. I'd hardly call him "close to Jesus". I know what is probably meant by "close" is something like a "six degrees of Jesus" type thing as opposed to the modern scholarly view that it was written by an anonymous Christian in a different part of the world, or that he was "close" in a chronological sense, but this really isn't made clear by the text, so I'm changing it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently the introduction says:
Could someone please exchange with this:
I have more grumbles, but let us start with this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.138 ( talk) 12:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In accordance with Hiriji's request, we can add Nicene Creed reference 19 (Encyclopaedia Britannica). But before implementing, please grant Hiriji 48 hours to deliver his/her own solution. Thus, in the case that Hijiri does not deliver until January 23, the change would be from this current version:
to this new version:
-
The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new sentence in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.
"Nicene Creed, a Christian statement of faith that is the only ecumenical creed because it is accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. The Apostles’ and Athanasian creeds are accepted by some but not all of these churches."
How about instead of citing primary sources ourselves, we cite expert secondary and tertiary sources? There are plenty. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If I were to decide to file a notice on the Admin Incident Noticeboard, who would want to be part of that discussion? I would list StAnselm, LittleJerry, FutureTrillionaire, Farsight001, and Jeppiz. Sundayclose, would you want to be in on it? Johnbod, you said you're done talking about this, I think. Anyone else? It's a big topic, and I don't want to leave anyone out. The topic is whether it's OK for us to describe Jesus in our own way instead of the way the RSs do. I tried settling this with conflict resolution, but the case was closed when moderators recused themselves and none volunteered to moderate. The editor who closed the case said that the AIN would be my other recourse. Alternatively, someone could give me evidence that shows me I'm wrong, and then I wouldn't bother with the AIN. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution has a number of steps and noticeboards that you can use, and they will be more productive than AN or ANI. I suggest you use that process, as instruction to do so will nearly certainly be the outcome of any post on ANI.
For what it is worth, I'm in favor of "facts first" and having the historical section first. The gospel accounts seem to be given undue weight. That said, I'm supremely disinterested in contributing to this discussion. Prodego talk 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
LittleJerry won't help me phrase my opponents' viewpoint. Can someone else help me? Can someone complete this sentence? "If Tweet is allowed to have his way with the page, it will be a disservice to the reader because..." I say the current page is a disservice because its description of Jesus diverges sharply from the description found in RSs. What's a charitable way to phrase the other side of the issue? I'd like to be able to state the opposing viewpoint fairly. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The incident report is live on the Administrators' Noticeboard here. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with the Gospels section that it's hard to know where to start. Here's a tag I added to the section. I'm putting it here because it's likely to be deleted by one or another defender of the Gospel accounts.
![]() | This section uses
texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to
secondary sources that critically analyze them. |
Scholarly commentary that critically examines the Gospels has been excluded from this section. We should put that commentary in. For example, Matthew's proof texts from the Old Testament are taken out of context, as was common practice among 1st century Jewish religious writers. That commentary has been deleted from this section. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure what the fuzz is about. Virtually all serious research use the gospels and other early religious texts as sources. So on the one hand, we should not source any claim to the gospels themselves, but we should source the claims to researchers and if they refer to the gospels then that is not a problem in any way (provided they are serious researchers). Jeppiz ( talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Farsight001, you reverted the primary-religious-text tag from the Transfiguration section. According to wp:brd, you should be able to explain why. Reference to a policy or an RS would be appreciated. It's against WP policy to rely on primary religious texts the way we do here. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The admin noticeboard gave me the resolution I've been looking for, and I'm ready to set aside my objections to the layout of this page. The RfC and NPOV board gave us contradictory directions, and the dispute resolution never got a moderator, but on the admin noticeboard several editors weighed in. My hardest questions still don't have answers, but I got enough of an answer to be satisfied that I got my "day in court." One editor complimented us on our exceptional civility, so we have that going for us. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Any requests? Obviously I have my own ideas about how to improve this page, but this is a big topic. Does anyone have any issues or topics that they'd like me to research. I have good RSs on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible. Is there a topic you think we should add, or an existing topic we should expand on? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 16:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan. Yes, thanks for your kind offer. I am concerned that there is no mention at all (!) of the very oldest statement on Jesus, which is 1 Corinthians 15:3, which is estimated to within 5 years of the crucifixion (so before AD 40), older than any of the letters or gospels or Roman/Jewish sources.
As you probably know, bible scholars consider this to be the earliest available statement on Jesus, based on Paul's use of the Aramaic name Kephas for Peter. So as an ancient source it is important both for the "Atheist" and the "Christian" sections of the article.
I therefore suggest you insert 1Cor15:3 (along with an appropriate "Christian-biased" secondary reference) into this existing Christian sentence
Likewise, please also insert 1Cor15:3 into the Atheist subsection "Post-crucifixion", alongside an appropriate "Atheist-biased" reference interpreting 1Cor15:3.
Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.44 ( talk) 10:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Christ myth theory section is currently a stub. It mentions the existence of the theory, but fails to summarize any of the arguments for or against it, or the debate over the reliability of the primary sources. It could use fleshing out. Dimadick ( talk) 10:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm added 1 Corinthians, and I fleshed out the Christ myth section. Any other requests? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Our article on the term son of man indicates that the Greek term used in the New Testament is "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου". "υἱὸς" does mean "son", but the term "Ἄνθρωπος" (Anthropos) is Greek for "human" or "human being". "Man" as in "male human" is "ἀνήρ" (aner) in ancient Greek and "άνδρας" or "άντρας" (andras or antras) in modern Greek.
Should not the text address the distinction in meaning? Dimadick ( talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mxz50006 ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I Think Jesus was really Asian, therefore we need to make some changes. Marry was straight up Asian that makes Jesus Asian too. Thank you.
I copied the following unsigned post from the section above, entitled "NPOV in the Lead Section." TheCensorFencer ( talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I made a brilliant suggestion which was sadly neglected and then quietly archived recently. Here it is resurrected (on the third day, methinks):
The change would be from this current version:
Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]
to this new version:
Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), [1] includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.
The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new sentence in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.
-end of copied post-
Can somebody change an inaccuracy? In the second paragraph of 'canonical gospel' Jesus's brother James is mentioned in an inner circle of three with John and Peter. Rather it was John's brother James, not Jesus' brother, James who was in the inner circle. Jesus's brother James later became head of the Jerusalem Church but he wasn't one of the twelve, let alone the three. Thanks. 41.242.163.82 ( talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd support additional notes outlining other "Christian beliefs", with any associated caveats such as "most" or "many" or "the majority of" along with "some", "certain groups", etc.
References
Hello, all. In reading the lead section of this article, I noticed a couple of things that I think should be changed:
1) In the first paragraph, Jesus is established as a figure in (specifically) Christianity, while the fact that Jesus is a figure in the other (major) Abrahamic religions isn't mentioned until the last paragraph. In the intervening body of the lead, the subject is changed to the historicity of Jesus, then changed back to Christian views and history regarding Jesus for another 1 1/2 paragraphs. From my perspective, the overall thrust of the lead gives the impression that the claims made about Jesus by Christianity are somehow more valid and proprietous than those made by Islam or Judaism. I propose we merge the first and last paragraphs to cast Jesus as a figure from a plurality of Abrahamic religions, like so:
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to AD 30–33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, is an important figure in most of the Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, most denominations hold Jesus to be the Son of God. Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or "Christ", anglicized classic Greek for "the Anointed One") of the Old Testament. In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. Jesus is also a figure in Rastafarianism and the Bahá'í Faith.
2) In the second paragraph, the article moves seamlessly from discussing a religious perspective (several, if my proposed change is made) to stating that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." Without explaining that the historical Jesus that RSs agree existed is not necessarily the same as the religious figure of Jesus, this phrase is misleading. There is certainly no consensus among RSs that there was a Jesus who was the Son of God; but this is the impression currently given by the layout of the lead. I propose we replace the phrase "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically," with these sentences:
Virtually all modern scholars hold that there was a man in first century Judaea who led a movement that eventually became the early Christian church. This man's name was probably Yehoshua (anglicized classic Greek: Jesus); and his life, at the very least, had parallels with that of the Jesus figure in the New Testament. There is disagreement among reputable scholars as to whether this man was also the Son of God, and whether he performed miracles. Nonetheless, historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be the best sources. . .
I just want to say that I'm aware that this can be an emotional subject for many people, and I don't want or mean to cause any offense. Also, I have read some of the recent discussions and ANI on this page, and I know that patience may be a bit thin at the moment. Don't let my name fool you, I'm a big fan of harmony. :) TheCensorFencer ( talk) 05:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
[Content moved to new section]
Ok, here's my revised proposal for the first paragraph. I changed "most of the Abrahamic religions" to "a number of Abrahamic religions." I just added a citation to the Judaism sentence in the actual lead, and I found citations for the Rastafari/Bahai Faith sentence. There are now citations that discuss each of the five Abrahamic religions in my proposed first paragraph, and the fact that each religion has a relationship to (their own idea of) Jesus. The citation for Rastafari leaves something to be desired, but Rastafari is so lacking in official doctrine that any study of it is almost certain to have some degree of anecdotalism, and the sources are somewhat rare and generally low quality. For your consideration:
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to AD 30–33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, is an important figure in a number of Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, most denominations hold Jesus to be the Son of God. Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or "Christ", anglicized classic Greek for "the Anointed One") of the Old Testament. In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. The Bahá'í Faith considers Jesus to be one of the seven manifestations of God. [1] Jesus is important in some forms of Rastafari, though not important in others. [2]
Agreement? Criticism? Indifference? TheCensorFencer ( talk) 02:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
TheCensorFencer, "I would be interested in any advice you have for me." Well, I'm flattered. If you are serious about putting some effort into improving this page, I'd also like to see user:StAnselm advise you. Here's my advice.
References
Why do we have this range of 7-2 BC? We cite two reliable sources that say the consensus is c. 4 BC. Do we really need the outliers of 7 BC and 2 BC in the infobox? Wouldn't the variation be covered in "circa", anyway? St Anselm ( talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose to change this sentence in the lede:
His birth is celebrated annually on December 25 as a holiday known as Christmas.
to this:
His birth is celebrated annually on December 25 (January 7th in some eastern churches) as a holiday known as Christmas.
Airborne84 ( talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The Epiphany of Our Lord is on January 6. This might have confused some people. Epiphany comes from the Greek for, "Manifestation", and commemorates the appearance of the magi, or the "manifestation" of Christ to the Gentiles. The magi did not appear on Christmas night as is thought by some. And (I have been told) that the Epiphany is celebrated with more solemnity in certain places than Christmas. 74.90.110.7 ( talk) 19:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the main differences is the December 25 of the Gregorian calendar and the December 25 of the Julian calendar. The two calendars have diverged and Julian trails the Gregorian dates by 13 days. While secular states have largely adopted the Gregorian one, many religious communities still follow the Julian one as part of their tradition. This category includes the Old Calendarists and quite a few others.
It probably does not help that the "secular" Gregorian calendar is named after Pope Gregory XIII, since many of these communities consider the Popes to be heretics or heresiarchs. Dimadick ( talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"He will come again to judge the living and the dead." It's right there in the creed. We need a source if we are going to say that it isn't true that most Christians believe it. Mangoe ( talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
After strong opposition by Airborne84 to my original suggestion, the change would be from this current version:
− −
Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]
− − to this new version:
− −
Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), [1] includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. The creed remains in active use in most Christian churches worldwide, [2] while a small minority, principally Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, adhere to Nontrinitarianism. All Christians can be said to believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28]
− −
Happy now, Airborne? (Just between ourselves: someone can later sneak away the meaningless "unique significance" statement while you are not looking.)
The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new paragraph in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.
I think the word 'many' could replace 'most'. The use of creeds is not common in many non-liturgical services and certainly it would be difficult to evidence 'most'. johnmark† (talk to me) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I have some concerns regarding the second version, chiefly that it seems to states without doubt that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians. That is one POV, I'm sure some people hold that view. Another POV is that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians, which is the view of pretty much every Christian I've heard commenting on the matter no matter if they are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus's birth name is Jesus Christ.
24.118.250.2 ( talk) 05:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi IsambardKingdom. I am the editor who first requested the mention of the Nicene Creed in the "doctrine" paragraph, changing this old version:
Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]
to this new version:
Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), [1] includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. The creed remains in active use in most Christian churches worldwide, [2] while a small minority, principally Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, adhere to Nontrinitarianism. All Christians can be said to believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28]
The new sentences need to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new paragraph in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article..
Now that Airborne is satisfied with this version, you (IsambardKingdom) remain as the principal objector. Essentially your actions (and non-actions) are making the Jesus page a mass (no pun intended) of contradictions. This is great for perhaps a few Wiki readers who seek to escape Christianity psychologically, but for the majority of Wiki readers who simply seek information, you are doing a disservice. For example, I am not a Muslim. But I am keen to understand why so many Muslim women wear veils. I therefore expect that Wikipedia points me towards a document or historical incident which explains the veil tradition. I expect no less from a Wikipedia page on Jesus which, in its lead paragraph, spills considerable ink over Christian doctrine (not "current Christian beliefs" as you keep implying). And the Nicene Creed of AD 325 is a pre-eminent documented and datable milestone of Christian doctrine.
Even WdFord is now curious about the Nicene Creed - there is nothing as seductive as forbidden fruit. And before you know it, Wdford will convert to the wrong religion and we will have to burn him/her at the stake. To avoid such a course of action, I politely request that you implement the Nicene Creed suggestion as above, and perhaps write your own separate paragraph on "Current Christian beliefs". 86.170.121.185 ( talk) 07:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit late to join this discussion, but I'd like to point that there are a few more complexities about the Nicene Creed that have not been mentioned yet in the discussion.:
I just thought I would polity bring up, that there is a discussion about Jesus' earthly/foster father Saint Joseph, which proposes moving the page to Joseph (husband of Mary). CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Allthough the New Testament probably mostly was written in Greek, it is evident from that text that Jesus was/is a Jew in the line of Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, Judah and David. By interpreting the prophecies in the Old Testament (The books of Mozes, Psalms en Prophets) the most likely Jewish name of Jesus (,if he really was the anounced HaMashiach), is Yehoshua, or in dayly spoken language simply Yoshua or Yeshua. The full reference "Jesus Christ" best is translated back to Hebrew as "Yeshua HaMashiach", in which case Christ and ha-Mashiach obviously are not surnames, but additions to clearly express which of the many Yeshua's one is referring to. Yeshua was in those days a quite common name. The Jewish refernce most likely was Yeshua ben-Yosef, which translates to english as Jesus son of Joseph. In about each and every other language the name Yeshua was difficult to pronounce, uncommon in writing, or even impossible to write because of lack of proper characters. For that reason about every translation of the new testament contains a (slightly) other name, to support easy writing, reading and pronounciation by people for which those languages are native. For more details also see Wikipedea "Yeshua (name)"
(Who can add that for me in a proper way, since i am not common to the procedures of editting text in wikipedea, nor am I a native English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinus747 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know how to fix this? If you look at the end of the page, there is an inline cite (sfn) to Theissen & Merz 1998. I think it's because they are placed inline in the references section. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The Bibliography includes a bunch of minor books from also-ran authors. It's a service to our reader to point out which books are taken seriously by scholarly sources. People who don't like the scholarly consensus on Jesus might object because they don't like the same books that scholars like, but WP is based RS, not on the opinions and experiences of us humble editors. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Round picture with transparent background showing mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity.-- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The article stated that Jesus did not fulfil the prophesies of the Tanakh but the source given did not make this claim (see: In History - Crucifiction), [3] making a different one instead. I put the reason stated in the article, removing the previous one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxavar ( talk • contribs)
Ehrman, Bart (2006). "Jesus, Judas, and the Twelve in the Gospel of Judas".
The lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: a new look at betrayer and betrayed. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 124.
ISBN
978-0-19-531460-1. Retrieved 25 July 2010. This is because — as I indicated in an earlier chapter — Jews who were expecting a messiah were certain that he would be a great and dynamic figure who would execute God's will here on earth, such as by overthrowing God's enemies in a mighty act of power. And was Jesus like this? Quite the opposite — rather than being a powerful warrior who drove the Romans out of the Promised Land, Jesus was an itinerant preacher who had gotten on the wrong side of the law and been unceremoniously tortured and crucified by the enemies of God. He was the furthest thing imaginable from a messiah. I try to illustrate to my students the kind of gut reaction most first-century Jews had to this claim that Jesus was the messiah. Imagine that someone were to tell you that David Koresh was the almighty Son of God, the Savior of the world. David Koresh? The guy at Waco who was killed by the FBI? Yup: he's the Lord of the universe! Yeah, right.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
00:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Jeppiz, about my edit, in the very article says "Mainstream Judaism". Rupert Loup ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
2.9.1 (Activities in Jerusalem) Please add a second occurrence of the word *when* so that the sentence reads as follows:
"Also in the Synoptics, Jesus comes into conflict with the Jewish elders, such as when they question his authority, and *when* he criticizes them and calls them hypocrites."
As of now, this sentence conveys the idea that, according to the synoptics, Jesus lost his composure and his immediate response was to criticize the elders and call them hypocrites. Actually, Jesus' use of this word in the temple during passion week is recorded only in Matthew, and with many calm, reasonable responses in between (Matthew 21:23-22:46). Mark and Luke record only the calm, reasonable responses.
I'm only speaking up because this portion of the article is specifically about what the New Testament says. We know the Jewish version of what happened with this guy is very different. If this portion were not specifically about what the New Testament says, I would expect it to be more sensitive to the Jewish version of events. However, because it's about what the New Testament says, it needs to say what the New Testament says. This is probably true in many places. This is just the one I happened to notice as I was skimming.
MGhilarducci ( talk) 10:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Michael Ghilarducci My denomination is Laodicean. I know that's not a real denomination. But it'll do. :)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Theissen & Merz's textbook Historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar's Five Gospels, and other tertiary sources all draw attention to a small number of outstanding sources for this topic. Since these tertiary sources help their readers in this way, and since we're supposed to cover a topic from every angle, how about we help our readers with a similar list? One problem is that the outstanding sources tend to promote mainstream scholarship, so I predict that editors who oppose mainstream scholarship will dislike the idea. I'd be happy to see the top non-mainstream sources mentioned, provided they're properly cited. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why the death location is not in the infobox. Do not all scholars believe that he died outside of Jerusalem? CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 06:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
it says circa 4 for his birth but then says 30-33 for his death...should it say circa 30-33? is there definitive proof he died precisely in that timeframe or could it have been 29 or 34?? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 12:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The non-biblical sources may be fact, but I don't there would be universal agreement that the information in the Bible is a "fact". And I think "circa" needs to remain for that reason. Barring any amazing discovery of additional evidence, there will always be some uncertainty. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The article picture that has been used is a Caucasian fraud later perpetrated by Pope Alexander VI using his son Borgia. "Insisting Jesus was White" "Jesus Face of the Italian Mafia". Jesus is a Brown Jew according to the best sources. "The Real Face of Jesus Christ." Also, most Christians hold that Jesus Christ is God in human form:
"I and the Father are one.” - "John 10:30"
I fixed this with a more accurate earlier picture from Syria and need editors to discuss this racism problem - Adasegogisdi ( talk) 18:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a general European fraud "Jesus was black". The point is that the picture is not racially accurate and is biased based on the best modern research. "Popular Mechanics" - Adasegogisdi ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Folks, let's not try to reinvent the wheel. Just a few short months ago, there was extensive discussion and a consensus reached for the current image, including discussion of skin tone. I realize consensus can change, but I implore everyone to read that discussion, which can be found at Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#New image. It will take a lot to overturn that consensus. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 22:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
the only thing significantly unrealistic about the image is the hair imo...the eyes, face, skin color seem reasonable...but the hair is certainly ridiculous looking..a better image could probably be discovered but this one isn't the end of the world either.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 00:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I would support using Akiane Kramarik's Prince of Peace painting, only if we could use a fair-use image of it, which is highly unlikely. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
A study on the 2001 BBC series Son of God attempted to determine what Jesus's race and appearance may have been. Assuming Jesus to be a Galilean Semite, the study concluded in conjunction with Mark Goodacre that his skin would have been "olive-coloured" and "swarthy".I am sure we can all agree, that Jesus was not white. Like I said, I am only here to participate and make comments, so we can all work together on a solution. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 20:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnacein chapter 1. Though Wikipedia can't rely on the Bible as "reliable" sources, that verse may imply darker/olive skin, and of course, people have different interruptions of that verse. Some think it is his heavenly look, and that vision of what he looks like in Revelation does not apply to what he looked like while he was on earth. I better not spew to much off topic information, but just trying to stir the conversation and try to input into the discussion. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 20:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks. He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." 53:2
"His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters." "Revelation 1:15" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adasegogisdi ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Finnusertop User talk:Finnusertop, what controversy could possibly arrive from putting non-theistic views of Jesus on the lead? Besides, all the views expressed in the lead are those from the religions that revere Jesus. Surely the lead could use some information on how disbelieving atheists see Jesus Christ. Gonzales John ( talk) 16:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
By last August, we had reached agreement on a couple points as part of a compromise on treating the Gospels. [1] Here they are again.
Now that someone has re-merged the Gospel accounts, St Anselm and others say that no agreement was ever reached. In that case, these issues are all open again. Can we please stick with the way the Gospels were, and not open up all these issues again by merging the accounts and vacating the agreement? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Jesus's parents were God (not Joseph) and Mary. Correct that mistake. God has no DNA so Jesus has only one set of chromosomes and his cellular transcription works just fine due to magic (or miracle as the ancients used to say). I wonder why that doesn't work with syndromics (syndromatic people)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4108:B700:7006:1E3A:DCA4:BE2C ( talk) 23:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This gospels section merges four primary accounts into one. Are there reliable sources that address the topic of Jesus this way? Or a policy that says we should do so? I understand that many editors will have personal reasons for wanting to merge the accounts, but I'm asking about a policy or RS. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
History of consensus on treating Gospel accounts.
Here's the conversation that St Anselm, Jeppiz, FutureTrillionaire, and others engaged in, the one that led to us making the Gospel accounts separate.
November '14. Introduction to the issue: [3]
January '15. Continuation of discussion, St Anslem joins in, Jtrevor acknowledges that he is not to remove the POV tag until the issue is resolved. (Nice to see policies being followed.) First compromise is to remove John, but FutureTrillionaire prevents that change. [4]
March '15. Continuation of discussion, Brandmeister acknowledges that the take on the Gospels is the Christian perspective. Since the agreement to remove John didn't work, we go to Plan B: separating the Gospel accounts. [5]
April '15. Short thread: [6]
April '15. Issue resolved and edits are underway, with feedback from other Brandmeister, who had opposed the changes: [7]
August '15. Summary of compromise, that is, how we deviate from reliable sources in favor of Christian sensibilities. These are compromises I agreed to as part of the consensus on keeping the gospel accounts separate: [8]
Since there was no consensus to make a big change to the page (merging accounts), I volunteer to set the page back the way it was, at least until we have reached a new consensus. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 13:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
StAnselm, you used to say that major changes shouldn't be made without consensus. Merging the accounts was a major change made without consensus. Do you still oppose major changes made without consensus? Or are you reconsidering your policy now that you agree with he major change made without consensus? Since this major change was made without consensus, how about I change it back until we reach a new consensus? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
1972 Encyc Judaica references the likely rabbi of Jesus, one Joshua b. Perahyah. Perhaps it is not the prevailing view of Jewish scholars currently, however, the section is the general Jewish view and deserves due weight. The source is authoritative in Jewish matters. The rabbinic literature is silent on the education of Jesus in the first couple of centuries and the search for his teacher afterwards might be conjecture, but it is the Jewish view of Jesus. For a list of recent Jewish scholarship see https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/greycloud/lists/3666347 Church of the Rain ( talk) 20:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyone opposed to me adding " Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua" to the lead between the pronunciation and the Greek? This was Jesus' "real" name even more than the Greek was. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's relatively well established by forensic doctors that Jesus died of pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, explaining why blood and water came out of Jesus' side when the Roman soldier thrust a sword into his side in John 19:34 e.g. http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html Why isn't this included? 114.75.205.39 ( talk) 10:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You folks deserve a specific example of what I'm talking about when I say that the Gospel accounts are merged. Please see the crucifixion and entombment section. This section takes four different crucifixion accounts—each written to stand alone—and merges them into one account as if they're telling the same story. But there are at least two distinct accounts, possibly four. Whoever merged these accounts also dropped out the elements that contradict each other from Gospel to Gospel. This is traditional Christian practice, to merge Gospel accounts into one by papering over differences. Who was with Jesus when he was crucified? Did both robbers rebuke hm? Where were the disciples? The Gospels contradict each other on these counts. The big one is, did Jesus suffer and cry out in despair? Mark and Matthew say Yes. Luke and John have Jesus accepting his crucifixion without complaint and then dying not from asphyxiation but by an act of will when the time is right. Historians pay attention to these differences because they're informative. It's Christian practice to minimize these differences. As WP editors, it's not our place to pick and choose from four primary documents, creating a new narrative with the elements we like and leaving out the details we don't like.
Do I feel moved to add in the details that have been left out? Maybe. Or maybe I can let the Gospel section be for now. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
We can avoid OR by letting each Gospel speak for itself rather than using our own judgment to edit the four accounts into one. That's what the page does with the Open Tomb accounts, which are also contradictory. What do folks think? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)