![]() | 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 125 | ← | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
@ Eodcarl: has boldly removed the a sentence stating "although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable." despite the request at the beginning of the paragraph stating that any changes should be discussed in the Talk page. I've reverted twice and am now taking to the talk page. My view is that the statement accurately reflects the strong consensus of academic historians. -- Erp ( talk) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
— ehrmanblog.org
Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?
We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.
— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently
Let me stress – I can’t stress this enough, although roughly 36% of my readers won’t believe me or possibly hear me – I am NOT saying there cannot be evangelical scholars of the New Testament. That is absolutely not the case, in the least. There are lots of evangelical scholars of the New Testament. Some of them superb scholars. BUT, if they approach the New Testament from the point of view that there can be no mistakes of any kind in the New Testament (that would be a very hard-core evangelical, and certainly a fundamentalist, position) then they have to restrict their scholarly conversation partners to one another, publishing in journals and with presses that support their theological views, not in the standard critical journals and presses.
— ehrmanblog.org
Good prediction. Editwarring across multiple articles was a terrible idea. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
We have two points here, one is a definitive statement that the synoptic gospels are useful and the best source for constructing a narrative of Jesus' life. That is straight-forward. The second point is ambiguous and contentious. "Not completely reliable" requires explanation- to what degree are they reliable? Contrary to the first assertion, there is no consensus about the exact reliability of the gospel accounts. For these reasons, I think we need to drop the assertion in the lead. -- Hazhk ( talk) 13:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This edit starting off "It has been suggested by some that Jesus, as described in the bible, expressed symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia." has been undone four times now. Anyone want to support it? Note that the cited source is broken, bu teven if it were not I don't think one journal article is sufficient for this. Meters ( talk) 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Basically all we have on Jesus is various conjectures by a variety of sources. To discuss his mental health, we would require reliable sources on the topic. The sources will have to be identified within the text, as reporting that "some" people conclude this is itself meaningless. Some people may have concluded that he was an extraterrestrial, as suggested by articles on the topic. See Could Jesus Christ Be One Of The FIrst Alien Hybrids, The Son Of An Extraterrestrial And An Earthly Woman?, Was Jesus an Extraterrestrial?, Jesus Was A Space Alien, Alien Jesus: The Imacclate Deception- Aliens and Religion "The Lost Book of Enki, etc. That does not mean this conclusion is either reliable, nor particularly notable.
And I would personally want to know what symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia can be identified in the Bible. Delusions? Grandiose delusions? Hallucinations? Hearing voices? Details and context are needed to make such assertions.
On another topic, whether John of Patmos was using psilocybin mushrooms is a matter that should be addressed in his own article. It is currently little more than a stub and has few sources. The idea is certainly mentioned in published books. For example "Apocalyptic Bodies: The Biblical End of the World in Text and Image" (2002) by Tina Pippin mentions in page 97: "A common critique of undergraduate students of the Apocalypse is that it is a weird narrative written by someone on hallucinogenic drugs." See: https://books.google.gr/books?id=POSFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA97&dq=apocalypse+hallucinogenic&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=apocalypse%20hallucinogenic&f=false Dimadick ( talk) 09:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
My edit was reverted with the curious edit summary "I don't really want to undo your edit, but please gain consensus first before changing." But that's fair enough - it was rather WP:BOLD and perhaps I need to explain myself.
Here is what is currently in the article:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and most scholars consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus, although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[23][24]
Here is how it read at the start of 2015:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[19]
Now, I'm not exactly sure how or when or why it was changed, but it strikes me that the previous version is superior. For a start, the "most scholars" bit is completely unsourced. Also, the discussion of the relationship between the Synoptics and John is somewhat peripheral to the subject, and should not be in the lead. Finally the "is considered" bit is weasel-wording, and it's better to leave that out as well, and focus on the historical questions directly connected to Jesus. St Anselm ( talk) 18:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
While I have no preference on the wording, take a closer look at Wikipedia policy on Weasel Words: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."
Simply stating that the Gospels are not considered to be fully reliable is neither a weasel word, nor does it have to name a specific author making the claim. It is a common evaluation of them, and explains their use as sources.
On the other hand, we already have an article on the Historical reliability of the Gospels. More specific details about the topic should be given in that article, not on the article on Jesus. And keep in mind that we have no way to verify elements of the Gospels through other sources. To quote the other article: "According to Eric Cline, there is no direct archaeological evidence on the existence of a historical Jesus or any of the apostles". Even the "experts" are making assessments and conjectures. Dimadick ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This is Bible scholarship 101: for virtually anyone teaching Bible scholarship at a major university, the NT gospels do have errors. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree, but they are a minority among those scholars. I offered a WP:RS/AC quote in a footnote. I also offer one here:
"Lecture Four. IV. C. Let me be clear, though, that I’m not saying that every story in the Gospels is completely inaccurate. 1. The Gospels no doubt do contain historically reliable material that will be of considerable use to us as we try to establish what Jesus really said and did. 2. They also contain historically inaccurate material; part of our task will be deciding which is which. 3. Before pursuing that task, though, we must learn more about these books, for instance, who their authors were and where they got their stories." p. 14 of the same source. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show. [1]
— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series
I have a problem with the ordering of this topic. What god gives Deconstructionists who hate the views that many have toward Jesus and the biblical texts the right to start out the article with their subversive views? Can you not have a little humility and respect the deeply held positions of less deconstructive scholars and the less radical whose views you seek to displace? How about letting those who more greatly love and respect the person of Jesus (who is the topic of the article) get a word in before you have to cram in your skeptical antipathy? Olorin3k ( talk) 18:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Olorin3k, if your preferred sources "love and respect" Jesus as you say, they are by nature biased and unreliable. Wikipedia needs objective, scholarly sources, preferably secular ones. By your argument, we should only include Nazi sources on Adolf Hitler, because they revere the man. Dimadick ( talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a published archaeologist and member of history societies who knows more history. Illogically, you are all redirecting attention away from my point, which you obscure with a red herring of debate over historicity. Perhaps you are so blindly limited to one facet of the topic so that you don't even realize it. But it remains arrogant to start out an article on the very large topic of "Jesus" as if it were only a more limited article on "The Historical Jesus" or the even more limited topic of debate over the historicity of the Gospels. Learn to open your mind, to consider from another perspective. Don't be such closed-minded bigots that you insist that the article must begin with a foundation determined by your own subset of viewpoints so as to limit the very much larger topic of "Jesus." Olorin3k ( talk) 11:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
References
OK, if Jesus was born 6-4 BC (as this page explains) and then he died around AD 33 (also from this page), then let's count the years:
5-2 BC (4 years) BC 1 AD 1 AD 2-33 (31 years)
He was at least 36 years old at the time of his death, according to the information on this page. The page should reflect this - not 33 (which seems like a novice wrote the difference between AD 33 and AD 1). -- Mysterious Gopher ( talk, contribs), 18:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The lede paragraph on Christian beliefs on Jesus needs some changes. The current version is badly written.
-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 21:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
tThe section on the sources needs expansion. When I was at school, our Religious Studies teacher told us several earlt Jewish writers who wwere against Jesus mention him in their works. 81.140.1.129 ( talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
the article mentions Alexander the Great as having less substantive records of his existence than the historical jesus of naserath. It does not link to Alexander the Great, and i supect, though i am by no means no scholar that the point is not easily verfiable or in fact untrue.
Hello. Don't like editing Wikipedia but wanted to say that I think it is a mistake to include a Hebrew variant of a Greek name which was only ever given in a Greek text in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.33 ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The info box has only the historical agreement on Jesus - that he was born in Herod's kingdom (not specifically Bethlehem) and crucified (not resurrected as per Christians or ascended as per Muslims. However, the fact that Joseph was his father has a footnote to Christian and Muslim views. This is inconsistent. Valentina Cardoso ( talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Persian miniature is in effect an image of a fringe view, as most Muslims do not draw Jesus and other prophets. The best illustration should be the calligraphy, as that is more representative to a casual reader of how a Muslim depicts Jesus. Or just have no image for the section Valentina Cardoso ( talk) 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Mlpearc, explain why you reverted my edits. Also read this: WP:DRNC. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I've made a couple minor (IMHO) edits to the lede, but given all the warnings I thought it would be best if I provided a more detailed explanation rather than just relying on the edit summary.
Obviously anyone has free rein to revert these changes, hopefully followed by input here. Thanks, ¡Boz zio! 15:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it ought to be made clear that the date of birth was not necessarily circa 4 B.C., because there is evidence that casts considerable doubt upon the hypothesis that the Nativity occurred several years before the estimate of Dionysius Exiguus, with it, instead, occurring several years afterwards. The main reason behind the thinking that Jesus was born between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C. is that King Herod the Great supposedly died around 4 B.C., which is supposed to have been mathematically implied by statements in Jewish historian Josephus's treatise Antiquities of the Jews. However, in that same tome, Josephus also implies, mathematically, that King Herod the Great died around the years 7-8 A.D., since it is stated that he was 15 years old in the year 47 B.C., and died at the age of 70 years. This would fit in neatly with the statement in Luke that the Virgin Mary was pregnant with Jesus around the year 6 A.D., when the Census of Quirinius was conducted. I think the article should be amended to incorporate this uncertainty regarding the actual date of birth of Jesus. 98.180.166.27 ( talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be changed to BCE and CE? 71.84.100.193 ( talk) 22:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The article currently uses the phrase "a murderer called Barabbas". Isn't that misleading? Both the Gospel of Mark and that of Luke describe this prisoner as held for his role in a stasis. That is typically translated as a riot or insurrection, not a murder. Dimadick ( talk) 10:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When I was reading this I think I may see an error. In the Bible it says that Jesus is the son of God and the Quran also states that he was born with intervention of God. But where it says who his parents were it says Mary and Joseph. If the religions believe that he is the son of God should that not be posted? Thank you, Mr.WikiSam Mr.WikiSam ( talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)The following sources are given as footnotes in Citations but lack full bibliographical details anywhere in the article:
– Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I consider to add in lead that Jesus rejected temptations before started to preach. Datastat ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the living can't be resurrected, so "the living and the dead either before or after their bodily resurrection" seems strange.
And, is "living and the dead" correct from the beginning? 112.211.196.151 ( talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is another proposed birth date for the baby Jesus as given by revelation to the modern-day prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. According to scripture found in the Latter-day Saint canon called the Doctrine and Covenants, first verse of the twentieth section: The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April Thus, according to this new volume of scripture in these latter days, the actual month and day of the Lord's birth is April 6th, according to ancient prophecies of when Jesus' real date of birth matching up with the Passover season when Old Testament prophets foretold the Savior's birth to be. Tahoemormon1970 ( talk) 07:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am surprised that in an article of this size there is no sentence (probably in etymology section since this is also an etymology of how Middle English Jesu changed to Jesus) explaining that "Jesu" commonly encountered in older hymns and poems is an English vocative or genitive form? In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you guys think about this ? I'm not familiar with the Nazareth Inscription. However, reading the article, it doesn't seem like the inscription is good evidence for the empty tomb, considering that its origin and date is unknown.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Gaetano De Sanctis died in 1957. The original volumes of his main work were published between 1907 and 1923. He is not exactly an up to date source on Roman history and archaeology.
According to German Wikipedia, this Leopold Wenger, the historian, died in 1953. The English Wikipedia only has reference to a Leopold Wenger who served as an Oberleutnant of the Luftwaffe in World War II.
Bruce M. Metzger is a much more recent source, since he died in 2007. He was also the leader of the translating team behind the New Revised Standard Version (1989). Dimadick ( talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The foreign names of this person (at least Greek and probably also Aramaic) should appear in the lead. At present, with the long length of the lead, they first appear way too far down the page. MOS:FORLANG encourages this practice, and if we added the most important details of the etymology section to the lead that would in theory free us up to move the etymology section itself around a bit. (At present the first section of the body doesn't stand by itself; just read the first sentence.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I originally made the change per the suggestion of two other users here. I think it clutters up the opening sentence, and the information is repeated with more more context in the etymology section, which is the first section in the article. ¡Boz zio! 05:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As a personal opinion, I might just include the Greek and maybe Latin forms of the name with a link to Joshua (name). I note that the New Catholic Encyclopedia has a very short article, less than half a column long, on "Jesus (the name)", but that article does include in its bibliography a reference to an article in volume three of the L. W. Foester and G. Kittel Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament which apparently runs to over ten pages from page 284 to page 294 along with two other apparently shorter "articles" in two other encyclopedias. Taken together, they would seem, to my eyes, sufficient basis for a fully developed article on the name Joshua or Jesus. Given the choice between the two, I would opt for using Joshua, like the article I linked to currently uses, as it seems to me anyway to be a maybe slightly better transcription of the original name. John Carter ( talk) 18:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
A notice was added to the top of this page today -"The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages." Is this correct? If so, can anyone refer me to the discussion where this was decided? And if it is correct, there are a lot of "associated pages" that need to have this notice added to their talk pages. Smeat75 ( talk) 13:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity. I proposed this image a year ago and it was declined because it was too early for a new picture at that time and because of glare. Now that enough time has past and the glare is fixed I bring it up again. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering why the more realistic depiction of Jesus, as created by Richard Neave for Popular Mechanics, has not been included in this article? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
The article includes many obviously unrealistic art, so why the absence of scientific depiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I was thanked by the user:Germanymeekah (no user page), for the above edit. The user is a SPA account has only a single edit on the 12th March 2017. I suspect he could be the article author. scope_creep ( talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia editor coming across this page, I noticed that the lead was poorly written and looks like it was a result of fighting. I was going to try to fix it and came across the notes saying not to edit the page, so I didn't. I suggest you remove the tags discouraging editors. That is all. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Joseph was His foster father. If you are talking about Jesus Christ, then you have to write that His father - God the Father. Otherwise it does not make any sense. In Russian Wikipedia we wrote that His father is God the Father. It is absolutely not important what Muslims, Jews and godless think. Their opinion can be voiced somewhere at the end of the article. Алессия ( talk) 18:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I have opened an WP:NPOVN topic about this issue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I wrote my opinion here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Stating_as_an_objective_fact_that_God_is_the_father_of_Jesus, but I can repeat: My point of view: the information about Joseph is taken from the Bible. There are no other sources about Joseph. But the Bible says that the father of Jesus Christ is God the Father. What's the point? Do you believe the Bible that Joseph existed, but do not believe that he was a foster father? There are three normal ways: 1. Father is God the Father. 2. Write only about Virgin Mary. 3. Write about Joseph is the foster father. Алессия ( talk) 20:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
These being said, the very first line of the article says that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. So it is not like we would shove this under the carpet. The article says it upfront, so why does it have to be stated in the infobox? As far as I have understood, the infobox is for data whereupon there is wide agreement, regardless of one's religion or lack of religion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
user:General Ization wants to add a survey about people in England's views on Jesus' existence. However, this doesn't belong in this article as it says more about religious views of the English than it does on the historicity of Jesus. This is a classic case of Argumentum ad populum.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Please change "was a Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "was a non-denominational, non-religious leader" because Jesus was not part of any religion or denominations and these were formed after his death. Religion if separated into Re-Legion is the regrouping of a legion, which the definition of is revealed in Mark 5:9 [1]. 2. Please change "Christians believe him to be the Son of God" to "Christians and Born-Again Believers believe him to be the Son of God" because Born-Again Believers believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and they do not classify themselves as Christians or any religious denomination [2]. 3. Please change "Jesus was a Galilean Jew" because Jesus was not a Jew or any other specified group causing separation; some only think that because they are interpreting the New Testament or Bible incorrectly. The correct interpretations are revealed to those who believe in Jesus Christ. The veil is lifted from their eyes and minds to be able to understand the Word of God. If the word Jew is separated into Je-w than one can translate Je into I and the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep. The New Testament may have translated the word Ewe into Jew because of the "Je" being the word or letter "I" so that is how they spelled the translation but the pronunciation may not have been correct. Throughout the New Testament, we are told that he is the Lamb of God because he is as innocent as a Lamb [3]. 4. Please change any instances of "New Testament" to "not the original translation of the New Testament, which is the King James Version," [4]. 5. Please add to notes section n. Any information on wikipedia should be unbiased and objective but this page on Jesus is biased and no edits are allowed and references to the original New Testament have not been made or translated correctly [5]. Acerfamily888 ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)separated into Je-wbefore changing
Je into Iso
the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep-- " Ewe" is the English word for a female sheep (no translation involved!), which would only leave it relevant if one suggested that Jesus was transgender and the disciples spoke English instead of Hebrew (which didn't exist until a thousand years after Jesus's time). Ian.thomson ( talk) 06:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that there were numerous translations of the Bible before the KJV, including English translations, see Bible translations into English. Where do people get these ideas? Doug Weller talk 18:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://readfwd.com/download/Russell-Bertrand-Why-I-Am-Not-a-Christian.epubWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Want to write something about Second coming of Jesus Christ. Abraham891 ( talk) 18:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
An article published three days ago criticized our coverage of Jesus as follows: [15]
One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth.
I have tried to verify this claim. A talk page comment from the late Steven Rubenstein from 12 years ago summarized it as follows:
Please remember the history: in an attempt to keep the Jesus article NPOV, detailed accounts of a variety of views were added, and the article became too long for many servers. There was a quick consensus to have the article focus on the Christian POV, with sub-articles on other points of view, and very brief summaries with links as subsections of the Jesus article. The main topics spun off were on the historical and cultural context for Jesus, which placed Jesus in the context of what we know about Jewish history and culture; one on the "historicity" of Jesus, meaning, debates over whether or not Jesus actually existed; this article, and I think one or two more on the critical study of the NT and Christology.
I propose we take this criticism seriously and consider whether some restructuring of the various Jesus articles would be appropriate. Things have moved on significantly since 2003-04 when the current structure was created. The suggestion of "Multiple Parallel Narratives" on such a high profile topic is damning to our project.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
When New Atheism was more fashionable the Jesus article was a mess. You had militant atheists pushing the unscholarly view that Jesus never existed. It was largely done by footnotes to crank sources. For readers who took the time to view the footnotes and had some familiarity with the scholarship surrounding the historicity of Jesus, it made Wikipedia look very unscholarly. Militant atheists are just a small minority of the world’s population and their unhistorical POV should not have been as prominent as it was formerly. As far as the press coverage, I have my doubts that the warring camps of Wikipedians will ever stop fighting over the article. One suggestion I have is to break up the Christian view of Jesus into two camps: theologically conservative/tradtional Christianity and liberal Christianity. desmay ( talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, Markbassett ( talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The current structure is fine. Our primary source for the life of Jesus is the NT, which is why we have a large section devoted to that. The historical views section focuses on various analysis and conclusions from scholars.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The lede should make it clear that Jesus was the founder of a new religious movement. Right now the first paragraph just says that Jesus was a preacher and a leader. The end of the second paragraph just says that his followers created the Christian Church. This isn't clear enough. Something along the lines of "Jesus was founder of a religious movement that later became known as Christianity" should be added to first paragraph. Maybe something like this:
I phrased it this way because the NT scholarship thinks that the Jesus movement was initially viewed as a movement within Judaism, but was later considered to be a separate religion. The exact time when they became separate is not entirely clear, but probably in the first century. Thoughts? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone should fix the citations. The first citation in the intro starts at 12... 13, 14... then abruptly jumps to 21. This is likely due to people deleting and moving stuff, but boy does it look messy and unprofessional for a featured article. What happened to the intervening citations, did they just disappear and no longer cited??
Princeton wu ( talk) 05:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to edit something that may be incorrect Mousy1234567891011 ( talk) 19:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see [ Q9]. Objective3000 ( talk) 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Per NPOV, I was a bit taken aback at how Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam was given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism. My good faith edits in rearranging the presentation of information were repeatedly reverted on the basis of redundancy, and so accordingly I revised the intro with an eye towards this critique. My edits were then reverted by the same user who claimed Jesus is a bit player in Islam, which is very much at odds with Jesus in Islam. The only substantial content I added to the lede was the fact that Jesus is the most mentioned person in the Quran, which was done in part to counteract this incident as well as another reversion by a user who claimed Muslims do not hold Jesus as the Messiah. This has deepened my initial impression that Jesus' role in Islam has been tacked on towards the end of the intro in gross violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'd like to gauge the consensus for the idea that Jesus' role as the Messiah in two similarly-sized religions should be reflected per NPOV. Obviously Jesus is more prominent in Christianity than Islam, which is reflected in the now-reverted version of the intro, but the previous status quo makes it seem as if Jesus being the Messiah in Islam is an afterthought. What do you think? Plumber ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
just another prophetin Islam. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Jesus is the most mentioned person in the Quran. It would seem to make sense to include Islam up top as well as Judaism and Christianity. Objective3000 ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is serious concern that including Christian but not Muslim views on Jesus in the first paragraph is a violation of NPOV (and I don't it is a violation), then a much better solution is to remove Christian views on Jesus from the first paragraph. This solution (as opposed adding Muslim/Bahai views) avoids the problem of undue weight and the problem of redundancy (info on Christian/Muslim views being in both the first and later paragraphs is redundant). In this solution, the first and second paragraphs would just focus on the historical Jesus (aka the real Jesus) and not on the Christian/Muslim Jesus.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I´d like to change it to "engaged in healings" per source Levine, I think "performed healings" is a little problematic in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I read the FAQ. "Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information." I would disagree. There is very little physical proof that Jesus actually existed, and even if he did, how do we know that "Jesus" existed under than name or any similar name? I propose we add in the very first sentence: "was, according to ..." or something, instead of "was". I thought Wikipedia was based on fact. "Jesus was a real human being" is not a known fact. It's a hypothesis, or at best a theory. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
With regard to the opening sentence, the phrase "preacher and religious leader" seems a bit redundant ... unless you want to be really pedantic I would say all preachers are by definition religious leaders. Searching for "preacher and religious leader" reveals that this article is one of only two articles on Wikipedia that uses that construction (and the other one doesn't use it in the first sentence). Would people here be in favour of removing one of the two, and if so which one? Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 13:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The section on the resurrection and ascension treats the "long ending" of Mark as if it were original, when the general consensus is that it's not - i.e., Mark has no post-resurrection appearances. I wonder if the section should be re-written to reflect the shorter ending. PiCo ( talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
God is a rapist? A prophet suggested God is a rapist. [1] References
This means that if Jesus is the son of God that he is the son of an alleged rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) References
It has been suggested that Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
|
The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary " rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the sentence about atheist views on Jesus and Richard Dawkin's comment on Jesus should even be in this article. That section is mainly about religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins does not represent all atheists.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@ QuackGuru:, there is neither rhyme nor reason to your edits. The only way a "failed verification" makes any sense at all is if you take it to mean that you have failed to verify that Jesus is divine to your own personal satisfaction. Given the ANI thread, I urge you to stop beating this particular horse. Any new editor or IP without your record of contributions would have already been blocked for WP:IDHT or WP:CIR reasons by this point. It would be a loss to the project for you to pursue this quixotic quest. There are already flurries falling at ANI and continuing these edits only increases the likelihood of sub-optimal outcomes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14]" Where is the scientific view? It should also be in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"According to science, Jesus is not God's son." That will be added to the lede after the 14th citation in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
References
References
New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity. [1]
References
A simple sentence will do the trick. A source is not needed for non-controversial claims, but I provided one for your reading pleasure. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The 2014 book God And His Coexistent Relations To The Universe states "Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God." [1]
References
It is a bit confusing from reading this source. Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add nekudot to the Hebrew names in this article, but given the sometimes controversial nature of this article I thought I'd check here first. Nekudot are small markings above and below letters which show the vowel sounds in Hebrew. For the most part, Hebrew does not precisely indicate vowels otherwise. Basically, instead of seeing, for example, ישוע, you would now see יֵשׁוּעַ. I doubt anyone will object, but I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see who salutes before I do anything. Alephb ( talk) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the correct singular possessive form be "Jesus's"? SLIGHTLY mad 07:19, 5 September 2017 (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.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus was not Jewish there is no proof he was jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerostar93 ( talk • contribs)
I believe the opening paragraph should read "Jesus... is the central figure in Christianity. According to Christian belief/NT, considered Son of God" etc. To assert immediately that he was a preacher and so forth is problematic on two accounts: there is no outside confirmation for this data; and it also ignores that Jesus Christ comes before "Historical Jesus", the quest for whom only begun due to the former. The current opening mixes the religious narrative with the preciously little which is presumed (rather than known) by scholars, something along the lines of "Oh, we only have this book about him, but all the supernatural stuff is unreasonable so let's assume those did not happen but keep the core." It is injurious both to the fact that Jesus is first and foremost a Christian religious figure whose divine status should be fully covered (that's what both the believing Christian and the average reader are looking for) and to historical research. The two narratives should be clearly juxtaposited, not jumbled. AddMore-III ( talk) 02:59, 5 September 2017 (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 125 | ← | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
@ Eodcarl: has boldly removed the a sentence stating "although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable." despite the request at the beginning of the paragraph stating that any changes should be discussed in the Talk page. I've reverted twice and am now taking to the talk page. My view is that the statement accurately reflects the strong consensus of academic historians. -- Erp ( talk) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
— ehrmanblog.org
Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?
We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.
— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently
Let me stress – I can’t stress this enough, although roughly 36% of my readers won’t believe me or possibly hear me – I am NOT saying there cannot be evangelical scholars of the New Testament. That is absolutely not the case, in the least. There are lots of evangelical scholars of the New Testament. Some of them superb scholars. BUT, if they approach the New Testament from the point of view that there can be no mistakes of any kind in the New Testament (that would be a very hard-core evangelical, and certainly a fundamentalist, position) then they have to restrict their scholarly conversation partners to one another, publishing in journals and with presses that support their theological views, not in the standard critical journals and presses.
— ehrmanblog.org
Good prediction. Editwarring across multiple articles was a terrible idea. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
We have two points here, one is a definitive statement that the synoptic gospels are useful and the best source for constructing a narrative of Jesus' life. That is straight-forward. The second point is ambiguous and contentious. "Not completely reliable" requires explanation- to what degree are they reliable? Contrary to the first assertion, there is no consensus about the exact reliability of the gospel accounts. For these reasons, I think we need to drop the assertion in the lead. -- Hazhk ( talk) 13:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This edit starting off "It has been suggested by some that Jesus, as described in the bible, expressed symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia." has been undone four times now. Anyone want to support it? Note that the cited source is broken, bu teven if it were not I don't think one journal article is sufficient for this. Meters ( talk) 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Basically all we have on Jesus is various conjectures by a variety of sources. To discuss his mental health, we would require reliable sources on the topic. The sources will have to be identified within the text, as reporting that "some" people conclude this is itself meaningless. Some people may have concluded that he was an extraterrestrial, as suggested by articles on the topic. See Could Jesus Christ Be One Of The FIrst Alien Hybrids, The Son Of An Extraterrestrial And An Earthly Woman?, Was Jesus an Extraterrestrial?, Jesus Was A Space Alien, Alien Jesus: The Imacclate Deception- Aliens and Religion "The Lost Book of Enki, etc. That does not mean this conclusion is either reliable, nor particularly notable.
And I would personally want to know what symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia can be identified in the Bible. Delusions? Grandiose delusions? Hallucinations? Hearing voices? Details and context are needed to make such assertions.
On another topic, whether John of Patmos was using psilocybin mushrooms is a matter that should be addressed in his own article. It is currently little more than a stub and has few sources. The idea is certainly mentioned in published books. For example "Apocalyptic Bodies: The Biblical End of the World in Text and Image" (2002) by Tina Pippin mentions in page 97: "A common critique of undergraduate students of the Apocalypse is that it is a weird narrative written by someone on hallucinogenic drugs." See: https://books.google.gr/books?id=POSFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA97&dq=apocalypse+hallucinogenic&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=apocalypse%20hallucinogenic&f=false Dimadick ( talk) 09:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
My edit was reverted with the curious edit summary "I don't really want to undo your edit, but please gain consensus first before changing." But that's fair enough - it was rather WP:BOLD and perhaps I need to explain myself.
Here is what is currently in the article:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and most scholars consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus, although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[23][24]
Here is how it read at the start of 2015:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[19]
Now, I'm not exactly sure how or when or why it was changed, but it strikes me that the previous version is superior. For a start, the "most scholars" bit is completely unsourced. Also, the discussion of the relationship between the Synoptics and John is somewhat peripheral to the subject, and should not be in the lead. Finally the "is considered" bit is weasel-wording, and it's better to leave that out as well, and focus on the historical questions directly connected to Jesus. St Anselm ( talk) 18:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
While I have no preference on the wording, take a closer look at Wikipedia policy on Weasel Words: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."
Simply stating that the Gospels are not considered to be fully reliable is neither a weasel word, nor does it have to name a specific author making the claim. It is a common evaluation of them, and explains their use as sources.
On the other hand, we already have an article on the Historical reliability of the Gospels. More specific details about the topic should be given in that article, not on the article on Jesus. And keep in mind that we have no way to verify elements of the Gospels through other sources. To quote the other article: "According to Eric Cline, there is no direct archaeological evidence on the existence of a historical Jesus or any of the apostles". Even the "experts" are making assessments and conjectures. Dimadick ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This is Bible scholarship 101: for virtually anyone teaching Bible scholarship at a major university, the NT gospels do have errors. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree, but they are a minority among those scholars. I offered a WP:RS/AC quote in a footnote. I also offer one here:
"Lecture Four. IV. C. Let me be clear, though, that I’m not saying that every story in the Gospels is completely inaccurate. 1. The Gospels no doubt do contain historically reliable material that will be of considerable use to us as we try to establish what Jesus really said and did. 2. They also contain historically inaccurate material; part of our task will be deciding which is which. 3. Before pursuing that task, though, we must learn more about these books, for instance, who their authors were and where they got their stories." p. 14 of the same source. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show. [1]
— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series
I have a problem with the ordering of this topic. What god gives Deconstructionists who hate the views that many have toward Jesus and the biblical texts the right to start out the article with their subversive views? Can you not have a little humility and respect the deeply held positions of less deconstructive scholars and the less radical whose views you seek to displace? How about letting those who more greatly love and respect the person of Jesus (who is the topic of the article) get a word in before you have to cram in your skeptical antipathy? Olorin3k ( talk) 18:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Olorin3k, if your preferred sources "love and respect" Jesus as you say, they are by nature biased and unreliable. Wikipedia needs objective, scholarly sources, preferably secular ones. By your argument, we should only include Nazi sources on Adolf Hitler, because they revere the man. Dimadick ( talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a published archaeologist and member of history societies who knows more history. Illogically, you are all redirecting attention away from my point, which you obscure with a red herring of debate over historicity. Perhaps you are so blindly limited to one facet of the topic so that you don't even realize it. But it remains arrogant to start out an article on the very large topic of "Jesus" as if it were only a more limited article on "The Historical Jesus" or the even more limited topic of debate over the historicity of the Gospels. Learn to open your mind, to consider from another perspective. Don't be such closed-minded bigots that you insist that the article must begin with a foundation determined by your own subset of viewpoints so as to limit the very much larger topic of "Jesus." Olorin3k ( talk) 11:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
References
OK, if Jesus was born 6-4 BC (as this page explains) and then he died around AD 33 (also from this page), then let's count the years:
5-2 BC (4 years) BC 1 AD 1 AD 2-33 (31 years)
He was at least 36 years old at the time of his death, according to the information on this page. The page should reflect this - not 33 (which seems like a novice wrote the difference between AD 33 and AD 1). -- Mysterious Gopher ( talk, contribs), 18:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The lede paragraph on Christian beliefs on Jesus needs some changes. The current version is badly written.
-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 21:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
tThe section on the sources needs expansion. When I was at school, our Religious Studies teacher told us several earlt Jewish writers who wwere against Jesus mention him in their works. 81.140.1.129 ( talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
the article mentions Alexander the Great as having less substantive records of his existence than the historical jesus of naserath. It does not link to Alexander the Great, and i supect, though i am by no means no scholar that the point is not easily verfiable or in fact untrue.
Hello. Don't like editing Wikipedia but wanted to say that I think it is a mistake to include a Hebrew variant of a Greek name which was only ever given in a Greek text in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.33 ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The info box has only the historical agreement on Jesus - that he was born in Herod's kingdom (not specifically Bethlehem) and crucified (not resurrected as per Christians or ascended as per Muslims. However, the fact that Joseph was his father has a footnote to Christian and Muslim views. This is inconsistent. Valentina Cardoso ( talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Persian miniature is in effect an image of a fringe view, as most Muslims do not draw Jesus and other prophets. The best illustration should be the calligraphy, as that is more representative to a casual reader of how a Muslim depicts Jesus. Or just have no image for the section Valentina Cardoso ( talk) 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Mlpearc, explain why you reverted my edits. Also read this: WP:DRNC. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I've made a couple minor (IMHO) edits to the lede, but given all the warnings I thought it would be best if I provided a more detailed explanation rather than just relying on the edit summary.
Obviously anyone has free rein to revert these changes, hopefully followed by input here. Thanks, ¡Boz zio! 15:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it ought to be made clear that the date of birth was not necessarily circa 4 B.C., because there is evidence that casts considerable doubt upon the hypothesis that the Nativity occurred several years before the estimate of Dionysius Exiguus, with it, instead, occurring several years afterwards. The main reason behind the thinking that Jesus was born between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C. is that King Herod the Great supposedly died around 4 B.C., which is supposed to have been mathematically implied by statements in Jewish historian Josephus's treatise Antiquities of the Jews. However, in that same tome, Josephus also implies, mathematically, that King Herod the Great died around the years 7-8 A.D., since it is stated that he was 15 years old in the year 47 B.C., and died at the age of 70 years. This would fit in neatly with the statement in Luke that the Virgin Mary was pregnant with Jesus around the year 6 A.D., when the Census of Quirinius was conducted. I think the article should be amended to incorporate this uncertainty regarding the actual date of birth of Jesus. 98.180.166.27 ( talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be changed to BCE and CE? 71.84.100.193 ( talk) 22:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The article currently uses the phrase "a murderer called Barabbas". Isn't that misleading? Both the Gospel of Mark and that of Luke describe this prisoner as held for his role in a stasis. That is typically translated as a riot or insurrection, not a murder. Dimadick ( talk) 10:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When I was reading this I think I may see an error. In the Bible it says that Jesus is the son of God and the Quran also states that he was born with intervention of God. But where it says who his parents were it says Mary and Joseph. If the religions believe that he is the son of God should that not be posted? Thank you, Mr.WikiSam Mr.WikiSam ( talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)The following sources are given as footnotes in Citations but lack full bibliographical details anywhere in the article:
– Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 11:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I consider to add in lead that Jesus rejected temptations before started to preach. Datastat ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the living can't be resurrected, so "the living and the dead either before or after their bodily resurrection" seems strange.
And, is "living and the dead" correct from the beginning? 112.211.196.151 ( talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is another proposed birth date for the baby Jesus as given by revelation to the modern-day prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. According to scripture found in the Latter-day Saint canon called the Doctrine and Covenants, first verse of the twentieth section: The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April Thus, according to this new volume of scripture in these latter days, the actual month and day of the Lord's birth is April 6th, according to ancient prophecies of when Jesus' real date of birth matching up with the Passover season when Old Testament prophets foretold the Savior's birth to be. Tahoemormon1970 ( talk) 07:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am surprised that in an article of this size there is no sentence (probably in etymology section since this is also an etymology of how Middle English Jesu changed to Jesus) explaining that "Jesu" commonly encountered in older hymns and poems is an English vocative or genitive form? In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you guys think about this ? I'm not familiar with the Nazareth Inscription. However, reading the article, it doesn't seem like the inscription is good evidence for the empty tomb, considering that its origin and date is unknown.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Gaetano De Sanctis died in 1957. The original volumes of his main work were published between 1907 and 1923. He is not exactly an up to date source on Roman history and archaeology.
According to German Wikipedia, this Leopold Wenger, the historian, died in 1953. The English Wikipedia only has reference to a Leopold Wenger who served as an Oberleutnant of the Luftwaffe in World War II.
Bruce M. Metzger is a much more recent source, since he died in 2007. He was also the leader of the translating team behind the New Revised Standard Version (1989). Dimadick ( talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The foreign names of this person (at least Greek and probably also Aramaic) should appear in the lead. At present, with the long length of the lead, they first appear way too far down the page. MOS:FORLANG encourages this practice, and if we added the most important details of the etymology section to the lead that would in theory free us up to move the etymology section itself around a bit. (At present the first section of the body doesn't stand by itself; just read the first sentence.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I originally made the change per the suggestion of two other users here. I think it clutters up the opening sentence, and the information is repeated with more more context in the etymology section, which is the first section in the article. ¡Boz zio! 05:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As a personal opinion, I might just include the Greek and maybe Latin forms of the name with a link to Joshua (name). I note that the New Catholic Encyclopedia has a very short article, less than half a column long, on "Jesus (the name)", but that article does include in its bibliography a reference to an article in volume three of the L. W. Foester and G. Kittel Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament which apparently runs to over ten pages from page 284 to page 294 along with two other apparently shorter "articles" in two other encyclopedias. Taken together, they would seem, to my eyes, sufficient basis for a fully developed article on the name Joshua or Jesus. Given the choice between the two, I would opt for using Joshua, like the article I linked to currently uses, as it seems to me anyway to be a maybe slightly better transcription of the original name. John Carter ( talk) 18:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
A notice was added to the top of this page today -"The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages." Is this correct? If so, can anyone refer me to the discussion where this was decided? And if it is correct, there are a lot of "associated pages" that need to have this notice added to their talk pages. Smeat75 ( talk) 13:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity. I proposed this image a year ago and it was declined because it was too early for a new picture at that time and because of glare. Now that enough time has past and the glare is fixed I bring it up again. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering why the more realistic depiction of Jesus, as created by Richard Neave for Popular Mechanics, has not been included in this article? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
The article includes many obviously unrealistic art, so why the absence of scientific depiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I was thanked by the user:Germanymeekah (no user page), for the above edit. The user is a SPA account has only a single edit on the 12th March 2017. I suspect he could be the article author. scope_creep ( talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia editor coming across this page, I noticed that the lead was poorly written and looks like it was a result of fighting. I was going to try to fix it and came across the notes saying not to edit the page, so I didn't. I suggest you remove the tags discouraging editors. That is all. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Joseph was His foster father. If you are talking about Jesus Christ, then you have to write that His father - God the Father. Otherwise it does not make any sense. In Russian Wikipedia we wrote that His father is God the Father. It is absolutely not important what Muslims, Jews and godless think. Their opinion can be voiced somewhere at the end of the article. Алессия ( talk) 18:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I have opened an WP:NPOVN topic about this issue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I wrote my opinion here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Stating_as_an_objective_fact_that_God_is_the_father_of_Jesus, but I can repeat: My point of view: the information about Joseph is taken from the Bible. There are no other sources about Joseph. But the Bible says that the father of Jesus Christ is God the Father. What's the point? Do you believe the Bible that Joseph existed, but do not believe that he was a foster father? There are three normal ways: 1. Father is God the Father. 2. Write only about Virgin Mary. 3. Write about Joseph is the foster father. Алессия ( talk) 20:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
These being said, the very first line of the article says that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. So it is not like we would shove this under the carpet. The article says it upfront, so why does it have to be stated in the infobox? As far as I have understood, the infobox is for data whereupon there is wide agreement, regardless of one's religion or lack of religion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
user:General Ization wants to add a survey about people in England's views on Jesus' existence. However, this doesn't belong in this article as it says more about religious views of the English than it does on the historicity of Jesus. This is a classic case of Argumentum ad populum.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Please change "was a Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "was a non-denominational, non-religious leader" because Jesus was not part of any religion or denominations and these were formed after his death. Religion if separated into Re-Legion is the regrouping of a legion, which the definition of is revealed in Mark 5:9 [1]. 2. Please change "Christians believe him to be the Son of God" to "Christians and Born-Again Believers believe him to be the Son of God" because Born-Again Believers believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and they do not classify themselves as Christians or any religious denomination [2]. 3. Please change "Jesus was a Galilean Jew" because Jesus was not a Jew or any other specified group causing separation; some only think that because they are interpreting the New Testament or Bible incorrectly. The correct interpretations are revealed to those who believe in Jesus Christ. The veil is lifted from their eyes and minds to be able to understand the Word of God. If the word Jew is separated into Je-w than one can translate Je into I and the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep. The New Testament may have translated the word Ewe into Jew because of the "Je" being the word or letter "I" so that is how they spelled the translation but the pronunciation may not have been correct. Throughout the New Testament, we are told that he is the Lamb of God because he is as innocent as a Lamb [3]. 4. Please change any instances of "New Testament" to "not the original translation of the New Testament, which is the King James Version," [4]. 5. Please add to notes section n. Any information on wikipedia should be unbiased and objective but this page on Jesus is biased and no edits are allowed and references to the original New Testament have not been made or translated correctly [5]. Acerfamily888 ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)separated into Je-wbefore changing
Je into Iso
the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep-- " Ewe" is the English word for a female sheep (no translation involved!), which would only leave it relevant if one suggested that Jesus was transgender and the disciples spoke English instead of Hebrew (which didn't exist until a thousand years after Jesus's time). Ian.thomson ( talk) 06:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that there were numerous translations of the Bible before the KJV, including English translations, see Bible translations into English. Where do people get these ideas? Doug Weller talk 18:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://readfwd.com/download/Russell-Bertrand-Why-I-Am-Not-a-Christian.epubWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Want to write something about Second coming of Jesus Christ. Abraham891 ( talk) 18:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
An article published three days ago criticized our coverage of Jesus as follows: [15]
One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth.
I have tried to verify this claim. A talk page comment from the late Steven Rubenstein from 12 years ago summarized it as follows:
Please remember the history: in an attempt to keep the Jesus article NPOV, detailed accounts of a variety of views were added, and the article became too long for many servers. There was a quick consensus to have the article focus on the Christian POV, with sub-articles on other points of view, and very brief summaries with links as subsections of the Jesus article. The main topics spun off were on the historical and cultural context for Jesus, which placed Jesus in the context of what we know about Jewish history and culture; one on the "historicity" of Jesus, meaning, debates over whether or not Jesus actually existed; this article, and I think one or two more on the critical study of the NT and Christology.
I propose we take this criticism seriously and consider whether some restructuring of the various Jesus articles would be appropriate. Things have moved on significantly since 2003-04 when the current structure was created. The suggestion of "Multiple Parallel Narratives" on such a high profile topic is damning to our project.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
When New Atheism was more fashionable the Jesus article was a mess. You had militant atheists pushing the unscholarly view that Jesus never existed. It was largely done by footnotes to crank sources. For readers who took the time to view the footnotes and had some familiarity with the scholarship surrounding the historicity of Jesus, it made Wikipedia look very unscholarly. Militant atheists are just a small minority of the world’s population and their unhistorical POV should not have been as prominent as it was formerly. As far as the press coverage, I have my doubts that the warring camps of Wikipedians will ever stop fighting over the article. One suggestion I have is to break up the Christian view of Jesus into two camps: theologically conservative/tradtional Christianity and liberal Christianity. desmay ( talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, Markbassett ( talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The current structure is fine. Our primary source for the life of Jesus is the NT, which is why we have a large section devoted to that. The historical views section focuses on various analysis and conclusions from scholars.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The lede should make it clear that Jesus was the founder of a new religious movement. Right now the first paragraph just says that Jesus was a preacher and a leader. The end of the second paragraph just says that his followers created the Christian Church. This isn't clear enough. Something along the lines of "Jesus was founder of a religious movement that later became known as Christianity" should be added to first paragraph. Maybe something like this:
I phrased it this way because the NT scholarship thinks that the Jesus movement was initially viewed as a movement within Judaism, but was later considered to be a separate religion. The exact time when they became separate is not entirely clear, but probably in the first century. Thoughts? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Someone should fix the citations. The first citation in the intro starts at 12... 13, 14... then abruptly jumps to 21. This is likely due to people deleting and moving stuff, but boy does it look messy and unprofessional for a featured article. What happened to the intervening citations, did they just disappear and no longer cited??
Princeton wu ( talk) 05:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to edit something that may be incorrect Mousy1234567891011 ( talk) 19:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see [ Q9]. Objective3000 ( talk) 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Per NPOV, I was a bit taken aback at how Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam was given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism. My good faith edits in rearranging the presentation of information were repeatedly reverted on the basis of redundancy, and so accordingly I revised the intro with an eye towards this critique. My edits were then reverted by the same user who claimed Jesus is a bit player in Islam, which is very much at odds with Jesus in Islam. The only substantial content I added to the lede was the fact that Jesus is the most mentioned person in the Quran, which was done in part to counteract this incident as well as another reversion by a user who claimed Muslims do not hold Jesus as the Messiah. This has deepened my initial impression that Jesus' role in Islam has been tacked on towards the end of the intro in gross violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'd like to gauge the consensus for the idea that Jesus' role as the Messiah in two similarly-sized religions should be reflected per NPOV. Obviously Jesus is more prominent in Christianity than Islam, which is reflected in the now-reverted version of the intro, but the previous status quo makes it seem as if Jesus being the Messiah in Islam is an afterthought. What do you think? Plumber ( talk) 23:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
just another prophetin Islam. Objective3000 ( talk) 18:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Jesus is the most mentioned person in the Quran. It would seem to make sense to include Islam up top as well as Judaism and Christianity. Objective3000 ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is serious concern that including Christian but not Muslim views on Jesus in the first paragraph is a violation of NPOV (and I don't it is a violation), then a much better solution is to remove Christian views on Jesus from the first paragraph. This solution (as opposed adding Muslim/Bahai views) avoids the problem of undue weight and the problem of redundancy (info on Christian/Muslim views being in both the first and later paragraphs is redundant). In this solution, the first and second paragraphs would just focus on the historical Jesus (aka the real Jesus) and not on the Christian/Muslim Jesus.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I´d like to change it to "engaged in healings" per source Levine, I think "performed healings" is a little problematic in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I read the FAQ. "Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information." I would disagree. There is very little physical proof that Jesus actually existed, and even if he did, how do we know that "Jesus" existed under than name or any similar name? I propose we add in the very first sentence: "was, according to ..." or something, instead of "was". I thought Wikipedia was based on fact. "Jesus was a real human being" is not a known fact. It's a hypothesis, or at best a theory. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 ( talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
With regard to the opening sentence, the phrase "preacher and religious leader" seems a bit redundant ... unless you want to be really pedantic I would say all preachers are by definition religious leaders. Searching for "preacher and religious leader" reveals that this article is one of only two articles on Wikipedia that uses that construction (and the other one doesn't use it in the first sentence). Would people here be in favour of removing one of the two, and if so which one? Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 13:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The section on the resurrection and ascension treats the "long ending" of Mark as if it were original, when the general consensus is that it's not - i.e., Mark has no post-resurrection appearances. I wonder if the section should be re-written to reflect the shorter ending. PiCo ( talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
God is a rapist? A prophet suggested God is a rapist. [1] References
This means that if Jesus is the son of God that he is the son of an alleged rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) References
It has been suggested that Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
|
The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary " rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the sentence about atheist views on Jesus and Richard Dawkin's comment on Jesus should even be in this article. That section is mainly about religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins does not represent all atheists.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@ QuackGuru:, there is neither rhyme nor reason to your edits. The only way a "failed verification" makes any sense at all is if you take it to mean that you have failed to verify that Jesus is divine to your own personal satisfaction. Given the ANI thread, I urge you to stop beating this particular horse. Any new editor or IP without your record of contributions would have already been blocked for WP:IDHT or WP:CIR reasons by this point. It would be a loss to the project for you to pursue this quixotic quest. There are already flurries falling at ANI and continuing these edits only increases the likelihood of sub-optimal outcomes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14]" Where is the scientific view? It should also be in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
"According to science, Jesus is not God's son." That will be added to the lede after the 14th citation in the lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
References
References
New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity. [1]
References
A simple sentence will do the trick. A source is not needed for non-controversial claims, but I provided one for your reading pleasure. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The 2014 book God And His Coexistent Relations To The Universe states "Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God." [1]
References
It is a bit confusing from reading this source. Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add nekudot to the Hebrew names in this article, but given the sometimes controversial nature of this article I thought I'd check here first. Nekudot are small markings above and below letters which show the vowel sounds in Hebrew. For the most part, Hebrew does not precisely indicate vowels otherwise. Basically, instead of seeing, for example, ישוע, you would now see יֵשׁוּעַ. I doubt anyone will object, but I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see who salutes before I do anything. Alephb ( talk) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the correct singular possessive form be "Jesus's"? SLIGHTLY mad 07:19, 5 September 2017 (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.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus was not Jewish there is no proof he was jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerostar93 ( talk • contribs)
I believe the opening paragraph should read "Jesus... is the central figure in Christianity. According to Christian belief/NT, considered Son of God" etc. To assert immediately that he was a preacher and so forth is problematic on two accounts: there is no outside confirmation for this data; and it also ignores that Jesus Christ comes before "Historical Jesus", the quest for whom only begun due to the former. The current opening mixes the religious narrative with the preciously little which is presumed (rather than known) by scholars, something along the lines of "Oh, we only have this book about him, but all the supernatural stuff is unreasonable so let's assume those did not happen but keep the core." It is injurious both to the fact that Jesus is first and foremost a Christian religious figure whose divine status should be fully covered (that's what both the believing Christian and the average reader are looking for) and to historical research. The two narratives should be clearly juxtaposited, not jumbled. AddMore-III ( talk) 02:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)