![]() | 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 130 | ← | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 |
In the article it is mentioned that virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed historically. However, I think it would be of interest for the article to clarify to what extent scholarly opinion is informed by theologians, as such scholars are likely to have bias. From reading the article, there seems to be some evidence that Jesus existed, but not enough to establish this as fact; considering that the earliest sources are dated about 30 years after his death, and have religious bias. More discussion about this, from some experts, would be highly appreciated. 90.174.221.142 ( talk) 13:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I find it odd it says this because the word BC means before Christ, so shouldn’t he have been born in 1 AD(Year of our lord)? Because if he was born in 4 bc, then does that mean he was born before he was born?
MrBeetleReed (
talk) 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock--
Jezebel's Ponyo
bons mots
22:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
People throughout history including scholars, philosophers, saints and monks have always referred to him as "Christ" as well as "Jesus Christ" from 70AD to the 21st century. The name 'Christian' originated in Antioch around 70AD which came from the Greek word "Xristianos" meaning "Christ follower" however the name was used in a derogatory sense used to mock the disciples and those who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, but in turn it became an accepted name for those those who follow Christ. In the Orthodox Church and in Eastern Christianity in general the word "Christ" has always been used even in the divine liturgies when referring to him and has always been that way from the foundation of the church to the present day 21st century. Even the religion named 'Christianity' literally contains the word "Christ" in it. So it makes perfect sense to change the article title back to "Jesus Christ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paok117 ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I want to know more what year did he die 2601:4A:8100:1FE0:84A3:711B:A4A1:3285 ( talk) 19:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered that the talk pages for this article have an index!! This is a pretty cool idea -- given the vast amount of information covered in the Talk pages, much of which I'm sure is repetitive(!), an index would be a super useful tool. However, I'm a professional indexer and...well...this isn't an index. It's more of a table of contents that just copied and linked the headings for all the talk sections. As such, it isn't nearly as useful as it might be (headings like "2d paragraph" are utterly meaningless, for example -- who knows what topic is really discussed in that section?). Does anyone know if it was autogenerated? If so, can it at least be made to ignore leading punctuation when sorting, or strip it out when generating the index so that for example section headings that are in quotes don't all end up at the beginning, but rather in their appropriate alpha location? Or can it be manually edited to improve it? Or (best of all) could I create a proper index to replace it? Failing all of that, could we at least change the name to something other than "Index" so nobody is misled into thinking it's something it isn't? Perhaps "Talk section headings list", that's more accurate. Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Decades old, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know 71.38.195.159 ( talk) 06:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead states that
... the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.
which contradicts section on "Sources" where Josephus and Tacitus are presented as conteporary sources that mention basic events, including that he "died a violent death".
The lead should say
... the only detailed records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.
that is qualify the statement with "detailed". Nxavar ( talk) 08:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A "mention" or an "anecdote" is still a "record." These terms aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore, the claim "the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels" is unequivocally false. Thankfully, nobody in their right mind takes Wikipedia seriously. 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA ( talk) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims "the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels" when in reality there are extrabiblical records of the life of Jesus. Which means Wikipedia is engaging in misinformation. Now, why would Wikipedia spread misinformation and lies about Jesus? Who and what else is Wikipedia spreading misinformation about? This is just one of many reasons why nobody in their right mind takes Wikipedia seriously. Jesus is an important figure and this article is old; yet, the Wikipedia 'editors' are unwilling or incapable of correctly publishing accurate information about Him. What does that tell the readers who are of sound mind? 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA ( talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for making an edit prematurely. May I know the reason it is written as "most Christians" and not "Christians"? From what I am aware of, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ was God the Son and was the awaited messiah, however someone who does not believe this is not exactly a Christian. Please get back to when you can, thank you! - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Most Christians believe [Jesus] is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, in a paragraph that includes a notice that indicates the specific wording of the paragraph was arrived at by consensus.
Hello. In the infobox it says Jesus is known for "inspiring Christianity", although I would suggest the wording be rephrased to "founding Christianity". I propose this change for self-explanatory reason. Please let me know your thoughts. Kind regards. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 04:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Pontius Pilate did not convict Jesus, but Jesus was crucified anyway, by a mob. Matthew 27:23-24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.121.113 ( talk) 22:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@tgeorgescu what makes you dismiss it with those terms considering how few primary sources we have on the matter? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dfasfndo Implement a comment describing the resurrection of Jesus and that he didn't die. Dfasfndo ( talk) 02:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This article appears to have several problems, not least with its handling of the perspectives of different faiths on Jesus, with other major monotheistic religions being excluded from the opening paragraph (as expounded in the discussion above). Furthermore, there is a worrying lack of exposition of less orthodox perspectives and narratives about Jesus, with all of one paragraph dedicated to non-canonical gospels, apocrypha, etc., making this a rather lopsided and poorly fleshed out preparation of the much broader scholarship that exists within the academic community with respect to Jesus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It's rather weird to see a featured article called "unbalanced", and this is one of the most watched articles on WP where a lack of balance would be noticed. The issue raised is the same as for Muhammad; that article also focuses on one religion (Islam) and little attention to how Muhammad is viewed by other religions (Bahá'í, Druzes etc.). For Jesus, the situation is a bit better as we actually have a separate article on how he is viewed in Islam. With that in mind, I don't really see much of an imbalance in this article (which, once again, has been evaluated as one of the best on Wikipedia). Jeppiz ( talk) 20:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Christianity and Islam are the world's two largest religions and share many agreements about Jesus. Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah. Christian and Muslim doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. Muslims and a minority of Christian denominations reject Trinitarianism, to varying degrees. WP:NPOV means it makes more sense to group these similarities together rather than separate the Islamic view of Jesus in the last paragraph, although that paragraph may be used to specify differences as it does now. Additionally, Christmas should probably not be explicitly labeled December 25 since Orthodox Christians celebrate it on January 7. Plumber ( talk) 09:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
In Islam, Jesus is revered as an important prophet but the Christian view of the divinity of Jesus is rejected.DeCausa ( talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
"The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view ..."Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
how do there lived Ogbaoo ( talk) 07:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section about the canonical gospels there is a few errors. It is stated that Jesus never washed his hands. No part of the new testament states that Jesus never washed his hands. There is a part about Jesus critizising ritual hand washing, "the traditions of the elders", but it never states that Jesus never washed his hands. Jesus follwed the law of the jews, he washed his hands and cleaned himself when he were contaminated and dirty. The gospel of John never claims that Mary Magdelen were the only one that visited Jesus tomb, but her name is the only that is mentioned. In John there is no claim of Jesus showing weakness, however it does not state that Jesus showed no weakness. And I can go on. If you read the bible, you'll come to a different opinion than the source.
The point of adding 4 books about the life of Jesus to the bible, is to show his life from different angles, with different focus. Some people who read this will probably claim this is "original research", but I think it is only rational to remove sources that clearly haven't read the book he is commenting on. 77.16.61.185 ( talk) 18:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the information below should not be included in information about Jesus. this wiki page is about Jesus and should only include facts about Jesus and not other religions beliefs. It is not part of factual information about Jesus.
but was neither God nor a son of God.[41][42] The Quran states that Jesus never claimed to be divine.[43] Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.[44] In contrast, Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.[45] Unstoppablem ( talk) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Yesterday, I edited this to list other major religions that venerate him as an important figure, including the quickly-successful Manichaeism and Islam, as well as Druze and Bahá'í. I was told that since there exists a consensus from two years ago, a new discussion should be started to come to a new one. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus already in place. There are a multitude of other religions which consider Jesus an important figure apart from Christianity, & they don't deserve to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Neplota ( talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.Not much here to explain. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"agree with the consensus already in place", so I would request you provide your proof of prior consensus-forming discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes the consensus that has been in place for 2 years now, and corresponds to the stable version of the article that I am defending here. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Neplota ( talk) 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You are unable to understand what I am trying to say here, and failed to counter the argument which I provided against your changes. In any Wikipedia article, if you make some change to a previously stable version, you need to convince other editors about that change, something you have failed to do here. Neplota ( talk) 12:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
And you have failed to provide evidence that we aren't already abiding by MOS:OPEN. You keep using this term as if it has some kind of meaning of its own, while failing to provide any argument in favour of the change you want to make. Neplota ( talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Asserting that Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else in that same opening paragraph is the opposite of neutral: it is a clearly biased point of view.When a figure is revered by multiple faiths, including the second largest no less, it is a fairly extreme lack of neutrality to only mention one view. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I've read through this discussion and I try really hard to assume good faith, but Iskandar323, I'm not sure if you're serious. You've misrepresented Neplota's position on MOS:OPEN (No, Neplota never said they disagree with it) and you have misrepresented what the opening paragraph says (No, it doesn't say "Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else"). Jeppiz ( talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Using the term "was" instead of "is" for Jesus. Please change. God bless. 2A00:23C7:7E91:9B01:C05D:B477:A8C6:317B ( talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has the suggested birth date of Jesus and the suggested death date but does not include the date he resurrected. There should be an added line beneath the death date that states his resurrection in the same suggested years. Primary sources for this our the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and the rest of the New Testament, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus F. history of the Jews. Thank you 32.215.42.37 ( talk) 21:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
21:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Just a suggestion here; should this section be renamed to simply "Name", as it matches other articles and its current wording seems a bit clunky/awkward. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the first sentence should be " Christians believe he is the Son of God the Father and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." WalkingRadiance ( talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@ DeCausa can you explain how's the edit incorrect? Neplota ( talk) 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I have restored the article to the version that other editors including DeCausa agreed. What you said above is different: that I didn't object. I didn't object because i wasn't involved in that point - i didn't need to be because the consensus is clear. But "DeCausa agreed" is just a straightforward lie. Also "I finally accepted their claim" and then changed it anyway. The consesnsus was not to change the current text. So what you did was to do it with a misleading edit summary in the hopes no one would notice. But they did. What is "sentence" supposed to mean as an edit summary? Oh I know: "I want to get my edit passed consensus so I'll use a bland and meaningless edit summary rather than saying what I'm actually doing because no one will check that". You've been up to these tricks in multiple articles, not just here. Unfortunately, Neplota, nothing you say can be relied on or believed, which is why there's an ANI thread about you already even though you've only had a few hundred edits. Are you going to explain yourself there or are you going to continue to hide from it? DeCausa ( talk) 08:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss this edit here rather than edit war. Please read WP:BRD. DeCausa ( talk) 22:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change to fiction or cite reliable source(s). Parents are listed as Mary and Joseph. Not God- contradicting the fictional virgin birth story. 75.188.142.162 ( talk) 17:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done-explained by others above.
Bettering the Wiki (
talk)
02:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This description is misleading. Jesus was born a Jew. Jesus was preacher and a religious leader, but Jesus was not a Jewish preacher or Jewish religious leader. Jesus was rejected by Judaism and accepted by Christians. Jesus and his followers created a schism, and those who remained Jewish rejected him as a heretic. Look at section in: Historical Heresies and Modern Jewish Identity by David Biale in Jewish Social Studies: "We begin with Jesus, the most famous of Jewish heretics, whose heresy points not to secularism but to the foundation of a competing religion".---Lilach5 ( לילך5) discuss 04:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
... a first-century religious leader and preacher of Hebrew scripture.Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The current text of religious (unspecified) leader + preacher is better.isn't what it says either. But in any case, even if he led only 12 Jews it doesn't preclude "Jewish religious leader". But I think this is a red herring. DeCausa ( talk) 14:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The straight dope from List of messiah claimants: Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BC – 30/33 AD), leader of a "marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult" [1] [2] [3] [4] tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
References
marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult
When asked Siri who was the founder of the Catholic Church??? Siri answered Jesus Christ which is correct, but failed when mentioned that Jesus Christ was born in Nazareth. Jesus Christ was not born in Nazareth, he was born in Bethlehem, The city of David. Him and his Mother and St Joseph returned to Judea to he town of Nazareth when King Herod died. They remained in Nazareth. 122.57.70.147 ( talk) 01:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
In the section on the canonical gospels, there is a list comparing the synoptic gospels with John, and the following description is given: "Jesus is not said to not wash his hands.". This is cited to a book by Witherington, to which I don't have access. Anyway, is the (awkward) sentence "Jesus is not said to not wash his hands." correct? Mrs. January ( talk) 22:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Should the opening paragraph in the lead summary outline the religious significance of Jesus to world religions other than Christianity, and how should it go about this? Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.At the moment, after the purely biographical detail, the first paragraph mentions only the Christian point of view. This is not neutral or balanced. It mentions neither the views of the religious community from which he came (Judaism) [5], the views of the world's second largest religion (Islam) [6], or his significant as a figure in various other world religions, e.g. Baháʼí, etc. Even considering due weight, and the fact that Jesus is the central figure to Christianity in a way that can not be said of other faiths, the opening paragraph should still outline, at the bare minimum, that the relevance of Jesus extends beyond the bounds of Christianity, rather than leaving the subject entirely untouched as the first paragraph currently does. This issue has been raised several times before, e.g. here and here, but without the coalescence of any clear consensus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
outline the religious significance of Jesus.... I think "outlining" sounds to me more than what I was suggesting or what your edit was doing (which looks ok to me except I'm not sure about "numerous"). Semantics perhaps. DeCausa ( talk) 08:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
"purely neutral"? Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this discussion should be closed soon, as currently five people say yes, one is neutral and fifteen say no, which is a large difference in numbers; this should be, if not is, enough for a consensus. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 23:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:SOCKSTRIKE edits by User:Neplota should be reviewed...
Council of Nicea Tedw2 ( talk) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Since there is no record of Jesus expressing preferred pronouns, some sort of neutral term should be found. 76.65.24.235 ( talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Geezus and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Geezus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
TNstingray (
talk)
22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Jesus as Jew and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Jesus as Jew until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In the Jewish Perspective section of this article on Jesus, the most vital and important points regarding Judaism's perspective of Jesus should be added in this article, and they are: Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry, [1] [2] and rejects the claims that Jesus was divine, an intermediary to God, or part of a Trinity. [3] [1] [4] [5]. Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. [6] [note 1] Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, [7] which regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. [8] The belief that Jesus is God, the Son of God, or a person of the Trinity, is incompatible with Jewish theology. Therefore, consideration of Jesus as deity is not an issue in traditional Jewish thought. Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy. Belief in the Trinity is also held to be incompatible with Judaism, as are a number of other tenets of Christianity. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. [9] According to Judaism, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."
Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God. The Jerusalem Talmud states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." [10] Thank you to all fellow Wikipedians 108.30.240.77 ( talk) 07:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
References
References
That means a Jesus of Nazareth constructed using the same kinds of historical tools as historians would use to construct the historical George Washington, the historical Socrates, the historical Plato, the historical Abraham Lincoln. That's a construction though. Those theoretical points are very important because when I talk about the historical Jesus you cannot think, like most popular people think, that what I'm talking about is the real Jesus, the Jesus as he really was, or certainly not the Jesus of Christian faith.
Hello,
I have noticed that there is a recent change to this page making the “He” in the second sentence of the main summary of Jesus link to an obscure article talking about the gender of God in Christianity.
I think this change needs to be undone.
First of all, the gender of God in Christianity in 99.9% of Christian discussion is not up for debate or an issue of confusion. To put this right in the second sentence of the MAIN summary about Jesus is ridiculous, and quite honestly, offensive.
Secondly, the article it links to isn’t even well done and was clearly written by someone biased in favor of questioning God’s gender, which once again, is a very very small minority view.
And to have this gender-ideology ridiculousness be pushed into the very first sentences on the summary of Jesus Christ is horrifically disrespectful to Him and to followers of Christianity.
If you want to put gender related, post-modern, 1,234 gender Marxist ideology discussion somewhere wayyyyy down on the bottom of the page, then go for it I guess…
But right in the MAIN. summary of Christ? Seriously?
Change this. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:3DCA:8308:F6A4:A7CC ( talk) 10:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Dumuzid I find your reasons for the reversion to be lacking. You state that "we don't have any record of the letters dating to that time": firstly your personal standards of history don't matter here, all that matters is what reliable, scholarly sources state. But that said, this is silly and sets an impossible standard; if we did have such a record then by that logic we'd need another record of that record, and another record of that record, etc. infinitely. You also say "many modern scholars consider them pseudepigrapha" which A) Weasel words and B)These letters aren't discussed much in the literature but I actually haven't found anyone definitively denouncing them as false and indeed the reception I find them getting, such as in the journal article I cited from the Journal of Syriac Studies, is that they are authentic or at least have an authentic core. I highly, highly encourage you to read the article as it makes quite a reasonable case here: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2014-160112/pdf. There's really nothing in them that isn't in other sources like Mara Bar-Serapion. The most interesting thing about them really is their date. AlphabeticThing9 ( talk) 23:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
These letters aren't discussed much in the literature—that's exactly the problem. Jesus attested in 35-36 AD is a huge claim, so the lack of discussion is telling. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic(emphasis added). While I think you have given us a reliable source, I think you would agree that the field of (for lack of a better term) the "Historical Jesus" is a vast one. So, though your source is good, it and its claims do not seem to have caused much of a ripple in the field. For that reason, I would say it is not a significant view (though I am prepared to accept evidence to the contrary). Moreover, while Ilaria Ramelli is a fine scholar and perfectly usable as a source, inserting a claim that seemingly only she makes without attribution or qualification strikes me as not proportionate to the views of the field. That is all to say that authoritatively stating that the Abgar letters (which themselves are only know through Eusebius, born more than two centuries after the fact) represent the earliest evidence of Jesus is not supportable by me at this time. It is clear that tgeorgescu agrees with me, so for the moment, I would say that is the consensus view, but you are more than welcome to try to persuade us or others to your stance. After all that, Happy Friday! Dumuzid ( talk) 13:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Jesus is not dead. Where is His resurrection date? 32.215.42.37 ( talk) 21:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be appropriate to change the birthdate, approximately to the deathdate, i.e AD 1-3, like AD 30-33, and the modern description of "Jew", as in contemporary Jewish people, which had not yet developed into the same people group of today, to "Judean", i.e relating to Judea 2A01:C22:90C7:6F00:A1EE:993D:6C91:A259 ( talk) 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. Please additionally ensure that you provide
reliable sources for your proposal.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to add more bible stories to page about jesus Jessie H Christian ( talk) 17:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Not just preacher and prophet but was a carpenter for nearly all of his life but the last 3-4 roughly. 47.5.27.207 ( talk) 09:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus wasn't born in 4BC he was born in 0. BC literally stands for Before Christ. How can there be 3 years Before Christ if he was born in 4BC. There is no logical sense in this. 81.108.218.116 ( talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Eashoa and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Eashoa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Merciful Jesus and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Merciful Jesus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The date of birth is listed as 4BC which is confusing as BC denotes Before Christ. How was Christ born 4 years Before Christ?
It seems the appropriate term to use would be the more modern, and scientifically accepted term, BCE, or Before Common Era.
I understand this is a religious topic and as such, the term BC would be more apropos. But there still remains the question of how Christ was born 4 years Before Christ. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:8853:6A04:333:B1FE ( talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I only saw after editing that we are supposed to discuss changes to the lede. In the previous version of the lede, the mention of oral transmission looked a little out of place, slotted between various details of Jesus in his lifetime. Since the oral transmission largely took place after Jesus' lifetime, I have moved it down to after his death, and mentioned how the oral transmission is connected to the written scriptures. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. Anywikiuser ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello all and Happy Holidays to those who celebrate-- Riopex recently made some changes and contributions to the Jesus in other religions section, which was reverted, then Riopex reverted, and I in turn reverted once more. Somewhat unusually, I think I actually support the changes! But given the nature of this article, I thought it best that we do some canvassing here before going live, so to speak. I would, therefore, invite Riopex to make his case, and anyone else to give their thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Jesus is also revered in other religions. In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement, but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive. He is also considered a prophet and the messiah in the Baha'i faith, Druze faith, and Mandaeism. In contrast, Judaism...
They revere Jesus as a messiah and a prophet, but not a god. He is regarded as an angel who will return to Earth, said Anis Zahrun, a physician who serves on the central council.
“Christ will remain 500 years,” he said. “Then comes the end of the world.”
John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, is the Mandaeans’ primary prophet." [1] Riopex ( talk) 16:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
References
I have mentioned the views of Baha'i faith and Mandaeism regarding Jesus in the lead paragraph in addition to the already eloborated Islamic and Jewish views. Riopex ( talk) 09:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I will make sure that no in-use references are removed in my for changes to prevent any disruption. Riopex ( talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Isnt jesus real name Emmanuel 50.72.185.22 ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Jesus is a religious, cultural, worldwide icon, and is among the most influential people in human history. (Reference here) - User:Sleetimetraveller — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 21 July 2021
Dates require updating from AD 2022 to AD 2023. 2001:8003:30AA:DE01:15D6:BF5B:E9BC:BA73 ( talk) 11:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.222.216.121 ( talk) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information about the history of Jesus Christ can be obtained from a number of sources, many of which are Biblical and which also serve as a basis for followers of Christianity to build their faith. Religious scholars have the task of interpreting Biblical teachings for followers to apply to their everyday lives. However, historians are also interested in more objective sources that give information about the existence and life of Jesus Christ in a non-Biblical context.
When looking for facts about the history of the life of Jesus Christ, the idea of multiple attestation is important. Multiple attestation means that a Biblical passage or a bit of historical information about Jesus that appears in two or more sources which are independent from one another is likely to be authentic. So, if, for example, a Biblical passage claims that Jesus enabled a blind man to see, and the same incident is documented elsewhere by a non-Biblical figure in Roman history, then the incident is more likely to be true. 50.205.154.101 ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
23.226.166.177 ( talk) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)this page is devil propaganda and this is not real for his name was given to him not earned so once again this is devil propaganda
User Mattdaviesfsic reverted my deletion of a sentence from Louise B. Perrotta's book Saint Joseph: His Life and His Role in the Church Today, with the question that he could not see how she was not a reliable source. My understanding of sourcing for articles like this is that we should use recognised scholars, and Perrotta is not a scholar - she seems to be the author of numerous devotional books. The question of whether she's right or wrong doesn't arise, but you'll certainly find many scholarly sources saying the same thing. It's those that should be used as sources. Achar Sva ( talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Although Joseph appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood, no mention is made of him thereafter.which is certainly true, as regards the gospel narratives. I would suggest it might not need a citation at all, but someone will probably disagree. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This page is one of the most viewed in the world, why isn’t it protected? MayoForSam2023 ( talk) 20:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I see for the prophet Muhammad that the page is fully protected so I do not understand why this page isn’t aswell. MayoForSam2023 ( talk) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
So why does the prophet Muhammad article need more protection then? Is it because the article is subject of more vandalism? MayoForSam2023 ( talk) 13:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not like to protect articles. When done, it is the minimal protection for the shortest period that is felt needed to deal with a particular situation.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
16:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | 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 130 | ← | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 |
In the article it is mentioned that virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed historically. However, I think it would be of interest for the article to clarify to what extent scholarly opinion is informed by theologians, as such scholars are likely to have bias. From reading the article, there seems to be some evidence that Jesus existed, but not enough to establish this as fact; considering that the earliest sources are dated about 30 years after his death, and have religious bias. More discussion about this, from some experts, would be highly appreciated. 90.174.221.142 ( talk) 13:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I find it odd it says this because the word BC means before Christ, so shouldn’t he have been born in 1 AD(Year of our lord)? Because if he was born in 4 bc, then does that mean he was born before he was born?
MrBeetleReed (
talk) 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock--
Jezebel's Ponyo
bons mots
22:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
People throughout history including scholars, philosophers, saints and monks have always referred to him as "Christ" as well as "Jesus Christ" from 70AD to the 21st century. The name 'Christian' originated in Antioch around 70AD which came from the Greek word "Xristianos" meaning "Christ follower" however the name was used in a derogatory sense used to mock the disciples and those who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, but in turn it became an accepted name for those those who follow Christ. In the Orthodox Church and in Eastern Christianity in general the word "Christ" has always been used even in the divine liturgies when referring to him and has always been that way from the foundation of the church to the present day 21st century. Even the religion named 'Christianity' literally contains the word "Christ" in it. So it makes perfect sense to change the article title back to "Jesus Christ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paok117 ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I want to know more what year did he die 2601:4A:8100:1FE0:84A3:711B:A4A1:3285 ( talk) 19:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered that the talk pages for this article have an index!! This is a pretty cool idea -- given the vast amount of information covered in the Talk pages, much of which I'm sure is repetitive(!), an index would be a super useful tool. However, I'm a professional indexer and...well...this isn't an index. It's more of a table of contents that just copied and linked the headings for all the talk sections. As such, it isn't nearly as useful as it might be (headings like "2d paragraph" are utterly meaningless, for example -- who knows what topic is really discussed in that section?). Does anyone know if it was autogenerated? If so, can it at least be made to ignore leading punctuation when sorting, or strip it out when generating the index so that for example section headings that are in quotes don't all end up at the beginning, but rather in their appropriate alpha location? Or can it be manually edited to improve it? Or (best of all) could I create a proper index to replace it? Failing all of that, could we at least change the name to something other than "Index" so nobody is misled into thinking it's something it isn't? Perhaps "Talk section headings list", that's more accurate. Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Decades old, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know 71.38.195.159 ( talk) 06:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead states that
... the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.
which contradicts section on "Sources" where Josephus and Tacitus are presented as conteporary sources that mention basic events, including that he "died a violent death".
The lead should say
... the only detailed records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.
that is qualify the statement with "detailed". Nxavar ( talk) 08:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A "mention" or an "anecdote" is still a "record." These terms aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore, the claim "the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels" is unequivocally false. Thankfully, nobody in their right mind takes Wikipedia seriously. 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA ( talk) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims "the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels" when in reality there are extrabiblical records of the life of Jesus. Which means Wikipedia is engaging in misinformation. Now, why would Wikipedia spread misinformation and lies about Jesus? Who and what else is Wikipedia spreading misinformation about? This is just one of many reasons why nobody in their right mind takes Wikipedia seriously. Jesus is an important figure and this article is old; yet, the Wikipedia 'editors' are unwilling or incapable of correctly publishing accurate information about Him. What does that tell the readers who are of sound mind? 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA ( talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for making an edit prematurely. May I know the reason it is written as "most Christians" and not "Christians"? From what I am aware of, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ was God the Son and was the awaited messiah, however someone who does not believe this is not exactly a Christian. Please get back to when you can, thank you! - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Most Christians believe [Jesus] is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, in a paragraph that includes a notice that indicates the specific wording of the paragraph was arrived at by consensus.
Hello. In the infobox it says Jesus is known for "inspiring Christianity", although I would suggest the wording be rephrased to "founding Christianity". I propose this change for self-explanatory reason. Please let me know your thoughts. Kind regards. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 04:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Pontius Pilate did not convict Jesus, but Jesus was crucified anyway, by a mob. Matthew 27:23-24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.121.113 ( talk) 22:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@tgeorgescu what makes you dismiss it with those terms considering how few primary sources we have on the matter? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dfasfndo Implement a comment describing the resurrection of Jesus and that he didn't die. Dfasfndo ( talk) 02:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This article appears to have several problems, not least with its handling of the perspectives of different faiths on Jesus, with other major monotheistic religions being excluded from the opening paragraph (as expounded in the discussion above). Furthermore, there is a worrying lack of exposition of less orthodox perspectives and narratives about Jesus, with all of one paragraph dedicated to non-canonical gospels, apocrypha, etc., making this a rather lopsided and poorly fleshed out preparation of the much broader scholarship that exists within the academic community with respect to Jesus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It's rather weird to see a featured article called "unbalanced", and this is one of the most watched articles on WP where a lack of balance would be noticed. The issue raised is the same as for Muhammad; that article also focuses on one religion (Islam) and little attention to how Muhammad is viewed by other religions (Bahá'í, Druzes etc.). For Jesus, the situation is a bit better as we actually have a separate article on how he is viewed in Islam. With that in mind, I don't really see much of an imbalance in this article (which, once again, has been evaluated as one of the best on Wikipedia). Jeppiz ( talk) 20:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Christianity and Islam are the world's two largest religions and share many agreements about Jesus. Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah. Christian and Muslim doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. Muslims and a minority of Christian denominations reject Trinitarianism, to varying degrees. WP:NPOV means it makes more sense to group these similarities together rather than separate the Islamic view of Jesus in the last paragraph, although that paragraph may be used to specify differences as it does now. Additionally, Christmas should probably not be explicitly labeled December 25 since Orthodox Christians celebrate it on January 7. Plumber ( talk) 09:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
In Islam, Jesus is revered as an important prophet but the Christian view of the divinity of Jesus is rejected.DeCausa ( talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
"The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view ..."Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
how do there lived Ogbaoo ( talk) 07:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In the section about the canonical gospels there is a few errors. It is stated that Jesus never washed his hands. No part of the new testament states that Jesus never washed his hands. There is a part about Jesus critizising ritual hand washing, "the traditions of the elders", but it never states that Jesus never washed his hands. Jesus follwed the law of the jews, he washed his hands and cleaned himself when he were contaminated and dirty. The gospel of John never claims that Mary Magdelen were the only one that visited Jesus tomb, but her name is the only that is mentioned. In John there is no claim of Jesus showing weakness, however it does not state that Jesus showed no weakness. And I can go on. If you read the bible, you'll come to a different opinion than the source.
The point of adding 4 books about the life of Jesus to the bible, is to show his life from different angles, with different focus. Some people who read this will probably claim this is "original research", but I think it is only rational to remove sources that clearly haven't read the book he is commenting on. 77.16.61.185 ( talk) 18:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the information below should not be included in information about Jesus. this wiki page is about Jesus and should only include facts about Jesus and not other religions beliefs. It is not part of factual information about Jesus.
but was neither God nor a son of God.[41][42] The Quran states that Jesus never claimed to be divine.[43] Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.[44] In contrast, Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.[45] Unstoppablem ( talk) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Yesterday, I edited this to list other major religions that venerate him as an important figure, including the quickly-successful Manichaeism and Islam, as well as Druze and Bahá'í. I was told that since there exists a consensus from two years ago, a new discussion should be started to come to a new one. GOLDIEM J ( talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus already in place. There are a multitude of other religions which consider Jesus an important figure apart from Christianity, & they don't deserve to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Neplota ( talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.Not much here to explain. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"agree with the consensus already in place", so I would request you provide your proof of prior consensus-forming discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes the consensus that has been in place for 2 years now, and corresponds to the stable version of the article that I am defending here. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Neplota ( talk) 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You are unable to understand what I am trying to say here, and failed to counter the argument which I provided against your changes. In any Wikipedia article, if you make some change to a previously stable version, you need to convince other editors about that change, something you have failed to do here. Neplota ( talk) 12:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
And you have failed to provide evidence that we aren't already abiding by MOS:OPEN. You keep using this term as if it has some kind of meaning of its own, while failing to provide any argument in favour of the change you want to make. Neplota ( talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Asserting that Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else in that same opening paragraph is the opposite of neutral: it is a clearly biased point of view.When a figure is revered by multiple faiths, including the second largest no less, it is a fairly extreme lack of neutrality to only mention one view. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I've read through this discussion and I try really hard to assume good faith, but Iskandar323, I'm not sure if you're serious. You've misrepresented Neplota's position on MOS:OPEN (No, Neplota never said they disagree with it) and you have misrepresented what the opening paragraph says (No, it doesn't say "Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else"). Jeppiz ( talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Using the term "was" instead of "is" for Jesus. Please change. God bless. 2A00:23C7:7E91:9B01:C05D:B477:A8C6:317B ( talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has the suggested birth date of Jesus and the suggested death date but does not include the date he resurrected. There should be an added line beneath the death date that states his resurrection in the same suggested years. Primary sources for this our the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and the rest of the New Testament, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus F. history of the Jews. Thank you 32.215.42.37 ( talk) 21:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
21:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Just a suggestion here; should this section be renamed to simply "Name", as it matches other articles and its current wording seems a bit clunky/awkward. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the first sentence should be " Christians believe he is the Son of God the Father and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." WalkingRadiance ( talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@ DeCausa can you explain how's the edit incorrect? Neplota ( talk) 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I have restored the article to the version that other editors including DeCausa agreed. What you said above is different: that I didn't object. I didn't object because i wasn't involved in that point - i didn't need to be because the consensus is clear. But "DeCausa agreed" is just a straightforward lie. Also "I finally accepted their claim" and then changed it anyway. The consesnsus was not to change the current text. So what you did was to do it with a misleading edit summary in the hopes no one would notice. But they did. What is "sentence" supposed to mean as an edit summary? Oh I know: "I want to get my edit passed consensus so I'll use a bland and meaningless edit summary rather than saying what I'm actually doing because no one will check that". You've been up to these tricks in multiple articles, not just here. Unfortunately, Neplota, nothing you say can be relied on or believed, which is why there's an ANI thread about you already even though you've only had a few hundred edits. Are you going to explain yourself there or are you going to continue to hide from it? DeCausa ( talk) 08:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss this edit here rather than edit war. Please read WP:BRD. DeCausa ( talk) 22:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change to fiction or cite reliable source(s). Parents are listed as Mary and Joseph. Not God- contradicting the fictional virgin birth story. 75.188.142.162 ( talk) 17:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done-explained by others above.
Bettering the Wiki (
talk)
02:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This description is misleading. Jesus was born a Jew. Jesus was preacher and a religious leader, but Jesus was not a Jewish preacher or Jewish religious leader. Jesus was rejected by Judaism and accepted by Christians. Jesus and his followers created a schism, and those who remained Jewish rejected him as a heretic. Look at section in: Historical Heresies and Modern Jewish Identity by David Biale in Jewish Social Studies: "We begin with Jesus, the most famous of Jewish heretics, whose heresy points not to secularism but to the foundation of a competing religion".---Lilach5 ( לילך5) discuss 04:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
... a first-century religious leader and preacher of Hebrew scripture.Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The current text of religious (unspecified) leader + preacher is better.isn't what it says either. But in any case, even if he led only 12 Jews it doesn't preclude "Jewish religious leader". But I think this is a red herring. DeCausa ( talk) 14:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The straight dope from List of messiah claimants: Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BC – 30/33 AD), leader of a "marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult" [1] [2] [3] [4] tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
References
marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult
When asked Siri who was the founder of the Catholic Church??? Siri answered Jesus Christ which is correct, but failed when mentioned that Jesus Christ was born in Nazareth. Jesus Christ was not born in Nazareth, he was born in Bethlehem, The city of David. Him and his Mother and St Joseph returned to Judea to he town of Nazareth when King Herod died. They remained in Nazareth. 122.57.70.147 ( talk) 01:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
In the section on the canonical gospels, there is a list comparing the synoptic gospels with John, and the following description is given: "Jesus is not said to not wash his hands.". This is cited to a book by Witherington, to which I don't have access. Anyway, is the (awkward) sentence "Jesus is not said to not wash his hands." correct? Mrs. January ( talk) 22:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Should the opening paragraph in the lead summary outline the religious significance of Jesus to world religions other than Christianity, and how should it go about this? Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.At the moment, after the purely biographical detail, the first paragraph mentions only the Christian point of view. This is not neutral or balanced. It mentions neither the views of the religious community from which he came (Judaism) [5], the views of the world's second largest religion (Islam) [6], or his significant as a figure in various other world religions, e.g. Baháʼí, etc. Even considering due weight, and the fact that Jesus is the central figure to Christianity in a way that can not be said of other faiths, the opening paragraph should still outline, at the bare minimum, that the relevance of Jesus extends beyond the bounds of Christianity, rather than leaving the subject entirely untouched as the first paragraph currently does. This issue has been raised several times before, e.g. here and here, but without the coalescence of any clear consensus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
outline the religious significance of Jesus.... I think "outlining" sounds to me more than what I was suggesting or what your edit was doing (which looks ok to me except I'm not sure about "numerous"). Semantics perhaps. DeCausa ( talk) 08:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
"purely neutral"? Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe this discussion should be closed soon, as currently five people say yes, one is neutral and fifteen say no, which is a large difference in numbers; this should be, if not is, enough for a consensus. - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 23:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:SOCKSTRIKE edits by User:Neplota should be reviewed...
Council of Nicea Tedw2 ( talk) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Since there is no record of Jesus expressing preferred pronouns, some sort of neutral term should be found. 76.65.24.235 ( talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Geezus and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Geezus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
TNstingray (
talk)
22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Jesus as Jew and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Jesus as Jew until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Tartar
Torte
15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In the Jewish Perspective section of this article on Jesus, the most vital and important points regarding Judaism's perspective of Jesus should be added in this article, and they are: Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry, [1] [2] and rejects the claims that Jesus was divine, an intermediary to God, or part of a Trinity. [3] [1] [4] [5]. Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. [6] [note 1] Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, [7] which regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. [8] The belief that Jesus is God, the Son of God, or a person of the Trinity, is incompatible with Jewish theology. Therefore, consideration of Jesus as deity is not an issue in traditional Jewish thought. Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy. Belief in the Trinity is also held to be incompatible with Judaism, as are a number of other tenets of Christianity. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. [9] According to Judaism, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."
Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God. The Jerusalem Talmud states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." [10] Thank you to all fellow Wikipedians 108.30.240.77 ( talk) 07:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
References
References
That means a Jesus of Nazareth constructed using the same kinds of historical tools as historians would use to construct the historical George Washington, the historical Socrates, the historical Plato, the historical Abraham Lincoln. That's a construction though. Those theoretical points are very important because when I talk about the historical Jesus you cannot think, like most popular people think, that what I'm talking about is the real Jesus, the Jesus as he really was, or certainly not the Jesus of Christian faith.
Hello,
I have noticed that there is a recent change to this page making the “He” in the second sentence of the main summary of Jesus link to an obscure article talking about the gender of God in Christianity.
I think this change needs to be undone.
First of all, the gender of God in Christianity in 99.9% of Christian discussion is not up for debate or an issue of confusion. To put this right in the second sentence of the MAIN summary about Jesus is ridiculous, and quite honestly, offensive.
Secondly, the article it links to isn’t even well done and was clearly written by someone biased in favor of questioning God’s gender, which once again, is a very very small minority view.
And to have this gender-ideology ridiculousness be pushed into the very first sentences on the summary of Jesus Christ is horrifically disrespectful to Him and to followers of Christianity.
If you want to put gender related, post-modern, 1,234 gender Marxist ideology discussion somewhere wayyyyy down on the bottom of the page, then go for it I guess…
But right in the MAIN. summary of Christ? Seriously?
Change this. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:3DCA:8308:F6A4:A7CC ( talk) 10:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Dumuzid I find your reasons for the reversion to be lacking. You state that "we don't have any record of the letters dating to that time": firstly your personal standards of history don't matter here, all that matters is what reliable, scholarly sources state. But that said, this is silly and sets an impossible standard; if we did have such a record then by that logic we'd need another record of that record, and another record of that record, etc. infinitely. You also say "many modern scholars consider them pseudepigrapha" which A) Weasel words and B)These letters aren't discussed much in the literature but I actually haven't found anyone definitively denouncing them as false and indeed the reception I find them getting, such as in the journal article I cited from the Journal of Syriac Studies, is that they are authentic or at least have an authentic core. I highly, highly encourage you to read the article as it makes quite a reasonable case here: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2014-160112/pdf. There's really nothing in them that isn't in other sources like Mara Bar-Serapion. The most interesting thing about them really is their date. AlphabeticThing9 ( talk) 23:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
These letters aren't discussed much in the literature—that's exactly the problem. Jesus attested in 35-36 AD is a huge claim, so the lack of discussion is telling. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic(emphasis added). While I think you have given us a reliable source, I think you would agree that the field of (for lack of a better term) the "Historical Jesus" is a vast one. So, though your source is good, it and its claims do not seem to have caused much of a ripple in the field. For that reason, I would say it is not a significant view (though I am prepared to accept evidence to the contrary). Moreover, while Ilaria Ramelli is a fine scholar and perfectly usable as a source, inserting a claim that seemingly only she makes without attribution or qualification strikes me as not proportionate to the views of the field. That is all to say that authoritatively stating that the Abgar letters (which themselves are only know through Eusebius, born more than two centuries after the fact) represent the earliest evidence of Jesus is not supportable by me at this time. It is clear that tgeorgescu agrees with me, so for the moment, I would say that is the consensus view, but you are more than welcome to try to persuade us or others to your stance. After all that, Happy Friday! Dumuzid ( talk) 13:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Jesus is not dead. Where is His resurrection date? 32.215.42.37 ( talk) 21:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be appropriate to change the birthdate, approximately to the deathdate, i.e AD 1-3, like AD 30-33, and the modern description of "Jew", as in contemporary Jewish people, which had not yet developed into the same people group of today, to "Judean", i.e relating to Judea 2A01:C22:90C7:6F00:A1EE:993D:6C91:A259 ( talk) 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. Please additionally ensure that you provide
reliable sources for your proposal.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to add more bible stories to page about jesus Jessie H Christian ( talk) 17:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Not just preacher and prophet but was a carpenter for nearly all of his life but the last 3-4 roughly. 47.5.27.207 ( talk) 09:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus wasn't born in 4BC he was born in 0. BC literally stands for Before Christ. How can there be 3 years Before Christ if he was born in 4BC. There is no logical sense in this. 81.108.218.116 ( talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Eashoa and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Eashoa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Merciful Jesus and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Merciful Jesus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The date of birth is listed as 4BC which is confusing as BC denotes Before Christ. How was Christ born 4 years Before Christ?
It seems the appropriate term to use would be the more modern, and scientifically accepted term, BCE, or Before Common Era.
I understand this is a religious topic and as such, the term BC would be more apropos. But there still remains the question of how Christ was born 4 years Before Christ. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:8853:6A04:333:B1FE ( talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I only saw after editing that we are supposed to discuss changes to the lede. In the previous version of the lede, the mention of oral transmission looked a little out of place, slotted between various details of Jesus in his lifetime. Since the oral transmission largely took place after Jesus' lifetime, I have moved it down to after his death, and mentioned how the oral transmission is connected to the written scriptures. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. Anywikiuser ( talk) 22:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello all and Happy Holidays to those who celebrate-- Riopex recently made some changes and contributions to the Jesus in other religions section, which was reverted, then Riopex reverted, and I in turn reverted once more. Somewhat unusually, I think I actually support the changes! But given the nature of this article, I thought it best that we do some canvassing here before going live, so to speak. I would, therefore, invite Riopex to make his case, and anyone else to give their thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Jesus is also revered in other religions. In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement, but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive. He is also considered a prophet and the messiah in the Baha'i faith, Druze faith, and Mandaeism. In contrast, Judaism...
They revere Jesus as a messiah and a prophet, but not a god. He is regarded as an angel who will return to Earth, said Anis Zahrun, a physician who serves on the central council.
“Christ will remain 500 years,” he said. “Then comes the end of the world.”
John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, is the Mandaeans’ primary prophet." [1] Riopex ( talk) 16:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
References
I have mentioned the views of Baha'i faith and Mandaeism regarding Jesus in the lead paragraph in addition to the already eloborated Islamic and Jewish views. Riopex ( talk) 09:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I will make sure that no in-use references are removed in my for changes to prevent any disruption. Riopex ( talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Isnt jesus real name Emmanuel 50.72.185.22 ( talk) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
References
Jesus is a religious, cultural, worldwide icon, and is among the most influential people in human history. (Reference here) - User:Sleetimetraveller — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 21 July 2021
Dates require updating from AD 2022 to AD 2023. 2001:8003:30AA:DE01:15D6:BF5B:E9BC:BA73 ( talk) 11:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.222.216.121 ( talk) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Information about the history of Jesus Christ can be obtained from a number of sources, many of which are Biblical and which also serve as a basis for followers of Christianity to build their faith. Religious scholars have the task of interpreting Biblical teachings for followers to apply to their everyday lives. However, historians are also interested in more objective sources that give information about the existence and life of Jesus Christ in a non-Biblical context.
When looking for facts about the history of the life of Jesus Christ, the idea of multiple attestation is important. Multiple attestation means that a Biblical passage or a bit of historical information about Jesus that appears in two or more sources which are independent from one another is likely to be authentic. So, if, for example, a Biblical passage claims that Jesus enabled a blind man to see, and the same incident is documented elsewhere by a non-Biblical figure in Roman history, then the incident is more likely to be true. 50.205.154.101 ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
23.226.166.177 ( talk) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)this page is devil propaganda and this is not real for his name was given to him not earned so once again this is devil propaganda
User Mattdaviesfsic reverted my deletion of a sentence from Louise B. Perrotta's book Saint Joseph: His Life and His Role in the Church Today, with the question that he could not see how she was not a reliable source. My understanding of sourcing for articles like this is that we should use recognised scholars, and Perrotta is not a scholar - she seems to be the author of numerous devotional books. The question of whether she's right or wrong doesn't arise, but you'll certainly find many scholarly sources saying the same thing. It's those that should be used as sources. Achar Sva ( talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Although Joseph appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood, no mention is made of him thereafter.which is certainly true, as regards the gospel narratives. I would suggest it might not need a citation at all, but someone will probably disagree. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This page is one of the most viewed in the world, why isn’t it protected? MayoForSam2023 ( talk) 20:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I see for the prophet Muhammad that the page is fully protected so I do not understand why this page isn’t aswell. MayoForSam2023 ( talk) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
So why does the prophet Muhammad article need more protection then? Is it because the article is subject of more vandalism? MayoForSam2023 ( talk) 13:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not like to protect articles. When done, it is the minimal protection for the shortest period that is felt needed to deal with a particular situation.
O3000, Ret. (
talk)
16:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).