![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The bulk of this article's materials seems to be a list of sources claiming Jesus either was or wasn't mentally fit, but not a lot of details into the argument. Is that something we can expand upon? What evidence or clues are these sources using? For example, Binet-Sangle is quoted as saying "the nature of the hallucinations..." leads him to the conclusion of mental affliction, but what nature is he talking about? Obviously anyone who doesn't believe in divine revelation can call it a hallucination, but I assume they offer more evidence than that. 2600:8800:23A5:5D00:6837:1C32:8B39:603 ( talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ MaxwellWinnie102: It is simply unknown how the twelve apostles died. See Talk:Apostles in the New Testament#Unexplained deletion. So neither claim is right: neither "they were martyred", nor "they weren't martyred". We simply don't know what happened to them. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah I did not know that. MaxwellWinnie102 ( talk) 15:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
But still it shouldn’t say it like it’s a fact. MaxwellWinnie102 ( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the people cited in this article belonged to psychiatry before it had matured (and it still has a lot of room for growth. However, back in the early 1900s, we were closer to lobotomizing people than we were to treating them). It'd be like an article on alchemy discussing it solely through quotes of alchemists in the 1600s without the judgment of modern science. Perhaps, the title should be "The Historical Investigation of Jesus' Sanity" with pop culture being a separate section rather than laymen books being treated as serious philosophical or scientific works. Then, there could be an article on his sanity that is reserved for authoritative, modern analysis. Alternatively, the sections could be branded: Early Conjecture, Pop Culture, and Modern Analysis. To be clear, both sections suffer similar problems other than the study at Harvard, but I do suggest, given how this article is, that someone with knowledge of psychiatry read it for everyone's sake.
To understand what I'm talking about better, one linked author couldn't be found through a Google search. One was quoted from his blog. The last to mention was labeled a "lay theologian". Many of the people just mentioned have little authority on this topic unlike how the article reads now ("Mental Health of Jesus"). We're talking about outdated conjecture from before the DSM 4 or 5 had been created. A different title like "The Historical views about Jesus' sanity" could improve things. One article would be about the historical jabs and parries while the other is about the actual best guess of Jesus' mental status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.212.102 ( talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, to whomever has moderation authority over entire articles,
The very nature of this page is horrifically offensive and blasphemous, and it’s existence seems unusual compared to what you would see for any other religion.
I see no articles referencing the mental health of Moses, or Abraham, or Noah, or Muhammad, or Buddha. Of course, it is always Christianity that is used as the punching bag of the bitter western intellectuals.
There is absolutely no way to give a reasonable mental evaluation of a man who lived 2,000 years ago in any capacity anyways.
The only evidence cited here are verses from the New Testament, which clearly are meant to depict the priests not fully grasping the capabilities of Jesus and not understanding where his power comes from.
Besides that, Jesus displays phenomenal levels of intelligence, religious education, common sense, and speaks in powerful and easy to understand parable and metaphors throughout the Bible. Nothing he says would lead anybody to question his psychiatric state.
The only thing you could criticize would be his claim of divinity, in which case that can be applied to all and any prophets, chosen people, divine leaders, gurus, etc. And in that case an article about religious leadership itself should be established.
But here it is specifically and only against Jesus Christ in an obvious backhanded, passive aggressive attack on Christianity specifically.
Would recommend removal of the page. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:468:17BB:DABB:AF2E ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipek ( talk) 09:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)In advance, he explained to his followers the necessity of his death as prelude for his return (Matthew 16:21–28; Mark 8:31; John 16:16–28). If this occurred in the manner described, then Jesus appears to have deliberately placed himself in circumstances wherein he anticipated his execution.
The recently published book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” by Igor Chernyavskiy makes a definite statement about the mental health of Jesus. Based strongly on available information from the New Testament and using modern medical terms and science the book is making a case of Jesus being a neurological patient manifesting multiple symptoms of serious neurological conditions. In the New Testament Jesus is recorded as having dyscalculia (most prominent is parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20)). Jesus most obviously recorded as having Multiple Personality disorder (MPD) presenting himself as God, Son of God, Biblical Prophet, King of Jews and Son of a Man. His choice of personalities reflects the symptom of the Delusion of Grandeur. Jesus also had a Greek personality (as non-Jew). Jesus also suffered from persecutory delusions reflected in his fears of being killed by the mob. One of the manifestations of neurological illness in Jesus was pseudobulbar affect (crying), also called PBA. It mentioned in the Gospels, but most prominently highlighted in the Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Jesus also suffered from the propensity to throw neurological tantrums, and one of them, triggered by the combination of dyscalculia (he needed to exchange money) and multiple personality disorder is known as cleansing of the temple. Jesus in the New Testament is also shown playing “Neurological Games.” Many manifestations of the illness are in the Gospel of John, as eyewitnesses died out and the new generation of writers did not understand that they are looking into the records of mental illness withheld for valid reasons from the Gospel discourse by the previous writers. From the information available in the Gospels the onset of the neurological conditions of Jesus was caused by severe head trauma. In the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” there light shed onto the abuse of Jesus as a vulnerable adult while he was alive, and distortions of records after his death. Both factors were tremendously detrimental for proper posthumous diagnosis of Jesus. First correct diagnosis of Jesus was performed by comparing his illness history to the living patients with similar conditions in the middle of 15th century in the course of what is named in the book as the Verrocchio/Da Vinci project. Findings of the project encoded in multiple works of art on public display. The similar methods were independently used in modern times and documented in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” Gchernya ( talk) 00:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Enough. The talkpage is not a WP:FORUM to promote WP:CRACKPOTtery. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Wikipek: Regarding your revert, read MOS:SAID:
Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...
On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said.
50.221.225.231 ( talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
It is written in the gospels that "Jesus' family, followers, and contemporaries seriously considered him delusional, demonically possessed, or mad.See also WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. You'll need to quote reliable scholarly sources (not your own interpretation) for your claim. 50.221.225.231 ( talk) 01:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It is only quoted in full on the blog.Then cite the article itself and forget about the "SF Atheists" blog. The blog cannot be used as a reference. A random blog is not a reliable source, per WP:BLOGS and WP:SELFPUBLISH.
his comments regarding the English translation.Again, this random atheist activist "Gene Kasmar" is not a reliable source for anything, and therefore cannot be used as a reference. Read WP:RELIABLE. Find an alternative reference.
KryvelevYou are using the Kryvelev reference in WP:WIKIVOICE to espouse an opinion he explicitly argues against. So no, that reference cannot be used in the way you currently want to use it. You must clearly state that this is merely a claim Meslier made, and that Kryvelev argues against it. That's what I did, before you reverted it.
read my closing commentsI have. They're incorrect.
This is an article only about the opinions of various people for and against the sanity of Jesus.And the sentences immediately following each quote you cherry-picked are relevant to that. It appears you're trying to engage in quote mining. That's why it's important to state what reliable sources say, not your own interpretation of WP:PRIMARY source material.
The article has been systematically createdYou do not WP:OWN this article, not any article on Wikipeida, so don't act like you do.
your demand for ultra-neutrality in presenting only one of two opposing opinions (inherently non-neutral, but the other is not neutral either)Huh?
This is also indicated by your theological attempt to defend JesusThis comment suggests you have a WP:AGENDA and are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. By that logic, your comments indicate you have an agenda against the subject of the article. Is that correct? Read WP:NOTHERE.
(expansion of the quote about Mark 3:23) in a section that does not address this.The quote is about demonic possession, so obviously the sentence immediately after has relevance to the perception of people on this matter.
going in one direction (not neutral)See WP:POTKETTLE.
This is the "San Francisco Atheists" blogAgain, a random atheist blog on blogspot.com is not a reliable source for anything, including what other sources say. Forget about the blog, and cite the source itself.
You quote in the main text the psychiatric opinions of a man who was not a psychiatrist (Kryvelev)Neither is Meslier, whom you're trying to use in WP:WIKIVOICE. Furthermore, I wasn't the one who added Kryvelev. You or someone else did. I merely corrected the way the article was misrepresenting him.
The footnote serves only as a source to confirmation the claims and opinions of...No. You are using it in WP:WIKIVOICE. You must clearly state in the body that these are the claims and opinions of...
My agenda [is] to present as many outside people's opinions about Jesus' mental health (for and against) as possible.Obviously not. You deliberately cut out the very next verse, which opposes the view you're trying to push:
Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The bulk of this article's materials seems to be a list of sources claiming Jesus either was or wasn't mentally fit, but not a lot of details into the argument. Is that something we can expand upon? What evidence or clues are these sources using? For example, Binet-Sangle is quoted as saying "the nature of the hallucinations..." leads him to the conclusion of mental affliction, but what nature is he talking about? Obviously anyone who doesn't believe in divine revelation can call it a hallucination, but I assume they offer more evidence than that. 2600:8800:23A5:5D00:6837:1C32:8B39:603 ( talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@ MaxwellWinnie102: It is simply unknown how the twelve apostles died. See Talk:Apostles in the New Testament#Unexplained deletion. So neither claim is right: neither "they were martyred", nor "they weren't martyred". We simply don't know what happened to them. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah I did not know that. MaxwellWinnie102 ( talk) 15:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
But still it shouldn’t say it like it’s a fact. MaxwellWinnie102 ( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the people cited in this article belonged to psychiatry before it had matured (and it still has a lot of room for growth. However, back in the early 1900s, we were closer to lobotomizing people than we were to treating them). It'd be like an article on alchemy discussing it solely through quotes of alchemists in the 1600s without the judgment of modern science. Perhaps, the title should be "The Historical Investigation of Jesus' Sanity" with pop culture being a separate section rather than laymen books being treated as serious philosophical or scientific works. Then, there could be an article on his sanity that is reserved for authoritative, modern analysis. Alternatively, the sections could be branded: Early Conjecture, Pop Culture, and Modern Analysis. To be clear, both sections suffer similar problems other than the study at Harvard, but I do suggest, given how this article is, that someone with knowledge of psychiatry read it for everyone's sake.
To understand what I'm talking about better, one linked author couldn't be found through a Google search. One was quoted from his blog. The last to mention was labeled a "lay theologian". Many of the people just mentioned have little authority on this topic unlike how the article reads now ("Mental Health of Jesus"). We're talking about outdated conjecture from before the DSM 4 or 5 had been created. A different title like "The Historical views about Jesus' sanity" could improve things. One article would be about the historical jabs and parries while the other is about the actual best guess of Jesus' mental status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.212.102 ( talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, to whomever has moderation authority over entire articles,
The very nature of this page is horrifically offensive and blasphemous, and it’s existence seems unusual compared to what you would see for any other religion.
I see no articles referencing the mental health of Moses, or Abraham, or Noah, or Muhammad, or Buddha. Of course, it is always Christianity that is used as the punching bag of the bitter western intellectuals.
There is absolutely no way to give a reasonable mental evaluation of a man who lived 2,000 years ago in any capacity anyways.
The only evidence cited here are verses from the New Testament, which clearly are meant to depict the priests not fully grasping the capabilities of Jesus and not understanding where his power comes from.
Besides that, Jesus displays phenomenal levels of intelligence, religious education, common sense, and speaks in powerful and easy to understand parable and metaphors throughout the Bible. Nothing he says would lead anybody to question his psychiatric state.
The only thing you could criticize would be his claim of divinity, in which case that can be applied to all and any prophets, chosen people, divine leaders, gurus, etc. And in that case an article about religious leadership itself should be established.
But here it is specifically and only against Jesus Christ in an obvious backhanded, passive aggressive attack on Christianity specifically.
Would recommend removal of the page. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:468:17BB:DABB:AF2E ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipek ( talk) 09:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)In advance, he explained to his followers the necessity of his death as prelude for his return (Matthew 16:21–28; Mark 8:31; John 16:16–28). If this occurred in the manner described, then Jesus appears to have deliberately placed himself in circumstances wherein he anticipated his execution.
The recently published book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” by Igor Chernyavskiy makes a definite statement about the mental health of Jesus. Based strongly on available information from the New Testament and using modern medical terms and science the book is making a case of Jesus being a neurological patient manifesting multiple symptoms of serious neurological conditions. In the New Testament Jesus is recorded as having dyscalculia (most prominent is parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20)). Jesus most obviously recorded as having Multiple Personality disorder (MPD) presenting himself as God, Son of God, Biblical Prophet, King of Jews and Son of a Man. His choice of personalities reflects the symptom of the Delusion of Grandeur. Jesus also had a Greek personality (as non-Jew). Jesus also suffered from persecutory delusions reflected in his fears of being killed by the mob. One of the manifestations of neurological illness in Jesus was pseudobulbar affect (crying), also called PBA. It mentioned in the Gospels, but most prominently highlighted in the Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Jesus also suffered from the propensity to throw neurological tantrums, and one of them, triggered by the combination of dyscalculia (he needed to exchange money) and multiple personality disorder is known as cleansing of the temple. Jesus in the New Testament is also shown playing “Neurological Games.” Many manifestations of the illness are in the Gospel of John, as eyewitnesses died out and the new generation of writers did not understand that they are looking into the records of mental illness withheld for valid reasons from the Gospel discourse by the previous writers. From the information available in the Gospels the onset of the neurological conditions of Jesus was caused by severe head trauma. In the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” there light shed onto the abuse of Jesus as a vulnerable adult while he was alive, and distortions of records after his death. Both factors were tremendously detrimental for proper posthumous diagnosis of Jesus. First correct diagnosis of Jesus was performed by comparing his illness history to the living patients with similar conditions in the middle of 15th century in the course of what is named in the book as the Verrocchio/Da Vinci project. Findings of the project encoded in multiple works of art on public display. The similar methods were independently used in modern times and documented in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” Gchernya ( talk) 00:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Enough. The talkpage is not a WP:FORUM to promote WP:CRACKPOTtery. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Wikipek: Regarding your revert, read MOS:SAID:
Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...
On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said.
50.221.225.231 ( talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
It is written in the gospels that "Jesus' family, followers, and contemporaries seriously considered him delusional, demonically possessed, or mad.See also WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. You'll need to quote reliable scholarly sources (not your own interpretation) for your claim. 50.221.225.231 ( talk) 01:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It is only quoted in full on the blog.Then cite the article itself and forget about the "SF Atheists" blog. The blog cannot be used as a reference. A random blog is not a reliable source, per WP:BLOGS and WP:SELFPUBLISH.
his comments regarding the English translation.Again, this random atheist activist "Gene Kasmar" is not a reliable source for anything, and therefore cannot be used as a reference. Read WP:RELIABLE. Find an alternative reference.
KryvelevYou are using the Kryvelev reference in WP:WIKIVOICE to espouse an opinion he explicitly argues against. So no, that reference cannot be used in the way you currently want to use it. You must clearly state that this is merely a claim Meslier made, and that Kryvelev argues against it. That's what I did, before you reverted it.
read my closing commentsI have. They're incorrect.
This is an article only about the opinions of various people for and against the sanity of Jesus.And the sentences immediately following each quote you cherry-picked are relevant to that. It appears you're trying to engage in quote mining. That's why it's important to state what reliable sources say, not your own interpretation of WP:PRIMARY source material.
The article has been systematically createdYou do not WP:OWN this article, not any article on Wikipeida, so don't act like you do.
your demand for ultra-neutrality in presenting only one of two opposing opinions (inherently non-neutral, but the other is not neutral either)Huh?
This is also indicated by your theological attempt to defend JesusThis comment suggests you have a WP:AGENDA and are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. By that logic, your comments indicate you have an agenda against the subject of the article. Is that correct? Read WP:NOTHERE.
(expansion of the quote about Mark 3:23) in a section that does not address this.The quote is about demonic possession, so obviously the sentence immediately after has relevance to the perception of people on this matter.
going in one direction (not neutral)See WP:POTKETTLE.
This is the "San Francisco Atheists" blogAgain, a random atheist blog on blogspot.com is not a reliable source for anything, including what other sources say. Forget about the blog, and cite the source itself.
You quote in the main text the psychiatric opinions of a man who was not a psychiatrist (Kryvelev)Neither is Meslier, whom you're trying to use in WP:WIKIVOICE. Furthermore, I wasn't the one who added Kryvelev. You or someone else did. I merely corrected the way the article was misrepresenting him.
The footnote serves only as a source to confirmation the claims and opinions of...No. You are using it in WP:WIKIVOICE. You must clearly state in the body that these are the claims and opinions of...
My agenda [is] to present as many outside people's opinions about Jesus' mental health (for and against) as possible.Obviously not. You deliberately cut out the very next verse, which opposes the view you're trying to push:
Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"