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 115 | ← | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | → | Archive 125 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article use BC/AD, BCE/CE, or both?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Every discussion about the BC/BCE thing ends with the conclusion that if it's fixed, we'll have an edit war forever, so don't fix it. But I don't think we'll actually have any more edit warring than the existing version. I think if we took a poll, if we all agreed to keep one system in place for 2 years, the edit warring would be fairly minimal. And it would be a vast improvement and would eliminate this unnecessary embarrassment. Let's just have a vote and revisit it in 2015. — Noisalt ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Should we make this a RfC? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The most common designation for eras use the abbreviations BC ("before Christ") and AD (anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord").
— Turabian, Kate (2007). A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 328. ISBN 9780226823379.
AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are common in some scholarly texts and religious writings. Either convention may be appropriate.
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.— WP:ERA
Why are we even having this discussion?
— ReformedArsenal ( talk) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Move to close - We have a WP:RS who says that as of 2007, BC/AD was the most common usage. We have a 9 - 4 vote (BC/AD - BCE/CE) with some saying that we should just pick one. We have WP:ERA policy that supports BC/AD for a number of reasons. And we have Google ngrams showing that there is a SUBSTANTIALLY wider usage of BC/AD over BCE/CE. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The request for a GA review still appears on the WikiProject Religion talk page, so I went and had a read. I can't really argue against GA status, and on the whole I have to praise the neutrality of the tone of an article that is not the easiest to keep neutral. Still, there are a few things that people who watch this article carefully should consider addressing:
I don't reject the GA designation, but there is really a fair amount here that could be cleaned up. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" goes, the scholars are referring to the historicity of Jesus, it is important to underline that the scholarly consensus is about his existence and not his divinity as Christians sees it. A Christian or someone of faith may very well interpret this as Jesus son of God. I didn't want to make any fuzz about it, but FutureMillionaire apparently has an issue with this minor change. DonChris ( talk) 01:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the second "historical Jesus" in the sentence. Are you okay with this? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Chronology section explain how astronomers such as Newton or Schaefer arrived at their calculated date for the death of Jesus? The method used by historians is described in detail, but the method used by the astronomers isn't explained at all.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The words "Christ" and "Son of God" are italicized several times in the article. However, I'm not sure if that's proper English, not to mention inconsistent. WP:ITALIC doesn't seem to support having them italicized.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that Crossan's full name is mentioned 3 times in the prose. Ehrman's full name is mentioned 3 times. Van Voorst's full name is mentioned 4 times. You can see where I am going with this. Shouldn't we only mention the full name the first time, and then just use the last name for subsequent mentions? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
A link was added to healer because someone assumed it had to lead to a specific page. However, sources do not support that and the whole issue of "portraits" is pretty subtle to put it mildly. When Amy-Jill Levine stated that "most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who reigned 26-36 " she chose her words very carefully and correctly. If she had said "disciple" instead of followers there would have been screams from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of gathered, there would have been objections, but not scream etc. Many editors are unaware of the subtleties and instead of constantly reverting them and telling them again and again, a reminder in the body of the article will be useful as a comment and will avoid future fanfare. So I do not see the need for the multi-reverts by RBreen. History2007 ( talk) 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just over in "Ceres (mythology)", and it got me thinking, shouldn't this also be "Jesus (mythology)" to keep with uniformity? Ceres (mythology)
132.3.33.79 ( talk) 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Nathan Dean
In the Ministry section, why are "Early Galilean ministry", "Major Galilean ministry", "Final Galilean ministry", "Later Perean ministry", and "Final ministry in Jerusalem" italicized? Who came up with these terms? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above, I should note that I just touched up the FAQ with a few more questions, if you guys want to take a look, watch list it, etc. I am not sure if the ministry item just above needs to go there, but if necessary can. History2007 ( talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Jesus regarding the edit notice for this article.
Given that you are going to change the edit notice, should not link to the RFC on the talk page - the link will die in a few days when the bot archives it. I will manually archive the RFC discussion so when you get the edit notice working, it will just point to that in a stable form. History2007 ( talk) 14:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I made that edit too fast; I was trying to cram things in before the Jewish holiday started. But ...
So are these sources saying that Passover had nothing to do with it, or is someone misinterpreting Newton's date? StevenJ81 ( talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I did know some of that. But then there is another aspect to all of this, namely that determining things that happened 2,000 years ago and expecting a rough 2-3 years range may be good enough for all practical purposes anyway. I mean, people are still debating date ranges for events in the 15th century, so a year or two here or there is not going to make a huge difference to the planet. And the general scholarly opinion centers around the year 33, without astronomy, and there are some who argue for the year 37, but I have only seen one scholar do that, ever. So we have pretty good approximations in a general setting, and that is probably good enough. History2007 ( talk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Where was the decision made to change the era notation? Last time I looked there was no consensus for change-- JimWae ( talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, congratulations to all editors involved in getting this vital article up to GA status, especially when it's the most discussed Wikipedia article ever. Can't imagine it was a easy job... Great work! A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 13:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll note things needing explanation, and ask any questions, here. Suggest threading by bullets, RfC style. -- Stfg ( talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Appealed for eyes need on this "perceived logical improbabilities in Greek" on WP Christianity Lost original New Testament theories again. Since the Jesus article gets more traffic than the project, leaving a note here too. It needs users with some basic knowledge of NT textual history. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no mention of an integral part of Christ's mission to establish a church among his people. I think it would be a good idea to add the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under the 'Religious Perspectives' section as their conception of Jesus is different than most Christians. This would include his mission to establish a church based on organization of ordained Prophets and Apostles. If not, I think some reference to the Restorationism belief system would be fair--- That is, those believing in restorationism believe that the church Jesus established in these ancient days has been brought up again among men. I do see in the FAQ where denominations are left out for the sake of length issues, but I still don't see any mention of Christ's efforts to establish a church in any capacity.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. --D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 ( talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks! I'm a new created user and after a few days when I have permission to protected articles, I'm going to change the name of the main article from "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" because Jesus Christ is the name where he is well known and just Jesus can also mean "Jesus of Nazareth". Please do not revert my edit when the time has come. Thanks! Bao-Dur ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change Amy-Jill Levine to 36 AD because it was opinion from scholar that is not from Christian background nor Christian follower, meanwhile this page contain Jesus prescription according to Christian faith, and that Amy-Jill Levine is Jews, his/her writing consider negative propaganda of Christian faith that could harmful to some people. Thank you for keeping this wikipedia not part of anti-religion, hate-speech and totalitarian propaganda.
223.255.231.40 ( talk) 10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|ans= This is truly propaganda for it shows no majority acceptance in his/ her opinion and n evidence of his/her role in historal research about Jesus in major scholarly concensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.231.40 ( talk • contribs)
|ans= Yes, off course that is my point. Referencing any people who are not Christian believer is a process of propaganda towards history of Christianity. Do wikipedia will referencing what Stalin think in page that wrote about Democracy ( Although his opinion only contain good thing about democracy ?For example maybe like this : "Democracy is a part of philosophy " ) I don`t think so, because Stalin in his other writing oppose to democracy and promote communism. Referencing Stalin to a democracy page seems not offense the page, but in fact it`s the process of propaganda toward communism because when peple read about the democracy page and found Stalin name in those page, what will people do, u guess ? People wl look for the person who give the opinion. This is Propaganda, propaganda is not just act of direct influencing but also indirect action such as provoke, writing good words, etc. If this page is abut Jesus whom majority believe is subject of preaching in Christianity, then yu shuld referencing other people who capable do real introduction about the figure history. And this Amy Jill Levin is not even known to general scholar, so I thought this is a propaganda toward promoting this Amy opinion. But it`s okay if some of you disagree, because I don`t think you`re a Christian . I just give positive suggestion toward this wikipedia. And this Amy is judging real Christian as Anti semitism and promote his/her opinion how Christian should think about Christian history although he/she is not Christian and what I thought, that he/she is a funny propagandist and I suggest he / she should write in Uncyclopedia rather than in wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.231.40 ( talk • contribs)
Attacking someone and defending my rights is far different. So now I`m the one who attacking people who wrote about my own religion, while he/she is not from my religion ? And I should hear what communist/moslem/jews view about Jesus,then ? The fact we got in this page is there is no word that state this Amy is Jews and his opinion is from his own opinion toward Jesus figure. You hide something for showing this Amy name ( an unknown name to real and common biblical scholar, while there`re thousands scholar name with well known reputation as a historist ),which is technique of anti religious propaganda. But it seems nothing will change this page because of our difference, I guess. It`s true if An object see by some people, there will be different opinion because it seen from many angle but is it not that majority acceptance is consider the rightest opinion. If everybody who only have a little knowledge about the subject, then Palestinian should give a right to show his opinion in Israel nation page, because they have ground of argument, they have a source for they live longer than Israelite in that area. But that consider harmful for some people, isn't that right ? Thank you for spreading anti-semitism word which I read Jews totalitarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.224.101 ( talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Are any of these sources reliable?
Even if they are, shouldn't we use more professional sources?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a back-and-forth about whether to have the Greek or the Hebrew version in the lede. What are the criteria for deciding which to include? Why not include both? Also, User:Evanh2008 said in an edit summary, "ישוע is Aramaic anyway, shortened form of Hebrew יהושע" . If that's so, the Etymology of names section needs correction. -- Stfg ( talk) 11:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is going to cause problems, we could just not include any version (Greek or Hebrew) of the name in the lede. Anyways I think Evanh2008 is right. Read the 3rd paragraph of this page. It says Yeshua is Aramaic and Yehoshua is Hebrew.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently working on unbundling refs for consistency and adding isbn, publisher and other missing parameters to refs that need them. After I'm done with this, I think this article might be ready for FAC. However, to avoid a premature nomination, I want to make sure it's absolutely ready. What do you guys think? Does the article still have issues that need to be addressed?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've went ahead and nominated the article.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Afaprof01 is trying to change the wikisource bible citations to the template:bibleref2 ones. If we are going to use that template, please add "ASV" to the parameter so that the template links to the American Standard Version, the version used for this article's quotations. Without the parameter, it won't link to that version. We use the ASV because it's in public domain, and we won't need to worry about copyright issues.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
@Afaprof01, please don't use decorative quote characters either for single or for double quotes; they are MOS-noncompliant and will cause a FAC to quickfail. Use only ' and " as on a normal keyboard. -- Stfg ( talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay per the discussion at the Media copyright questions page, we can only use public domain or creative commons versions of the bible. Since ASV is not popular here due to its use of old English, how about we use the more modern Open English Bible instead? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've started an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it made the placement of hyphens inconsistent. I could be wrong, but the I way I've always thought is that the placement of hyphens doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent for all the refs.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The article cites Grudem 1994 (cite 27) and Grudem 1995 (cite 93) - neither of which are in the Bibliography. Aa77zz ( talk) 20:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Curious as to why the EXACT YEAR of the Birth of Jesus is not published because in the Holy Bible(Luke 3:1 and Luke 3:23)can be verified using a timeline with Tiberius Ceasar's reign(from Wikipedia page) together with those 2 verses gives an exact year of Jesus birth(much closer than what is there now for sure). Curious why that is not good enough to date Jesus' birth using those verses when other verses in Bible are used as reference all the time?
Karon777 ( talk) 08:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Some scholars think Jesus might have been born as early as 10, 12 or even 14 BC. Irenaeus seemed to have believed so and Robin Lane Fox believes this is so. Should we extend Jesus' possible birth year back a few years?
Thevideodrome ( talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I've removed three sources from the "Etymology of names" section, including a Messianic Bible (arguably fringe and unreliable), what looks like a second unreliable source (Natan, self-published through a POD service called CreateSpace), and a book called The King James Conspiracy, which is... um... well, it's a novel.
I've replaced it with a cite to Ehrman's last book, Did Jesus Exist?, but I've hit a bit of a snag, as I only have the Nook book and am not sure about page numbers. On the Nook PC app with default text settings, it's page 29, which is cited elsewhere in this article, but I'm pretty sure the page number will not necessarily match up with the print edition. The paragraph I have in mind is a bullet point about 2/3 through the first chapter, under the heading rebutting The Jesus Mysteries. It begins with the text "The Gospel writers deliberately constructed the Greek name Jesus".
If someone could double-check and get a print page number, then make the necessary correction (or just reply here and let me know so I can), that would be great. Thanks! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should user:Strangesad be topic banned from Jesus articles? His consistent promotion of a fringe viewpoint is disruptive imo.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know, a discussion on what to do with Strangesad has been started here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose changing
Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refer to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used by non-Christians.
to the following (change in bold):
Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refer to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used by some non-Christians.
This is a minor change, but give the edit warning, I am bring it here for discussion. I propose this because it is inaccurate to state unequivocally that non-Christians use the term "Jesus Christ". Adding "some" would further clarify the point that many use the term "Jesus Christ" and treat it has him name, but acknowledging that not all people do this. Note, I considered using "most" but I think that would only apply to English-speaking countries and we do not have any data saying what percentage of people use the term. The use of "some" seemed the most neutral to me. Thank you. EvergreenFir ( talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
FutureT has now reverted this edit twice, without discussion in Talk: [2]. It adds quotes from the sources already in the article, and tweaks the wording to more accurately reflect what they say (they say arguments from silence are a legitmate tool). [3] Strangesad ( talk) 17:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If you think it is synthesis, would you like to remove it? Strangesad ( talk) 05:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to Existence, paragraph 4, Non-Christian sources, the Wikipedia comment on the existence of the Christ, referencing Suetonius, "Suetonius' mentions of Chrestus and Christiani, taken with that of Tacitus, is an important piece of evidence in scholarly discussions of the historicity of Jesus.[10]". (^ Drews Arthur, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. p 18-20).Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). This is additional information given to the probable existence of the Christ, in addition to Josephus and Tacitus. The direct link is on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius (The Great Fire and Christiani)
Saul Vargas Tenorio (
talk) 19:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've removed text that asserts historicity as a consensus, since the sources were cherry-picked, and only expressed the sources' opinions. I'll say more a little later, when I have more time. Strangesad ( talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the "virtualy all" statements, this book review reveals that Ehrman's definition of "scholar" is surprisingly narrow. Not what the average reader is going to expect:
"By serious scholar, Ehrman means one holding a PhD ... and currently tenured in the field of New Testament studies" [4].
I propose we change the wording of the article to "According to Ehrman, virtually everyone tenured in the field of the New Testament studies...." to more accurately reflect the source. Also, Van Voorst's Wikipedia page descibes him as a pastor. A pastor is not in a position to be objective about the historical reality of Jesus. Strangesad ( talk) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, guys, but it seems like a small group of you took over this article when Strangesad came along. Just so you know, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is not good practice in this community, even if it's from a small group of two or three of you. I noticed some of the edits he made seemed to be removed out of spite. This is warlike behaviour. Here's an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jesus&diff=569079678&oldid=569036514
I don't see that being a "disruptive" edit, but the editor reverted it as "disruptive", funny that the reversion is the disruptive behaviour in this case. Guys, you have to let other people make edits, even if you know you disagree with their ideology. Getting her banned was the wrong thing to do. She was not vandalizing, but the small group of three or four of you managed to find a like minded moderator to give her a ban. Have another look at that edit and let's discuss for re-introduction, and be a little more grown up about out it other than saying "it's disruptive". What part about the edit violates wiki policy? How is it not relevant to the section of the article it was put in? What exactly is wrong with it? Greengrounds ( talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[215][234] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[235][236] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[237]"
I've looked at all these sources. None of them state that the manuscripts in question establish the existence of jesus. They are concenred with whether the passages referring to jesus were actually written by Josephus and Tacitus (respectively). All say that virtually nobody thinks the Josephus passage is authentic as written; most think there was some reference to Jesus which was embellished subsequently. The article also omits the relevant detail that these writers lived several generations after the death of Jesus and are not eye-witness accounts. Strangesad ( talk) 05:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Found some relevant text in the policy on reliable sources:
These are actionable problems. The majority of publishers in the "existence" section of this article are imprints with a mission of promoting Jesus. Obviously, a publisher whose Web site says “Eerdmans has long been known for publishing a wide range of Christian and religious books, from academic works in Christian theology, biblical studies, religious history, and reference to popular titles in spirituality....” meets the criterion of existing to promote a particular view. And when half the sourcing is that one publisher, care has not been taken. Strangesad ( talk) 06:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Rbreen ( talk) the problem with what you're saying here is that it's unrealistic. It is the editors who decide what is valid scholarly opinion, how much weight it gets, etc. It's on us, the editors. In fact, it is a democracy, and if the creationists or fundamentalist Christians want to learn how to use Wikipedia to change jesus' myths into jesus' historicity, they will, and if there's enough of them, nobody can stop them. So when we look at what gets included and what gets set out, there should be a precedent set in the talk section that gets a general consensus. And that's my main problem with this article and others on the subject is the inconsistency and the unilateral decision making and ownership of the articles by a small group. For example, Ehrman is used in the lead to say that all scholars believe jesus existed. Well, ehrman also said no historians believe jesus was resurrected. Or did miracles. But due to the ownership of this article by a small group, this viewpoint is not allowed to exist even though it's from the same guy, same peer reviewed material etc. So, while there is no "policy" there should be some sort of consensus so people can contribute without getting either run off or bullied out. Greengrounds ( talk) 04:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reference or citation for the following from the lead:
Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer. Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.
It currently appears not to have any citations. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware that stuff could be put in the Lead without citations as long as it is cited in body. Thanks. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've reverted a good faith edit that changed the possessive form from Jesus' to Jesus's. Per MOS:POSS, omitting the s is standard for Jesus and a few other nouns. (Some grammar books say to omit the s after the apostrophe if it would lead to 3 consecutive sibiliants. That may be too rigid, but the case in favour of the Jesus' form seems clear.) -- Stfg ( talk) 10:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi All. I am the one who changed all the Jesus' to Jesus's, subsequently reverted by Stfg. I did not for a second expect my edit to pass unchallenged without a fair degree of turbulence. I was however 'soothed' by the fact that Stfg is on a number of language editors' guilds and similar, so I deferred to his standing in the assumption that this was an issue that he was familiar with . So I left it at that. HOWEVER, I need to say that the WP Style guide is neither here nor there, it is a guideline on acceptable alternatives. So in actual fact, according to the styleguide both Jesus' and Jesus's are correct. Grammatically speaking, though, there is ONLY one correct way and that is noun+s. There are alternatives deemed acceptable and/ or accepted and the scholars being bandied about agree on this - there are accepted aternatives. However they aso agree that strictly speaking, the correct form is noun+s - the others are accepted. This is the same for St. James's Square, Charles's Law, and many others. I believe that Smiths's was one of the names that started breaking the mould - not because of difficulty in ponouncing it - but because people got mixes up with and ended up spelling it wrong. So, 'rules' about too many sibilants just make no sense - sibilants are sounds and the written word has no sounds. If we are going to start mixing up spelling rules with pronunciation rules, then we will have to agree that "tonite", "potatoe", "neumonia" are 'acceptable'. We need to judge what is acceptable in terms of spelling according to spelling, NOT pronunciation. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 - forgot to add: which is not to say that you are wrong. Perhaps we are all wrong you are right. That's the way it goes. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone, please could we relax? I might even throw a barbecue. (Haven't decided who to throw it at yet, though.) -- Stfg ( talk) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For Paul Barlow, if were expecting a comeback, sorry to disappoint you - you are like those pesky little chihuahuas that just make a noise when they see commotion. I don't respond tpo those. And I am out of here. Stfg, do you need charcoal? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 12:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Getting my hopes up here for a new entry into WP:LAME -- Pete ( talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Would someone care to hat it, then, please? -- Stfg ( talk) 19:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following information to the table.
Previous incarnation of Jesus was Venkatachalapathi Next Incarnation of Jesus is David Geere born on 12th January 1987at 4.29pm IST To DAPHNE Genre born(1655 to 16th May 1987)
David Geere was born the table Krishna.Sanker.1987 ( talk) 14:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's great this article reached FA status, and I want that fact to be picked up by the press. I want the article commented on in the press by scholars, which would serve as an external peer review (albeit edited, I imagine). I hope it will provide positive press to our FA process and the great work that is accomplished here. I also hope it will inspire others to contribute to Wikipedia and bring other important topics up to FA. So I emailed someone from the WMF communications department (see wmf:Staff under "Legal and Community Advocacy"). Is anyone who participated in the process interested in helping draft a WMF blog post about it? Feel free to contribute to User:Biosthmors/Jesus or to discuss further there. To ensure no one receives unwanted or undue attention, I'm not planning on putting anyone's user name in the draft, FYI. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I just recommended to someone that they look at this article and they said there was an apparent error in this portion: "His followers arrive at the tomb early in the morning and meet either one or two beings (men or angels) dressed in bright robes. Mark 16:9 and John 20:15 indicate that Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first, and Luke 16:9 states that she is one of the myrrhbearers.[66][208]" They said that Luke 16:9 does not identify Mary Magdalene, and that they guess it should be Mark 16:9. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead needs to be changed or removed. There is universal agreement among mainstream historians that "assertions of his divinity" were anything but falsehoods. No mainstream scholar thinks Jesus is actually the son of god. Theologians do, but not mainstream historians. The article needs to reflect this. Greengrounds ( talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ozhistory, yes it's obvious that christians believe Jesus is the son of god. The problem is that everyone else thinks Jesus is not the son of god. Yes, we should mention that. John, i've provided the quote by Ehrman, a leading historian on Jesus and biblical matters, and it was clearly his opinion that no historian believes that jesus was resurrected, and also that the miracles are historically known to be false due to the nature of the methods historicity and the nature of supernatural claims. Quite simple, really. That's why he says that no historian would hold the resurrection to be true as a historian. Because historians must use the historic method to establish historicity, and this essentially rules out miracles. The article should make at least some effort to distinguish fact from fiction, other than the disclaimer that these are "portraits" of Jesus, portraits being a term we need to define here. John, the Ehrman reference is from Jesus interrupted, pg 176, 177. This is an encyclopedic article about jesus, not a theological one. It should reflect mainstream historicity and scientific knowledge about what we do and don't know about Jesus. There is allot of myth surrounding jesus, and to exclude that is a disservice. So, to come back to the sentence in question, there is not little agreement of the assertions of his divinity. There is universal agreement (by everyone who isn't christian, and every scholar who is christian but is also a historian. Not on the latter: they may believe it, but that is as a person of faith. They could not publish a peer reviewed article attesting to their beliefs based on faith.) That's what I'd like to see is a little less ambiguity into what is faith based or what is based on the historic method and the scientific method. Greengrounds ( talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to tell the world the TRUTH—articles are written in an encyclopedic manner based on reliable sources, and are not written to make sure that everyone knows the point of view of the editor. However, there probably is a need to make a minor change to the wording in the lead to clarify that it means "there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not" as Rbreen noted above. A change might be tricky because the sentences of the lead are already quite complex—they are good sentences, very well written, but complex, and mucking about with a couple of words might push the text towards ugly. The current sentence (without notes) is
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.
Following is a possible alternative:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives or whether they assert that Jesus was divine.
Johnuniq ( talk) 01:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Johnuniq ( talk)I understand the principle you bring up, Truth, but this is also an article the more I look at it, the more it seems to me it is from the Christian point of view, and that would be something of a wikepedia#npov issue, would it not? That the sentence in question seems to assume that anything outside of mainstream historicity of J (which seems to be that 1:) he existed, 2:) he was crucified, and 3:) he was baptised) can also be passed on as historicity, which it cannot. In fact, the only things we can establish from the bible and other sources are what I have listed. Anything else needs careful NPOV consideration, because anything else is disputed by mainstream historians. See the historicity article for an outline of what the secular and non christian world can generally agree on. As for your rewriting of the sentence, it is an improvement and I support it. It certainly takes away some of the ambiguity of the sentence, and is more in line with what the first person to post on this topic said it was meant to say. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Ozhistory ( talk) Agree that there are groups that are believers. Also agree that the article and the assertions cannot be categorized quite so easily as I have implied, but if I ask you to look at this article for a neutral POV, (which by default is a secular POV, like at a main stream university, not a Christian, not a theological POV, not an islamic POV, but a secular POV.) do you think it is quite there? And what do you folks think a NPOV would be on such an article? Would it be a Christian POV or a Secular, or some other religion? It is not far, but I don't think it's quite there. You bring up some good points that I will certainly have to consider. Where are we on defining or wikilinking "portrait". It is an ambiguous term, no? It implies that it is not a historically accurate portrayal? And as for Johnuniq's minor change to the sentence can we come to some consensus? I would like to see it put in the way he had written. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Ozhistory you provide a good reference point for looking at POV, I will look at the Zeus articles etc. to see how they read. I also fully agree that the article here should show and read the biblical version of J's life, but it needs to clarify a bit, and I will get more specific, that that is what it is doing. But the sentence in question is a good start. Already we have no consensus on what the sentence intends to say, let alone what it's implications are. According to one user:
The sentence simply says that there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not. That's an accurate statement of mainstream scholarship. Whether Jesus was divine is a separate issue entirely, and as you say it's a theological question, not a historical one. But it's not described in the article, so there's no need to remove anything. --Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, I agreed that Johnuniq's rewrite was better. But given my (and yours as it turns out) original interpretation of the sentence ("Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[18]") that what it is saying is that a) there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospels (can't argue that) and b)that their is little agreement that jesus was the son of god. It is the second part that I have an issue with, because as I have stated there is very little disagreement that jesus was NOT the son of god. I don't think the original source would contest that there is any sort of controversy amongst main stream historians that jesus was actually the son of god. Do you see where I have a problem here? The sentence is ambiguous, and evidently confusing to even the editors of here. It needs work/clarification/expansion Greengrounds ( talk) 04:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You are close on your first assessment. It's not that the text does not put forward the doubt of scholars that Jesus was devine. It's that the text implies there is some scholars who think that jesus was actually devine. When this is not the case. There are some christian scholars who may think that, but in the same way that there are "no scholars of antiquity who doubt jesus' existance" there are no scholars of antiquity who think that jesus was actually the literal son of god. At least not based on historicity and historic methods, they don't. So ya, take what you thought I meant and amp it up about 10 times and that's where I'm at on this ambiguous sentence. But I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere between our two viewpoints. Then, of course there's the problem of the ambiguity itself. As we've already seen, 4 people have chimed in and we have 2 different interpretations of the meaning of the sentence. I for one think that we're clearly correct in stating that the sentence applies to the opinion's of scholar's on Jesus actual divinity, not that it simply alludes to the inference that scholars are in disagreement over what the gospels say about his divinity. The gospels clearly claim that Jesus was supernatural, "divine" or whatever else you want to call it. Greengrounds ( talk) 05:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, when I say "no scholars of antiquity who doubt jesus' existance there are no scholars of antiquity who think that jesus was actually the literal son of god. At least not based on historicity and historic methods, they don't." I can actually back that up. The first part comes from this article. It is a Bart Ehrman reference. He is obviously held in high esteem to be able to set the tone of this article. In fact, why are we making it an issue in the lead at all whether or not a "real" jesus existed, when the article is based mostly on first testament mythology and the portraits people get from reading that book. But I digress. The other part of the highly esteemed (right, he's prominently featured in the lead, so his opinion gets allot of weight here) is this:
There can be no evidence for the resurrection due to the nature of historical evidence. According to Ehrman, on the resurrection,
What about the resurrection? I'm not claiming it didn't happen...I'm not saying it didn't happen. Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian... [1]
In regards to miracle claims in general about Jesus, Ehrman states that historians can only establish what probably happened, and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened. This being the case, historians cannot establish that any of the miraculous claims made about Jesus actually happened. [2]
Clearly we can make use of latter, if we can make use of the former. In some way or another. This pertains not only to certain sections of the article, (mainly the historicity section), but also this pertains to the ambiguous sentence being discussed. Greengrounds ( talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've now gone ahead and reworded this line. Two reasons: one, the disagreements in the quest for the historical Jesus cover a much wider range of issues than 'whether they assert his divinity' (which is in any case a quite complex issue); and secondly, the source cited simply did not say that. It said that scholars were not in agreement - which is easy to show - but it then looked mainly at genres of material and made no comment whatever about divinity and assertions thereof. The original line has been in the article for a long time, supported by different citations, which did not seem to support what was said either. It's really important to ensure (a) that cited sources actually say what they are quoted in support of, and (b) copy edits don't end up rephrasing a line to a point where it no longer says what the citation originally supported. Good, clear, readable text is important; but please don't let 'citation creep' be the result. -- Rbreen ( talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The religion has less than 8 million adherents. It seems that rather than being placed alongside Christianity, Islam and Judaism, that faith should go in the Other views section. 2.102.187.114 ( talk) 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
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) 10:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 115 | ← | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | → | Archive 125 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article use BC/AD, BCE/CE, or both?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Every discussion about the BC/BCE thing ends with the conclusion that if it's fixed, we'll have an edit war forever, so don't fix it. But I don't think we'll actually have any more edit warring than the existing version. I think if we took a poll, if we all agreed to keep one system in place for 2 years, the edit warring would be fairly minimal. And it would be a vast improvement and would eliminate this unnecessary embarrassment. Let's just have a vote and revisit it in 2015. — Noisalt ( talk) 19:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Should we make this a RfC? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The most common designation for eras use the abbreviations BC ("before Christ") and AD (anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord").
— Turabian, Kate (2007). A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 328. ISBN 9780226823379.
AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are common in some scholarly texts and religious writings. Either convention may be appropriate.
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.— WP:ERA
Why are we even having this discussion?
— ReformedArsenal ( talk) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Move to close - We have a WP:RS who says that as of 2007, BC/AD was the most common usage. We have a 9 - 4 vote (BC/AD - BCE/CE) with some saying that we should just pick one. We have WP:ERA policy that supports BC/AD for a number of reasons. And we have Google ngrams showing that there is a SUBSTANTIALLY wider usage of BC/AD over BCE/CE. ReformedArsenal ( talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The request for a GA review still appears on the WikiProject Religion talk page, so I went and had a read. I can't really argue against GA status, and on the whole I have to praise the neutrality of the tone of an article that is not the easiest to keep neutral. Still, there are a few things that people who watch this article carefully should consider addressing:
I don't reject the GA designation, but there is really a fair amount here that could be cleaned up. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" goes, the scholars are referring to the historicity of Jesus, it is important to underline that the scholarly consensus is about his existence and not his divinity as Christians sees it. A Christian or someone of faith may very well interpret this as Jesus son of God. I didn't want to make any fuzz about it, but FutureMillionaire apparently has an issue with this minor change. DonChris ( talk) 01:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the second "historical Jesus" in the sentence. Are you okay with this? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Chronology section explain how astronomers such as Newton or Schaefer arrived at their calculated date for the death of Jesus? The method used by historians is described in detail, but the method used by the astronomers isn't explained at all.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The words "Christ" and "Son of God" are italicized several times in the article. However, I'm not sure if that's proper English, not to mention inconsistent. WP:ITALIC doesn't seem to support having them italicized.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that Crossan's full name is mentioned 3 times in the prose. Ehrman's full name is mentioned 3 times. Van Voorst's full name is mentioned 4 times. You can see where I am going with this. Shouldn't we only mention the full name the first time, and then just use the last name for subsequent mentions? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
A link was added to healer because someone assumed it had to lead to a specific page. However, sources do not support that and the whole issue of "portraits" is pretty subtle to put it mildly. When Amy-Jill Levine stated that "most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who reigned 26-36 " she chose her words very carefully and correctly. If she had said "disciple" instead of followers there would have been screams from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of gathered, there would have been objections, but not scream etc. Many editors are unaware of the subtleties and instead of constantly reverting them and telling them again and again, a reminder in the body of the article will be useful as a comment and will avoid future fanfare. So I do not see the need for the multi-reverts by RBreen. History2007 ( talk) 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I was just over in "Ceres (mythology)", and it got me thinking, shouldn't this also be "Jesus (mythology)" to keep with uniformity? Ceres (mythology)
132.3.33.79 ( talk) 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Nathan Dean
In the Ministry section, why are "Early Galilean ministry", "Major Galilean ministry", "Final Galilean ministry", "Later Perean ministry", and "Final ministry in Jerusalem" italicized? Who came up with these terms? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above, I should note that I just touched up the FAQ with a few more questions, if you guys want to take a look, watch list it, etc. I am not sure if the ministry item just above needs to go there, but if necessary can. History2007 ( talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Jesus regarding the edit notice for this article.
Given that you are going to change the edit notice, should not link to the RFC on the talk page - the link will die in a few days when the bot archives it. I will manually archive the RFC discussion so when you get the edit notice working, it will just point to that in a stable form. History2007 ( talk) 14:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I made that edit too fast; I was trying to cram things in before the Jewish holiday started. But ...
So are these sources saying that Passover had nothing to do with it, or is someone misinterpreting Newton's date? StevenJ81 ( talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I did know some of that. But then there is another aspect to all of this, namely that determining things that happened 2,000 years ago and expecting a rough 2-3 years range may be good enough for all practical purposes anyway. I mean, people are still debating date ranges for events in the 15th century, so a year or two here or there is not going to make a huge difference to the planet. And the general scholarly opinion centers around the year 33, without astronomy, and there are some who argue for the year 37, but I have only seen one scholar do that, ever. So we have pretty good approximations in a general setting, and that is probably good enough. History2007 ( talk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Where was the decision made to change the era notation? Last time I looked there was no consensus for change-- JimWae ( talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, congratulations to all editors involved in getting this vital article up to GA status, especially when it's the most discussed Wikipedia article ever. Can't imagine it was a easy job... Great work! A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 13:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll note things needing explanation, and ask any questions, here. Suggest threading by bullets, RfC style. -- Stfg ( talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Appealed for eyes need on this "perceived logical improbabilities in Greek" on WP Christianity Lost original New Testament theories again. Since the Jesus article gets more traffic than the project, leaving a note here too. It needs users with some basic knowledge of NT textual history. In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no mention of an integral part of Christ's mission to establish a church among his people. I think it would be a good idea to add the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under the 'Religious Perspectives' section as their conception of Jesus is different than most Christians. This would include his mission to establish a church based on organization of ordained Prophets and Apostles. If not, I think some reference to the Restorationism belief system would be fair--- That is, those believing in restorationism believe that the church Jesus established in these ancient days has been brought up again among men. I do see in the FAQ where denominations are left out for the sake of length issues, but I still don't see any mention of Christ's efforts to establish a church in any capacity.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. --D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 ( talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks! I'm a new created user and after a few days when I have permission to protected articles, I'm going to change the name of the main article from "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" because Jesus Christ is the name where he is well known and just Jesus can also mean "Jesus of Nazareth". Please do not revert my edit when the time has come. Thanks! Bao-Dur ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change Amy-Jill Levine to 36 AD because it was opinion from scholar that is not from Christian background nor Christian follower, meanwhile this page contain Jesus prescription according to Christian faith, and that Amy-Jill Levine is Jews, his/her writing consider negative propaganda of Christian faith that could harmful to some people. Thank you for keeping this wikipedia not part of anti-religion, hate-speech and totalitarian propaganda.
223.255.231.40 ( talk) 10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|ans= This is truly propaganda for it shows no majority acceptance in his/ her opinion and n evidence of his/her role in historal research about Jesus in major scholarly concensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.231.40 ( talk • contribs)
|ans= Yes, off course that is my point. Referencing any people who are not Christian believer is a process of propaganda towards history of Christianity. Do wikipedia will referencing what Stalin think in page that wrote about Democracy ( Although his opinion only contain good thing about democracy ?For example maybe like this : "Democracy is a part of philosophy " ) I don`t think so, because Stalin in his other writing oppose to democracy and promote communism. Referencing Stalin to a democracy page seems not offense the page, but in fact it`s the process of propaganda toward communism because when peple read about the democracy page and found Stalin name in those page, what will people do, u guess ? People wl look for the person who give the opinion. This is Propaganda, propaganda is not just act of direct influencing but also indirect action such as provoke, writing good words, etc. If this page is abut Jesus whom majority believe is subject of preaching in Christianity, then yu shuld referencing other people who capable do real introduction about the figure history. And this Amy Jill Levin is not even known to general scholar, so I thought this is a propaganda toward promoting this Amy opinion. But it`s okay if some of you disagree, because I don`t think you`re a Christian . I just give positive suggestion toward this wikipedia. And this Amy is judging real Christian as Anti semitism and promote his/her opinion how Christian should think about Christian history although he/she is not Christian and what I thought, that he/she is a funny propagandist and I suggest he / she should write in Uncyclopedia rather than in wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.231.40 ( talk • contribs)
Attacking someone and defending my rights is far different. So now I`m the one who attacking people who wrote about my own religion, while he/she is not from my religion ? And I should hear what communist/moslem/jews view about Jesus,then ? The fact we got in this page is there is no word that state this Amy is Jews and his opinion is from his own opinion toward Jesus figure. You hide something for showing this Amy name ( an unknown name to real and common biblical scholar, while there`re thousands scholar name with well known reputation as a historist ),which is technique of anti religious propaganda. But it seems nothing will change this page because of our difference, I guess. It`s true if An object see by some people, there will be different opinion because it seen from many angle but is it not that majority acceptance is consider the rightest opinion. If everybody who only have a little knowledge about the subject, then Palestinian should give a right to show his opinion in Israel nation page, because they have ground of argument, they have a source for they live longer than Israelite in that area. But that consider harmful for some people, isn't that right ? Thank you for spreading anti-semitism word which I read Jews totalitarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.224.101 ( talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Are any of these sources reliable?
Even if they are, shouldn't we use more professional sources?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of a back-and-forth about whether to have the Greek or the Hebrew version in the lede. What are the criteria for deciding which to include? Why not include both? Also, User:Evanh2008 said in an edit summary, "ישוע is Aramaic anyway, shortened form of Hebrew יהושע" . If that's so, the Etymology of names section needs correction. -- Stfg ( talk) 11:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is going to cause problems, we could just not include any version (Greek or Hebrew) of the name in the lede. Anyways I think Evanh2008 is right. Read the 3rd paragraph of this page. It says Yeshua is Aramaic and Yehoshua is Hebrew.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently working on unbundling refs for consistency and adding isbn, publisher and other missing parameters to refs that need them. After I'm done with this, I think this article might be ready for FAC. However, to avoid a premature nomination, I want to make sure it's absolutely ready. What do you guys think? Does the article still have issues that need to be addressed?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 02:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've went ahead and nominated the article.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Afaprof01 is trying to change the wikisource bible citations to the template:bibleref2 ones. If we are going to use that template, please add "ASV" to the parameter so that the template links to the American Standard Version, the version used for this article's quotations. Without the parameter, it won't link to that version. We use the ASV because it's in public domain, and we won't need to worry about copyright issues.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 03:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
@Afaprof01, please don't use decorative quote characters either for single or for double quotes; they are MOS-noncompliant and will cause a FAC to quickfail. Use only ' and " as on a normal keyboard. -- Stfg ( talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay per the discussion at the Media copyright questions page, we can only use public domain or creative commons versions of the bible. Since ASV is not popular here due to its use of old English, how about we use the more modern Open English Bible instead? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've started an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it made the placement of hyphens inconsistent. I could be wrong, but the I way I've always thought is that the placement of hyphens doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent for all the refs.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The article cites Grudem 1994 (cite 27) and Grudem 1995 (cite 93) - neither of which are in the Bibliography. Aa77zz ( talk) 20:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Curious as to why the EXACT YEAR of the Birth of Jesus is not published because in the Holy Bible(Luke 3:1 and Luke 3:23)can be verified using a timeline with Tiberius Ceasar's reign(from Wikipedia page) together with those 2 verses gives an exact year of Jesus birth(much closer than what is there now for sure). Curious why that is not good enough to date Jesus' birth using those verses when other verses in Bible are used as reference all the time?
Karon777 ( talk) 08:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Some scholars think Jesus might have been born as early as 10, 12 or even 14 BC. Irenaeus seemed to have believed so and Robin Lane Fox believes this is so. Should we extend Jesus' possible birth year back a few years?
Thevideodrome ( talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I've removed three sources from the "Etymology of names" section, including a Messianic Bible (arguably fringe and unreliable), what looks like a second unreliable source (Natan, self-published through a POD service called CreateSpace), and a book called The King James Conspiracy, which is... um... well, it's a novel.
I've replaced it with a cite to Ehrman's last book, Did Jesus Exist?, but I've hit a bit of a snag, as I only have the Nook book and am not sure about page numbers. On the Nook PC app with default text settings, it's page 29, which is cited elsewhere in this article, but I'm pretty sure the page number will not necessarily match up with the print edition. The paragraph I have in mind is a bullet point about 2/3 through the first chapter, under the heading rebutting The Jesus Mysteries. It begins with the text "The Gospel writers deliberately constructed the Greek name Jesus".
If someone could double-check and get a print page number, then make the necessary correction (or just reply here and let me know so I can), that would be great. Thanks! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should user:Strangesad be topic banned from Jesus articles? His consistent promotion of a fringe viewpoint is disruptive imo.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know, a discussion on what to do with Strangesad has been started here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose changing
Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refer to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used by non-Christians.
to the following (change in bold):
Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refer to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used by some non-Christians.
This is a minor change, but give the edit warning, I am bring it here for discussion. I propose this because it is inaccurate to state unequivocally that non-Christians use the term "Jesus Christ". Adding "some" would further clarify the point that many use the term "Jesus Christ" and treat it has him name, but acknowledging that not all people do this. Note, I considered using "most" but I think that would only apply to English-speaking countries and we do not have any data saying what percentage of people use the term. The use of "some" seemed the most neutral to me. Thank you. EvergreenFir ( talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
FutureT has now reverted this edit twice, without discussion in Talk: [2]. It adds quotes from the sources already in the article, and tweaks the wording to more accurately reflect what they say (they say arguments from silence are a legitmate tool). [3] Strangesad ( talk) 17:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If you think it is synthesis, would you like to remove it? Strangesad ( talk) 05:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to Existence, paragraph 4, Non-Christian sources, the Wikipedia comment on the existence of the Christ, referencing Suetonius, "Suetonius' mentions of Chrestus and Christiani, taken with that of Tacitus, is an important piece of evidence in scholarly discussions of the historicity of Jesus.[10]". (^ Drews Arthur, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. p 18-20).Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). This is additional information given to the probable existence of the Christ, in addition to Josephus and Tacitus. The direct link is on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius (The Great Fire and Christiani)
Saul Vargas Tenorio (
talk) 19:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've removed text that asserts historicity as a consensus, since the sources were cherry-picked, and only expressed the sources' opinions. I'll say more a little later, when I have more time. Strangesad ( talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the "virtualy all" statements, this book review reveals that Ehrman's definition of "scholar" is surprisingly narrow. Not what the average reader is going to expect:
"By serious scholar, Ehrman means one holding a PhD ... and currently tenured in the field of New Testament studies" [4].
I propose we change the wording of the article to "According to Ehrman, virtually everyone tenured in the field of the New Testament studies...." to more accurately reflect the source. Also, Van Voorst's Wikipedia page descibes him as a pastor. A pastor is not in a position to be objective about the historical reality of Jesus. Strangesad ( talk) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, guys, but it seems like a small group of you took over this article when Strangesad came along. Just so you know, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is not good practice in this community, even if it's from a small group of two or three of you. I noticed some of the edits he made seemed to be removed out of spite. This is warlike behaviour. Here's an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jesus&diff=569079678&oldid=569036514
I don't see that being a "disruptive" edit, but the editor reverted it as "disruptive", funny that the reversion is the disruptive behaviour in this case. Guys, you have to let other people make edits, even if you know you disagree with their ideology. Getting her banned was the wrong thing to do. She was not vandalizing, but the small group of three or four of you managed to find a like minded moderator to give her a ban. Have another look at that edit and let's discuss for re-introduction, and be a little more grown up about out it other than saying "it's disruptive". What part about the edit violates wiki policy? How is it not relevant to the section of the article it was put in? What exactly is wrong with it? Greengrounds ( talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[215][234] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[235][236] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[237]"
I've looked at all these sources. None of them state that the manuscripts in question establish the existence of jesus. They are concenred with whether the passages referring to jesus were actually written by Josephus and Tacitus (respectively). All say that virtually nobody thinks the Josephus passage is authentic as written; most think there was some reference to Jesus which was embellished subsequently. The article also omits the relevant detail that these writers lived several generations after the death of Jesus and are not eye-witness accounts. Strangesad ( talk) 05:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Found some relevant text in the policy on reliable sources:
These are actionable problems. The majority of publishers in the "existence" section of this article are imprints with a mission of promoting Jesus. Obviously, a publisher whose Web site says “Eerdmans has long been known for publishing a wide range of Christian and religious books, from academic works in Christian theology, biblical studies, religious history, and reference to popular titles in spirituality....” meets the criterion of existing to promote a particular view. And when half the sourcing is that one publisher, care has not been taken. Strangesad ( talk) 06:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Rbreen ( talk) the problem with what you're saying here is that it's unrealistic. It is the editors who decide what is valid scholarly opinion, how much weight it gets, etc. It's on us, the editors. In fact, it is a democracy, and if the creationists or fundamentalist Christians want to learn how to use Wikipedia to change jesus' myths into jesus' historicity, they will, and if there's enough of them, nobody can stop them. So when we look at what gets included and what gets set out, there should be a precedent set in the talk section that gets a general consensus. And that's my main problem with this article and others on the subject is the inconsistency and the unilateral decision making and ownership of the articles by a small group. For example, Ehrman is used in the lead to say that all scholars believe jesus existed. Well, ehrman also said no historians believe jesus was resurrected. Or did miracles. But due to the ownership of this article by a small group, this viewpoint is not allowed to exist even though it's from the same guy, same peer reviewed material etc. So, while there is no "policy" there should be some sort of consensus so people can contribute without getting either run off or bullied out. Greengrounds ( talk) 04:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reference or citation for the following from the lead:
Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer. Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.
It currently appears not to have any citations. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware that stuff could be put in the Lead without citations as long as it is cited in body. Thanks. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've reverted a good faith edit that changed the possessive form from Jesus' to Jesus's. Per MOS:POSS, omitting the s is standard for Jesus and a few other nouns. (Some grammar books say to omit the s after the apostrophe if it would lead to 3 consecutive sibiliants. That may be too rigid, but the case in favour of the Jesus' form seems clear.) -- Stfg ( talk) 10:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi All. I am the one who changed all the Jesus' to Jesus's, subsequently reverted by Stfg. I did not for a second expect my edit to pass unchallenged without a fair degree of turbulence. I was however 'soothed' by the fact that Stfg is on a number of language editors' guilds and similar, so I deferred to his standing in the assumption that this was an issue that he was familiar with . So I left it at that. HOWEVER, I need to say that the WP Style guide is neither here nor there, it is a guideline on acceptable alternatives. So in actual fact, according to the styleguide both Jesus' and Jesus's are correct. Grammatically speaking, though, there is ONLY one correct way and that is noun+s. There are alternatives deemed acceptable and/ or accepted and the scholars being bandied about agree on this - there are accepted aternatives. However they aso agree that strictly speaking, the correct form is noun+s - the others are accepted. This is the same for St. James's Square, Charles's Law, and many others. I believe that Smiths's was one of the names that started breaking the mould - not because of difficulty in ponouncing it - but because people got mixes up with and ended up spelling it wrong. So, 'rules' about too many sibilants just make no sense - sibilants are sounds and the written word has no sounds. If we are going to start mixing up spelling rules with pronunciation rules, then we will have to agree that "tonite", "potatoe", "neumonia" are 'acceptable'. We need to judge what is acceptable in terms of spelling according to spelling, NOT pronunciation. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 - forgot to add: which is not to say that you are wrong. Perhaps we are all wrong you are right. That's the way it goes. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone, please could we relax? I might even throw a barbecue. (Haven't decided who to throw it at yet, though.) -- Stfg ( talk) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For Paul Barlow, if were expecting a comeback, sorry to disappoint you - you are like those pesky little chihuahuas that just make a noise when they see commotion. I don't respond tpo those. And I am out of here. Stfg, do you need charcoal? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 12:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Getting my hopes up here for a new entry into WP:LAME -- Pete ( talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Would someone care to hat it, then, please? -- Stfg ( talk) 19:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following information to the table.
Previous incarnation of Jesus was Venkatachalapathi Next Incarnation of Jesus is David Geere born on 12th January 1987at 4.29pm IST To DAPHNE Genre born(1655 to 16th May 1987)
David Geere was born the table Krishna.Sanker.1987 ( talk) 14:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's great this article reached FA status, and I want that fact to be picked up by the press. I want the article commented on in the press by scholars, which would serve as an external peer review (albeit edited, I imagine). I hope it will provide positive press to our FA process and the great work that is accomplished here. I also hope it will inspire others to contribute to Wikipedia and bring other important topics up to FA. So I emailed someone from the WMF communications department (see wmf:Staff under "Legal and Community Advocacy"). Is anyone who participated in the process interested in helping draft a WMF blog post about it? Feel free to contribute to User:Biosthmors/Jesus or to discuss further there. To ensure no one receives unwanted or undue attention, I'm not planning on putting anyone's user name in the draft, FYI. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I just recommended to someone that they look at this article and they said there was an apparent error in this portion: "His followers arrive at the tomb early in the morning and meet either one or two beings (men or angels) dressed in bright robes. Mark 16:9 and John 20:15 indicate that Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first, and Luke 16:9 states that she is one of the myrrhbearers.[66][208]" They said that Luke 16:9 does not identify Mary Magdalene, and that they guess it should be Mark 16:9. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead needs to be changed or removed. There is universal agreement among mainstream historians that "assertions of his divinity" were anything but falsehoods. No mainstream scholar thinks Jesus is actually the son of god. Theologians do, but not mainstream historians. The article needs to reflect this. Greengrounds ( talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ozhistory, yes it's obvious that christians believe Jesus is the son of god. The problem is that everyone else thinks Jesus is not the son of god. Yes, we should mention that. John, i've provided the quote by Ehrman, a leading historian on Jesus and biblical matters, and it was clearly his opinion that no historian believes that jesus was resurrected, and also that the miracles are historically known to be false due to the nature of the methods historicity and the nature of supernatural claims. Quite simple, really. That's why he says that no historian would hold the resurrection to be true as a historian. Because historians must use the historic method to establish historicity, and this essentially rules out miracles. The article should make at least some effort to distinguish fact from fiction, other than the disclaimer that these are "portraits" of Jesus, portraits being a term we need to define here. John, the Ehrman reference is from Jesus interrupted, pg 176, 177. This is an encyclopedic article about jesus, not a theological one. It should reflect mainstream historicity and scientific knowledge about what we do and don't know about Jesus. There is allot of myth surrounding jesus, and to exclude that is a disservice. So, to come back to the sentence in question, there is not little agreement of the assertions of his divinity. There is universal agreement (by everyone who isn't christian, and every scholar who is christian but is also a historian. Not on the latter: they may believe it, but that is as a person of faith. They could not publish a peer reviewed article attesting to their beliefs based on faith.) That's what I'd like to see is a little less ambiguity into what is faith based or what is based on the historic method and the scientific method. Greengrounds ( talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to tell the world the TRUTH—articles are written in an encyclopedic manner based on reliable sources, and are not written to make sure that everyone knows the point of view of the editor. However, there probably is a need to make a minor change to the wording in the lead to clarify that it means "there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not" as Rbreen noted above. A change might be tricky because the sentences of the lead are already quite complex—they are good sentences, very well written, but complex, and mucking about with a couple of words might push the text towards ugly. The current sentence (without notes) is
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.
Following is a possible alternative:
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives or whether they assert that Jesus was divine.
Johnuniq ( talk) 01:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Johnuniq ( talk)I understand the principle you bring up, Truth, but this is also an article the more I look at it, the more it seems to me it is from the Christian point of view, and that would be something of a wikepedia#npov issue, would it not? That the sentence in question seems to assume that anything outside of mainstream historicity of J (which seems to be that 1:) he existed, 2:) he was crucified, and 3:) he was baptised) can also be passed on as historicity, which it cannot. In fact, the only things we can establish from the bible and other sources are what I have listed. Anything else needs careful NPOV consideration, because anything else is disputed by mainstream historians. See the historicity article for an outline of what the secular and non christian world can generally agree on. As for your rewriting of the sentence, it is an improvement and I support it. It certainly takes away some of the ambiguity of the sentence, and is more in line with what the first person to post on this topic said it was meant to say. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Ozhistory ( talk) Agree that there are groups that are believers. Also agree that the article and the assertions cannot be categorized quite so easily as I have implied, but if I ask you to look at this article for a neutral POV, (which by default is a secular POV, like at a main stream university, not a Christian, not a theological POV, not an islamic POV, but a secular POV.) do you think it is quite there? And what do you folks think a NPOV would be on such an article? Would it be a Christian POV or a Secular, or some other religion? It is not far, but I don't think it's quite there. You bring up some good points that I will certainly have to consider. Where are we on defining or wikilinking "portrait". It is an ambiguous term, no? It implies that it is not a historically accurate portrayal? And as for Johnuniq's minor change to the sentence can we come to some consensus? I would like to see it put in the way he had written. Greengrounds ( talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Ozhistory you provide a good reference point for looking at POV, I will look at the Zeus articles etc. to see how they read. I also fully agree that the article here should show and read the biblical version of J's life, but it needs to clarify a bit, and I will get more specific, that that is what it is doing. But the sentence in question is a good start. Already we have no consensus on what the sentence intends to say, let alone what it's implications are. According to one user:
The sentence simply says that there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not. That's an accurate statement of mainstream scholarship. Whether Jesus was divine is a separate issue entirely, and as you say it's a theological question, not a historical one. But it's not described in the article, so there's no need to remove anything. --Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, I agreed that Johnuniq's rewrite was better. But given my (and yours as it turns out) original interpretation of the sentence ("Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[18]") that what it is saying is that a) there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospels (can't argue that) and b)that their is little agreement that jesus was the son of god. It is the second part that I have an issue with, because as I have stated there is very little disagreement that jesus was NOT the son of god. I don't think the original source would contest that there is any sort of controversy amongst main stream historians that jesus was actually the son of god. Do you see where I have a problem here? The sentence is ambiguous, and evidently confusing to even the editors of here. It needs work/clarification/expansion Greengrounds ( talk) 04:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You are close on your first assessment. It's not that the text does not put forward the doubt of scholars that Jesus was devine. It's that the text implies there is some scholars who think that jesus was actually devine. When this is not the case. There are some christian scholars who may think that, but in the same way that there are "no scholars of antiquity who doubt jesus' existance" there are no scholars of antiquity who think that jesus was actually the literal son of god. At least not based on historicity and historic methods, they don't. So ya, take what you thought I meant and amp it up about 10 times and that's where I'm at on this ambiguous sentence. But I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere between our two viewpoints. Then, of course there's the problem of the ambiguity itself. As we've already seen, 4 people have chimed in and we have 2 different interpretations of the meaning of the sentence. I for one think that we're clearly correct in stating that the sentence applies to the opinion's of scholar's on Jesus actual divinity, not that it simply alludes to the inference that scholars are in disagreement over what the gospels say about his divinity. The gospels clearly claim that Jesus was supernatural, "divine" or whatever else you want to call it. Greengrounds ( talk) 05:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, when I say "no scholars of antiquity who doubt jesus' existance there are no scholars of antiquity who think that jesus was actually the literal son of god. At least not based on historicity and historic methods, they don't." I can actually back that up. The first part comes from this article. It is a Bart Ehrman reference. He is obviously held in high esteem to be able to set the tone of this article. In fact, why are we making it an issue in the lead at all whether or not a "real" jesus existed, when the article is based mostly on first testament mythology and the portraits people get from reading that book. But I digress. The other part of the highly esteemed (right, he's prominently featured in the lead, so his opinion gets allot of weight here) is this:
There can be no evidence for the resurrection due to the nature of historical evidence. According to Ehrman, on the resurrection,
What about the resurrection? I'm not claiming it didn't happen...I'm not saying it didn't happen. Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian... [1]
In regards to miracle claims in general about Jesus, Ehrman states that historians can only establish what probably happened, and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened. This being the case, historians cannot establish that any of the miraculous claims made about Jesus actually happened. [2]
Clearly we can make use of latter, if we can make use of the former. In some way or another. This pertains not only to certain sections of the article, (mainly the historicity section), but also this pertains to the ambiguous sentence being discussed. Greengrounds ( talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've now gone ahead and reworded this line. Two reasons: one, the disagreements in the quest for the historical Jesus cover a much wider range of issues than 'whether they assert his divinity' (which is in any case a quite complex issue); and secondly, the source cited simply did not say that. It said that scholars were not in agreement - which is easy to show - but it then looked mainly at genres of material and made no comment whatever about divinity and assertions thereof. The original line has been in the article for a long time, supported by different citations, which did not seem to support what was said either. It's really important to ensure (a) that cited sources actually say what they are quoted in support of, and (b) copy edits don't end up rephrasing a line to a point where it no longer says what the citation originally supported. Good, clear, readable text is important; but please don't let 'citation creep' be the result. -- Rbreen ( talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The religion has less than 8 million adherents. It seems that rather than being placed alongside Christianity, Islam and Judaism, that faith should go in the Other views section. 2.102.187.114 ( talk) 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
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) 10:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)