Talk:Jesus/Archive 130

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Archive 135

Removal of statement that the gospels are not considered completely reliable

@Eodcarl: has boldly removed the a sentence stating "although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable." despite the request at the beginning of the paragraph stating that any changes should be discussed in the Talk page. I've reverted twice and am now taking to the talk page. My view is that the statement accurately reflects the strong consensus of academic historians. --Erp (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about those requests. Secular revisionists with no basis in fact do not impress me. Eodcarl (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the statement raises the obvious question: considered... by whom? On a related point, I think we might as well remove the imbedded comment - its is so often ignored as to be useless. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Erp, see the topic above this one. If Eodcarl needs a source, he could get a rapid insight from [1]. See also what I wrote at WP:ABIAS, it applies to everything we do inside Wikipedia: who does Wikipedia trust? Does it trust the Pope? No, the Pope is notable, but his views should be attributed. Does it trusts biblical literalism? No, although literalism is notable, it should be attributed to the religious groups who actually hold such views. So who does Wikipedia trust? It trusts scholars who have paid teaching positions at major universities. This is not really a new insight for those who know how Wikipedia works, but it has to be restated for newbies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You trust fringe lunatics as long as you can cite them. Not one scriptural error has ever been verified. Not one. You cite some academic who vaguely states inaccuracies, yet you can't note a single one. Wikipedia is a farce. Why are you even on a page about Jesus? Eodcarl (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read [2], [3], and [4]. Basically, your view of the academia is distorted: Ehrman is not a radical, but a quite mainstream scholar (conservative mainstream, one might say). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is he a Christian? If not, he doesn't matter on this subject. Clearly, you are not a Christian, so why are you camping on this page? Eodcarl (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.

— ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?

Quoted from the same course handbook. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.

— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That is all nonsense. It is OK to have an article that says "Christians believe" but it is not OK to claim the Bible has errors, since there are none. Eodcarl (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me stress – I can’t stress this enough, although roughly 36% of my readers won’t believe me or possibly hear me – I am NOT saying there cannot be evangelical scholars of the New Testament. That is absolutely not the case, in the least. There are lots of evangelical scholars of the New Testament. Some of them superb scholars. BUT, if they approach the New Testament from the point of view that there can be no mistakes of any kind in the New Testament (that would be a very hard-core evangelical, and certainly a fundamentalist, position) then they have to restrict their scholarly conversation partners to one another, publishing in journals and with presses that support their theological views, not in the standard critical journals and presses.

— ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That guy must be a moron. If there are errors that means there is no God. Only non-Christians claim errors, and they have yet to find one. You have no met my challenge to point one out. Eodcarl (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your fundamentalist POV-pushing has to stop here. Consider it a formal warning. Ehrman is an author of reliable sources about Jesus, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Failure to agree upon this means that you either don't understand WP:PAGs or do not intend to follow them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you're a bigot? I am a mere Christian. It is not possible to know Jesus without being a Christian. I don't know anything about fundamentalist, but it is impossible to be a Christian and say God's word has errors. Enjoy your error filled page. Eodcarl (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Note the statement is about what "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity" agree on and one thing they agree on is that the gospels are not completely reliable. You may disagree with their conclusion but you can't disagree that that is what they conclude. Elsewhere in the article the inerrantist view is mentioned. --Erp (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not one Christian has ever said that. Not that you have have provided a single example. I've actually studied the Bible, extensively, unlike you. Eodcarl (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must rather emphatically disagree. While there is a smattering of scholars who adamantly promote the idea that the gospels are not reliable, the cited people, like Ehrman, are in the distinct minority among scholars in their views. While their use here is perfectly acceptable because they are qualified experts, implying that this small group allows you to suggest that the general consensus is of unreliability is utterly false.Farsight001 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Eodcarl (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

In the academia, people like Ehrman are the majority. If you don't believe me, Ehrman's Nemesis will tell you that on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman is a fringe hack, and he has no business being quoted on an article on Jesus. He's and atheist for goodness sakes. Eodcarl (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

See you at WP:FTN. James White (theologian) said that regardless of which US university a student will attend, he/she will be confronted there by teachings (i.e. courses) much like Ehrman's. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, false teachings. You expect me to be surprised that American universities are corrupted by this garbage? Eodcarl (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

By default, what is taught as fact in most US universities does not amount to WP:FRINGE for us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, Eodcarl, but Ehrman is in no way a hack. And by virtue of being a scholar on the relevant subject, he has every right to be quoted on an article on Jesus. His personal beliefs has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he can be used as a source.

And Tgeorgescu - if you can find a source that says his views are the majority, then you can cite THAT source. You can't quote him making his claims and then put in the article that his claims are the majority. I highly doubt his views are taught at the majority of US universities, not that that would matter, since Wikipedia is not just for the US. In the same way that Ehram is a scholar, so are all the Christian theologians just as credible scholars, whether you like it or not.Farsight001 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my statement, Ehrman is a fringe hack. He is an atheist. He has no business teaching anyone about Christianity. I have little respect for the concept of someone being a scholar, meaning they should be respected and considered cite worthy. One must have the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, so no, Christian scholars are not equal. Eodcarl (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Then take it up with the university where he teaches. Here, at wikipedia, we have rules regarding who can and cannot be used as a source. Being an atheist does not, in any way, disqualify you from being used as a source, or contributing to an article on a religious subject. If you don't like it, you can go make your own wiki with your own rules. But you WILL be expected to respect the rules here while you contribute (which based on past experience, won't be long)Farsight001 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been here a long time. I don't expect a plumber to be an expert on biology just as an atheist cannot be an expert on Jesus. It has nothing to do with his university. However, I do expect evidence before a statement that the Gospels are historically inaccurate stands in the article, which is not referenced and there are no examples of it. It is rouse. I've come to expect Wikipedia to be inaccurate and guarded by bullies, but I took a chance some might actually want precision. Eodcarl (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you've been here a long time, then there is no excuse for you not knowing or following the most basic rules of wikipedia. Having been here a long time doesn't make it better for you here. If you don't like the rules, petition to get them changed. But if you've been here long enough, you know full well that the only thing that ignoring them will accomplish is you getting your account blocked.Farsight001 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good prediction. Editwarring across multiple articles was a terrible idea. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We have two points here, one is a definitive statement that the synoptic gospels are useful and the best source for constructing a narrative of Jesus' life. That is straight-forward. The second point is ambiguous and contentious. "Not completely reliable" requires explanation- to what degree are they reliable? Contrary to the first assertion, there is no consensus about the exact reliability of the gospel accounts. For these reasons, I think we need to drop the assertion in the lead. --Hazhk (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The not completely reliable is a description of how virtually all modern scholars of antiquity view them. I doubt there is any document of antiquity that is considered "completely reliable" by virtually all modern scholars of antiquity; it is the nature of historians to doubt documents especially those telling a story. Writers have biases, writers are not omniscient. Scholars differ on how reliable but the statement isn't specific and so includes the vanishing small number of scholars who consider them complete fiction to the other extreme who think that some of the writers took a tiny bit of creative license (possibly under the guidance of God who wanted to make a specific point) in issues about what happened when during Jesus's trial, execution, and resurrection. --Erp (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If that is true, then you need a source for "virtually all modern scholars".Farsight001 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It's history 101: historians (except conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists) never consider their sources to be inerrant, see [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's true that there is a contingent within every major religion that considers their holy books to be completely without flaw, and Christianity is not an exception. The argument posited by these contingents is completely circular and wholly immune to the tools available the modern scholar. In short, the scriptures are inerrant because the person's beliefs both require, and "prove", that they are. A stronger, healthier belief system would be founded on an understanding of how those scriptures developed over time, and of the cultures and times in which they developed. This would better equip a believing person to respond to scholarly criticism with arguments other than "they are inerrant because they say so". For example - it's very easy to understand the number differences between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles come down to copy-edit errors made during a tumultuous time period during which the original papyri likely were rare and damaged. Similarly, consider how the four Gospels do not line up 100%. I consider that PROOF that they are what they say they are - second-hand accounts of the events described. For comparison, consider what police deal with when taking eyewitness statements. It is well-known that statements which line up 100% show signs of collusion. Statements that don't quite align are much more likely to be true.

In the meantime, as pertains to this article: Erp is correct. The article has long qualified the statement "the gospels are not completely reliable" with "historical scholars agree that...". As a truism I see no need for a source for this, yet am confident one could be provided if necessary. Meanwhile, Eodcarl should remember that "historical scholars agreeing that..." does not mean those historical scholars are correct. It is up to the article's reader to decide on that point. In short, the statement should remain. And before I see accusations to the contrary, yes, I am a conservative Christian. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Eodcarl was indefinitely blocked after a discussion at WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Mental health

This edit starting off "It has been suggested by some that Jesus, as described in the bible, expressed symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia." has been undone four times now. Anyone want to support it? Note that the cited source is broken, bu teven if it were not I don't think one journal article is sufficient for this. Meters (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A single journal article approaches WP:PRIMARY. A tabloid article provides support almost as well as a bridge made of single-ply toilet paper. The adding user does not need to be editing religion articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Way over 3RR with no attempt at discussion on an edit that has no hope... Meters (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The addition is nonsense because "it has been suggested that xxx" claims are WP:UNDUE and unsupportable, and the wording is a perfect example of WP:WEASEL. One source (or even a few sources given the large analysis of this topic) may "suggest" a wild conjecture, but Wikipedia should not give it any more credence than any other made-up speculation. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The notion that John was tripping bawls on shrooms when he wrote Revelation seems to have significant more following than this, and even it doesn't seem to be merited inclusion in the Revelation article. This is far less notable a concept.Farsight001 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Basically all we have on Jesus is various conjectures by a variety of sources. To discuss his mental health, we would require reliable sources on the topic. The sources will have to be identified within the text, as reporting that "some" people conclude this is itself meaningless. Some people may have concluded that he was an extraterrestrial, as suggested by articles on the topic. See Could Jesus Christ Be One Of The FIrst Alien Hybrids, The Son Of An Extraterrestrial And An Earthly Woman?, Was Jesus an Extraterrestrial?, Jesus Was A Space Alien, Alien Jesus: The Imacclate Deception- Aliens and Religion "The Lost Book of Enki, etc. That does not mean this conclusion is either reliable, nor particularly notable.

And I would personally want to know what symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia can be identified in the Bible. Delusions? Grandiose delusions? Hallucinations? Hearing voices? Details and context are needed to make such assertions.

On another topic, whether John of Patmos was using psilocybin mushrooms is a matter that should be addressed in his own article. It is currently little more than a stub and has few sources. The idea is certainly mentioned in published books. For example "Apocalyptic Bodies: The Biblical End of the World in Text and Image" (2002) by Tina Pippin mentions in page 97: "A common critique of undergraduate students of the Apocalypse is that it is a weird narrative written by someone on hallucinogenic drugs." See: https://books.google.gr/books?id=POSFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA97&dq=apocalypse+hallucinogenic&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=apocalypse%20hallucinogenic&f=false Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Synoptic gospels in second paragraph

My edit was reverted with the curious edit summary "I don't really want to undo your edit, but please gain consensus first before changing." But that's fair enough - it was rather WP:BOLD and perhaps I need to explain myself.

Here is what is currently in the article:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and most scholars consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus, although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[23][24]

Here is how it read at the start of 2015:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[19]

Now, I'm not exactly sure how or when or why it was changed, but it strikes me that the previous version is superior. For a start, the "most scholars" bit is completely unsourced. Also, the discussion of the relationship between the Synoptics and John is somewhat peripheral to the subject, and should not be in the lead. Finally the "is considered" bit is weasel-wording, and it's better to leave that out as well, and focus on the historical questions directly connected to Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the second (older, from 2015) version as better written and about of the same content. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded. Not sure why we moved away from this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

While I have no preference on the wording, take a closer look at Wikipedia policy on Weasel Words: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."

Simply stating that the Gospels are not considered to be fully reliable is neither a weasel word, nor does it have to name a specific author making the claim. It is a common evaluation of them, and explains their use as sources.

On the other hand, we already have an article on the Historical reliability of the Gospels. More specific details about the topic should be given in that article, not on the article on Jesus. And keep in mind that we have no way to verify elements of the Gospels through other sources. To quote the other article: "According to Eric Cline, there is no direct archaeological evidence on the existence of a historical Jesus or any of the apostles". Even the "experts" are making assessments and conjectures. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You say it's a common evaluation of them, but that would need to be sourced. The Ehrman quote seems to contradict it, actually - most people (Ehrman seems to say) believe the gospel accounts are "completely accurate". But even if we restrict ourselves to scholars, Ehrman's quote says nothing about "most" scholars (the much more specific not-completely-accurate-but-still-important evaluation is "widely held", but not necessarily a majority position, and certainly not a consensus one). Part of the weaselly nature of "is considered" comes from the fact that there is a vague, bot not explicit connection to "most scholars" earlier in the sentence. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I actually find the 2015 version much more useful, but the reason I reverted was because consensus is required for such a drastic rewording, and also the newer wording might be more...blatant, I guess, I don't really know how to express it- about how mythological parts of Gospels are, but nevertheless, I support the earlier 2015 version, possibly by a mile.ChaosDestroyer (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have consensus now - four people preferring the 2015 version, and one person having no preference. StAnselm (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the current wording is ideal. It summarises the views and includes that useful link to Historical Jesus. It doesn't make bold assertions but summarises the text, which a lead is supposed to do. In the interests of resolving a dispute, I don't think the current wording should be altered significantly, unless the goal is to make the text a little more concise. -- Hazhk (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've struck through the edit of a Gonzales John sock. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus: the NT gospels do have errors

This is Bible scholarship 101: for virtually anyone teaching Bible scholarship at a major university, the NT gospels do have errors. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree, but they are a minority among those scholars. I offered a WP:RS/AC quote in a footnote. I also offer one here:

"Lecture Four. IV. C. Let me be clear, though, that I’m not saying that every story in the Gospels is completely inaccurate. 1. The Gospels no doubt do contain historically reliable material that will be of considerable use to us as we try to establish what Jesus really said and did. 2. They also contain historically inaccurate material; part of our task will be deciding which is which. 3. Before pursuing that task, though, we must learn more about these books, for instance, who their authors were and where they got their stories." p. 14 of the same source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Only a few secular scholars claim errors. If there are errors, then they are all invalid, so no actual Christians say such a thing. No single error has ever been identified in scripture. Eodcarl (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if you can certify any error (not just misunderstanding of scripture) then you can keep the language. If not, I revert. Eodcarl (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your definition of an actual Christian is no true Scotsman.

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As for certifying errors in the Bible, Wikipedia editors are not allowed to perform original research, instead we trust scholars to do the homework for us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, Tgeorgescu, your quotes you offer are not a WP:RS/AC quotes at all - they makes no claim about what is the academic consensus. The one in the article talks about a "widely shared" position, but that's not the same thing. The one here doesn't have anything along those lines at all. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree: widely shared means widely shared, it does not mean that a consensus has been reached. So I do not have a problem with using a source stating widely shared for verifying widely shared. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a problem with the ordering of this topic. What god gives Deconstructionists who hate the views that many have toward Jesus and the biblical texts the right to start out the article with their subversive views? Can you not have a little humility and respect the deeply held positions of less deconstructive scholars and the less radical whose views you seek to displace? How about letting those who more greatly love and respect the person of Jesus (who is the topic of the article) get a word in before you have to cram in your skeptical antipathy? Olorin3k (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is how I replied to Eodcarl:

You might want to read [6], [7], and [8]. Basically, your view of the academia is distorted: Ehrman is not a radical, but a quite mainstream scholar (conservative mainstream, one might say).

So, it is not hate or undue skepticism, it is how all historians (except conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists) evaluate historical sources (which happen to be holy for some). See e.g. [9]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Most probably unlike you, I actually lecture among leading world biblical scholars at conferences, etc., and can tell you more about academia than you know. So you do not fool me into adopting your radical view that Ehrman is mainstream conservative (what a joke). My point is unaddressed by you substantively--it is impertinent to start out the article on Jesus with your pet topic of deconstructing what most people think about the topic of Jesus. You treat the article on the total Jesus as if it were only an article about scholarly views on the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Your "hate or undue skepticism" should be moved down to the section on scholarly debate over historicity and not arrogantly assume unto itself primacy of place in the beginning of an article on the entire topic of Jesus, who is very much bigger than Ehrman's views on the Gospels. Olorin3k (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Then list a couple of sources (accounts) about Julius Caesar or Napoleon which are widely regarded as inerrant/infallible. About Ehrman: he is academically (scholarly) conservative, although he could be religiously and politically liberal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this should've been dead by now, but IIRC, even C. S. Lewis admitted that there was a degree of Chinese whispers going on between the Apostles and whoever wrote down the Gospels (thought he took it as an indication that they weren't forged). Even assuming that the texts were all as correct as possible, there are a few irreconcilable contradictions between them meaning that at least one (of not three out of four) have a few historical errors or narrative errors as it were. I think there would be less reason to complain if we pointed out (here, not in the article) that academia is concerned with historical errors that are not related to theology. @Olorin3k: the view you call "deconstructionist" is regarded by almost all the ministers I've ever had (all Baptists born, raised, educated, ordained, and working in the Bible Belt) as merely trying to understand the Gospels within their historical context so that the theology taught by them is not distorted through modern misinterpretation of ancient custom. It's not hateful, it is a cup of cold water for members of the flock who might otherwise be distracted by discovering those errors. Indeed, Ehrman became agnostic/atheist because he was continually raised to believe there are not and can not be any kind of error in any part of the Bible (as if the Bible was good in a way no one else is). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Olorin3k, if your preferred sources "love and respect" Jesus as you say, they are by nature biased and unreliable. Wikipedia needs objective, scholarly sources, preferably secular ones. By your argument, we should only include Nazi sources on Adolf Hitler, because they revere the man. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As Ehrman noted, there is a difference between a source being historically reliable and being theologically reliable. Being considered theologically reliable is a matter of church dogma. Being considered historically reliable is a matter of historical research, which has to be done regardless of the faith commitments of the historians performing it and has to avoid preaching to the choir. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm a published archaeologist and member of history societies who knows more history. Illogically, you are all redirecting attention away from my point, which you obscure with a red herring of debate over historicity. Perhaps you are so blindly limited to one facet of the topic so that you don't even realize it. But it remains arrogant to start out an article on the very large topic of "Jesus" as if it were only a more limited article on "The Historical Jesus" or the even more limited topic of debate over the historicity of the Gospels. Learn to open your mind, to consider from another perspective. Don't be such closed-minded bigots that you insist that the article must begin with a foundation determined by your own subset of viewpoints so as to limit the very much larger topic of "Jesus." Olorin3k (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Olorin3k, Who are you calling "bigots"? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As Olorin3k perhaps noticed, this article is concerned with the religious importance of Jesus. My concern is with a tiny and perhaps insignificant mention that the NT gospels aren't regarded as 100% historically accurate. Is he familiar with the Essjay controversy? Because he does not sound like someone accustomed with Bible scholarship (this is inferred from his claim that Ehrman would be a minority or fringe voice, while Ehrman got criticized because of being too mainstream). So I did not push for turning this article into a second copy of Historical Jesus. I simply advocated for a tiny note regarding the historicity of the NT gospels. Most readers will probably ignore it, but it is a fact that should be mentioned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that the animus of bigotry lies with anyone insisting that the article open with focus on historical Jesus including deconstructively delimiting source material for the topic of Jesus. It's like leading readers to ignore much of what follows because it isn't "historical," which I know to be a less substantial claim than do those uncritically worshipping tendentious and thus poor scholars like the so-called Jesus Seminar. Editors like Tgeorgescu do not bother to read what I've said when judging me to be ignorant of biblical scholarship and academia, of which I know and experience by far more than he ever will. I am skeptical of the right (whether academic or moral) to so control the beginning of the article. A blind bigot would not even see that they support such arrogance. Olorin3k (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Blind bigotry goes two directions. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think accusations of bigotry whether accurate or inaccurate are going to help much. An article on Jesus in Wikipedia can choose several frames. One could treat the subject in purely religious terms much like the article on Rama (e.g., starting with a sentence like "Jesus is the second person of the Christian God or the son of the Christian God the Father. He is the central figure of the Christian gospels in the New Testament, which are the principal narrations of the events connected to his incarnation on earth, his teachings, his death, and resurrection") and leaving discussion of historical evidence to much later. However since the article starts with placing him as a first century preacher and religious leader, his historical existence is front and center and therefore the scholarly evaluation of the gospels is of significance. I suspect removing description of Jesus as a historical figure would not go over well with anyone but mythicists (who are almost a non-existent group among scholars). Erp (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Jesus' age

OK, if Jesus was born 6-4 BC (as this page explains) and then he died around AD 33 (also from this page), then let's count the years:

5-2 BC (4 years) BC 1 AD 1 AD 2-33 (31 years)

He was at least 36 years old at the time of his death, according to the information on this page. The page should reflect this - not 33 (which seems like a novice wrote the difference between AD 33 and AD 1). -- Mysterious Gopher (talk, contribs), 18:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If he was born in 4 BC and died in 30 AD, he would have been 33 when he died. The problem we have here is that the lead sentence has his death date as "c. AD 30" and the infobox has "c. AD 30–33". (It's not actually between 30 and 33, but rather 30 or 33.) So maybe that inconsistency should be fixed. StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede paragraph on Christian view

The lede paragraph on Christian beliefs on Jesus needs some changes. The current version is badly written.

1. The sentence "Christians believe that Jesus has a 'unique significance" in the world'" should be removed. It's ambiguous and not useful.
2. The part about Jesus having "more existential or societal concerns" and the part about universal reconciliation should be removed. It's way too much detail for the lede. Also, they are not even mentioned anywhere else in the article.
3. The part about Nicene creed should probably be removed. I can't think of any compelling reason to include it. Again, why is this in the lede when it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article?

--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources

tThe section on the sources needs expansion. When I was at school, our Religious Studies teacher told us several earlt Jewish writers who wwere against Jesus mention him in their works.81.140.1.129 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right. There are other sources, although they're not as significant as Josephus and Tacitus. It might be worth mentioning them. I'm not sure.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Who are some of these early authors? I don't think Toledot Jeschu is normally thought of as very old, and that's anonymous, anyway, not by a known early author. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources for the historicity of Jesus probably covers most of them. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. The several early Jewish writers is Josephus plus maybe the Tannaim. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

the article mentions Alexander the Great as having less substantive records of his existence than the historical jesus of naserath. It does not link to Alexander the Great, and i supect, though i am by no means no scholar that the point is not easily verfiable or in fact untrue.

The point it makes is that a known historic figure, Alexander the Great, has less historic "proof" of existence than Jesus, whose existence is subject to more speculation. To see how verifiable this is you would have to read the source to see how accurate it is. Britmax (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also an illogical red herring. If the evidence for Jesus is good, then what does bringing up Alexander the Great add? If the evidence for Jesus is poor, but the evidence for Alexander is even worse, then that's a case for Alexander the Great revisionism. In either case, the evidence for Jesus stands up or fails on its own merits, not on the comparison with Alexander the Great. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The comparison to Alexander the Great is sourced to an authority, E P Sanders, and I believe is useful because people who have not studied any other figure from ancient history often get the idea that there is a paucity of confirmation from ancient sources that Jesus really existed. Exactly the opposite is true, there is more documentary evidence for Jesus' existence than for many other figures from antiquity, even conquerers like Alexander the Great, so I believe the sentence should remain in the article.Smeat75 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Logically, it could be the case that there is a paucity of confirmation from ancient sources that Jesus really existed and that there is more documentary evidence for Jesus' existence than for many other figures from antiquity. Saying that x > y does not establish that x is a large number. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeshua

Hello. Don't like editing Wikipedia but wanted to say that I think it is a mistake to include a Hebrew variant of a Greek name which was only ever given in a Greek text in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.33 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Also, it makes the start of the article a mess. The Hebrew variant added a few months ago because some editors thought it made sense.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've moved the transliterations to a footnote for readability, and given "Etymology" is the article's first section they still have a prominent place in the article. It was a bit silly to put them in the first sentence in the first place, Jesus was not a native speaker of either Greek or Hebrew. ¡Bozzio! 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much better.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Info box inconsistency

The info box has only the historical agreement on Jesus - that he was born in Herod's kingdom (not specifically Bethlehem) and crucified (not resurrected as per Christians or ascended as per Muslims. However, the fact that Joseph was his father has a footnote to Christian and Muslim views. This is inconsistent. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what's harmful about having that footnote there.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Islamic view picture

The Persian miniature is in effect an image of a fringe view, as most Muslims do not draw Jesus and other prophets. The best illustration should be the calligraphy, as that is more representative to a casual reader of how a Muslim depicts Jesus. Or just have no image for the section Valentina Cardoso (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:CENSOR (see also Talk:Muhammad/FAQ), Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Valentina is making a censorship argument but rather is claiming the image is WP:UNDUE since there are much more common Muslim depictions. Sizeofint (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc revert

User:Mlpearc, explain why you reverted my edits. Also read this: WP:DRNC. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

I've made a couple minor (IMHO) edits to the lede, but given all the warnings I thought it would be best if I provided a more detailed explanation rather than just relying on the edit summary.

1. Altered the opening sentence to read just "Jesus … is the central figure of Christianity".

The previous opening sentence was "Jesus … was a Jewish preacher and religious leader who has become the central figure of Christianity". It's obviously completely accurate, but I think it's overly clunky – "preacher and religious leader" is redundant, and "has become" implies there was a point when Jesus was not the central figure of Christianity. My change brings the article into alignment with MOS:BIO, which states "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable". It also conforms with several of our other articles on founders of religions – our articles on Zoroaster, Moses, Muhammad, Guru Nanak, and Bahá'u'lláh all use the simplest wording possible.

2. Moved the information removed from the opening sentence to the second paragraph.

This seems like a natural fit with the other information about the historical Jesus. I've made a few minor changes in wording and shifted to a more chronological order (origin --> baptism --> ministry --> death).

Obviously anyone has free rein to revert these changes, hopefully followed by input here. Thanks, ¡Bozzio! 15:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Jewish preacher" and "religious leader" are important, since they highlight the roles of the historical Jesus, which this article should address. Also, there definitely was a time when Jesus was not the central figure of Christianity, which was before St Paul founded the religion. (New here, can't edit this article, can someone please do it for me? Thanks)FlamingCorn (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't true to say that Paul founded Christianity, but yes - the previous wording was much better in that it emphasises a historical person. StAnselm (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

St Paul founded the religion? PiCo (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@FlamingCorn: Just curious, how can there be a central figure of a religion before said religion was founded? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Has become" implies a time when he was not the central figure. It should just be "is the central figure". Even "became" would be better. --JFH (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity." It's short and snappy, and all the other things that go to define him - preacher, teacher, rabbi, prophet, healer, social revolutionary, apocalyptic revolutionary - could take up a paragraph in themselves. PiCo (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think "became the central figure of Christianity" is best. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

How about this: "Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/ jee-zuss; c. 4 BC – c. AD 30/33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, was a Jewish preacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity, in which he is believed to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament."— Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureTrillionaire (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think I agree with StAnselm. I'd prefer we only change it to "who became the central figure..." But the above suggestion is preferable to the status quo. --JFH (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus for at least "became", so I made that change. --JFH (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I think it ought to be made clear that the date of birth was not necessarily circa 4 B.C., because there is evidence that casts considerable doubt upon the hypothesis that the Nativity occurred several years before the estimate of Dionysius Exiguus, with it, instead, occurring several years afterwards. The main reason behind the thinking that Jesus was born between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C. is that King Herod the Great supposedly died around 4 B.C., which is supposed to have been mathematically implied by statements in Jewish historian Josephus's treatise Antiquities of the Jews. However, in that same tome, Josephus also implies, mathematically, that King Herod the Great died around the years 7-8 A.D., since it is stated that he was 15 years old in the year 47 B.C., and died at the age of 70 years. This would fit in neatly with the statement in Luke that the Virgin Mary was pregnant with Jesus around the year 6 A.D., when the Census of Quirinius was conducted. I think the article should be amended to incorporate this uncertainty regarding the actual date of birth of Jesus. 98.180.166.27 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You'll need a reference. Note also that most academic historians consider that the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew to be completely legendary (beyond parents' names and that he grew up in Nazareth). Note that the census of Quirinius could only take place after Judea became part of the Roman Empire and not just a client kingdom and if you shift Herod's death you also have to shift all the related events including the census. --Erp (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

BC/AD?

Shouldn't these be changed to BCE and CE? 71.84.100.193 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, see the FAQ at the top of the page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Barabbas

The article currently uses the phrase "a murderer called Barabbas". Isn't that misleading? Both the Gospel of Mark and that of Luke describe this prisoner as held for his role in a stasis. That is typically translated as a riot or insurrection, not a murder. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

When I was reading this I think I may see an error. In the Bible it says that Jesus is the son of God and the Quran also states that he was born with intervention of God. But where it says who his parents were it says Mary and Joseph. If the religions believe that he is the son of God should that not be posted? Thank you, Mr.WikiSam Mr.WikiSam (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the infobox, there is a note about that next to Joseph.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete short citations

The following sources are given as footnotes in Citations but lack full bibliographical details anywhere in the article:

• Ehrman 1993
• Janet 2012

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To add that Jesus rejected temptations in lead

I consider to add in lead that Jesus rejected temptations before started to preach. Datastat (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions the temptations briefly. Maybe it's a good idea to add an extra sentence or two describing what happened in each temptation, preferable without interpretation what each temptation means.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail in the lead, though. Britmax (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think it should be in the lede. But maybe in the body.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)

-- I agree to add description down. Section is called Baptism and temptation and out of 20 sentences only 2 are about temptations without saying what temptations were. Datastat (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The living an dthe dead

Well, the living can't be resurrected, so "the living and the dead either before or after their bodily resurrection" seems strange.

And, is "living and the dead" correct from the beginning? 112.211.196.151 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

There is another proposed birth date for the baby Jesus as given by revelation to the modern-day prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. According to scripture found in the Latter-day Saint canon called the Doctrine and Covenants, first verse of the twentieth section: The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April Thus, according to this new volume of scripture in these latter days, the actual month and day of the Lord's birth is April 6th, according to ancient prophecies of when Jesus' real date of birth matching up with the Passover season when Old Testament prophets foretold the Savior's birth to be. Tahoemormon1970 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what change you are proposing, if any. But any discussion about a 6 April date should be in the Date of birth of Jesus article if it's anywhere. StAnselm (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention of "Jesu"

I am surprised that in an article of this size there is no sentence (probably in etymology section since this is also an etymology of how Middle English Jesu changed to Jesus) explaining that "Jesu" commonly encountered in older hymns and poems is an English vocative or genitive form? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I note that it has a section in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: only because I just added that. Although I have no way of knowing that en.wp didn't once mention "Jesu" and had edited it out. Seems a little incongruous that "Jesu" refers to Jesus in Google Books, but refers to Justin Broadrick in Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your chances of finding a modern internet warrior capable of recognising a Vocative at 40 paces, and distinguishing him from a Vogon, are decidedly slim.PiCo (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nazareth Inscription

What do you guys think about this edit? I'm not familiar with the Nazareth Inscription. However, reading the article, it doesn't seem like the inscription is good evidence for the empty tomb, considering that its origin and date is unknown.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I have never heard of it either. As stated, the edit is factual, though if it is retained, a link to Nazareth Inscription should be added, and a counter-sentence along the lines of "Modern scholars consider any connection between the Inscription and Jesus to be tenuous at best.". I am weakly in favor of retention. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be linked if retained, and should not be worded "evidence from the famous Nazareth Inscription" as it isn't famous enough for the three of us to have heard of it and there is nothing to say that it was set up in Nazareth, as the article says. I think the connection with Jesus is so conjectural and tenuous that it doesn't belong in this article.Smeat75 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the scholars mentioned in the sentence and in the source don't seem to be very notable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine; I don't see sufficient reason to argue in favor of retention. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello.Gaetano De Sanctis is considered the greatest Roman historian of the 20th century-he was Arnaldo Momigliano's professor. Leopold Wenger was the best Roman law scholar of the first half of the 20th century. Bruce Metzger wrote a book on the Nazareth Inscription. It has been important to the greatest scholars and deserves to be in the Jesus Wikipedia article. I am asking that my Nazareth Inscription sentence be restored.Buckrogers24 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there's not enough evidence to show that the inscription has anything to do with Jesus. We don't know where, when, or why the inscription was written.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And Buckrogers24's sentence was also pov and would have, I think, led most readers to think it was related. I've noted a problem about our article on it at its talk page. Reading the article you'd think the debate was all about its relationship to Jesus. But a number of sources discuss its relationship to the alleged Hellenization or Romanization of the area.[10][11] or of ancestor worship.[12] I also see that The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus says it probably didn't originate in Nazareth.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

However, many scholars, including De Sanctis, the preeminent Roman historian of the last century and Wenger, the preeminent Roman law historian, do indeed think the Nazareth Inscription has evidence to do with Jesus. I have given a reliable source to show this. It is not my pov but the view of some of the greatest historians. Therefore I am asking again that the Nazareth Inscription sentence be restored in accordance with Wikipedia policy;thank you. Buckrogers24 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gaetano De Sanctis died in 1957. The original volumes of his main work were published between 1907 and 1923. He is not exactly an up to date source on Roman history and archaeology.

According to German Wikipedia, this Leopold Wenger, the historian, died in 1953. The English Wikipedia only has reference to a Leopold Wenger who served as an Oberleutnant of the Luftwaffe in World War II.

Bruce M. Metzger is a much more recent source, since he died in 2007. He was also the leader of the translating team behind the New Revised Standard Version (1989). Dimadick (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

De Sanctis and Wenger(Leopold Wenger Institute of the University of Munich) were geniuses and giants of Greco-Roman history -the best of the best. Their view on the Nazareth Inscription is still relevant. But Metzer also notes many other good scholars who agreed with them. They are probably right about the Nazareth Inscription's referral to the empty tomb of Jesus. You shouldn't exclude my Nazareth Inscription sentence because it states what many good scholars believed. The readers deserve to be informed about what these great scholars thought about the inscription.I am asking again that the sentence be restored.Buckrogers24 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion of those scholars is not really relevant here. And no, readers don't deserve to be informed about what those particular scholars thought. If anything is going to be put in this article about the Nazareth inscription, and I don't think it should be, it should not represent just one point of view, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. In the end no one knows where it was placed originally, not even if it was found in Nazareth. It really doesn't belong here. It probably does belong though at Historicity of Jesus. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Foreign names should be in the lead

The foreign names of this person (at least Greek and probably also Aramaic) should appear in the lead. At present, with the long length of the lead, they first appear way too far down the page. MOS:FORLANG encourages this practice, and if we added the most important details of the etymology section to the lead that would in theory free us up to move the etymology section itself around a bit. (At present the first section of the body doesn't stand by itself; just read the first sentence.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Relegating the foreign names to a footnote was a relatively recent change, made by User:Bozzio here. StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Aramaic/Hebrew name should definitely be included, as the name was originally in Aramaic (derived from an identical Hebrew name). I can't imagine any reason not to include it. Greek also makes sense because many of the primary sources about Jesus were written in Greek, though I could imagine someone making the argument in good-faith that Jesus wouldn't have answered to the Greek form (which I grant as an irrelevant but far from guaranteed possibility). While this is up, I could also see including Latin on the grounds that "Jesus" in English (and even more obviously in many other languages) derives from Iesu(s), though I can imagine good-faith arguments to exclude these for the sake of tidiness. Beyond that, I can't imagine justification for other foreign names (e.g. Spanish Jesús), as this is the English Wikipedia. I think that's what we need to keep in mind when random passers-by from Armenia, Russia, or wherever drop in their own language's names (as I see too often in some other articles). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I assume by "originally" you mean "how Jesus likely referred to himself". I don't know exactly how old the name itself is, but if there was a historical Joshua then it goes back at least 1,000 or so years before Jesus, but although I don't know much about Hebrew specifically, it seems almost impossible that the name Joshua called himself was identical to the name Jesus called himself. We don't have any surviving Hebrew writing from the period during which a lot of people would likely say the name was in use, and I'd guess (but don't quote me!) that a lot of scholars would say the Israelites didn't even have writing at the time (our Paleo-Hebrew alphabet article implies such). This philology game is kind of off-topic, but my point is that detailed speculation about etymology does not belong in the lead. I would give priority to Greek, since the Greek name is the root for the names of Jesus in English and various other languages and is the name by which he is referred in all the earliest surviving historical texts except Thomas (I don't know if the Coptic spelling is identical to the Greek). Since I think the Aramaic/Hebrew is almost as important for this article I say include both. But I agree with Bozzio's sentiment about readability. FORLANG tells us that if we are going to give more than one foreign equivalent, we should not give them in the very first sentence, and even readers proficient in Greek and Hebrew would likely agree. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see two or three editors watching this page using the above to prove I am ignorant of early Christian literature. I know Thomas was originally in Greek. But the text as we have it is in Coptic. My point, however, is that that doesn't matter. The lead should give, at most, Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I originally made the change per the suggestion of two other users here. I think it clutters up the opening sentence, and the information is repeated with more more context in the etymology section, which is the first section in the article. ¡Bozzio! 05:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thing is, I would call into question whether it should be the first section of the article. At present, this article violates the general rule that the body should stand independently of the lead, as the first sentence of the etymology section assumes the reader has read the lead. I think that's generally a fair assumption to make, but it's not apparently one we are supposed to make, especially with GAs and FAs. I can't actually think of another article on a person where the first section is "Etymology" -- Moses, Krishna, Muhammad, Confucius and Laozi all have some variation on "Names", and a section title like "Etymology" makes it sound like this is an article about a word (no pun intended).

And even if "Etymology" is the first section, it's still really far down the article. On my laptop I have to press PgDn three times before seeing it. It should also be somewhere in the lead (not the first sentence, but also not a footnote attached to the first sentence. If there weren't already thirty ledecites, maybe a single footnote would stand out more, but I honestly missed it when reading through the lead earlier.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As a personal opinion, I might just include the Greek and maybe Latin forms of the name with a link to Joshua (name). I note that the New Catholic Encyclopedia has a very short article, less than half a column long, on "Jesus (the name)", but that article does include in its bibliography a reference to an article in volume three of the L. W. Foester and G. Kittel Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament which apparently runs to over ten pages from page 284 to page 294 along with two other apparently shorter "articles" in two other encyclopedias. Taken together, they would seem, to my eyes, sufficient basis for a fully developed article on the name Joshua or Jesus. Given the choice between the two, I would opt for using Joshua, like the article I linked to currently uses, as it seems to me anyway to be a maybe slightly better transcription of the original name. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions?

A notice was added to the top of this page today -"The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages." Is this correct? If so, can anyone refer me to the discussion where this was decided? And if it is correct, there are a lot of "associated pages" that need to have this notice added to their talk pages.Smeat75 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything relating to Jesus or Christianity here [14], which is a list of topic areas currently under discretionary sanctions, so I am taking that notice off the top of this page.Smeat75 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Endorse removal. This seems like a case of an over-enthusiastic new editor overreaching and tagging articles with discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image proposal

• 
  Christ Pantocrator mosaic from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem

Mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity. I proposed this image a year ago and it was declined because it was too early for a new picture at that time and because of glare. Now that enough time has past and the glare is fixed I bring it up again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The discussion that led to the current image is here. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• I still think the current one looks better, and is easier to see at reduced size. Better yet, we haven't had any complaints yet (despite the obvious minefield), so if it isn't broken, don't fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Given the potential sensitivity of this topic it's probably wise to follow the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but this image is growing on me. It's a typical depiction of Christ Pantocrator and of all the churches to have a prominent wikilink in the lede caption the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would be the most appropriate. How old is the mosaic? Even if it's 20th-century it could still be an appropriate lede picture as an illustration of Orthodox art sticking very closely to the traditional formulas. Ham II (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• I still think the current image is better. On big articles like this it may be a good idea to rotate after a few years, but I think the next choice should not be another Byzantine-style one, but more Western church. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325062826/http://www.stevemason.eu/resources/SMason-JSJ-2007-Jews-Judaism.pdf to http://www.stevemason.eu/resources/SMason-JSJ-2007-Jews-Judaism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Jesus by Richard Neave

I was wondering why the more realistic depiction of Jesus, as created by Richard Neave for Popular Mechanics, has not been included in this article? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/

The article includes many obviously unrealistic art, so why the absence of scientific depiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it is a copyrighted image. It would need a fair use rationale and to be in low res, but the article already has so many images that it may not be warranted. If there is an actual study associated with the reconstruction, the article could cite it, though. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, such a picture may be better suited for the Historical Jesus article - again, if there is a study to back it up. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Or rather Race and appearance of Jesus. The Neave reconstruction is already mentioned there, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Author

I was thanked by the user:Germanymeekah (no user page), for the above edit. The user is a SPA account has only a single edit on the 12th March 2017. I suspect he could be the article author. scope_creep (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The odds are against it, but if he is, then hopefully he learned something about Wikipedia from the discussion above. Wdford (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

As a Wikipedia editor coming across this page, I noticed that the lead was poorly written and looks like it was a result of fighting. I was going to try to fix it and came across the notes saying not to edit the page, so I didn't. I suggest you remove the tags discouraging editors. That is all. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The notes are a request not to edit the article without reading at least some of the discussion that brought it to the condition it is in today. As doing this can save editors time and trouble it is unlikely that these notes will be removed in the forseeable future. Britmax (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Parents?

Joseph was His foster father. If you are talking about Jesus Christ, then you have to write that His father - God the Father. Otherwise it does not make any sense. In Russian Wikipedia we wrote that His father is God the Father. It is absolutely not important what Muslims, Jews and godless think. Their opinion can be voiced somewhere at the end of the article. Алессия (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not the way this works. Bias towards any religion is not on here. The idea that god is Jesus' father is a belief not a fact. Britmax (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This article tells about Jesus Christ - the central figure of Christianity. In the Bible His Father is God the Father. What sources do you use to get information about Joseph as Jesus Christ' father? It does not make any sense. The information about Joseph is also taken from the Bible. Why take information from the Bible and distort it? Алессия (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

We do have a footnote next to Joseph. That should be good enough. The infobox doesn't explicitly say that Joseph is Jesus' biological parent.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then it should be written that His father is God the Father, and the foster father is Joseph. Is not it? And I do not understand why the footnote speaks about Muslims? Their opinion is not of primary importance.Алессия (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Theological claims do not amount to objective knowledge. Wikipedia isn't written for true believers, it is mainly concerned with objective facts, not with subjective beliefs (but objective facts about subjective beliefs may be rendered, e.g. that Christians think that Jesus is God, or "a god", as Jehovah's Witnesses do). Miracles cannot be accepted as objective historical facts, since post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism. For the contrary view, see Twelftree on YouTube, but for Wikipedia such view is WP:FRINGE/PS. Did Krishna decide the fate of WW2? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Joseph as the father of Jesus is an "objective fact"? Where did you get information about Joseph? From the Bible, right? But the Bible says that Joseph is the foster father of Jesus. And His real father is God the Father. Why in the article written only part of the information from the same source? Besides, the article tells about Jesus Christ - the central figure of Christianity. For everything else there is a "historical Jesus." Алессия (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, as a flesh and blood person is (or was) the historical Jesus. Jesus fathered by God is a mythological Jesus. As real, objective fathers for Jesus there are two known candidates: Saint Joseph and Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. God has not fathered Jesus in any objective meaning. Do take heed of WP:POVFORK: articles should not be forked to the exclusion of valid information about somebody, just in order to please the POV of his/her fans in one of the forked articles. Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, it does not have a Christian bias. According to WP:RNPOV, Christian religion is just one religion among many other religions, for Wikipedia it isn't inherently better (or worse) than other religions. Wikipedia does not cater to true believers. Don't be ridiculous: we can't put in Wikipedia's voice that the father of Jesus is God. That's not a fact, that's a subjective belief. Your argument is special pleading for accepting myth as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I repeat my question: where did you get information about Joseph? From the Bible, right? Why then do you think its "real, objective"? Pantera is from the Talmud. Why did the Talmud become "real, objective" for you? What's the point? Your prejudgement it that real ridiculous. Алессия (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Scholars have made arguments for miracles and the virgin birth. Other scholars have made arguments against it. It's a controversial issue for sure. Probably in our best interest to not dwell too much on it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Historians make the call, not ordinary Bible readers. Historians critically analyze the Bible, they don't take it at face value. Not distinguishing between objective information and subjective claims is a matter of WP:CIR#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, in terms of familial and legal lineage, Joseph IS named in the Bible as Jesus' father. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have opened an WP:NPOVN topic about this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was because we have failed to convince at least two editors. At least this is my impression. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It took me a bit to realize Tgeorgescu is correct. The second editor, Daniel Klimovich, has not commented here, but made edits directly to the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I have not commented here is because I am brand new editing on Wikipedia. I do not know the rules yet. I did not even know there was a place to chat with others on Wikipedia until about an hour ago. Daniel Klimovich 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Daniel Klimovich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Klimovich (talk • contribs)

The existing version seems to handle a neutral description adequately. The proposed edit stating God as Jesus's father as fact is quite obviously not acceptable per our content policies, particularly WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I wrote my opinion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Stating_as_an_objective_fact_that_God_is_the_father_of_Jesus, but I can repeat: My point of view: the information about Joseph is taken from the Bible. There are no other sources about Joseph. But the Bible says that the father of Jesus Christ is God the Father. What's the point? Do you believe the Bible that Joseph existed, but do not believe that he was a foster father? There are three normal ways: 1. Father is God the Father. 2. Write only about Virgin Mary. 3. Write about Joseph is the foster father. Алессия (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You did not mention any reliable source stating that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus. The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY religious source, and and according to WP:OR it cannot verify any claims for Wikipedia, except for the most straightforward and uncontroversial platitudes. So: "father is God the Father", that cannot be an objective truth, it is a subjective religious belief; "only Virgin Mary", as said above, you need serious WP:SOURCES for this; "foster father", again, sources are lacking, we cannot take the Bible at face value and pretend that that's an objective historical fact. As said, historians make the call, we simply render what historians consider. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

1. What is bad if there will be "God" and a footnote "according to the Christian doctrine"? I don't ask to write - "it is an objective fact." 2. Ok, not "Virgin Mary", but "Mary". If there is no consensus about the father, maybe just don't write about him? 3. Are you want to say that there is consensus of scientists that Joseph existed and was the father of Jesus? Алессия (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• As argued by Bart Ehrman, the scenario that two disciples took the corpse of Jesus from the tomb, on the way they met two Roman soldiers, they drew the swords, they were slain by the Romans and the three bodies were dumped outside the city is for historians a million times more probable than the scenario that a miracle has happened. There is no evidence for either scenario, but one of them would be preferred by default to the other by post-Enlightenment historians. Similarly, for rank-and-file historians choosing between "Joseph has impregnated Mary" or "the Holy Ghost has impregnated Mary": the mundane event is millions times more probable than a miracle, so it will be preferred by default. How were those lyrics? "The deck is stacked, the game is rigged..." Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

See Thievery Corporation - The Numbers Game. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• "What is bad" is that you personal belief is not universal "Christian doctrine", and Christian doctrine, universal or not, is not the only point of view. I'm not particularly well-versed in the Bible, but even within Trinitarianism a naive reading of Matthew 1:18 suggests that the the father (in biological terms, as far as they apply) is not God the Father, but the Holy Spirit. The title "God the Father" is more strongly derived from "God, the creator and father of the universe" than from his (or her, or its) role in the conception of Jesus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As stated at the end of the WP:NPOVN discussion, Алессия does not seem to understand what WP:NPOV is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• The Bible has been revised multiple times, has multiple translations, and includes contradictions. And, it is just one of the “holy” books of the Abrahamic religions. And, there are innumerable other historical and academic texts that study the same time periods and development of religion. And, there exist innumerable non-Abrahamic religions. It appears you wish to use whatever version of this one text you like as the ”only source” for “the truth”. That isn’t going to work in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

These being said, the very first line of the article says that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. So it is not like we would shove this under the carpet. The article says it upfront, so why does it have to be stated in the infobox? As far as I have understood, the infobox is for data whereupon there is wide agreement, regardless of one's religion or lack of religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It says most Christians believe this. But, the article goes on to talk of other religions. The infobox cannot show the "belief" of one group, as if it's fact. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, Jesus is not a holy figure in just Christianity. We can say that Christians think his father was the son of god, but it is not an "objective fact" it is subjective at best. Also lets not forget, we are all children of god, so maybe it is meant to be allegorical.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus' existence, England

user:General Ization wants to add a survey about people in England's views on Jesus' existence. However, this doesn't belong in this article as it says more about religious views of the English than it does on the historicity of Jesus. This is a classic case of Argumentum ad populum.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: First, I was not the original editor who introduced this content; I reverted your reversion of Redhat101's contribution. Secondly, yes, to respond to your hypothetical, if a responsible poll published in a reliable source indicated that 40% of the population of any country or other sizable population believed that George Washington never existed, it should certainly be mentioned at George Washington. Popular skepticism about the very existence of the subject is relevant to the subject of this article. I'm less confident that Derek Murphy's claim belongs here, but that can be taken up as a separate discussion. General Ization ^Talk 03:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As for Argumentum ad populum, no, no one is making a case that 40% of the English don't believe Jesus existed, ergo he did not exist. Your invocation of that claim as an argument against the content is itself fallacious. General Ization ^Talk 03:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement that 40% of England not believing in Jesus might belong in the religion in England article, since it says more about religious belief in England. We already have a section on the Christ Myth Theory, so I'm not sure why you want to add specific statistics from specific countries.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it is a responsible poll published in a reliable source which provides insight into the acceptance of the theory by a large Western population (which happens to be English) of a country largely considered Christian, and is relevant to the subject of this article. The fact that it also might belong somewhere else is not a valid argument for its removal here. General Ization ^Talk 03:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory. The user that added that statistic to this article copied it from Christ Myth Theory. If you have a statistic on popular acceptance of this theory on a worldwide level, and maybe it's significant enough to belong in this article as well. However, as statistic for just England is not.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think. The results of the Church of England poll, which was limited to an English population because that is where the church is based (obviously), tend to show it may not be not as much of a fringe theory as you seem to think, whether or not those who were polled knew of the theory or know it by that name. General Ization ^Talk 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

From Christ Myth Theory: "In modern scholarship, the Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory, and is accepted by only a small number of academics." Obviously, opinion from experts in the field is more valuable than layman's opinion (in this case, an apparent popular misconception in England). The England statistic is okay for the Christ Myth Theory article, but it's undue weight for this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already addressed the "layman's opinion" argument. As I said, let's see what other editors think. At this point, we neither have consensus for its retention or for its removal. General Ization ^Talk 04:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm against adding the statement, it looks so out of place and is skewed towards a certain demographic. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really as much a case of "undue weight", it is really more of a case on whether a survey should belong on a summary of another article, and it clearly does not. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, is it higher or lower than the percentage in Mongolia? StAnselm (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It is totally out of placeAceruss (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

1. Please change "was a Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "was a non-denominational, non-religious leader" because Jesus was not part of any religion or denominations and these were formed after his death. Religion if separated into Re-Legion is the regrouping of a legion, which the definition of is revealed in Mark 5:9 . 2. Please change "Christians believe him to be the Son of God" to "Christians and Born-Again Believers believe him to be the Son of God" because Born-Again Believers believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and they do not classify themselves as Christians or any religious denomination . 3. Please change "Jesus was a Galilean Jew" because Jesus was not a Jew or any other specified group causing separation; some only think that because they are interpreting the New Testament or Bible incorrectly. The correct interpretations are revealed to those who believe in Jesus Christ. The veil is lifted from their eyes and minds to be able to understand the Word of God. If the word Jew is separated into Je-w than one can translate Je into I and the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep. The New Testament may have translated the word Ewe into Jew because of the "Je" being the word or letter "I" so that is how they spelled the translation but the pronunciation may not have been correct. Throughout the New Testament, we are told that he is the Lamb of God because he is as innocent as a Lamb . 4. Please change any instances of "New Testament" to "not the original translation of the New Testament, which is the King James Version," . 5. Please add to notes section n. Any information on wikipedia should be unbiased and objective but this page on Jesus is biased and no edits are allowed and references to the original New Testament have not been made or translated correctly . Acerfamily888 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Acer, I will not debate your beliefs nor will any other editor here. Your changes above don't appear to have any reliable reference for such a position. I can provide many for the exact things you are wanting to change. Do you have any secondary references that support your position? --^StormRider 00:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I do have to debate the part about the word Jew being separated into Je-w before changing Je into I so the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep -- "Ewe" is the English word for a female sheep (no translation involved!), which would only leave it relevant if one suggested that Jesus was transgender and the disciples spoke English instead of Hebrew (which didn't exist until a thousand years after Jesus's time). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree that there is no basis for the changes Acer wants: Jesus was born into a Jewish family in Galilee according to the Bible. Keep the text as is.Parkwells (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In the article, Jesus is referred to as "rabbi" according to the Bible – would it be appropriate to replace "Jewish preacher" with "Jewish rabbi"? CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

An interesting point. AFAIK, rabbi is a doctor of Jewish law. The article uses the qualifier: "often being referred to as" before rabbi. I think this is the safe way of referring to the title. Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that there were numerous translations of the Bible before the KJV, including English translations, see Bible translations into English. Where do people get these ideas? Doug Weller talk 18:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No idea where people get the idea it was the first, but there are certain groups that believe it's the best. clpo13_(talk) 18:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501064500/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://readfwd.com/download/Russell-Bertrand-Why-I-Am-Not-a-Christian.epub

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Second coming of Jesus Christ

Want to write something about Second coming of Jesus Christ. Abraham891 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Abraham891: That's better covered in Jesus in Christianity than this article, and it's already covered in the section #Resurrection, Ascension and Second Coming. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also this article. Britmax (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for restructuring the Jesus articles based on this criticism. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

An article published three days ago criticized our coverage of Jesus as follows:[15]

One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth.

I have tried to verify this claim. A talk page comment from the late Steven Rubenstein from 12 years ago summarized it as follows:

Please remember the history: in an attempt to keep the Jesus article NPOV, detailed accounts of a variety of views were added, and the article became too long for many servers. There was a quick consensus to have the article focus on the Christian POV, with sub-articles on other points of view, and very brief summaries with links as subsections of the Jesus article. The main topics spun off were on the historical and cultural context for Jesus, which placed Jesus in the context of what we know about Jewish history and culture; one on the "historicity" of Jesus, meaning, debates over whether or not Jesus actually existed; this article, and I think one or two more on the critical study of the NT and Christology.

I propose we take this criticism seriously and consider whether some restructuring of the various Jesus articles would be appropriate. Things have moved on significantly since 2003-04 when the current structure was created. The suggestion of "Multiple Parallel Narratives" on such a high profile topic is damning to our project.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That may have been the case 12 years ago, but the continued existence of all those pages is due to Wikipedia:Summary style. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

When New Atheism was more fashionable the Jesus article was a mess. You had militant atheists pushing the unscholarly view that Jesus never existed. It was largely done by footnotes to crank sources. For readers who took the time to view the footnotes and had some familiarity with the scholarship surrounding the historicity of Jesus, it made Wikipedia look very unscholarly. Militant atheists are just a small minority of the world’s population and their unhistorical POV should not have been as prominent as it was formerly. As far as the press coverage, I have my doubts that the warring camps of Wikipedians will ever stop fighting over the article. One suggestion I have is to break up the Christian view of Jesus into two camps: theologically conservative/tradtional Christianity and liberal Christianity. desmay (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth."

Is it really "famous"? I was not around when Historical Jesus was created so I don't know the circumstances but it is not the case that articles about Jesus are split into different pages for believers and unbelievers, that would be WP:POV fork and is not allowed. The different articles about Jesus concentrate on different aspects of Jesus studies.Smeat75 (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Disregard - I cannot regard as important that someone somewhere doing a vague criticism of Wikipedia claimed something wrong happened in this article 12+ years ago.

First, in this side remark of a long piece against Wales generally, the opinion writer did not give a date or other reason for credibility of his own claims about this article. And if this is being given as a famous, clear, or worst example he has or could choose makes me think not well of that critic. What is actually in the page creation says nothing like that, and what you have seems not a good match. There *was* a deletion discussion and mentions done circa archive 7 of Jesus, I think I will respect it as more credible than this critic's portrayal of motives.

Second - neither that article nor this RFC is proposing something, so if there is no alternative in sight then ... it seems rather pointless whingeing. The focus should be whether it is a valid article today and whether the content is good, not on something 12 years ago which may have been (was) far different content than today.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Gads, going back twelve years in order to base a critique? Just thinking of all the changes that have occurred in twelve years can take your breath away. The leap is too far to take it seriously. It reminds of sibling squabbles, "You took my candy five years ago and now I want your candy!" Who cares what happened five years ago much less twelve years ago. For me the take away is, okay, I hear you and let's be sure we continue to be as fair as possible and base our decisions on proper reasoning. Anything more does not make much sense. --^StormRider 04:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Don't Disregard The news article has obviously been well thought out and is valid and the writer/journalist has obviously as much a stake in Wikipedia as we have. He may not be a WP member, but he thought enough about WP to write the article in the first place. I think we can take a lesson from what is regarded as truth. They say Truth is objective, and I truly believe in an ideal world, a perfect world, it would be, but were are not perfect. You also seem to be missing the point, about the reference being 12+ years old, how can it be valid? Of course it is valid, as soon the page is written, it become history, and becomes subject to the tenants of historical research. So anything 3 days ago, is now history. It could be 3 days, 3 hundreds years, it is still valid, if you can extract meaning from it, and it has value. I think he is doing what any professional historian would do, even though he is not a professional historian (I don't know). At the end of the day, WP is a product, and such it has a lifecycle. There is no guarantee that what is written now, won't satisfy future generations, and a complete or partial rewrite could occur. Taking an example of what could be suspected of being subjective truth, is the Walt Disney article, a possible comparison. The article is perfectly written, beautifully formatted with excellent references, a ton of time spent on it because he is cultural icon, quite rightly so, but completely misses two key points, which are: his terrible childhood, and the fact he was a terrible racist and bully, which was perhaps the result of his childhood. So I think you need be careful with events/reports like this. Take a good hard look at it, a proper critique, and see where it can be improved. When you start resting on ones laurels, then that is the time to be on ones guard. scope_creep (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The current structure is fine. Our primary source for the life of Jesus is the NT, which is why we have a large section devoted to that. The historical views section focuses on various analysis and conclusions from scholars.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can see the point of the criticism, but I am afraid that there is not only one Truth, but many different truths: summarizing the NT legendary claims about Jesus (without saying they are true or false, render them just in order to know what the NT talks about), analyzing the historical facts about the life of Jesus, analyzing what the theologies of the most important denominations say about Jesus, analyzing what notable heresies said about Jesus, analyzing the historicity of Jesus, analyzing notable fringe claims about Jesus, and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, Wikipedia isn't a free market of ideas, but only ideas from reliable sources are allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This newspaper article seems to be a defensive response to the proposal by Jimmy Wales to create a wikiproject to filter out unreliable "news". This newspaper article is written by a journalist, who is presumably feeling attacked by the "insinuation" that newspapers are unreliable. In the attack they are seeking to portray Wikipedia as unreliable, in a transparent version of "who are you to point fingers at us, you are even more unreliable than we are." I wasn't around 12 years ago, but a brief glance at the current Jesus article will make it obvious that the article considers all aspects of the topic, and that the large number of Jesus-related articles are due to the sheer quantity of material, not to a desire to give each side their own (conflicting) page. In printing this attack-article, the journalist is actually guilty of biased and unreliable reporting, thus proving Wales' point that extra fact-checking of "fake news" is actually required. I don't think that the current Jesus article needs to be changed, but in this age of post-truth and the manipulation of information, it would be a good idea to be constantly on our guard against editors with agendas trying to twist Wikipedia articles to "support" their own version of reality. Wdford (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Reflecting on the above discussion, it seems clear that we all feel the criticism is unfair. There is also some reluctance to ignore it though. Perhaps the simplest resolution would be to rename the Historical Jesus article. It is the easily misinterpreted "headline" of the name of that article which makes it easy for readers to think it was written by a group of editors who couldn't get their views represented elsewhere. And when you read that article, it is poorly structured and overlaps with Historicity of Jesus and Quests for the historical Jesus. As such it is an easy target for criticism. But also an easy fix. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should make any knee jerk reaction. scope_creep (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment No need to merge, there is already a lot in this article about it, but it seems patently obvious that there has been enough scholarship about Jesus to justify multiple pages under our policies - (echoing Onceinawhile maybe not two pages Historical Jesus and Quest for historical Jesus?) but that is not a problem with this particular article. "Multiple parallel narratives" is exactly what we are required to write about under the core policies, when that is what is represented by the available scholarship - this page does a fair job of linking to them and offering brief summaries of the different articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed with desmay & StAnselm (despite being a "militant agnostic", if you will, and a Jesus historicity skeptic). Also agreed that Historical Jesus should merge to Historicity of Jesus, as redundant. And agreed that the article is unfair, and that we can't merge them all, per WP:SUMMARY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Jesus as founder of a new religious movement

The lede should make it clear that Jesus was the founder of a new religious movement. Right now the first paragraph just says that Jesus was a preacher and a leader. The end of the second paragraph just says that his followers created the Christian Church. This isn't clear enough. Something along the lines of "Jesus was founder of a religious movement that later became known as Christianity" should be added to first paragraph. Maybe something like this:

Jesus (... c. 4 BC – c. 30/33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, was a Jewish preacher and religious leader who ministered in Galilee and Judea. He founded a religious movement that later became known as Christianity, now the world's largest religion.

I phrased it this way because the NT scholarship thinks that the Jesus movement was initially viewed as a movement within Judaism, but was later considered to be a separate religion. The exact time when they became separate is not entirely clear, but probably in the first century. Thoughts? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Find an RS. Frankly, I think you are subconsciously inserting your own POV and rejecting his historical philosophical heritage outside of one religion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Trust me. I did not promote this article to FA status without researching reliable sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have any, feel free to provide them.. This sounds revisionist to me Plumber (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Someone should fix the citations. The first citation in the intro starts at 12... 13, 14... then abruptly jumps to 21. This is likely due to people deleting and moving stuff, but boy does it look messy and unprofessional for a featured article. What happened to the intervening citations, did they just disappear and no longer cited??

Princeton wu (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations 15-20, etc. are in the "Notes" section. StAnselm (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017

i would like to edit something that may be incorrect Mousy1234567891011 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tell us what it is and we may be able to help. Britmax (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 01:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Possessive form of Jesus

Please see [Q9]. Objective3000 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Islam

Per NPOV, I was a bit taken aback at how Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam was given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism. My good faith edits in rearranging the presentation of information were repeatedly reverted on the basis of redundancy, and so accordingly I revised the intro with an eye towards this critique. My edits were then reverted by the same user who claimed Jesus is a bit player in Islam, which is very much at odds with Jesus in Islam. The only substantial content I added to the lede was the fact that Jesus is the most mentioned person in the Quran, which was done in part to counteract this incident as well as another reversion by a user who claimed Muslims do not hold Jesus as the Messiah. This has deepened my initial impression that Jesus' role in Islam has been tacked on towards the end of the intro in gross violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'd like to gauge the consensus for the idea that Jesus' role as the Messiah in two similarly-sized religions should be reflected per NPOV. Obviously Jesus is more prominent in Christianity than Islam, which is reflected in the now-reverted version of the intro, but the previous status quo makes it seem as if Jesus being the Messiah in Islam is an afterthought. What do you think? Plumber (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and was perturbed by the reverts. I suggest that the editor reverting your edits, which I believe provided additional valuable info, explain the reverts here and that a compromise be added. Objective3000 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Having said that, please don't edit war. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize. Plumber (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The lede is organized into 6 paragraphs. First one is the intro, second is about historical analysis, third is about dates and holidays, fourth about Christian views, fifth is about Islamic views, and sixth is about Jewish views. You were adding content about Islamic views on Jesus in multiple paragraphs, thus disrupting the organization. I can see an argument for adding a sentence about Islamic views just into the first paragraph (and I'm open to that), but even that is debatable. That would mislead readers into thinking that Jesus' role in Islam is just as big as Jesus' role in Christianity. You claim that Jesus is hugely important in Islam, but how Muslims view the Messiah is very different from how Christians view the Messiah. In Christianity, Jesus is God and the central figure. In Islam, Jesus is just another prophet.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The way this is handled in the Moses article is pretty good. In their first paragraph, Moses' importance in Judaism is stressed, but the paragraph also briefly lists other religions where Moses is a significant figure.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We can't use Wikipedia as an RS. But, I think article Jesus in Islam indicates that Jesus is quite a bit more than just another prophet in Islam. Objective3000 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the article, but I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Maybe Moses in Islam (another prophet) is a good comparison.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This article isn't about Moses. The Moses article mentions several religions in the first paragraph, even though Moses is considered the principle prophet in Judaism. The Jesus in Islam article states: Jesus is the most mentioned person in the Quran. It would seem to make sense to include Islam up top as well as Judaism and Christianity. Objective3000 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Moses in Islam states that Moses "is the most frequently mentioned individual in the Quran." Muhammad is mentioned only few times in the Quran, yet he is the most recognized and important figure in Islam, so I'm not sure if frequency in Quran is a good measure for importance. Anyways, if we include Islamic views in the first paragraph, then we'll have to include Bahai views as well, in which Jesus is also considered a prophet.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we know different names are used. The articles I used take that into account. And yes, I have no problem with Bahai inclusion as it is (I believe) the fourth largest Abrahamic religion; despite the low number of adherents. But, excluding Islam, given its 1,500,000,000 adherents, makes no sense to me. Christians do not own Jesus. Are we here to inform, or to favor a narrative? Objective3000 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that Jesus plays a much bigger role in Christianity than in the other faiths. Take a look at Jesus entry in Encyclopedia Britannica. The whole article doesn't mention Islam at all. The same is the case for the Oxford World Encyclopedia. Our article is already doing a lot by including Islamic views in both the lede and the body.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Britannica article right at the very top lists ʿIsā ibn Maryam, the Muslim name for Jesus. Shame on them for not going into more detail. As a modern encyclopedia, let us not fall into the same POV trap. I don’t understand why we would want an article to have such a bias. Let us provide information without a pro-anything slant. Objective3000 (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Plumber- you said at the top of this thread "I was a bit taken aback at how Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam was given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism." I don't see it that way. There are three sentences about Jesus in Islam in the penultimate paragraph and only one sentence about Jewish views on him at the end. I think Jesus as a historical figure and as the central figure in the Christian religion are more important than Islamic views on him and that the current lead has the balance right. I would point out that this is a featured article so it has undergone many revisions,arrived at by consensus, and reviews to get it to that level and major alterations to the lead need to be very carefully considered. IMO references to Islamic views of Jesus prior to where they currently are in the lead would be WP:UNDUE.Smeat75 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I don't see how it's POV. The other encyclopedia articles don't even mention Islam because they don't think it's relevant enough. Besides, Islamic view on Jesus is still in the lede, just not in the first paragraph. Jesus founded Christianity, so a brief description of the religion he founded needs to be in the first paragraph. We can't say the same for Islam.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a separate article Jesus in Christianity that is devoted to his place in that particular religion. This article is about the historical figure. I think the beliefs of 1.5 billion deserve some minor mention at the top. You appear to be minimizing his role in Islam. Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I do think a link to Jesus in Christianity in the intro while retaining his prominent role in Islam would be a good compromise. Plumber (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't in favour of the edits either. Jesus' role in Islam may be much greater than his role in Judaism, but it still doesn't approach his role in Christianity. At least, is there any reliable source to suggest that it does? I'm happy for the lead to say that Jesus is the most-mentioned person in the Quran, but that should be in the paragraph on Islam. StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm that including Islamic views in the first paragraph is undue. Any additional information about Islamic views goes into the Islamic views paragraph.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jesus is the Messiah in two religions that both number over a billion people—you're suggesting otherwise in gross violation of NPOV. If you could actually provide reliable sources backing up your claims instead of continuing to engage in an edit war removing reliable sources (which were already in the article) contradicting your POV, those contributions would be appreciated. But claiming a longstanding stake in this page without any sources to further your cause weakens your case that you are not influenced by your own POV. Plumber (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that you were the one who reinserted the info during the ongoing discussion claiming that there was a consensus when that was clearly not the case, right? And let's not accuse each other of POV-pushing. That's rarely helpful. Anyways, no one is claiming that Jesus is not the Messiah in Islam, although the role of the Messiah is different in Islam. It doesn't matter if Islam has 1 thousand followers or 1 billion. The number of adherents doesn't matter. The question is not "Is Jesus important to Islam?", the question is "Is Islam important to Jesus?". And of course, Islam didn't exist even until hundreds of years after Jesus died. If you want to read more about the subject of the historical Jesus, there are a lot of good sources cited in the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The importance of Jesus to Christianit: is why it is mentioned, do why is the importance of him in Islam not the question. He is a massively important figure in both of those religions and they're both importany and notable religions. I think it not including it does violate the NPOV because it biases the article to an only Christian perspective. --Hemavati (talk)¤ —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Islam is included, there is a whole paragraph in the lead, paragraph 5, and that is the place for the discussion of Islam, I entirely agree with FutureTrillionaire.Smeat75 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is serious concern that including Christian but not Muslim views on Jesus in the first paragraph is a violation of NPOV (and I don't it is a violation), then a much better solution is to remove Christian views on Jesus from the first paragraph. This solution (as opposed adding Muslim/Bahai views) avoids the problem of undue weight and the problem of redundancy (info on Christian/Muslim views being in both the first and later paragraphs is redundant). In this solution, the first and second paragraphs would just focus on the historical Jesus (aka the real Jesus) and not on the Christian/Muslim Jesus.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. We have articles on Jesus in religious contexts. Let us concentrate on the person at the top. Although little is actually known, much has been written. Objective3000 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I followed this compromise suggestion, but my edit was reverted. I would like to add the idea that "Is Islam Important to Jesus?" is an irrelevant rhetorical question since both Islam and Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus' death—historical consensus is he considered himself a Jew. However his greatest influences have been through Christianity and Islam. Plumber (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editing the lede until we come to a consensus on exactly what to add/delete/edit. Post your suggestion (i.e. a draft of the lede) on the talk page, and so we can discuss it. Be patient.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been involved in many discussions before, but never before have I been chastised by someone for taking upon their suggestions as a compromise. Please remember Wikipedia's Good Faith policy. We all seem to have come to an agreement that the status quo of two lines in the lede about Islam vs. paragraphs about Christianity are unacceptable. Plumber (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Where is User:FutureTrillionaire chastising anyone, User:Plumber? Looks like that signature muslim-style exaggeration is on full display here, as I do not detect a tone of condescension nor incivility. Further, FutureTrillionaire was the one who originally made the suggestion of putting the "historical Jesus" less than a day ago, which is not enough time.

And where do you get off assuming one day is sufficient time for all participating wikipedians to share their views regarding this change? As far as I can tell, User:FutureTrillionaire was 'spitballing' and one other user (User:Objective3000) entertained his proposition, but that in no way implies consensus nor does it give you the authority to paint the suggestion as one that has been decided. 209.182.115.214 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the victim mentality being displayed by Plumber is not constructive. I see no evidence of incivility. Plumber, it is perfectly fine to post your suggested edits here for discussion, but it is obvious that no consensus has been reached yet. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Plumber: Today was the second time you made an edit claiming that a consensus was reached on the talk page, when in fact no consensus was reached. Please don't do this. Instead, you should post a draft of what you think the lede should look like in the talk page so that we can discuss it. Ideally, no edit will be made to the lede until a consensus is reached, for the sake of article stability and edit-war avoidance.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Plumber said "never before have I been chastised by someone for taking upon their suggestions as a compromise." You did not take up User:FutureTrillionaire's suggestion of removing Christian views from the first paragraphs, you added Muslim views there. "We all seem to have come to an agreement that the status quo of two lines in the lede about Islam vs. paragraphs about Christianity are unacceptable." First of all,there is a paragraph of four lines on Muslim views and we have not "all come to an agreement" that the status quo is unacceptable, as I have said several times, imo the way it is now is fine.Smeat75 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Presently we have three people who regard the current status quo of four lines on Islam vs. three paragraphs on Christianity as a violation of NPOV, and two who do not. Two of the three agreed to a compromise suggested by one of the latter (a supermajority), which was almost immediately reverted by the last remaining user supporting the status quo, who then made a comment which leads me to suspect that my compromised edit was reverted by someone who did not read them. Plumber (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Counting issues aside (actually, at least three editors have spoken against the idea that the lede is NPOV in this conversation, and countless more in related Talk page conversations on the current build...and that's not including the fact I would be the fourth vote against), it is clear that consensus does not exist here. Do not confuse "majority" - which also does not exist here - with "consensus". Any work towards NPOV is to be pursued and applauded, but with such a significant change on a contentious and divisive article, it is best to have a "dry run": to build consensus around a specific edit posted to the Talk Page, before committing it to the article. That gives other authors the chance to input and tweak, until you really do have a consensus. Do not assume your initial phraseology adequately balances the concerns of all editors. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The usual thing to do with this sort of split of opinion is to have an RfC. Anyway, the question, "Is X important to Jesus?" is a good one, and Christianity is so important to Jesus that it would be bordering on the ridiculous not to mention it in the lead. I agree that Islam does not have anywhere near the same importance to Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What was important to Jesus, so far as we can tell, was his teachings, not an established religion. Basic concepts, like the Golden Rule, can be found in nearly all religions. Objective3000 (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean of course what is important to the topic of "Jesus", not what may have been important to him personally. StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I would think what is important to the topic of Jesus was his teachings, which correctly appear in the article before the various religions. (Although in a possibly biased manner. And, no original manuscripts of the New Testament exist.) Muslims also believe in the teachings of Jesus, but believe they were altered by the New Testament. Muslims believe Jesus to be the precursor to Mohammed. If I understand correctly, Islam teaches that there will be a second coming at which time Jesus (not Muhammad) will come back and rule the Earth. Sounds like rather an important role. I don’t understand the Christian-centric view in the first paragraph. Objective3000 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

But that is not, for example, how Muhammad is treated. The first paragraph of that article talk only about his role in Islam - it doesn't mention his teachings until the second paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That's really WP:OSE. He is only a figure in Islam, AFAIK. Besides, according to Muhammad, he was sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Objective3000 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What's most important to Jesus is the religious movement he founded. That was the biggest achievement in his life. Scholars debate how similar/different his movement was compared to what we now know as Christianity, but there's no doubt that Christianity (as well as various Gnostic sects) emerged from this movement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You removed much of what you said. I have no idea what was most important to Jesus as I never met him. I would assume his teachings; which many others have taken up. Most of what we consider are the chapters of the New Testament was rewritten in the Fourth Century, and many times after. No one has an original manuscript. I think the favorite, of many, versions is the King James version – but is was completed in 1611. Little more than the Pentateuch remains from the original Bible, if that. And, even a recent Pope said it was apocryphal. Christian scholars have enormous debates about the content and origin of the NT. But, I don’t see how any of this is in any way relevant to the discussion. The fact is that Jesus is a central figure in Islam, to the point of a second coming where Jesus will rule the Earth. We are not here to rule on the truth of any religion. I’m a non-theist and am only interested in history and NPOV. This article is Christian-centric. That’s an NPOV problem. How does it harm the article to include 1.6 billion believers in Jesus? Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of adherents matter in this discussion. Anyways, the topics are Jesus and Christianity are very closely related due to Jesus' role in the creation of Christianity. This and the fact that Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, and the fact that scholarly material written about Jesus vastly focus more on Christianity than on Islam, are reasons why Christian views on Jesus is given slightly more attention in the lede. Jesus in Islam on the hand is a relatively minor figure compared to the Jesus in Christianity. In Islam, Jesus is also much less significant than Muhammad. Muslim prayers usually include Muhammad, but not Jesus. That's why I think it's fair to include Christian views in the first paragraph, but not Muslim views.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Jesus is mentioned more than Muhammad in the Quran. Jesus, according to the Quran, will rule the Earth after his second coming. Claiming Jesus is a relatively minor figure appears contrary to fact. You are clearly pushing a POV. Why? Where is your RS (and I don't mean a scholar of one religion) that backs up your POV? Objective3000 (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Not saying Jesus is not important in Islam, but that he's far more important in Christianity. Here's another word count: the Islam wiki article mentions Muhammad 86 times, but Jesus only 6 times, and Moses 3 times. The Christianity article mentions Jesus 89 times. This demonstrates the difference in importance pretty clearly. I don't appreciate being accused of POV-pushing (I prefer more civil discussions), and won't continue having discussions with those make such accusations. As someone who have Muslim friends, I do understand the concern for NPOV, but the lede currently does follow WP:DUEWEIGHT.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OSE. So, perhaps the Islam article should be corrected and also pushes a POV. And, the Christianity article is not relevant. Of course it mentions Christ more often. And, I asked for an RS. Wikipedia is not an RS, for obvious reasons. The point is that Jesus, the historical figure, is a central figure in multiple religions. For some reason, some people here appear to minimalize his role in some religions. That’s a POV issue. Objective3000 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Performed healings" in lead

I´d like to change it to "engaged in healings" per source Levine, I think "performed healings" is a little problematic in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus was"

I read the FAQ. "Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information." I would disagree. There is very little physical proof that Jesus actually existed, and even if he did, how do we know that "Jesus" existed under than name or any similar name? I propose we add in the very first sentence: "was, according to ..." or something, instead of "was". I thought Wikipedia was based on fact. "Jesus was a real human being" is not a known fact. It's a hypothesis, or at best a theory. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I liked this lead sentence from the featured article summary better. "is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament." That does not assume that Jesus was a real person right off the bat. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's been quite clearly demonstrated that the idea that he was not a real human being is WP:FRINGE. StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, has stated: "Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance.It's about that bad."Smeat75 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the opening sentence, the phrase "preacher and religious leader" seems a bit redundant ... unless you want to be really pedantic I would say all preachers are by definition religious leaders. Searching for "preacher and religious leader" reveals that this article is one of only two articles on Wikipedia that uses that construction (and the other one doesn't use it in the first sentence). Would people here be in favour of removing one of the two, and if so which one? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Christ Myth theory is about as fringe as it is possible to get. There are no reputable scholars who support it and the vast majority of its proponents are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. In regards to the "preacher and religious leader" question, I do not think there is currently a problem. The words have different meanings and connotations and I do not view having both of them as redundant. If you do decide to delete one of the words, I would recommend keeping the word "religious leader" since it is more technical term and seems more historically appropriate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You guys are just throwing WP:FRINGE at me. You're throwing people's opinions at me. But you're not giving me solid facts. You're saying "it's a conspiracy theory" etc. without backing it up. To be fair, those scholars you're referencing are doing that too. Where's the real proof that Jesus was a human being that existed? Why is it that religious books are really the only solid account of Jesus' life? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, not majority opinions. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What's next? "Because a majority of English speakers on Earth are Christian, we should start writing Wikipedia as if all elements of that religion are factually true."? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page it says:"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are not here to debate "the facts" among ourselves. WP proceeds by summarising reliable sources and virtually all reliable sources on the subject say that it is a fact of history that Jesus existed.Smeat75 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Such "reliable sources" often exhibit bias more than evidence -> Wikipedia exhibits bias more than evidence. Should this really be how it is? And quit accusing me of "treating this like a forum" because I'm not. I'm trying to improve the article at hand. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I'm just saying that there is an extreme likelihood that he did not exist as was told by the main accounts, and a possibility that he never existed at all. Yes, that IS a possibility, whether you like it or not, and we have to treat that as if it were a possibility instead of being ignorant and just listening to people's religious bias which is the majority opinion. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: As Smeat75 has already pointed out, this is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia's purpose is to explain the views of mainstream scholars; it is not our job to decide whether or not Jesus really existed. Since you are asking, though, I will provide a brief explanation of why modern scholars unanimously agree he existed: The oldest writings we have pertaining to Christianity are the authentic epistles of the apostle Paul, of which there are at least eight (possibly nine if Colossians is indeed authentic). Paul does not say a whole lot about Jesus and he candidly admits that he never actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he does tell us that he knew Jesus's "brother" James, as well as his closest disciple Peter. Although Mythicists often claim that Paul only speaks of an incorporeal "spiritual" Jesus, they have repeatedly failed to adequately address the dozens of places in Paul's letters where he very clearly speaks of Jesus as a recent, historical figure. Usually, they try to explain these occurrences as "later interpolations" without offering any valid evidence to support such a conclusion other than the fact that it would be convenient for their hypothesis. Further evidence to support Jesus's historicity comes from the fact that the gospels contain details that can only be explained if Jesus was a historical figure. Embarrassing, or mundane facts about his life are mentioned in Mark, the earliest gospel, but are rationalized or contradicted in the later gospels in overtly obvious attempts to overwrite the earlier account. Finally, there are also distinct cultural features within the gospels that only make sense in the context of early first-century Aramaic Judaism, but not late first-century Hellenistic Christianity. These are not the only reasons by any means, but I do not want to go into detail here. For further information, I highly recommend reading Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? by Maurice Casey, both of whom are renowned scholars on this subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Section "Resurrection and Ascension" and Gospel of Mark

The section on the resurrection and ascension treats the "long ending" of Mark as if it were original, when the general consensus is that it's not - i.e., Mark has no post-resurrection appearances. I wonder if the section should be re-written to reflect the shorter ending. PiCo (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it does - it only refers to the first seven verses. StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your meaning Anselm - the first seven verses of Mark's resurrection story? Mark ends (short version) with the women fleeing the tomb after finding it empty "because they were afraid" (famous phrase). What I'm suggesting is that we note that the shorter ending is regarded as authentic, and that Mark therefore has no post-resurrection appearances. (He does have a resurrection, but it's implied rather than stated - in a rather odd way, as the disciples are told by the angels that Jesus will see them in Galilee, which is Matthew's ending. And of course there's a big difference between Matthew and Luke, with Luke having the disciples told explicitly to remain in Jerusalem to meet the risen Lord, while in Matthew there's no meeting in Jerusalem and they go to Galilee instead. And John combines both traditions). Anyway, that, really, is what I'm suggesting.PiCo (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the same section we mention the incident in John where the risen Jesus breathes on the disciples to give them the Holy Spirit. This is the same incident as mentioned in Acts, though the narrative details differ - the coming of the Paraclete. It reflects the ancient Jewish belief that the mortal human is formed of three divine elements, namely flesh, blood and breath, all of which are the gift of God alone (God forms Adam of clay, blood is forbidden to Noah, and breath is life itself). And of course, Matthew's detail of the earthquake and the risen dead is derived from Daniel's promise of the resurrection of the virtuous dead of Israel. The bible is so rich, and people miss so much.PiCo (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that this article is based on the shorter ending of Mark. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was reading it wrong. PiCo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add a sentence to the Mark bullet point [e.g. "The original ending of Mark (which does not have Mark 16:9-20) does not include any resurrection appearances."], that's fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm fine :) PiCo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RTPEggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

God is a rapist? A prophet suggested God is a rapist. References This means that if Jesus is the son of God that he is the son of an alleged rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) References It has been suggested that Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) This sounds like New Atheist trolling. Like, I'm seeing about as much of a connection of the sources and as much cherry picking as I see whenever any sectarian tries to make some other sect out to be abhorrent (be the sectarian atheist, Christian, conservative, liberal, feminist, traditionalist). I'm having trouble seeing what you expect to accomplish from this except to get a rise out of people, because this isn't how you convince people to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. And while I still believe that you believe your goal is article improvement, this section is so incompetently phrased and sourced (in that it engaged in misrepresentative WP:SYNTH) that I don't see anyone beyond you honestly saying that that's what you could possibly achieve with your post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC) And reviewing the above section, I'm starting to conclude that you are WP:NOTHERE for article improvement but to push your own fundamentalist antitheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Emphasizing New Atheism is undue.

All non-Christians reject the divinity of Jesus.

Atheists are not Christians.

All atheists, almost by definition, reject the concept of divinity.

Ergo, atheist reject the divinity of Jesus.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not about emphasizing New Atheism. It is about verifying the content.

It is not about all non-Christians reject the divinity of Jesus.

It is not about atheists are not Christians.

It is not about all atheists, almost by definition, reject the concept of divinity.

The content Atheists reject Jesus' divinity failed verification.

Edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". does not make any sense. Providing a source to verify a claim is not about WP:UNDUE.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does not apply to content that failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, do you have a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute since the current content fails verification? QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Per policy that content still fails verification. I recommend a source for the content. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." That's what I have done. QuackGuru (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the sentence about atheist views on Jesus and Richard Dawkin's comment on Jesus should even be in this article. That section is mainly about religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins does not represent all atheists.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a better suggestion for where it belongs? QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How about in the article about New Atheism? That's what you attempt to keep proselytizing here, after all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• What. The. Ever. Loving. F-...

1. Who the hell needs to source "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity"?
2. Why would anyone change "Atheists" to "New Atheists" in that sentence? Do old atheists accept Jesus' divinity? o_O ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE - See: WP:ANI#User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related articles - make of it what you will. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a single tag is acceptable for failed verification content according to WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See Ian's point about the color of the sky, above: We don't need to source "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity" because anyone who knows what an atheist is knows that they reject Jesus' divinity. Nor is this a common misconception; atheists reject claims of divinity by definition. Your change didn't just add a tag, either. You changed "atheists" to "new atheists" which creates a false divide, suggesting that traditional (or "old") atheists accept Jesus' divinity, or at the very least, are undecided on it. That is simply not true. Indeed, it's utterly nonsensical. You have, quite literally, made the article worse with your edits. I really don't understand the way you approach verification, sometimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a small tweak the content for it to reflect the source I found. I was unable to find a source to verify the current wording. The sky is blue is for unsourced content. This content failed verification. For failed verification, WP:BLUE does not apply. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are so bizarre that I really don't see the point of engaging you any further. Your focus on strangely interpreted minutiae boggles my mind, and I've been diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:, there is neither rhyme nor reason to your edits. The only way a "failed verification" makes any sense at all is if you take it to mean that you have failed to verify that Jesus is divine to your own personal satisfaction. Given the ANI thread, I urge you to stop beating this particular horse. Any new editor or IP without your record of contributions would have already been blocked for WP:IDHT or WP:CIR reasons by this point. It would be a loss to the project for you to pursue this quixotic quest. There are already flurries falling at ANI and continuing these edits only increases the likelihood of sub-optimal outcomes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

On the talk page please WP:FOC. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I do not mean to be rude, but, quite frankly, your behavior on this talk page seems to be totally erratic and nonsensical. The fact that atheists reject Jesus's divinity is pretty much an essential part of the definition of the word atheist. I would highly recommend taking a step back and moving on. I am sure you probably have good intentions, but, at this point, you are just creating chaos. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific viewpoint missing

The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14]" Where is the scientific view? It should also be in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear what exactly you are referring to. As the sentence clearly states, this is what Christians believe. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not Jesus was really the Messiah. The notion of a "Messiah" is a religious concept; it is not even a scientific question. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean history, and it's in the second paragraph: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically..." StAnselm (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been a very busy editor in the two days of his existence. Perhaps he's just happy to be here. I suspect, however, that he's a sock. Do not give feet to the sock, that's my advice.PiCo (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God". What is the Scientific view? Why the Scientific view is not stated in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"According to science, Jesus is not God's son." That will be added to the lede after the 14th citation in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You got a reference for that? I can't imagine science says anything about God's son... StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Love to see a source on this too ....comment seems way out in left field.--Moxy (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The notion that mainstream science has any official consensus at all in regards to whether or not Jesus was the son of God is ridiculous. The concept of a "son of God" is a religious concept and has nothing to do with science. You cannot prove or disprove that someone is the Messiah, which means it is not a scientific question. Besides, even if you really were making a scientific statement, you would require sources to support it. "According to science" is nothing but weasel wording; you would need specific, scholarly sources stating that your sentence reflects the majority view of modern scientists. I should, however, note that your statement does not reflect the views of modern scientists--not even by a longshot: According to Pew Research Center ([16]), roughly thirty percent of scientists in the United States are Christians, whereas forty-eight percent are irreligious. This suggests that scientists are generally sharply divided on religious issues as a whole, which makes it extremely unlikely that they would reach any kind of consensus like the one you seem to be maintaining they have adopted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A source verifies "Most scientists reject the belief that God formed the universe" I started with God. Now we can work on this article.

References

"Jesus is not possibly God's son." is even better. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Books published by Xulon Press are generally not reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the problem StAnselm has already pointed out, your source says nothing about whether or not scientists consider Jesus to have been the Messiah; it only talks about the question of whether or not God created the universe, which is an entirely separate issue. Even if you had a reliable source which flat-out said, "Most scientists do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah" in those exact words, it still would not matter, because this is not a scientific issue we are talking about here. If you find a reliable source stating that most Biblical scholars do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then we may have something to work with. (By the way, just to clarify: the terms "son of God" and "Messiah" are not interchangeable and there is a distinction between them. The word "Messiah" usually refers specifically to the "anointed one" prophesized in the Hebrew Bible, whereas "son of God" refers to anyone under Divine favor; King David is referred to as the "son of God" in Psalm 2:7 and the nation of Israel itself is referred to as the "son of God" in Exodus 4:22-23, Hosea 11:1, and Psalm 80:15. Today, most Christians use them interchangeably, but, in ancient times, the terms had very different meanings.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus is not possibly God's son."

References

So far no objection to using the source I presented. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the problem is here......the scientific community doesn't have a position on the fact of his existence let alone that he's God's son.--Moxy (talk) 17

55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nor is the source from 1829 a good one. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm; a book published in 1829 does not reflect the current scientific consensus, nor is a book published through a Christian self-publishing company a reliable source for what most scientists believe about the universe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Re: "According to science Jesus is not God's son." A scientist who takes a strong position on completely unverifiable religious beliefs other than to say that they are scientifically unverifiable isn't a very good scientist in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-religious view missing from the lede

New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity.

References

A simple sentence will do the trick. A source is not needed for non-controversial claims, but I provided one for your reading pleasure. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article does not claim that anyone except Christians believes Jesus was divine. Emphasizing New Atheism is WP:UNDUE. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Only Christians believes Jesus was divine. They are the minority view. We can briefly mention the non-religious view. QuackGuru (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So the world only consists of Christians and New Atheists? Better go tell the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs. The views of different non-Christian groups are mentioned and you'd know that if you read the article. What are you trying to accomplish besides disruption based on a concerning lack of understanding of the subject? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say the world only consists of Christians and New Atheists. I clearly explained the non-religious view is not stated in the lede. Please focus on content not the editor. See WP:FOC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You cite New Atheism to represent the views of all non-religious persons, for the position that defines all non-Christians. The article does not claim that anyone outside of Christianity believes Jesus was divine. It discusses the nuanced views of other religions and also states that atheists reject Jesus's divinity. It covers the non-Christian views as well as the non-religious views. If you can't see that, then you haven't honestly read the article.

I'm focusing on disruptive behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

The 2014 book God And His Coexistent Relations To The Universe states "Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."

References

It is a bit confusing from reading this source. Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, so this is not a reliable source. Mohler is reliable, but I'm not sure the claim is significant enough for the lead. In any case, it is hardly surprising that atheists don't believe that Jesus is God. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not address all the questions. "Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear." QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The point has not been made clear in the article because historians have not been able to make a clear case for Jesus's self-perception. The article covers what topics historians can agree on but beyond that there's not much agreement. Your questions operate on such flawed assumptions that they suggest that either you are operating with a (hopefully unintentional) total ignorance of not only the article's contents but its very subject (which wouldn't be nearly a problem if you demonstrated awareness of WP:RS) or you are just trying to disrupt the article because of your feelings about related subjects. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does the article or subarticle explain that historians have not been able to make a clear case for Jesus's self-perception? I was reading the article and I could not find this point. If it really is unclear then I think it can be explained here or maybe it is already explained in a subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that I can read in order to improve the article to clarify what historians say about Jesus' self-perception. If historians say it is unclear what was Jesus' self-perception then then point can be included since the article is ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not "unclear," there is no academic consensus on the matter. Not every facet of existence has been perfectly clarified and set in stone by academics, especially when it comes to historical figures' perception of themselves. Hell, there's even a (fringe) minority of historians that argue that Jesus was not a historical figure, rendering self-perception an impossibility. That is why the article just presents a variety of interpretations presented according to the groups or persons that hold those interpretations. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is no academic consensus on the matter then we can include different interpretations or views regarding Jesus' self-perception. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Nekudot

I'd like to add nekudot to the Hebrew names in this article, but given the sometimes controversial nature of this article I thought I'd check here first. Nekudot are small markings above and below letters which show the vowel sounds in Hebrew. For the most part, Hebrew does not precisely indicate vowels otherwise. Basically, instead of seeing, for example, ישוע‎‎, you would now see יֵשׁוּעַ‎. I doubt anyone will object, but I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see who salutes before I do anything. Alephb (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion. You might look at WP:DIACRITICS. Also, Niqqud indicates that this is going out of style. But, perhaps it still makes sense for an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's been out of style in regular writing forever. But it's retained, for example, in Hebrew and Encyclopedic use. So, for example, here's the Wikipedia page for Jesus in Hebrew: [17]. The text is generally nikkud-free, but it is pointed (it has nikkud added) where the name Jesus/Yeshua, and also the form Yeshu, are introduced. They also point a whole verse from the Gospel of Luke. So, in general, you would not expect nekudot in modern Hebrew, but in an Encyclopedia you would expect to see it on old quotations. Of course, we don't necessarily have to follow the conventions found on Hebrew Wikipedia -- just a point of reference.

I'm not expecting anyone here to read Hebrew, but if you look at the first three words in the Hebrew Wikipedia article, the first and third have the nekudot. The middle word, the common Hebrew word "or" doesn't, because they just expect a competent Hebrew-speaker to read it without the help. Or here's the article on Nahum the prophet. His name nachum haelkoshi (Nahum the Elkoshite) is pointed, and then if you scroll through you'll see that biblical quotations are always pointed, but words in modern Hebrew "Vikipedia" voice are not.

Like I said, I'm not really expecting any opposition, but I just wanted to make sure. There are occasional problems formatting some nekudot on Wikipedia, but there's a template I'll use to avoid that if I put them in.Alephb (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is out of style is irrelevant if they were what was actually used in the native names, however if they weren't used in the native names I think that it might be best to leave them out here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

They weren't used until the Middle Ages. On the other hand, the consensus view is that they are generally a reliable indication of ancient pronunciation, and they are used in religious and secular literature alike. Providing them is sort of similar to providing a transliteration, with the added bonus that it natively records Hebrew vowel distinctions that are often lost in transliterations (which often fuse tzere, seghol, and shva into a single vowel, for example). If a majority of people here don't want them, though, I'll leave them out. If it makes any difference, I usually see them used in scholarly articles on biblical studies. I suspect the reason it's less consistent on Wikipedia is that a lot of people would have trouble typing them out. Alephb (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just read WP:DIACRITICS, and as it suggested I'll look for some reliable sources to see what they do. I'll consult the most recent Hebrew-related articles in Vetus Testamentum, and Journal of Biblical Literature that pop up on JSTOR. If anyone has another journal they'd like me to consult, I'll toss that in as well. Alephb (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at those two journals and other sources, I'm not seeing a real clear pattern. It's a little of this, a little of that. Certainly not as pro-nekudot as I thought I was remembering. My gut would say that the instances in this article would normally get them, but I have no real urge to build a case over something so trivial. Alephb (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as diacritics are guides to pronunciation, and I don’t think we have the faintest idea how it was originally pronounced, probably not useful in this instance. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh. And yet the diacritics still seem to be widely used in a variety of scholarly sources, and transliterations are as well. Perhaps they all ought to pull all their vowels out. Regardless, there's nothing strictly necessary about nekudot, and we already have transliterations here, so if people don't like em I won't put em in. Alephb (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus'?

Shouldn't the correct singular possessive form be "Jesus's"? SLIGHTLY^mad 07:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

See FAQ#9. Objective3000 (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. For proper nouns, the addition of an "s" to indicate possession doesn't depend on whether the word ends in an "s". That being said, it's extremely common to see proper nouns treated like any other case out there when it comes to plural and possessive forms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no real consensus on whether to use apostrophe s or just an apostrophe; different grammar manuals give completely different and contradictory instructions. As long as the article is consistent, it should not be a problem. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that consistency matters most. I also agree that an apostrophe by itself looks much better (and it's how I always write). But I've yet to see a grammar guide that explicitly states to use "'s" on proper nouns. There no need to prove me wrong if it's a pain to do so, but if it's easy enough to do, I would appreciate it. Being proven wrong once means being right for the rest of your life, after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• This varies according to style manuals. While it was common before about 1990 to omit the possessive "s" on proper names ending in "s", the tide shifted and it became more common to use the possessive "s". Since there are disagreements and historical variations, the best we can do is maintain conformity within any single Wikipedia article. Right now (since September 2013) the consensus for this article seems to be to omit the possessive "s". To change that consensus would require an WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jewish

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.

---

Jesus was not Jewish there is no proof he was jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerostar93 (talk • contribs)

Not done: There is frankly no proof of anything he did. But as someone that believes in God in a time before Christianity existed, he is Jewish by default. It isn't the most reasonable arguement to pose that he was the worlds first Christian. — IVORK _Discuss 06:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't not necessarily of the Jewish religion but of the Jewish ethnicity, i.e. a descendant of Judah. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

"Was a preacher" vs. "central figure"

I believe the opening paragraph should read "Jesus... is the central figure in Christianity. According to Christian belief/NT, considered Son of God" etc. To assert immediately that he was a preacher and so forth is problematic on two accounts: there is no outside confirmation for this data; and it also ignores that Jesus Christ comes before "Historical Jesus", the quest for whom only begun due to the former. The current opening mixes the religious narrative with the preciously little which is presumed (rather than known) by scholars, something along the lines of "Oh, we only have this book about him, but all the supernatural stuff is unreasonable so let's assume those did not happen but keep the core." It is injurious both to the fact that Jesus is first and foremost a Christian religious figure whose divine status should be fully covered (that's what both the believing Christian and the average reader are looking for) and to historical research. The two narratives should be clearly juxtaposited, not jumbled. AddMore-III (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Like it or not, he was both. The consensus that Jesus existed is beyond dispute, also few historians would object to stating that Jesus was a preacher. It is usually the fringe (fundamentalists, both Christian and Atheist) who has problems with this dual quality of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

To add to that, the argument that "Jesus was a central figure in Christianity which is why historians are interested in him, therefore we should focus only on his role as a central figure in Christianity," sort of misses the point of an encyclopedia article. It should be, well... encyclopedic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed - and that's about it. "The central figure" is much more appropriate NPOV-wise. To assert that he "debated with fellow Jews" etc. etc. is conjecture. Far better to present a short NT summary of his life while making it starkly clear it is a religious narrative. AddMore-III (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course I do not claim that JC did not exist. But again, in each of the sources cited in the opening it is always a reading of the gospels and then conjecture on what one may or may not deduce from those. "Jesus the central figure, believed to be" opening and then a second paragraph along the lines of "historians have debated the historicity" are far less confusing and much more accurate. When you have a story with a debatable historical nucleus, you should present it as such. Render unto Religion that which is Religion's, and unto the Historians that which is theirs, and jumble not betwixt them. AddMore-III (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)