Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 88 1 JW view, Template, relatively preserved New Testament? Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 89 1 Jesus Christ in Proto-Indo-European, Birth year, Lead sentence... again, Jesus' Siblings, Reasons for Removal of Alternate Dating Notation
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 90 1 Request for edit, Yeshua is His name, Raelian view of Jesus, Feature?, 1st paragraph of article, Official religion of Roman Empire
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 91 POV pushing in introduction / Both POV's presented in introduction, Just Curious
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 92 Milton Steinberg's opinion, Bias in the first sentence
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 93 BBC image
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 94 2nd paragraph, Yeshua's Birthday, chronology, AD/CE and BC/BCE Usage, FA push, Inclusion of Piss Christ image
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 95 About a problem with "Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity", Second paragraph, Notice for GFDL Attribution Requirements, Images, Chocolate Jesus, Why discuss so much', Biased reference, Wrong Interepretation of Jesus, Joseph, Step-father
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 96 "Me!", Joseph dies, Birthdate, Adding "Peace Be Upon Him", "Other religions", Citations, What is the better topic?
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

Proposal

Should we change the first sentence to:

"Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), is the Son of God and Savior of humanity."

After all, he's not just a central figure in Chrstianity, he's God. Colleenthegreat (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "central figure" is vaguer and more boring than we need to be. Leadwind (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal is a violation of WP:NPOV (and WP:V). I suggest you read up on our basic guidelines. Wikipedia is not about The Truth, but only about presenting all notable views with due weight, as long as they are neutral and verifiable (or otherwise attributed to a particular view).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you afraid of going to hell if we pretend that Jesus isn't truly God here? What's more important, eternal life or having an encyclopedia that is wrong. Colleenthegreat (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

STFU, you idiot nutjob.--Exidor (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many users not only disagree, but take offense in your ludicrous proposition. Wikipedia is as much theirs as it is yours, therefore a purely rational and impartial way to write an article must be sought. You should have understood this before editing. Rsazevedo ^msg 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Colleen, you can't prove what you say, and sources disagree on these issues (like being God). That's why you need faith, because theology isn't math. If it were so easy, faith would be measured by IQ. So stop being POVish. WP isn't a crusade. adriatikus | talk 04:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but still. If something is true, then it is true no matter what anyone else believes. Wikipedia should stick up for what is true. Is there a Christian Wiki where I can do this without people calling me a troll? Colleenthegreat (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Try Conservapedia. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it funny that it refers to Jesus in the past tense here, when according to scripture, he never physically passed away in this world, but instead ascended to heaven. I propose we change all mentionings of "was" to "is"!!143.92.1.121 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea. That would be more factual, unlike what some people here have proposed. Colleenthegreat (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any problem with pronouncing the Divinity of Jesus here as long as you make it within the frame of reference of Christianity. Nobody is attacking the view of Christ as God, they are only attacking the lack of neutrality of the statement. As a fellow Christian, I can say all we can do here is let others know what we believe and give everyone their own shot at making their mind up. I understand your fervor for wanting to profess what we know personally as truth, but you must realize that this truth is not apparent to everyone, nor is it empirically verifiable in our time. On the bright side, many people will learn from this article that Jesus was in fact a real person who lived in the period of transition between the roman empire and the roman republic, and therefore perhaps their faith will be kindled in that manner. Whiteknight521 (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One should think. But, reading Gibbon gives one an impressive view on the range of beliefs even early Christians held - from "fully God" to "fully man", with any combination in between, and to the "fully both" that seems to be current mainstream, but a bit hard to reconcile with normal logic. That's what makes it so different to come up with a neutral, but all-encompassing description. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You forget "fully unproven". I don't know how we can let the first paragraph say that "he was", when his very existence is historically unproven.--Exidor (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• While I find "Jesus as myth" is an intersting and liberating idea, the presumption of most scholars is that he did live around that time. However, wikipedia will never be a place where this is not a contentious issue, so I propose the first sentence can be made more similar to the way it was long ago & has often been:

  Jesus of Nazareth 7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] also known as Jesus Christ,[4] is the central figure of Christianity (perhaps adding either: ", the largest religious group on earth" OR ", and he is also an important figure in several other religions" OR a combination of both).

• Not only is this more neutral regarding his existence, but saying 1st century is redundant after giving years, and that he was a Jewish teacher is covered again in the 2nd paragraph, AND NEITHER is the most significant thing about him. The most significant thing to people of whatever culture in the world is that he is the central figure of the largest religious group in the world - that is probably why he has an entry in every general encyclopedia in every culture of the world. The second sentence could (but need not) deal with what those who revere him think of him, such as:

  He is revered by Christians (with some exceptions) as an incarnation of God (adding here on in 1st sentence: ",and he is also an important figure in several other religions").

• --JimWae (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section

I believe that the chosen image ("the black madonna") in the geneology section violates NPOV. While the painting was not intended to symbolize a dissenting view on the ancestry of Jesus, I am concerned that its strategic placement within this section of the article may bias towards the view that Jesus was of African decent. This fact is of course open to debate with sources, but to my knowlege has definately not been confirmed by scholars. Therefore, I believe that the image should be removed, or relocated to another section.Whiteknight521 (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we are all of African descent. And the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, while somewhat dark-skinned, does not show "African" features. I don't think that is a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

first paragraph

Someone needs to take the graffiti out of the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frieza333x2 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have noticed that I pay a lot of attention to leads. Here's our first paragraph. Please ask yourself "What's important to know about Jesus," and then read the paragraph.

Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] also known as Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), was a 1st century Jewish teacher who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions. He is also called Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a title derived from the Greek Χριστός (Christós), meaning the "Anointed One," which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah". The name "Jesus" is an anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH rescues".

Most of this stuff is way too detailed for a general reader who wants to know who Jesus was. It belongs in the body, but not in the very first paragraph. How about:

Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] also known as Jesus the Nazarene, was a 1st century Jewish teacher, worshiped by Christians as God and honored in certain other religions as a prophet or holy man. Christians name him Christ (Greek: Anointed One, or Messiah).

Leadwind (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It should say that Jesus IS God, or the Son of God. And it should definently say that He is the savior, not just that Christians say he is. It doesn't matter who says he is, what matters is the truth. Otherwise, it's just wrong and probably atheist/Islamic propaganda. Colleenthegreat (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it being shorter. How about:

Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] also known as Jesus the Nazarene, was a 1st century Jewish teacher who as the Son of God is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions. Christians name him Christ (Greek: Anointed One, or Messiah). --Carlaude (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see many good reasons to keep the opening. One question: is the reason it ays "central figure of Christianity" because some self-identified Christians do not believe he is God (Unitarians? Anyone else?) If there is a valid reason for keeping the inclusive phrase, central figure, let's keep it. If not, than we ought to say Christiand believe Jesus to be God, or something like that. If people think the opening too long, I propose just cutting the sentence on the etymology of Jesus, which in the past others have challenged as OR. Haven't we also had long discussions about how Christ is a title and not a name? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist churches and fellowships have over time moved away from the traditional Christian roots of Unitarianism. For example, in the 1890s the American Unitarian Association began to allow non-Christian and non-theistic churches and individuals to be part of their fellowship. UU do not call themselves Christians.--Carlaude (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It could say: "Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is God the Son". 75.15.202.250 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Even non-Trinitarian "Christians" believe Jesus is the God the Son-- hence my proposal:

Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] also known as Jesus the Nazarene, was a 1st century Jewish teacher who as the Son of God is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions. Christians name him Christ (Greek: Anointed One, or Messiah). --Carlaude (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While even the liberal and very ecumenical World Counsel of Churches with only one or two statements to unify they holds (as their first one) that "Jesus is God."-– so I think in reality "non-Trinitarian Christians" is an oxymoron— yet I know that some folks want to include everyone who claims the name Christian as included in the term.

It took some time for me to look it up and be sure but JW's hold that Jesus in "a god," the "Son of God," but "not God" himself. Any group who bothers to call themselves a Christians does not bother to avoid the many NT statements about Jesus being the Son of God. I suppose there could be many "members" of churches that do not even hold (or understand) the statements of their own church—but I do not think that is what we are talking about.--Carlaude (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're back to the NPOV problem. You can't just state: "who as the Son of God". You need to qualify it somehow, something like: "who Christians believe is the Son of God". 75.14.217.255 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"who Christians believe is the Son of God" would work.--Carlaude (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course the loaded term Son of God needs to be wikilinked since it means very different things to different people. 75.14.217.255 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between God and Son of God. Let's not downplay who Jesus is for 95% of Christians in order to fit in the other 5%. For any statement, there are exceptions. As long as we don't say "whom all Christians worship as God," I think we're good. If that's really a problem, can we say, "whom orthodox Christians worship as God"? And in any event, getting rid of the name etymology is good, and "Son of God" is way better than "central figure." Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that 95% of Christians will answer "The son of god" or equivalent if asked who Jesus was. Very few will have even an elementary opinion on the finer points of the trinity (co-eternal or one derived from the other, identical, similar, or different, of the same, similar, or different substances, one entity with three aspects, three entities with one common will,...my head hurts!). "Son of God" is nearly universally acknowledged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto; "worship as God" is associated with Oneness Pentecostalism. For Orthodox/Catholic, God is the Trinity, with three equal members. 75.15.204.183 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The lede is better without the etymology, but it is becoming doctrinally weighted. It has also become somewhat ill-written.
  • The who/whom issue is not worth fixing, for the whole sentence has problems
  • Is Jesus an "it" now?
  • "Christ" is a title - not a name.
  • Unitarian Christians do not as a group believe Jesus is "the" son of God, nor even necessarily "a" son of God. And "son of God" is linked to an article that deals with Jesus exclusively (or nearly so) as "God the Son"
  • Put it back the way it was - omitting the etymology--JimWae (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We are left with a run-on sentence followed by a puerily simple sentence
  • "Central figure of Christianity" is a well-chosen phrase. One reason it was chosen was that it skirts the issue of who the founder of Xty would be. Another reason is that he is a central figure of Xty whether one is a Xn or not - no "thus" is needed
  • Xn belief in the divinity of Jesus is already stated *twice* further down in the lead
  • the article is about Jesus, not Xn views of Jesus. To introduce so early Christian beliefs and argumentation based on them ("thus") compromises the neutrality of the article --JimWae (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Specific is better than vague. "Son of God" is better than "central figure." Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JimWae. As for "son of God," my problem is that it is vague. Most Jews I know believe humans are "children of God." And in a more narrow sense, in the Bible and thus during the time it was being canonized (i.e. when Jesus was alive) Jews used the phrase "son of God" to mean "a righteous person." Now, this is what "son of god" means to me and if that is what it means in the first paragraph i find that non-controversial. However, I think Christians mean something very different. I admit I may be naive on these matters but I think for Christians the phrase "son of God" is a way of signalling two different but connected beliefs, both of which are very definitely not what I understand when I read the phrase "son of God". I think (correct me if I am wrong) that most Christians mean by son of god (1) that Mary was a virgin, pregnant through some divine act, and (2) Jesus is part of the Godhead. If I am wrong ... well, okay, Christians mean something else. But I am still pretty sure they do not mean what I do when I say someone is the son of God. So, the problem is this: I think that the phrase does not really communicate what Christians think, and it would take too long to explain what the phrase means to Christians in the lead. That is why I think we need to come up with another - just as concise but clearer - way of signalling how Christians view Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

SR, you make a fine point. I didn't like "Son of God" either, but because it understates ths case, not because it's ambiguous. OK, if Son of God is ambiguous, then how about "God incarnate"? Short, definitive. Or a little longer would be OK. "Son of God, Lord, and Savior"? Leadwind (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• IF this theme is to be included in the lede a third time (it's already included two other times), the first mention should be as inclusive as possible. JW's do not consider Jesus to be God incarnate, but they do *seem* to regard him as divine. However, as I pointed out above, Unitarian Christians would be an exception to just about any mention of this, as would Unity School of Christianity. Thus, the wording would need to specify that he is thus considered by "most Christians" rather than by the generic "Christians". If we cannot come up with a non-vague term, nor one that includes all Xn sects that consider Jesus to more than human, then including any mention of this theme in the 1st paragraph is an exercise in divisiveness --JimWae (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the German Wikipedia (where this is an FA), they start with the dates of birth and death and then write rougly: "According to the New Testament, Jesus is the Christ (Messiah, Son of God)". Could we use something along this lines? I think all Christians agree that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - because what Jews think the Christ/messiah was was very different from what Christians mean. Use of the term would either be unclear, as it could mean two very differen t things, or would violate NPOV, if we suppose it only has one meaning. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

at least three years in Jesus' Ministry

Slrubenstein wants to talk about this but wants me to create this section on the talk page to do so.

Some think that John 5:1 was another passover. Other passovers could go unrecorded. Some even think his minitry was about 10 years.--Carlaude (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein wants people to use the talk page to discuss improvements to the article rather than get into edit wars. To be precise. Now, what is your source for "Some think his ministry was about ten years?" Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you use the talk page to discuss improvements without asking other folks to do begin such?

Perhaps AndrewC can also use this space to provide his reasoning at greater length than an edit summary, too. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So you don't like me edit-- but can not write any reason why-- and so you are hoping someelse will post an argument agaist my edit?--Carlaude (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd sure like to see a source for the "10 years" claim. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would I look for a source for the "10 years" claim when I do not think that claim is very likely to be true? My point is that nothing tells us it is only three years even if only 3 passovers are recorded as such. Is not a difficult idea to grasp.--Carlaude (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your wish is my command master (LOL).

Catholic Encyclopedia: Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ C. The Public Life of Jesus: Its Duration:

"The chronology of the public life offers a number of problems to the interpreter; we shall touch upon only two, the duration of the public life, and the successive journeys it contains. There are two extreme views as to the length of the ministry of Jesus: St. Irenæus (Contra Haer., II, xxii, 3-6) appears to suggest a period of fifteen years; the prophetic phrases, "the year of recompenses", "the year of my redemption" (Isaiah 34:8; 63:4), appear to have induced Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the public life. ..."

75.15.202.250 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Basic math clearly suggestions that at a very minimum, if there were three Passovers recorded in John, then at the very least, it necessitates just over 2 years (not 3). I have changed the article to reflect this (what appears to me to be) very basic logic. However, because the previous change was unsourced, I decided to also add a source (and a direct quote) from a source that we already cite extensively in this article, Meier's A Marginal Jew. Hopefully my sourced addition is preferable to the unsourced previous version, and that every understands that you only need just over 2 years (not 3 full years) to account for 3 Passovers. Cool? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Meier's book(s? the trilogy, right?) is certainly one of the most notable and well-respected histories of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. Irenaeus sure doesn't count as a reliable source on the length of Jesus ministry. Leadwind (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

this article is too big

By the way I think this (years in Jesus' Ministry) is too minor an issue to have on the main page It ought to be moved to Main article: New Testament view on Jesus' life or Main article: Historical Jesus.

This page is already about three times the size recomended on Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues Anyone have ideas on cutting the size by moving, removing, etc. ?--Carlaude (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Jesus/Archive_85#Article_size. Last time I counted using the suggested method, we were still under 60kb. The total article size then was 113, and now we are at 117 (not sure how much of that 4kb is countable prose). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles about controversial and complex themes will always be longer than other articles and should be. Ways to make it readible: section breaks. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long, but that's not a good reason to push controversies off to another page. I'm tired of defenders of a POV trying to subordinate information that they don't like (such as that the gospels give different accounts of Jesus' ministry, its length, etc.). Carlaude, if it's really length and not content that's your concern, there are better way to trim the article. Instead of moving off this little piece of information, we should make broad cuts, as with the Chronology section and the block quotes in the Jewish views section. Leadwind (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is not three times the size recomended-- but it is still over the recommended maximum is 30 to 50 k.

Complex issues deserve multiple articles—- not articles that are so long that only editors read it.--Carlaude (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitor. Compex topics do deserve multiple articles - and a longer main article; the two responses to the complixity of the topic are not mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I never indicated multiple articles and a long main article are mutually exclusive. Jesus is never going to be a short article. But you seem to think that if folk have a lot to say about the topic then the recommended maximum should not apply. --Carlaude (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if a long article turns off readers, it seems to me that multiple articles will turn off even more readers; it is easy for me to imagine many people reading this article, and if not the whole articles, then those sections that most interest them. It is much harder for me to imagine the same people reading all daughter articles of this one. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone who wants to read a Jesus article wants information on the same topics. We do not need to expect folks to read all the Jesus article or nothing.--Carlaude (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the main article; let's do it right. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing it right is certainly not putting a little bit of everything we can think of in one article.--Carlaude (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, there's plenty of room in the article for this information, and the controversy comes straight out of the structure of the gospels (synoptics on one hand vs. John on the other), so it's relevant. There's plenty of tangential information to cut. Insisting on cutting a small bit of information makes it sound as though you have an ulterior motive (not just parsimony). Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not insisting on cutting any particular bit of information (at least not for size concerns) and for example, "at least 2 years" is fine with me. That is why I began this as a separate section. I began this section primarily so that people would look at cutting things in general, and maybe avoid adding text themselves simply because it could be added.

Do you mind listing things you consider "tangential information to cut"? --Carlaude (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Carluade, I've already cut some stuff, so there's progress. The "Gospels on Jesus" section is long, especially for a section that has spinoff articles for each subsection. Plus, it's one giant piece of original research, because it's we as editors determining how best to harmonize and summarize the four gospels. We decide what to emphasize. We decide how to word the summaries. We decide what to leave out. That's OR. Instead, we should find RSs that summarize Jesus' portrayal in the gospels. The historical Jesus section is rambling, and again has spinoff articles, allowing us the luxury of more concise summaries. The religious views section includes views of really small groups, such as Mandeans. These groups should be mentioned or alluded to, but they don't deserve subsections of their own. This page should be "information that, if you don't know it, your understanding of Jesus is incomplete." The Christadelphians, etc., deserve good treatment on the "religious view of Jesus" page or something, but here they should just be mentioned to demonstrate the breadth of minority views. Leadwind (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Literature to be mentioned

I think [1].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.153 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of birth

I am still trying to get the hang of the technical aspects and protocol of this, so bear with me. I disagree with the way it is presented that Luke places Jesus birth during a specific census, as this is speculation. The writer of Luke simply says Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor, and is not specific about which census. While I understand the controversy belongs in the article relating to the census, the statement is still incorrect and borders on being a point of view. If Luke is going to be used, it should be quoted as it is in Luke. Whether the article elaborates that Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 CE doesn't matter necessarily, but it is valid to point out that Matthew and Luke do not agree at face value. There's something odd about the whole Chronology section, actually.Burpboohickie (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, completely. Go ahead and edit as appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in the stuff on Quirinius because I wanted to make it easy for someone to follow that link, but it's pretty tangential, really. I'd be happy to have it cut. Leadwind (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. I don't want to rush in and make any edits yet, as it seems there isn't really a problem with this article, but that the details are all being broken up into their own separate articles. (There appears to be a commentary on every section of the Bible!) The Census of Quirinius is not referred to as such anywhere else as far as I can determine, and that article is extremely lengthy considering it is a controversy. Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is it doesn't necessarily do any good to, say, specify what Matthew and Luke say about the birth of Jesus when it may be covered in twelve different articles that are not coordinated. I understand that's just one of the issues facing a living encyclopedia. It's just something that I am figuring out, though, so again bear with the greenhorn! Burpboohickie (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

this section exists largely for us to comply with our NPOV and NOR policies. NPOV demands that we provide all notable points of view. Many Christians and many historians have conflicting views of Jesus, and both views have to be represented. But both groups draw on the Gospels as source material and many felt it made sense for this and other reasons to summarize the Gospels. But the Gospels are primary source material and editors cannot use them to forward their own arguments or views. In other words, if we insert summaries of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, we have to be as literal as possible to avoid suggesting any particular interpretation of the Gospels. Many interpretations - by historians and devout Christians, hinge on how the reader views the differences or relation among the Gospels. If we were to try to synthasize different statements in different Gospels, or if we were to draw on one Gospel and leave out mention of a different one, we would be implying a particular way of reading the Gospels that would violate NOR. So, the shape of this section has a lot to do with complying with these two policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not realistic to say We have to allow for every side of every argument. These are theological issues, not encyclopedia articles. Half of Wikipedia will end up being about Christianity. It is already ridiculous how many articles there are on the tiniest issues. It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to correlate all the sub articles. I've seen many with NO citations and many are pure apologetics. The way to do this to simplify and condense. We don't have to give every side of every story. A reader wonders, Who is Jesus? and looks it up. Oh, he is a prophet of Islam and the Son of God to Christians. If people want apologetics, they should go to Conservapedia. I love studying religion and love Wiki. But I can't consider Wiki a reliable source on Christianity any more. Burpboohickie (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your response, since I did not say that we have to allow for every side of an argument. I do not believe anyone here has ever said we have to provide every side of an argument. What I did write was, we have to provide all notable points of view. This is WIkipedia policy. If someone adds anotable view to the article, neither you, I nor anyone has a right to remove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

four gospels

Not surprisingly, this article gives special weight to the four canonical gospels. For example: "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Does anyone have a citation for this? I'd say, "The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the synoptic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke." The gospel of John is not a source of information about Jesus' life. Historians regard it as not reliable. Leadwind (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

no objection on my part, although John is of course very important not only for Christian theology but for how historians explain the origins of early Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Shall we look for the 31 AD edition of the Daily Mirror? Or better still to the Gnostic Gospels, nonesense written decades after the Cannonical gospels? The latter were written by individuals who met Jesus or were influenced by people who met Jesus. Thats as reliable as one can get you know. Tourskin (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is a mistake to consider John (at least) any sort of chronological account of Jesus life, but it has become an accepted source for his "teachings"--JimWae (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would never denigrate John as a historical window into early Christianity. Very influential and descriptive. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, you're right, the gnostic gospels are bogus hokum, Jesus-wise. I would suggest using the three earliest gospels because, as you say, they're closer to the source. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, you're right, John has long been accepted as faithfully representing Jesus' teaching. It just isn't any more, not by most contemporary scholars, anyway. Leadwind (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin and Jim, I am looking for a citation for the original sentence. If you have one, please share. Leadwind (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• On further consideration, I agree John has to be the least reliable. An alternative to singling him out by omission would be to just say gospels rather than naming any. --JimWae (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, sure, we could just say synoptic gospels and not name them. Leadwind (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The other Gospels should also be discussed. There were more than 4 Gospels. Also, all the pictures in the article show Jesus with sinful long hair. Only women were allowed to keep their hair in that fashion under Jewish Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.110.136 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

lead, nontrinitarianism

"Nontrinitarianism profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity (see below)." The lead should summarize the topic. This sentence doesn't. The lead should be able to stand alone. Let's try "A minority of Christians variously regard Jesus as divine but not as God, or as God but not in the orthodox trinitarian sense." Leadwind (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

historical Jesus, Jesus as myth

The whole "Possible external influence" section is rambling. Apparently various editors have layered pro and con evidence here. The historical section could use a concise summary of the "Jesus as myth" movement, so I've provided one. I've commented out the original "possible external influence" section because it's easier to start over than to make sense out of a troubled section. Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Manichaeism

I'm surprised the article says nothing about the Manichaean view of Jesus. This really ought to be mentioned somewhere. Skoojal (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We should have a section that covers Mandean, Manichaean, Gnostic, and early minority views of Jesus. Mani believed that the prophets, Buddha, and Jesus had all been sent to help liberate humanity from the material world. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to add a short sentence about the Manichean view, with a link to the Manichaeism article. Skoojal (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

year of jesus's birth

Jesus wasn't born between 2, and 7 B.C. they started counting after his death thats why its the year 2008

Can you explain this further?--C.Logan (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think hes saying that AD 1 is the death and resurrection of Jesus so born ~30 BC? No thats not true, they count after his birth. Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Colleenthegreat (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit at top of Jesus page

At the top of the Jesus page, a sentence proclaims in bold capitals that jesus had sex with small children. I feel certain that this inappropriate comment was a prank edit of some sort. As a wiki reader without an account, I cannot remove this sentence myself. Could someone who does have that power please restore the article to its original status? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.121.42 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism you were refering to was reverted in less than a minute. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) It's gone. If you still see it, clear your browser cache. Such obvious vandalism in a high-profile article has a very short lifetime - this one was on less than a minute. There is usually no need to mention it on talk. But thanks anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Colored Yeshua

Out of curiosity why did you'll take the Yeshua off the article? And did any of you know Yeshua was a colored man this not my point of view it's a fact even though most people know Him to be white He is a colored man and I think that should be mentioned. The K.O. King (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "Yeshua" you are referring too - can you be a bit more specific? Anyways, if Jesus existed, both the Bible and normal common sense suggest that he looked like a typical inhabitant of Palestine at that time. That is, he would have been swarthy, but not black. We are all coloured, at least in a non-PC sense (I go from pale pinkish brown in winter to medium dark brown in summer - successfully avoiding blazing red most years ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The part that said Yeshua is His name in Hebrew. Yeshua was black no one knows how dark He was though. If you would like to explain this I will. The K.O. King (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken out of the lead, but is still in the article, at Jesus#Names_and_titles, and in more details in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't think that a black Jesus has mainstream or even significant minority support in the academic community. Do you have any sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see it is plausible that Jesus could have been anywhere from quite white (Roman/Greek) to light brown (Arab/Persian) to very dark (Egyptian/Libyan) and that the only reason for the movement to assert that Jesus was black is to counter the more popular assertion that Jesus is white, neither argument of which has any particular basis and is almost universally put forth by individuals of that ethnicity. The only part of Jesus' genealogy that I have seen that is mapped out significantly is the family tree of Joseph, which individuals who believe in the immaculate conception don't believe Jesus is related to by blood anyway. Peter Deer (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Gospels describe him as inconspicuous, and the Romans needed Judas to identify him among the disciples. This makes all but a normal levantine coloring (which, btw, overlaps with at least current Greeks and Italians and Egyptians) very unlikely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That indeed would seem to indicate that. On another note, asserting that He was white or black when there is not conclusive evidence supporting either notion just serves to essentially use Jesus/Yeshua/Isa/etc. for political and bigoted ends. Peter Deer (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)