Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:40, 1 July 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Jesus was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 12, 2005 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bahá'í Faith High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: 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. Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages? The issue was discussed on the talk page: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages. The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms. The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus. Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard? Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus. Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed? The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that: Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens. Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him. The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves? The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus". Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead? A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items. Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question: Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013). Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global. It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty." Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc. Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first: Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization. More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc. As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below. Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish? Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box. Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox? The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that. Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. References R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49 Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• 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
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

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 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.

principal sources hard to understand

".. are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."

I would like it to read:

".. are the four canonical gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."

Ideas please?

Etymology

The statement 'A "Messiah" is a king anointed' is not complete. Anointed ones (Messiahs) in the Bible include prophets, priests, and kings not just kings.

Problems with citations in first section

Citations 17 to 28 are not done properly and need work. Very little of the information from the edit page is displaying on the article page. This is likely due to an error in formatting. Eh1537 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory

No, I do not mean to bring up discussion on this article and the myth theory again. Fortunately, there is an article addressing this theory, which handles it for us. However, there is also a FAQ page which is currently a source of major contention. People who watch this page should consider looking at the FAQ here and then participating in the deletion discusion here.

As I understand it, the bone of contention is whether the "FAQ" are not really frequently asqed questions about the Christ Myth, or Jesus, or how historians work (which I guess would be okay), but a veiled editorial opposing or defending the Misplaced Pages article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much references on Islam in a Jesus article

The 1st paragraph has a reference on Islam. The 5th paragraph is solely devoted to islam. Why are other notable abrahamic religions such as baha'i faith or judaism not offered this type of coverage? I sense undue weight. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You sense undo weight because other groups do not have information about their beliefs; the choice is then to delete the information for Islam? What about simply entering information about the groups you mentioned? It is not undue weight to discuss the views of one of the world's biggest relgions, particularly when it consists of a few sentences. --Rider 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All right. i will do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam is a major religion that reveres Jesus as a prophet (and the Koran has more content regarding St. Mary than the NT; I point this out only because her relevance is directly linked to her son's). Judaism has no central authority, but while individual Jews may have an opinion about Jesus, at best "Judaism" considers him one guy among thousands who was crucified by the friggin Romans, and at worst considers him a false god mistakenly worshiped by others. So that pretty much covers the "Ambrahamic" religions. It is not that the article fails to give adequate coverage of Judaism, it is that Jesus just really is pretty unimportant in Judaism. I see no need to use this article to belabor the point. "Undue weight" does not mean that all views should receive equal weight, it means all views should be given appropriate weight. The Jewish view, such as it is, is given complete expression. You really can't ask for more than that, can you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Slrubenstein says here. If there's something on the Baha'i faith you'd like to see covered there's a number of editors such as myself who would be willing to look into it provided it meets Misplaced Pages's criterion for inclusion. Peter Deer (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Its inclusion is valid. Though incorrect, the beliefs of Islam on Jesus are popular enough to be discussed in an article on Him. (It is "encyclopedic content") See: Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Religion —ron2 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theories on Jesus Christ´s life and death

There are several claims that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist thought. It is claimed that he spent his youth in India where he came into contact with Buddhist thinking which is obvious in his teachings, like peacefulness and reincarnation. Several authors (e.g. Elmar Gruber and Holger Kersten) claim that he did not die on the cross, but was in a coma and was brought back to life by good care. He was then urged to return to Persia and India where he would be safe. His frist sighting was in Damascus, on the way to the Fars East. He lived and taught there until his death in Srinagar where he was buried. His grave has been preserved until today by his descendants, now Muslims. Many of these claims can be verified by historical evidence. e.g that there were Buddhists in Palestine at that time, and Jews in India. There are many parallels between the evangelists and Vedic teachings. Modern Christianity has more similarity to Buddhism than to Judaism. Some examples: Christianity and Buddhism know monasteries, Judaism does not; note folded hands when praying in Buddhism and Christianity, not in Judaims; ancient Judaism has a vengeful God, Buddhism and Christianity preach love etc. The three Wise Men who came from the East to worship newborn Jesus, believed to be astrologers, could have been ancient colleagues of those Buddhist leaders who, with astrological methods, find the new Dalai Lama. Thus it seems possible that little Jesus was chosen as an early Dalai Lama, taken to India as a teenager, taught Buddhism and then returned to Palestine where he taught love and peace. This teaching was not welcome with the established Jewish authorities, and he was handed over to the Romans to be executed. He was not dead, however, when taken from the cross, but simply unconscious. He was not on the cross too long. This can be confirmed by the fact that he bled when the Roman soldier pierced his breast with a spear. A corpse does not bleed. All this makes more sense than the official teaching of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course. That Jesus was a Buddhist who went to India, based on no reliable historical evidence makes much more sense than those first century gospels those pesky Christians throw around. --Ari (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This may actually belong in the museum of the dumbest comments ever made on a talk page (I mean the one by Ontologix, which shows that people who cannot spell logics may also lack it.) Look, we do not have a section on Jesus according to Andrew Lloyd Weber, even if he did author an extremely popular account of Jesus' life. I don't oppose articles on fictionalizations of Jesus' life, but they do not belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See for example Caesarion and donations of Alexandria. Read also what Cleopatra VII had planned. Caesarion fled to India and came back years later to hang out with the Essene and Nazorean people. Isa/Issa means son of Isis. Issa Nezer means means branch of the son of Isis. There are no historical mentions of Nazareth, Isa of Nazareth mean son of Isis branc of son.

Caesarion fled to India and Himalaya, spent some 15-20 years there, before returning to Syria/Palestine to look for his sister and brothers. He had became highly spiritual during his journey and wanted to conquer back his dad's kingdom, but not with weapons and bloodshed, but by creating a new religion (as was planned in the new era plan Cleopatra VII (and also Julius Caesar)). Caesarion was thought to be a son of god as his father was declared a god by the Roman senate after he was murdered. He had already years ago taken a new identity Issa (son of Isis) Nezer (Nazar). After returning to Syria/Palestine, Jesus found his sister Cleopatra Selene II who took a new identity Mary Magdalene and his brothers Alexander Helios who is known as Thomas Judas Didymus and Ptolemy Philadelphus who is known as James. It is not known, if the crucifixion happened, who of the four siblings were actually hanging on the cross. Anno Domini could refer to anointing. Perhaps year 0 or 1 refers to year when John the Baptist baptised Caesarion, so that he could start his public work in Jerusalem. Otherwise years roughly 50-1BCE and 1-50CE were superimposed. Caesarion had already spent time in the Essene community, teaching them spirituality and they were highly cosmological, a new group evolved which were the Nazorean (branch of son of Isis), who were not that hardcore in their devotion to asceticism as the Esseneans were. Nazoreanism eventually evolved into christianity that we know today, although heavily altered by the Piso family (caretakers of Caesars will) of Rome who edited the later canonized NT gospels and by the emperor Constantine I and the likes like of the Nicea council. The philosophy of the Essenes and Nazoreans, refuse of violence (wars), temple sacrificial, nonacceptance of slavery and vegetarian eating were in conflict with the agenda of pharisees and Roman emperors, hence the new age medieval version of christianity. Jesus also spoke that he is an example of how to live, act and think, not anything people could outsource their killing, murdering, robbing and raping on.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I really hope you don't plan on adding that to the article without citing sources. My atheist friends would be raising eyebrows. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool story. --Ari (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bio Dates

I went ahead and updated the first note concerning the birth date. Its a minor change, that most readers wont see, that expands the note to say: "Sanders says ca. 4 BC/BCE. Vermes says ca. 5/6 BC/BCE. Finegan says ca. 3/2 BC/BCE. Sanders refers to the general consensus, Vermes a common 'early' date, Finegan defends comprehensively the date according to early Christian traditions." I feel this gives the new reader a sense of where these scholarly dates currently stand. I feel Finegan is noteworthy because he comprehensively supports the traditional date 3/2. Finegan doesnt enjoy wide consensus, but he does enjoy wide respect and is considered plausible even by those who support the 4 BCE consensus. Id like to see a similar note for the timing of the crucifixion. I along with others am strongly convinced the date is exactly year 32. So in the article the "ca. 30" is slightly annoying. Other scholars argue 33. I didnt change anything with regard to the death date however. Haldrik (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed, I inadvertantly continued a previous error, the Vermes date should say "6/5" not "5/6", since it is BCE. Il go ahead and update that too. Done. And I also changed the words so-and-so "says" to so-and-so "supports" the given date. This better reflects the scholarly tone. These scholars certainly didnt discover these dates, but merely continue the conclusions of earlier scholars. Haldrik (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the death date, Meier, in A Marginal Jew devotes a bit to this, citing a lot of scholars and discussing the various views. In his conclusion: "In brief, then, the year of Jesus' death, in the opinion of most commentators, must lie within the range of A.D. 29-34-and even then we are casting the new as widely as possible., As we shall see, the net is more often cast within the range of A.D. 30-33. In ligh of our frequent ignorance of the exact year of the death of many notables in the ancient world, we should be happy that we can be even this precise about the year of Jesus' crucifixion." Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years, gives some more information, and goes on to give his personal view "In my opinion, A.D. 30 is the more likely date."

Theissen and Merz say 27 and 34 fit the Nisan 15-Friday of the Synoptics, and 30 and 33 fit the 14 Nisan of John, and that "the year 30 CE seems most probably as the year in which Jesus died, but other years can by no means be excluded". Therefore, I think it is perfectly fine to say c. 30, because not only is it a round circa number, many notable scholars find it the most likely year as well. Both of these sources seem to completely write off 32, so I'm curious why you are so strongly convinced of it.-Andrew c  21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years."

Yes, but these views depend on those who read the Synoptics to mean Jesus was crucified on the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread *after* eating the Passover lamb, thus he died on the Jewish date Nisan 15, so then the Passover meal would have happened on the day before Shabat. However, the Gospel of John explicitly and unambiguously records Jesus dying on the day *before* anyone ate the Passover lamb (John 18:28), thus Jesus died on Nisan 14, therefore in that year the Passover meal occured on Shabat. Many scholars prefer the account of John because it seems more archeologically informed and closer to the local Jerusalem traditions about Jesus. Jesus died while the passover lambs were still being offered at the Temple for the Passover meal that night, before Jesus was able to eat it. Thus Jesuss last supper actually refers to the Jewish tradition of 'Checking for Leavening' (Bdikhat Khamets), which occurs on the evening before the evening of eating the Passover lamb. That evening Jews ritually remove leavening, especially by eating whatever leavened bread remains in the household. With the last supper being the checking of leavening, it explains *many* problems. One, all Synoptic Gospels have a conspicuous absence of the passover lamb itself at his last supper ... because it wasnt slain yet. Two, the chief priests can call an emergency council together to discuss the imminent danger of a Roman response to Jesuss activity ... *legally* ... because it isnt the evening of the Passover meal yet. And so on. Anyway, the account of John is the right one, the Synoptics are actually ambiguous under scrutiny, and in that year the Passover meal occurred on Shabat. Therefore, the only reasonable year possible is 32. Haldrik (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "right one." Or at least, it does not matter what Misplaced Pages editors think is the "right one." We have to provide all significant viesws from notable sources. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While what Haldrik says is interesting, and I sure opened the door to that one (sorry), I agree. It isn't which argument seems most logical to us, it's which arguments are most commonly found in the literature (cited sources...) Given the sources, I feel comfortable with c. 30, and leaving it at that. c. 5 is OK with me as well. -Andrew c  15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Im talking about what should go into the endnote, similar to the endnote about birth dates. Something like: "So-and-so supports the consensus. So-and-so supports 33, a common 'late' date. So-and-so supports 32." Besides personal interest, I feel the conflict between Synoptics and John is noteworthy, a fact most scholars note. This gives the new reader a sense of where these dates currently stand. Haldrik (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to rescind my call for year 32 as a death date. I checked the Finegan book, and he *lists* the calculations that he refers to for the months of Nisan that are considerably different from the ones I had referred to. The ones I accessed used a complex formula that retroactively calculated the Jewish dates from the current year - which Im guessing becomes unreliable after a time. The ones Finegan refers to rely on astronomical precision for the phases of the moon, which not only corresponds to the new moon for Nisan 1, but also helps determine when Jewish 'leap years' (with an extra month) are likely or not. The calculations that he used were published in 1934, and corroborated in 1956 as having an accuracy that enjoys a 'very high degree of probability'. While I would be happier with more recent dates for corroboration, Finegan feels these calendar calculations are reliable, and on a point like this, Finegans opinion cannot be taken lightly. Anyway, Finegan strongly prefers the Gospel of John over the Synoptics for historicity concerning the timing of the crucifixion. So, Jesus died on Nisan 14 before the Passover meal took place. And with these calendar calculations, the date of Nisan 14, the day agreeing with John, actually falls on a Friday in year 30 or 33. So, there is clearly the choice of these two. Interestingly, while Sanders refers to the consensus that prefers year 30, Finegan prefers 33 the common 'late' date. Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the endnote, it should say something like:

"For the death date, Sanders supports 30 AD/CE, referring to the general consensus. Finegan supports 33 AD/CE, a common 'late' date."

Maybe even add something like:

"These two dates derive from astronomical calculations for the new moons of the Jewish month Nisan. These corroborate the historicity of the Gospel of John that times the death to Nisan 14 on a Friday. On this point, the historicity of the Synoptics with their apparent date of Nisan 15 seems untenable or at best ambiguous."

Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exagerate Number References of references on certain statements

Cause of Jesus trial and later crucifixion It has a whopping 11 references !!!! that is not necessary, a simple foot note reference should suffice if in the at-the-end-of-the article-foot-note all the references are stated... Even taking into consideration that providing references is good practice (even though we all know this one) the fact of adding half a line in references for a simple sentence is not necessary... we need to explore a better way (from the editing point of view) to present this. 190.28.119.128 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

11 references might be a bit much, but a lot of them are needed there because many people come by, adamantly disagreeing that he was excecuted for sedition, and want it removed. Having a large number of sources to support this statement helps to prevent said objections or article edits.Farsight001 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Those references refer to the entire sentence, not just the end. It's the one that starts Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe...' Maybe we should just cite a single source which is already discussing what most scholars believe about Jesus, and maybe we have gone a bit overboard. But I guess citing a ton of scholars from diverse backgrounds and faiths is one way to make sure we are presenting what most scholars hold. And we used to have all the citations in a single footnote, but someone broke them up (but did a poor job of it, because some are still combined in a footnote). Maybe, to make the page read better, we should combine the footnotes again? Or maybe we could discuss a single source which conveys what we are currently conveying. But of course, if we choose a Christian source, we risk getting accused of bias, and if we choose a secular historian source, we risk get accused of bias. :) -Andrew c  02:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Farsight. A higher-than-usual number of endnotes helps deter POV editors from 'fixing' challenging data and helps keep the article more stable and reliable. Haldrik (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment on why there are so many references, but it I guess it does make sense. There are a lot of people who would go into this article and post "Jesus did not exist" and other nonsense, just as creationists/ancient alien theorists will go to evolution articles and state "aliens/God/Chuck Norris did it." Though not in those words I guess. So yeah, more references is really a good thing, despite the fact that it looks bulky. But that's really subjective. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are two or more citations for one sentence, and all the citations are only being used once for that sentence, then it is perfectly acceptable to combine all the cites together into one footnote. In the case here, cite notes 18 to 29 are all only being used once for one sentence, therefore they should all be combined into one cite. This improves readability in the article. I've seen this requested at Featured article candidates many times and this article should probably adopt that format. The main thing is to make sure not to combine cites that are being used multiple times in different places since this will cause inaccuracies. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who is not satisfied with what they learn from an encyclopedia article should do further research. Our citations are great ways for letting people know just where to look if they wish to learn more about a specific issue. If we just had the article with a long list of references at the end, people would not know where to start. but if someone sees the same reference cited for all the parts of the article they find most interesting, they can infer that this is a good book or article to read. Multiple citations have no costs and various benefits - how can anyone in good faith argue against them? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was not to remove any citations, just combine them. Footnotes 18-29 can all be combined into one cite of footnote 18, separating the previous different cites with semi-colons or some other method. And for this 18-29 example, most of the cites are to page numbers of authors listed in the references section, so there shouldn't be any confusion on where to look for more information. Also I'm not saying this article has this problem, but sometimes an article can have "too" many references, mostly if they are low quality ones or very repetitive ones. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you - I hope no one took my earlier comment to express disagreement with what you wrote earlier! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Do we have an agreement on the point that some sources need to be grouped in a footnote already? The other point is that from a[REDACTED] editing point of view, I wouldn't know how to do it; Any example (article) that uses the proposed method (several references on a footnote) ? Also, some 3-4 footnotes should suffice and do the same get-away-spammer-non-scholar editor type of message without using an entire row for just references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.151.116 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Han Dynasty is an example of an article that combines footnotes. It separates the multiple ones with a semi-colon. If you do this yourself though I wouldn't remove any of the cites, just combine them. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise not combining footnotes. It might make the text easier to read, but it can make the text harder to edit. Leadwind (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dang. I just combined the footnotes because I thought I remembered there being loose consensus to do so here, but I guess I never read Leadwind's last statement. I think what makes editing the footnotes worse than combining them is adding the citation book template. These were mostly shorthand footnotes which were to be used in combination with the full citation found in the References section. We really should only have author, year, and page number in the footnote. It appears now that some have publisher and title information and others don't, and the added text from the citation template isn't helping. Anyway, feel free to revert my combination, if you feel like it, but make sure that you don't go back to the version that said the Sander's book was a publisher and otherwise combined multiple citations into one. -Andrew c  14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

References to other religious views in the lead

Currently, the lead has two references to other religion's views, in the first and last paragraphs, and it is disorganized. Shouldn't it be combined into one lede paragraph? Flash 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Right now the first paragraph includes the views of every religion that cares about Jesus. The second paragraph covers how critical scholars view Jesus, because that is a very significant view, and then the third paragraph has more detail on what Christians believe, because that is also a very significant view. This all seems quite reasonable to me. Judaism has no view, so you can't really say that the last paragraph is about Judaism's view of Jesus. But since Jesus was Jewish and preached to Jews (and perhaps also because Christians spent a good deal of the last two thousand years moaning about why Jews don't care about Jesus) it makes sense to cover this in the lead. But of all the things covered in the lead, I'd say it is the least important, and fitting that it goes last. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"one of the most influential persons" sentence

Regarding the lead, I removed these two sentences from the first paragraph, see my edit summary: "Several other religions revere him in some way. He remains one of the most influential figures in history." Instead of the first sentence, simply mention any important religions, which already have in the lead and body. And as for the second, it's just redundant and not very encyclopedic. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; references can be found all over the article. Furthermore, while they may seem obvious to most people, a lot of people looking up this article wouldn't know of that fact. Flash 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Which fact? HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That Jesus was one of the most influential figure in history. I should have clarified. Flash 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Thanks for clarifying, but.... Hey! Hold on a bit there! Let's discuss this without reverting so often. (I will leave it for now, because too many reverts is a bad thing.) Those two sentences, which have just been stuck back in again, again, and again, are very poorly written. Expressions like "in some way" and "one of the most" are not at all encyclopaedic. If there is something useful to say, please find a better and clearer way of doing so. For the first sentence, listing the names of those religions where Jesus is significant, on a large scale, not down to minor sects and denominations, would not be out of place. The second sentence really is just rubbish. It simply sounds like barracking. (For Americans, that's Australian for rooting - a term that means something very different in Australian English.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "one of the most influential" is POV. It would be POV to say the word "greatest", or to say that the influence is good or bad, but "one of the most influential" is a matter of fact. Flash 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

I did not use the term POV. "One of the most influential" is clichéd. It is synthesis. Such words are not used anywhere else in the article. There is no source referenced to say that any reputable scholar has said so. It may have occurred. It may be true, but it's not encyclopaedic language. It is journalistic. It is also unnecessary. It adds nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's unnecessary? Will this not be useful information to someone who knows very little about Jesus? Furthermore, there are numerous sources which can be cited. "one of the most influential" is not cliched; although I can understand why you would view it as such. Influential has a clear, concrete meaning.

Would it be better to say "some consider him the most influential"? sources can be cited Flash 03:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

It is so subjective it is absurd. Maybe we could put "According to his mother, Jesus was one of the most influential people ever to have lived." But most Jewish mothers think that of their boys. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, as well as this article, is full of subjective opinions, which is why it has to have a qualifier such as "some consider" or "some scholars consider". And the sentence has many more reliable sources than you seem to be implying.

Or, alternatively, the sentence could stay as it is. I haven't encountered any sources which say that Jesus was not influential. Flash 12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first point implies WP:Weasel words of "some consider". Your second point implies WP:Synthesis that since no scholars say he wasn't influential then he must be so. Besides throwing around guidelines, the sentence is simply subjective and not encyclopedic. Comparing articles isn't necessarily a good thing, but I don't see this sentence on Abraham, Muhammad, or Gautama Buddha. On Confucius it directly says what cultures he has influenced. This is comparable to saying Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Adding that he is "influential" is vague and redundant. I request at least one or two good sources stating that Jesus is "one of the most influential figures" be added to the lead, but I would much rather just have the sentence taken out. Also the other sentence of "several other religions" is vague and unnecessary as well, but we'll argue one at a time. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really say a lot, and just seems there for fluff. And to me, it seems a bit amateurish, one step removed from "Jesus is awesome!". I mean, sure he is, but that doesn't mean we need to say it in an encyclopedia article about him. We revert such edits as vandalism. I was looking at the George Washington article, and it suffers a little bit from this as well, but I think the key differences is it is more specific, and sources. Compare Because of his significant role in the revolution and in the formation of the United States, he is often revered by Americans as the "Father of Our Country". and Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the greatest United States presidents. to something more like George Washington remains one of the most influential figures in American history. The former, I feel seems more high school level, while the latter is more grade school. Just because you think something is true and self evident doesn't mean it is proper or appropriate for an encyclopedia article! -Andrew c  20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, it is better to be specific with facts or else you are venturing into WP:Peacock puffery. Saying he is the central figure of Christianity, and revered as God incarnate by many, are more specific ways of saying he is influential. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His influence goes beyond being the central figure in Christianity, and I can give sources saying so. Omitting such information makes the article incomplete. As some of you said, that Jesus was one of the most influential persons may be seen as self evident, but many people, especially those who would look up this article, would not be aware of that fact. Flash 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - Influential is a sloppy word. Many dictators and military invaders have been influential, but I doubt that is the kind of meaning you intend. Maybe it would help if you told us some of the ways you think Jesus has been influential. Then we could work on forming some words that retained your meaning but fitted better into an encyclopaedic structure. Since most readers here already understand his role as the key figure of Christianity, maybe concentrate on areas beyond that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How he has been influential has already been covered in the article, in detail. Thee is a whole discussion dedicated to it. So at this point the the discussion is moot. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, How he has been influential has not been covered in the article. The word influential is only used three times, once in the case in question and two other times where it is not describing Jesus. As I just said, it's a sloppy word. It can have very positive overtones (presumably the intention here), or be used to describe some of the most horrible people in history. If such a thought MUST go in the lead, we need another word, in a better sentence. Please help create it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy section is dedicated to explaining the lasting influence of Jesus. If you think it does not adequately describe "how" he has been influential then that information belongs in that section. The lead is already a good summary I think, a vague sentence about being influential is not needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How many crucified Jews from the time of the Roman occupation get their own Misplaced Pages articles? In fact, Misplaced Pages has basic notability standards for inclusion as topic of an article. I do not think anyone is challenging whether Jesus is important enough that he meits an encyclopedia article. So we agree we meet the notability requirements. That should be enough. Again I think it is a moot point. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

From http://www.buy.com/prod/jesus-outside-the-new-testament/q/loc/106/30559465.html

Jesus of Nazareth is arguably the most influential person in history.Through the Christian faith, the world's most widespread and numerous religion, Jesus has had a direct impact on Western culture and an indirect impact on many other cultures. Today many followers of other religions also know about Jesus, and his teachings influence them. Jesus' teachings even attract some agnostics and atheists, who profess to live by the Sermon on the Mount or its "Golden Rule." For scholars, Jesus is a leading figure of the past. Far more learned books and articles have been written about Jesus than about any other person,and the "quest for the historical Jesus" is one of the largest enduring enterprises in humanities scholarship. Yet the quantity and intensity of the academic study of Jesus suggest that interest in him is far more than historical and scholarly. Most people's deeper interest in the life and teachings of Jesus springs not from historical study, but from faith in the present Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world. For them,he is not just "the historical Jesus," or much less as a waggish British scholar once dubbed him, "the late J. Christ of Biblical fame," but the living Lord Jesus Christ.

Information such as this could go in the Legacy section. Flash 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I sense a point of view here. Anyway, I think the point made here - that people who believe Jesus was a god believe Jesus was a god, is already made in the article. And as HiLo48 wrote, correctly, "influential" is a cliche and practically impossible to prove. I have no idea how anyone can demonstrate how many non-Christians were influenced by Jesus. But it comes down to this (1) there are many diferent interpretations of the Gospels and (2) that the Gospels reflect Jesus's teachings rather than views unique to their authors or views circulating more widely at the time is contentious and hence a matter of POV. With these questions out there, it is impractical to measure influence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Influence cannot be measured but is certainly not cliche. As the source, among others show, his influence goes far beyond being the central figure of Christianity. Excluding this information not only makes the article incomplete, it is POV. Flash 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that excerpt says is that his teachings may or may not influence people outside of Christianity. And like Slrubenstein said, the teachings of Jesus cannot necessarily actually be attributed to the man himself. Other than the vague influence sentence, what part of his legacy is not mentioned that you want included? That source does not even back up your claim that his legacy goes beyond being the central figure of Christianity. It says most people's interest in Jesus is believing he's the "Son of God". LonelyMarble (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The excerpt also mentions articles, literature, and the influence of his teachings.

This excerpt from the book the essential Jesus expands further:

No matter what you think about Jesus, there's no denying he is the most influential person in all of human history. And what's truly amazing is that his path to influence was so unlikely.

Jesus never became a political, military or government leader; he never wanted to. He never owned a multinational corporation or acquired any wealth to speak of; he didn't need it. He never wrote a book, never staged a concert tour, never appeared on television and never had a radio talk show or even his own blog. He was born in a barn, grew up as a laborer, remained single and childless his entire life, and was executed at the age of thirty-three.

Yet somehow Jesus became the reference point for life ever since - we mark our calendars by his death. He has inspired some of the world's greatest art, literature, music and architecture. His ethical teachings have been hailed as the world's greatest - even by those who aren't his followers. He's been the subject of countless books, articles, television programs and movies. ... Not only that, the book that gives us the most information about him - the Bible - has sold more copies than any volume ever printed.

---

simply saying that Jesus' only influence is that Christians see him as the son of God is not only misleading, it is simply wrong. Flash 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Legacy section does discuss the influence of his teachings and his influence in art, literature and other mediums. Perhaps we can add a sentence to the lead that basically summarizes the Legacy section, this would be in line with what leads are supposed to do. This sentence should mention specific products of his legacy though, not just vaguely state he was influential. I'd also like some sources for such a sentence too. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The legacy section does miss some information, such as the influence on culture, literature, etc, and the calendar system.

It will be hard to summarize all this information in one sentence and not have it be a run-on. Which is why I liked the general clause "most influential". Flash 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as it was didn't convey any real information and was just fluff. A sentence or two summarizing the Legacy section by mentioning specifics would be more encyclopedic. If other users agree on this I'm sure a good sentence or two can be formed. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Dionysius Exiguus or Charlemagne had a much bigger influence on the calendar than Jesus. I'd say that Doestoyevsky had a much bigger influence on literaqture than Jesus. So, I still do not see the influence you talk of. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I came across this reading last night, just to annoy everyone. "There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most important historical and religious figures of all time." --Ari (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, reading Bock would annoy me :/ -Andrew c  02:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - Firstly, carpenters are tradesmen, not labourers. My chippy mates wouldn't like being called labourers. Secondly (and I've been resisting using the first name), but Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were influential too. I use those examples to less subtly make the point that influential doesn't necessarily mean good. If you want to make some sort of positive point, you really do need a better word. Even important, as in that last quote, wouldn't quite express the POV you obviously want in there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Some carpenters are actually more craftsmen than tradesmen. In any case although Hitler was influential, his remaining influence is through what he stood for rather than who he was. Jesus's influence is primarily who he is claimed to be. What he stood for is often of lesser importance - hence the almost Hitleresque (Hitlerliche?) propogation and manifestation of Christianity (and interpretations of it) at points throughout its history. Had the influence of Jesus focussed on what he stood for (serving and loving one's neighbour) then the spread of the religions, and their influence may have been somewhat tempered. As it is the autthority of who Jesus is claimed to be (Son of God and master of creation), the churches have adopted a kind of "inherritence of authority" without necessarily the responsibility, discernment and wisdom which must accompany it. And in essence the influence of Jesus on human history does not even require the actual physical existence of the historical Jesus (a point which some would still argue). In contrast to Hitler's specific sphere of influence, Jesus's influence pervades many different spheres: philosophical, ideological, humanitarian, authoritarian - even affecting what some consider to be the truth of science and scientific interpretation . So when all things are considered I personally would say that Jesus (even if his actual existence is untrue) still ranks as not only one of the most influential, but probably the most influential characters in human history. It will be NPOV and left to the reader to decide whether the influence was positive, or negative, or a combination of the two, and to what degree. JohnArmagh (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice perspective. But I'm pretty sure our colleague Flash wants the word influential to have pretty much an exclusively positive connotation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Being a Christian myself (and I hope that was not reflected in my comments, as I intended them to be neutral) I would like influential to be positive. But one has to look at the facts - and it cannot be denied that some of the influences, when adopted by agenda-driven people, have clearly been negative. So, once the term influential is used, it is best then to present the facts to the reader and let them decide. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, didn't pick your writings as having any particular bias at all. I agree with presenting facts to the reader and letting them decide. That's where the word influential bothers me. It's a conclusion being drawn by an editor, based on a combination of other material. That's WP:SYNTHESIS, and is strongly disapproved of. And it's simply not needed. As for "one of the most", well, that's just WP:WEASEL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm .... If Jesus's influence is tied up with people's believf in his divinity, we might as well just skip this article entirely, go to the God article and say God is one of the most influential characters in history. In any event, @ John Armagh, Jesus' influence is (like anyone's influence) in the eye of the beholder. King David, Cyrus the Great, and Caiaphas were all messiahs, and David was Son of God to boot, so none of these are marks of distinction. But the bottom line is, we really do not know what Jesus claimed to be from any immediate influence, and the Gospels are by no means clear that Jesus was one with God, and this is something Christains themselves debated for some time. This is why it is much better to list some of th enotable legacies of Jesus, rather than comment on whether jesus' legacy is greater than that of Hammurapi or Moses, or the Buddha or Mao, or James Watt, or Henry Ford, or Albet Einstein, or Alan Turing, or Richard Gatling, each of whom I think someone has made a good argument for having changed the world, which makes them pretty influential. Better just to list the forms of the legacy; it is more informative. What I find most remarkable about this proposal is that it seeks to use a cliche instead of providing substantive information. This to me is always the sign of a POV pusher rather than someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right - so you are accusing me of being a "POV pusher" and not interested in contribution to an encyclopaedia? JohnArmagh (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was necessarily talking about you. But anyway, I mentioned earlier, the best thing to do would be to summarize the Legacy section so you get a sentence or two mentioning specific things. A vague sentence stating he is influential is unhelpful. Whether his influence is good or bad is not the problem, the problem is stating a vague sentence with no specifics. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences are a comment on the proposal, not any individual editor. That said, i did not think that the proposal was made by JohnArmagh. But if he is claiming credit for the proposal, well, okay, but my opinion of the proposal stands. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming credit for a proposal. My opinions on the use of the term most influential are strictly NPOV, and most certainly not promoting any agenda. That the subject is influential cannot be denied - because influence is demonstrated not by an individual's own actions but rather on the actions of those to whom the individual is known, or known about. I certainly do not advocate any slant to positivity - as it is clear, as I said previously, that the actions of those influenced have often been negative in the extreme - however it is the job of this encyclopaedia to ensure sufficient information is available on the particulars of the influence, with appropriate links to provide the reader with the information in order for them to come to their own conclusion as to the significant influence which the subject undeniably has had over the past 2000 years. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(responding on this request for opinion) While accepting the idea that the text itself proves "Several other religions revere..." and "He remains one of the most...", and that it doesn't needs references in the intro, I think they signal some peacockyness that is a little unencyclopedic. Removing them is justified, and the current state of the article is better. Apart from style, the contents of the intro is accurate and pretty well balanced. The only addition I propose is the system rejection of Jesus from Judaism, where some council of high rabbis somewhere, claim that any religious system containing Jesus as an important spiritual figure, is non-Judaism. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply.

The reason why I want to include the sentence is because it is important information, without which the article is incomplete. It's not about conveying a "positive" message, it's about giving the relevant information.

There are many sources which say Jesus is either one of the most or the most influential person. IMO, "most influential" is general, but it is not vague or cliche. It belongs in the first paragraph because it is very general information; specific information should be in the Legacy section. Censoring such information is POV, although I don't believe any editor is doing this.

The influence of Jesus, as I see it, can be divided into two parts. The influence of his teachings (turn the other cheek, golden rule etc) on philosophy and the influence of Jesus on culture (literature, architecture, Easter, Christmas, Gregorian calendar, etc.). Flash 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose to replace the deleted sentence with:

Many consider Jesus the most influential person in history.

OR

Jesus and his teachings has significantly influenced culture and moral philosophy.

Both of these sentences has multiple sources which can be cited. Flash 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again Flash, I don't think you have absorbed most of the discussion above. The line in question has many issues. One is that influential is a sloppy word. I'm pretty sure that what you want people to read from your proposed statement is that Jesus had a very large positive impact. But influential can mean a negative impact. Stalin was influential. Do you really want that possible meaning in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't want the statement to be "positive" or "negative", I want it to be informative that Jesus is influential. Influential is not a "sloppy" word, it's used all the time in wikipedia, and can be found in many sources which talks about Jesus. Flash 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We have been discussing this for ten days. And the proposal still fails to gain any traction. I would say that thoughtful editors have given it consideration and are uninterested. After ten days, we can drop this topic and move on to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who removed it without consensus. Several issues have been brought up with the sentence, and the ideal solution is to resolve the issues instead of discarding information. Flash 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is your proposal? Would you like to suggest a new wording, based on new sources? -Andrew c  01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash - you say that you don't want to discard information, but your proposals contain very little information to discard. If we aren't clear whether influential means good or bad, it's not information. And expressions like many consider and significantly, being non-quantitative, tells us very little as well. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

influential doesn't need to be good or bad; it just means having an effect; whether that's good or bad should be left to the reader to decide

the information you're referring to is specific information, influences such as literature, architecture, Easter, Christmas, calendar, moral philosophy, etc. Such information is missing from the legacy section, and ideally, there should be one summarizing sentence which gives only general information. Omitting such information about the influence of Jesus results in an incomplete article.

If you think influential does not provide any information, how do you suggest we word the sentence? Flash 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it out. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Which, as I said, would leave important information and make the article complete. Flash 02:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have given extensive explanations for my position. I guess we don't have consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

From what you have said earlier, you probably don't agree with any information about Jesus' influence appearing in this article. However, it is policy to try to preserve information, and not liking information or disagreeing with it is not a suitable reason to delete it. Flash 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a very difficult person to discuss things with. I have already said that I don't think there is any information there to preserve. And there's no point seeking my opinion on what should be there, because I cannot see anything significant in what YOU want there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not my intent to be difficult.

That Jesus was influential is important information; he has greatly impacted history, culture, and moral philosophy, and I gave a few examples, along with some sources. While to some it may seem obvious, there are others, especially those who would look up this article, that would not know this information. Flash 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE, the information should be retained unless it is not useful information and would not belong in a finished article. Flash 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section Issa and Isus? / Also leader, monk, archetypal, christianity based on sermon on the mount speech

Should there be a mention on the etymology section of names Issa or Isa as Arabic names and Isus or Isu as Egyption names? There is no mention at all of Arabic/Islamic/Muslim name of Jesus. The section lacks of this. Also the Egyptian name should be taken into work on progress.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Only because you want to work in references to Isis to fit your pet "Cleopatra and Caesarion" = "Mary and Jesus" theory. If you have reliable sources linking the etymology of "Isa" to Isis or Isu provide them. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What Paul said. --Ari (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits on Cleopatra and Caesarion are completely not related subject to the question im asking here. I would not want in the article stand anything of son of Isis, the gospels do not mention Egyptian Isis, not in bible not in quran.

Issa/Isa should be mentioned as Arabic name. In the arab world Jesus is widely recognized as prophet, called Issa/Isa, but the article does not mention name Issa in the etymology section, however, latin, greek, english and hebrew translations are covered.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' native language was most likely Aramaic which is closely related to Hebrew. The lingua franca of Jesus' time was Greek, and all of the Gospels (the primary sources most closely associated with Jesus) are in Greek. Thus, having mention of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek seem very on topic. The English name "Jesus" (note this is the English Misplaced Pages) came through the Latin, so mentioning Latin as well (in addition to being a large witness to the Gospel manuscript tradition) seems again on topic. We don't go into details of what Jesus' name is in languages like Japanese or Turkish or, say, Arabic. Jesus in Islam, Wiktionary, or ar:يسوع seem like better locations for your proposed information. If we were to add Arabic entymological information, where would it stop? Would we need to discuss Chinese? Hindi?-Andrew c  15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To many, it does not seem off-topic. In addition to the 4 gospels, quran is a notable source of Yeshua's life (as well as Talmuds and the apocrypha), and quran is read by millions of english speaking arabs/muslims, and they don't find mention of their Issa in here.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wiki. It should reflect that. The primary entymology should be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek since those were the most likely used at the time. As was already mentioned this is not the place to list all the derivations in every language. The place for that would be in their respective wiki pages. Marauder40 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No historian uses the Quran as a source on Jesus' life. Th largest (population) Islamic ountries are Pakistan (national languages: Urdu and English) and Indonesia (national language: Indonesian) ... so should we provide jesus' name in Indonesian and in Urdu? YES!!! in the Indonesian and urdu Wikipedias. 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Issa or Isa are english translations of Arabic name of Jesus. The western world is populated by great percentage of arabs and muslims. These users use english wikipedia.

There are no coherent opinions to leave etymology Issa out of the article.

Not to mention that the area of were Jesus did his ministry, was largely populated by arabs at the time, and still are.

Coherent opposition lacks.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the lead violate many issues with WP:Lead including the fact they are stated in the lead but not referenced anywhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be an introduction and a teaser for what is found in the article. Also stating things like "Christian belef is largely based on Sermon on the Mount" is POV. Many say Christian belief is based on the entire life and teaching of Christ. Not just the Sermon on the mount. You are adding unreferenced things to the lead that are not backed up either in a reference or in the body of the article. Also by WP:Bold you are supposed to discuss any issues that people are reverting. Marauder40 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How much a catholic christian you are not? Sermon on the mount is his main work main speech, this is where christianity is based on. In the article it was written: "Nonetheless, Jesus was and is a leading and archetypal monk of christian faith and all its branches. Christian belief, christian movement, is largely based on Sermon on the Mount speech." You must know what archetypal means? his life and teachings.WillBildUnion (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what type of "Catholic Christian" I am. You are not following the policies of Misplaced Pages concerning WP:Lead, WP:NPOV and a few others. Why don't you try adding what you are doing to the body of the article instead of the lead? The lead is a summary of things that are discussed in the article. What you are adding isn't currently in the article so it shouldn't appear in the lead. Also you should read about WP:Bold because if someone disagrees with a Bold edit you are supposed to discuss it before reverting it and getting into a edit war. Marauder40 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He was living in the Essene community. That makes him an Essenean monk.WillBildUnion (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No he wasn't. For starters he ate meat (lamb and fish), whereas the Essenes were vegetarian. 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Essenes also stayed out of towns and would never have gone to the Temple. Jesus spent a lot of time in town, and went to the Temple pretty often. The Gospels also are clear that Mary and Joseph observed the rituals for a new-born at the Temple, a temple which the Essenes believed was lead by corrupt officials. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

According to canon and apocrypha, he went to the temple with the Galilee and Essene crowd to proclaim his message. To the meat thing, lamb and fish have symbolic meaning, not that he ate them. Or how many of you eat the body of christ and drink his blood? Nevertheless, there is no mention of him eating meat.WillBildUnion (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Galilee was a region, not a group. The Essenes are not mentioned in the Bible. You have no evidence that he did not eat meat. There is mention in the Bible of Jesus eating meat.

Exodus 12:3, 12:8 - ...On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for his household... ...Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire... - On Passover, you eat lamb.

Luke 22:15 - Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" - Jesus celebrated Passover.

On Passover, you eat lamb. Jesus celebrated Passover. Ergo, Jesus ate Lamb. If you don't accept that, there's Luke 24:42-43 - So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence. The idea that this is symbolic does not argue against the idea of Jesus eating meat. However, it is a symbol that would have been abhorrent to the Essenes, indicating that Jesus and most of his early followers probably weren't strictly and totally Essene. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even Pope Benedict himself says it is just a theory that Jesus was an Essene. Cardinal Albert Vanhoye commented on this theory saying "Even if Jesus was able to feel sympathy for the Essenes, who were very pious, his mentality was very different from theirs because they were very attached to ritual observances, which he wasn’t. Vanhoye noted that the opinion of the pope, who was referring to a theory already advanced by some experts, was an intellectual musing rather than a pronouncement with all the authority of papal infallibility." http://www.ejpress.org/article/15698 As I said before this doesn't belong in the lead and should be in the main part of the article with all the appropriate clarifications and references. Marauder40 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the Pope's comment. Have not heard of any scholarly opinion that supports it. 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In exodus they refer to lamb and passover, it might be a symbol, not actually eating the animal. Luke mentions Jesus celebrated passover, of course, the spring solstice, but it does not say Jesus ate an animal. Lamb is a very symbolic in bible and it means humans, caretaking others. Also fish is very symbolic in bible, also meaning humans. However, there is some indication Jesus might of eaten fish. But you are making false assumptions. For example, Jesus had few times sex with his half sister -> Jesus was in incest sexual intercourse most of his life. Or, Jesus had few times sex with Thomas Judas Didymus -> Jesus was homosexual. No conclusion cant be made what he was. You are basing it on very loose and shaky ground that Jesus was not a vegetarian.

Qumran and Nag-hammadi scholars agree Jesus was an Essene. And the Pope has jumped into this scientific bandwagon. As Misplaced Pages is encyclopedia, all editors of this article perhaps needs a reminder, bear in mind, that the 4 gospels are not the only sources and references to write this article.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Galilee was a region, why take your time with small unnecessary details? Surely I meant Essenes and the crowd _from Galilee_, not the actual region, or all of it's inhabitants. Surely it is understandable that I meant crowd from Galilee who had heard Jesus preach for em, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBildUnion (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lord" Jesus

Since Jesus was first introduced via Christianity and the Bible, and in that source he is said to be the "Lord", I would like to suggest that somewhere within the first paragraph of the[REDACTED] article that he be referred to as "Lord Jesus". Currently the word Lord is not found in the Jesus article until about half way down. Christianity's idea of salvation hinges on the idea that "Jesus is Lord" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. There is another good reason to refer to him as "Lord Jesus", seeing as he rose from the dead-- when he comes again, one would want to refer to a person of such great power with the title (Lord) due unto him. When the president comes into town you don't just call him Barack, you say Mr. President or President Obama. Likewise, when you are dealing with the Lord of Lords, it is highly advisable to honor the name of Jesus using the title that God has given his son, "Lord". Thanks for your consideration. I believe it is right to make this edit because without the Bible, there wouldn't even be an idea of who Jesus is, and the Bible is very clear about Jesus being the Lord. Thanks 75.60.228.75 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)discipleofjesus12345

When the messiah comes, ALL the dead will be resurrected. I don't think we are going to go around calling each other "Lord;" I am just hoping I will remember the names of all the dead people I know! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have enough trouble remembering the live people I know .... His title is Christ, rather than Lord, anyway, isn't it? I'm not a christian, so I'm not sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

He's also King of Kings and Prince of Peace. I wonder if he's also a Duke of something? Paul B (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Essenean monk? Because that what he was. And now he is the archetypal leader, as he was the founder.WillBildUnion (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The title "Lord" for Jesus came along early in the tradition and deserves perhaps more mention. Maybe we can refer to him as "the Lord Jesus Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ" at some point when we're outlining terminology for him. Leadwind (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Joshua ben Joseph

Why there is no mention of the historical name on the main page? --TudorTulok (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... there isn't the letter "J" in Aramaic/Hebrew, so wouldn't "Yeshua ben Yosef" be even closer? That said, we need sources saying this transcription and formulation is notable and/or historical, and then where would you propose we add this content to the article? -Andrew c  14:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After getting the source I propose it right in the beginning of the article as the scientific name. --TudorTulok (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this: . It's ok? --TudorTulok (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what to say but there was a page with the scientific view: User:Scientz/Yehoshua ben Yosef. I saw there is already the Historical Jesus. Very delicate, that's why we have all of them separately. --TudorTulok (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Ben Joseph is a son of Joseph of Arimathea and Mary of Bythinia, the parent guardians of Jesus. Was JBJ Jesus? That I don't comment.WillBildUnion (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in lede section

I believe that this sentence:

"Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh" is POV.

The lede gives the viewpoint of all major religions, but only for Judaism does it give an argument for those beliefs, and is therefore apologetics.

Does anyone see a reason to keep this information in the lede? The information already appears in the body of the article. Flash 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the well-chosen words should stay in the lede. They are embellished upon in a later section, and they are crucial to the following words about the Islamic interpretation.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing on the talk page.

Your response did not touch on the most crucial point. Why should the lede give an argument for only one religion's belief? Flash 08:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Truthfully, I'm on the fence regarding the word "arguing". I believe the statement is meant merely as a brief description rather than an argument. Maybe if it were to be altered like this...

"Because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Tanakh, Judaism rejects his prophethood, whereas . . ."

Keep in mind that there are more subtle "arguments" and "apologies" throughout the lede, so this descriptive "reason" for Judaism's rejection is essentially NPOV.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the formulation "because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" would be POV, because it asserts as fact that he didn't, which Christians and Muslims would dispute. As currently phrased the sentence presents the position as a view within Judaism. Furthemore saying that Jews consider that he was a "false prophet", as preferred by Flash, imples that they all accept that he claimed to be a prophet and that what he prophesised was false. Well, I'd suggest that many Jewish scholars would see Jesus as as figure within Jewish culture at the time, whose life took on new meaning in stories and claims after his death; so they would not necessarily make such clear cut claims about what he actually believed about himself. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it NPOV to explicitly state an argument for only one religion's belief? There is a huge difference between supposed "subtle" arguments and one that is plainly stated. Flash 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really follow your objection. The current wording says "Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill...". That is different from saying that he was a false prophet. It a rejection of claims made on his behalf, not necessarily an assertion about the actual Jesus. The rest is a very brief explanation that follows from the much longer explanation of why Christians think he was the Messiah prophesised. IMHO, this is hardly bias towards the Jewish view. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Christianity section does not give an argument defending their beliefs. The Judaism sentence is the only one in the lede which explicitly gives a specific argument. The first part of the sentence sums up what Judaism believes; the second is pure apologetics. Flash 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in that all the Judaism sentence gives is a source for the rejection. The entire 2nd paragraph of the lede, and much of the rest of the lede gives sources for the Christian belief. The judaism sentence merely gives a source for the disbelief that Jesus was the Messiah. In this respect it is no different from the second paragraph of the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism sentence gives a reason, an argument, for the belief, and is therefore apologetics. The Christian section doesn't give arguments, such as, "arguing that Jesus has fulfilled or will fulfill the Messianic Prophecies" or "arguing that the historical evidence suggests that Jesus resurrected".

I'm making a distinction between stating what the belief IS, and stating an argument which supports that belief. Flash 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand, however the entire second paragraph is a subtle "argument" that supports the Christian belief, isn't it? I see no difference other than the word "arguing". If you can leave the entire statement alone and find another word for "arguing", that might work. However, I personally think it's a pretty big leap from "arguing" to "apologetics".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk about apologetics, what does this sentence mean to you: came to provide humankind with salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins. Furthermore, what is the difference between Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah and Judaism ... argu that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. If we change "present" to "argue" or vice versa, they are nearly identical claims (identical opposites). Switch "awaited Messiah" for "Messianic prophecies"... really, there is great parity between those sentences. I can't see how you can read the entire paragraph on Christian belief, and then claim the one sentence about Judaism in the lead is doing something more than what the entire previous Christian paragraph did. I see no such "Jewish Apologetics". -Andrew c  14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the opposite of "Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah" would be:

Judaism does not view Jesus as the Messiah.

There is a difference between the belief itself and the reasoning or argument behind the belief. Flash 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think it is semantics at this point. What does it mean to be "the awaited Messiah"? Is this referencing say Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh? Is it referencing anything more? Anything less? The exact opposite of your proposed sentence would be "Christians view Jesus as the Messiah". When we introduce arguments (or presentations) made by Christian scholars in regards to a theological concept derived from Judaism and their ancient texts, such as the "awaited Messiah", I believe you are doing more than simply presenting belief. But then again, I wouldn't agree with you that the Judaism sentence is going above and beyond what the Christian paragraph did. But even if we grant that there is something more, I don't see how that is problematic. Is the sentence inaccurate? Is there something problematic with the presentation or facts of the sentence? I don't think that is the issue. Just out of curiosity, is there a sentence or two that you can think up that we could hypothetically add to the Christian paragraph that present reasoning and arguments for their beliefs?-Andrew c  23:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "awaited Messiah" is not an argument. Where do you see the Christian paragraph presenting arguments?

If arguments are added to every belief, the lead would be unreadable.

The sentence is not inaccurate, and appears in the body of the article, but stating the arguments of only one religion's beliefs is POV.

The sentence can easily present what Judaism believes without going into arguments, such as, "Judaism believes that Jesus is the not the awaited Messiah" Flash 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry. -Andrew c  02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is the perhaps the most important aspect of wikipedia. I was hoping you would defend and clarify your position. Nevertheless, thanks for discussing on the talk page. Flash 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not convey my position adequately enough. Or I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I believe I have put forth my position, and that continuing this discussion wouldn't be productive. To repeat, I don't agree with your assessment that the one single sentence about Judaism is presenting a detailed argument and rationale behind a belief, while the entire paragraph devoted to the Christian section is doing nothing of the sort. Saying "Jesus is the awaited Messiah" and "Jesis is not the awaited Messiah" is really really similar to "Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies" and "Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies". To me, it comes down to minor semantic issues. I don't see any NPOV violation, and I don't believe you have made a convincing case (and it doesn't seem like anyone else agrees). Sorry. -Andrew c  19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

I disagree with you in that I believe the sentence, "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" is giving an argument. I see that as a NPOV violation, you clearly do not. I believe discussion is still productive in determining what should go in the article even if there is a disagreement about NPOV.

Why do you oppose making the sentence in both sections the same? As I said earlier, changing the sentence to "Judaism does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah" summarizes their beliefs without referring to an argument. Flash 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah makes perfect sense in the lead. There's nothing in NPOV about not explaining reasons for different perspectives. Leadwind (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons and arguments behind many of the Christian beliefs as well. Why should the Judaism section be treated differently? Flash 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same statement over and over. There is an entire paragraph devoted to the Christian view. The fact that it does not use the word "argue", but has "present" and other words instead does not mean it is not putting the Christian argument. It is. The one sentence devoted to Judaism is essentially a very short respose to the previous para, "aruging" is a actually a modest, tentative word in contrast to - say - "asserting". Paul B (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between belief and argument. Where, specifically, do you see the christian paragraph presenting the argument? Jesus is (or is not) the messiah is a belief. Whether he fulfilled (or did not) the prophecies is a reason behind those beliefs. I am simply advocating both sections be phrased very similarily. Flash 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like splitting hairs to me. Christianity "views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament", which implies that Christians see him as fulfilling those foretellings - or are you arguing that the reader could get the impression that Christians see him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament despite not fulfilling said prophecies? Huon (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression when I first read it. It certainly implies that, but one needs at least some basic knowledge of messianic prophecies and to read into the text a bit to get the implied message.

I would be OK with the sentence saying: Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" Flash 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you saying that instead of clarifying Christianity's views, we should de-clarify Judaism's? While that could be seen as "neutral", it seems counterproductive. Huon (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" is neither ambiguous nor confusing, and it sums up the beliefs of Judaism. I am advocating that the lead does not contain sentences such as Religion A believes x, arguing y. Flash 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with the wording you object to. I argued above that, while using different wording, we say the same about Christianity's opinion, namely, that Christianity sees Jesus as the Messiah because he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. I don't think NPOV requires us to use templates for our sentences without variation. On the other hand, the Judaism sentence seems a little awkward to me. If I read it correctly, it makes two different points: Jesus is believed not to be a prophet in general, and not the Messiah in particular. Thus, the "arguing..." part does not actually provide an argument for the "not a prophet" part. Or am I mistaken? Huon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I argued previously that I believe the Christianity and Judaism sentences were substantially different, in that it is very difficult to deduce "fulfilled Messianic prophecies" from "foretold in the Old Testament".

To me, it is more natural to say that Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament because they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, and so the fulfillment is the reason behind the belief.

I am confused about the wording as well, it seems that the editor who wrote that sentence used "Messiah" and "prophet" interchangeably, and the sentence does not directly say Judaism believes Jesus is not the Messiah. Flash 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider "is the Messiah as foretold" and "fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" as synonymous, but if you feel otherwise (can you explain the difference?), we should indeed clarify that Christians believe he fulfilled the prophecies instead of making it difficult to deduce that Jews believe he didn't fulfill them - as you now say we'd do if we followed your suggested wording for that paragraph. Huon (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, "is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" says that Christianity sees him as the Messiah, but does not specify why. It's simply a belief.

Christianity could have believed him to be the foretold Messiah simply because they see him as divine or have miraculous powers, and that Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled later. So the messianic prophecies may have nothing to do with why Christianity believes him to be the Messiah.

"fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" is not even a belief, it is more of a condition. Someone who haven't fulfilled the prophecies could be believed to fulfill them in the future, and so "have not fulfilled" does not necessarily mean "not the Messiah".

Therefore, one is not equal to the other.

The reasons behind believing whether Jesus is the Messiah is not limited to the Messianic prophecies. Flash 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you mean. How about "... which views him as the Messiah, having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, ..." instead of " ...which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, ..." in the first sentence? Actually, do all Christians really believe Jesus has already fulfilled the prophecies, or are there significant groups who believe that he is the Messiah, but has some work yet to do? In that case, "fulfilling" may be better than "having fulfilled". Anyway, should we also clarify that Jews don't see him as the Messiah? Huon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testamant may be an importan point of reference in describint Christian beliefs. When it coms to Jewish beliefs however the Old testament is irrelevant; since Judaism does not accept an "Old Testament," we cannot refer to the old Testament to say anything about Jewish beliefs. As with AndrewC, PaulB and othersI must say, I have yet to see an explanation as to how the current phrasing violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not an NPOV problem as much as a lack of clarity. My suggested modification was meant for the first sentence, which reads in part "the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament". If I understand Flash correctly, we should mention both that Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and that they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies (in what Christians call the OT). Conversely, we currently say a few paragraphs later that Jews don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but don't explicitly say they also don't believe he's the Messiah. We don't say anything about Judaism and the OT, and I wasn't suggesting we should. Huon (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oky, I see what you are saying, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

However, since we do mention the views of Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and since Christianity arose out of Judaism, should we not include a sentence that states the position of Judaism as well, for completeness? Wdford (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that since Jesus was the leader of a Jewish sect and that Christianity became a distinct religion by breaking with Judaism, it is important to restore to the first paragraph a line on the Jewish view. Also, I added the word "messiah" to the sentence on the Jewish view later down, since what Jews really care about is the claim that he was a messiah, more than any claim about prophecy. These cannot be NPOV violations: adding attributed views is never a violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The "foretold in the Old Testament" is an important clarifier to disambiguate between different Messiahs. The fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, as I previous said, is more of a condition. Christians don't necessarily believe he fulfilled those prophecies, and that they believe he will fulfill them later. Furthermore, why Judaism rejects Jesus goes far beyond prophecies, it is also due to the fact that Jesus rejected the Law in the Torah, and established a new Covenant. The Judaism section in the body also gives some other reasons.

The sentence not only singles out a particular reason, it also would be the only place in the lead where reasoning behind beliefs is discussed.

And Judaism is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. As you previously said, Slrubenstein, Judaism really have no view of Jesus, and it is fitting that it is mentioned last. Flash 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flash that this is apologetics for Judaism and not really called for in the article lead. POV would seem to be the only reason to include it there. 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph has the views of major Abrahamic religions, and the lead then has mor detailed paragraphs, generally giving more space to those religions in which he counts for more. There was a line for judaism in the first paragraph for a very long time I see no reason to delete it. My only concern is that it say that judaism rejects claims that he is the messiah. as to why Christians believed or still believe he is the messiah, I am not trying to make any claims one way or the other about that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rever Flash, you say I should not make changes without discussing them here. Except i do discuss them here, i discuss them above. But you ignored my expanation and just restored your own version. Now, you should not delete what i wrote on the article page without responding to what I wrote on the talk page. You are insisting on a version that violates NPOV, and that misrepresents Judaism. Yet you have not even tried to defend either of these! Try responding to my talk, and see if we can reach an agreement, before you impose your POV on the articleSlrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism simply rejects Jesus, and therefore really doesn't have a view on him, even you said that earlier. There is absolutely no reason to include it twice in the lead. Please reach an agreement on talk before making changes. Unilaterally making changes before an agreement is reached upon is counter-productive.

I have said repeatedly why I think the sentence is POV: it is the only sentence where a reason/argument is presented which supports a religion's belief. Flash 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain why the sentence violates NPOV. Providing the reason is essential, since Christianity established itself through reasons relating to Judaism. The vast bulk of the article goves much attention to these reasons. As to Judaism "simply" rejecting Jesus, you are being anachronistic. Judaism has little to say about Jesus today but for a great deal of the Middle Ages most Jewish philosophers were asked by Christians to provide their reasons for rejecting Jesus, and did so. Judaism's reasons for rejecting Jesus were important to those Christians, and are important now, because jesus first preached to Jews. Now, even if you disagreed with all my points, that woulod still not be enough to explain how the sentence violates our NPOV policy. you have to be more specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV. Please do not simply ignore what I have said.

Furthermore, please stop making unilateral changes before the discussion has concluded. First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility. Flash 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaver you keep removing material that was in the article for a very long time without any consensus. Stop doing that. You have removed the statement that Jews do not share the views of Christians and Muslims. Why? Is it false? Why do you wish to exclude this point of view? Do you not know that the only way we achieve NPOV is by adding multiple views? you have also removed the specific claim that jews reject jesus as messiah. Why? Again, you seem determined to exclude the jewish view from the article. YOU WILL NOT CENSOR WIKIPEDIA. You MUST comply with NPOV. This means including views, even the Jewish view you seem not to like.

"I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV." So what? of course it is POV, just as stating that Christians believe jesus is the messiah is POV and that Muslims believe Jewsus is a prophet is POV. All of these are POVs. Please read out NPOV policy again. Articles must comply with NPOV and one way we do that is by including different points of view. So your "repeated" statement is simply a reason for putting it in the article. You have yet to justify your deletions in any way. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the reasons why I objected to your edits: First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility.

Please do not simply ignore what I said and label my edits as "censoring". Making unilateral edits in an ongoing discussion is also very counter-productive.

And only giving arguments or reasons behind one belief is POV, and violates NPOV. Giving POVs does not mean you can add information indiscriminately, especially in the lede where information are supposed to be very general. Flash 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Slrubenstein's edits are to portions of the text that you do not contest. Unless I have read too quickly, you chiefly contest usage of the word "argue". His edits are meant to clarify WHAT the Jewish position IS, not why, and do not affect your dispute with about "argue". I think it is quite reasonable & NPOV for the lede to briefly say WHY Jews do not think Jesus was the Messiah--JimWae (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and why Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah. The lead is already quite long, and the lede would become almost unreadable if all the relevant arguments are added to it. Such specific information belongs in the body of the article. My main objection is therefore, not the word "argue".

I contested Slrubenstein's edits because they are repetitive, and add specific information to parts of the first paragraph, where only general information are supposed to be presented. Flash 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is far more in the lede about Islam's views AND some of it is also repetitious. The repetition comes about because sometimes the first paragraph introduces other parts of the lede--JimWae (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The lone argument presented in the lead is also problematic. Why should the argument of only one religion be presented? Arguments such as "he did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" or "he will fulfill them at the second coming" should go in the body of the article. Flash 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitious info on Islam's views is not the issue. Repetition on one thing is no reason to keep repetition on another. That said, feel free to remove an excess on Islam's views and/or discuss elsewhere if need be.

I mostly see no one addressing (or understanding?) Flash's view. 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

particular text

Maybe if a partictular text was proposed here it can help move things along. 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. It presents the views concisely and neutrally. Flash 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit more informative than that, yet avoids the word "argue":

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, maintaining the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh were not fulfilled.--JimWae (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying the entire Judaism section into the lead would be more informative as well.

Why do you support introducing arguments or reasons behind beliefs into the lead, where information presented are supposed to be very general?

Also note there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We could just say "Judaism does not think Jesus was the Messiah" - but that is too cursory. There's plenty of detail in the lede already, these 10 words are as informative as just about any other 10 words there. And they are still general - they do not, for example, say which Messianic expectations were not fulfilled. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, any Jewish position on Jesus is very relevant. --JimWae (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other arguments/reasons behind beliefs in the lead. Why do you propose to introduce them? They do not add any information about what Judaism actually believes, they just present an argument which defends it, and is therefore, apologetics. The information is general; a reason which supports a belief is not general.

If you do intend to introduce arguments into the lead, keep in mind there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

YOu insist using the word "argument" somehow violates NPOV policy. You keep repeating this, ad nauseum, as if it meant something. What part of the NPOV policy rejects the use of the word "argues?" Plase quote the portion o policy you are refering to. I cannot find it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A text can be an argument without the use of the word "argument."

It is POV to include an argument here because there aren't any counter-arguments included here. 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is really, really POV to say Jesus was born of a virgin, so we should remove that from the lead because we don't have counter arguments. We shouldn't say he came to save sinners either, because that is extremely offensive to non-Christian (or at least an outright lie) so without a counter to that, it's incredibly POV and should be removed. In fact, we should strike the whole Christian paragraph from suffering from POV, because we don't balance it with the scientific, atheistic, Jewish, Muslim, and other POVs. Heck, we should probably not say he was a historical figure in the lead either, because that is POV and those crazy Jesus mythers would disagree. Of course I am not serious about any of the above, but then again, I don't see why you two are so hung up on the concept of "argument". I don't see the difference between the presentation of the Christian views, and our sentence on the Jewish view. Saying there is an argument, and that it is POV, doesn't make it so (or doesn't make it a bad thing). I don't feel like when reading it there is any imbalance between the various views presented in the lead. Perhaps we need to have a RfC, and ask the reader if they think the one sentence on Jewish views violations undue weight, or is otherwise inappropriate when compared to the paragraph on Christian views... -Andrew c  19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So do we have consensus? I can delete the material on virgin birth, saving sinners, etc from the lead to sae it for the body where we can deal with such controversial material. Does anyone object? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Andrew is being sarcastic. The lead is supposed to be a summary and introduction to the article, not a place for arguements, etc. If it is a summary to x, y, and z in the lead that is fine. There is no reason to have every arguement in the core of the document in the lead otherwise it isn't a summary. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe SLR is being sarcastic. Marauder40, do you think the one sentence on Judaism currently in the lead is appropriate or problematic based on your notion of "summary" vs. "arguements"? I'm just trying to get down to specifics, and how your comment can be related to the current debate in this thread. Thanks!-Andrew c  21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with including and only including the Jewish counter-arguement due to the fact that Jesus was Jewish and either he claimed or was claimed to be (depending on how you view the theology) to be the Jewish Messiah. He wasn't claimed to be the Messiah of any other religion whether it existed at the time or not. Clarification on how each of the individual religions view Jesus can happen in the body but I don't think it is needed in the lead. If we want to include some summary a simple sentence could be added that says other religions have differing views of Jesus' importance or something like that. Marauder40 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the text is one sentence long doesn't mean it's not problematic.

Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument or reason to support that belief (e.g. Jesus did/didn't fulfill Messianic prophecies).

Currently, the Judaism sentence contains the only argument in the lead, and the Judaism is the only section that is supported by an argument. Flash 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to say "most Christian denominations believe him to be X, Y, and Z" and to say "...Judaism does think Jesus is not-X" but it is something different to say "so-and-so believes this because of such-and-such." -- Now I think it could be fine to give arguments for the Christian view-- because Jesus is hardly noteworth without Christianity-- but this no NPOV reason to have the arguments for Judaism's view only. 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What would such arguments reasons look like? Could it be given in 10 words or less? 30 words or less? JimWae (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons that could be added are:

Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies resurrection is the best explanation for historical evidence

Since Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the christianity section should have more reasons given.

I would rather put all the reasons/arguments into the body instead of further expanding an already length lead section. Flash 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing we add any arguments for the Christian view. That would add to a already long lead section, and would require starting this whole discussion again from scratch. I recommend the text in the blue quotes above. I am just indicating how "reasons" or "arguments" here for Judaism's beliefs are POV. They are arguments only for one POV. 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash writes, "Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument" but this is the problem - Christians have beliefs, Jews have arguments. What I mean is, that christian views take the form of beliefs, and Jewish views take the form of arguments. If you wish to give equal space to Jewish and Christian views, some will take the form of arguments, and others, beliefs. This is because of a difference between Judaism and Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First, read what apologetics is.

Second, such a prejudiced posting dosen't even help improve the article-- which is the only reason for this discussion page-- even if you do really "think" your post to be true.

Thrid, this would be yet another attempt to troll for unproduction diatribes and rabbit trails-- hoping reasonable people will tire and leave-- since such there is evidently no good or genuine purpose to keep this POV in the lead, for such people to discuss anymore. 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologetics for only one religion's beliefs clearly violates NPOV. I see no reason to keep the sole argument in the lead, which was only added recently by a previously banned sockpuppet. Flash 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys can spout however much rhetoric as you want. NPOV is our policy. It says that al signficiant views belong in an article. You think that only those views that take the form of "beliefs" count, when another group of people's views don't count because they take the form of "arguments." that is just your own prejudice. You cannot keep Jewish views out just because they do not take a form you approve of. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism view would be included even if the argument is removed. The policy you cited is hardly relevant in the discussion. Please respond to what I wrote. Why should the lead include apologetics for only one religion's beliefs? Flash 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I added apologestics to the article? Do you have any evidence? Please provide the edit difference in which I added apologetics. Now, here is an edit difference for where YOU reverted me: And this is what you deleted: you deleted my adding the Jewish view alongside the Christian and Muslim view, and you deleted my saying that the Jewish view is that Jesus was not the Messiah. You did not delete any apologetics. That is because I did not add any apologetics. I did add content, and it is content that you deleted. You deleted content that expressed the Jewish view, not apologetics. Your whining about apologetics has nothing to do with your campaign to exclude the Jewish view or to distort it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed dubious ref/footnote # 27

I have removed footnote #27 from the lede within:

Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

The footnote was introduced 2006-NOV-11 by User:KillerChihuahua and revised 2006-NOV-11 by User:LostCaesar

It reads:

Though many historians may have certain reservations about the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing" concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus; Cruz, Jo Ann H. Moran; Gerberding, Richard (2004). Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 44–45. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

with a hidden title of |work=Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History

Today I had revised the note to:

Though many historians may have certain reservations about the use of the Gospels for writing history, "even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing" concerning certain basic facts about the life of Jesus; Cruz, Jo Ann H. Moran; Gerberding, Richard (2004). Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History, 300-1492. Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 44–45.

Notice the years in the title, notice also that it seems to be misplaced and if it belongs anywhere should probably be after . If anyone wants to tackle talk from talk from 2006-NOV to try to make sense of this, please do. --JimWae (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Kvitekrist

Kvitekrist, meaning "white Christ", Jesus' Norse name should be added. Most likely in the heading as in other articles.St.Trond (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that we need to add the name of Jesus in every language in the world? If not, why is the Norse name of such importance? --Rider 17:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Many entries are provided in multiple languages. If they had a different name for Jesus when Christianity was introduced, why not provide it here? St.Trond (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In short, because it's irrelevant. What Jesus was called when Christianity was introduced to Scandinavia is of no importance at all for an understanding of the historical Jesus, his teachings, his followers, or his effects on the world at large. Christianization of Scandinavia may be a suitable place for such information if you can provide a reliable source. Huon (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the word still used in Norway? I suppose we could make the name a page that redirects here, in case anyone uses the word to refer to jesus and wants to find the right article. But isn't this really a matter for the Norwegian encyclopedia? I just do not see what the point is. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the term was quite derogatory when it originated (I have no idea if it is still in use), as the Vikings didn't think a great deal of Christianity and coined the term to be deliberately offensive (to describe a man as 'white' meant he was less than manly, shall we say). We now return you to your scheduled talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The missing years

(Removed copyrighted material) Marauder40 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice wall of text, but it strikes me as a fringe position. It also seems to be largely speculation, with the only source I found (though I may have overlooked others) a 1887 book written not by a historian but a journalist. It's also wrong that Caesar's calendar reform was based on Caesarion's birth; a quick search found that Caesareon was born in 47 BCE, while the calendar was introduced in 45. Given that Caesar left Egypt in 47, it would be an impressive miracle if his son were born in 45. Huon (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The terrorizement of the calender has been so extensive, we do not actually know if Caesar left Egypt bc45 or bc47. Nevertheless, this minor detail three year gap in nonrelevant to the fact that there is a +30 years a gap, a man size hole, in between Julian and Gregorian calenders.

What comes to the sources, the text is largely filled with biblical sources.WillBildUnion (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Those "Biblical sources" don't say what you want them to say. And are you also claiming that the ancient writers didn't correctly report the time between Caesarion's birth and Julius Caesar's introduction of his calendar? Any competent Roman historian would be able to tell us that the calendar was introduced 18 months after Caesar returned from Egypt, and whether that was in 45 BCE or 47 BCE, it would rule out any connection to Caesarion's birth. Anyway, what Julius Caesar changed was the length of the year - but the Romans still counted their years ab urbe condita (or by Consuls, later by Emperors' reigns), they didn't start with "year 1 after the calendar reform". Anno Domini numbering was started a few hundred years after Julius Caesar's reforms and was not a bastardization of a previous Roman numbering system. Huon (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Caesar a mastermind with Cleopatra behind the new era plan is a minor issue considering the big picture. Caesar however thought himself to be divine during his last years, for example, he placed golden statue of Cleopatra in the holiest places of Roman worship, next to a statue of Roman goddess Venus, as equal, as new Venus. Caesar also did not stand up when senate came to meet him in the temples of Apollo and Venus, sitting in their throne. Caesar was killed because he was to setup heritable monarchy. So it seems Caesar was also masterminding the new era plan. Cleopatra on the other hand zeroed the Egyptian calendar at least twice, first to mark her queenship and second time when she started coregency with Caesarion. Egyptian mathematicians/astronomers were working for Caesar to renew the Roman calendar, Cleopatra supplied this humble help.WillBildUnion (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We could discuss your essay at length, and it might actually be interesting, but unless you can provide some reliable sources (such as historians or theologians writing about this theory in the peer-reviewed literature), it's unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Suffice it to say that I doubt:

• Your identification of Mary of Magdala with Selene. Sounds plausible in English, too bad that the one name is Greek, the other Aramaic. Besides, Selene got married to King Juba of Mauretania, and her tomb in Mauretania is known.
• As a matter of principle, any claim based on "ancient scrolls from an isolated Buddhist monastery hidden high in the Asian mountain tops". How unfortunate that the journalist probably didn't leave enough information for modern historians to find that monastery and have a look at the scrolls.
• That the Song of Solomon was created at about 1AD, give or take a few decades. The claim that for some reason the Jews added a contemporary Egyptian love poem to their holy scriptures (which had been canonized for a few centuries by then) is bizarre. Besides, your translation doesn't agree with any I could find.
• Your description on Joseph of Arimathea. That's not Biblical, and I'm not aware of any contemporary sources ascribing that much wealth (and a Roman office!) to him.

Those are just a few rather outlandish claims that would require reliable sources. Huon (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While Juba II is buried with his wife in the tomb, Selene was her first wife, he remarried after Selene went with Caesarion. The tomb might be given a name also to his first wife and honored there with cristian reference, however, a corpse of the woman is not there.

Gospels of Mary and John have similarities. Do an image search on John the evangelist and notice the woman-like androgynous unisex appearance and the grail that he/she is holding. In France there is a cult movement based around Mary Magdalene, who came to southern France by boat companied by young girl Sarah, Maximinus (means greatest, who became "the first bishop" of France(bishop of Aix)), Joseph of Arimathea and Mary of Bithany and Mary's sister Martha and brother Lazarus. Joseph and Mary continued to Britain where a cult is formed around them and there are medieval sources saying they came through France preaching there before the settled in Britain.

Thomas Judas Didymus went to India. There is a tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir, which is from the first century, a tomb of Egyptian man who came the region at the times of Jesus. Muslims believe it's the tomb of Jesus and Christians believe it's the tomb of Thomas. Despite too much is not known, the Egyptian has crucifixion marks.

Mary Magdalene and Maximinus were buried in Saint Maximin la Sainte Baume in southern France.

After the three days, the resurrection, the wounds of Jesus had miraculously healed when he made appearances. This was only possible by the hide and showup game Cleopatra's children played, the other one was placed on the cross for a short time, when the other one made the appearances showing no wounds. Selene and Helios were twins, and Helios was Caesarions twin half brother.

Which of the siblings were placed on the cross?WillBildUnion (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No sources whatsoever. Huon (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not write the text. Biblical sources given along the article.WillBildUnion (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you did not write the text you still need sources otherwise it is a major copyright issue. You are not allowed to cut and paste other people's work/theories/etc. without their permission. This also fits under WP:FRINGE so even if it would be included it would have to be cut down to a paragraph or sentence at the most. You need to clarify where you got the information from right now or this section on the talk page will have to be deleted due to the copyright issues. Marauder40 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, the text is copyrighted.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If the text is copyrighted it can't be on the Talk page and it can't be in the article. You have placed way to much of it on here to qualify for fair use. Marauder40 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article needs complete redo

The article is written like an advert and a personal essay based on the four gospels. Please help Misplaced Pages by rewriting the article and/or sections of the article, in order to meet Misplaced Pages's standards. Article needs globalization, and no, Misplaced Pages does not offer advertisement space, not for anything, not for religions.WillBildUnion (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As was already said to you before, we need reliable sources for the kinds of changes you are wanting to make.Farsight001 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any certain changes. I pointed out that the article is written like an advertisement, which does not meet encyclopedic standards.WillBildUnion (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement? That makes no sense to me, could you explain more. As for "based on the four gospels", I guess you are ignoring The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant. and The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life; nevertheless, these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature Unless you are disputing our sources. I'm not sure what you want us to base the article on then (and furthermore this claim probably only applies to the "Life and teachings as told in the Gospels" and to a lesser extent "Christian views" section). -Andrew c  13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is written like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry.WillBildUnion (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement? For what? I have no idea what you mean by encyclopedia entry, unless you man "my science fiction essay." Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am sure there are a sprinkling of people out there who think this article has pov issues, you very well may be the only one who thinks it reads like an advertisement. I have absolutely no idea where you get that concept from and I've never heard someone else describe the article as such, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or otherwise. Farsight001 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is surprisingly good considering what a touchy topic Jesus is. I'll agree that the "four gospels" section is poor. It implies that these four gospels are the best sources on Jesus' life and combines the accounts as if they comprised a single, coherent account. That's the devotional way of reading the gospels. According to historical-critical methods, each gospel should be treated and understood separately, the way that they were each written. According to our best historians on Jesus, the gospel of John has little historical value to add to the synoptics. A four-gospel section makes sense only from a Christian POV. Leadwind (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Outside the archaeology and sources from the time that give more general information about what life was like, or relating to specifics such as the censuses, the canonical Gospels and St Thomas are pretty much the only primary sources. At the same time, the article itself should not be written from these sources, but from reliable secondary sources - preferably top rated academics, given the contentious nature of the subject. Sources specialising in archaeology, hermeneutics, theology, and the general and military history of the times would all be relevant. I don't have a problem with including the single "story" that forms the basis of Christian teaching, but I would expect input from the hermeneutic sources to discuss the separate nature of the four gospels, and how these are reconciled to make the one account used by the Christian churches.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Viewing" in the lead

Currently the lead says that Jesus is "viewed" as the Messiah. We all know that seeing is believing so you might as well just say that Jesus is the messiah, which is a clear violation of NPOV. Misplaced Pages articles should not take any sides. I want you to rewrite the lead to say that some people argue that Jesus was the Messiah, that is more neutral because everyone knows arguments have two sides. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

However the case is, the Jewish patriarchs do not get much further. Incestuous marriages is sign of nephilim, and nephilims are not gods, but fallens angles, misleading people. Many of the old testament patriarchs practiced incest and interbreeding.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whaaat? What does that have to do with what he was saying? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict) best to ignore, see ANI) It says Christians view him as the Messiah (has it changed?). I wouldn't object to it being changed to believe, and I don't think Christians would, but I fear that might cause a problem for some[REDACTED] editors (if memory serves from other articles)... Verbal chat 14:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that "Christians believe he is the messiah" is actually more accurate, as it makes it clear that this is a matter of (religious) belief, not constructed argument.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently it says that Christianity views him as the messiah, which seems right. It's not right to say that Christians "argue" that he's the messiah. There isn't much of an argument for rank-and-file believers. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Blatant POV RE: fact vs fiction

The article seems to lack caveats in very prominent sections. The existence of Jesus as a real person is disputed, yet the article talks as though he had a definite date of birth & death. Can the language be changed to a subjunctive voice, since no evidence can be cited that he was a real person, or that the Bible is a reliable source in this matter. 94.2.1.254 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages bases its information on and cites reliable sources. The vast majority of notable/reliable sources and historians agree that Jesus was historical. The myth view is still a small minority, at least scholarly speaking. However, I do see your point regarding the dates of birth and death being included in the introduction and the infobox; perhaps they should be removed from these areas. But the fact remains, the vast majority of sources accept Jesus' historicity, and the myth view is acknowledged in this article. — CIS | stalk) 10:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Baker Academic, 2002) p. 17.
2. Emunoth ve-Deoth, II:5
3. Houlden, James L. (2005). Jesus: The Complete Guide. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-8011-8.
4. Prof. Dr. Şaban Ali Düzgün (2004). "Uncovering Islam: Questions and Answers about Islamic Beliefs and Teachings". Ankara: The Presidency of Religious Affairs Publishing.
5. "Compendium of Muslim Texts".

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• B-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• High-importance Mythology articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists