Talk:Jesus/Archive 127

Archive 120

←

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

no deliberate fraud

Were the early Christians lying when they said that Jesus had risen? That's a fair historical question. This is what an RS says:

The Gospel reports contradict each other, which suggests competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=276-281}}

If an RS says it, we need a good reason to exclude it. Otherwise it's POV editing to cherry pick our RSs and include only the stuff we like. FutureTrilliionaire, can you justify deleting this information? Can you cite a WP policy or guideline when doing so? Something more than the beliefs and experiences of the editors? If all you have is editors' opinions, that's not enough. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, I don't believe that the gospels are considered to be a reliable historical source, and, so, inferences drawn from the gospels (even if published in a book by Sanders) are not reliable either. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanders may be a reliable source as far as facts go, but his opinions and theories need to be attributed. In any case, "contradict each other", should not be in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what I'm going to ask you two. Does either of you have any evidence to back up your opinions? According to your beliefs and experiences, we shouldn't include this material, but WP is based on published sources. See WP:V. Do you have a WP guideline or an RS to back up your opinions? If not, how about we just report what the RSs say and leave our personal opinions out of it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the relevant policy is WP:RSOPINION. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning a policy. Sticking to policy is the only way for people with different opinions to reach consensus about how to edit this page. I just read the policy. Can you quote the part of this policy that supports your opinion? I don't see it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Super. Now what's your evidence that Sanders' statement is such a source? He seems to be the top scholar in historical Jesus research. Are all statements such statements? If not, how do we know that this is one? The very next sentence is "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers." Are you saying that Sanders' opinion is equivalent to an opinion piece in a newspaper? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The rule of thumb in determining which statements are opinions is that we look to see whether any other scholar disagrees with him. If it is not a universally accepted "truth", then we treat it as an opinion. See also WP:V: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." StAnselm (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. How about we restore the information as "E. P. Sanders says..."? Then can you find an RS that disagrees with Sanders? If you don't like that Sanders says the open-tomb accounts contradict each other, let's find more information from more RSs. What RSs do you use when you want to look up something about historical Jesus? And if you can't find alternative viewpoints, then eventually we can take the "E P Sanders says" clause away. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the attributed quote. There has been lots written about possible resolutions of the apparent contradictions - the main authority would be Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 152. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As it turns out, Blomberg is from my home town. He also graduated from the Lutheran college where my father taught English. It's a small college, and he probably had my dad for a class or two. Small world! I'm happy to use more RSs. In fact, if you can point me to an RS that you like and that is reputable, I might buy a copy to use on this page. Is The Historical Reliability of the Gospels reputable? Can you provide any evidence that Blomberg is an expert on Jesus, or that this book is an important scholarly work? He comes across as an apologist for conservative views on the Bible. So far I've tried to stick to authors who are noted (Sanders, Vermes, Crossan, Theissen). Is Blomberg of their caliber? In this particular case, what information would you like to add to the page from Blomberg? "According to Craig Blomberg, all apparent contradictions among the synoptic accounts are reconcilable"? Finally, how much time would you like to find a contrary view to what Sanders says? If there's no contrary view, then we can put his statement in WP voice. How about 4 weeks? Is that enough time? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Does "reputable" mean the same as reliable? In any case, Historical Reliability is an important scholarly work - for example, both Blomberg and Sanders feature in Grant R. Osborne's helpful summary of the debate concerning the historic trustworthiness of Matthew's Gospel. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for offering evidence that Blomberg is significant, but who is Osborne? He hardly seems notable himself, and he's writing for a Christian publisher. I'd be happy to summarize Blomberg's view in the Christian Views section. Or do you have evidence that he's significant in academics in general? Is there any tertiary source about Jesus that recommends his book as a source? Also, what would you like to say to counter Sanders. "According to Craig Blomberg, however, there are no substantial contradictions among the Synoptics, leaving open the possibility of deliberate fraud"? Is that the contrary view your are proposing, or what? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like maybe there's no reason after all that this quote needs to be attributed. Since there's no contrary viewpoint, and the source isn't an opinion piece, we can say in WP voice that the open tomb accounts contradict each other. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

major topic missing from page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Presumably we're all here to make this page as good as it can be, and not to defend one or another POV. With that in mind, I hope that other editors will be happy to hear that there's a bunch of good information that we can add to this page to improve it. This information is covered in RSs, so we should cover it. Anyone mind if I add it in? Maybe certain editors will want to know what the missing topic is first. Maybe they think their own opinions about this topic are more important than what the RSs say. Does anybody feel as though their experiences and beliefs trump RSs, so I should get an OK from them before adding the information? Or is everyone cool with information being added, provided it's the sort of thing that RSs cover. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You're asking for our blessing prior to telling us what you intend to add? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnathan, and everyone else, I will simply point out that Johnathan has attempted to have essentially this same discussion half a dozen times before and it has turned out the same every time - the consensus is against him because he seems to think that any RS he doesn't like should be ignored and secular sources preferred in regards to how the article should be weighted, which is just not how it works around here, which has been explained to him several times. I recommend hatting this thread after a day or two. Its just disruptive editing at this point.Farsight001 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"written by four evangelists who were close to Jesus"

I don't think this is technically accurate. The traditional Christian belief is that the Third Gospel was written by Luke the Physician, a travelling companion of Paul, who became a follower of Jesus some time after the Latter's death. I'd hardly call him "close to Jesus". I know what is probably meant by "close" is something like a "six degrees of Jesus" type thing as opposed to the modern scholarly view that it was written by an anonymous Christian in a different part of the world, or that he was "close" in a chronological sense, but this really isn't made clear by the text, so I'm changing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I made an adjustment to this sentence. I agree, it could have misled some readers, though the scholarly assessment of authorship is explored in more detail in paragraphs later. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please professionalise introduction: Nicene Creed AD 325

Currently the introduction says:

Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]

Could someone please exchange with this:

Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.

I have more grumbles, but let us start with this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.138 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that that would be better, but let's wait to see what other have to say. Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with the way that the Nicene Creed is mentioned. For one thing, "the Council of Nicaea" would be more accurate, since the Creed didn't "take place" in those years, and it also seems to imply that the things mentioned subsequently were invented out of whole cloth at Nicaea, when most of them are mentioned in at least one NT text. Also, I might be missing something, but is conception by the Holy Spirit part of the Nicene Creed? I see it explicitly says "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father", but that doesn't appear to be the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 is correct: the Nicene Creed does not state "conceived by the Holy Spirit". And I agree that neither the creed nor the council need to be mentioned in the context of the paragraph in question. Sundayclose (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 is mistaken on both points. First, the Nicene Creed (381) says "Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man". Incarnate means conceived (for confirmation, see incarnate). Secondly, I never said that the Nicene Creed "took place" in AD381. Citing "Nicene Creed (AD381)" is like citing "US Government Health and Safety Guidelines (2012)". Thirdly, regarding your suggestion of using the NT directly - the NT is irrelevant here, as it does not state what "Christians believe" about Jesus. The NT states what it states, it is not a creed. And the beauty of the Nicene Creed, from a Wikipedia point of view, is that it is practically universal in Christendom - nearly all Christian denominations share the Nicene Creed. Whereas Christians certainly differ on how to interpret the New Testament - fuel for endless Wikiwars, which we can do without. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.138 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

regarding your suggestion of using the NT directly Wow... and you accuse me of misrepresenting what you say? Your wording clearly implies that the doctrines in question were invented at Nicaea and did not exist before the fourth century, when most of them come from the NT; I never said we should be citing the citing the NT. Anyway, this is all academic; citing the Nicene Creed for an original claim about what Christians believe about Jesus is essentially OR, and a secondary source about what contemporary Christians believe should be found, then the text added to the article body, and then summarized in the lede. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies that I overinterpreted your intentions. I certainly agree to the extent that the Nicene Creed should not only be mentioned in the lead but also in the body of the article. The obvious place to do so would be in the "Christian Views" section. Can you implement this? As for trying to find current literature and surveys what Christians believe - a hopeless task which will end in edit wars, exactly what I wish to avoid by simply referring to the Nicene Creed which is professed every Sunday in practically every Christian church worldwide, whether Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic or whatever. If you consider this is original research, then please enter the nearest Christian Church next Sunday, listen for the Nicene Creed (occasionally Apostles Creed), and confirm my "original research" here on the forum. It is about as original as saying that Paris is the capital of France - so easily provable that it need not be demonstrated by secondary sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. Hoping for your co-operation. There is lots more that needs doing in this amateurish article, we cannot afford spending a day arguing over perfectly straightforward matters such as the Nicene Creed. Life is too short, and the article too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.138 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Christian religious studies is a pretty huge academic field, with practitioners in hundreds of universities around the world. If something so fundamental about Christianity as what Christians believe about Jesus is not mentioned in the literature, then ... it is mentioned in the literature; enough said. I'll try to track down some secondary literature on the subject, but you could too, rather than just saying that locating modern scholarly sources is "a hopeless task which will end in edit wars". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with your approach. Imagine you are writing a Wiki article about the American Constitution. As an editor, you must primarily inform the reader what the American Constitution says, not what Americans think it says according to scholarly surveys. You could at best add a small section on what people think it says. So in my view, please go ahead with your scholarly research among hundreds of universities, but please do not let your ambitious literature project delay fixing the fundamental weakness in this article - and this fundamental weakness is the complete omission of the Nicene Creed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.159 (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

But what Christians "think" the Nicene Creed says is what they believe; the wording you posted in the opening of this discussion is about what Christians believe. I frankly have no idea what the rest of your above comment is even trying to say -- are you being sarcastic?

And please either familiarize yourself with WP:NOR or refrain from editing articles. Using the Nicene Creed itself as your source, and violently refusing to consult any secondary literature, in order to add a claim about what Christians believe to the mainspace is obviously inappropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not use inflammatory language ("violent", "sarcastic"). Meanwhile, you do your literature project, and let us see what the others say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.159 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And you please do not use sarcastic/dismissive language, like referring to proper Wikipedia sourcing standards as "your ambitious literature project". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

How long will you need for your proposed solution? That is, 1. implementing my sentence and 2. adding your secondary source which tells us how many Christians believe in their Creed and 3. expanding this information in the Christian Views section of the article. I will congratulate you if you can achieve this ambitious change in the next 48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.100 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.. "my proposed solution"? "tells us how many Christians"? You don't seem to know how the WP:LEDE should work -- we don't introduce fundamental changes to the intro and then "expand" them in the body of the article. I'm done talking with you -- you're clearly not here to improve the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) probably even Mormons would agree to all these things. Certainly the ante-Nicene fathers agreed to them. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with Hiriji's request, we can add Nicene Creed reference 19 (Encyclopaedia Britannica). But before implementing, please grant Hiriji 48 hours to deliver his/her own solution. Thus, in the case that Hijiri does not deliver until January 23, the change would be from this current version:

Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]

to this new version:

Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.

- 

The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new sentence in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.

I would ask other users to just ignore the entire above comment. I have no earthly idea what this IP thinks my motivations or goals are, but it's clear they have nothing to do with what I actually wrote. I'm not interested in discussing this further, so the "48 hours" idea can also be roundly ignored. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to improve the current wording, but I don't think we have got it yet. I don't have time right now, but my concerns are 1) mention of the Nicene Creed is unnecessary - seems like the Apostles Creed would fit the bill 2) beliefs stated are good and I think would be acceptable to all except some fringe groups, 3) virgin named Mary is clumsy - virgin Mary without the cap may be acceptable, 4) atonement is also a bit clumsy. --^StormRider 01:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Stormrider. I am relaxed about your points 3 and 4. But your proposal that reference to the Apostles' Creed is better than to the Nicene Creed is inadvisable, because the former is less accepted among Christian churches, and may lead to Wikiwars. I cite from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"Nicene Creed, a Christian statement of faith that is the only ecumenical creed because it is accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. The Apostles’ and Athanasian creeds are accepted by some but not all of these churches."

How about instead of citing primary sources ourselves, we cite expert secondary and tertiary sources? There are plenty. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is an "expert secondary and tertiary source". But if, as you seem to say, you can find a better source for the Nicene Creed, I would welcome your suggestions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.44 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

who wants to be part of an Administrator Incident Notice?

If I were to decide to file a notice on the Admin Incident Noticeboard, who would want to be part of that discussion? I would list StAnselm, LittleJerry, FutureTrillionaire, Farsight001, and Jeppiz. Sundayclose, would you want to be in on it? Johnbod, you said you're done talking about this, I think. Anyone else? It's a big topic, and I don't want to leave anyone out. The topic is whether it's OK for us to describe Jesus in our own way instead of the way the RSs do. I tried settling this with conflict resolution, but the case was closed when moderators recused themselves and none volunteered to moderate. The editor who closed the case said that the AIN would be my other recourse. Alternatively, someone could give me evidence that shows me I'm wrong, and then I wouldn't bother with the AIN. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You've already been shown to have been wrong. Your claim of the gospel section violating NOV and STRUCTURE as been debunked. Its time to move on. LittleJerry (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it wouldn't be well received at ANI. Once again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you have a habit of WP:NOTGETTINGIT.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been following this dispute because I have to pick my battles due to limited editing time, and that's no reflection on any of the involved editors. But I will raise a procedural point. ANI typically is not the place for content disputes. ANI generally is for inappropriate editing behavior, such as policy violations. If this is a content dispute, I feel certain ANI would suggest WP:DR. Is this more than a content dispute? Is there concern about a policy violation? Is there concern about blatant tendentious editing? I'm not an authority on the role of admins, but in my experience admins don't want to get involved unless one of those issues is involved, especially on such a controversial article. I suspect the most an admin would do is fully protect the article for a while and recommend that other means of dispute resolution be tried. A WP:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy would get more eyes on this issue. Best of luck to everyone. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sundayclose. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose I think you should write the request. Jonathan Tweet will present it in a biased way. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No offense Little Jerry, but please don't use my name to disparage another editor. I've also stated that I have not followed this dispute so it makes no sense for me to write an RFC. If the editors here can't agree to how the RFC should be worded, ask an uninvolved editor at WP:Christianity to help. Sundayclose (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

LittleJerry, I don't want to be biased. Maybe you can help me write the request. Can you help me understand your viewpoint? I don't know how to complete this sentence: "LittleJerry thinks that if Jonathan Tweet had his way, the article would be worse because...." Honestly, I don't know how you would finish that sentence. Maybe "...because the Gospels wouldn't get special treatment"? "...because it would be structured differently from the Moses, David, and Abraham pages"? You and StAnselm usually criticize me for not going along with what other editors say, but I don't have a clear idea of why you don't want the page to resemble Britannica's article on Jesus. As for me, my criticism of your editing is the same as always: you want the page to describe Jesus in a special way rather than the way RSs describe him. Anyway, can you tell me what would be wrong with the page if it were structured like Britannica's article on Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry, this is an honest question. What disservice would we do to the reader if we made our article look like Britannica's? Is the problem that the Gospels wouldn't get favored treatment any more, or what? You say that we don't have to emulate Britannica, but why don't you want to? How is our page better than Britannica's article? What's wrong with Britannica's article on Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution has a number of steps and noticeboards that you can use, and they will be more productive than AN or ANI. I suggest you use that process, as instruction to do so will nearly certainly be the outcome of any post on ANI.

For what it is worth, I'm in favor of "facts first" and having the historical section first. The gospel accounts seem to be given undue weight. That said, I'm supremely disinterested in contributing to this discussion. Prodego ^talk 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not wanting to mess with this dispute. The editors who want to defend the Gospel POV tend to be ardent and tireless, while those who want to promote the historical view tend to be less worked up about it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Having some experience of editing highly contentious pages, I would say you are in some danger of a boomerang if you push this further, if only for never taking no for an answer, and always being convinced you are right. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly warning, Johnbod. Mostly I think it's the RSs that are right, and my own opinion means very little. No one here can show me evidence that this page is OK. Maybe an administrator can, and then I'll be able to see that I've been wrong all along. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not our job to prove the page is ok. Its your job to prove that there's something that needs fixing, something you have, in every conceivable way, failed utterly to do. When you said that "editors who want to defend the Gospel POVe tend to be ardent and tireless", frankly, you were expressing blatant psychological projection. You are the tireless one. How many different discussions have you tried to start on this exact issue? How many dozens of editors have explained in detail and with policy references why your suggestion isn't good? Maybe you should try listening to other people.Farsight001 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You expect me to prefer the opinions of amateur WP editors to those of the experts? No one has shown me a policy that says I should do so. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Farsight001, "Not our job to prove the page is ok. " It sounds like you're saying that when content on a page is questioned, the people who like that content have no obligation to verify that the content is in line with policies and RSs. The whole point of wp:verifiability is that material on a page should be verifiable, as in, that's what the RSs say on the topic. Currently, what we say about Jesus is not what the RSs say on the topic. It's mostly what certain religious texts say on the topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I also decided to completely ignore the preponderance of sources that disagree with you and pretend they don't exist, I would also conclude that what we say is not what the RS's say on the topic. But since I don't ignore any source that disagrees with you, we'll have to agree to disagree. This is a clear cut case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Editor after editor after editor after editor has explained things to you over what feels like 10 discussions over the last six months, complete with references to policy and pointing out several RS's that you seem to prefer to pretend don't exist. When the consensus is clearly against you, you drop the discussion for a while, picking it back up a while later, seemingly hoping that you can get a fresh batch of editors in who don't know what you're trying to do. I'm tired of this game and I'm sure everyone else is too. Give it up, Johnathan. I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. Its been explained to you several times and all you do is ignore it. If you try to discuss it again, I will (and I recommend everyone else do the same) simply point you to the many previous discussions on the topic. If you continue attempting to edit against consensus, I will simply revert and report. Bluntly put, I am done with your petulant bullshit. If you don't want to play the game, find a different wiki to edit.Farsight001 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"several RS's that you seem to prefer to pretend don't exist" Namely? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry won't help me phrase my opponents' viewpoint. Can someone else help me? Can someone complete this sentence? "If Tweet is allowed to have his way with the page, it will be a disservice to the reader because..." I say the current page is a disservice because its description of Jesus diverges sharply from the description found in RSs. What's a charitable way to phrase the other side of the issue? I'd like to be able to state the opposing viewpoint fairly. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Drop the stick, stop beating the dead horse and stop pretending you didn't hear what was already explained to you numerous times. This is just such a huge waste of everyone's time, Jonathan. I'll recommend to anyone reading this as I did below, that any further attempts to discuss this issue by Jonathan be either immediately hatted or deleted.Farsight001 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The incident report is live on the Administrators' Noticeboard here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

religious texts as primary sources

There is so much wrong with the Gospels section that it's hard to know where to start. Here's a tag I added to the section. I'm putting it here because it's likely to be deleted by one or another defender of the Gospel accounts.

Scholarly commentary that critically examines the Gospels has been excluded from this section. We should put that commentary in. For example, Matthew's proof texts from the Old Testament are taken out of context, as was common practice among 1st century Jewish religious writers. That commentary has been deleted from this section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't do this anywhere else, nor should we. In an article on a novel/play/whatever, the narrative summary is presented without constant kibitzing from bystanding scholars. It's the only way to present a coherent text. For the gospels we do need a preface dealing with the issue of gospel harmony, but by golly, it's already there, though I think it goes on a bit too much so that the key point in the last paragraph is buried.

My objection, as usual, is that you are trying to bias the article against Christianity. The only "value" I can see in the way you want to present it is that the naive reader has some secularist "authority" whispering in their ear, "but don't take any of this seriously," while they try to read the narrative. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of a possible bias question regarding one editor here which might reasonably be raised at one of the noticeboards. So far as I have ever seen, the Biblical texts are considered the primary and most frequently used sources for this topic, and, on that basis, it is not unreasonable to follow the steps of other reference works in this topic. Admittedly, however, there might be some basis for arguing that the content of the article might be changed, and/or have some material added to spinout articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Prospectus lists at least a few reference works and how they structure the content related to this topic. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm persuaded that we should leave any scholarly criticism out of the Gospels section through the analogy to a work of fiction where the plot is discussed. However, we are not restricted to the canon texts - there are several more accounts of Jesus' life that date from the early CE and help to colour the narrative. --Pete (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mangoe, "you are trying to bias the article against Christianity." Thanks for being straightforward in your accusation. What evidence do you have that I'm promoting a biased vision for this page? Neutrality means reporting what the RSs say fairly. This page reports what the RSs say in a skewed way. That's bias. The historical method is the predominant academic approach to understanding Jesus, so this page should make that approach predominant. Right now the Gospel approach predominates, and that's bias. If we don't emphasize the historical over the scriptural, then we're being biased because we're diverging from the RSs. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

John Carter " it is not unreasonable to follow the steps of other reference works in this topic." I agree! Can we be happy to have come to this important point? If you can I can agree that we should follow the steps of other reference works, then we can settle it. Are you sure that you want to follow other reference works? I ask because other editors on this page want it to offer a unique take on Jesus, one not seen in RSs. Can you agree with me that we'll support each other in an attempt to "follow... other reference works," as you say? And will you advocate to other editors that we follow other reference works? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the fuzz is about. Virtually all serious research use the gospels and other early religious texts as sources. So on the one hand, we should not source any claim to the gospels themselves, but we should source the claims to researchers and if they refer to the gospels then that is not a problem in any way (provided they are serious researchers). Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm with Jeppiz here. We can't reference the Gospels as primary texts, but we can reference serious researchers talking about Gospel texts. Like Jeppiz, I see it as a pretty simple issue. We should cite RSs and not the primary texts. And if the RSs say things that certain editors don't like, that's unfortunate, but it's the WP way. There's nothing in WP policy saying we should exclude critical commentary from a section on religious texts. In fact, just the opposite. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Farsight001, you reverted the primary-religious-text tag from the Transfiguration section. According to wp:brd, you should be able to explain why. Reference to a policy or an RS would be appreciated. It's against WP policy to rely on primary religious texts the way we do here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't. We are citing secondary sources for this section and others. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The secondary sources in the Gospels section do not critically analyze anything. They just say what's in the Gospels without commentary. We are citing scriptures, but not "secondary sources that critically analyze them." When I add secondary sources that critically analyze the scriptures, you folks revert me. On what basis are you excluding secondary sources that critically analyze scripture? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They do analyze them; [Luke's account emphasizes events before the birth of Jesus and centers on Mary, while Matthew's mostly covers those after the birth and centers on Joseph.] [In John, Jesus does not pray to be spared his crucifixion,[186] as the gospel portrays him as scarcely touched by such human weakness.] [Many of the miracles teach the importance of faith. In the cleansing of ten lepers and the raising of Jairus' daughter, for instance, the beneficiaries are told that their healing was due to their faith.] Much of your additions where more suited to the Historical views section as they discuss reconstructing the historical Jesus. LittleJerry (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is good. You seem to be saying that critical, analytical commentary is welcome in this section, which is good news. Can you look at the Transfiguration section? It has no RSs that critically analyze this scene. Mind if I add one? The Transfiguration isn't a historical event, so it's not covered in the Historical Views section. So can I add the commentary here? The Religious-Texts dispute tag was removed from this section even though it has no critical commentary. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The policy is WP:RNPOV. Basically it says that there are theological secondary sources, and historical secondary sources, and theology does not trump history, nor history trumps theology. So, both kinds of analysis can coexist in the same article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly showing your bias here, @Jonathan Tweet:! See this article concerning the Transfiguration and the "historical Jesus". StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

not objecting to layout any more

The admin noticeboard gave me the resolution I've been looking for, and I'm ready to set aside my objections to the layout of this page. The RfC and NPOV board gave us contradictory directions, and the dispute resolution never got a moderator, but on the admin noticeboard several editors weighed in. My hardest questions still don't have answers, but I got enough of an answer to be satisfied that I got my "day in court." One editor complimented us on our exceptional civility, so we have that going for us. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's good. The ANI discussion is now archived here. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

anyone have a request?

Any requests? Obviously I have my own ideas about how to improve this page, but this is a big topic. Does anyone have any issues or topics that they'd like me to research. I have good RSs on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible. Is there a topic you think we should add, or an existing topic we should expand on? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No requests from me. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan. Yes, thanks for your kind offer. I am concerned that there is no mention at all (!) of the very oldest statement on Jesus, which is 1 Corinthians 15:3, which is estimated to within 5 years of the crucifixion (so before AD 40), older than any of the letters or gospels or Roman/Jewish sources.

"For what I [Paul] received, I passed on to you [the Corinthians] as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve."

As you probably know, bible scholars consider this to be the earliest available statement on Jesus, based on Paul's use of the Aramaic name Kephas for Peter. So as an ancient source it is important both for the "Atheist" and the "Christian" sections of the article.

I therefore suggest you insert 1Cor15:3 (along with an appropriate "Christian-biased" secondary reference) into this existing Christian sentence

"Other parts of the New Testament, such as the Pauline epistles, which were probably written decades before the gospels, also include references to key episodes in his life, such as the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.[56][57][58] Acts of the Apostles (10:37–38 and 19:4) refers to the early ministry of Jesus and its anticipation by John the Baptist.[59][60] Acts 1:1–11 says more about the Ascension of Jesus (also mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:16) than the canonical gospels do.[61]"

Likewise, please also insert 1Cor15:3 into the Atheist subsection "Post-crucifixion", alongside an appropriate "Atheist-biased" reference interpreting 1Cor15:3.

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.44 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My goal here is to add material to the page that comes from reliable sources. How about I look up what they say about first references to Jesus, and if they mention 1Cor15:3, I'll put it in, OK? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's even in the Historical Jesus For Dummies, but for a more reliable source, the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus calls 1 Cor. 15 the "earliest written reference to Jesus' resurrection". StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, StAnselm. Since you have this great source, would you like to add a line to the page? I'd appreciate the help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

81.135.38.44, why do you provocatively label two sections of the article "Atheist" and the "Christian"? Note that many are interested in the historical Jesus, and, of course, Jesus was Jewish too. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In refined circles, it is called a joke. Relax. But my intention is, I hope, clear: the current article is of limited use to historians (and Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims) because it is full of secondary and tertiary hot air instead of starting off with the primary facts. I made a start a few days ago by pushing for the current proper chronology section. Compare that with the previous amateurish chronology version, and you will see where I am coming from. Hoping for your co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.38.44 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, joke taken. I'm possibly just reacting to POV pushing from other biblical articles. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory section is currently a stub. It mentions the existence of the theory, but fails to summarize any of the arguments for or against it, or the debate over the reliability of the primary sources. It could use fleshing out. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's because the consensus is that much more coverage would be WP:UNDUE weight, since discussion of the CMT (let alone advocacy for it) is such a small (if increasingly vocal) minority in the overall scholarship relating to Jesus. I possibly could see adding one or two more sentences to cover the most popular argument and it's counterargument, but I could also see that prompting advocates of other CMT claims to demand that the paired argument/counterargument be replaced with just their favorite argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This topic gets covered in Theissen's textbook, so I can see it getting a mention here. I think the Christ myth theory is bogus because I prefer mainstream history, but Theissen covers it, and I'm happy to add a sentence or two. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm added 1 Corinthians, and I fleshed out the Christ myth section. Any other requests? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not from me. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks St Anselm and Jonathan for sorting out the Corinthians -- nifty of you to link to a Corinthians wikipage, which I did not even know existed. However, the Nicene Creed (discussed in the section above) is not yet implemented - you could similarly make a wikilink and replace the current vacuous sentence that Christ has a "unique significance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.37.43 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the historical section could use some information on scholarly views as to whether to Historical Jesus made messianic claims. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems like an important point to cover. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I referenced several RSs on the topic, and I added in Ehrman because I know that someone referred to him earlier on this point. I included notes on the Son of Man that I found while looking up Jesus as the Messiah. Maybe the title "Son of God" could use some historical context, too. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Son of man

Our article on the term son of man indicates that the Greek term used in the New Testament is "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου". "υἱὸς" does mean "son", but the term "Ἄνθρωπος" (Anthropos) is Greek for "human" or "human being". "Man" as in "male human" is "ἀνήρ" (aner) in ancient Greek and "άνδρας" or "άντρας" (andras or antras) in modern Greek.

Should not the text address the distinction in meaning? Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so - that's what wikilinks are for. We can restrict ourselves to the usual rendering in this article. StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question, Dimadick. Does an RS describing Jesus make this point? Jesus spoke Aramaic. What Aramaic phrase lay behind "son of man"? And what RS says it's a point worth mentioning? If RSs think it's relevant, then I'd agree. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2016

Mxz50006 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I Think Jesus was really Asian, therefore we need to make some changes. Marry was straight up Asian that makes Jesus Asian too. Thank you.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... That depends on how you define "Asian".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicene Creed/Council of Nicaea versus "Unique Significance?"

I copied the following unsigned post from the section above, entitled "NPOV in the Lead Section." TheCensorFencer (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

       Yes, I made a brilliant suggestion which was sadly neglected and then quietly archived recently. Here it is resurrected (on the third day, methinks):

The change would be from this current version:

   Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]

to this new version:

   Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381),  includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.

The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new sentence in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.

-end of copied post-

I wonder if anyone is aware whether there would be any groups who would be excluded by switching from "unique significance" to a statement involving the Nicene Creed or the Council of Nicaea? If not, and the new statements reflect academic consensus, I would be happy to do the editing/research. TheCensorFencer (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with the "unique significance" descriptor. And why would we exclude reference to miracles? StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that I don't like about it is that it doesn't have much meaning. It could be said, quite correctly, that every single person in another person's life carries a "unique significance." It's not wrong, it's just sort of meaningless. Personally, it's not at the top of my priority list, but given the provisions I stated above, this seems like a good opportunity to improve the article. Is there any reason that you prefer it over 86.131.68.73's proposed change?

I'm not sure why 86.131.68.73 chose to omit the phrase, "performed miracles," but I have a guess. That phrase was removed from a list of miracles that Jesus performed (excluding, perhaps, the Immaculate Conception), and so the phrase "performed miracles" is a general category that contains all of the other items in the list. It would only really make sense to do that at the end of the list, with a qualifier like ". . .and performed other miracles;" or to put it at the front of the list, with a qualifier like, ". . .conceived by the Holy Spirit; and performed miracles such as being born of a virgin,. . ." Perhaps one of these options would be an acceptable compromise? I personally prefer the catch-all, ". . .and performed other miracles" at the end of the list. TheCensorFencer (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any theologian or doctrinal statement that suggests the virgin birth is a miracle Jesus performed himself. StAnselm (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that doesn't really change any of my main points or questions. TheCensorFencer (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks CensorFencer, you interpreted me correctly concerning the "unique significance" (uninformative "hot air", unworthy of Wiki). And I omitted "perfomed miracles" simply because this is not mentioned in the Nicene Creed. My broader editorial intention is that the Wiki article explains historically WHY Christians believe xyz about Jesus, and WHY Jews believe abc about Jesus and WHY Muslims believe qpr about Jesus, and WHY Atheists believe uvw about Jesus. And for that purpose there need to be references to documented MILESTONES in the belief systems. The milestones for Christianity are clear, in my understanding: 1Cor15:3-5 (AD 40 perhaps), then Nicaea AD325, then Nicaea AD381, and thereafter (AD1054 onwards) fission into the various Christian dialects we see today. For Jews it is explained (Tanakh), for Muslims the article is less clear on the primary source (for example, is it a passage in the Koran which states that Jesus was not crucified? If so, which one?). As for Atheists, what do they believe about Jesus and what milestones is their belief based on? Ludwig Feuerbach springs to my mind, but I am not an Atheist expert. All this could be explained concisely to the interested Wiki reader. 86.154.102.203 (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Astronomer

Can somebody change an inaccuracy? In the second paragraph of 'canonical gospel' Jesus's brother James is mentioned in an inner circle of three with John and Peter. Rather it was John's brother James, not Jesus' brother, James who was in the inner circle. Jesus's brother James later became head of the Jerusalem Church but he wasn't one of the twelve, let alone the three. Thanks. 41.242.163.82 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed here the basic beliefs that make up a Christian before. The problem is, when you try to pin it down to something specific (like the proposed change), you can find a group of Christians who don't agree with it. You might find other Christians who would suggest the dissenters are not Christians, but Wikipedia does not recognize one authoritative source that defines Christianity. Linda Woodhead, who wrote the passage about unique significance, discussed the diversity of beliefs in Christianity in her OUP-published book on the same topic. She finally settled on the statement: "Whatever else they might disagree about, Christians are at least united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance." Yes, it's abstract. But to try to find a statement that encompasses all Christians, it would necessarily be so. There could be additional statements clarifying beliefs by different groups, but I support the inclusion of the statement on "unique significance". --Airborne84 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Linda Woodhead's approach might be good for a thoughtful book, but not for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. People consult Wikipedia to obtain information on a subject, not to receive an intellectual shrug of the shoulders saying, "Sorry- I refuse to tell you anything about pumpkins, because a few biologists disagree on whether butternut squash should be classified with pumpkins. So instead all I will tell you is that pumpkins have a unique significance to many cooks." Not good enough, is it? If there indeed are some Christian denominations who disagree with the Nicene Creed, that is seriously interesting for the Wikipedia user, so name the "dissenters" please, for example in a referenced subsection. Meanwhile I will get firewood, and you find the matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.95.90 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the abstract statement is the only thing to say on the matter. I'd support additional notes outlining other "Christian beliefs", with any associated caveats such as "most" or "many" or "the majority of" along with "some", "certain groups", etc. This doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to capture statements that are clear to any observer that they encompass all Christians.

You are supporting, I think, adding a primary source to describe aspects of Jesus and label it "Christian doctrine"—accepted as such by 100% of Christians. You will need to convince editors here that reliable sources say that all Christians believe this. This will be challenging, as a quick web search will identify people who identify as Christians who do not include the Nicene Creed in their doctrinal beliefs. Airborne84 (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, if you're looking for denominations, versus individuals, you can see some of them listed on Wikipedia's Nontrinitarianism page. Airborne84 (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Airborne. The Nontrinitarianism page is useful, thanks, but you are still misunderstanding the situation: there are hardly ever 100-percent black-and-white facts in science, history or religion. We would have to delete every Wikipedia article if we chose to apply your strict 100-percent rule. The sensible approach, as I and others have stated above, is to present the majority views and the minority views. So any reader looking for information on Jesus will be well served by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.95.90 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't make the rules and I don't have a 100% rule. I'm just presenting my thoughts on the matter. I stated above that

I'd support additional notes outlining other "Christian beliefs", with any associated caveats such as "most" or "many" or "the majority of" along with "some", "certain groups", etc.

However, it seems like this is already done in the lede after the sentence on "unique significance". These sentences start with "Christian doctrines include", "Most Christians believe", and "The great majority of Christians worship".

The situation seems ok to me and I don't support the removal of Woodhead's note. However, I do see your point about it. Perhaps it would be more interesting and relevant to the reader if it was preceded by what Woodhead and others suggest: that Christians have diverse beliefs and it is hard to identify a core set of beliefs that all Christians agree on. But at a minimum, Christians agree that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world. Airborne84 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be more informative to the Wiki reader to explain in the lead that 1Cor15:3-7 (already discussed in the article) and the Nicene Creed of AD325 historically and currently are the most important documents on Christan beliefs on Jesus. And in that context you can link to the Nontrinitarianism article (your suggestion) so the reader can see that there are a few Christian denominations who disagree. Even a Mormon and a Jehova's Witness will be able to live with that compromise. Job done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.95.90 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

NPOV in the Lead Section

Hello, all. In reading the lead section of this article, I noticed a couple of things that I think should be changed:

1) In the first paragraph, Jesus is established as a figure in (specifically) Christianity, while the fact that Jesus is a figure in the other (major) Abrahamic religions isn't mentioned until the last paragraph. In the intervening body of the lead, the subject is changed to the historicity of Jesus, then changed back to Christian views and history regarding Jesus for another 1 1/2 paragraphs. From my perspective, the overall thrust of the lead gives the impression that the claims made about Jesus by Christianity are somehow more valid and proprietous than those made by Islam or Judaism. I propose we merge the first and last paragraphs to cast Jesus as a figure from a plurality of Abrahamic religions, like so:

Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to AD 30–33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, is an important figure in most of the Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, most denominations hold Jesus to be the Son of God. Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or "Christ", anglicized classic Greek for "the Anointed One") of the Old Testament. In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. Jesus is also a figure in Rastafarianism and the Bahá'í Faith.

2) In the second paragraph, the article moves seamlessly from discussing a religious perspective (several, if my proposed change is made) to stating that "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." Without explaining that the historical Jesus that RSs agree existed is not necessarily the same as the religious figure of Jesus, this phrase is misleading. There is certainly no consensus among RSs that there was a Jesus who was the Son of God; but this is the impression currently given by the layout of the lead. I propose we replace the phrase "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically," with these sentences:

Virtually all modern scholars hold that there was a man in first century Judaea who led a movement that eventually became the early Christian church. This man's name was probably Yehoshua (anglicized classic Greek: Jesus); and his life, at the very least, had parallels with that of the Jesus figure in the New Testament. There is disagreement among reputable scholars as to whether this man was also the Son of God, and whether he performed miracles. Nonetheless, historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be the best sources. . .

I just want to say that I'm aware that this can be an emotional subject for many people, and I don't want or mean to cause any offense. Also, I have read some of the recent discussions and ANI on this page, and I know that patience may be a bit thin at the moment. Don't let my name fool you, I'm a big fan of harmony. :) TheCensorFencer (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi CensorFencer. It is abundantly clear that you simply wish to cause offence, without any regard for the sensitivities of devout Atheists, Christians, Muslims, and Canadians. Just joking. I agree the introduction needs improvement. I like your explicit explanation of Muslim and other non-Christian traditions. The Jewish Tanakh would need a link or brief explanation. In addition, I strongly favour the mention of the Nicene Creed, as outlined above. Thirdly, the wearisome repetition in the introduction and elsewhere that Jesus "really existed" can be deleted - it was fashionable to doubt during Soviet times, but that now is 30 years ago. Be bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.68.73 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I have read your proposal more carefully, and I now like it less. You seem to be assuming that there is a difference between the gospel accounts and the historical Jesus. Correct me if I am wrong, but most Atheists, Christians and Jews would probably agree that the gospel accounts are more or less truthful (give or take the odd miracle...), while the most significant disagreement comes from Muslims, who disagree notably with the crucifixion tradition. I am ignorant of the origin of the Muslim tradition, and would very much welcome your explanation, in the Wikipedia article, of how the Muslim version arose. Is that something you feel competent to implement? Or you Jonathan Tweet (after you and your colleagues here disappointingly let us down re Nicene Creed...)? My own field of interest is amateur astronomy, so I can contribute from that angle if required. 86.131.68.73 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Astronomer.

Hi, 86.131.68.73. Thanks for starting things off with a joke. Much appreciated. I should start by deflecting credit for my rendering of paragraph (1). Essentially all I did was merge the last paragraph of the lead into the first paragraph of the lead. I, too, appreciate the concise and explicit explanation of the Muslim and Jewish traditions. I forgot to link the Tanakh in my example, but it is linked in the article.

I also don't think the "unique significance" sentence is sufficiently descriptive. I'm not an expert, but the Nicene Creed/Council of Nicaea seems like a good solution; concise, meaningful, and [apparently] reasonably easy to support. Having not looked for RSs in support of this statement, this is merely a semi-educated guess.

My (non-expert) understanding is that there isn't currently just one "historical Jesus." While there are some major points on which the vast majority of scholarship seems to agree, there are also some major points on which they do not agree. While the Gospels (as I understand it) are the best and most used sources for studying the life of Jesus, they are not regarded by all (or even most) RSs as a purely historical account of events. I'm not sure whether you were kidding when you said ". . .more or less truthful (give or take the odd miracle. . .);" but questions such as whether or not Jesus was/is the Son of God, or born of a virgin, or was resurrected from the dead, are indeed of massive significance. It is technically correct that atheists, Christians, and Jews (for example) agree that the Gospel accounts are either more or less truthful; Christians tend to think the Gospels are more correct, atheists tend to think they are less correct, and Jews tend to fall somewhere in the middle, although generally nearer to atheists than to Christians. In any case, there are competing viewpoints among RSs, which is what I was hoping to address with paragraph (2). Everything that I wrote was intended to describe the viewpoints of the RSs that were already cited at the end of the phrase: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." Can you think of any way(s) to improve upon my suggested replacement sentences? TheCensorFencer (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

[Content moved to new section]

Welcome to the Jesus page, Censor Fencer. I would agree that the the lead could do a better job distinguishing the historical Jesus from the Jesus of the Gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome, Jonathan Tweet. I gather that you're quite the veteran around here. I would be interested in any advice you have for me, in both the content and conduct categories. TheCensorFencer (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source before we mentioned "Abrahamic religions", and I doubt we could find one - it seems like original synthesis. The phrase "most Abrahamic religions" sounds strange, as it is excluding Judaism. I also don't see a problem with move from the first paragraph to the second. The first paragraph is (as it should) explaining what Jesus is most notable for; the second paragraph gives the outline of his life. It's not battle between religious and historical perspectives. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, StAnselm. I agree that the claim that "Jesus. . . is an important figure in most of the Abrahamic religions" would require at least one RS, although I don't share your pessimism in finding one. We could also change the wording to "a number of Abrahamic religions," which I hope we can agree would be trivially easy to find RSs for. Might we be able to agree on either of these proposed first paragraphs, provided that appropriate RSs are found? FYI, I'm obviously not married to the word "most," but it wasn't intended to exclude Judaism. Jesus is a figure in Judaism, just not a deified one. My guess is that's why Judaism is currently mentioned in the lead.

As it stands right now, The first paragraph has a POV issue. Jesus is more than just a figure who is central to Christianity. He is also a figure who is central to Islam and Rastafarianism, and possibly other groups as well. He certainly has importance within other groups. To mention only Christianity for the bulk of the lead, then include Islam et al. as an afterthought, gives undue weight to Christianity. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, after all.

The problem that I have with the move from the first paragraph to the second is that it goes from discussing Jesus, the Christian deity, to saying that virtually all scholarship agrees he existed. This gives the reader the false impression that virtually all scholarship agrees that Jesus, the Christian deity existed. The ensuing paragraphs in this section do nothing to correct this. It might be something that has escaped editors' notice, because their level of expertise is such that they simply assumed that everyone knows the difference between "the Christian Jesus" and "the historical Jesus." We have to assume that the average reader doesn't already know the current state of scholarship on this issue; because if they did, they would have little cause to read the article in the first place.

I think that we have the opportunity to find some common ground here; we just might need to look for it a bit.  :) TheCensorFencer (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here's my revised proposal for the first paragraph. I changed "most of the Abrahamic religions" to "a number of Abrahamic religions." I just added a citation to the Judaism sentence in the actual lead, and I found citations for the Rastafari/Bahai Faith sentence. There are now citations that discuss each of the five Abrahamic religions in my proposed first paragraph, and the fact that each religion has a relationship to (their own idea of) Jesus. The citation for Rastafari leaves something to be desired, but Rastafari is so lacking in official doctrine that any study of it is almost certain to have some degree of anecdotalism, and the sources are somewhat rare and generally low quality. For your consideration:

Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to AD 30–33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, is an important figure in a number of Abrahamic religions. In Christianity, most denominations hold Jesus to be the Son of God. Christians believe Jesus is the awaited Messiah (or "Christ", anglicized classic Greek for "the Anointed One") of the Old Testament. In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah, second in importance only to Muhammad. To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. The Bahá'í Faith considers Jesus to be one of the seven manifestations of God. Jesus is important in some forms of Rastafari, though not important in others.

Agreement? Criticism? Indifference? TheCensorFencer (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Rastafarianism is undue weight for the lead of an article like this. In fact, so is Bahá'í - the importance of Jesus pales in comparison with the importance of Bahá'u'lláh. (Jesus isn't mentioned until the third paragraph of the Bahá'í Faith article. Furthermore, I note that the Muhammad article doesn't mention the Bahá'í faith in the lead either.) It is reasonable to single out Christianity as the faith to whom Jesus is the most important person. StAnselm (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, I think you're right about Rastafari and the Bahá'í Faith. My goal obviously, was to be inclusive, but I think you're right that it would be a bit of undue weight. The same may be true of Judaism: Jesus is less significant in Judaism than he is in the Bahá'í Faith. Additionally, Jews make up about 0.2% of the world's population. The only reason I can think of that Judaism may be lead-appropriate would be that Jesus himself was Jewish. What are your thoughts on this?

It is reasonable to single out Christianity as the religion to whom Jesus is the most important person. This fact, however, doesn't give us cause to exclude other religion(s) for whom Jesus is also important. There are, after all, separate pages specifically for Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Islam, and Judaism's view of Jesus. If nothing else, Islam has just as much business being disambiguated in the lead as Christianity does. In fact, it already is; but for some reason that still eludes me, they are in separate paragraphs. TheCensorFencer (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am in favour of your proposed new introduction, except that you should cut the details "and was born of a virgin, but was not the Son of God. According to most Muslims, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God" from your version. Because this is too much detail for an introductory paragraph. You can probably recycle this elsewhere in the article. I am intrigued on the other hand which "scripture" Muslims think that Jesus brought - that is worth specifying even in the lead. Perhaps this is just my personal ignorance on Islam, but it would be all the more usful for a Wiki article to explain such a key point. On Jews: I think their take on Jesus should definitely be included, because their stance is highly relevant to the Christian (and Muslim?) narrative on Jesus. Regardless of whether Jesus himself is important to Jews, and regardless whether Jews are only 0.2 percent of the world's population.

The more I think about it, the more I realise this wiki article is a struggle between presenting history (explaining why the world is as we see it today - a contentious task), or trying to present the state of the world today (a hopeless task because of constant fluctuation and evolution - any research is out of date by the time it is published). Houston, we have a problem. On balance, I think a tidy history is easier to accomplish than sifting through millions of sociological opinion polls and bickering about them on Wikipedia. That is my prejudice as a scientist perhaps.86.154.102.203 (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Astronomer

TheCensorFencer, "I would be interested in any advice you have for me." Well, I'm flattered. If you are serious about putting some effort into improving this page, I'd also like to see user:StAnselm advise you. Here's my advice.

• Take your time. Settle in. Maybe do some clean up work on the page that isn't about POV so that everyone can see you're here to make the page better and not (as some editors are) here to promote a particular agenda.
• Take topics one at a time. You recommend both changing the way we treat Jesus in other religions and the way we differentiate the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith. I'd split those into two threads.
• Use evidence, which is essentially policies and RSs. Humans make most of their decisions based on feelings, and lots of editors on this page do not feel like making the changes you suggest. If you don't have evidence, then the issue boils down to how people feel, Even if you do have evidence, it still boils often boils down to how people feel. I've bought the best RSs I could find (Harris, Sanders, Vermes, Ehrman, Theissen/Merz, and two Oxford encyclopedias), and I don't make a move without the backup of RSs.
• When editors are unreasonable or unkind, don't follow suit. Imagine how uncomfortable it must be for Christian editors to see their God treated like a fallible, historical man. Don't take their hostility personally. Christians managed to stymie work on the historical Jesus for decades (maybe 1920 to 1970), but that's in the past, and now their God is regularly treated as just one more prophet. The Christian editors who are working on this page are the ones who are able to reach compromises regarding the portrayal of their God, which is a pretty big ask if you think about it. Give them some credit and cut them some slack.
• Have a buddy. Back in the day, Andrew c and I made a lot of progress on this page, and I learned a lot working with him.
• Use evidence. Did I say that already? Lots of editors edit by feel, which is how I was when I started. Be better than that.
• RSs do not support your opinion that we should be up front about Jesus in other religious traditions. RSs put history first, Christianity second, and other religions hardly at all. Maybe policies support more precedence for non-Christian views, but RSs don't. Editors on this page are happy to diverge from the way Jesus is portrayed in RSs, but only to make the portrayal more pro-Christian, not less.
• RSs do support your opinion that we should make clear that the Jesus historians acclaim is not the Jesus described in the first paragraph of the lead. Let's straighten that out, shall we?
• POV editors are more willing to say No on the talk page than to revert on the article itself. Editors told me not to add a section on Judea and Galilee in the 1st century, but I did anyway because it's what the RSs say. Here again it's important to have evidence if you want to make edits that editors dislike.
• Go slow. Set your sights on the horizon. Some editors would be willing to get into heated exchanges in which you would go back and forth several times a day, but that just turns off other editors and makes it hard for less devoted editors to be part of the conversation. I started working on this page again in November of 2014, and I generally come by here about once a week. I've made a lot of progress,
• Welcome. I hope you're here for the long run. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Date of birth, again

Why do we have this range of 7-2 BC? We cite two reliable sources that say the consensus is c. 4 BC. Do we really need the outliers of 7 BC and 2 BC in the infobox? Wouldn't the variation be covered in "circa", anyway? StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The article cites Rahner for 4 BCE. Rahner, pg. 732 says "The year of Jesus' birth is also uncertain. The difficulties can only be briefly indicated: Jesus is said to have been born Herod the Great when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Lk 2:1). But there is no evidence that Quirinius was governor during Herod's lifetime. None of the explanations of this contradiction so far suggested is satisfactory. All that is generally accepted is that Jesus was born before 4 B.C. (death of Herod). More precise details cannot be drawn from the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke." Not only does he not say 4 BCE, but rather before 4 BCE (I assume he means to include 4 as one of the possibilities), but also he appears to contradict himself: he says both that there is no satisfactory explanation of the contradiction and that one conclusion is generally accepted. I hope the other reliable source we have proves to be of higher quality. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Birthday

I propose to change this sentence in the lede:

His birth is celebrated annually on December 25 as a holiday known as Christmas.

to this:

His birth is celebrated annually on December 25 (January 7th in some eastern churches) as a holiday known as Christmas.

Airborne84 (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is an important variant, but I note in the Christmas article that January 6 and January 19 are also used. StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Epiphany of Our Lord is on January 6. This might have confused some people. Epiphany comes from the Greek for, "Manifestation", and commemorates the appearance of the magi, or the "manifestation" of Christ to the Gentiles. The magi did not appear on Christmas night as is thought by some. And (I have been told) that the Epiphany is celebrated with more solemnity in certain places than Christmas.74.90.110.7 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the main differences is the December 25 of the Gregorian calendar and the December 25 of the Julian calendar. The two calendars have diverged and Julian trails the Gregorian dates by 13 days. While secular states have largely adopted the Gregorian one, many religious communities still follow the Julian one as part of their tradition. This category includes the Old Calendarists and quite a few others.

It probably does not help that the "secular" Gregorian calendar is named after Pope Gregory XIII, since many of these communities consider the Popes to be heretics or heresiarchs. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

January 7 seems like an unnecessary detail for the lede. Christmas is always celebrated on December 25, but not always on December 25 of the same calendar. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead of Jesus is not the place to explain distinctions between the calendar systems. The Christmas article is linked in the same sentence, which anyone can click to get details about the Gregorian and Julian calendars. Sundayclose (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason we are supposed to assume that most Christians don't believe elements of the creed?

"He will come again to judge the living and the dead." It's right there in the creed. We need a source if we are going to say that it isn't true that most Christians believe it. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you have this backwards. You need a source to say that most Christians do believe in this aspect of the Nicene Creed. Note that the sentence is about "Christians", most of whom don't have a detailed set of beliefs. It is not about Christian leaders, who might. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If neither have you have a source, I guess we'll leave it the way it is. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipolicy would require us to delete it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed is recited by the congregants of every single Mass. This is true of not just Catholic liturgy, but of Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and most other Protestant denominations. You can use this source if you need to. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in Church particularly often, but I don't ever remember hearing or reciting the full Creed - at best a shortened version. I was at a Catholic wedding service just two weeks ago, and there was certainly nothing about "judging the living and the dead" there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wedding services are not "Mass". The Creed is a permanent and crucial part of the Mass; it's described as "The Profession of Faith". This just isn't a subject of debate – not in this millennium, anyway. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, I understand that none of the Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists etc would recite the Creed. Some of these denominations are quite small, but some account for huge numbers of the world's Christians. Also, many Christians who recite the Creed as part of a prescribed service might not necessarily believe parts of what they are reciting. Many Christians take the view that "where a Creed agrees with the Bible I accept the Creed, and where a Creed adds stuff that is not in the Bible then I disregard those parts of the Creed." I feel that the article should state only what is the accepted belief of all Christians, noting areas of minority divergence like the Trinity, and should not go quoting a creed to which many of the world's Christians do not in fact subscribe. Wdford (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the lead has four citations to support the claim Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God, and will judge the dead either before or after their bodily resurrection. StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The cited sources say literally that "most Christians" believe, actually believe, this part of the creed, or do the sources only discuss it? I am happy to accept such an assertion if it is sourced. I didn't think my original edit was very controversial. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

An elegant solution, thank you. Out of curiosity, does the Creed base this belief on the gospels, or is it just Paul, or Revelations? Wdford (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that all this "this is what the churches teach, but their members don't really believe it" stuff is original research. Even to the degree that there are surveys in western countries, there's no reason to assume that they apply to other regions. And as far as various ultra-Prot bodies are concerned: even ignoring how small they tend to be, do you really think they reject this doctrine? Not in my experience! We don't get to assume that some large fraction of believers are dissenters. And really, I don't think we're doing anyone a service here by going into it anyway, because this sort of hedging creates the impression that it is a variable part of Christian teaching, when everything I've seen is that only the most fringe deny it. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for adding Nicene Creed (AD325)

After strong opposition by Airborne84 to my original suggestion, the change would be from this current version:

− −

Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]

− − to this new version:

− −

Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. The creed remains in active use in most Christian churches worldwide, while a small minority, principally Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, adhere to Nontrinitarianism. All Christians can be said to believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28]

− −

Happy now, Airborne? (Just between ourselves: someone can later sneak away the meaningless "unique significance" statement while you are not looking.)

The new sentence needs to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new paragraph in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article.

I think the word 'many' could replace 'most'. The use of creeds is not common in many non-liturgical services and certainly it would be difficult to evidence 'most'. johnmark†(talk to me) 00:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnmark. I am not familiar with the term "non-liturgical service". Can you briefly explain? Naively perhaps, I was thinking that all Sunday services are liturgical. Are not the vast majority of Sunday services worldwide liturgical? (If not, would it help in the text revision to replace "Sunday services" with "liturgical Sunday services"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.229 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Silence of the Lambs from Johnmark so far. Hope he is OK. So to accommodate his point, I propose simply omitting the word "most". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.194 (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any major issues. It would be useful to ensure that the second to last sentence in the proposed revision is sourced. There could be some concern over what "most ... services" and "small minority" mean without a reliable source to clarify. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Airborne. So for my second-to-last sentence I suggest we remove the Sunday services to appease Johnmark, and add the Schaff reference (which is also cited in the Nicene Creed Wikipedia article) to satisfy you. For your information, the operative Schaff passage runs as follows (my emphasis in bold): "The Nicene Creed [...] is more highly honored in the Greek Church than in any other, and occupies the same position there as the Apostles' Creed in the Latin and Protestant Churches. It is incorporated and expounded in all the orthodox Greek and Russian Catechisms. It is also (with the Filioque) in liturgical use in the Roman (since about the sixth century), and in the Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Footnote 52: In the Reformed Churches, except the Episcopal, the Nicene Creed is little used. Calvin, who had a very high opinion of the Apostles' Creed, depreciates the Nicene Creed [...]. It was adopted by the Council of Trent as the fundamental Symbol, and embodied in the Profession of the Tridentine Faith by Pius IV. It is therefore more strictly an œcumenical Creed than the Apostles' and the Athanasian, which have never been fully naturalized in the Oriental Churches." I have implemented this reference directly in my suggestion above to keep this page tidy.

If you are happy with this, I would be grateful if you could copy and paste my suggested paragraph ("Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed etc") into the article.

I have some concerns regarding the second version, chiefly that it seems to states without doubt that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians. That is one POV, I'm sure some people hold that view. Another POV is that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are Christians, which is the view of pretty much every Christian I've heard commenting on the matter no matter if they are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2016

Jesus's birth name is Jesus Christ.

• https://carm.org/jesus-name-really-yeshua

24.118.250.2 (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Christ is not his surname. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: reposition Nicene Creed (AD325), IsambardKingdom, and Wdford

Hi IsambardKingdom. I am the editor who first requested the mention of the Nicene Creed in the "doctrine" paragraph, changing this old version:

Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28] Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return.[29]

to this new version:

Christian doctrine, as defined by the Nicene Creed (AD 325/381), includes the beliefs that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. The creed remains in active use in most Christian churches worldwide, while a small minority, principally Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, adhere to Nontrinitarianism. All Christians can be said to believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[28]

The new sentences need to be implemented in the lead and also inserted as a new paragraph in the Christian Views section, to conform with the Wiki requirement that the lead should refer to the body of the article..

Now that Airborne is satisfied with this version, you (IsambardKingdom) remain as the principal objector. Essentially your actions (and non-actions) are making the Jesus page a mass (no pun intended) of contradictions. This is great for perhaps a few Wiki readers who seek to escape Christianity psychologically, but for the majority of Wiki readers who simply seek information, you are doing a disservice. For example, I am not a Muslim. But I am keen to understand why so many Muslim women wear veils. I therefore expect that Wikipedia points me towards a document or historical incident which explains the veil tradition. I expect no less from a Wikipedia page on Jesus which, in its lead paragraph, spills considerable ink over Christian doctrine (not "current Christian beliefs" as you keep implying). And the Nicene Creed of AD 325 is a pre-eminent documented and datable milestone of Christian doctrine.

Even WdFord is now curious about the Nicene Creed - there is nothing as seductive as forbidden fruit. And before you know it, Wdford will convert to the wrong religion and we will have to burn him/her at the stake. To avoid such a course of action, I politely request that you implement the Nicene Creed suggestion as above, and perhaps write your own separate paragraph on "Current Christian beliefs".86.170.121.185 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with the change -- although it will take some work (whoever does it) to figure out what should go in the lead and what should go in the body. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC) [add:] I would remove the word "small". "Minority" is enough. In fact, I would remove "principally Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses", because (1) not many Christians consider those 2 groups to be Christian, and (2) it leaves out other non-trinitarian groups, such as Oneness Pentecostals. —Musdan77 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do consider themselves to be Christians - they base their beliefs totally on the Bible (and ONLY on the Bible, ignoring all the accumulated dogma which has no scriptural basis). I know that the Mormons also claim to follow the Bible, but have added a few extra "books" along the way - but the Jehovah's Witnesses use only the official Christian Bible. They don't accept the Trinity because they don't believe this interpretation is truly scriptural. Wdford (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that they don't consider themselves to be Christians -- but that Protestants (I don't know about Catholics) don't consider them to be part of Christendom. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

My principle problem is in equating the various tenets of the Nicene creed with what "most" Christians actually believe. I'm okay with a simple description of the Nicene creed and the assertion that many hold its tenets to be true, however. I don't think we actually know what most Christians believe, we don't know if most simple accept what they are told in Sunday school or what. So, I suggest sidestepping it. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, the council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ, and it's basically where the doctrine of Trinity got it's start -- and, of course, where the Nicene creed came from. So, even if the creed isn't mentioned, I think that the council of Nicaea should be. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi IsambardKingdom - how about drafting a paragraph on popular Christian beliefs (according to surveys etc) and you can add that when and if you are ready and everyone agrees on your new paragraph. The Wikipedia article would then have a logical progression between "The Bible on Jesus (1st century)"- "The church doctrine on Jesus (4th century)" and "Popular Christian beliefs on Jesus (today)".86.154.102.214 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Musdan. It is interesting news to me that the Mormon, Jehova's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostal churches do not teach the Trinity doctrine, so for that reason I am in favour of keeping that nugget of information in the Wikipedia article. I am not dogmatic about keeping this detail though, so please go ahead and implement your shortened version. 86.154.102.214 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit late to join this discussion, but I'd like to point that there are a few more complexities about the Nicene Creed that have not been mentioned yet in the discussion.:

• The version of the Creed attributed to the First Council of Nicaea (325) mostly focuses on the belief of Christians in God the Father and in Jesus as Son of God. This is where the belief in God the Son becomes explicit and the relationship between the two persons is codified. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit received a brief mention in this version and its role was not really explained.
• The modified text attributed to the First Council of Constantinople (381) is a bit more detailed about beliefs in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It also expands on the role of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation of Jesus, and how the Spirit proceeds from God the Father (not God the Son). It defines the worship of the Spirit together with the Father and the Son. The Triad belief is much clearer in this version.
• The statement about the Four Marks of the Church (one, holy, catholic and apostolic) is given in the 381 version for the first time. It does not appear in the 325 version.
• The famous Filioque addition which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is of uncertain origin. It does not appear in either the 325 or the 381 version. But it does apparently appear in documents of the First Council of Toledo (397-400) and the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410). It did not become a major belief of Western Christianity until the Third Council of Toledo (589). Dimadick (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick. Thanks, but please do not lose sight of the fact that we are not discussing the Nicene creed in all its facets here, but the doctrine specifically with regards to Jesus. At present, the incorrect sentence in the Wikipedia article starts "Christian doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus etc" and then goes on to confuse doctrine and beliefs. Take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.214 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion about Joseph

I just thought I would polity bring up, that there is a discussion about Jesus' earthly/foster father Saint Joseph, which proposes moving the page to Joseph (husband of Mary). CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for assistment in adding name Yeshua Yehoshua in the following way:

Allthough the New Testament probably mostly was written in Greek, it is evident from that text that Jesus was/is a Jew in the line of Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, Judah and David. By interpreting the prophecies in the Old Testament (The books of Mozes, Psalms en Prophets) the most likely Jewish name of Jesus (,if he really was the anounced HaMashiach), is Yehoshua, or in dayly spoken language simply Yoshua or Yeshua. The full reference "Jesus Christ" best is translated back to Hebrew as "Yeshua HaMashiach", in which case Christ and ha-Mashiach obviously are not surnames, but additions to clearly express which of the many Yeshua's one is referring to. Yeshua was in those days a quite common name. The Jewish refernce most likely was Yeshua ben-Yosef, which translates to english as Jesus son of Joseph. In about each and every other language the name Yeshua was difficult to pronounce, uncommon in writing, or even impossible to write because of lack of proper characters. For that reason about every translation of the new testament contains a (slightly) other name, to support easy writing, reading and pronounciation by people for which those languages are native. For more details also see Wikipedea "Yeshua (name)"

(Who can add that for me in a proper way, since i am not common to the procedures of editting text in wikipedea, nor am I a native English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinus747 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Inline cite at the end of page

Does anybody know how to fix this? If you look at the end of the page, there is an inline cite (sfn) to Theissen & Merz 1998. I think it's because they are placed inline in the references section. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's because someone placed a sfn in the bibliography section. Apparently someone added descriptions of a few of the authors and then felt that need to give a source for said description. I just removed the descriptions and its source because they are unnecessary. If someone wants to learn something about an author, they can just click on the author's wikilink.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tertiary sources point out which books are best, so we should, too. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. The Bibliography includes a bunch of minor books from also-ran authors. It's a service to our reader to point out which books are taken seriously by scholarly sources. People who don't like the scholarly consensus on Jesus might object because they don't like the same books that scholars like, but WP is based RS, not on the opinions and experiences of us humble editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No we shouldn't "point out which books are best". And choosing which books are best is WP:POV.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It was you who added the descriptions, wasn't it, Jonathan? I agree with FutureTrillionaire - we shouldn't be singling out certain books. StAnselm (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with FutureTrillionaire and StAnselm, it's not our job to evaluate scholars unless we really have strong support to do so. Jeppiz (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

New image for the infobox proposal

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

Round picture with transparent background showing mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• But why? We had a very long discussion about the current one, which reached a consensus. There also seems to be some glare issue near the face here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Because it looks better and is more notable. It wasn't proposed in that discussion (and that discussion wasn't "very long").--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with you both. I think the image is good and I might have supported it in the recent discussion. Then again, given how recent it was, I think we could keep the one we have. If others disagree and want to change to this picture, I won't object but neither will I push for it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Not just because it's a "better" picture, but because of its provenance from the multi-denominational church. It has proven wide appeal: an excellent choice. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - the glare around the lower face doesn't look good, especially at thumb-size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - not so soon after such an intensive discussion; maybe we can change the picture in a year or so. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per the argument made by FunkMonk and StAnselm. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 19:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The sources for the Jewish reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah

The article stated that Jesus did not fulfil the prophesies of the Tanakh but the source given did not make this claim (see: In History - Crucifiction), making a different one instead. I put the reason stated in the article, removing the previous one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxavar (talk • contribs)

Ehrman, Bart (2006). "Jesus, Judas, and the Twelve in the Gospel of Judas". The lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: a new look at betrayer and betrayed. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-19-531460-1. Retrieved 25 July 2010. This is because — as I indicated in an earlier chapter — Jews who were expecting a messiah were certain that he would be a great and dynamic figure who would execute God's will here on earth, such as by overthrowing God's enemies in a mighty act of power. And was Jesus like this? Quite the opposite — rather than being a powerful warrior who drove the Romans out of the Promised Land, Jesus was an itinerant preacher who had gotten on the wrong side of the law and been unceremoniously tortured and crucified by the enemies of God. He was the furthest thing imaginable from a messiah. I try to illustrate to my students the kind of gut reaction most first-century Jews had to this claim that Jesus was the messiah. Imagine that someone were to tell you that David Koresh was the almighty Son of God, the Savior of the world. David Koresh? The guy at Waco who was killed by the FBI? Yup: he's the Lord of the universe! Yeah, right.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah – That Jesus during his first coming would be the suffering Messiah – and during his Second coming Jesus would be the reigning Messiah. Just thought I would make that comment. Cheers! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 15:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The Jewish encyclopedia offers a more formal treatment of the subject, recognizing his righteous and promising demeanour up until the crucifiction. The Jewish priesthood rushed to condemn him of blasphemy because people started thinking he was the Messiah. The conclusion by the authors is that since God let him die on the cross he cannot be the Messiah. This obviously requires the dismissal of his resurection as a legendary fact. Many Jewish people believed after his crucifiction that he is the Messiah on the grounds that his resurection is a real event. In recent years many Israelis of Jewish heritage also do. The Jewish encyclopedia actually dismisses anything supernatural in relation to Jesus, although it does say that "Jesus of Nazareth had a mission from God". Nxavar (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nxavar: "Jesus of Nazareth had a mission from God" is not a falsifiable claim, therefore it is not history; it is theology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Jewish culture is a culture. All cultures have a strong subjective element in them and have historically included religious beliefs. Wikipedia covers both scientific and historical knowledge as well as religious beliefs that fall whithin WP:NOTABLE. This article actually goes a long way into covering religious beliefs relating to its subject. If you want the strictly historical perspective, go to Historicity of Jesus. Nxavar (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Historically, the suffering Messiah is a Christian invention, before Jesus died no Jews thought that the Messiah was supposed to suffer and die. However, I did not say that theology should be censored. According to WP:RNPOV we express both theology and history, but we don't conflate them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That is untrue. Several scriptures within the Tanakh, Isaiah 53 being among the most famous, clearly point to Messiah being required to suffer for his people. It is a common Jewish belief that Messiah would/will suffer, though perhaps not via execution. It was more commonly thought his suffering would be akin to personal, political and cultural setbacks during war campaigns, particularly against "Gog and Magog". So, it was the TYPE of suffering that Jews and Christians disagreed on. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, from a Jewish viewpoint, there are no prophecies of Jesus or anything like a suffering Messiah. Isaiah 53 is a personification of the people of Israel, there is no mention of the Messiah. No Jews interpreted those verses as speaking about the Messiah until the belief arose that Jesus was the Messiah and Christians were misinterpreting Bible verses in order to show that Jesus was somehow predicted by the Jewish scriptures. The only messianic prophecy (i.e. it is clearly a prophecy and it is about the Messiah) that could refer to Jesus is 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.' (This pictures Jesus as a fake Messiah.) Anyway, this is not a discussion forum, so we should stick to the WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Jtrevor99: and @Tgeorgescu: — Jews believe in two literal Messiahs, Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. One would be a suffering Messiah (see Isiah 53), and one would be a reining Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and that he is the only Messiah, and that the Messianic concepts of suffering and kingship apply to one person, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe that Jesus came to fulfill the first part of Messianic prophecy — suffering (Messiah ben Joseph in Judaism) and that he will be a reining king (Messiah ben David in Judaism) and fulfill the second part of Messianic prophecy during his Second coming. Regardless, the Messianicship is fundamentally different in Judaism and Christianity, but they also have very fundamental similarities — I guess it depends on how you interpret scripture, like Jews and Christians do. I know my comment may not be that important, but I thought I would chime in. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 23:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A source for no OT prophecies about Jesus: Ehrman, Bart (2010). "Who Invented Christianity? A Suffering Messiah". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 228–236. ISBN 9780061173943. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Jeppiz, about my edit, in the very article says "Mainstream Judaism". Rupert Loup (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Messianic movement is Christian, it's not part of Judaism as defined by any scholarly source I've ever seen. Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert Loup on this part. Jeppiz, the thing is that Messianic Judaism is a form of Judaism. Messianic Judaism holds to Jewish tradition and doctrine while believing that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Many people assume that once a Jew believes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, they become a Christian. That is not the case. That's just my insight, however. Cheers ;) CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 19:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you can hold any religious beliefs you want and you are perfectly entitled to them, no problem there. As for Wikipedia articles, we go by sources though. It's easily sourced that the consensus within Judaism is contrary to your belief. Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, your exactly right! Since most sources agree that Messianic Judaism is not any form of Judaism, than that should be what the article says. Cheers! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Add the word "when" please (changes the way the sentence is construed)

2.9.1 (Activities in Jerusalem) Please add a second occurrence of the word *when* so that the sentence reads as follows:

"Also in the Synoptics, Jesus comes into conflict with the Jewish elders, such as when they question his authority, and *when* he criticizes them and calls them hypocrites."

As of now, this sentence conveys the idea that, according to the synoptics, Jesus lost his composure and his immediate response was to criticize the elders and call them hypocrites. Actually, Jesus' use of this word in the temple during passion week is recorded only in Matthew, and with many calm, reasonable responses in between (Matthew 21:23-22:46). Mark and Luke record only the calm, reasonable responses.

I'm only speaking up because this portion of the article is specifically about what the New Testament says. We know the Jewish version of what happened with this guy is very different. If this portion were not specifically about what the New Testament says, I would expect it to be more sensitive to the Jewish version of events. However, because it's about what the New Testament says, it needs to say what the New Testament says. This is probably true in many places. This is just the one I happened to notice as I was skimming.

MGhilarducci (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Michael Ghilarducci My denomination is Laodicean. I know that's not a real denomination. But it'll do. :)

Done. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

outstanding sources

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Theissen & Merz's textbook Historical Jesus, the Jesus Seminar's Five Gospels, and other tertiary sources all draw attention to a small number of outstanding sources for this topic. Since these tertiary sources help their readers in this way, and since we're supposed to cover a topic from every angle, how about we help our readers with a similar list? One problem is that the outstanding sources tend to promote mainstream scholarship, so I predict that editors who oppose mainstream scholarship will dislike the idea. I'd be happy to see the top non-mainstream sources mentioned, provided they're properly cited. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This again? Its fringe - so far fringe that it does not merit inclusion at all. Even one sentence on the Jesus-myth idea gives it more weight than belongs in this article. And no, the Jesus-myth idea is anything BUT mainstream scholarship.Farsight001 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you saying?

Once again, we don't have to follow tertiary sources in layout, etc. But what you're asking for essentially is a "Further Reading" list. WP:FURTHER allows for a list of publications with brief annotations, but they "should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." But looking at our bibliography, I really don't think we need a second list. StAnselm (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You oppose the mainstream view of who Jesus was, and you oppose pointing out good mainstream books. But as editors we're supposed to give the mainstream view plenty of play. You want us to edit the page according to your POV instead of according to the mainstream POV? Seems like "Further Reading" is just what would do the job here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan - I hate to break it to you, but YOU have consistently been the point who is opposed to the mainstream view of who Jesus was. You have consistently tried to present the fringe as the norm. That simply will not happen. Give it up.Farsight001 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to resort to ALL CAPS. If you're right, just present evidence. If you're not right, using ALL CAPS doesn't reflect well on you. It looks like we can agree that the page should primarily promote the mainstream view of who Jesus was. Can you and I agree on that much? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this at least a dozen times on this very talk page, Jonathan. Its not on me to provide the evidence. Its on you to provide evidence that the consensus of RS's concur with the Jesus Seminar. In truth, there were never little more than 150 scholars who supported the Jesus seminar while literally hundreds of thousands disagree. Over the last what feels like a year, you have provided no such citations. The ideas you have repeatedly claimed are the norm are more fringe among scholars than Intelligent Design.Farsight001 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Farsight001 and StAnselm. Jonathan, your refusal to WP:HEAR is starting to get seriously disruptive. This has been going on for over a year now, I'm afraid a topic ban for you may soon be the only solution. I cannot understand why you insist on repeating the same thing ad nauseam. Jeppiz (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The topic of how to follow the RSs' leads in identifying key works, that is not something that we hashed out in any detail. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Death location not in infobox

I was wondering why the death location is not in the infobox. Do not all scholars believe that he died outside of Jerusalem? CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 06:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: Both the birth and death locations are rather vague. The birth if I would imagine is due to lack of scholarly consensus that the Bethlehem narrative is historical. The death info, idk why. I'm not aware of any controversy about it being at Calvary outside Jerusalem. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent:, well, if most scholars believe that he died at Calvary outside of Jerusalem, it should be added to the infobox. My opinion, though. Maybe we should have a RfC. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 06:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: I think we can do WP:BRD here. Will you do the honors? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent:, Yes, I will do BOLD honors here, and add Jerusalem as the death place of Jesus. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 06:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

lifespan

it says circa 4 for his birth but then says 30-33 for his death...should it say circa 30-33? is there definitive proof he died precisely in that timeframe or could it have been 29 or 34??68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

maybe the circa refers to both dates...? but why a range on one end and not the other...I've seen ranges for his birth too..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the notes linked at the birth and death dates in the infobox. No one has "definitive proof" of many things in Jesus' life, including dates. There seems to be more scholarly consensus for the birth year, however. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

the dates at the top even conflict with the chronology section which states 30-36...?? some alterations are probably needed..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these points. Let's wait to see if others have opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the citations give for the "36" claim and it wasn't in either source. I have tagged it appropriately, and I suggest we change it to "33". StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Some scholars would say he definitely died in either 30 or 33 - but that it's too hard to tell which. It depends on whether he died on 14 Nisan or 15 Nisan, and whether it was a Friday or not. This article, for example. says "Virtually all scholars believe, for various reasons, that Jesus was crucified in the spring of either A.D. 30 or A.D. 33, with the majority opting for the former." But then the authors go on to argue for Friday, 3 April 33 as the exact day. So we have to be careful about our use of "circa". There is disagreement, but some scholars are very precise. See also the Chronology of Jesus article. StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

not sure that article would be considered a reliable source..idk..it also mentions 27 and 34...and kind of suggest that it's all a bit of a guess..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's by Andreas Köstenberger who is currently referenced in the article on this very point. But I was just linking to something easily accessible - the article is introducing a book, and that is what we should cite. (But the "30 or 33" point is already referenced, I think.) StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the support for 30 or 33 AD is from triangulation of Biblical and extrabiblical sources. Pontius Pilate is known to have administered Judea from 26 to 36 AD so it had to be within that timeframe. (Similarly, Caiphus was high priest from 18 to 36 AD, further corroborating.) John the Baptist started his ministry "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1), which is known to be 29 AD, and Jesus (again, according to the Bible) started his ministry soon thereafter. So his death had to be between 29 and 36. And the Bible states that the crucifixion was on the Friday preceding Passover (Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:1, John 18:39); there were only two of those in that date range - April 7, 30 AD and April 3, 33 AD. "30 or 33 AD" thus seems a reasonable approximation for the year of death, using a combination of Biblical and extrabiblical sources, which means "circa" is not needed. (Note that, at least according to the sources I've read, scholars consider the 33 date more likely...they think Jesus' ministry lasted at least 2 years as three Passovers are recorded in the Bible during his ministry, meaning his death had to be 31 AD or later.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to mention another interesting factoid. According to NASA, there was a partial lunar eclipse on April 3, 33 AD for around 3 hours. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

are you suggesting it be altered or not? are we really certain it couldn't have been 29 or 34? what is best to tell the reading public?68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You will never get 100% certainty on a topic such as this one. Even seemingly incontrovertible, extrabiblical facts can be disputed. I am advocating for the date of death to read "30 or 33 AD", with no "circa", as it is clear a large majority of historical and Biblical scholars agree on one of those two dates. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

not sure it should be suggested as a fact it's one of the other then...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a fact THAT it's one or the other, at least to the extent our current body of knowledge allows. It has passed the same rigor as methods used to date births and deaths for many other historical figures. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The non-biblical sources may be fact, but I don't there would be universal agreement that the information in the Bible is a "fact". And I think "circa" needs to remain for that reason. Barring any amazing discovery of additional evidence, there will always be some uncertainty. Sundayclose (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

yeah, I mean, it's obviously not a fact that it's one or the other...I would think the best thing to do would say born circa (range) and died circa (range)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's tricky stating a range for birth year. We can't include a range that would include every scholar's opinion (per WP:WEIGHT). How do we decide a reasonable range? I personally would keep it as circa 4 since that seems to be where the greater weight of opinion lies (if the summary of the sources is correct). Circa 4 of course does not mean exactly 4, just an approximation. Sundayclose (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

the way it is now suggests to me at least that it's somehow certain he died between 30-33...is this the impression Wikipedia should be giving is the question I have..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that's the very reason "circa" is used, which removes the idea of certainty. The 30-33 reflects the consensus among scholars. Stating "30-33" would be misleading, but not "c. 30-33". If we try to expand the range beyond what most scholars identify, we have violated WP:WEIGHT, not to mention creating a meaningless statement. Sundayclose (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

see, I'm reading the circa as only applying to the birth date...are you reading it as if it applies to both? and if you look at the infobox to the right it's hard to read the circa as applying to both..68.48.241.158 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a point. I added it to death date in the lead and infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

yeah I think probably a modest improvement that was worth doing..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Racially Distorted Picture

This is a Racist Fraud

The article picture that has been used is a Caucasian fraud later perpetrated by Pope Alexander VI using his son Borgia. "Insisting Jesus was White" "Jesus Face of the Italian Mafia". Jesus is a Brown Jew according to the best sources."The Real Face of Jesus Christ." Also, most Christians hold that Jesus Christ is God in human form:

"I and the Father are one.” -"John 10:30"

I fixed this with a more accurate earlier picture from Syria and need editors to discuss this racism problem -Adasegogisdi (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You do realise, don't you, that this picture dates to 1131, whereas Pope Alexander VI was born three hundred years later, in 1431... StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a general European fraud "Jesus was black". The point is that the picture is not racially accurate and is biased based on the best modern research. "Popular Mechanics" - Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for either image, I have reverted your edits because of original research (using a primary religious source in order to make claims in Wikipedia's voice) and expressing fringe views such as Jesus Christ the Father, which is supported by a tiny minority of all Christians and is considered as heresy by mainstream Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the claim that most Christian denominations would uphold Patripassianism is busted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Jesus was a Levantine Middle Easterner. The image shows a generally Mediterranean person, which is consistent with that fact. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The image shown is, broadly, that of what today might broadly be called a person of Jewish/Arab/Mediterranean descent. That being the case, I have no reason to believe that this image is necessarily at odds with what few facts and consistently supported conjectures there are about the topic, which in general includes regarding him as a Jewish/Arab/Mediterranean person. Furthermore, as, according to at least some significant portion of the present world community, the subject may never have existed as a real person at all, and that there are no extant images of the individual from life, I cannot see that there is any reason to question the image on the basis of possible factual error. Particularly considering the popularity of the image, and the easy recognition of it most individuals would likely have, I have to agree that, until and unless other alternative images are produced, and discussed, and receive a greater consensus for their inclusion, that the image involved should probably stay. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't think anyone has ever labelled him an Arab, though. Arabs are speakers of Arabic, who originate from the Arabian peninsula, as neither Jesus or his ancestors supposedly did (Jesus was an Aramaic speaker of Jewish faith and Hebrew ancestry). Jesus may have looked like how many Arabs look, due to the fact that both are from the Middle East. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew, so he would have darker (olive) skin. Any alternate images should be discussed. Cheers! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The skin tone of Middle Easterners varies. Not everyone is/was brown/olive. Just like every North European isn't pink. Levantines (like the ancient Hebrews, etc.) are generally lighter than for example Gulf Arabs. The current image does nto seem to show a particularly pale skin-tone. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think the Pantokrator image should be left in the infobox as a centuries-old classic depiction, with the "Real Face of Jesus" added elsewhere in the article. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Folks, let's not try to reinvent the wheel. Just a few short months ago, there was extensive discussion and a consensus reached for the current image, including discussion of skin tone. I realize consensus can change, but I implore everyone to read that discussion, which can be found at Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#New image. It will take a lot to overturn that consensus. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No to Real Face of Jesus". First and foremost, there's no evidence that it's a free image (and almost surely isn't), and considering the abundance of free images of Jesus, using a non-free one is forbidden. Secondly, there may be some science behind the image but not enough to make a compelling case that it looks any more like Jesus than many other images of him with Middle Eastern feature. Let's remember, we don't have a clue what Jesus actually looked like. Once again I urge everyone to read the previous consensus discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The similar File:Race of Jesus.ogv is (rightly) used in the Depictions of Jesus article under fair use. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reconstructing the skull of one specific individual and passing it off as Jesus just because it came form the same area is preposterous in any case. Believe it or not, not everyone in a given region looks exactly alike. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it be used in place of the Pantokrator image, or even that it not have a huge metaphorical asterisk next to it if it were to be used (which I'm getting the sense isn't going to happen). It would obviously have to be described for what it is. On a separate note, there's also Akiane Kramarik's Prince of Peace, which we (maybe) might want to think about adding somewhere if we can find a free version (though I think that's unlikely). Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There were two different aspects of her edits. As Sundayclose pointed, she should have gained consensus in order to change the image. That wasn't my problem with her edits. My problem was the patent lie about what most Christian denominations uphold. She is entitled to believe whatever she wants, including the idea that the Bible would support Patripassianism. But does not imply that most Christian denominations agree with her belief. Regardless of supporting her stance with several Bible quotes, the facts about what most Christian denominations uphold is decided empirically, it is not something we could decide by throwing a few Bible quotes. The Christian dogma of Trinitarianism is the result of a historical process and the Christian denominations emerged from this historical process and as it can be empirically established, most of them support Trinitarianism. Wikipedia is not a platform to right great wrongs, so she should not use Wikipedia for deceitful propaganda against Trinitarianism. Anyway, her claim about most Christian denominations is proven fake and I am highly skeptical that an editor propagating such outright falsities has the WP:COMPETENCE required to engage in a learned dialogue about religion. I happen to be white, but I am not a racist, nor a white supremacist. So, her claims that her opponents were motivated by racism is a reason to distrust her as a good faith editor. While it is not written in the stars that this article should use a particular image, casting aspersions and her lack of WP:COMPETENCE plead against her own case to change the image. So, if changing the image would still have had a chance if she did not engage at the same time in deceitful propaganda, she ruined herself this chance by doing exactly that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

the only thing significantly unrealistic about the image is the hair imo...the eyes, face, skin color seem reasonable...but the hair is certainly ridiculous looking..a better image could probably be discovered but this one isn't the end of the world either..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• The OP wrote: "Jesus is a Brown Jew according to the best sources."The Real Face of Jesus Christ." ". The best source is... Popular Mechanics? ... No. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

he was a "brownish" jew..exactly how "brown" or exactly what one means by "brown" is another matter...the current picture is accurate enough but for the hair which A. just looks sort of odd in general and B. isn't the kind of hair a person of that area/time would have...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any solid idea of what the hair of a person of that time and area would look like. I think the only line of evidence I've heard goes along the line of he being a Roman subject, the Romans wore their hair short, therefore their subjects may have done so too. But we know that many ancient Middle Eastern men kept their hair long. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

you can just look at the people today..humans haven't evolved particularly in 2000 years...the hair in that image simply doesn't resemble mediteranean hair in general and certainly doesn't resemble semitic hair...it certainly has a more northern European vibe to it imo..but there's no way to really determine what he looked like (he could have been an anomaly)...so it doesn't matter...people have suggested he looked a lot more like bin laden than the white jesus that is popular in the west (and, of course, they are right)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, what do you base that on? I see thick, wavy, dark hair. How is that "North European"? Not all Middle Easterners have tightly curled hair at all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

basing it on nothing, which is kind of the point..but imo that hair is just wrong for the location...the image is a caricature of a human being anyway and not a realistic drawing so whatever...it's not a horrible image to use...a better one is surely out there (if they would have used the classic white jesus popular in much of Europe and USA, that would be inappropriate imo)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The look that you're calling a caricature is actually intentional. Byzantine icons make a point of making the figure look "mysterious", since the icon is supposed to act as a window into the divine realm. I think this image, or at least this style of image, is probably the best we're going to get. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If ethnicity is the issue, something like The Shadow of Death would be the best by far, but the image also has to be immediately recognisable as Jesus, therefore an icon is best. Furthermore, some of the arguments for picking the current image is exactly that it is not trying to be naturalistic; no one knows how he looked, so the more realistic the image looks, the more hypothetical and "misleading" it is. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

that one by the British painter is very much along the lines of the clearly erroneous 'white Jesus' I refer to imo..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be strange, as he (If we're talking about Holman Hunt) specifically went to the Middle East and used Middle Eastern subjects to get more authenticity. Maybe you have a stereotyped view of how Middle Eastern people are "supposed" to look like. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

you're talking about a 19th century British dude bringing back paintings of Jesus for British people, get real...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

So you think the bronzed dude with the black, frizzy hair in the painting somehow looks typically British (Russel Brand, maybe?)? Not to mention the Palestinian garb on Mary. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

yes, the facial features, the eyes, even the skin tone (even though it's tanned)..at least the hair is a bit curly but the tone is too brown..i'd certainly vote to keep the current vs that one....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Good, because no one is proposing to use another image. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support using Akiane Kramarik's Prince of Peace painting, only if we could use a fair-use image of it, which is highly unlikely. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Would not be possible for copyright reasons (someone should nominate the images in that article for deletion), and we also agreed that the image should be of historical significance. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

it would be ridiculous to use that painting in the context of this article...people are free to imagine jesus looking however they want..but in this context it should at least bare some resemblance to reality..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: and 68.48.241.158, you have very good points. I know that we can't use the Akiane Prince of Peace painting because of copyright and because it does not have any historic value, though it does show a darker and more olive skinned Jesus (which I personally like; but my opinion does not make it fact). Jesus was a Jew, and many Jews have a dark olive skin complextion. Personally, I don't care too much about what image is up there. We will never truly know what he actually resembled. According to the Race and appearance of Jesus article, A study on the 2001 BBC series Son of God attempted to determine what Jesus's race and appearance may have been. Assuming Jesus to be a Galilean Semite, the study concluded in conjunction with Mark Goodacre that his skin would have been "olive-coloured" and "swarthy". I am sure we can all agree, that Jesus was not white. Like I said, I am only here to participate and make comments, so we can all work together on a solution. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 20:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the Book of Revelation, And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace in chapter 1. Though Wikipedia can't rely on the Bible as "reliable" sources, that verse may imply darker/olive skin, and of course, people have different interruptions of that verse. Some think it is his heavenly look, and that vision of what he looks like in Revelation does not apply to what he looked like while he was on earth. I better not spew to much off topic information, but just trying to stir the conversation and try to input into the discussion. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 20:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

White people are not tan. And don't confuse white German with brown Middle Easterner.

Personally, I like the current infobox image. It features Jesus with a dark "olivey" skin and very middle eastern looking. That's my stance on the issue. Anyone care to agree? CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's partially why it was chosen in the last discussion. It can be argued that because it depicts a general Byzantine (Greek) style Jesus, it would therefore make him generally "Eastern Mediterranean" looking rather than specifically Middle Eastern, but that is consistent with the Levant as well. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

BRONZE SKIN IS NOT WHITE

Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks. He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." 53:2

"His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters." "Revelation 1:15" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adasegogisdi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bronze sounds just about right for a tanned Mediterranean/Levantine Middle Eastener. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion hardly concluded in consensus for this, repeated addition by Adasegogisdi. No consensus has been reached to overturn the previous one, which is in favor of the image at the top of this section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And the picture that is being used is not brown. It is your average white German. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Eh, "like" indicates metaphor or simile. If "he had no beauty or majesty etc" means he couldn't be white, then, eh, well I don't know what to say then. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How would Medieval Italians making a mosaic in Byzantine style end up making "your average white German"? Shave his hair, and he would fit right into the Free Syrian Army. In any case, bronze hardly equals "black". FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I know fairly well that sources which describe Jesus as white are WP:FRINGE, but so are the sources which describe him as black. The Book of Isaiah and the Book of Revelation were written by people who had never seen Jesus, they claimed to have visions, they were not reporting historically accurate facts about how he looked. So, while it could be theologically claimed that the author of the Revelation saw Jesus, it is not a credible historical claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The majority view of Bible scholars is that the New Testament was not written by eyewitnesses to Jesus's preaching and having visions of someone does not count as historical evidence about him. If is even dubious that anything in the Old Testament prophesied about Jesus, see Ehrman, Bart (2010). "Who Invented Christianity? A Suffering Messiah". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 228–236. ISBN 9780061173943. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of the Egyptian image is. The Syrian, who would have been from the same area as Jesus, is shown as rather light-skinned. Jesus wasn't Egyptian. And white people don't tan? FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's get things straight. Jesus is not white. Though, we don't have any clue what his skin color looks like while he was on earth. It does not really matter. The current infobox image (which I like) is not white. It is a light brown olive skin. It's fine where it is at. Can we close this discussion now? ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 15:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please close this discussion... it's just going in circles at this point. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 15:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Atheistic Views of Jesus

User:FinnusertopUser talk:Finnusertop, what controversy could possibly arrive from putting non-theistic views of Jesus on the lead? Besides, all the views expressed in the lead are those from the religions that revere Jesus. Surely the lead could use some information on how disbelieving atheists see Jesus Christ.Gonzales John (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a talk page discussion. As far as the atheistic view of Jesus goes, WP policy certainly does not (contra this edit) mandate mentioning all viewpoints. We have to work out which ones are significant - based on number of adherents, breadth and depth of publishing, etc. StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

St Anselm is right. Atheistic views of Jesus get very little play in any tertiary documents. Gonzales John, if you want to balance the heavy religious content in they article, I'd invite you to improve the critical, historical content. "What historians think" is a major topic that this page systematically underplays, in favor of the Christian Gospels. I could use your help achieving a better balance between the mainstream, historical view and religious views. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

open questions?

By last August, we had reached agreement on a couple points as part of a compromise on treating the Gospels. [1] Here they are again.

• Gospels. This section has no support in WP policies, WP guidelines or the examples of good sources. Christians want people to hear the Gospel story, and this article summarizes the stories in the Christians' four canonical Gospels and the other parts of their NT. Scholarly and historical analysis are prohibited. This section is the biggest concession to Christian sensibilities on the page. It's unprecedented.
• Compartmentalize John's prologue. John's opening bit about the eternal Logos does not get covered in the main body of the Gospels section. By special request, it has been removed to the introduction. This prologue sounds strange to modern ears and doesn't fit with the prologues of Matthew and Luke. M's and L's prologues get regular treatment. Not John's.
• No history of doctrine. It's common for reference works to discuss how doctrines about Jesus developed over the centuries. This approach, however, makes Christian doctrine look like a human-made construct: a product of history. So the page contains nothing of this material, not even a good treatment of how St. Paul treated Jesus. Wouldn't the reader want to know where the idea of the Trinity came from? But we don't tell the reader that because it's too sensitive a topic.
• No anti-semitism. This came up months ago, that we shouldn't refer to the anti-semitism that scholars see in the Gospels. That is, we should stop following RSs on this topic because what the RSs say is too provocative.

Now that someone has re-merged the Gospel accounts, St Anselm and others say that no agreement was ever reached. In that case, these issues are all open again. Can we please stick with the way the Gospels were, and not open up all these issues again by merging the accounts and vacating the agreement? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, if you're going to talk about agreements that were reached, you will need a better link than the one you provided. Perhaps you should pick just one of these points and start an RfC. Personally, I am very close to reporting you on WP:ANI for disruptive editing, since you seem to be saying the same thing over and over again until you wear people down. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And I personally think the time may well have passed for outside review of possible DE and TE edits here. It is I think worth noting that the reference sources I have found (all of them, so far as I remember) also give a great deal of WEIGHT to the gospel accounts. If anyone wants to review the structure of the article on Jesus in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, published first by Brill and later Eerdmans, found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus, both highly regarded publishers for the broad field of religion as an academic subject, I think if there are real differences they should be pointed out. Also, as someone who reviewed this article in the past by comparing it to the article in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, I can say that, although I did not attempt to determine comparative WEIGHT considerations and the like, with one exception (a one paragraph section on Hindu views on Jesus) everything covered in that source is also covered here. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but that link isn't some kind of agreement: it's only you stating what you feel like great concessions to Christian sensibilities in the article (and that could be debatable). BTW, I don't think we need multiple discussions about the same things in the talk page (see other topic): it only makes it more difficult to follow and leads to repetition. You say that someone "re-merged the Gospel accounts"... Who, when (dates, revisions)? Maybe you can make your point clearer, this way. Bardoligneo (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Parents and DNA

Jesus's parents were God (not Joseph) and Mary. Correct that mistake. God has no DNA so Jesus has only one set of chromosomes and his cellular transcription works just fine due to magic (or miracle as the ancients used to say). I wonder why that doesn't work with syndromics (syndromatic people)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4108:B700:7006:1E3A:DCA4:BE2C (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please produce reliable sources which meet our standards as per WP:RS for any material you seek to add to or change in the article. FWIW, while I myself do not, necessarily, disagree with you on what you said, and think that it might be the case that some material consistent with what you have said above might well deserve inclusion, we are bound by our policies and guidelines to limit ourselves to what can be found in such reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

See [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

policy or RS that supports merging gospel accounts?

This gospels section merges four primary accounts into one. Are there reliable sources that address the topic of Jesus this way? Or a policy that says we should do so? I understand that many editors will have personal reasons for wanting to merge the accounts, but I'm asking about a policy or RS. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought we had discussed all this, and you had decided not to pursue the matter any further. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, I gave up on trying to get the history section first, and on trying to merge it with the Gospel section. I never agreed to reverse the deal we'd already made on not merging the Gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a link to the discussion that produced this consensus, please? StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you actually not remember that discussion? Will it make a difference if I find that link? If I go to the trouble of finding that discussion, will you take it seriously? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You waited more than a week to ask me this? No, I don't remember the discussion (I may not have been a part of it); yes, I will take it seriously. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You do seem to like consensus, so I found links to our previous discussion. Since there was no consensus to change the agreement we had a year ago, I volunteer to change the page back while we discuss the issue. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you look and not find such an RS? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom, “’’Did you look and not find such an RS?’’” Thanks for asking. You may have missed the original debate over the Gospels section and Christian POV, which was a while ago. You're right, that I have looked in many RSs and can't find a single one that merges the gospel accounts in this way. In fact, Bart Ehrman specifically calls out this practice as misleading and contrary to good scholarship. I've asked St Anselm and the rest to find an RS that treats the gospels this way, and they say it doesn't matter. For me, combining primary sources into a new narrative seems like original research, especially when the experts don't do it and tell you not to do it yourself. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Interesting, but I can only imagine that such a change would require a whole lot of work! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If such a rewrite is made, then it should include more discussion of apocryphal texts about Jesus. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I volunteer to do the work. There's no WP policy that says "don't follow RSs if it's a lot of work". I'd be happy to include apocryphal sources, too. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am very thorn here, because I do think Jonathan Tweet is right, but I'm also keenly aware that months (literally) have been spent discussing that same question. I may not agree with the consensus, but I respect it and I (again) very strongly encourage Jonathan to do the same. Being right (as I think Jonathan is) unfortunately/fortunately doesn't rule out being disruptive and I seem to remember that the latest round of discussing this resulted in Jonathan being told a topic ban could follow if not dropping the stick. That would be a shame, so I very strongly suggest not to reopen this discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, we editors reached a deal in fall of 2014 (?) that it was OK for the Gospel section to follow Christian canon provided we didn't also follow the Church's practice of merging all four accounts into one. A little Christian slant is understandable on the Jesus page, but merging accounts with no historical commentary is exactly the opposite of the mainstream way to learn about Jesus from the Gospels. Historians learn a lot about Jesus from how the Gospels differ and even contradict each other. That consensus was reached after a lot of wrangling. Now the accounts are merged again. I'd like us to respect that consensus or give a good reason why we shouldn't. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that merging the four Gospels is to be considered typically a "Church's practice". I think there isn't anything inherently "not-NPOV" about it, if you mean that, just a matter of convenience. Making 4 distinct sections, one for each Gospel, would've the disadvantage of repeating most information 3 or 4 times. The differences between Gospels are already abundantly in evidence in the single section, as it is (often at the cost of not-so-elegant multiple bullet points) so I think there wouldn't be any advantage either. Bardoligneo (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your personal opinion and why you want to diverge from the RSs. As we know, WP is based on RSs, not on the experiences and beliefs of editors. Even when those beliefs are very strongly held. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Brittanica article, and they basically ignore John and follow a synthesis of the synoptics. This is not entirely unreasonable although it needs to be said that the passion narrative (from Gathsemane to the deposition) is essentially the same across all four gospels. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at an RS to help resolve this issue. I agree with you that it is not entirely unreasonable to follow the lead of the most prestigious encyclopedia on the planet. That was the original agreement, but when I implemented it, FutureTrillionaire interfered and prevented that implementation. That's what led to Plan B, separating the accounts. Also note that Britannica merges historical and scriptural information, which seems like a great plan, but beyond the scope of this discussion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What RSs make 4 sections, one for each Gospel, in the article about Jesus? And what about the ones that don't do that... Are they somewhat "less reliable" sources, in your opinion? (Always admitted we're obliged to follow their layout). For what concerns attributing my opinion about the article to my beliefs, if it were for that I'd love to see one section per Gospel but I think it would be quite disfunctional in this articleBardoligneo (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Two textbooks treat the Gospels separately: Historical Jesus by Theissen & Merz and Understanding the Bible by Harris. As I mentioned in last year's discussion, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Synoptics together and separately from John, but those descriptions are brief summaries and most of the material in their Jesus Christ entry is historical, like Britannica. Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar treats them separately. No RSs treat the Gospels the way they're being treated here, merged. It's a devotional approach, not a scholarly one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

History of consensus on treating Gospel accounts.
Here's the conversation that St Anselm, Jeppiz, FutureTrillionaire, and others engaged in, the one that led to us making the Gospel accounts separate.

November '14. Introduction to the issue: [3]

January '15. Continuation of discussion, St Anslem joins in, Jtrevor acknowledges that he is not to remove the POV tag until the issue is resolved. (Nice to see policies being followed.) First compromise is to remove John, but FutureTrillionaire prevents that change. [4]

March '15. Continuation of discussion, Brandmeister acknowledges that the take on the Gospels is the Christian perspective. Since the agreement to remove John didn't work, we go to Plan B: separating the Gospel accounts. [5]

April '15. Short thread: [6]

April '15. Issue resolved and edits are underway, with feedback from other Brandmeister, who had opposed the changes: [7]

August '15. Summary of compromise, that is, how we deviate from reliable sources in favor of Christian sensibilities. These are compromises I agreed to as part of the consensus on keeping the gospel accounts separate: [8]

Since there was no consensus to make a big change to the page (merging accounts), I volunteer to set the page back the way it was, at least until we have reached a new consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think the "concessions to Christian sensibilities" section represents a consensus. You may have suggested a compromise, but only one editor replied, and that editor said "I can't figure out how you have come to the conclusion that ANY of these things are concessions at all." With regards to the prologue of John, there was indeed a consensus to include the prologue, and the material is still there. StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, forget that one section. The consensus was reached in the other sections. If we didn't reach a consensus to split the accounts, why did you sit back and watch me split the accounts? The consensus we reached was the agreement that got the NPOV tag off the section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, you used to say that major changes shouldn't be made without consensus. Merging the accounts was a major change made without consensus. Do you still oppose major changes made without consensus? Or are you reconsidering your policy now that you agree with he major change made without consensus? Since this major change was made without consensus, how about I change it back until we reach a new consensus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you have completely failed to demonstrate that any such consensus existed. (You removed the tag you added yourself, because the section title had changed, but the discussion (Talk:Jesus/Archive 124#POV Tag. Separating sources for Jesus in the New Testament) had not actually produced a consensus for that change. In any case, it has now a different title again.) So this is disruptive editing, and I think you are very close to a topic ban if you continue to start thread like this one. StAnselm (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, you used to say that major changes shouldn't be made without consensus. Merging the accounts was a major change made without consensus. I hope you will support me as I change the section back. Someone boldly merged the accounts. Now I'm going to revert that so we can discuss it. That's WP:BRD. If someone tries to force this change without consensus, then they'll be opening this whole can of worms. We had a compromise that no one liked. You didn't like the accounts being separate. I didn't like the history section going second. If that compromise is dead, then the whole issue is open again and I don't think anyone wants to see that.. What do you think? 14:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet, could you please specify better what is this merging you're speaking about? when did it occur (revision, dates...)? Honestly, I can't figure out *when* this major change without consensus supposedly occurred and what it consisted of. I also don't see trace of this compromise. Bardoligneo (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to be specific. I should have been more specific from the start. In looking back over the history, I see that the changes are not as big a deal as I thought they were, and they're best addressed individually rather than as one big thing. In fact, they're small enough that maybe I should let them be. The history section needs more work than the gospels section at this point. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Jesus' rabbi

1972 Encyc Judaica references the likely rabbi of Jesus, one Joshua b. Perahyah. Perhaps it is not the prevailing view of Jewish scholars currently, however, the section is the general Jewish view and deserves due weight. The source is authoritative in Jewish matters. The rabbinic literature is silent on the education of Jesus in the first couple of centuries and the search for his teacher afterwards might be conjecture, but it is the Jewish view of Jesus. For a list of recent Jewish scholarship see https://www.worldcat.org/profiles/greycloud/lists/3666347 Church of the Rain (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Aramaic name

Anyone opposed to me adding "Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua" to the lead between the pronunciation and the Greek? This was Jesus' "real" name even more than the Greek was. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason why we decided to only include the Greek name is that Greek is the language of the only sources we have about Jesus from back then. Yeshua is just a theory.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire, please cite a source that suggest that Yeshua is a theory. Not trying to pick a fight, just curious at the source :) Cheers, CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 22:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request seconded. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire, I am still waiting for a source to suggest that Yeshua is just a theory. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 23:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan, I would go ahead and add the Hebrew name Yeshua in the introduction, because there has not been a source to suggest that it is just a theory. Besides, if it was a theory, why would the F&A of the talk page of Jesus mention that Yeshua is not as common as Jesus in English? ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 05:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also the fact that certain Christian movements and Messianic Jewish movements deliberately use Yeshua to refer to Jesus. So "authentic" or not, it's at a minimum become a legitimate name. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 05:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death = pericardial effusion + pleural effusion

It's relatively well established by forensic doctors that Jesus died of pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, explaining why blood and water came out of Jesus' side when the Roman soldier thrust a sword into his side in John 19:34 e.g. http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html Why isn't this included? 114.75.205.39 (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I realize that people who like websites like gotquestions take objection to this, but it remains a fact regardless - gotquestions is not a credible source of information. We can't use it as a citation for anything but elaborating on the website operators' personal beliefs.Farsight001 (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

example of merging Gospel accounts

You folks deserve a specific example of what I'm talking about when I say that the Gospel accounts are merged. Please see the crucifixion and entombment section. This section takes four different crucifixion accounts—each written to stand alone—and merges them into one account as if they're telling the same story. But there are at least two distinct accounts, possibly four. Whoever merged these accounts also dropped out the elements that contradict each other from Gospel to Gospel. This is traditional Christian practice, to merge Gospel accounts into one by papering over differences. Who was with Jesus when he was crucified? Did both robbers rebuke hm? Where were the disciples? The Gospels contradict each other on these counts. The big one is, did Jesus suffer and cry out in despair? Mark and Matthew say Yes. Luke and John have Jesus accepting his crucifixion without complaint and then dying not from asphyxiation but by an act of will when the time is right. Historians pay attention to these differences because they're informative. It's Christian practice to minimize these differences. As WP editors, it's not our place to pick and choose from four primary documents, creating a new narrative with the elements we like and leaving out the details we don't like.

Do I feel moved to add in the details that have been left out? Maybe. Or maybe I can let the Gospel section be for now. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This idea for merging sounds very difficult. If, as you say, inconsistent parts of the story are left out, then which parts? Who decides? How to prevent this plan from becoming original research? If the inconsistent parts are left in, then how is the narrative maintained? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid it being original research if we are deciding ourselves which details the reader should know. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the whole section is sourced to secondary sources. The section certainly does smooth over the differences between the gospels, but I think that is what one would expect from a top-level, overview article. The idea is we wikilink to more specific articles where there is more nuance. Discussions about how and why Jesus cried out (and scholars disagree over whether "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is indeed a cry of despair) can be found at Sayings of Jesus on the cross. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you name a single tertiary source that describes Jesus and that treats his crucifixion this way? I've never found one. This is not how encyclopedias treat this topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We can avoid OR by letting each Gospel speak for itself rather than using our own judgment to edit the four accounts into one. That's what the page does with the Open Tomb accounts, which are also contradictory. What do folks think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)