Jump to content

Talk:Jesus/Archive 123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125→Archive 130

Criticism section falls short of FA quality

Another editor made a good faith attempt to address the tag I added to the criticism section (see above), but the section simply reads generally as a "list of people who have criticized Jesus." Besides two Bertrand Russell passages, the section does not summarize what their criticism actually was (which reflects the name of the section). Also, the section should be well-written to adhere to the article's current FA status. I should eventually be able to get to it, but I added the tag in case other editors want to tackle it in the meantime.

If I might ask, could we leave the tag until a consensus of editors here agrees the section has been brought to FA standards? Thanks, Airborne84 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless things have changed recently, if you want FA status, there shouldn't be a criticism section at all. Any criticism is, ideally, dispersed in the article where its relevant.Farsight001 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
As Farsight001 said Featured Articles are not supposed to have Criticism sections at all. They are a magnet for POV and sloppy editing. If you look at the history of the article, when it was promoted to FA it didn't have a Criticism section at all. The current one should be removed. Any "facts" that aren't currently in the rest of the article and meet RS and notability standards should be incorporated in the appropriate sections.Marauder40 (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see where in the FA guidelines does it say that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but I agree that it is probably not necessary. I wouldn't oppose having it removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a rule, more of a strong suggestion. Read WP:CRITS. They can't always be avoided, but in cases like this they can easily be woven into the article and/or the corresponding daughter article.Marauder40 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a dumping ground for all the "this is stupid" comments that people are too lazy to put in their proper places. From the History, this section was added within the last 6 months. Ckruschke (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
I'm also not opposed to moving relevant and properly sourced criticism to the article and removing the section. What would not be best, however, is to simply delete the criticism section and everything in it. I think that would cause the article to fall short of Featured Article criterions 1.b., 1.c., and 1.d. On the other hand, the section itself provides (or should provide) a summary of another article with associated link, so it is not unreasonable to simply improve it. I'm ok with either. Again, I don't mind working on it, but I don't have time right now. If the other editors want to give me about a week, I'll be able to reshape this section or remove it and place relevant criticism elsewhere. Airborne84 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In the version of the article that passed FA candidacy (and thus meets the FA criteria), a paragraph about criticisms of Jesus was in the "other views" section. If nobody opposes, I will delete the current criticism section and restore the material that was in the "other views" section as a temporary solution to the problem. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Marauder40 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that just sweeping the problem back under the rug? It will yet remain, even hidden. Why not improve the article instead? Someone came along some time ago after the article reached FA status and realized all noticeable aspects of the article were not covered. It may be that they didn't know enough to bring up FA criterion 1, but it will likely come up again. I won't argue if the consensus of editors wants to just revert to the version before someone intervened, but IMO, it's treating the symptom and not the underlying problem. Airborne84 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You are misreading. What was being proposed is that the "Criticism" section be removed since it isn't appropriate in Feature Articles and returned to where it was in the FA version and that would get expanded upon. I don't think FutureTrillionaire was saying to wholesale revert to the FA version. Most of the section that is now the Criticism section was in the Feature Article version just under the section "Other Views".Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of the users in this thread seem to be saying that the content in the criticism section should be moved elsewhere. I'm guessing the best place to move it to would be the "other views" section. I'm not sure where else could they go.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Criticism sections aren't "inappropriate" for Featured Articles, but I'll also agree they are not always the best ways to present information. I don't disagree with moving the information in that section to "other views" in principle, but perhaps a slight change will make it more cogent. Moving the material to "other views" right now puts it under the "Religious perspectives" section, which would not be appropriate. So, I propose to change the "Religious perspectives" section to "Non-Christian perspectives" which can better comprise religious and non-religious views, and move the material in question to that section, naming it something other than "Criticism" which, admittedly, could turn into a "troll-magnet". I'll give it a go and other editors can let me know if I've gone astray. Airborne84 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I went with the more abstract "Perspectives on Jesus" versus "Non-Christian perspectives" as I didn't realize that Christian views were also represented in that section. I hope the result is acceptable to editors here. The criticism section is no longer; the material is now in "other views" and features slightly changed prose.
There is still room to expand on what Jesus's detractors actually said, which started this discussion (in the deletion of some of that material, albeit poorly integrated). I'll leave that for others to deal with. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice job. Everything looks good to me.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I believe the following sentence should be removed from the lead: "He is also a major figure in Islam." It is unnecessary, given that the final paragraph explains that Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam; a prophet is by definition a "major figure." Since the main importance of Jesus is to Christianity, there is no need for the additional, redundant mention of Islamic views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree. As you say, it's completely redundant in the lead. --Hazhk Talk to me 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm just going to go ahead and remove the sentence. Strangely, I'm not sure why this article was being used as a citation for that statement, considering as it doesn't even mention Islam. -- Hazhk Talk to me 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Aramaic (Classical Syriac)

Aramaic (Classical Syriac) and East Syriac, which are ancestral to West Syriac, render the pronunciation of the same letters as ܝܫܘܥ isho (išo) /iʃoʔ/. The Aramaic Bible (c. 200 AD) or the Peshitta preserve this same spelling. These texts were translated from the Greek, but the name is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form because Greek did not have an "sh" [ʃ] sound, and substituted [s]; and likewise lacked and therefore omitted the final ‘ayin sound [ʕ]. Moreover, Eusebius reports that Jesus's student Matthew wrote a gospel "in the Hebrew language". (Note, scholars typically argue the word "Hebrew" in the New Testament refers to Aramaic.) The Aramaic of the Peshitta does not distinguish between Joshua and Jesus, and the Lexicon of William Jennings gives the same form ܝܫܘܥ isho (išo) for both names. The Hebrew final letter ayin ע is equivalent to final ܥ in Classical Syriac and East Syriac. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speakers in communities founded by the apostles and other students of Jesus, thus independently preserved his historical name Isho. Still the Churches following East Syrian Rite preserves the name Isho.

Can't see any strong consensus for not adding it at the talk history. Hafspajen (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this a dozen times. There are no primary sources which provide a reference to Jesus in any language other than Greek. This is why we do not include various reconstructions of Hebrew or Aramaic (or Arabic). ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jesus's family

Is there any reason why discussion of Jesus's biological father should not be admitted to the article? From reliable sources of course. Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of this in the article.

I did see some discussions in the archives. They seemed a bit polarized with talk of POV. However, multiple ideas can exist in a Wikipedia article, so I don't see why it could not be noted that most Christians believe x, and other sources have discussed y and z.

In the absence of y and z, it seems that one of the elements of a Featured Article, that it be comprehensive, falls a bit short here. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's discussed by WP:RS, I don't see why not. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Since there is no WP:PRIMARY documentation, other than the bible, and various religious tradition, any specific ideas would obviously be nothing more than conjecture. For the general concept of having a biological male parent though (IE criticism of the virgin birth muth), it is discussed in depth in various sub-articles Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Critical_analysis Genealogy_of_Jesus#Virgin_birth. Per WP:WEIGHT, thats probably sufficient, as the vast vast vast majority of scholarly writing about Jesus are not discussing his biological father. This is doubly so if you are thinking specifically of Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera#Hypothesis_about_a_Jesus_connection which is a view held by just that one author pretty much (The more general idea, that Mary was raped/seduced by some anonymous roman soldier, while a plausible bit of history, is no more documented or likely than any other hundreds/thousands of plausible theories). The other obvious choice is Joseph as the biological father through pre-marital sex, and while also plausible has no evidence to back it up. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well said Gaijin42 - we have no extra-Biblical source for Jesus' father. IMO better to be silent rather than open it up to all kinds of "fan fiction". Ckruschke (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Yet that opens the article to a charge of POV. For it only provides one point of view currently for Jesus's father: the Christian view. As for speculation, if it is informed speculation by reliable sources, I don't see a problem. Geza Vermes speculated on a variety of possible alternatives for Jesus's resurrection between the extremes that it happened according to Christian tradition and it didn't happen at all. He did so based on context, historical analysis, and probabilities. Given his credentials, that would not fall under the category of "fan fiction." In any case, we don't have any material at hand to specifically discuss yet. I was simply testing the waters, so to speak.Airborne84 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Vermes is certainly a scholar and writer whos opinion is worth talking about to see if it is fit for inclusion on this topic. You mentioned his views on Resurrection etc, but did not say anything about what he might have said about Jesus' birth. If you have some material from him, or others of similar quality, then certainly we can discuss them. I do however think WP:WEIGHT might be an issue. This is the top level article for a HUGE topic. the Historical Jesus has its own entire article, along with the other two articles I mentioned above where this type of content would be more appropriate to discuss in detail. In this article, it has to be balanced proportionally with all the writing on Jesus, and frankly, it would be a one or two sentence mention, if at all IMO. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
All fair points and I agree. I don't have much material at hand now, but perhaps will get to it at some point. Thanks for your input. Airborne84 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I added material from Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, and Reza Aslan, noting why the two points of view exist on the matter of paternity. I kept it short as per Gaijin42's thoughts. These historians have much more to say here, such as discussion on why some of the Gospels take pains to outline Joseph's lineage back to David (apparently to establish a royal bloodline to Jesus), but then ignore that by claiming a virgin birth. They also have a great deal of discussion about what the gospels have to say about this matter. However, it seemed too much for here, and much of it is already laid out at the article on Joseph. It would be possible to put some additional material into notes in this article, of course. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Palestinians#Should_Jesus_be_removed_from_the_second_"pre-mandate"_list_of_geographical_Palestinians?

Hi, please could editors here kindly weigh in at the RfC discussion linked above? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Greek pronunciation?

Does anyone have an IPA pronunciation for the Koine name? Seems like something we should have in etymology if not lead. --JFH (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Rabbi

What qualifications were needed to qualify as a Jewish Rabbi, and are there any evidence that Jesus did Rabbi training? 86.178.174.199 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, back then, with the large number of universities and governments organizing over the internet, it was no trouble for Jesus to get a online degree from the Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen Rabbinical seminary.
In all seriousness, Roman dominated Judea bordered on what we'd now call a third world country. There weren't really many institutions to officially declare someone a rabbi or not. The Sadducees and Pharisees were doing well to simply maintain their own orthodoxies in the face of each other as well as the Essenes, Zealots, and Hellenistic Jews; and each group was doing well enough to make their beliefs known. If a guy had a bunch of people calling him "teacher" in Aramaic, he was a rabbi (rabbi just means "teacher"). It's only after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE that Rabbinic Judaism became a thing (and even then, there were only three Yeshivas, or rabbinical schools, from the third to thirteenth centuries). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Existence

The example given after 'For example, the same "argument from ignorance" could apply' is illogical and irrelevant. Socrates cannot be used as a parallel to Jesus' case as Socrates (as mentioned in the example) DID have several contemporary accounts. Also, this has nothing to do with argument from ignorance in general.

|I would agree that the comparison to Socrates should either be cited to a reliable source, which it is not at the moment, or removed.Smeat75 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace

The supposed census has no historical support. Likewise Bethlehem as a birthplace. Not unless we count the contradictory narratives of Luke and Matthew. John and Mark make no mention of Bethlehem. Most historians who have expressed an opinion (as opposed to "biblical scholars" whose agenda is obvious) note the unlikelihood of Jesus having been born in Bethlehem. It was a long way to travel, there was no good reason to do so, the means of travel impractical and so on. Likewise the massacre of innocents and flight to Egypt. No historical sources.

However, if one were attempting to construct a narrative consistent with popular beliefs about the Messiah, Bethlehem and Egypt must be worked into the story. Regardless of fact.

I don't think we should list Bethlehem as a birthplace without noting the unlikelihood of this. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The actual article refers to Luke and Matthew placing the nativity in Bethlehem, not that it definitely really did happen there. I think you are referring to a back and forth about categories that has been going on the last few days. The category "People born in Bethlehem" does not say "People who were born in Bethlehem, 100% for sure" it could be taken to mean "People whose birth is said to have been in Bethlehem". Anyway the information in the article is much more important than categories in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I would highly recommend keeping some traditional content such as the categories removed. Mark and John don't recount the birth of Jesus. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Santa Claus is traditionally said to reside at the North Pole, but Wikipedia does not state it as a fact. Matthew and Luke have quite different nativity stories. It is impossible to align them in any plausible way. But if we regard them as narratives without the need for actual truth, that's fine. Jesus himself uses similar stories - the mote and beam, for example - to illustrate various points in ways that his audience could understand and appreciate. We can easily accept that Jesus was said by the author of Mark to have been born in Bethlehem in the same way that Santa Claus is said to be a resident of the North Pole. Not in a factual sense, but a metaphorical way that is patently untrue but coloured for narrative effect.
However, if we are reporting fables, then we cannot report them as facts. --Pete (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yea, really appreciate your smart ass comment. JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I'd made one, but thank you anyway. I've just checked and the Santa Claus article, while being an entertaining read, does not record him in the category of North Pole residents --Pete (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Santa Claus doesn't have hundreds of texts from Egypt to Syria or mainly the Middle East in general based on him. Also, Santa didn't have an empire built under his name, just some western folklore attributed to him. Since you like to bracket Santa Claus, you should read the article yourself to build some intellectual foundation inside that empty head of yours. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah. I see now. The cult of Santa Claus is as real as Christianity, and has as many popular narratives to depict the existence and the philosophy. Some of these cannot be true. This sort of thing applies to all major cults. Buddha cannot possibly have performed all the feats attributed to him. Likewise Muhammad. We have a duty to list and describe the most popular narratives, but only the staunchest supporters of each would claim them to be true, and hence we follow NPOV in giving due weight to such claims. --Pete (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But, getting back to the subject in hand. We don't have any contemporary accounts of the birth of Jesus, and those that were recorded after his death are contradictory. The historical references - including the Gospels - overwhelmingly describe him as Jesus of Nazareth or the Nazarene. There seems to be little doubt as to his residence before his ministry, and few serious historians place much credence in the stories linking him to Bethlehem, let alone Egypt. --Pete (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You talk about NPOV, yet you call religious sects. "cults". Simply, you want to remove traditional content because what you believe is false based on who scholars? from where?. Anyone can believe in anything based on whatever religious sect they are part of, it is their personal choice. Text and artifacts are what keep scholars alive in their job, but their personal opinion is what makes them different from other scholars. The debate of Jesus's birthplace is as debatable as creationism. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for a useful word to link Santa Claus, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. "a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society." It's just a word. It's not a matter of what I personally believe is true or false. Hell, I could be wrong. NPOV is about finding reliable sources and seeing what their opinions are. I'm not seeing a real lot of scholarly support for the Bethlehem notion. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I just want to clarify, for myself and possibly for others who may read this - this discussion is about categories, right? It doesn't say anywhere in the article that Jesus was born in Bethlehem as a historical fact or the flight to Egypt, does it?Smeat75 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

New Section 8

I propose to add an 8th section providing a brief synopsis of the differences between historical, classic archaeological, archaeological and theological approaches to the study of the past, with pertinent academic references. The scholarly references used in this article are strongly biased to a single approach consisting largely of theological exegesis ("historical-critical") methodologies as contextualised by faith-based perspectives and old school classical archaeology. This does NOT reflect the breadth or depth of mainstream modern historical or archaeological theory, data collection or analysis in early first century research. There are many critics of the scholarly approach taken by the theologians mentioned in this article, of their findings, and their extrapolations, especially where these are derived from selective use of historical and archaeological research conducted by other professionals from outside of theological circles. It is broadly accepted in (non-theological) archaeological circles, for example, that there is no evidence of Jesus, period. Recognition of the absence of knowledge allows us to accurately devise means to effectively pursue new knowledge. To not mention this is a disservice to the readers of this article, and antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. A more balanced approach is necessary to allow the reader to understand the topic more thoroughly. Thoughts? If there are no substantive objections I'll add the new section in 48 hours. --IseeEwe (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is broadly accepted in (non-theological) archaeological circles, for example, that there is no evidence of Jesus, period. Do you mean "there is no archaeological evidence for Jesus?" No there isn't and there is no reason why there should be. If you mean "there is no evidence of Jesus at all" exactly the opposite is true. "Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming...Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." For instance (they are historians) There is no debate among historians about Jesus' existence.Smeat75 (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
All the references in this article, including the ones you cite, come from one school (albeit a vocal one with many practitioners)of historical methodology. There are many other philosophical, theoretical and methodological approaches in academic history and archaeology, with a diversity of opinions on this question. It is disingenuous to continue to assert that "scholars" exist as a singular homogeneous group, that other schools of thought do not exist, and that other forms of knowledge development utterly outside the context of the historical-critical approach are unable to contribute meaningfully to this conversation. The editors of this page do not take into consideration other schools of historical and archaeological research. This is an encyclopaedic endeavour. Nuanced, dissenting and different reliable, verifiable, cited and relevant studies can not be bared, nor dismissed. --IseeEwe (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. If you could strip away all the jargon and give us the guts of your position, that would help. --Pete (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I just did. This is not the place to discuss the content or findings of this article. All I am trying to do, stated very simply is to point out that saying something is true because "It is written on paper, I say so, all my friends say so, and all the people like me say so" is not how academia works. Archaeologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers of science and scholars in other fields, outside of biblical studies, question simple textual and linguistic analysis as a means to understand history. Western biblical scholars say Jesus is historical, others do not. I wish to present the case that there are other opinions that must be taken into consideration and to provide references for the reader. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
So how does this relate to NPOV, which seems to be adequately covered in the article? --Pete (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Western biblical scholars say Jesus is historical, others do not. This is a complete fallacy, historians say Jesus was historical, I have already given you two examples, there are no historians who say that Jesus was not historical.Smeat75 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
How is it a fallacy? Do you personally know every historian in the world. Did you count them, take a vote, or ask them? There are substantive, verifiable, external, academic and well-regarded scholars and schools that lie beyond historical-critical literary studies of the bible. There are a lot of historians who say Jesus was not historical. They can not be discounted by you. We will return to this after external editorial review and perhaps even formal arbitration are finalized at Historicity of Jesus --IseeEwe (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of historians who say Jesus was not historical. Who?Smeat75 (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite sceptical about the historicity of Jesus (in other words, I think there was so much baggage attached to a very small kernel that it may well be spurious to identify the kernel with the person). But if you want sceptical opinions to be included, you need to provide actual sources, not just sweeping opinions (even ones I tend to agree with ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stephan Schulz This Talk section is not for discussion of the topic -or so I am told. I am striving to ensure some level of consensus and support amongst editors to include a small addition to this article that points out, for example, that the notion of "received opinions" is a tired and non-viable approach. The article must have at least 20 references to "most scholars agree", "virtually all scholars", and other such claims derived almost exclusively from a single academic community (biblical scholars), using a very limited set of research tools derived from theology, antiquarianism and literary theory. I can provide several dozen references rejecting simple document studies, the use of "received opinion", and other such subjective, non-verifiable and unreliable tools used by most biblical scholars and antiquarians in their attempt to understand the past. Archaeology and philosophy of science (for example) exist because there are other ways to understand the past and how to conduct research, that work. Case in point: archaeologists faced a decades long uphill battle with biblical scholars who summarily rejected the existence of pre-biblical societies in favour of the 4,004 BC date for creation accepted by "virtually all scholars". --IseeEwe (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)--IseeEwe (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this IseeEwe, but I believe some of this could hardly be further from the truth. Having 20 citations for one point (which this very statement used to have something close to) is deemed as citation overkill and this very discussion has occurred on this page somewhere in the past. As for your claim that all of the sources come from people in the Biblical community, you are very mistaken. Have you even read footnote e? Robert M. Price has to be one of the most prolific atheists out there and Michael Grant is no Biblical scholar. Wikipedians providing "reliable sources" for the Christ Myth Theory, and have always been reduced down to at most one or two accepted academic papers claiming Jesus never existed. Reading this section of the FAQ may help. Your last point is also flawed. Because scientists for centuries believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe does that mean we can say for sure that the Sun is the centre of the solar system? We can only go on what seems virtually certain, which in this case is Jesus' historical existence. JZCL 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jesus of Galilee

Not the most common name, but it is a name used to refer to Jesus:

  • Matthew 26:69 - "Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." (KJV WBS YLT NIV) [1]
  • "Jesus Christ, also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth (born c. 6–4 bc, Bethlehem—died c. ad 30, Jerusalem), religious leader revered in Christianity, one of the world’s major religions."[2]
  • Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, Downers Grove; Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, (1995): p. 14
  • Robert Lassalle-Klein , ed., Jesus of Galilee: Contextual Christology for the 21st Century. Maryknoll, New York, Orbis Books, 2011, xii + 276 pages

Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: - You WP:REVERTED before discussing on the talk page -- even though the discussion was already here. My patience for edit wars is very short -- one more revert, and we head into dispute resolution. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tom harrison: - You WP:REVERTED before discussing on the talk page -- even though the discussion was already here. I'm now filing a dispute at WP:AN3. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Calidum: You WP:REVERTED before discussing on the talk page -- even though the discussion was already here. I'm including you in the dispute at WP:AN3. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about "Jesus of Galilee." The name comes directly from the Bible, and is cited by multiple reliable sources. (I suppose it might have been controversial if I'd deleted "Jesus of Nazareth.")
Yes, it was reverted by 4. I only revered 3 times, to avoid violating WP:3RR. I posted the talk page discussion after the first revert, per WP:BRD. Each of the subsequent reverts were by experienced editors who ignored the talk page disussion, and failed to get consensus. You'll find the discussion at AN3 at [3] Fearofreprisal (talk)
I think most editors would tend to agree with the admin who refused it and and his comments at WP:ANI here. As regards the actual addition I couldn't really care less, the (your) disruption is the issue. However have you stopped to consider why the "damsel" in that verse is talking to Peter about Jesus being "of Galilee" and her reason for saying that? Context is everything. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I just read this now, regarding the actual addition. Finally, someone responds with a meaningful answer of why, possibly, including "Jesus of Galilee" in the lead may not make sense. I'm presuming that the "damsel" was referring to the fact that Jesus preached in Galilee? This seems to be the main context in which I've seen other references, but it didn't occur to me that the use was particularly different from Jesus of Nazareth. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well if you're going to make a very big issue of this against other editors perhaps you should sit back and ask why didn't it occur to you, particularly seeing as the probable reason why she says this is widely noted in print sources. Have you read the two verses either side of the girl saying it? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to make a big issue of this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The if was past tense, if you already made a massive issue of it wasting hours of editor time, threatening editors, taking it to admins, then you should have at least read the verse of the "damsel" you want to cite from. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Subarticles

I commented during the FAC process that I thought the article was too long but that I wasn't even sure all the appropriate subarticles existed yet. Well, I've started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles listing all the direct subarticles of their Jesus article in the two longest reference sources I know of. I assume that the length of the Jesus articles in those works is proportionally long and it is kind of hard for me personally to believe many sources would be likely to have many subarticles these don't but I'll check anyway. I'll also dd all the articles in the Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus when I finish developing that list. If anyone wants to go through the page and find which articles do and don't exist yet they are more than welcome to do so. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Birth Year self-contradiction

The intro paragraph estimates Jesus' birth year as 6-4 BC while the Infobox gives it as 7-2 BC. This needs to be rectified, but per the paragraph's comment request I am posting this on the Talk page instead of making a direct edit. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right that it can't be left with such unexplained contradiction. The infobox range is well cited, though the 7 and the 2 are certainly outliers. The 6-4 represents more of a probable range. I'd suggest that the infobox could have a bit more detail, and maybe the main-text date range be given c.6-c.4. Alternatively, use the full range (7-2) for both. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll probably wait till the "...of Galilee" discussion wraps up before making any edits. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I went ahead and updated to 7-2BC to match the Infobox range. While the majority of scholars do support 6-4BC, virtually all scholars support 7-2BC. Interestingly, while researching this question I read about some new evidence that strongly points to 6-5BC: new evidence has been uncovered of a census taking place in Judea in 6BC, earlier than the 4AD census that was already known about. Couple that with the two eclipses that took place in 5BC--and keeping in mind that, according to Josephus, an eclipse immediately predated Herod's death - and it's looking like 6-5BC's a good date to go with. But, this is my opinion so I didn't think it was right to put it in the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
One last point before we close this up. The alternative approach would be to go with the most likely years in the main article - something like 5BC? - 32AD?, and leave the range in the Infobox. This might be more useful as it would give 2 sets of info. I'd be okay with this too if others agree to it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion in lede

Anyone else agree with Zenithfel's deletion? I believe Ian.thomson is correct in writing, "Jesus is a major prophet in Islam (generally second to Muhammad), the second largest religion in the world." --NeilN talk to me 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the other selective deletions strike me as giving undue weight to Christian beliefs ([4]), if not pushing a Christian POV ([5]). If @Zenithfel: continues with this, I'm certain I'm not the only one willing to push for a topic ban on this.
While I personally understand the attachment Christianity and its followers have to Jesus, to pretend that Islam's views simply aren't noteworthy enough to include in the lede strikes me as fearful censorship. Divinity (whatever form it manifests as) doesn't need Wikipedia to protect whatever truth it holds. Including the information on Islam in the lede isn't the same as saying Islam is right, so removing it is pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe the lead as it currently stands accurately reflects/summarises the rest of the article. There should be a greater weight attached to the New Testament, because this is where the article derives most of the biographical information from. But in addition to that, Jesus (Isa) certainly is a major prophet in Islam. I really can't think of any persuasive argument against including in the lead any mention of Islamic beliefs. Per Zenithfel's later edits, Messianic Judaism is widely considered (references and be found in the article) to be a Christian group that apes aspects of modern Judaism. -- Hazhk Talk to me 15:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I have to agree with Ian Thomson's and Hazhk's comments. As a devout Christian, I too understand the desire to focus the Jesus article on Christianity's beliefs and tenants. But it does a disservice to all religions - Christianity and otherwise - to summarily delete from the article any discussion pertaining to those other faiths. A discussion on who Jesus was, and is, is better served by describing all viewpoints worldwide. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The views of other sources about Jesus, religious or not, can be included in the article if they meet Wikipedia's criteria. The removal of material from Islamic sources would then violate WP:NPOV. Also, the words "Christians believe that" should be part of the phrase "Christians believe that Jesus has a 'unique significance' in the world". The modification misrepresents what the source (Woodhead) is saying. Airborne84 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the term "Jesus of Galilee" be included in the lead?

Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC; there is a clear consensus that the name should not be included in the lead. Of course, including the name in the article body (perhaps along with other names as well) is still a possibility and could be discussed further. Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The term "Jesus of Galilee" currently redirects to Jesus, but the article includes no reference to "Jesus of Galilee."

I propose changing the lead of the article as follows (change in bold):

"Jesus... also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus of Galilee, is the central figure of Christianity..."

That Jesus is also known as Jesus of Galilee is not in dispute, and is supported by a large number of authorities, including:

  • Matthew 26:69 - "Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee." (KJV WBS YLT NIV) [6]
  • "Jesus Christ, also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth (born c. 6–4 bc, Bethlehem—died c. ad 30, Jerusalem), religious leader revered in Christianity, one of the world’s major religions."[7]
  • Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, Downers Grove; Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, (1995): p. 14
  • Robert Lassalle-Klein , ed., Jesus of Galilee: Contextual Christology for the 21st Century. Maryknoll, New York, Orbis Books, 2011, xii + 276 pages
  • Schröter, J. (2009). Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus. In Jesus Research: An International Perspective. The First Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, ed. JH Charlesworth and P. Pokorny(pp. 36-55).

And so on. While it is true that the term "Jesus of Galilee" is less common than "Jesus of Nazareth," that doesn't change the fact that both terms refer to the same person.

I see no better place to include the reference to "Jesus of Galilee" than in the lead, as I've suggested. Including it later would be awkward, requiring some explanation. Not including it at all seems unreasonable for an encyclopedia, particularly given the existing redirect for "Jesus of Galilee."

This change seemed non-controversial to me -- but I appear to have been mistaken. Hence, this RfC. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Edited 04:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a compelling reason not to include "Jesus of Galilee?" Is including it factually wrong, or will it make the article worse? I'm asking sincerely, as it appears that a number of people feel rather strongly that including it is a "bad thing." (The article Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament does not include "Jesus of Galilee" or "Jesus of Nazareth as names of Jesus. Probably because they're not proper names.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there is more here than meets the eye. Your RfC is titled, "Should the term 'Jesus of Galilee' be included in the lead?" and you go on to note that you propose adding it, that the term redirects to the article, and that you see no place better to add it. So for me, the answer to the question "should it be added" is a simple "no." You asked if there is a compelling reason not to add it after I said I saw no compelling reason to add it. I am not going to get into a further back and forth or defend my comment. It is simply my comment, and I stand by it. -- Thanks BCorr|Брайен 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to defend your comment. It stands on its own, and I thank you for taking the time to make it. I was just trying to understand if, as you say, there is more here than meets the eye in this subject -- that is, something that I'm missing. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
While I have no strong opinion on this matter, I will point out it is undeniable that he was called Jesus of Galilee at least once in the Bible itself, so it is indeed a name for him. Additionally. the Encyclopedia Britannica and Strong's Concordance both list Jesus of Galilee as a common name for him. Finally, I have read a couple of sources (which I don't have handy now) that note Galilean as a Roman derogatory term for an early Christian. Yet this name doesn't appear nearly as frequently, in the Bible or elsewhere, as Jesus of Nazareth or the derogatory term Nazarean. On the balance, my vote would be to preserve the status quo: Jesus of Galilee and/or Jesus the Galilean redirects here, but it is not called out as a common name in the opening statement. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you support including it in the body, and if so where? Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Pete above for including this in the lead. It's not worth all the fuss imo. That said, including it in the body has some merit. Feature articles are supposed to be inclusive. Adding the title "Jesus the Nazarene" should certainly be considered, as described in Nazarene (title). Happy editing. Ignocrates (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support because similar phrasing is in the first sentence of the online Britannica here. I have no real idea why it is given such prominence there which is why it is weak support but the fact of it being there for some reason even if it is one I can't understand seems to me to be at least potentially significant.John Carter (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We did some years ago have a discussion regarding the title of the article Catholic Church in which it was decided that Roman Catholic Church would be included in the first sentence based in large part on that name being used in one official document from the fascist era where the term seems to have been used to highlight the fact that the Vatican is in Rome. I can try to find it if required. I disagreed at the time but can see the logic of including a name used in the original text even if only once for the ease of the very few people who might not know that they are the same person. I can't imagine there being many such computer literate people in the English speaking world but our articles are supposed to be accessible particularly to those who have little familiarity with the topic.John Carter (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE - most commentaries look at the context of why the servant girl says "of Galilee" μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Γαλιλαίου in the context of Peter's dialect a couple of verses later. It's a one-off use specific to the specific incident of just having arrested a northerner and looking for other northerners. Online Britannica doesn't qualify as much better than Wikipedia these days, certainly not a reliable academic commentary on the language of Peter's interrogators, and overweight in the lead. In the Denial of Peter article it may be worth a mention. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it will clog up the lede. The expression is very rarely used. If this goes in, why not "Jesus the Nazarene" and Jesus ben Joseph? Paul B (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The phrase is no where near as commonly used as "Jesus of Nazareth" is. Calidum Talk To Me 15:52, 31 August 2014 (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.

Existence

Here is a new citation for the existence section:

Richard Carrier recently authored a peer reviewed book on the Historicity of Jesus, published by an academic press. “In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination put the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion simply adding a quote such as this without presenting a supporting argument does not really add much to the article. Adding some of Carrier's reasoning, on the other hand, might. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Please read WP:FRINGE. Carrier is not part of a majority, nor even a minority (as that still implies a certain number) but of a tiny fringe movement which is opposed to what virtually every academic says about Jesus. The quote may well be suited for the article on Carrier, but I fail to see why it should be relevant for Jesus. This is exactly what the policy WP:FRINGE (as well as WP:UNDUE is about.Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what "peer reviewed and published by an academic press" mean. This is no longer fringe. Minority, yes but that's because the majority who publish on it are Christians themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.160 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh...no. it really is still fringe. Even the ID advocates got a couple of "peer reviewed" articles to publication. They remain fringe.Farsight001 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
To the anonymous IP. Yes, I do know what fringe is. If you had read WP:FRINGE you would also know it. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Furthermore, your insinuation that it's because "Christians" publish on it is flat out wrong, most of the leading experts on the subject are non-Christians (Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Amy-Jill Levine etc.)Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I would estimate a less than 1 in 12,000 chance that Carrier's viewpoint merits discussion here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Ehrman said recently that "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian", so the IP editor is not incorrect. And Geza Vermes is no longer publishing as he is deceased. Also, it is not clear to me why Carrier's views do not qualify to even be discussed here. However, I'd like to see some additional reliable sources weigh in on this before we collectively make a determination that this is has moved from the fringe to a minority opinion. It is not clear to me that it has.
On a side note, please don't bite the newcomer. Airborne84 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

Change status from "Fictional Character" to "Public Figure" 74.67.212.167 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article does not use the phrase "fictional character" at any point, or even the word "fictional." Even on this talk page, you're the first person to say "fictional." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

I just saw that someone else asked that Jesus Christ's status be changed from "Fictional Character" to "Public Figure" but apparently their request was denied because the word "fictional" did not appear in some article??? However I pulled up Jesus Christ on Facebook and it is a wikipedia page and it lists Him as Fictional Character. Please correct this status on the Facebook page. Kathyraerae (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I take it you're referring to this? We have no control over what Facebook classifies something as. Stickee (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2014

Jesus Christ be changed from 'Fictional figure' to 'Historical figure' as he is a semi-verified person to have lived (Or at least under severe belief to have with multiple sources). Due to there being no definitive proof one way or another it is just as daft to refer to him as fictional as non-fictional. 121.99.58.193 (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus for this and "fictional" does not appear in the article. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not done: I assume, as with the previous request, you are referring to Facebook?
Please note: The word "Fictional" does not appear in our article
We have no control over what Facebook says - please talk to them. - Arjayay (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Why does it say that Jesus is a fictional character??????

92.26.207.123 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't Cannolis (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit banner about Facebook's screw up?

You know those those banners we can put in that show up when someone goes to edit a page? I don't just mean yet another banner at the talk page when one is not editing (since new users seem to almost never read those). Could we get one on this page that says "If you're here about Facebook, that's their screw up, we have no control over it, go bother them"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately I can't do this myself as I'm not an administrator. I have asked Neelix on his talk page to help us out. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done Neelix (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Glaring Error in the Etymology section

"The Greek form is a rendition of the Hebrew יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), which is derived from the Aramaic ܝܫܘܥ‎ (Isho)."
Wow! That's totally and demonstrably false.
The Aramaic name you have given here is a late Aramaic (Syriac) form, so there is no way the biblical Hebrew name can derive from it.
The ultimate original etymology of the name is the Hebrew יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), which is simply the Biblical name Joshua, meaning "God is salvation".
In the later books of the Bible (Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles,) Yehoshua is frequently abbreviated to Yeshua / Jeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ), a later form of the name.
Joshua the High Priest, for example, is given the fuller name Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak in Zechariah 6:11 (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן-יְהוֹצָדָק), and the shorter form Yeshua ben Yotzadak (יֵשׁוּעַ בַּר-יוֹצָדָק) in Ezra 5:2.
The name Jesus comes from a Greek translation of this later short form, Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ), which was the name of Jesus in Hebrew/Aramaic.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.155 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Good catch. The sources used for the sentence say that Jesus goes back to Yehoshua as the original name. Apparently somebody had added the Aramaic Isho and it had gone undetected. I removed it, so the sentence now again match what the sources say.Jeppiz (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Please note that the same error also appears in the first line of the article beneath the title. Also 'Isho' is still mentioned in the Etymology section beside 'Yehoshua'.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.155 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We have discussed this in the past. There is no extant primary source which gives us the Aramaic or Hebrew spelling or pronunciation of Jesus' name. Any modifications to the etymology or lede require sources which indicate the Aramaic or Hebrew spelling and must indicate that this is an extrapolation, not an actual spelling from primary sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

the "fictional character" edit requests

Check out here - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesus-Christ/110332228994909#

the JC page describes Jesus as fictional, then displays the contents of the wikipedia article, then right at the bottom is a link "Edit on Wikipedia". I think whoever it is is seeing the information there and thinks that not just the actual wikipedia article content, but also the phrase "fictional character" is the result of wikipedia.

Anyways, over at that page, there's an "edit" button where you can request changes to the page. If you are the editor requesting changes here and you read this, (Or of you're a wikipedia editor annoyed by the requests) please go to the facebook page and click the edit button there. You can click "edit" under "category" and then "no" next to fictional character and suggest another description like "public figure". I don't know if it'll work, but its worth a shot to get this to stop.Farsight001 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

At the bottom of that page it mentions that the page is also generated from Freebase, a collaborative knowledge base. Looking at the links for Jesus Christ including deleted links here, you can see a link attributing "Fictional Character" was added 4 September 2014, but it has since been deleted. Facebook needs to regenerate its page, but I am afraid it will now come up "Film Character". I do not know how to change it, yet. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014

Jesus was not a fictional character. He was an historical figure.

74.96.231.181 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done "Fictional" does not appear in our article. Please talk to Facebook. --NeilN talk to me 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, really getting tired of seeing these mis-targeted edit requests. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

You have classified Jesus Christ as a "Fictional Character". Over 2.5 Billion people around the World disagree with this mischaracterization, and deplore you to change this, to "Biblical Figure". After all, The Bible has sold more copies than any Book ever written. Further, the Bible has sold more copies than all other books ever written combined. Thank you, Pastor David Hall

209.169.67.237 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I take it you're referring to this? We have no control over what Facebook classifies something as. This article does not use the phrase "Fictional Character" at all. Not even once. Stickee (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, it's been a fair while since I've had much to do with this article so let me start off by congratulating the diligent editors who got this article to FA status. I have just a minor query: the lead no longer has a link to the article on Christ as I believe it used to. I think it read something along the lines of "...known as Jesus Christ or simply Christ, a name which is also used..." I believe that it may be best if something like this is added in again to the lead, since the article on Christ is so closely related to Jesus. On any other article I would have just added a few words myself, but I am aware how controversial even the tiniest things can turn out to be on this article... especially in the lead. We shall see. JZCL 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a link. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian. Obviously "Christ" is a key concept for the Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

God the Son, not Son of God

First indent: " is the central figure of Christianity,[12] whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God." This is not true. ALL denominations believe that He is the Son of God. Not many, not most, but all. But in what Jesus Christ - God the Son, believe not all (though anti-Trinitarians can not even be called Christians). It should be corrected to: "Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to 30–33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity,[12] whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be God the Son." And here is a link to change for this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Son instead of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

P.S. It's a shame that the English-speaking Christians for the sake of the Jews and other godless allowed to call the article "Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ." We, in the Russian Wikipedia, this was not allowed. Алессия (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Then go back to the Russian Wikipedia, or maybe Conservapedia or Metapedia. While I personally affirm the Trinity and disagree with Jehovah's Witness, Unitarians, and other nontrinitarian denominations view of Jesus, your claim that nontrinitarians "can not even be called Christians" is blindly sectarian and non-neutral. From a neutral academic perspective, many such groups branched off from Christianity and claim to be Christian.
Christ is a title, not a family name. Christians affirm that Jesus was both God and Human, and this article discusses the human Jesus. Also, this article seeks to be verifiable and present information that all rational persons can see to be correct. This is no threat to to those who truly believe Christianity to be true.
Would you want Wikipedia to present Islam as true? Would you want the article Prophet to redirect straight to Muhammad? Would you want the article on Jesus to say that He was only a prophet? Of course not. Why then, do you want the encyclopedia to present one religion's perspective above all others? It is shameful that people think being sectarian is more respectful to Christ than remembering "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The apostles and martyrs died for Truth, and you're worried only about the neutrality? Islam? As far as I know, the majority of English-speaking people - the Christians. And these Christians should insist on the correct title of the article about the Lord Jesus.
"It is shameful that people think being sectarian is more respectful to Christ than remembering "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus often repeated that the true faith is a necessary condition for salvation. Not only behavior but also the faith.
And yet, what do you think about "Son of God" and "God the Son"? Алессия (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Алессия: Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:35, Romans 12:21, Ephesians 4:32, and Colossians 3:12 all call for tolerance, humility, and treating others the way you want to be treated. Matthew 6:1-34, James 1:26, and Romans 2:1-5 specifically condemn those who claim that their loud religiosity makes them better than those who humbly serve. How did you read the Bible and miss those? Where does the Bible say "be loud and boastful about religion, with no kindness to others?"
If we renamed the article "Jesus Christ," it would by hypocrisy to not let Muslims change the article to say Jesus was only a prophet. If we changed changed "Son of God" to "God the Son," it would by hypocrisy to not let atheists say Jesus did not exist. If Christians do not want to be oppresssed, we should not oppress others. Do you really believe Jesus preached hypocrisy and oppression? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking on behalf of the Union of All Godless People, I second Ian's comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hear hear, Ian. Well said. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
If we start declaring that some people claiming to be Christian actually aren't, we'll have to change all those article which boast about how many adherents Christianity has. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Then so be it. There are undoubtedly certain, minimal characteristics that are required of a person before they can be declared a Christian. Self-declaration is not necessarily one of those. If I declare myself to be a beach ball, that does not mean I am one, as I lack the characteristics of one. Several Christian writers throughout antiquity - Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinus, and for that matter Paul - have declared a belief that Jesus was/is God, or equal to God as a minimal requirement to be called a Christian, regardless of sect or denomination. To deny this as the most critical aspect of Christianity would be to deny that there is anything at all that holds Christians together. All that said, I agree that there is a divide between trinitarianists and nontrinitarianists...that divide could possibly be bridged with wording such as "...whom the teachings of all Christian denominations hold to be God incarnate." This phrasing would, I believe, adequately encompass both groups' viewpoints. Jtrevor99 (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Try this idea over at Christianity. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Good idea...posted. I'll be interested to read the feedback. Jtrevor99 (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter really? No. Every name we use to try to label the creator of the universe and heaven will always fall short because he is worthy of only himself because he is the only pure good thing that has existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C062:45C0:582E:A69D:8552:FFB0 (talk • contribs) 2602:30A:C062:45C0:582E:A69D:8552:FFB0

Please do not edit other user's comments, and keep discussion about article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Our Russian friend is right that we understate the case. King David was a "Son of God." That's not a really big deal. But for most of the last 2000 years, most Christians have defined Jesus as God, specifically the Son, both fully God (like the Father and the Holy Spirit) and fully human. It understates the case to call him just another Son of God. Maybe at least call him "the only begotten" Son of God. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

BC/AD versus BCE/CE

Another thing that always bugged me about this page was that we couldn't agree on whether to use BC/AD or BCE/CE as our year indicators. For years, we used both systems, which was ugly. I'm glad to see that this problem has been worked out, and I don't have any problem with using the Christian system. Christians are being pretty darn patient when they let us treat their God as a historical figure, so theirs is the format I recommended using. Is there a WP policy on how to use AD? Traditionally it comes first (e.g., AD 33). When we use AD second, is that Wikipedia's preferred, modern format? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The impression I get is that although first (AD 1987) is correct in the original Latin the perhaps technically incorrect usage "1987 AD" has become prevalent enough in English as to become the primary usage. In my view either is fine but we must be consistent. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. My father and my late wife were both English professors, and maybe that's why the less formal format looks wrong to me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this section POV or OR or both? or I guess possibly neither?

Is this article supposed to be written from a Christian viewpoint or from a neutral viewpoint? I think that the answer is "neutral." In that case, I'd like to call your attention to a section that looks like original research and Christian POV. Years ago when my wife was sick I edited this page a lot. In fact, I was one of the editors listed on the talk page as a go-to expert on the topic. (That might have been my earlier username, leadwind.) I bought a lot of good books on the topic and did a lot of research. I learned a lot, especially from fellow Wikipedians, and I made several additions to the page that stuck. It's a great topic, and I'm really happy with the high quality of the page, despite the emotions it sometimes raises. But there's one issue that's really nagged at me over the years, so here I am trying to uphold the highest standards of NPOV. Wish me luck.

There's a section that doesn't label itself as Christian but that describes Jesus the way Christians want him described. And the content of the section is based on citations to primary texts, not secondary or tertiary RSs as you could easily find on this rich, wonderful topic. I remember making this mistake myself and adding material that cited the Gospels. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to quote the New Testament in describing Jesus. Why not? The New Testament is sort of the reason that I know who Jesus even was. So the section of "Life and Teachings in the New Testament" seems like a natural. If we just paraphrase the New Testament, all cited to the New Testament itself, isn't that exactly the content that the title of the section promises?

Unfortunately, not according to Wikipedia, and I didn't understand this at first. If our reader sees a section on a different page called "Evolution of cetaceans," they expect to read content that summarizes what the best secondary and tertiary sources have to say about the how whales evolved. (Hint: it's cool.) What do you call it when editors gather primary sources together and present it without reference to RSs? That seems like original research. Are there any tertiary sources that treat the topic in this way? If you opened a book and saw a summary of the gospels cited to the gospels themselves, what sort of book would you expect it to be? A sectarian book. Who is it that says we should learn about Jesus from the New Testament? Christians. Who says you should learn about Jesus by reading summaries of the best secondary and tertiary sources? Wikipedia. So the format is OR driven by POV.

Years ago, the section didn't have the scholarly intro, explaining the synoptic gospels etc, and I'm one of the editors that helped establish that subsection. Maybe a scholarly introduction to each section is in order. For example, why are the Romans so nice in Luke? The Gospel of Luke isn't going to tell us that, but a reader might be curious to know why the crucifixion in Luke is painless instead of agonizing. For that sort of insight, you need RSs.

But that's not all. Another official stance of most Christians is that all the material in the New Testament about Jesus should be considered together as a coherent whole, and all of equal weight. This section follows the Christian playbook by conflating the gospels. No one but Christians does that. In fact, for almost 2000 years Christians have been working hard to make the New Testament hang together as a single narrative. There's a de facto policy of minimizing the differences between gospels, and that's exactly what this section does. Historians routinely talk about the three synoptic gospels together because they tell similar stories that are useful for learning about the historical Jesus. But no one takes the Gospel of John seriously, except Christians. It's too different from the other three, and it doesn't have the ring of truth to it. I'm fine with including what John says about Jesus because that's a big part of Christianity. You wouldn't have the trinity without John. But it should be described under its own subsection, not with the synoptics. And again it shouldn't be citations to John, it should be what the best scholars say that John says about Jesus (e.g., gave spectacular signs, didn't cast out demons, preached mostly near Jerusalem, etc.).

Finally, here's a relatively minor point, but one that again shows the Christian bias. The section is about Jesus' life, so it shouldn't include his resurrection. That's his afterlife, and it doesn't tell us anything about the historical Jesus. You might say that the resurrection is key to understanding Jesus, so OK, then maybe you can talk me into it so that we get everything in the four canonical gospels into the section. Even if it's after he's died, OK, if you think it's that important, let's include it. And then let's also include that before Jesus was born in a stable (Luke) or born in his father's house (Matthew), he was the eternal divine Word (John). Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, and the first thing we should know in the section about the New Testament and Jesus is that he is the firstborn of all creation, who was with God from the beginning. I can imagine why Christians don't want to put that first. It totally doesn't fit the Christmas story, which is a much better story. Also, it's a little odd that Jesus wasn't the Logos until about AD 90. I can see why there's reference to the resurrection (afterlife) but not the Logos (before life). But WP says we should be neutral. It's got to be about his natural life only or his entire supernatural life.

Finally, why isn't this section just "Jesus in the New Testament"? Why is it his life and teachings that we care about. Because he really was alive and really taught? OK, that's a great reason, but then take out the resurrection stuff. Or is it because the New Testament, resurrection included, did so much to define who Jesus was? Then why not the whole New Testament? I can see why Christians would want to keep out scholarly opinion on "Jesus in the New Testament," but maybe let's give the reader the whole story. Or stick with just the synoptics because they have historical value. But don't include John and Acts without including what Paul wrote about Jesus (e.g., that he was the holy spirit).

I know I've been gone a long time. This has been on my mind. Honestly, I think it's a pretty clear case, but I expect some pretty stiff resistance. I trust that this page is still civil. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't get away from referencing the gospels here, IMO, since even scholars recognize it is the main source of information, historial or otherwise, on Jesus. However, there may be sections where scholarly views can be expanded on. And there are undoubtedly other areas in which the article can be improved. But the above is a lot to go through between general concerns and what could be construed as proposals. I recommend you summarize it into some specific and pointed proposals for other editors to consider. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Airborne: "We can't get away from referencing the gospels here, IMO, since even scholars recognize it is the main source of information, historial or otherwise, on Jesus."
First, only the synoptics are a main source of historical information. If scholarly opinion is important to you, would you agree with scholars that we treat the synoptics together and John separately? Second, can you cite a WP policy that agrees with you? Is there a WP policy that says, "In such and such a case, go ahead and treat a topic the way that sectarians involved with the topic want it treated" or "just lean on primary sources and rely on editors to get it right"? I don't think such a policy exists. Lacking such a policy, we should instead follow the policies that actually exist. Shouldn't we follow WP policy, even for this article? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually looking through the citations, the only primary source I see cited is one Quran verse. The rest are from secondary sources that happen to be commenting on primary sources (which they have to do by definition of being secondary sources). Would you please point to the primary sources you act like half the article cites?
The section is clearly labelled "Life and teachings in the New Testament." Where does it say that anything in that section actually happened outside of the New Testament? Where does it tell the reader they have to regard the New Testament as anything more than the most popular legends from which most of the world knows of Jesus? Where does it say that Jesus's miracles or resurrection occur outside of the New Testament?
Given that about the only thing academia can agree on was that Jesus:
  • probably existed
  • frequently spoke about religion (and probably politics given their overlap in that day)
  • was baptized by someone we might as well call John the Baptist
  • was crucified by Roman soldiers under either orders of the Romans or the Pharisees with cooperation of the other group
--there's not a damn thing material to do a "life and teachings" section without relying on the New Testament so much that we have to just say from the get-go "this is just from the New Testament." Oh, wait, the article doesn't even do that: it cites secondary sources that discuss the New Testament and the most common interpretations of those works in academia. That is, the section is explaining those texts in the light of modern historical scholarship, rather preaching doctrine. When it doesn't do that, it treats the work as a story (notice that the section on the resurrection and ascension is mostly present tense instead of past tense).
You've more or less made a broad and unevidenced accusation that everyone who has worked on the article since you left it of pushing a fundamentalist Christian POV -- all based on your failure to read the section in context, your WP:OR opinions regarding the texts (particularly John), your utter failure to actually check a single Goddamn citation, an "all or nothing" attitude toward the New Testmant that would require academia to reject most primary sources written before the modern era (and even many of those for political reasons), and the paranoid assumption that only Christians would dare include the sources commenting on the earliest and most common texts about Jesus in the article about Jesus. How does that fit in with WP:AGF? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding discussing the Gospels, reliable sources tell us they are useful. Consider, for example some passages from Bart Ehrman in his latest book, How Jesus Became God.
  • Regarding discrepancies, embellishments, etc in the Gospels: "Does this mean that the Gospels are useless as historical sources? No, it means that we need to have rigorous historical methods to help us examine books that were written for one purpose."
  • "But even though they are the best sources available to us, they really are not as good as we might hope." (my italics)
So, my position that we cannot ignore the Gospels is supported by scholars, or at least one in this case. However, you appear to believe that we are saying different things; we are likely saying the same thing. And Ehrman chimes in with something similar: "The reason we need [secondary sources] is that the Gospels cannot simply be taken at face value as giving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did."
Thus, to answer one of your questions, my comment that we cannot ignore the Gospels follows WP:RS, although I agree we have to be careful to include what scholarly sources say and how they separate historicity from theology. And my suggestion that you make more pointed and focused specific recommendations remains. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, you folks are right. There's a lot less primary source citation than I remember. I'll drop that as a concern. What about conflating the gospels? What secular source merges John with the synoptics? More generally, this section gives the impression that the gospels tell one story, whereas historians say they tell at least two, maybe four. If you can't cite a secular source that treats the gospels this way, this section is POV. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the best way to go to determine that would be to consult one of the more recent articles in reference sources and see what it does. The Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, along with the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity, seem to me to be the most recent really well-regarded reference sources likely to deal with this topic, and I think following their lead, whatever it is, would probably be considered acceptable. Give me a few days and I'll respond with what I find there. John Carter (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi John. I remember your name from years back. I think yours is a fine suggestion. Can I add one? Encyclopedia Britannica is a highly-rated encyclopedia, and I'd like Wikipedia to have everything they have about Jesus. Our article is longer, so it should have everything they have and more. Of course, that's just my opinion, not WP policy. For simplicity, if I had to pick one thing that's most wrong with this section, it's that it uses exactly the four gospels that have been canonical since c 180. That's a Christian way of thinking about "the gospels." Historians refer to the synoptics, or if they are reaching broadly enough to look in John, then they'll look in Thomas, too. Thomas has more authentic words of the historical Jesus than John, so to include John but not Thomas looks a lot like POV to me. If this section changed to "Life and teachings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels," I'd be happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is a well-respected tertiary source that I like to use because it's scholarly and dense. It has a long article on Jesus Christ which we could use as a model. The ODCC capitalizes "Him" when referring to Jesus, so it's on the sectarian side, but it's scholarly. I would propose that our secular article on Jesus be no more sectarian than the Jesus Christ article in the ODCC. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Airborne you rightly say: "my position that we cannot ignore the Gospels is supported by scholars." I agree with you. The gospels are central to understanding both Jesus and how historians know anything about Jesus. If anything, I'd like us to say even more about the gospels than we already do. For example, I'd like to cite EP Sanders when he says that the "empty tomb" accounts don't seem like deliberate fraud. You're also right to cite Ehrman as a reliable expert on this topic. Let's put more of what Ehrman says into this section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not object on theological grounds (though that I personally have doubts about the uncanonicity of the Gospel of Thomas is not a reason for inclusion) and understand that Thomas is contemporary with the Gospel of John, but I do have to point out that the Gospel of Thomas features almost no biography: it is a collection of sayings and parables. It also barely features reactions to the sayings, except for a couple of points where the disciples react in confusion and Jesus has to explain things or otherwise derides them. Plus, even though while I personally do study Thomas for my own religious fulfillment, I have to acknowledge that it would be revisionist and POV to include Thomas in the New Testament when no known historical church does so. The section is on Jesus's life as detailed in the New Testament. As before, the article does not go "Ok, let's look only at John but not Thomas," it merely looks to the secondary and tertiary sources, which in turn choose to use John but not Thomas because that's where more biographical information (however legendary) is found. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Gospel of Thomas may provide some information. Churches (that I know of) have not and do not draw from it, but that is probably because they have a particular theological point of view and that Gospel doesn't always align with it. For example, Linda Woodhead notes in Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, that within it, "Jesus endorses the authority of women, rejects attempts to turn him into a figure of unique authority, instructs people that the truth is already within and around them, and encourages a view of the spiritual quest as an individual rather than a group enterprise.” Wikipedia does not follow any particular POV, so if scholars such as Woodhead and other reliable sources discuss this Gospel, it can be included. Airborne84 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ian, since the gospel of Thomas is full of teachings, it seems to fit in a section on scriptural accounts of his life and teaching. if you're saying that we should include biographical gospels even if they're legendary (like John), then there are a couple more gospels we could include, like the gospel of Peter. Those would round out our information on why he was baptized (even though he was sinless and didn't need to repent), why he was crucified (he wasn't, it was a trick), and what people saw at the empty tomb (like a giant talking cross). This material contradicts the synoptics, but so does John, and that's apparently OK. It's not clear, however, that adding legendary material helps our readers. Anyway, I'm curious to hear what you think of seeing how other tertiary sources handle the material, since you seem happy with the current arrangement. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has a paragraph on Mark, then one on Matthew and Luke, and then one on John. The paragraph on John points out its difference from the synoptics, such as Jesus not experiencing any human weakness (no baptism, no temptation, no Gethsemane, no agony). How about we follow that outline? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek name in lead

Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew possibly, Greek doubtfully. He lived under the Latin-speaking Roman Empire. Why is his name rendered in Greek in the first sentence, but not in other languages? I suggest leaving all foreign renderings to the Etymology section. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the earliest definite rendering of his name we have is the Greek version. This, not Latin, was the lingua franca in the eastern Empire (that's why the New Testament manuscripts are in Greek). We know his name in Aramaic/Hebrew was "Yeshua" but we don't know for sure what the original spelling of this was—it was probably ישוע in Hebrew, but not definitely—so it's left out. I hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

It lists Jesus as a "fictional character." Even if you are not a Christian, Jesus is not a fictional character. 128.164.114.254 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not, nowhere in the article does it say Jesus is fictional. Please read the article before making comments.Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus as a Judean rather than a Jew

Issue is ultimately about a single tendentious editor who is going to be blocked any time now has been indeffed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An editor has today changed several descriptions of Jesus as a Jew to read that he was a Judean. However, the source for this is a book by Benjamin H. Freedman, who is described as an anti-semite, and I feel there is a danger that he is describing Jesus as a non Jew to square up with his own anti semitic beliefs. Does anyone else feel that this at least might make him an unreliable source? Britmax (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this. Saying Jesus was not Jewish is nonsense. And Judaea and Galilee are two different places—saying somebody's a "Judaean from Galilee" is like saying someone's a Scotsman from Wales. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you were talking about myself, well when you talk about anti-semitism, I dont remember saying this to anyone. You are the first person to tell me this. The Roman Province actually was called Judea. I am not talking about today's Galilea and today's Judea. I will ask you not to make this references because you are this way spreading Anti-Semitism. In Wikipedia, we have to stop judging people's character or personal beliefs like you are doing but analyze scientifically what has been said. Let's Learn from Science and Reason and not by Emotion.In a democratic society, everyone is allowed to express his opinion thats why i let you express your Beliefs about Benjamin Freedman, he is "Jewish" by the way, because you are allowed to express your beliefs no matter how unpleasant that may be, if you are planning to stop someone from expressing himself, you are just acting as a Tyrant. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC) contribs) 21:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is the inference you draw from my question about your source, I suggest you read my question again, more carefully, and read our article about him. Britmax (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Judea was a very short term governmental entity whose citizens were overwhelmingly Jews. Jesus, by the information related to us by the sources, was a Jew. Jew is the standard description of people sharing this religio-cultural heritage. There is no reason not to describe him as a Jew. To describe his as a Judean, or citizen of Judea, is both less than helpful, because people on average are not familiar with the Judean government, and also rather clearly obfuscatory, as the evidence clearly indicates his status as an ethnic Jew. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I want you then to tell me what is the Religion of Judaism and Christianity, because according to you, there is a connection between the two, and in my opinion they are not related. Explain to me what is Judaism and its basic tenets.And so in your, professional opinion, his work has to be ignored because he is labeled an Antisemite? I dont agree with such logic unfortunately, and I see that you are biased against Mr. Freedman. And no, I think the article you people wrote is Very Antisemitic, because the man is "Jewish". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@LearnedElder: freedom of speech does not apply to Wikipedia, and we are not here to broadcast one's opinions, so don't try to dismiss as opinion that [[Freedman (who rejected Judaism) was a known antisemite is as confirmed a fact as him being an anticommunist (in his mind, they were the same thing); and don't claim to be on the side of reason when you cited an antisemitic conspiracy theorist as if he was a historian. The best case scenario for you citing him is that you had absolutely no idea what you were doing, in which case you should leave the article to people who do know what they're doing. If you did know what you were doing (hinted at since you tried to use Freedman's Jewish ancestry as a red herring), then you clearly saw nothing wrong with citing an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, which is highly problematic.
Your opinion that they are not related is rejected by mainstream academia, which is what we side with. You yourself have to keep putting "Jewish" in quote when referring to Freedman, because he was about as Jewish as Richard Dawkins is Christian. Your accusation of antisemitism for pointing out that Freedman (who again, was not a historian, but a conspiracy theorist) wrote antisemitic material and campaigned for antisemitic causes is an attack on others and will be used as evidence against you if we have to suggest to the admins that you need to be topic banned from articles relating to Jews and Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You are refusing to enter in a debate with about Judaism. I am ready to discuss the topic and cite quotes from famous historians on the content of that book, and we will compare the Talmud and the Bible (the word of God). And then we together will decide if Christianity has anything to do with Judaism. Thats my offer. Also, i dont appreciate when you say when most academia agrees, because you know very well that progress is accomplished by the minority and not by the masses. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, mainstream academia decides, Wikipedia merely summarizes their findings. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page is to improve this article, not to engage in debate. Rmhermen (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, in order to improve the article, the majority has to agree, thats the rules and so how do you want to improve something if there is no debate. I am not even allowed to change nothing of the article the majority of the writers on Wikipedia dont agree. I want to point out my facts and I am not let the chance to. If Jesus was really a Jewish rabbi, then lets analyze the content of the Talmud and see if it is in accordance with the Bible. I am ready to do that, the question is "Are You?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And I have submitted a request for admin attention to the username, which seems designed to refer to the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I strongly suspect that this editor is not here to build an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Again Mr. Thomson. You have not even let me the chance of pointing out my facts. Remember that. Your a fudging your own Rules. I obey the Rules. You break them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC) You have not even let me cite other professional scholars, I will give up on Mr. Freedman if he is labelled an Antisemite. I never even read your article about him before that. But you are not obeying the Rules and I deserve a better judgment than yours. I want a summary of your accusation against me because I want to talk to the admin also about your lack of respect towards wikipedia subscribers who are trying to provide for humanity but are silenced by people who lack morals and character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Which rules would those be? We cite mainstream academic sources, and do not give undue weight nor even false balance to fringe claims. We are not here to debate, nor promote your personal beliefs, nor present original research, nor even engage in general discussion about matters that are not going to be included in the article. If you are not here to cite mainstream academic sources, but here to "right" what you imagine are "great wrongs", you are not welcome here. All that blue text are links to site policies and guidelines supporting what I'm saying.
Your other actions on this site have made it clear that you have been blinded by antisemitic foolishness. I'm not going to even ask why we should listen to you, when it's clear that you have wasted whatever judgement you have and squandered whatever learning you could have had by wasting your time with hateful and ungodly lies.
As for accusations, if you'd bother to read, you'd see that there was a link on this page, and I left a message on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you dont even let me point out my sources, I will drop Freedman I tell you, you dont even let me explain myself but you keep ranting me with this rubbish of antisemitism that I dont want to discuss, I want to point out professionals scholars its ok if we drop Freedman, I never read that article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How have I stopped you from citing sources here? I've merely pointed out what kind of sources we accept for articles, and pointed out that we're not here to debate. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I will say one more thing. I know my case is lost, I understood in which hands my faith is. But I will say one last thing:Ye are of your Father, The Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets not forget: "Your Father", He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnedElder (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The image of Jesus

As everyone knows there is a lot of controversy around the image of Jesus. But It seems that one version always wins out, at a price. Jesus is loved by millions of non-White people around the world. The best solution and I do not think anyone could argue with this is to use this composite image in the lead as done here Historical Jesus. This is the best way to handle a plural world.--Inayity (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely it is more inclusive and more in line with the spirit of Christian doctrine to have one image representing everyone? Having different images seems to me to imply arbitrarily splitting up Christians based on what they look like. After all, according to Christianity "Christ is all, and in all" (Col 3:11) and the race isn't relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually see that "Christ is all, and in all" and race not being relevant as a reason to go ahead and have a composite image of the most common racial depictions of Jesus. It wouldn't have to be as small as the one at Historical Jesus and Race and appearance of Jesus, just four of the most diverse. Say, the Chinese, Ethiopian, European. All we need is a Native American Jesus (I'm seeing plenty in a Google image search, just need to find one that we can use and figure out how to upload it), and we'd have all the bases from Jesus Loves the Little Children covered. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with the change. It is in line with WP:WORLDVIEW, and having multiple notable depictions of Jesus' image is encyclopedic. I'd be fine now with the one from Historical Jesus. Not opposed to Ian.thomson's suggestion either, but would be interested in seeing the composite image. Airborne84 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been and widely remains the view amongst Bible loving Christians that images of Jesus are a profound and offensive violation of His commands, specifically the second commandment (Matt.5.17-20, Deut.5.8-9, Col.1.15). [8] Cpsoper (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good thing to take to the wiki for Christians by Christians. This one is by everyone for everyone. Compatibility with Christian doctrine is not one of our core values nor should it be.--Adam in MO Talk 01:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
So everyone who disagrees with you - i.e. 90+ % of Christians everywhere - is not a "Bible loving" Christian. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a conservative Christian, and I've never heard this claim before. Obviously, there is such a claim regarding Mohammad in the Islam faith, and there may indeed be some sects of Christianity that view images of Christ as offensive. But neither western Christianity, nor for that matter Judaism, hold that images of God or Christ are offensive - only those of any other god, or worship of a graven image as a substitute for God. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Christianity has been fine more often than not with depicting God (though there have been movements in most denominations that have complained at some point), but Judaism actually does get a bit touchy about the matter. Some Jews even self-censor the English word "God" to stay as far away from idolatry as possible. Still, Cpsoper's claim appears to be personal belief presented universal and objective claims regarding historical doctrines, ones that simply do not hold up to scrutiny. Is he spiritually right (or wrong)? That's not a matter for the talk pages. Is his claim applicable or relevant to policies and guidelines concerning article content? Not at all. I think the concensus is clear that we're not going to remove images representing Jesus, the issue is whether we're going with Jesus cracker on a Christ, an older image, this composite image, or a simpler composite image. We should probably hat this portion of the discussion, in fact, and get back to business. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
To play "devil's advocate": The historical image is indeed compatible with WP:WORLDVIEW, but the current image, though undoubtedly less accurate, is nevertheless more universally recognizable. Current Western and Eastern media, as well as historical media (Renaissance artists, medieval artists, and the like), all use an image like the current one. Significant exceptions include the Ethiopian church, and probably a few others. Keep in mind, additionally, that the "historical" image is nothing more than a reasonable guess - which is exactly what the current image was in the minds of those historical artists, though their guess was borne out of a desire to make Jesus look "more relatable" to patrons of the Roman and Greek Orthodoz churches - i.e., like a European.
Or, to put the argument a slightly different way: we simply don't know what he looked like, and while the historical image is probably closer to reality, the current image is more universal as it's closer to what's been used throughout antiquity in the majority of western and eastern cultures. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that "current image" was added to the article with no discussion [9], and was later edit-warred back in, replacing a longstanding, much more historically notable picture (this one), that had been there for years. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That IS interesting. For purely aesthetic reasons I'd prefer the one that was edit warred out. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
All of the majority-black churches I've visited depicted Jesus as black, or had mostly black depictions if they had any non-black ones as well. The store I used to work at also stocks roughly equal numbers of white and black nativity sets, and the town I live in is 40-45% black. This is in line with the common trend that Jesus is usually depicted as the local race, if not depicted as a Mediterranean Semite. My family actually has a black manger set, and if we were any more Scottish, and we'd still be in Scotland; though this was in part to see if my grandparents would react to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's try to get organized here. I'll lay out the various proposals and then we can argue in favor or against each one below. The proposal to remove all images entirely has already been voted down. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(1) Keep current image. Primary argument in favor is that it is a more universally recognized and accepted depiction of Christ, even if it is less historically accurate. (The "European edition Jesus" is the most widespread due to Roman Catholicism being the most widespread of all Christian sects.)
(2) Change to the earlier image that was removed during an edit war. Primary argument in favor is the same as (1).
(3) Change to a single image that is intended to portray scholars' best guess on what Jesus may have actually looked like. Primary argument in favor is historical relevance and accuracy.
(4) Change to a composite image such as this one. Primary argument in favor is that it can satisfy a variety of viewpoints. Exact composite to use TBD (to be determined) if this proposal wins.
I'm for the current image. The Good Shepherd is perhaps one of the most recognizable depictions of Jesus and appears already in the early Christian art. A composite image may better suit the Historical Jesus article and putting it here too would duplicate lead illustrations. Also, the current image is of higher quality, with 3,186×6,151 pixels. Brandmeistertalk 22:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear (to me anyway) that there is enough consensus to change now. Why not put the composite image in the article in the "Depictions" section? Perhaps that's a good middle ground. Airborne84 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Would that mean moving the one from the "Language, ethnicity, and appearance" section down, or having a different one? —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I looked through for a composite image and missed it. I'd still support a composite image in the lede, but until a consensus of editors concurs, I'm fine with that one in the main body. Airborne84 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer a single image that was closer to Jesus's likely appearance, but was still recognizable as the Jesus of popular conception. That is, a compromise between (1) and (3). If this is impossible either (1) or (2) would be better than a composite. Even though the misconceptions about Jesus's race are frustrating, our mission is to report information, not correct ignorance. -- LWG talk 18:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed passages

I removed the below passages from the "other views" section and am posting them here. Perhaps they can go in a different section. The "many" part will need some sourcing, of course. The issue regarding location has to do with WP:NPOV. Placing "rebuttals" at the end of sections can be seen as moving toward a POV or even an essay. This position should be sourced properly and listed in a section positing similar views, not offered to rebut a statement. Not to say that can never be done on Wikipedia, but this just seemed out of place to me in the section it was placed. It is also not clear to me that C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar are addressing Russell's points, so this could also be WP:OR. Feel free to weigh in. Airborne84 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Many have disputed Russell's opinion regarding Jesus' alleged vindictiveness, including C.S. Lewis, who thought the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside, and Hans Urs von Balthasar. [1]

References

  1. ^ Hans Urs von Balthasar «Hoffnung auf das Heil aller?». Dare we hope: "that all men be saved"? ; with, A short discourse on hell

As you acknowledge, rebutting an opinion can be done in Wikipedia. It seems highly inappropriate to have the only quoted statement in the article come from Russell, especially when that statement is patently false. Forgiving enemies was a central part of Jesus' message. I think Lewis and von Balthasar do address Russell's point about Hell - that the existence of Hell does not imply a vindictive God.Jimjilin (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Jimjilin. Removing the above statement unbalances the article. Furthermore Christian theologians over the centuries - more than just Lewis and von Balthasar - have adequately addressed this claim. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If are no other objections I'll repost the above mentioned passage.Jimjilin (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind in principle if the passages above are in the article, provided they are adequately sourced. They are not now. However, I do not believe that they belong in "other views" which is where the criticisms are stated. This is not a criticism or an "other view". It should be located in the article along with other similar thoughts.
I'm also a bit concerned by the comments above. We don't decide as editors in these situations which reliable sources are true and which are false. And the fact that various theologians disagree does not cancel out Russell's position on Wikipedia, nor would that invalidate it or falsify it (putting aside whether it is actually valid). Multiple positions and ideas, even conflicting, can appear in the same article. Claims about the falsity of Russell's statements should should be saved for other platforms on the web. And removing the passages does not unbalance the article. It achieved Featured Article status before they were added.
Finally, as we discuss reinstating the passages—in any part of the article—please address my concern that (1) it is not adequately sourced, specifically the claim about "many", (2) that it appears to violate WP:SYNTH (if the two authors were not addressing Russell's point specifically (and it is not clear that they are), then the ideas cannot be linked), and (3) that it appears to present a POV in the main article by "rebutting" any stated criticism of Jesus. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too worried about the comments above. The point is that Russell's opinion on the matter clearly fits under WP:FRINGE given that the vast majority of theologians, scholars and historians share the opposing viewpoint. While his viewpoint doesn't need to be eliminated entirely from the article it should not be given great prominence, especially by removing a paired rebuttal from statements of his opinion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your challenges: (1) I will leave to those more well-versed than I. But Russell's opinion is a challenge to the core teachings of Christianity, and so I am absolutely certain there are hundreds if not thousands of cites that deal directly with Russell's viewpoint, even if they don't directly cite Russell himself. (2) I would disagree with your statement that "it is not clear that they are". It seems abundantly clear to me, negating any concern of WP:SYNTH. (3) Letting Russell's opinion stand without rebuttal would appear to present a POV as well - and a minority one at that. Besides, I don't think it would be ethical to state Russell's opinion without also stating responses to Russell's opinion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the Russell quote as well? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If the concern is simply that it is Russell alone making the statement, and that it could be a fringe view, that can be remedied easily enough. There is plenty of existing literature by commentators on the same topic. The idea can be sourced by other authors as well. And I don't think historians and scholars much discuss Jesus's vindictive character or lack of it. Theologians do, of course. But it should be clear why.
If there are sources directly addressing Russell's position, then they should be used, not the ones listed. That would alleviate the WP:SYNTH issue. However, they should still be listed in a section with like ideas, not in the section called "other views".
Finally, I don't agree that it reduces a POV position to rebut a critical statement like this. Please read through the article and see what other critical statements exist. There is one short paragraph, of which Russell's idea is part, and a few sentences in an above section on Jewish views. So, about 99 percent of the article is neutral or has unrebutted statements like "John's Gospel presents the teachings of Jesus not merely as his own preaching, but as divine revelation" or multiple discussions of the miracles he performed. Certainly many have disagreed that Jesus's teachings are divine revelation, including likely the entire non-Christian world throughout history. And none of the latter statements about miracles have accompanying rebuttals from commentators who addressed other possibilities. Yet, you're suggesting that if a very few critical passages exist within the article without a rebuttal showing their "falsity", then the article is POV? I strongly disagree with this idea. I truly would not be interested in suggesting we sprinkle in "rebuttals" from WP:RS commentators disagreeing with many of the unchallenged Gospel and theological positions in the article. Yet, it would be consistent with your suggestion that a critical statement for which opposing ideas exist should be rebutted. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That's well put, Airborne84 and I agree with it. --Rbreen (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstood me on the POV discussion. My point was, and still is, that whether Russell's criticism is presented without a rebuttal, or with a rebuttal, the article is still presenting a specific POV. There is no point in arguing to the contrary as it is a truism, and any argument regarding POV here is not helpful. As for your other comments on POV - you're welcome to start inserting rebuttals to the claims of miracles, divinity, etc., but you would also need to insert rebuttals to those rebuttals ... and to those ... and to those ... Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Your latter point is exactly why we should avoid putting in "rebuttals". And yes, Russell's quote presents a particular POV. I doubt there's disagreement there. The Gospels in the article present another POV. Peter and others present other POVs. It's OK to present POV statements in the article as long as the article adheres to the guidelines in WP:NPOV. Since the article is a featured article, a consensus of editors thought that it met Featured Article criterion 1d. If you are arguing that the entire article is POV, you will have to describe the problem beyond one quote in the article, IMO. Airborne84 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see that someone had reinstated the "rebuttal". Whoever it was, please review WP:BRD. Until a consensus is established to insert the passages in the article, the version without them has consensus. Airborne84 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad we agree on the point regarding rebuttals :) I think we're getting a little off-track here. To summarize: I don't find a POV argument particularly helpful in deciding Russell's position in the article. I am also not advocating for his complete omission. Rather, I am advocating that if he is included, his critics ought also be included. That would be sufficient, for one who wishes to delve further into the discussion, to browse the back-and-forth rebuttal arguments that have inevitably occurred. Something as simple as "Russell argues for abc; others have responded xyz" is fine. That is no different than what I would expect Wikipedia to do to air minority arguments on other, less emotionally and religiously charged, topics. As for whether he goes under "Other Views" or elsewhere...I have no opinion on that.
Oh, and full disclosure (which I should have mentioned from the start): as a conservative Christian I do have a conflict of interest in this discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I understand your position. At this point we are simply rehashing. To add the rebuttal, you'll need to properly source the "many" wording, remove the editorializing "alleged", provide passages that clearly and directly address Russell's specific points and, most importantly, build a consensus for the change.
Your personal beliefs don't matter here at Wikipedia. We all follow the same Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It'd be quite easy to argue that the very materials Russell uses to support his position actually contradict him, but that would be original research and so disallowed. I will therefore leave it to those better versed in others' research to do so. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jimjilin, please review WP:BRD as your restoration of the passages violates it, and does not address the other concerns that I noted. The second addition appears to be edit warring and I left you a note on your talk page about this. As the previous version had consensus, you need to build a new consensus to add the passages. Simply re-adding passages that have been noted to have multiple issues and do not have a consensus behind them is not the best way to get results here at Wikipedia. Airborne84 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't really addressed it before because my primary issue with the passages in question is that they should not be juxtaposed with Russell's. I assume that likewise it would not be acceptable to list the C.S. Lewis and Balthasar passages in another section followed by Russell's as a "rebuttal". However, since Jimjilin appears to be willing to stride boldly toward the 3RR rule regarding the link between these passages and Russell's, I'll address it to potentially keep Jimjilin from getting blocked for this.
The passages imply (at least to me) that C.S. Lewis and Balthasar allow that hell might not equate to everlasting punishment. This implies a lack of vindictiveness on their part. It has no implications for Jesus. Russell is stating his belief, ostensibly based on his reading of scripture, that Jesus believed in everlasting punishment. He also asserts "a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching", which is different again from the idea of hell being or not being everlasting punishment. If C.S. Lewis said that Jesus thought that "the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside", this would establish a link to part of what Russell is asserting (but not the reaction to his preaching). But the passage says only that CS Lewis thought that. This article is not about C.S. Lewis or Balthasar's views.
Having said that, I will reiterate that, even with a clear link (which there is not), it is not appropriate to rebut statements here in the manner of an essay.
As a final note for Jimjilin, it might be useful to think about what precedent that this rebuttal statement would set in a controversial article. It would not be something I would do, but this would open the door for others to go through the article and list opposing positions from reliable sources to many of the scriptural positions on miracles, divinity, etc. And as Jtrevor99 noted, editors may then want to list rebuttals to the rebuttals and where do they stop? It just seems like a bad idea. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Russell is stating his belief, ostensibly based on his reading of scripture, that Jesus was vindictive. C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar and others have stated their position, clearly based on their reading of scripture, that Jesus was not vindictive. The book I linked to goes into detail discussing Jesus' statements to support von Balthasar's position. Don't you like balance?Jimjilin (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why not list the C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar passages in a section not called "other views" which contains criticism? I don't think you will get much support for using C.S. Lewis as a reliable source here; but, if not, I'm sure you can find a reliable source that opposes Russell's position. The point is that competing views by reliable sources can exist in the same article. But we as editors don't, in matters of opinion, choose which is "correct" and which is "false".
Again we're just covering the same ground here. But there is room for compromise. Since you seem to want these ideas juxtaposed, would you be OK listing the C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar passages in another section and listing the Russell position immediately afterward in a rebuttal manner? Airborne84 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine.Jimjilin (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All right. Please provide the exact wording from von Balthasar that provides the link to Jesus' position on hell (as opposed to von Balthasar simply making a statement about hell that requires someone to make a connection), I'll draft the proposed passages and a proposal for where to place them and we'll request additional input from other editors. And to be fair, I will recommend that the "rebuttal" from Russell be paraphrased/shortened afterward to only capture his key points. I open this as an option for further comment by other editors. Airborne84 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be less objectionable (to me at least) to also use C.S. Lewis's quote in another section on Jesus' views. For example, this discussion has come up before in archive 62 where an editor opined that C.S. Lewis "was clearly a Christian and speaking as such and to put his views in a section meant to represent non-Christian views does not add neutrality, it violates it." The other editor was talking about the "other views" section we are discussing here. However, as a Christian, C.S. Lewis's quote could go in another section as we are discussing here. However, please provide the specific words that C.S. Lewis is using where he attributes wording about hell to Jesus. Then I think it will be more acceptable in a Featured Article. What other editors think is to be determined. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Two quotes from Hans Urs von Balthasar, who thought Jesus was anything but vindictive.

Von Balthasar pointed out that Jesus “judges, however, only insofar as anyone who persists in darkness does not himself want to come into the light, and thereby, in view of God’s proclaimed word of love, judges himself." Dare We Hope: "that All Men be Saved"? ; With, A Short Discourse on Hell p. 42.

Hans Urs von Balthasar approvingly quoted 1 Timothy: God our Savior, desires all men people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all. Dare We Hope: "that All Men be Saved"? ; With, A Short Discourse on Hell p. 35.Jimjilin (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In The Problem of Pain C.S. Lewis said, "The doors of Hell are locked on the inside." Lewis was clearly giving his opinion of Jesus' teachings.Jimjilin (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I shall now await Airborne84's descent from his snow-covered peak after his high conference with other great and powerful Editors. lol Just kidding.Jimjilin (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the passages above. Please provide the full citations as this is a featured article and incomplete citations are not fitting. When I have those I can craft a proposal although it may take me a day or two.
Please don't comment on other editors; focus on the material instead. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs (1988) Dare We Hope: "That All Men be Saved"? Ignatius Press p. 42

Von Balthasar, Hans Urs (1988) Dare We Hope: "That All Men be Saved"? Ignatius Press p. 35Jimjilin (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lewis, C.S. (2001) The Problem of Pain Harper San Francisco p. 130Jimjilin (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to have the ISBNs, if available. However, that should be enough for now. I'll put a proposal together tomorrow for you and other editors to consider. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I mulled this over for a bit and decided to try a different approach which I hope will be acceptable to editors here. After a bit of research, there are quite a few options on how to handle this. However, as laying all these out is not how I prefer to spend my Christmas (Merry Christmas by the way), I decided to tackle the problem as I think has been communicated—concern that the Russell quote is too prominent in the article—by simply paraphrasing the quote.
It is possible to list the positions that Jimjilin's sources note in the "Christian views" section along with Russell's words. However, these positions (that there might be a way out of hell) are also contradicted by Christian sources. I listed a few below, but these are only a smattering of what is available.
  • Michael Allen Rogers (Doctor of Ministry, Westminster Theological Seminary) wrote here that “One foundational principle Jesus taught in the lesson of the rich man and Lazarus was that hell has no exit door.”
    Russell Moore, “president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention” states in an article called "Why is Hell Forever?" that “[T]he Scripture is quite clear that hell is indeed everlasting. Jesus leaves the psychic burden intact.” Interestingly, Moore points to C.S. Lewis’s words to emphasize that there is no departing from hell for the sinners: “They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what [God] does.”
    Matt Slick, apparently the president of CARM, writes in a CARM article called “Is Hell Eternal?” that “Eternal fire is real. Jesus said it was.”
    Seattle Pastor Mark Driscoll is quoted in a Christian Post article as saying: “Regarding a second chance after death, Driscoll stated plainly that there is no second chance. ‘Your eternal destiny is sealed upon your death. This life is your only opportunity.'”
    This website proposes to collect the thoughts of famous Christian commentators through history. It paints a rather bleak picture for someone arguing that hell may not be eternal, although I have not checked whether the quotes are properly attributed or not.
Given the above, it would certainly be encyclopedic to note the two opposing Christian views on this in the section called "Christian views". However, that need not necessarily involve the Russell quote (although it could). Yet, Russell also pointed to a separate issue regarding the reaction to Jesus' preaching, not related to Hell, which would not fit well in such a discussion.
So, I decided to simply reduce the prominence of the Russell quote. Perhaps that is acceptable to the other editors here. The question of whether to create a new paragraph in the "Christian views" section can then be left to someone who may wish to assemble it, if desired. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought this matter was settled. That some disagree with Lewis and von Balthasar is not the point. And I don't think you'll find any Christian thinkers who conceive of Jesus as vindictive. I'd like to add: Some have disputed Russell's opinion regarding Jesus' alleged vindictiveness.[1][2][3] Short and to the point and not out of place in that section. Russell is expressing an extremely controversial opinion and it would serve Wikipedia users if alternate views were mentioned. Just asking for balance. If you'd like to include a link to a more conservative Christian group that doesn't think Jesus was vindictive, that would be fine too. Something like this: http://www.explorefaith.org/punishment.html Jimjilin (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Von Balthasar, Hans Urs (1988) Dare We Hope: "That All Men be Saved"? Ignatius Press pp. 29-46
  2. ^ Lewis, C.S. (2001) The Problem of Pain Harper San Francisco p. 130
  3. ^ http://lovewins.us/709/709/
All right. We disagree at this point. A Christian point of view is, to me, out of place in the "Other [non-Christian] views" section. Please work to (1) establish a clear consensus to put a Christian point of view rebuttal after Russell's quote in the "Other views" section, or (2) start a new thread and establish a consensus to delete Russell's position if that's what you'd like to do. I oppose the first because it introduces POV. Perhaps you can establish a clear consensus for it with some additional input from editors though. Airborne84 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
On reflection, since I did say I would present the reverse possibility, listing the Christian point of view followed by the position Russell supports, I will do so, in concept at least. It could be a new paragraph in the "Christian views" section in a manner after the following:

Whether Jesus believed hell equated to everlasting punishment is a matter of some dispute. Various Christian commentators, such as C.S. Lewis and von Balthasar believe that Jesus thought hell was not everlasting punishment. Other Christian sources [such as the ones I noted] state that Jesus was clear in the Gospels that there is no escape from the punishment of eternal hell. Bertrand Russell called Jesus’ belief, as portrayed in the Gospels, as vindictive and a defect in his moral character, opining that no one who is "really profoundly humane can believe in" hell. This position is echoed by atheist author Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens stated a similar sentiment in his book God is Not Great. Probably no one has noted detailed positions by Hitchens in this article because he did not have qualifications as a historian. However, if we are to use C.S. Lewis's position as a Christian in this type of discussion, it would seem that Hitchens' position as a notable atheist could be included.
Please note that the statements do not refer to each other. I.e., the latter statements do not refer to the earlier ones in a manner that suggests they invalidate them (introducing POV). This provides the balance you feel is needed without presenting the impression that one opinion is "false".
Russell's position on Jesus' reaction to his preaching is a separate matter.
Finally, if you feel that this is an improvement, it will still require other editors to approve, as it lists non-Christian ideas in the "Christian views" section. I don't think that is an improvement; but, if you insist the ideas must be juxtaposed, and don't mind the Russell position following the others, then feel free to present the above as a proposed edit to the article (with sources, of course). Airborne84 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus theories

Wondering if any of the accounts presented in this article are appropriate for this page or some other page about Jesus and theories that depart from the religious accounts? http://www.alternet.org/belief/not-so-virgin-birth-why-stories-jesus-became-more-magical-over-time 24.5.69.164 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

It states that Jesus is a fictional character under his name .I would like to see it changed to "Historical figure" 49.224.74.77 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read the notes above explaining that this is Facebook's error and nothing to do with Wikipedia. Britmax (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus is a major prophet of Islam

why has that information not been put into this article with a reference to the pages in islam with a link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_and_messengers_in_Islam.

After "and is also the Son of God." add "Jesus is also a major prophet and messeger of Islam".

Right now it looks like this page hi-jacks the consept of Jesus for christians and not acknowledge that he is a major part of Islam ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.212.210 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the lede addresses this in detail. -- LWG talk 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the article already states this (several times in fact). Besides, the article is not "hi-jacked" for Christians; if it seems to have a primarily Christian slant that's because of Christ's importance in Christianity. All faiths and historical viewpoints are (should be) represented. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Please, out of respect to Christians, at least change Jesus from a "Fictional Character" to an "Historical Figure". Thank you.

168.215.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: I can't find the word "fiction" used anywhere on the page. If you want a change made, you will have to be more specific. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
As we wouldn't do it solely "out of respect for Christians" it's just as well that this was Facebook's issue not ours. Britmax (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to bait him or anyone else. A jaded reader could misinterpret your comment as "we will be disrespectful of Christians on Wikipedia if it suits us". That is incompatible with Wikipedia's policy to be respectful of all cultures and traditions. Clearly, that is not what you intended, but I would urge caution. Regardless, it amazes me that Facebook has not made the correction after tens of thousands of complaints. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, which policy to be respectful of all cultures and traditions? Britmax is right, we certainly would not change it just out of respect for Christians. Regardless of one's beliefs, articles are not changed solely for the purpose of being respectful to religions. Only if the content is referenced and reliable is it added. See WP:NOTCENSORED. JZCL 18:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to WP:NPOV, specifically WP:RNPOV and WP:OUTRAGE. Do you interpret these policies differently? And I'm not questioning whether Britmax is right; I'm questioning how it was stated. I thought I made that clear; I apologize if I didn't. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Trevor, please be more specific. Are you saying that the article should acknowledge that jesus did magic, "out of respect for christians"? You are the one being outrageous. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in christian apologetics, let's keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. Your outrage is misplaced, out of date by at least a month, and does not even fit into the conversation. You clearly misunderstood the above. Never did I state or try to defend that "Jesus did magic" or anything silly like that - in fact, that was never even part of the discussion. Instead I merely pointed out the unfortunate phrasing "we wouldn't do it solely out of respect for Christians", even if that is official Wikipedia policy, as such phrasing has baited people in the past and led them to jump to erroneous conclusions. Much as you just did. Next time, please ensure you understand the conversation and its context before you attempt to rehash something that concluded over a month ago with attacks that are completely unrelated to that discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible explanations for revelatory driven experiences

Would add a perspective from a respected, peer reviewed journal under Other Views: "A 2012 paper in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences suggested that psychiatric conditions associated with psychotic spectrum symptoms may be possible explanations for revelatory driven experiences and activities such as those of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Paul the Apostle."[1]

References

  1. ^ Murray, Evan D.; Cunningham, Miles G.; Price, Bruce H. (September 2012). "The role of psychotic disorders in religious history considered". The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 24 (4): 410–426. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214. PMID 23224447.


This is not a new idea and was offered by Jesus' own family to explain his behavior. The article is not a criticism of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.1 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of claims about Jesus, but I've certainly never heard this one before. As a result, I highly suspect it is a fringe concept, in which case, it does not merit inclusion at all, regardless of who wrote about it or in what it was published.Farsight001 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have heard the suggestion before (for the figures listed, as well as Muhammad), but this is the first from something that would otherwise qualify as an RS (however, the source is not reliable for historical topics). It still merits far less due weight than the Christ Myth Theory. A book dedicating at least a whole chapter to surveying various authors covering the view, sure we'd include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim first appears in Mark 3:21 when Jesus' family sought to take him to protect him. Mainstream religion might prefer to limit public encyclopedia articles to what they are comfortable with(from a religious perspective) but this doesn't criticize Christ would constitute other views. The above article appears to have been reviewed by a Harvard Master of Divinity grad(he can be looked up). Many books purporting to write history are not peer reviewed and are still used as references. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.26.138 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bible verse would be original research, which we don't use. Please actually present evidence of religious censorship or don't imply that that's the reason why the material isn't included (see WP:Assume good faith). Wikipedia doesn't just use random "books purporting to write history," but those from academic publishers or by accredited experts in a given field, in addition to peer-reviewed works. Please actually name the Harvard MDiv, and where his review was published. If it wasn't published, we don't care. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize for my unfair presumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.26.138 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The Bible verse is from the published article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.26.138 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the bible verse is from the bible. The published article is too fringe to merit inclusion, as said above, and your interpretation of the bible verse, which others certainly don't agree with, is considered original research, which we also can't include. If/when the idea becomes more popular in academia, try again. Until then, there's really nothing we can do.Farsight001 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all a "fringe" theory to state that people that believe they have received religious visitations are generally mentally ill. Even if one believes that some particular person was genuinely visited by supernatural beings, that presupposes that most of the other people making similar claims are either ill or committing fraud.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
And yet a fringe idea is exactly what it is because supporters of the claim are almost nonexistent in academia, especially in regards to Jesus.Farsight001 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The only figure in the source whose own thoughts we have direct access to is Paul. The rest we don't even have contemporary accounts of actions for. Even taking the very conservative assumption that the Gospels were written by the disciples after Jesus lived, that's a degree of separation that makes post hoc attempts at diagnosis questionable. Since there was certainly more separation than that (the Gospels being written throughout the latter half of the 1st century, by first, second, or even third generation followers of the apostles, with at least literary outside influence), there's little to draw conclusions about Jesus's mental state from. It's still possible with inductive reasoning to say that some parts of the New Testament could have happened (apocalyptic but ascetic rabbi? proclaimed Teacher of Righteousness? messiah claimant? executed for their teachings? people called Yeshu or Yeshua? all present), or under what contexts certain things could have been said (whole point of the Jesus Seminar), but Jesus's personal thoughts are too far removed to be examined from a narrow perspective than history, philosophy, or sociology. But to attempt to derive Jesus's personality from the New Testament is like trying to determine Richard III's personality from the Shakespeare play (a mistake).
If a source tried to diagnose Siddhartha Gautama (likely historical, but only documented well after the fact) and Krishna (probably legendary), would this discussion have even happened? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Your statement regarding Richard III is a fallacy. Shakespeare and his contemporaries understood the play Richard III was not a fully accurate portrayal, but rather a dramatic portrayal of it. It was written by a known dramatist, playwright and poet with 110 years of separation, and nothing other than historical accounts to go off of. The gospels, on the other hand, were intended (whether they were successful or not) to accurately record and report Jesus' life and interactions with those around him. They were written either by direct contemporaries (as is purported by tradition, and for which there is a significant amount of evidence) or by those with only one or two degrees of separation, which means the time gap is between zero and 35 years. Furthermore those who believed Jesus to be a significant religious figure, and considered lying, misdirection and omission to be sin, would put far greater importance on recording teachings and happenings accurately than would a poet, particularly in an age where people were being tortured and killed for said religious figure. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There are all kinds of policies that one can use to argue that the material shouldn't be included, but WP:FRINGE shouldn't be among them. The existence of ecstatic seizures is generally recognized, and the theory that they are the source of some religious revelations is quite maintstream: http://www.epilepsybehavior.com/article/S1525-5050%2803%2900276-2/abstract?cc=y and http://www.epilepsybehavior.com/article/S1525-5050%2806%2900179-X/abstract are just two examples. The research we are discussing here is only tangentially related to the specific topic of "Jesus", however, as the base theory can't reasonably be held to have been proven in relation to one particular figure but not to another. If, out of politeness, we assume that at least one genuine religious experience has occurred, there's no way for this theory to apply specifically to Jesus.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet we must apply some modicum of WP:FRINGE in order to maintain coherence and not overwhelm the article. I generally would agree with inclusion of this theory, even if I believe it to be patently false in Jesus' case, for the aforementioned reasons of prominence and because the theory is presented in the Bible itself. However, that does not mean that all "less mainstream" theories ought be presented...I'd rather not, for example, start a section regarding the theory that Jesus was a space alien and God the mothership, for example. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have not really favored either side of this issue enough to assert one in particular. But the space alien and mothership example is (presumably) not comparable to a peer-reviewed article in a journal such as the one in question. The argument to not include may yet hold on its own merits, but it should not hinge on this.
There is rationale to not include every bit of information available about a subject in a Featured Article which must summarize all notable views. Ideally, this material would fit in another article on Wikipedia if it is new and emerging through reliable sources but hasn't yet received really significant coverage. But if there is no good fit elsewhere, there are compromises available, such as including the material in a footnote until it receives more coverage—if it does. Airborne84 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't include it unless other tertiary sources tend to include it. I don't think Britannica mentions it, for example. For an article like this, let's stick to the sorts of things that textbooks and encyclopedias cover. Also, papers like this don't always get their history right, and I don't think this one does. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of mainstream sources that speak of ecstatic seizures. Its well known and well established. However, what is fringe is the idea that JESUS had ecstatic seizures. We can't just talk about the seizures for the heck of it here because that's completely off topic. And we can't reasonably claim that Jesus had them because that concept is very fringe. There's just no reason for inclusion.Farsight001 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be called "Jesus Christ"

Is there a reason why it isn't? I couldn't find anything in the talk page archives about proposed moves. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Christ" is not a name, but a title, and a title that is only appropriate for Christians. Per WP:NPOV, we don't elevate that particular religious perspective over others (just like we don't write Muhammad PBUH). And as I just found out, this is even covered in the FAQ ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not Jesus Christ as Stephan already wrote and explained very well. His name was Jesus (well, the Greek form of his name is Jesus) while Christ is a matter of faith, not neutral facts.Jeppiz (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Christ" is, as Stephan and Jeppiz have said above, a title rather than a name—specifically the Greek-cognate version of the Hebrew "Messiah". Not everybody recognises Jesus as Christ, therefore putting it in the article title would be POV. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Besides, everyone knows that his family name was Hong. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Horus Hong, to be precise. Apparently that's what the "H" in Jesus H. Christ stands for. Wdford (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you not see the big banner at the top urging you to read the FAQ before commenting here? The very first FAQ explains the answer to your question. And how carefully did you check the archives? I can remember at least 2 dozen requests (or at least mentions of the change) while I've been around. JZCL 18:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Some Other Opinion

WP:NOTFORUM Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Great way to hide the bias here. The article says that virtually all scholars of antiquity believe he existed. I understand that the majority believe that, but that is not the same as saying virtually. Then the article talks about the Jesus Myth theory, but only gives a slight bit of the argument for theory, before giving comments from Christian scholars about how. The Tacitus thing doesn't do much to prove his existence. That came in the year 116, which was over 80 years after his supposed death, and Tacitus is not a contemporary of Christ. There were no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. Here we have Josephus, an unconverted Jew, saying that Jesus was the Messiah. Josephus was not a Christian, and mentioned Vespasian as the Messiah. A quote from Louis Feldman is used to support the validity of Josephus writing about Jesus in book 20, which would lead some to believe that book 20 refers to the more famous text, which it does not. Josephus also could not have been an eyewitness to Jesus. It is likely that the belief that Josephus mentioned James as being the brother is Jesus, is likely based on a Christian interpolation. The mentioning most likely is about James, the brother of Jesus ben Damneus. That could be at least worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:2C80:A:341A:F84D:AE40:5C7D (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Its called due weight. Since the Jesus-myth theory has about as much credibility as Intelligent Design, we give it about as much focus here as we give Intelligent Design in the evolution article. Technically, the mere mention of the Jesus myth theory is bias in its favor because its such a fringe idea.Farsight001 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As much credibility of intelligent design? That's not close to the truth. It's a fringe idea, but so are a lot of other things. The fact is there were several notable historians in ancient Palestine at the time Jesus was supposed to have existed. None of them mention him. All the accounts of him come from sources well after his death. Remember this is a person who if you go by the bible, did many incredible things, and even if you take out the magic, he still caused quite a stir. Yet he is not mentioned by any contemporary historians. The earliest gospel came after 70AD. Josephus supposed mentioning of him comes from the year 93. Tacitus text from 116. According to your article he died somewhere from 30-33 AD. Paul's writings, which still aren't contemporary eyewitness accounts, are more of the gnostic variety. Even the name itself is not likely to have been the name given to him at that time in Israel. Josephus is talking about Jesus the son of Damneus. That person even becomes the high priest after the death of James http://stephenblogs.com/2013/03/22/the-misuse-of-james-the-brother-of-jesus-in-christian-apologetics-part-2/. To try to reduce the idea that he didn't exist, to having the same credibility as intelligent design seems in itself to be bias. There seems to be this idea of verifying his existence by using Christian scholars. Talk about bias. In their minds, their eternal life rides on this. He wrote no books. They have not found physical evidence of his existence. We don't know of him leaving behind any descendants. We don't know what he looked like. While that does not mean that he didn't exist. When you add that with the lack of contemporary accounts, we have an argument that makes a lot more sense than the biblical Jesus story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:2C80:A:341A:F84D:AE40:5C7D (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream academic sources are what determines the article. You need to cite books from academic publishers. Personal arguments do not matter. Wikipedia is also not a general discussion forum, nor a pulpit to preach from. If you are not here to cite books from mainstream academic publishers (without elaboration, interpretation, or addition), then please find something better to do.
But as to your claims that Christians can only believe Jesus was a historical figure, Tom Harpur, is both a Christian priest and a Christ Myth Theorist. To claim that Christian academics cannot truthfully examine the issue of Jesus's historicity ignores the possibility of their adoption of Docetism (as Harpur has), and is about as reasonable and opinionated as it would be to claim that CMTers are inherently biased against any possibility of Jesus's existence out of contrarian opposition to Christianity and an evangelical desire to convert people from it. Both are gross oversimplications that fail to properly address the issues. And on Wikipedia, the issue is simply "What do the mainstream academic sources say?" Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikipedia summarizes non-primary mainstream academic sources without addition, elaboration, or interpretation (or other forms of original research). Opinions posted on the talk page do not matter. The source cited supports the "virtually all" phrasing. If we bring in what CMT works do qualify as mainstream academia, such as Richard Carrier or Robert M. Price, "virtually all" still stands. Despite the echo chamber that CMTers like to create for themselves, very few of them are involved in mainstream academia (or are involved in much the same way young earth creationists are involved in mainstream science -- trying to refocus the issue on their terms instead of answering mainstream academia's concerns with their positions). Carrier and Price, who are mainstream academics despite their views, admit that almost no one in mainstream academia supports the CMT. So while ("everyone" - "a minority" = "a majority"), ("everyone" - "almost no one" = "virtually all"). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about the popularity of the argument. Creationism is much more popular than the Christ Myth Theory. I'm talking about the sensibility of it. A lot of smart people believe stupid things, because it makes them feel better. The fact that most of "mainstream academia" believes he existed doesn't mean a ton to me. I feel that academics are more likely to question Jesus' existence than the average person. So it's not like intelligence correlates with the belief that Christ existed. This goes beyond who is in the majority, but goes to the dismissal of the argument against his existence in the article, as well as the weak evidence that is used in the article to back up his existence. If you are going to suggest that CMT makes as much sense as 'intelligent design in the evolution debate' you might want to provide better evidence. Evolution has plenty evidence. The existence of Jesus Christ? Not so much. I wouldn't had less of a problem is the idea of Jesus not existing wasn't even mentioned in the article. It's the suggestion from the article, and from the comment that the idea does not make sense. You really want to prove he existed, then you are welcomed to bring up all the good evidence you want to. Maybe some contemporary account would be good. At least one. Until then, I don't got time for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:2C80:A:341A:F84D:AE40:5C7D (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream academic sources. Are you going to cite them? Your opinions on those sources are not what Wikipedia is based on. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at some of your "Mainstream academic sources"

Bart D. Ehrman-Christian scholar Ed P. Sanders-Christian scholar Crossan & Watts-Crossan is a Christian scholar,and Watts is a pastor James D.G. Dunn-New Testament Scholar. Professor of Divinity at Uninversity of Durham Craig A Evans-New Testament Scholar. Professor at Acadia Divinity College John R. Donahue-Associate Professor of New Testament. Unless I got the wrong person http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/donahue.asp Robert Thomas France-New Testament scholar, who was an Anglican cleric. Graham Stanton-New Testament scholar Jonathan L. Reed-Professor of Religion Amy-Jill Levine-Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles-Kostenberger is a Senior professor of New Testament, and Biblical Theology. Kellum is a professor of New Testament, and Greek. Quarles is a Professor of New Testament and Biblicial Theology. All of them work at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Thomas P. Rausch-Professor of Catholic Theology Gerd Theissen, Annette Merz- Both are Protestant Theologians, Thissen is listed as a New Testament scholar, and Merz listed as a biblical scholar. Graham H. Twelftree-Biblical scholar James Barr-Old Testament scholar Florence Gillman-Professor of Theology and Religious Studies

My head hurts... That's all the sources that I looked up. You should know your sources, and know that I am not lying. I get it! The vast majority of mainstream academia believes Jesus existed. Going by the your sources they must also believe in his divinity. Some of them might be creationists. I get the feeling that "Mainstream Academia" isn't a group that is determined by National Academy of Science standards. Christian scholars. Strong Christians. Believe their eternal lives are riding on this. I was so stupid to talk about bias. How could those "mainstream academics" be biased. I apologize! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:2C80:A:341A:F84D:AE40:5C7D (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reading the second you said that Bart Ehrman was a Christian.
If you had any interest in improving this article, you would have cited sources by now. Instead, it's clear that you're only here to argue, even if that involves telling outright lies (Erhman is an agnostic). I'm closing this under WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

More Other Opinions

You got me. I got that one wrong, but it looks like the rest are Christians, though I didn't read any confirmation on the beliefs of Theissen. That's not the point though. You still have not mentioned any evidence for the existence of Jesus, and yes I do want to argue. Farsight001 said that Jesus Myth Theory was as credible as intelligent design is when it comes to evolution. If Farsight001 wants to make statements like that then that person might want to provide some evidence. If Ian.thomson wants to argue, then go about providing some evidence. Trying to minimize an argument, while not really addressing it is not a good way of proving a case. If either of you want to prove that case especially Farsight001, then you can go right ahead, and argue. Making at least some good arguments for evolution isn't tough, and if Jesus Myth Theory is as credible Farsight001 suggest it is, then why not make some arguments to prove the case. Also Ehrman said that he was Agnositc, Humanist, and Atheist, but Jesus Myth Theory is fairly popular among atheists. Believe me, I can name several well respected academics that don't believe Jesus existed, but anyone rattle off names. It will take time to actually give a better understanding of how common it is.1013lg (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one wanting to change the article, so its not my job to provide the evidence. Its yours. I agree that trying to minimize an argument while not really addressing it is not a good way of proving a case, but you're the one doing that here, not us. Talk pages are not for arguing, though. They are for the purpose of improving the article only, so if you have no evidence to suggest that we should overturn long standing consensus and ignore the plethora of contradicting evidence that is provided in the article already, you might as well stop wasting everyone's time, including yours, and not post any longer.Farsight001 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
And if you bothered to read any of the other discussions that have taken place on this talk page, you'd find plenty of evidence that a lot of the people on here are not Christians. You'd also find evidence that those of us who are are doing our best to be unbiased and present all viewpoints fairly - which includes going out of our way to not represent our own viewpoints. Your statements are clearly and demonstrably contradicted by the facts. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
What in the world does being or not being a Christian have to do with anything? Wikipedia cites WP:RS. We do not care AT ALL whether those sources are Christians or not. We're not ALLOWED to care. And according to WP:NPOV, representing all viewpoints fairly MEANS not representing fringe viewpoints at all. Maybe you should read the policies that govern this place instead of coming in here and acting like you know the rules better than the members that have been around for several years.Farsight001 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
No need to argue. Our duty as editors isn't to figure out what's right. It's simply to follow what the reliable sources say. Find good sources and you don't need to argue. If you can't find good sources, then arguing is beside the point. 1013lg says "'Jesus Myth Theory is fairly popular among atheists'." As an atheist, I consider it shameful the way that my fellow atheists glom onto this fringe idea. To my fellow editors who are Christian (or just good scholars), I apologize on behalf of my people for this interruption. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_123&oldid=1136842135"