Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

This article is the same as List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ, and since the other one was started first, I think this one should be merged into that one. Croat Canuck 02:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add a couple who claim to be Jesus, but do not claim to be God. Hong Xiuquan would in a way fit better here. He took an Arian view of Christ and himself. Meaning he felt Christ and himself were sons of God, but not God itself. In fact his insistence neither he nor Jesus were God is part of what alienated him from Christian observers.--T. Anthony 09:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


I would like to be the first to officially nominate DG as the next god-emperor of America. -Silence 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not just merge both into list of messiah claimants? nae'blis (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I think there should be a distinction between

1) people who claimed to be Jesus and actually thought they were Jesus;
2) people who claimed to be Jesus and did not think they were Jesus;
3) people who claimed to be Jesus and were not sure if they really were Jesus;
4) people who at one point claimed to be Jesus but no longer claim to be Jesus;
5) people who claim to be Jesus and actually are (or have a very high probability of being) Jesus;
6) people who claim to be 'Jesus' but only claim to be Jesus because Jesus is their real name;
7) people who claim to be Jesus 'nonverbally' (e.g., when someone dresses up as Jesus for a photo, or the guy that played Jesus in the Mel Gibson movie)
8) actual Jesus

67.42.14.57 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has a high probability of being Jesus except for the actual Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.183.233 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"List of people who claimed to either be Jesus or the Son of God"?

What on earth is up with the new article name? How is it acceptable to confuse these two concepts? (And since we aren't a Christian encyclopedia, I don't see why we need to capitalize "son" in "son of God", either). If every person on this list claimed to be the son of God in addition to claiming to be Jesus, then that's great! So remove the "Jesus" from the article name altogether, and expand the list to include Jesus and the many son-of-God-claimants unrelated to Jesus. But if that isn't the case, why add "son of God"? -Silence 07:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a better description of what the article is doing. It says "The list of people who claimed to be Jesus consists of those notable people who have made statements about being Jesus or being the son of God." I'm just making the title reflect that. It is not "confusing the two" it's just recognizing this is about both concepts. If you don't want it to be a list about both concepts then separate it into two articles, one for Son of God claimats and the other for Jesus claimants.--T. Anthony 03:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
That is ridiculous.
No it's not.--T. Anthony 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Every single person on the list claims to be Jesus.
No they did not as Hong did not. Fine though I'll take Hong Xiuquan out.--T. Anthony 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Not every single person claims to be the Son of God. The fact that often people claiming to be Jesus claim to be the Son of God is BEYOND IRRELEVANT, and until we actually get any entries that would fit on a "son of god" page and not on this page, it's meaningless to confuse the two concepts for absolutely no reason. K? -Silence 04:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. Sheesh. The change I made was perfectly reasonable and allowed for the list to expand. No reason to get into a hissy fit just because you dislike it.--T. Anthony 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

And sorry if I was snappish. I slept poorly. I guess the change is acceptable or more accurately I've found ways to accept it.--T. Anthony 06:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry very much for snapping. Sometimes this tuff just really confuses me. -Silence 06:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sarah levy should be removed from the article

Unfortunately I don't know how to do it without screwing up the formatting, but suffice to say that her contribution is self-promotion.

Separating serious and non-serious claims

Some of the people on this list should be featured less prominently. John Lennon having claimed to be Jesus on one occasion, under the influence of drugs, is not nearly as notable as the cult leaders under List_of_people_who_claim_to_be_Jesus_Christ#Religious_Leaders whose followers committed suicide under the belief that their leader was Jesus. I propose to divide this list in half; perhaps using the criterion of whether the person has/had verifiable followers. --Quarl 05:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No point. The list is too small to be divided, and it'll just make it harder to find entries on both lists without already knowing all the details of the people involved. If anything, add a marker, like an asterisk or something, denoting where the claimant did or didn't have followers. -Silence 16:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Result of Articles for deletion - merge

The result of the debate was Merge with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC) See AfD debate As a result of this I'm cut and pasting info from other page here. And making the other page a redirect. --Salix alba (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Manson

Manson should be taken off the list. The quote used is not in context. Manson never made a direct claim to being Jesus. The original quote was "I may have implied on several different occasions to several different people that I may have been Jesus Christ, but I haven't decided yet what I am or who I am." That doesn't sound like someone making a firm claim to me. And the fact that some guy named Father Ryan claims to have heard Manson (or someone that looks like him) say "I'm Jesus Christ" is hardly reliable. 207.6.31.119 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Manson should be on the list as he most definitely claimed to be Jesus. There are a number of references on the "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)" Wiki page. For example Tex Watson is quoted as saying "we... knew that Charlie was Jesus Christ." Furthermore there are a number of lyric interpretations made by Manson of The Beatles White Album, one excellent example being 'Honey Pie', which Manson interpreted as "The Beatles know Jesus Christ has returned to Earth and is in Los Angeles.[26] They want Manson to create his "song," that is, his album that will set off Helter Skelter." FillsHerTease (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Katherine Jhawarelall

Noteable? Not quite both how and whether to add her. She did, however, get a news article about herself, so... --Fergdude33 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

complaint

it is somehow redundant to say that the original jesus claimed to be himself, he should be removed from the list, or change the title to "Jesus and people who have claimed to be him"

People have tried to remove him several names without success. I once put "his claim to be Jesus is supported by the fact he actually was Jesus" as a nudge to the silliness of it. Still I think it's just too dang amusing to many anti-Christians to have Jesus in a list like this. Possibly if this had been "List of people who have claimed to be Christ" there could be a certain logic to his conclusion, but as it's rather ridiculous. I'll remove him, but no guarantees someone won't put him back.--T. Anthony 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Jesus claim to be Jesus? If he didn't claim to be Jesus, then is there a list for people who claimed to be whatever Jesus claimed to be? My argument for creating such a page is the fact that a page for Omorashi exists. Jesus is far more important than a full-bladder fetish. Also, I think there should be a list of people who are actually named Jesus. Otherwise, what if one day they say they're Jesus and someone puts them on this list. That would suck for them. 67.42.14.57 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Mother Ann Lee

Would Ann Lee qualify? She claimed to be Christ's second appearing.... 65.12.115.249 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of this article

I see this has been discussed before, but this article title is open to ridicule, given that there must be thousands of Hispanic people who not only claim to be Jesus, but verifiably are Jesus. Just not Jesus Christ. --Dweller 14:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I decided to be bold and add "Christ" to the end of the article title. .V. [Talk|Email] 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my entry?

I added the German Ralph Schulze, http://jesus-return.net quite some time ago, and a month or two later it was gone... I put it in just as a matter of completeness. I don't for a minute believe that he was Jesus, or, for that matter, that anyone you list was (because I was... That is, of course, a joke!).

The guy seems to really believe it! His website is in German but also has texts in a poor English. He seems to have a group of devotees in Brazil.

Later addition: I found another one! Salim Alim Mousa El-Achi, alias Doctor Dahesh. See http://www.daheshism.com...

Wouldn't it make sense to put these two in the list under "Others" in the main article? For the sake of completeness? I mean, after all you list a punk singer...

Still later addition: I wonder why you put Ayya Vaikundar in the list? Wikipedia seems to mention nowhere that he was said to have been Jesus! A misunderstanding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.89.53 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ADDED BY ME: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.11.66 (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia)

HOW ABOUT AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION? WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ENTRY? (J.E.S.)

Okay, why is Mehmet Ali Ağca on the list? There's nothing in his article that claims he claimed to be Jesus. In addition, you should mention Jesus predicted many would claim to be him: "4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, and will deceive many." (Matthew 24:4) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.218.126 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be mentioned for this page

These people who claim themselves as Christ only fulfill what Jesus said during His first coming. "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ', and will deceive many." -Yancyfry 06:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

David Koresh

Could someone include David Koresh of the Branch Davidian to the list as well. (I'm not sure how to do it.)

David Koresh did say he was Christ a few times.

-Bill

July 23, 2007

Not sure, but I only remember him saying he was the 'Messiah'. I could be wrong though since I don't know everything that D. Koresh said. 67.42.14.57 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm Jesus

So do I get to be included on this list. I've said it at least five times. I would put myself on the list, but the problem is, I don't claim to be Jesus--I am Jesus. So someone else would have to do it for me, but I guess that's only if you don't believe that I'm really Jesus. --Jesus. 67.42.14.57 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Do you think that you're a Jesus (meaning hay-soos) or do you think that you're THE Jesus (Christ the Messiah and the son of God.) Personally, I don't believe you. The real Jesus said: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,' and will deceive many." (Matthew 24:4) When Christ comes it everyone will know. “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn.

They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30) To everyone on wikipedia, do you think we should put this fraud on the list?--69.234.226.128 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a ridiculous article. It doesn't take much to claim to be someone. Enigma msg! 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You mean delete this article? Some people think it's important because Jesus is important, but then again, it kind of is a ridiculous article. It should be obvious these guys are frauds because the real Jesus said so. --69.234.183.233 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think this article should even exist, but I assure you that any proposal for deletion will be met with a lot of opposition. I guess the article is trying to cover well-known people who claimed to be Jesus, but a list of "people who claim" is really stupid. I could claim right now that I'm Spartacus. Add me to the list. And that's where some of the vandalism comes from. I also claimed that! Enigma msg! 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, Jesus is the only person who's supposed to return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.190.14 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Only person in history who people believe will come back to life? Not true. There are other examples in other religions. Enigma msg! 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we have articles on those other people who are supposed to come back? Who are they, anyway?69.234.183.208 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Jesus is God, but somehow I think we would have to make an article like this on those other people if we keep this article-plus this article doesn't quote Jesus on what will really happen when he comes back to Earth, nor does it include his warning about these frauds. If this article still won't include that, it should definitely be deleted. --69.234.192.143 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It should be deleted. Enigma message 06:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jimjones.jpg

Image:Jimjones.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon

I added John Lennon to the table, who claimed to be Jesus at one point according to the biography written by Albert Goldman called The Lives of John Lennon -Yeshuahasochek (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus, in the initial table and body of article

Hi,
No explicit Article Talk or edit summaries suggest that the initial table in the article should include only people who claim to be Jesus whose articles have freely available images. This seems to be an implicit consensus, tho. So, I'm being bold. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Color, Arrangement

A similar list, List of people who have been considered avatars, recently decided to use one color instead of alternating colors to make it easier to add to the list as it gets longer, and also to arrange in chronological order by birth. I recommend the same here. --Shruti14 t c s 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:01-jones-jim.jpg

The image File:01-jones-jim.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Davíð Oddsson

Just to keep the record straight. Someone took out Davíð Oddsson and wrote: Took out David´s Oddson line. He compared himself to the criminials crucified with Jesus but not with Jesus himself. He did no such thing. He said (first in Iclandic and then the translation): "Mér finnst reyndar hinn endinn á Nýja testamenntinu eiga betur við mínar aðstæður, þó örlítið breytt. Þegar þeir þrjótar krossfestu ljúflinginn Krist, þá höfðu þeir tvo óbotamenn honum til hvorrar handar á krossum. En þegar verklausa minnihlustastjórnin hengdi þrjótinn Davíð, þá létu þeir sig hafa það að hengja tvo strangheiðarlega og vandaða heiðursmenn, manninum sem þeir þóttust eiga grátt að gjalda til samlætis. Sú lágkúrlega aðgerð var gerð til að hið pólitíska hefndaræði yrði ekki eins áberandi. Allt var þetta ömurleg lögleysa og til vitnis um hvað lýðræðisþroski þessa fólks er lítill þegar þeir notuðu sér þá upplausn sem var í landinu til að þverbrjóta allar reglur jafnt skráðar sem óskráðar. Svo bitu þeir höfuðið af sinni skömm og réðu lausamann úr norska Verkamannaflokknum sem ekki nokkur maður hafði heyrt minnst á, ekki einu sinni Google sem þekkir þó marga. -- In english: I rather think that the other end of the New Testament is better in sinc with my own circumstances, mutatis mutandis. When those bastards crucified the sweet Jesus, there where two criminals at his side. But when the inactive minority government hanged the devil Davíð, they had two very good and honest men going with him. That act of banality was so done so the political revenge frenzy [of the minority government] wouldn´t be as obvious.... I wont translate the rest as it makes him look infantile, and the Jesus-kind-of-comparison ends here. But it is clear that he sees himself as "hanged" (read: fired) for no reason, though he uses the two others that were fired with him as innocent scapegoats, but in fact looks upon himself as one innocent lamb as well. -- So as you can se he is compering the crucifixion of Jesus with his own "hanging", but calles himself David the devil, and he uses the crucifixion of Jesus as a simile-story, and probably thinks of himself as a kind of a martyr. Or else he would not have made the comparison. But I don´t think he thinks himself Jesus. Not yet at least. --85.197.210.44 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ICE: Ef einhverjum er líkt við persónur Biblíunnar þá er Davíð líkt við Dismas eða Gestas. Hann segir aðstæðurnar svipaðar, en þó breyttar, og á þá við öfugar. Í stað þess að einn góður sé hengdur með tveimur þrjótum séu tveir góðir hengdir með einum þrjóti, þ.e. Davíð. - ENG: If someone is compared to anyone in the Bible, in Davíðs speech, himself can be compared to Dismas or Gestas. He says it is similar, but tho changed, meaning counterclockwise. In stead one good being hanged with two bad people, two good people are hanged with one bad e.g. himself.

ed

I added this since I thinks this is notable with back ups. * ed - god, a most notable prophet in Skeptical Community[1][2] has publicly declared that "I am the Christ. I am the violet light of the Earth." on September 12, 2009.--124.106.81.204 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ted

Should we put Ted Jesus Christ God on here? [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.54.65 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Graeff?

He wanted to change his name to "Jesus Christ II", but I don't know much more about what he meant by that. For those who do would he count?--T. Anthony (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Article fixup

I don't know why I'm at all caring about this article, but now it is sorted, and those who called themselves J/C separated from those calling themself C but not J, etc.. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a Great article!

This article has plenty of potential. However, I would like to expand it to include Jews who claimed to be the messiah mentioned in the old testament. I only know of three: Theudas, Judas the Galilean, (mentioned in Acts 5:36-37) and Judas Maccabeus. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.--Nate5713 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Already an article for that, Jewish Messiah claimants, and it would be really odd to list those individuals here, as they never claimed to be "Jesus", so it's a bit off topic (without an article name change). Maybe the two should be merged into one article, with a new title? I don't think that is a good idea, but perhaps that is what you are proposing?-Andrew c [talk] 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should keep them separate since the OT "Messiah" is not necessarily comparable with the NT "Jesus Christ". Some scholars may make that equation, but without sourcing, we cannot, but I'm open to argument. Rodhullandemu 02:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda?

sorry- I see he's already there. This is a good article by the way. Very helpful. 74.163.7.25 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)U18B.

Son of Jehova?

Can someone explain to me (hopefully the person who reverted it) why it is WP:NPOV to say that Jesus is the son of "Jehova" - a link to a redirect of "Jehovah", whose article states: Jehovah (pronounced /dʒɨˈhoʊvə/) is an anglicized representation of Hebrew יְהֹוָה, a vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. Why this article in particular? Elizium23 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Focus article

There are other articles about people claiming to be the Messiah, the son of God, God himself, etc. with or without claiming to be Jesus. How about trimming this one so it is only about people who have claimed to be Jesus, as the title says? Wolfview (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The lede says ...or the Second Coming of Christ. This means a wider focus than "people claimed to be Jesus" and specifically lets in Sun Myung Moon. Should we add Moon to the list, or narrow the focus of the lede, to match the title of the article? Elizium23 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Haili Sallasie

Haile Selassie I needs to be removed, or this article needs to be renamed "List of people who have been claimed to be Jesus" or "List of people who have been considered to be Jesus." I'm leaning toward renaming, for completeness sake. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd support renaming, but to me, using the passive voice in the title would create the opposite problem, implying a list of people who others claimed were Jesus. What do you think of simply "List of people claimed to be Jesus"? YardsGreen (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. Abyssal (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I got here via the redirect from List of people who have claimed to be Jesus, and found the sentence "Haile Selassie I (1892–1975) did not claim to be Jesus and disapproved of claims that he was Jesus." Some contradiction here I think. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Did Jesus claim to be Jesus?

I don't think that Jesus claimed to be Jesus...and by Jesus we mean to refer to that man born in the first century. Hence he was Jesus.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not titled "people who claimed to be Jesus," but "people claimed to be Jesus." If Jesus wasn't claimed to be Jesus, then he wouldn't be Jesus. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Jesus ought to be included, and the introductory text edited accordingly.116.55.120.6 (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
How does this article differ from List of messiah claimants? - other than not being a list--JimWae (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops, this one's a list too--JimWae (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Because some people have/are claimed to be the messiah without claiming to be Jesus (Sabbatai Zevi, Bar-Kockba, pretty much any Jewish Messiah claimant really; John the Baptist). Also, combining the two does slightly make a point of Jesus being the Messiah when its possible that He would have rejected the notion (I'm not saying He did, obviously, but NPOV and all). Ian.thomson (talk)

Is there anyone who is on the "Jesus list" that is not on the "Messiah list"?--JimWae (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Unarius guy, Ernest Norman, for one. Abyssal (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez

IS Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez notable enough for mention?--174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fionn Collin

Ok, I mentioned in my edit summary I couldn't find The Mercury on Google, found it here and went to their site. I searched for articles containing "Fionn Collin" and "Anglican Church of Australia condemns Mr Collin's commercialisation", and nothing came up. Revert any mention on site, it's a fraud. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lil B

  1. Claims to be Jesus must be reliably sourced.
  2. Blogs are not reliable sources. Please read WP:IRS for help on identifying reliable secondary sources.
  3. Lyrics are primary sources; see WP:PRIMARY for guidelines in using lyrics. This blog does not adequately interpret the lyrics, if they indeed claim that the rapper is Jesus, the blog doesn't make a claim of that.
  4. I can't make heads or tail of the lyrics. The site and the lyrics are both offensive to me, and my head hurts from returning to them multiple times. I also watched the video to no avail. If there is a claim to be Jesus, it's well hidden in profanity and double meanings. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I will look all of this over and report any further action on this talk page :) -badmachine 08:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth

It seems very appropriate to include Jesus on this list. Given the weakness of the historical evidence with this character and his apparent importance to some sects of living people, I'd like to see a more thorough discussion around his inclusion in this list. Thanks YourPalJesus (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your position is untenable. This list is comprised of people that claimed to be Jesus. The proved existence of Jesus has no relevance. Personally, I find lists intrinsically problematical; however, consensus has been in favor of lists for more years than I've been editing. You may attempt AfD but I would predict a rocky road and unsatisfactory result. Tiderolls 03:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Didn't see this comment since thomson's thread below took over. Jesus certainly claimed to be Jesus Christ, and his historical record matters because to really understand this problem we have to separate the poorly sources Jesus from the mystical figure that's worshipped by some religions and mentioned in the Bible. To exclude Jesus the man from this list gives it a decidedly religious POV and violates WP:NPOV in that it assumes the figure out Jesus Christ and the historical man are one and the same. We should not make this mistake. And simply calling one's position 'untenable' is not a real refutation of one's point. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"...exclude Jesus the man"? You claim a dearth of evidence of Jesus' existance a part of your argument in your original post. You can't have it both ways. Yes, you are tolling and it will now cease. One way or another. Tiderolls 04:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, once again I'll correct you and say that I am not. I think you are reading in a context here that isn't present. For a lot of the world this is _not_ a given and bears discussion. Referring to it as trolling because you disagree is not constructive. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus is Jesus

All in favor of treating the addition of Jesus to the list as WP:POINTy vandalism? You do not claim that a tree is a tree, you identify it as such. Is there any reason why we have not put a hidden message indicating as such into the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're failing to follow the thread here, but I'll respond under your heading anyway as a show of good faith. The argument is in what context we use "Jesus Christ". It's worth noting that the man and the entity may be different, and therefore the "historical" man deserves a place on the list. Jesus is a disputed and controversial character. As an admin has already reminded you on your talk page, a content dispute is NOT vandalism and it's inappropriate to try to shape the discussion by labeling it as such. YourPalJesus (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing how the user appears to have taken your word on it that I reverted three times, even though I only reverted twice, I believe he's made a mistake and operated only on the edit summaries. (Oh, and while I'm posting this, he admits that was the case!) Someone claiming to be Jesus for the purpose of separating the figure revered in Christianity and Islam from the historical figure, to reduce those religions to fairy tales, is clearly only on the site to troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You are again failing to WP:AGF here Ian.Thompson. You should not assume what the ideas behind someone else's edits are, as you clearly have no idea. I am proposing that Jesus himself DID claim to be "Jesus Christ", and that as a biblical character with shaking scholarly and historical evidence it's worth a real discussion without your false accusations of trolling and anger. I've never said anything about reducing anything or fairy tales. If the heading on your talk page is to be followed, you are probably coming to these conclusions as a defensive measure because of your own beliefs. Likely you could brush up on WP:NPOV to resolve this conflict. YourPalJesus (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:AGF, why does Ian.Thompson think this is an appropriate way to address this controversy? YourPalJesus (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you trying to get me by intentionally misspelling my name. You're only making yourself more obvious. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Non Sequitur, Ian. It's not like he totally messed your name up. Come on you two, Ask for a WP:THIRD opinion. And above all, remember WP:CIVIL. Ian, you're quickly moving beyond that, if you haven't blown it off already. Let's keep it civil and work toward a better article. You both have good points, IMHO. Regards, --Manway 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT VISSARION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.34.131 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposal to treat such edits as vandalism, because they cannot be classified that way under Wikipedia criteria. Consensus here has always been against including Jesus Himself in the list, and I support that consensus. I have adjusted the hidden comment per WP:HIDDEN; we can't actually tell people not to do something that's not against policy. We can only advise that consensus appears to be against it at the current time. And it is, as evidenced above, until there are more reasoned voices to the contrary who can posit good reasons for including Him here. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If this ends up being the consensus then I'm fine with it. I'd like to totally avoid these peripheral issues and threats and just stick to the business of building the article. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Manway, the guy is claiming to be Jesus. That alone is pretty trollish. Looking at where he misspells my name, he gets it correct right immediately before in the code linking to my talk page, and spells it correctly when not addressing me. User:Tide rolls agrees this is a pretty obvious troll, don't enable him. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, YPJ's first attempt at discussion threatened me with an RfC for reverting him. Now that Tide Rolls has asked him to back down, YPJ threatened to go to ArbCom to report him. That is not something that a new user immediately knows. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I have to respond to this now, since it's being taken out of context. If you read Tide Roll's comments on my talk page you'll see that I said that would be the appropriate venue to address his threats of an indef block for not getting in line with his demands. Can we please stick to building consensus here and avoid these side issues? YourPalJesus (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Obvious SPA troll with a good understanding of Wikipedia politics trying to drag out a pointless discussion via some wikilawyering. I think we can fall back on consensus and block for edit-warring if trolling persists, then move on. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In Philippines... a self-acclaimed "appointed son of god"

Here in the Philippines, a pastor named Apollo Quiboloy acclaims that he is an "appointed son of god". Take a look at the cite web with regards to him.49.145.161.77 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jFVREhpGs0?t=1m45s [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.kingdomofjesuschrist.org/2012/pastor-apollo-quiboloy-the-appointed-son-of-god/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Why isn't Charles Manson on this list?

Well didn't he claim to be Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.108.66 (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of people claimed to be Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Should David Icke be here?

His Wikipedia emphasizes he is the son of the godhead but he did admit he was the son of GOD in the 1991 Wogan interview.

--Chackerian (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard 'Brad'shaw Watson II claims to be the Returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated

I added... Richard 'Brad'shaw Watson II (1959-) is a professional musician/composer/writer and amateur interdisciplinary scientist who claims he's the 2nd Coming of the Christ and Albert Einstein reincarnated. He lives in Miami and provides proof of his claims with the Seven Seals revealed as 'Beyond Einstein Theories'[1] and him having produced the "book/scroll" of Revelation 5:1[2] 73.85.204.251 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://7seals.blogspot.com
  2. ^ http://7seals.yuku.com
In general, list articles only have entries that are about people for whom an article already exists (if they exist and persist, those articles indicate necessary notability for mention). Also, blogs, user generated sites, self-published sources, etc, are not considered reliable (and are insufficient to demonstrate notability). Wikipedia articles must summarize reliable, ideally secondary sources (relevant reading: WP:NBIO, WP:WTAF, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:USERGEN). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 16:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Rename to List of people who have claimed to be Jesus

Howdy! I've decided to Be Bold and rename this to List of people who have claimed to be Jesus. The 'except jesus' moniker was very awkward, and there's no benefit to seperating the two, so why not include the big kahuna himself? Second step, I'd like to merge this and List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ. Both are fine articles, but I think that the tabled format of this is puts this one slightly over the top, the data is presented clearly and is easy to read, not to mention all the fine images cribbed from peeps that have said they are gods. On a related note, I fixed the table so that the colors alternate properly instead of being mashed together from the original copy/paste job. Also, I've taken the liberty of update most of the links to this page to reflect the new name, excepting discussions and user pages. Best regards! CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you should merge List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ with this page. -Parallel or Together? 11:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the "except Jesus" was awkward. That's why DG added it as a joke, and I love him for it. I am equally in love with having Jesus actually listed on the page, especially with a description like "The most popular view states that Jesus's claim to be Jesus is validated by actually being Jesus." Freaking awesome. It'll be a sad day for beautifully-awkward-and-ridiculously-overly-accurate articles everywhere when someone returns the article to neither having the "except Jesus" clause in the article nor listing Jesus himself. I'll enjoy it while it lasts. -Silence 17:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe I did the description "The most popular view states that Jesus's claim to be Jesus is validated by actually being Jesus." I'm surprised that's stayed up, but after the odd intro it kind of is made to make sense. I mostly just changed what had been up before that because it was about whether he claimed to be God, which isn't necessarily the issue in this article.--T. Anthony 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. I missed the old Wiki days! Zezen (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Bahá'u'lláh Unnecessary

Bahá'ís hold that the public display of the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh to be disagreeable to their religious sentiments. A deeper discussion of this issue can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h/Photo. I would ask that this photo be removed because it does not seem to serve a purpose on the page. For those who want to see the photo it is on the bottom of article about Bahá'u'lláh, I think that would be sufficient for wikipedia's purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.194.93 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I second this. I won't remove it because I don't want to cause divisiveness, but I would like my voice to be counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4200:F414:A549:E983:A26C:D9A7 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WP not censored. Zezen (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of people claimed to be Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Richard 'Brad'shaw Watson II (1959-)

I added... Richard 'Brad'shaw Watson II (1959-), a professional musician/composer and amateur multidisciplinary scientist. He's written the 74-page booklet There Are No Coincidences with the Seven Seals/'Beyond Einstein Theories'<ref]http://7seals.blogspot.com </ref] that he claims satisfies the prophecy of The Revelation 5:1. Besides being the reincarnated Jesus, he also claims to being many famous people reincarnated, e.g. Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Albert Einstein. 73.85.203.93 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the article, this is a list of notable people. Lots of people throughout history have claimed to be Jesus. If we added all of them this article would be enormous. You establish notability first by writing his Wikipedia article. But please note that a blog or personal website is not considered a reliable source. If that's your only source in the article it will be deleted very quickly. Sundayclose (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Under 21st Century, please add Amy Lia Carlson of the Love Has Won cult.24.28.41.109 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC) https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/05/love-has-won-cult-leader-dead/?outputType=amp

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. The page has pending changes protection, meaning you can make the edit yourself and someone will review it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of people claimed to be Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Lin Wood

Should Lin Wood be added to this article? According to a lawsuit against him, he claimed that “maybe” he was the second coming of Jesus. [4] However I’m not sure if this meets the threshold for inclusion or not. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:ED8D (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus/Archive_1&oldid=1194492853"