Talk:Jesus

"Performed healings" in lead

I´d like to change it to "engaged in healings" per source Levine, I think "performed healings" is a little problematic in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus was"

I read the FAQ. "Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information." I would disagree. There is very little physical proof that Jesus actually existed, and even if he did, how do we know that "Jesus" existed under than name or any similar name? I propose we add in the very first sentence: "was, according to ..." or something, instead of "was". I thought Wikipedia was based on fact. "Jesus was a real human being" is not a known fact. It's a hypothesis, or at best a theory. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I liked this lead sentence from the featured article summary better. "is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament." That does not assume that Jesus was a real person right off the bat. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's been quite clearly demonstrated that the idea that he was not a real human being is WP:FRINGE. StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, has stated: "Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance.It's about that bad."Smeat75 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the opening sentence, the phrase "preacher and religious leader" seems a bit redundant ... unless you want to be really pedantic I would say all preachers are by definition religious leaders. Searching for "preacher and religious leader" reveals that this article is one of only two articles on Wikipedia that uses that construction (and the other one doesn't use it in the first sentence). Would people here be in favour of removing one of the two, and if so which one? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Christ Myth theory is about as fringe as it is possible to get. There are no reputable scholars who support it and the vast majority of its proponents are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. In regards to the "preacher and religious leader" question, I do not think there is currently a problem. The words have different meanings and connotations and I do not view having both of them as redundant. If you do decide to delete one of the words, I would recommend keeping the word "religious leader" since it is more technical term and seems more historically appropriate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You guys are just throwing WP:FRINGE at me. You're throwing people's opinions at me. But you're not giving me solid facts. You're saying "it's a conspiracy theory" etc. without backing it up. To be fair, those scholars you're referencing are doing that too. Where's the real proof that Jesus was a human being that existed? Why is it that religious books are really the only solid account of Jesus' life? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, not majority opinions. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What's next? "Because a majority of English speakers on Earth are Christian, we should start writing Wikipedia as if all elements of that religion are factually true."? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page it says:"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are not here to debate "the facts" among ourselves. WP proceeds by summarising reliable sources and virtually all reliable sources on the subject say that it is a fact of history that Jesus existed.Smeat75 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Such "reliable sources" often exhibit bias more than evidence -> Wikipedia exhibits bias more than evidence. Should this really be how it is? And quit accusing me of "treating this like a forum" because I'm not. I'm trying to improve the article at hand. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I'm just saying that there is an extreme likelihood that he did not exist as was told by the main accounts, and a possibility that he never existed at all. Yes, that IS a possibility, whether you like it or not, and we have to treat that as if it were a possibility instead of being ignorant and just listening to people's religious bias which is the majority opinion. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: As Smeat75 has already pointed out, this is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia's purpose is to explain the views of mainstream scholars; it is not our job to decide whether or not Jesus really existed. Since you are asking, though, I will provide a brief explanation of why modern scholars unanimously agree he existed: The oldest writings we have pertaining to Christianity are the authentic epistles of the apostle Paul, of which there are at least eight (possibly nine if Colossians is indeed authentic). Paul does not say a whole lot about Jesus and he candidly admits that he never actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he does tell us that he knew Jesus's "brother" James, as well as his closest disciple Peter. Although Mythicists often claim that Paul only speaks of an incorporeal "spiritual" Jesus, they have repeatedly failed to adequately address the dozens of places in Paul's letters where he very clearly speaks of Jesus as a recent, historical figure. Usually, they try to explain these occurrences as "later interpolations" without offering any valid evidence to support such a conclusion other than the fact that it would be convenient for their hypothesis. Further evidence to support Jesus's historicity comes from the fact that the gospels contain details that can only be explained if Jesus was a historical figure. Embarrassing, or mundane facts about his life are mentioned in Mark, the earliest gospel, but are rationalized or contradicted in the later gospels in overtly obvious attempts to overwrite the earlier account. Finally, there are also distinct cultural features within the gospels that only make sense in the context of early first-century Aramaic Judaism, but not late first-century Hellenistic Christianity. These are not the only reasons by any means, but I do not want to go into detail here. For further information, I highly recommend reading Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? by Maurice Casey, both of whom are renowned scholars on this subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific viewpoint missing

The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.[13][14]" Where is the scientific view? It should also be in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear what exactly you are referring to. As the sentence clearly states, this is what Christians believe. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not Jesus was really the Messiah. The notion of a "Messiah" is a religious concept; it is not even a scientific question. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean history, and it's in the second paragraph: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically..." StAnselm (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been a very busy editor in the two days of his existence. Perhaps he's just happy to be here. I suspect, however, that he's a sock. Do not give feet to the sock, that's my advice.PiCo (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God". What is the Scientific view? Why the Scientific view is not stated in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"According to science, Jesus is not God's son." That will be added to the lede after the 14th citation in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You got a reference for that? I can't imagine science says anything about God's son... StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Love to see a source on this too ....comment seems way out in left field.--Moxy (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The notion that mainstream science has any official consensus at all in regards to whether or not Jesus was the son of God is ridiculous. The concept of a "son of God" is a religious concept and has nothing to do with science. You cannot prove or disprove that someone is the Messiah, which means it is not a scientific question. Besides, even if you really were making a scientific statement, you would require sources to support it. "According to science" is nothing but weasel wording; you would need specific, scholarly sources stating that your sentence reflects the majority view of modern scientists. I should, however, note that your statement does not reflect the views of modern scientists--not even by a longshot: According to Pew Research Center ([1]), roughly thirty percent of scientists in the United States are Christians, whereas forty-eight percent are irreligious. This suggests that scientists are generally sharply divided on religious issues as a whole, which makes it extremely unlikely that they would reach any kind of consensus like the one you seem to be maintaining they have adopted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A source verifies "Most scientists reject the belief that God formed the universe" I started with God. Now we can work on this article.

References

"Jesus is not possibly God's son." is even better. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Books published by Xulon Press are generally not reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the problem StAnselm has already pointed out, your source says nothing about whether or not scientists consider Jesus to have been the Messiah; it only talks about the question of whether or not God created the universe, which is an entirely separate issue. Even if you had a reliable source which flat-out said, "Most scientists do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah" in those exact words, it still would not matter, because this is not a scientific issue we are talking about here. If you find a reliable source stating that most Biblical scholars do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then we may have something to work with. (By the way, just to clarify: the terms "son of God" and "Messiah" are not interchangeable and there is a distinction between them. The word "Messiah" usually refers specifically to the "anointed one" prophesized in the Hebrew Bible, whereas "son of God" refers to anyone under Divine favor; King David is referred to as the "son of God" in Psalm 2:7 and the nation of Israel itself is referred to as the "son of God" in Exodus 4:22-23, Hosea 11:1, and Psalm 80:15. Today, most Christians use them interchangeably, but, in ancient times, the terms had very different meanings.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus is not possibly God's son."

References

So far no objection to using the source I presented. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the problem is here......the scientific community doesn't have a position on the fact of his existence let alone that he's God's son.--Moxy (talk) 17

55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nor is the source from 1829 a good one. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm; a book published in 1829 does not reflect the current scientific consensus, nor is a book published through a Christian self-publishing company a reliable source for what most scientists believe about the universe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Re: "According to science Jesus is not God's son." A scientist who takes a strong position on completely unverifiable religious beliefs other than to say that they are scientifically unverifiable isn't a very good scientist in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-religious view missing from the lede

New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity.

References

A simple sentence will do the trick. A source is not needed for non-controversial claims, but I provided one for your reading pleasure. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article does not claim that anyone except Christians believes Jesus was divine. Emphasizing New Atheism is WP:UNDUE. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Only Christians believes Jesus was divine. They are the minority view. We can briefly mention the non-religious view. QuackGuru (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So the world only consists of Christians and New Atheists? Better go tell the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs. The views of different non-Christian groups are mentioned and you'd know that if you read the article. What are you trying to accomplish besides disruption based on a concerning lack of understanding of the subject? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say the world only consists of Christians and New Atheists. I clearly explained the non-religious view is not stated in the lede. Please focus on content not the editor. See WP:FOC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You cite New Atheism to represent the views of all non-religious persons, for the position that defines all non-Christians. The article does not claim that anyone outside of Christianity believes Jesus was divine. It discusses the nuanced views of other religions and also states that atheists reject Jesus's divinity. It covers the non-Christian views as well as the non-religious views. If you can't see that, then you haven't honestly read the article.

I'm focusing on disruptive behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

The 2014 book God And His Coexistent Relations To The Universe states "Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."

References

It is a bit confusing from reading this source. Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, so this is not a reliable source. Mohler is reliable, but I'm not sure the claim is significant enough for the lead. In any case, it is hardly surprising that atheists don't believe that Jesus is God. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not address all the questions. "Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear." QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The point has not been made clear in the article because historians have not been able to make a clear case for Jesus's self-perception. The article covers what topics historians can agree on but beyond that there's not much agreement. Your questions operate on such flawed assumptions that they suggest that either you are operating with a (hopefully unintentional) total ignorance of not only the article's contents but its very subject (which wouldn't be nearly a problem if you demonstrated awareness of WP:RS) or you are just trying to disrupt the article because of your feelings about related subjects. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does the article or subarticle explain that historians have not been able to make a clear case for Jesus's self-perception? I was reading the article and I could not find this point. If it really is unclear then I think it can be explained here or maybe it is already explained in a subarticle. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that I can read in order to improve the article to clarify what historians say about Jesus' self-perception. If historians say it is unclear what was Jesus' self-perception then then point can be included since the article is ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not "unclear," there is no academic consensus on the matter. Not every facet of existence has been perfectly clarified and set in stone by academics, especially when it comes to historical figures' perception of themselves. Hell, there's even a (fringe) minority of historians that argue that Jesus was not a historical figure, rendering self-perception an impossibility. That is why the article just presents a variety of interpretations presented according to the groups or persons that hold those interpretations. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is no academic consensus on the matter then we can include different interpretations or views regarding Jesus' self-perception. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Section "Resurrection and Ascension" and Gospel of Mark

The section on the resurrection and ascension treats the "long ending" of Mark as if it were original, when the general consensus is that it's not - i.e., Mark has no post-resurrection appearances. I wonder if the section should be re-written to reflect the shorter ending. PiCo (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it does - it only refers to the first seven verses. StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your meaning Anselm - the first seven verses of Mark's resurrection story? Mark ends (short version) with the women fleeing the tomb after finding it empty "because they were afraid" (famous phrase). What I'm suggesting is that we note that the shorter ending is regarded as authentic, and that Mark therefore has no post-resurrection appearances. (He does have a resurrection, but it's implied rather than stated - in a rather odd way, as the disciples are told by the angels that Jesus will see them in Galilee, which is Matthew's ending. And of course there's a big difference between Matthew and Luke, with Luke having the disciples told explicitly to remain in Jerusalem to meet the risen Lord, while in Matthew there's no meeting in Jerusalem and they go to Galilee instead. And John combines both traditions). Anyway, that, really, is what I'm suggesting.PiCo (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the same section we mention the incident in John where the risen Jesus breathes on the disciples to give them the Holy Spirit. This is the same incident as mentioned in Acts, though the narrative details differ - the coming of the Paraclete. It reflects the ancient Jewish belief that the mortal human is formed of three divine elements, namely flesh, blood and breath, all of which are the gift of God alone (God forms Adam of clay, blood is forbidden to Noah, and breath is life itself). And of course, Matthew's detail of the earthquake and the risen dead is derived from Daniel's promise of the resurrection of the virtuous dead of Israel. The bible is so rich, and people miss so much.PiCo (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that this article is based on the shorter ending of Mark. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was reading it wrong. PiCo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add a sentence to the Mark bullet point [e.g. "The original ending of Mark (which does not have Mark 16:9-20) does not include any resurrection appearances."], that's fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm fine :) PiCo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RTPEggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

God is a rapist? A prophet suggested God is a rapist. References This means that if Jesus is the son of God that he is the son of an alleged rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) References It has been suggested that Jesus is the bastard son of a rapist. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC) This sounds like New Atheist trolling. Like, I'm seeing about as much of a connection of the sources and as much cherry picking as I see whenever any sectarian tries to make some other sect out to be abhorrent (be the sectarian atheist, Christian, conservative, liberal, feminist, traditionalist). I'm having trouble seeing what you expect to accomplish from this except to get a rise out of people, because this isn't how you convince people to accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. And while I still believe that you believe your goal is article improvement, this section is so incompetently phrased and sourced (in that it engaged in misrepresentative WP:SYNTH) that I don't see anyone beyond you honestly saying that that's what you could possibly achieve with your post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC) And reviewing the above section, I'm starting to conclude that you are WP:NOTHERE for article improvement but to push your own fundamentalist antitheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Emphasizing New Atheism is undue.

All non-Christians reject the divinity of Jesus.

Atheists are not Christians.

All atheists, almost by definition, reject the concept of divinity.

Ergo, atheist reject the divinity of Jesus.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not about emphasizing New Atheism. It is about verifying the content.

It is not about all non-Christians reject the divinity of Jesus.

It is not about atheists are not Christians.

It is not about all atheists, almost by definition, reject the concept of divinity.

The content Atheists reject Jesus' divinity failed verification.

Edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". does not make any sense. Providing a source to verify a claim is not about WP:UNDUE.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue does not apply to content that failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, do you have a suggestion on how to resolve this dispute since the current content fails verification? QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Per policy that content still fails verification. I recommend a source for the content. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." That's what I have done. QuackGuru (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the sentence about atheist views on Jesus and Richard Dawkin's comment on Jesus should even be in this article. That section is mainly about religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins does not represent all atheists.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a better suggestion for where it belongs? QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How about in the article about New Atheism? That's what you attempt to keep proselytizing here, after all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• What. The. Ever. Loving. F-...

1. Who the hell needs to source "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity"?
2. Why would anyone change "Atheists" to "New Atheists" in that sentence? Do old atheists accept Jesus' divinity? o_O ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE - See: WP:ANI#User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related articles - make of it what you will. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a single tag is acceptable for failed verification content according to WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

See Ian's point about the color of the sky, above: We don't need to source "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity" because anyone who knows what an atheist is knows that they reject Jesus' divinity. Nor is this a common misconception; atheists reject claims of divinity by definition. Your change didn't just add a tag, either. You changed "atheists" to "new atheists" which creates a false divide, suggesting that traditional (or "old") atheists accept Jesus' divinity, or at the very least, are undecided on it. That is simply not true. Indeed, it's utterly nonsensical. You have, quite literally, made the article worse with your edits. I really don't understand the way you approach verification, sometimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a small tweak the content for it to reflect the source I found. I was unable to find a source to verify the current wording. The sky is blue is for unsourced content. This content failed verification. For failed verification, WP:BLUE does not apply. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are so bizarre that I really don't see the point of engaging you any further. Your focus on strangely interpreted minutiae boggles my mind, and I've been diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:, there is neither rhyme nor reason to your edits. The only way a "failed verification" makes any sense at all is if you take it to mean that you have failed to verify that Jesus is divine to your own personal satisfaction. Given the ANI thread, I urge you to stop beating this particular horse. Any new editor or IP without your record of contributions would have already been blocked for WP:IDHT or WP:CIR reasons by this point. It would be a loss to the project for you to pursue this quixotic quest. There are already flurries falling at ANI and continuing these edits only increases the likelihood of sub-optimal outcomes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

On the talk page please WP:FOC. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I do not mean to be rude, but, quite frankly, your behavior on this talk page seems to be totally erratic and nonsensical. The fact that atheists reject Jesus's divinity is pretty much an essential part of the definition of the word atheist. I would highly recommend taking a step back and moving on. I am sure you probably have good intentions, but, at this point, you are just creating chaos. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentence broken

Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but not all hold a negative estimation of him; Richard Dawkins, for instance, refers to Jesus as "a great moral teacher",[417] while stating in his book The God Delusion that Jesus is praiseworthy because he did not derive his ethics from biblical scripture.[418]

The "because" or the last "not" makes little sense to me. Should it be "even though" instead of because? I would prefer to split up the sentence to make the content of it more clear but I cannot do it thus I do not know what the author wanted to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.16.107.166 (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins, demonstrating his knowledge of theology, really does believe that Jesus didn't bother much with the Hebrew Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins' suggestion that Jesus did not derive his morality from the Hebrew Bible is not a claim that Jesus did not reference (or "bother much with") the Hebrew Bible, and hence isn't supportive of any assertion that he lacks knowledge of theology (which is irrelevant). Dawkins' point is that biblical anecdotes about Jesus doing things like healing on the Sabbath surpasses the less forgiving 'morality' of the Mosaic law.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the thread above this, I don't think the sentence about atheist views on Jesus and Richard Dawkin's comment on Jesus should even be in this article. That section is about religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins does not represent all atheists. Therefore, the sentence should be removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence about atheist views on Jesus is okay. But the Dawkins sentence should definitely be removed, because it's an evaluation of Jesus' moral teachings, a completely different topic from what the section is about.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That being said, the sentence about atheism and Jesus should be removed, since the section is about groups that have Jesus as part of their faith rather than groups that don't. And because atheist views on Jesus should be obvious and goes without saying.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the Dawkins material; the section is called "Perspectives", not "Religious perspectives". Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We can rename it to "Religious perspectives" if you want. I'm okay with that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the name of the section, and no reason to. Softlavender (talk)

A better section title is a perfect reason to rename it. Not sure why you keep saying there is no consensus or why that matters when no on has objected to the removal.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The section is not strictly about religious perspectives. There was no consensus for your removal of cited text, and it was reverted, so there is obvious objection to the removal. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the disputed sentence should be kept; it provides useful context for understanding atheists' views on Jesus. Dawkins is, of course, completely off-target with his anachronistically Pauline assertion that Jesus "did not derive" his moral teachings from the Talmud, since that is, after all, precisely what Jesus did. (The "Golden Rule" comes from Leviticus 19:18 and the mandate to care for the poor and the oppressed is a continuation from Second Isaiah. Jesus expanded on these precepts, but the basic skeleton was already there.) This does not really matter, though, because Dawkins is still a noteworthy proponent of atheism and I am sure there are plenty of atheists who would agree with his faulty assumptions. As best as I can tell, in this sentence, he is not being used to represent the views of all atheists; he is just being used as a noteworthy example of what some atheists believe. While it is indeed obvious that atheists do not believe Jesus is God incarnate, their other views on Jesus are not so obvious and I do not mind the article taking a few sentences to explain those perspectives. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The section should be about Jesus' "status" in various groups, not how certain individuals think about Jesus' teachings. Russell, an atheist, was very critical of Jesus' teachings. Should we also include what Ghandi thought about Jesus and his teachings? What about Karl Marx? Choosing which who to include and who not to becomes arbitrary. That being said, we might need to remove the sentence about the Dalai Lama and the one about Indian guru for the same reason.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Jesus the person. There are articles about Jesus Christ. Seems to me this article would be a lot cleaner without too much religious speculation, theology, and philosophy. Dawkins has interesting things to say. But, I don’t think this is the correct article. I am still concerned with the emphasis on Christianity here. Jesus was considered the penultimate prophet and the harbinger of the end times in Islam; if I remember correctly. And yet, the article appears to suggest that Christians ‘own’ Jesus, and that there is one way to view his existence. Just my impression. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus was considered ... the harbinger of the end times in Islam; if I remember correctly." you can read the article if you like and find exactly that stated in the section "Perspectives" under "Islamic" - Most Muslims believe that Jesus will return to earth at the end of time and defeat the Antichrist. There is a paragraph in the lead, a section of Islamic perspectives and a referral to the article Jesus in Islam.Smeat75 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• @FutureTrillionaire:The section should be about Jesus' "status" in various groups, not how certain individuals think about Jesus' teachings. I'm curious about this. How exactly do you believe a person's "status" would be formed if not for the individual group members' opinions about his teachings? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We need a RS that states what the group believes about Jesus.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, ignoring for a second that this doesn't address my question; Atheists are not a cohesive group. One can only point to the views of prominent atheists to show the attitudes of atheists. Contrary to what many religious people seem to think, there is no Atheist Manifesto which all atheists subscribe to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We could perhaps use Richard Dawkins as an example of a positive atheistic perspective on Jesus and Bertrand Russell (or someone else) as a example of a negative perspective. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That would work for me. I know there's no shortage of atheists slamming Jesus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we should include religious groups that have Jesus as part of their religion. It doesn't make sense to include atheism or groups that don't include Jesus as part of their religion with the exception of Judaism, but that's only because Jesus was a Jewish and Christianity branched from Judaism.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Since we're continuing to ignore my question above, let's move on to the next one and see if it gets a better response. Why should we limit that section to religions that include Jesus in their doctrine? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We can include the sentence about atheism rejecting Jesus' divinity if we really want to (although I think it's unnecessary). But the sentece about Dawkins should definitely be removed. Including the opinions of individual atheists on Jesus' teachings makes no sense. If somebody had an opinion on Jesus' public speaking skills, should we include that as well? What about somebody's opinion on Jesus' sense of fashion? What about Gandhi's view on Jesus? What about Stalin's view on Jesus? They're all off-topic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of this is covered in Christian_atheism. Objective3000 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion is reminding me of the Jefferson Bible; Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted his own "Bible" together about Jesus, removing all the miracles and supernatural stuff. Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article. Softlavender (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Much along the lines of some versions of Unitarian Universalism. Objective3000 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't think up a good source off the cuff, but "Jesus was a mortal teacher, not a divine miracle worker" is the line toed by the pastor of my local Unitarian church. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think most Unitarians believe the miracles were apocryphal. I think most adherents to Islam treat this another way. Jesus conducted miracles, but not by his own power. It was God working through him. Objective3000 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

·== Christocentric POV == This is a revival of a discussion in June archived for inactivity. Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam is given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism. My good faith edits on Jesus' role as the Messiah in two similarly-sized religions should be reflected per NPOV. The current lede has a "separate but equal" vibe. Plumber (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with plumber's grievances about his edits being reverted. By not including information about Islam and Jesus in the lede, the article has a pretty clear bias towards a Christian perspective. But since those are not the only prevailing perspectives of Jesus, it pretty clearly violates NPOV, in my opinion. --Potato muffin (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I can only find two explanations for Potato muffin's comment above, either he doesn't know what "lede" means or he hasn't read it, because there is a whole paragraph in the lead "the section before the table of contents and the first heading" which includes information about Islam and Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Smeat75. As the page you linked clearly states, a good lead should be about 4 paragraphs. The separate but equal status quo is six paragraphs, with my revision much closer to an ideal lead both in this regard and involving NPOV. Plumber (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a featured article, so if there were some sort of hard and fast rule about the number of paragraphs in the lead, or an obvious POV problem, it would not have achieved that status.Smeat75 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

When I got this article to FA status a few years ago, the lede was only 4 paragraphs (see [2]). But then people kept adding stuff to the lede so it became longer. Take a look at that version. Do you like it better? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)