Talk:Jesus

Added at the bottom

Jesus is a religious, cultural, worldwide icon, and is among the most influential people in human history. (Reference here) - User:Sleetimetraveller — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 21 July 2021

Christians and the church

I think the first sentence should be "Christians believe he is the Son of God the Father and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." WalkingRadiance (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing a consensus for this sentence in the lead Christians believe he is the Son of God the Father and the head of the global church. WalkingRadiance (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The way it is written now is perfectly fine and is broad enough to include all Christians. Also, please do not edit without a consensus. Starting a conversation on the talk page without any other editors commenting is not a consensus. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Very much agree with Therealscorp1an here -- especially in the lead, we should be very broad, and include all Christianities, even those with differing ideas about the person of Jesus or the hypostatic union. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with WalkingRadiance. I want to make following[1] minor changes in the wording of the lead paragraph. I think it would make sense mentioning Jesus being considered as the Son of God rather than "most Christians consider him incarnation of God the Son", as it obviates the need to use "most" as well as all Christian denominations agree with the former title including the non-trinitarian ones. There is also a major need to mention the status of Old & New Testament scriptures for better understanding of the reader, which collectively make up the Christian Bible. Regards Neplota (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Dumuzid too agrees with the change I am proposing after reading his/her comment. They are right the sentence should include all Christians including the non-trinitarian ones. So Son of God is better than God the Son. I don't know which version Therealscorp1an was talking about, but they too seem to be in agreement. Son of God covers all versions of Christianity.Neplota (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think beliefs without the Trinity with the God the Father, God the Son Lord Jesus Christ and Son of God and Son of Man and the Holy Spirit/Spirit/Holy Ghost are heretical.

Orthodox Christianity is the beliefs in the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed on the union of the natures of God and man, and the Athanasian Creed.

I have posted these on my talk page.

I think the lead should make it clear that Christianity professes that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man. I disagree with the statement that there are branches of Christianity that do not believe this. WalkingRadiance (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Jesus (c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Christians believe he is the Son of God, whose coming as the messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament in Christianity) and chronicled in the New Testament.

I think the lead should include a statement that Christianity includes the belief that Jesus Christ is alive today in heaven and seated at the right hand of God and he wil return to judge people alive and dead. I think the lead should also include a statement about the doctrine that Jesus is the head of the church and the church is the body of Christ.

I think that "Most Christians" should not be included because it mixes heresies that do not confess the Trinity and Godhead with orthodox Christianity. There are three major branches in Christianity, the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Greek Orthodox. I think the first sentence about the messiah is kind of confusing because then the entire Old Testament has to be delved into.

I think its simpler to have a lead that is not specific to the prophecies of the Old Testament and applicable to all people (Gentiles). Many cultures do not have the Jewish prophecies but have converted to Christianity for example the conversion of Iceland. I think for Jewish readers this sentence is easy to understand but for people not from Jewish culture this part should be moved to later in the article.

I have the following first sentence:

Jesus (c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion which professes him to be the Son of God. WalkingRadiance (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Neplota, you are quite right that I am in agreement with your approach! WalkingRadiance, I mean this with all due respect, but your approach is wrong for this page. This is about the figure of Jesus, and in a non-denominational and inclusive way. Wikipedia does not take sides on doctrinal schisms or controversies. What you call "heresies" other people call "faiths." While I think your version encompasses a large majority of titular Christians, there are many sects both old and new which differ. It's not Wikipedia's place to define orthodoxy. It's our place to describe things in as neutral and universal a way as possible. Your insights would obviously be appropriate on articles with a more specific sectarian bent. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@WalkingRadiance I have to disagree with some of your statements. There are both trinitarian & non-trinitarian denominations (although a very miniscule minority) of Christianity and they may consider each other heretical, but Wikipedia is neutral in this regard. As long as a denomination considers itself Christian, no matter how "heretical" its beliefs are, Wikipedia will consider it Christian, consider the Mormons as an example. You said and I quote I think the lead should include a statement that Christianity includes the belief that Jesus Christ is alive today in heaven and seated at the right hand of God and he wil return to judge people alive and dead. I think the lead should also include a statement about the doctrine that Jesus is the head of the church and the church is the body of Christ, there's already a detailed article Jesus in Christianity for this purpose, and this article's body also describes this in detail. This also leads to the same problem as before as it details the beliefs of a particular subset of Christians, so there's no need to mention that in the lead. Regards Neplota (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion here, I think no one has a problem with minor changes I was proposing in the lead paragraph, & they in fact got confused with the more broader changes WalkingRadiance was proposing, therefore got reverted as a consequence. Regards Neplota (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

While I do feel that "Son of God" is better than "God the Son" as it covers more of Christianity and is less esoteric, I do think keeping "Most" is necessary. I'm pretty sure most of the major heterodox Christian denominations (Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses) would agree with the statement, I am not certain of all sects of Unitarians or Liberal Christians or some of the early heterodox Christian groups that might consider Jesus as a moral teacher but not divine in any way. Retention of "Most" has been fairly consistent in all recent consensus building discussions that involved a larger number of editors, so this discussion with only two editors favoring its removal might be considered only a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at this point. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter, the denominations that you have mentioned i.e., Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Unitarians all consider Jesus to be the Son of God, so your argument against my minor changes in the lead paragraph doesn't hold. The statement Son of God can be interpreted in both divine as well as spiritual sense, therefore, it's the best way to describe Jesus' status in Christianity. Furthermore it links to Son of God (Christianity) article which further elaborates on the idea. Most importantly, Wikipedia articles aren't set in stone and we editors can make changes as long as they are factual, so using WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as justification to revert my changes makes no sense, especially when my edits were initially reverted for the reason that I didn't bring the matter to the talk page first and hadn't gotten a consensus. I have abided by the rules. Regards Neplota (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter Furthermore it's not my fault that more editors aren't participating to statisfy your requirement for a "broader consensus". Perhaps they consider the changes I am making too minor to be worth a discussion.Neplota (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: Both the discussion from three months ago and the discussion from six months ago showed a consensus to keep "Most". Articles certainly aren't written in stone, but sometimes other editors get tired of repeating themselves, especially when the same topic is being brought up repeatedly. Let the current consensus percolate for a few months or go through a more formal DR avenue, such as an RFC, to make sure it isn't a case of a local consensus. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the statement trinitarian Christians believe this would be a way to add the sentence to the lead. WalkingRadiance (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Or say "most Christians" as consensus after multiple debates has determined is the best solution. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa can you explain how's the edit incorrect?Neplota (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean this one? Unitarians, other non-trinitarians, the fact that it's a matter of huge debate who is and who isn't Christian etc etc etc, discussed frequently - see the talk page archives. DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa:@FyzixFighter: As per BBC [2] many Unitarians don't even believe in God, others do but don't consider themselves Christian and than there are some Unitarians who consider themselves Christian. As per the official website of Unitarian Universalist Church [3] it has no official doctrine in regards to God or Jesus, believers are free to consider themselves to be Christian or not, and consider Jesus to be the Son of God or not. So you are referring to a religion that doesn't even have a fixed belief regarding God's existence or its affiliation with Christianity, let alone Jesus. Unless it has an official/mainstream doctrine in regards to Jesus, you can't use it as a counter to my edit. No other contemporary non-trinitarian Christian denomination doesn't consider Jesus to be the Son of God. So using the word most is highly unnecessary as it assumes a good chunk of Christians don't consider Jesus to be the Son of God or the Messiah, which really isn't the case. Neplota (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC) ::@DeCausa:@FyzixFighter:Frankly using the term "most" here is same as saying "most Muslims or most Christians believe in God", which is absurd as you need to be a theist in order to be a Muslim or Christian. Same goes with Jesus being the Son of God and the ultimate Messiah, all Christian denominations with official doctrines agree with this. The very term Christian is derived from Christ which refers to Jesus' nature as the Messiah. I am not even a Christian but that's just common sense. I hope you people got the point, I was trying to explain. Regards Neplota (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You've confused Unitarian Universalism and Unitarianism. "I hope you people got the point" is not a good way to persuade others to a view that's been expressed more effectively and on multiple times previously, yet still did not on those occasions change consensus. You've raised nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: there's nothing insidious about my edit. The only change that I made post discussion was to alter "most Christians" to "Christians overwhelmingly" which emphasized the fact that only Unitarians out of countless other Christian denominations don't consider Jesus son of God. However, it still stayed true to the consensus here that not all Christians consider Jesus to be the son of God. @FyzixFighter: your input in this regard will be appreciated too as my trivial change to the wording of the sentence is being blown way to much out of proportion. RegardsNeplota (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: I see where I have stated my preference for "Son of God", I'm not seeing where DeCausa has agreed to this change. What I do see appears to be DeCausa getting sick of repeating themselves to an editor who doesn't hear it. You are edit warring - you have reached the 3RR in less than 12 hours. Please revert to the long-standing version. If you did hear the community disagreement you would come to the talk page and not edit war. The previous consensus is from November of last year, and you have been slow edit warring around this sentence since then (in January, February, April, April, June, June). Start an RFC, go through the DR process, but stop edit warring. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: DeCausa only objected to my edit involving the removal of the word "most" [4]. No issue was raised on rest of the changes i.e., using the word Son of God instead of God the Son by DeCausa. Our main point of discussion was whether all Christians agree that Jesus is the Son of God. DeCausa gave the example of Unitarianism as a counter to my insistence on removing the word. Therefore I finally accepted their claim. But in my final edit instead of using "Most Christians" I changed it to "Christians overwhelmingly" which wasn't reverted by any editor for almost 15 days. RegardsNeplota (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As is mostly the case with your edit summaries and posts, that's untrue. What you said in this edit summary was I have restored the article to the version that other editors including DeCausa agreed. What you said above is different: that I didn't object. I didn't object because i wasn't involved in that point - i didn't need to be because the consensus is clear. But "DeCausa agreed" is just a straightforward lie. Also "I finally accepted their claim" and then changed it anyway. The consesnsus was not to change the current text. So what you did was to do it with a misleading edit summary in the hopes no one would notice. But they did. What is "sentence" supposed to mean as an edit summary? Oh I know: "I want to get my edit passed consensus so I'll use a bland and meaningless edit summary rather than saying what I'm actually doing because no one will check that". You've been up to these tricks in multiple articles, not just here. Unfortunately, Neplota, nothing you say can be relied on or believed, which is why there's an ANI thread about you already even though you've only had a few hundred edits. Are you going to explain yourself there or are you going to continue to hide from it? DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR is not yet violated but Neplota is on the very edge. Warning added to Talk page and situation mentioned on ANI. RFC is the correct way to go here; both WP:CON and WP:STABLE warrant a refresher. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

The lead paragraph says that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Yesterday, I edited this to list other major religions that venerate him as an important figure, including the quickly-successful Manichaeism and Islam, as well as Druze and Bahá'í. I was told that since there exists a consensus from two years ago, a new discussion should be started to come to a new one. GOLDIEM J (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus already in place. There are a multitude of other religions which consider Jesus an important figure apart from Christianity, & they don't deserve to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.Neplota (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Other religions may not need mentioning individually, but the opening paragraph does need to mention that Jesus is held in esteem of other religions. MOS:OPEN is perfectly clear on the need for neutrality in the first paragraph: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. Not much here to explain. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of MOS:OPEN here. Jesus' status in some other religions is already mentioned in detail in the last paragraph of the lead, & that should be enough. No other religion in the world apart from Christianity considers him to be a central figure. Muhammad for example is held in high regard in Baha'i faith, Babism and Druzism but the first paragraph in article Muhammad only mentions Islam because he's central figure only in that religion. Furthermore the statement "a major figure in numerous other world religions" is still generalizing a lot despite using the word "numerous" in it, unless we mention those religions individually. Regards Neplota (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to disagree with MOS:OPEN; it is part of the manual of style, and the guideline is very specifically about the first paragraph: it does not say a lack of neutrality in the first paragraph can be balanced by alternative viewpoints in a later paragraph. If you think a prior consensus is in place, you need to prove it, not just fake it till your make it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's your interpretation of MOS:OPEN that I am disagreeing with here not MOS:OPEN itself. And your interpretation of it is wrong as I already explained by giving the example of Muhammad. You don't get to define guidelines or what constitutes neutral here. I am just defending the stable version of the article here. You are the one who came here and made that change, so the onus to justify those changes and get a consensus lies on you not me.Neplota (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You said that you "agree with the consensus already in place", so I would request you provide your proof of prior consensus-forming discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes the consensus that has been in place for 2 years now, and corresponds to the stable version of the article that I am defending here. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make here?Neplota (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Being part of the stable-ish version of the articles does not mean something has consensus, which means a past agreement has been reached between editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You are unable to understand what I am trying to say here, and failed to counter the argument which I provided against your changes. In any Wikipedia article, if you make some change to a previously stable version, you need to convince other editors about that change, something you have failed to do here.Neplota (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: No, I actually don't. I merely wish to abide by the guideline MOS:OPEN, which you have not provided any evidence of a consensus to contravene. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And you have failed to provide evidence that we aren't already abiding by MOS:OPEN. You keep using this term as if it has some kind of meaning of its own, while failing to provide any argument in favour of the change you want to make.Neplota (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty bloody obvious, but I also already spelled it out on your talk page: Asserting that Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else in that same opening paragraph is the opposite of neutral: it is a clearly biased point of view. When a figure is revered by multiple faiths, including the second largest no less, it is a fairly extreme lack of neutrality to only mention one view. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have have agreed to your objection if the lead paragraph had said Jesus is revered only in Christianity, which obviously isn't the case here. And you still haven't replied to the analogy I gave you about Muhammad. No matter how many other religions revere Muhammad, the fact is that he's central only to Islam & that's what the first paragraph of the article dedicated to him says. The same goes with Jesus, no matter how many other religions, regardless of their size, revere him, he the central figure only in Christianity. Regards Neplota (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source WP:WINARS, so it is quite possible that the Muhammad page gets this wrong as well. That's a topic for another page. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and I try really hard to assume good faith, but Iskandar323, I'm not sure if you're serious. You've misrepresented Neplota's position on MOS:OPEN (No, Neplota never said they disagree with it) and you have misrepresented what the opening paragraph says (No, it doesn't say "Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else"). Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: So ... you also think that the rather explicit instructions in MOS:OPEN for neutrality in the first paragraph can be backdated in the fourth paragraph? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Religious significance of Jesus in lead paragraph

Should the opening paragraph in the lead summary outline the religious significance of Jesus to world religions other than Christianity, and how should it go about this? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes In accordance with MOS:OPEN: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. At the moment, after the purely biographical detail, the first paragraph mentions only the Christian point of view. This is not neutral or balanced. It mentions neither the views of the religious community from which he came (Judaism)[5], the views of the world's second largest religion (Islam)[6], or his significant as a figure in various other world religions, e.g. Baháʼí, etc. Even considering due weight, and the fact that Jesus is the central figure to Christianity in a way that can not be said of other faiths, the opening paragraph should still outline, at the bare minimum, that the relevance of Jesus extends beyond the bounds of Christianity, rather than leaving the subject entirely untouched as the first paragraph currently does. This issue has been raised several times before, e.g. here and here, but without the coalescence of any clear consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree. The first paragraph needs to be more inclusive. Especially, his position in Judaism and Islam is currently missing there. Khestwol (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• No -ish "Outlining" its significance in other religions in the first paragraph would I think be WP:UNDUE. However, a sentence at the end of the paragraph just saying something like "Jesus is also a revered figure in other religions" would be ok as an intro to the more detailed paragraph at the end of the lead. DeCausa (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Thank you for your input, but isn't that a yes-ish? I actually tried to add a fairly innocuous sentence very similar to that, only to be rebuffed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was focusing on the phrase in the question outline the religious significance of Jesus.... I think "outlining" sounds to me more than what I was suggesting or what your edit was doing (which looks ok to me except I'm not sure about "numerous"). Semantics perhaps. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes And also mention that plenty of people don't believe he even existed, or don't care whether he existed. And no, I'm not trying to be provocative here. I just want this alleged person to be treated the same as any other alleged historical figure not attached to a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is a silly comment. Jesus is as well-documented as many other ancient figures whose existence is unquestioned. Take it from a fellow Australian (an atheist!). 67.170.60.41 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Not true. There is plenty of material about other historical figures from around that time that was written while they were alive. Not the case with Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

While the first written sources we have are Paul's, there was obviously a strong oral history surrounding Jesus. We don't know when the Q and other sources were written but the First Century texts were based on existing sources, written or not. The weight of scholarship is firmly with the historical Jesus; the arguments of mythicists tend to be shallow and short on evidence. Atheist scholars such as Bart Ehrman provide copious annotated and bilbliographed material. We can talk of Jesus the man as distinct from the supernatural being that the later Christians describe him as being. Get rid of all the myths and magic and Jesus is just a Jewish preacher, of which there were presumably many thousands about in First Century Palestine. You are sureluy not suggesting that there were no rabbis around in a Jesish society just because we don't know their names and addresses? --Pete (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If you had read the linked article, you would be aware that there are many ancient figures whose existence is only supported by texts written after their own lifetimes. Jesus is far, far from unusual in that regard. 2601:601:1B00:7530:A041:9CE9:BBF9:3768 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul and especially the Gospels - both canon and apocrypha - quote many sayings of Jesus. While undoubtedly many were distorted or fabricated there is general agreement that some are genuine. The scholarly debate is about which ones. Oral history or written, these sayings must necessarily have been collected during his lifetime. John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Thomas, which is entirely such material, was compiled earlier than generally accepted. The reality is that Jesus only became prominent and notable after his execution and his life and sayings became of interest to those beyond an immediate audience. Hardly surprising that we have no written record composed during his short life but plenty after when he became the central figure of a vigorous new philosophy. --Pete (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. The present framing is balanced. The notability of Jesus, the significance of Jesus, in a purely neutral sense, to any and all readers, is overwhelmingly a function of his status as the central figure, in a sense the founder, the object of worship, of Christianity; in fact, I would argue that his significance as a peripheral prophet or guru or what-have-you for other religions derives from this fact and depends upon it. A full paragraph of the lead, albeit the last, comments on his place in the Islamic and Judaic traditions. It is not possible or desirable to cram everything into the first paragraph; it is interesting that Jesus is a manifestation of God in the Baháʼí faith, but it is undue in the first paragraph. Regulov (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Balance is certainly something to be weighed carefully, but can ignoring all other traditions associated with Jesus honestly be considered "purely neutral"? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to say I think the "neutrality" argument is a bit of a red herring. We have a whole paragraph in the lead on other religions. I think adding to that substantively in the first paragraph does start causing a WP:DUE problem (especially a specific reference to Jewish non-belief). For me the best argument to include something in the first paragraph is a stylistic one. The lead flows better if there's a linkage (however brief) to the last paragraph - rather than that it coming "out of the blue" at the end. Currently, it looks like an artificial "add on". or afterthought. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I respect that, and wholeheartedly agree with your stylistic point: the lack of linkage between first and last paragraphs was also a thing that struck me. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. The disputed text is an addition to the sentence, "He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, as well as a major figure in numerous other world religions" (emphasis supplied), an addition too vague and misleading to make by itself, and requiring more explanation than belongs in a three-sentence lead paragraph. The fourth paragraph of the lead ostensibly serves this purpose, although not very well, since it is almost entirely concerned with Islam—where Jesus appears to be a relatively minor figure, despite the conspicuous claim to the contrary in the subsection about Islam—with a brief mention of Judaism, in which he is not an important figure at all, at the end. Other religions are not mentioned at all. This paragraph needs to be significantly rewritten in order to serve its purpose—and it cannot reasonably do that and be folded into the lead paragraph.

As far as the purpose of this proposal, I can see two equally bad results, each of which misleadingly claim to create NPOV, although they do not. 1) the first diminishes the significance of Jesus as the central figure of Christianity by placing undue weight on his supposed importance in other religions, although his role in other major religions is in fact minimal, and his role in smaller religions is mostly—if not entirely—derived from his importance to Christianity; 2) the second enhances the significance of Jesus as a figure of importance in multiple religions besides Christianity, by exaggerating his role in them, as well as creating a false equivalency between relatively minor religions and Christianity—also an example of undue weight if forced into the lead paragraph.

The lead paragraph cannot adequately describe every important aspect of this topic—even with several subsequent paragraphs it is only possible to describe them briefly. This attempt to shoehorn one particular subtopic into the lead, where it would be too vague to be helpful, and imply a disproportionate significance to that subtopic, is simply a bad idea. P Aculeius (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: This RFC does not reference a specific text, but throws the floor open to ideas. As I mentioned, this issue has cropped up again and again. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

And that was just the starting point for my reply. If you agree that the text originally added is too vague to be helpful in this context, then you must realize that this proposal would require some extended discussion in the lead paragraph—which is currently three basic and fairly uncontroversial sentences outlining the cultural significance of Jesus in general terms. Once you start listing other religions in which he is in some way acknowledged as a person of historical or religious significance, you risk undermining the purpose of the lead paragraph. The fact that there is a great deal of significant material to discuss in the topic is why the lead is four paragraphs long; why does his role in other religions need to be one of the first things said? That clearly gives undue weight to a relatively minor but complex series of relationships in other religious traditions. It would be like insisting that Jesus be mentioned in the lead section of Hinduism, simply because some Hindus regard him as a divine or semi-divine figure, and he's so important to other religions. P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• No per the reasons given above. This entire article lead was also written by a group of editors and agreed on by a large consensus, so for that reason, amongst others listed, I think it is fine the way it is. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to say as well as a major figure in numerous other world religions is flat untrue, if that is what we are talking about. The last lead para says he is "revered" in Islam, which is theoretically true, but actually most Islamic mentions have been pretty hostile for many centuries. There's too much on Islam in the lead, but a word or two on Baháʼí might be appropriate. Not sure the absence of any significance in Judaism is lead-worthy either. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  'Flat untrue' why? There are at least four here. And 'pretty hostile' based on what? Jesus in Islam is both major prophet and vital eschatological functionary. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Druze are hardly a "world religion", others are extinct. The significance of Jesus in Islam is pretty small, not least because Islam considers there is no reliable record of anything he taught. There is a very long record of hostile and derogatory comments on Jesus by Muslims. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• No as already explained in our previous discussion.Neplota (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• No It is already mentioned in another paragraph. The article does not contain that much material on the perspectives of other religions. Senorangel (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  • No as per passed rfc and WP:DUE. whole paragraph in the lead on the topic. Moxy- 01:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Moxy: I couldn't find a past RFC on this particular subject specifically, so if you know of one, it would be useful if you could link to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral - There's no concrete proof that the fella ever existed. Anyways, whatever is decided, is good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Probably not I confess, I am a bit unclear as to what exactly is being proposed, but I will offer some general thoughts. First is that this is one of many disputes where I don't think policy gets us very far--either rendition could be perfectly compliant. But I tend to think a very broad, simple reference in the opening paragraph is best, as we have it now, to be expanded later in the article. I think maintaining the focus is better -- but I can certainly go either way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes this RfC is very vague, but the significance of Jesus in religions other than Christianity is relevant to the subject and merits some mention on the lead. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is in the lead—there's a whole paragraph about it. This discussion is about whether it needs to be discussed in the first paragraph. P Aculeius (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: ah, thanks for clarifying. I'm obviously aware it's in the lead already; I read this as being about whether it should be retained. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Probably not. The first paragraph should define the topic and establish article context per MOS:OPEN. Neither of those requirements dictate that Jesus's significance in other religions be mentioned. A specifically-worded, very terse proposal could plausibly change my mind. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Jesus is a sufficiently major figure in Islam, at least, that it ought to be mentioned. I'm not sure there are other faiths that are simultaneously major enough and have Jesus as a significant enough figure, but that one is the obvious one. Compare eg. Moses and Abraham, which are (roughly) equally important in Islam and get such a mention in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) The WP:LEADPARAGRAPH is there to "define/identify" the topic, "without being too specific"; and to "establish the context", give "location and time", and "establish boundaries". Given the topic of "Jesus", adding information about Islam's view to the lead paragraph does not follow the recommendations of the guideline for the opening paragraph. As to whether it should be present in the lead at all, I would say that this is almost entirely a WP:DUEWEIGHT question, based on the answer to the question of whether the view of Islam is one of "the most important points" to know about Jesus. My impression is that only a very small proportion of the enormous amount of published material about Jesus discusses Islam's view, and so I would say that it does not belong in the lead, but could be mentioned in the body; however, such impressions would require data to back it up. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• No as per the reasons given above. Also, the layout of the opening lead was agreed on via a large consensus involving a large group of editors and things like this I am sure have been discussed before. The other religions are also mentioned further down in the lead, there is no point of bringing them up to the first paragraph when the subject is not even the main focus of those religions. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, with suggestion Having browsed the above reasoning plus discussions in multiple archives on the same point, I see little reason to expand on other religions in the first paragraph, when the fourth already does so, per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH and WP:DUEWEIGHT. That said, moving the first sentence of the fourth paragraph ("Jesus is also revered in other religions") to the end of the first paragraph may assuage concerns here, and better connect those two paragraphs together, improving flow. I would find that acceptable. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  This sounds like a good proposal to me. As a novice, I won't claim to be across the nuances of WP:DUEWEIGHT. In terms of how it reads, however, I do think mentioning that Jesus has relevance to some outside of being "the Central figure of Christianity" enhances the clarity of the opening paragraph and has informative value appropriate to a lead paragraph. This addition seems a decent middle ground to achieve this without undue detail or emphases that would through off balance. Also agree the change would improve flow. Equal Inequity (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• No for the first paragraph; from what I understand, Jesus is a main character in Christianity and roughly a second-level character in other major world religions.

Neutral for a mention in the second or third paragraph of the lead. CraigP459 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia should counter Systemic bias, such as a Christian-centric approach to religion. Has this RfC been shared with WikiProject Islam? (I would do so but want to avoid the appearance of lobbying.) I would revise the second sentence along these lines, with about six words:

• He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, and a major figure in Islam.

That should suffice, especially since Islam is discussed lower down in the lead section. Could mention Druze, etc. there, too. ProfGray (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If bias existed in the first paragraph, that suggestion would merely bias it towards two Abrahamic religions instead of one. It needs to either remain as is (focusing on Christianity per both WP:LEADPARAGRAPH and WP:DUEWEIGHT - which in an article on the religious significance of the central figure of Christianity, who has only secondary or tertiary in others, is not systemic bias), or at least mention all faiths for which he is significant. Hence why I made the suggestion I did. I will mention that the lead of Moses handles this by enumerating all major faiths in which Moses is significant; I find that unwieldy and would prefer my prior suggestion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Christian-centric. Christianity has more than five times as many articles as Islam (95000 vs 17000) and probably double all religions combined. This also reflects a Western (and White) bias.

Islam deserves more weight here because of its size and significance. Other Abrahamic religions are relatively much less important. Your suggestion is fine but would not be my preference.

Also, Jesus is more significant for Islam than people realize. It's not merely a matter of Jesus within Islamic beliefs, it's that Jesus is the 1st or 2nd best way to differentiate between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, though less weighty), along with scripture. So when I teach about the world's religions, Jesus is a major factor, doctrine aside. ProfGray (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is like saying a Christian perspective of Muhammad needs to be in the first paragraph of that article, which is just simply not true. Islam is literally mentioned further down in the lead, it should not matter if it is in the first paragraph or not. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict with prior comment) The statistics are immaterial to this discussion. Focusing an article regarding the central figure of Christianity on Christianity fits the aforementioned WP policies. Any systemic bias needs to be addressed in articles that do not have such a valid claim. If focusing only on Christianity when Christianity considers Jesus important is bias, then so is focusing on only Christianity and Islam when they both consider him important. That said, I would not oppose an intermediary along the lines of “Jesus is also revered in other religions, especially Islam” (and perhaps Baha’i or whichever ones are deemed to fit here.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion by @Jtrevor99. I might phrase it as: "Jesus is also significant in other religions, notably Islam." In any case, it's good to aim for consensus among editors. I don't think the decision should be based purely on numbers (given WP policy) but you might want to revise your comment to a "Yes, with suggestion."

Let me also respond to: "This is like saying a Christian perspective of Muhammad needs to be in the first paragraph of that article..."

• This is flawed reasoning. Jesus is a major figure in Islam. Muhammad is not a factor in Christianity at all. I've taught Christian theology and never had to mention Muhammad once.

ProfGray (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be closed soon, as currently five people say yes, one is neutral and fifteen say no, which is a large difference in numbers; this should be, if not is, enough for a consensus. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. My current count (including a couple below this) is 8 in favor, 10 against, and 4 largely against but willing to accept something terse. I did not count neutral / no opinion votes. Please check my counts, but appears to me the vote is close. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes I'm inclined to a brief mention in the opening paragraph of Jesus's being highly significant in Islam especially since Islam is a major world religion. Note the size of the article on Jesus in Islam and many references in the Quran to Jesus. I note also that in the article on Moses, the opening sentence is "Moses is considered the most important prophet in Judaism and one of the most important prophets in Christianity, Islam, the Druze faith, the Baháʼí Faith and other Abrahamic religions." This is perhaps going overboard in the other direction with mentioning more minor religions. The article on Abraham also mentions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the first sentence. --Erp (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, the cases of Jesus vs. Moses/Abraham can be distinguished. Moses & Abraham et alia are similar in importance to Christianity and Islam. But Jesus is uniquely important to Christianity. (Whether Jesus is a more significant figure than Moses in Islam can be debated, but his centrality to Christianity is indisputable.) ProfGray (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  But Moses and Abraham are overwhelmingly important in Judaism yet the mention of their roles in Christianity and Islam is not pushed out of the first paragraph. Erp (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is that comparing Abraham in Islam to Jesus in Islam is just not the same thing. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the requirements of MOS:OPEN, there are strong arguments from the perspective of consistency with other key Abrahamic figures. Picking just Abraham is a bit straw man. Moses is a better example - that subject is overwhelmingly important to Judaism, yet the neutral first paragraph still finds time for proper encyclopedic context. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Have the WikiProjects for Islam, Druze, and Bah'ai been notified? I'd suggest reaching out to them for comment, especially if we want to avoid the appearance of systemic bias. ProfGray (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, at the very least Jesus in Islam needs to be in as Jesus is a significant figure in Islam. Judaism has to be mentioned too, since the first sentence says he was "Jewish preacher and religious leader". That is misleading without stating the Jewish position. If he wasn't called a Jewish religious leader, then possibly it could be left out, but with that statement up there a clarification is needed.לילך5 (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. I don't really see the need for clarification, esp. given the last sentence of the opening ("Judaism rejects...") but what statement would you suggest? ProfGray (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Modifying my previous Yes, My suggestion might be adjusting the second sentence to "He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, and a major figure in several others including Islam, the second largest religion" and possibly adjusting some others. The intro of the article seems to be (a) opening paragraph with sentences (i) setting time frame and that he was a Jewish teacher (btw I think "teacher" would be better than "preacher and religious leader") (ii) position in Christianity (which should be the sentence about positions in Christianity and Islam and other religions) (iii) sentence on what his role is for most Christians (the current wording implies that the role is different for a few Christians and for other religions so being explicit about this though useful isn't essential in the first paragraph). Next (b) Paragraph laying out generally accepted facts about his life expanding the first sentence of the opening paragraph. The remaining paragraphs expand the last sentence (iii) of the intro: (c) a paragraph on Christian doctrine about him and (d) a paragraph about Muslim doctrine on him with a sentence about Jewish views on him appended (I note that the "In contrast" is in contrast to both Christian and Muslim views so should probably be in its own paragraph and not included in a paragraph almost solely about Muslim views). --Erp (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. You might want to enter a Yes or modified Yes, since you are suggesting a change. Might also decrease the indentation so it shows up more clearly. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Calling him a "Jewish preacher" is misleading, He is rejected by Jews and was a heretic.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Per MOS:LABEL calling him a "heretical Jewish preacher", as you want to, doesn't work. It's too complex and value-laden to wrap up in an adjective like that. Calling someone a "heretic" requires explicitly defining in whose eyes they are a heretic. It's not an objective descriptor. Plus he was Jewish and he was a preacher (we think) so it's not wrong anyway. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

This article has the suggested birth date of Jesus and the suggested death date but does not include the date he resurrected. There should be an added line beneath the death date that states his resurrection in the same suggested years. Primary sources for this our the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and the rest of the New Testament, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus F. history of the Jews. Thank you 32.215.42.37 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We do already list the death date as either 30 or 33 AD, however the specific date is unknown. Obviously it must have been in April and on a Friday, but the exact date is unknown. Some scholars say 3 April (from research I have seen), but there is not much more known. Jesus resurrected three days following his death, so a Sunday, but then again, the date is still unknown. Adding the resurrection date most likely needs a consensus. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, since his resurrection is a subjective religious belief, not an objective historical fact. This isn't Sunday school. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree too. It is NOT obvious it must have been in April and on a Friday. Nor can the resurrection be declared a fact at all. That's simply a religious belief, not universally shared. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Infobox template doesn't have a "resurrection_date=" parameter...DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also disagree. There is broad consensus among historians for when Jesus was born and when he died. There is no consensus (to put it mildly) that he was resurrected, hence we will not add it to the infobox as a "fact". Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Using the term "was" instead of "is" for Jesus. Please change. God bless. 2A00:23C7:7E91:9B01:C05D:B477:A8C6:317B (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but we write our articles from a nonsectarian point of view, and thus the past tense is appropriate here, though no disrespect is intended to any faith community. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Rename section

Just a suggestion here; should this section be renamed to simply "Name", as it matches other articles and its current wording seems a bit clunky/awkward. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

Change to fiction or cite reliable source(s). Parents are listed as Mary and Joseph. Not God- contradicting the fictional virgin birth story. 75.188.142.162 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)