Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

error on page

Where is the EDIT button on the main page of Jesus?

error: at bottom, it reads:

"Names of Jesus in the Old Testament"

BUT the link leads to:

"Names of Jesus in the NEW Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.26 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't edit the page because it is protected. But I've deleted the link you mentioned altogether because it is already linked (more accurately here in the article. Belasted (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment

On this AfD Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Typos

"in or our of technical circless" contains 2 typos, "our" and "circless". It should either be corrected to "out" and "circles", or else marked with a [sic] template, by someone with access to the source: Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71. Art LaPella (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider it done. Here's the source. Good catch!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph of the section on "Resurrection and Ascension" uses "principle" where the adjective "principal" is intended. The corrected version should read: "Later he appears to seven disciples who are fishing, and finally talks with Peter, foretelling Peter's death[74] and assigning him the principal role as shepherd of the new community.[74][77]" 212.150.94.78 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

done; thanks.--^StormRider 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please change "Including" to "Excluding"

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section entitled, "Historical Views", the statement, "Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his crucifixion" means, prima facie, that the Gospels themselves don't exist (a contradiction indeed!). I suggest changing "Including" to "Excluding", so that the intended meaning, which is clearly that there are no surviving EXTRA-BIBLICAL historically reliable accounts of Jesus's life, comes through.

 Not done: the Gospels weren't written within 3 decades of the crucifixion either. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's remove this

Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speargun3D (talk • contribs)

Move to Jesus of Nazareth?

I believe the principle of least surprise suggests that this article should be at Jesus of Nazareth, the common, neutral, and unique way to refer to the article's subject matter. Accordingly, I'm proposing the move. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- there were in fact other itinerant preachers named "Jesus" in the area at that time. One such "prophet" was killed by a large rock shot from a catapult. The name "Jesus of Nazareth" uniquely names, and does not presume anything. This name is common in the credible literature. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In addition, most "genealogical" resources use the "Jesus of Nazareth" moniker.

• Oppose - In the English language whenever the name Jesus is said there is only one inidividual that comes immediately to mind, Jesus Christ. I have never heard of anyone ever being confused about the topic..."do you mean Jesus of Nazareth or the Jesus that was killed with a stone or the one who always wears blue?" Jesus of Nazareth is simply another way of referring to Jesus Christ. --^StormRider 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "comes to mind" criterion is inherently subjective, which makes it problematic from WP:NPOV perspective. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- There are more than one Muhammads, Abrahams, Davids, but there is no suggestion that these articles are moved. Universally it is recognised that 'Jesus' primarily refers to the Jesus of this article, and that anyone named Jesus (particularly in Hispanic areas) is specifically named after this Jesus. Furthermore the "of Nazareth" is a paraphrasing. The Biblical reference is actually to Jesus the Nazarene - which some sources have stated may or may not actually refer to Nazareth, and therefore opens up an avoidable discussion over the ambiguity and POV of the proposed article title. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the naming issue relates to Jesus uniquely. I don't see how other people's names are relevant to this discussion.

It shows that if Mohammad, whos name is so widely used, does not have a title to it, then why should Jesus, whose name is so unique in vernacular English? There were many Jesus', even Bar Abba, the one who was released at passover, had Jesus as a first name. But as Storm Rider humorously pointed out, no one confuses Jesus Christ with a Jesus, whom Storm Rider postulates wore blue. (And I don't doubt that such a man existed if you say so Storm Rider!)Gabr-el 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, though Jesus Christ might be better. I'll take either one. Belasted (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, According to the policy on naming articles we should 'Use the most easily recognized name'. In my experience, Jesus is the most recognized name, with Jesus Christ second and Jesus of Nazareth a distance third. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with previous. Would prefer 'Jesus Christ' myself, but Orthodox Jews would not like the implication. ^rossnixon 02:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - most Jews, not just Orthodox, would reject Jesus Christ. This title works fine, no one has compained about being confused. The day we have articles on other Jesuses, is the day we provide a disambiguation page and address the problem. Right now I see no problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well its not about what one group accepts or rejects. Orthodox Christians would reject Jesus without "Christ". Gabr-el 03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. NPOV simply does not reequire us to say Jesus is the Christ. It requires us to say that some people believe he is the Christ, which this article does, with no objecions from me. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, no no, I think you misunderstand me. Yes. :) Gabr-el 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. How about something like Jesus (Christianity)? Belasted (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A title with a disambiguation should only be used when there is a primary topic and another topic has the same name and needs to be disambiguated, or when there is not clear primary topic and the disambiguation page is at the name and all topics are disambiguated. I believe this is the primary topic and should not be disambiguated like this suggestion. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping something along the lines of Jesus, Christ, God the Son - you know, in that way no one will be confused as such. Gabr-el 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks, we are getting far afield here. The proposal "Jesus of Nazareth" was made, not to correct some deficiency in the title "Jesus" other than the fact that A) it is more precisely and uniquely descriptive B) this is the prevailing name format in genealogical records (I would trust genealogists on this type of thing) C) it is NPOV (and for this reason "Jesus Christ" or "son of god" etcetera will simply never be appropriate and obviously so). If we could restrict our votes and commentary to the merits and demerits of "Jesus of Nazareth" please. There is no other move under consideration.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"the prevailing name format in genealogical records" is neither here nor there. We have no policy concerning the name formats of genealogists. We have a policy that the most common name be used. That's why "Jesus" is user, and that's why it's been pointed out that "Jesus Christ" would be the next opition, since it's the next most common. It's also why the innacuarate but well established names "Mark Antony" and "Zoroaster" are also used. There are no other Jesus's remotely likely to comete, even including Bradford Jesus. So the name should stay as it is. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Jesus Christ" is not even the most commonly used name for Jesus in many Christian churches. "Jesus" provides proper understanding of the subject matter, is the most common name, far more so than any of the following: Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ; Jesus, Son of God; Jesus, Born of Mary. Jesus is both specific enough that no one will be confused, and Neutral enough not to offend. While Jesus of Nazareth fulfills these criteria as well, it is not His most common name used by people of all religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Hamlin (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. But I don't really care between Jesus and Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Christ is untenable, and Jesus (Christianity) is a different page. Leadwind (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think "Jesus" alone is easily recognisable (and non-POV, unlike "Jesus Christ"), while "Jesus of Nazareth" just seems a bit like overkill. And yes, there were others named Jesus; so what? This particular one was far more famous than any other who shares his name. RavShimon (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

grammar error's?

anyone else noticing the not-so-fluent-english?--69.203.28.14 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples that need to be addressed? A new name 2008 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about features of Jesus' story that come from previous myths or beliefs

With all due respect, wouldn't it be valuable to mention and list all the features attributed to JC which were taken from previous myths or beliefs? Just to mention some (and please forgive if I don't name then in their proper English name):

ATIS died for mankind's salvation, was crucified in a tree, descended to the subworld and resurrected on the third day. MITRA had 12 disciples, gave a Sermon on a mountain, was called the Good Shepherd, sacrificed for mankink's peace and resurrected on a third day. BUDA tought at the temple when he was 12, healed the sick, walked on water and fed 500 men with one basket of bread; his followers were committed to poverty. KRISHNA was the son of a carpinter, his birth was announced by a star from the East.

All of course previous to JC. I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones that come to my mind. These are all facts relevant to JC.

With regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.17.241 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Attis- where is the evidence that anyone believed he was crucified in a tree? From what I can see he cut his genitals off and went mad- Zeus made him a tree so that he would not decay...fitting considering he was an acorn.

Mitra- I have found no evidence about this god other than s/he was paired up with an Iranian god. No evidence for what you claim.

Buda? (Buddha?) He didn't become a religious teacher until he renounced his possessions at 29. So it is unlikely he was teaching. I can't see evidence for any other of the things you have attributed to him.

Krishna- His father was a royal called Vasudeva. No evidence to suggest he was a carpenter. The only similarity I can find concerning his birth was that he was percived as a danger to the reigning king and had to be hidden. However, this has happened to many people, mythical and factual.

You have failed to provide evidence for the things you attributed to these gods. You need to show that people DID believe what you say prior to the life of Christ. A reliable source is not one which was published online in recent years which simply makes makes statements without citing primary sources. Gavin (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate answer: We do discuss those things on wikipedia. We have a whole category dedicated to them and this article links to some of the more important articles in that category. jbolden1517^Talk 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if we can find a reliable source, it would be really interesting to have a section like, "The early Christian stories about Jesus appear to be influenced by stories of gods and holy men current when the gospels were written, etc." Just find a reliable source that says it. Leadwind (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We have tons of RSes that say that Category:Christ_Myth , but honestly I don't think we want a major section in the main article jbolden1517^Talk 06:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FIRST PARAGRAPH:...by most Christian Churches...

I would submit that the difference between The Christian Church and non-Christian churches or sects is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, the Incarnation of God and the second Person of the Holy Trinity; that one's disbelief in this basic tenant of Christianity determines the extent of one's distance from Christian thought; and that one may not deny Christ's basic nature as God and honestly claim to be Christian. Therefore, I strongly urge that the word most be stricken from this sentence.

Christian doctrine has taught since the first century AD that Jesus, divorced from His divine nature, is naught but a teacher or a prophet-this coincides with the Mohammedan vision of Jesus(Isa)-that he was merely a propeht; a great prophet, but a prohet nonetheless-not divine, not the Incarnation of God. Nor are they alone in this. There are other sects that teach the philosophy of Jesus but refuse to believe His divinity. For this overriding reason they cannot logically call themselves 'Christians'. I call for a consensus on this.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

alredy covered Nontrinitarianism#Controversy_over_status jbolden1517^Talk 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesuse's tablet and another thing..

1.it sould be written in his ethnicity: "jewish" alone.

2. he wasen't really a healer but the son of a carpenter he probably did help Josphe but in never says that Jesus was a carpenter

the other thing is about changing the article's name from "jesus" to "Jesus of Nazereth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.188 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity

A recent edit changed the ethnicity line from "Jewish" to "Galilean Jew." I, for one, have never heard of "Galilean Jew" as a specific ethinicity as opposed to ye olde generic Jew (in fact, the link was left as "Jewish|Galilean Jew"). As such, I reverted. Apparently, however, there seems to be at least one other editor who feels the ethnicity should be left with the addendum. Any thoughts on the matter from the general community? RavShimon (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing that the person thinks that Jew comes from judean and thus a Galillean is not a Judean and must be a different kind of ethnicity. That is my guess of the other editor's motive. But historians have shown how by the time of herod "Jew" had ceased refering to someone specifically from the tribe of Judah and had come to refer to a nationality including people who were not from Judah (e.g. Herod) so clearly, Jesus' ethnicity is "Jewish" and I agree with your revert. I think this stuff is too technical to explain in this article, though perhaps it could go ino the article on the Cultural and Historical background for Jesus ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if one is to believe that Jesus is of Bethlehem, that would make him from Judea. Gabr-el 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Galileans were more of a mixed stock than the Judeans, less prone to keeping kosher, and harder pressed by Roman occupation. Jesus' identity as a Jew is primary, but his identity as a Galilean is relevant, if secondary. The two stories by which Jesus is born in Bethlehem are generally recognized as fictitious. Leadwind (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No scholarly consensus has ever proposed that Jesus was not a practicing Jew; this is at best fringe. Leadwind, I think you also know what a fringe idea this is. Further, you also know that there is no consensus that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that he was born in Galilee. If you wish to argue the point, I am happy to oblige. Always start with references from reliable sources.--^StormRider 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would like to suggest that Leadwind has a point but just lacks a full understanding of the mainstream scholarly view. The point is not that Galilleans were more of mixed stock - I know of no evidence for that. But Galilleans did have a reputation for being country bumbkins (amei ha'aretz) among Jerusalemites. As to not keeping kosher, it is not at all clear to what extent most Jews of the time kept kosher or what we mean by "keeping kosher." There are two principle views: the Orthodox view holds that the Talmud provides a recoord of the oral law revealed to Moses and observed by most Israelites following Sinai. But non-Orthodox scholars see the law as developed in the Talmud (and cal v'chomer - or if you prefer a fortiori) in codes like the Shulchan Aruch to have developed much later, and not to have been observed by most Jews during the Rabbinic and Second Temple period. In other words, it is not at all certain what any Jew considered kosher in the first century (boiling a kid in its mother's milk is clearly wrong ... but what about eating some chicken and a glass of milk?) and whatever rules of kashrut the Pharisees were developing by that time may not have been observed by most Jews not because those Jews rejected God's covenant with Israel but because there was no consensus that they applied to all Jews. The Essenes for example had their own rituals that were not shared by other Jews. Thus, Jesus may have considered himself to be fully in compliance with the Torah, and his practice was both likely shared by many others and likely differed from others.

But the issue here is ethnicity and as I said all historians of the periods consider Jews from the Galilee ethnic Jews equal to those from Judea. The best source is Shaye J.D. Cohen. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you have stated. I always get concerned when editors are strident in a position that is not supported by the majority of scholarly opinion. It makes me think that there is an agenda behind the position. What is most significant is that Jesus was a Jew; attempting to classify him into a specific subset of Jewish culture is meaningless and does not add anything to the article. --^StormRider 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Strident? Meaningless? Why the harsh words, Storm Rider? For the record, I think "Jewish" is the right entry for "ethnicity." "Galilean Jew" would be more precise, but it's not necessary. It does add something to our understanding of Jesus to know that he was from Galilee, but that's covered in the article. As for Bethlehem, modern historians recognize the gospels' two birth narratives as fabrications and no one has any historical reason to imagine that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem (or that Herod slaughtered the innocents, etc.). As for kosher, there wasn't any one single standard of what kosher meant, but the country bumpkins of Galilee were, in general, less kosher than the Judeans. Leadwind (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They were not meant to be harsh; I readily apologize. The issue of Bethlehem for the location is still of some debate (at least that is how my memory serves, but I could easily be wrong), but I would certainly agree that the innocents being slaughtered does not have support outside of the New Testament. Then again, modern scholarship casts doubt on historical support for many of the events, activities, and/or stories of the New Testament. I tend to resist efforts to over-classify. For example, I prefer limiting belief to Son of God, rather than God incarnate. The classification goes too far because it is more of a 4th century teaching rather than the time of Jesus. Back to this issue, Jesus was known as coming from several different areas and we could classify by city, region, or state. The priority, IMHO, is ethnicity and that is why I edited the article to just use Jewish. I am not arguing that Galilee is not applicable, it can be, but rather that I don't think it adds to the article. If we are going to use Galilee, it would be better to say something similar to Jesus' life was spent teaching in and around Galilee. Again, I apologize if I spoke too strongly. I think we are on the same page.--^StormRider 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not dwell too long on how messed up the Trinity is. Not productive. As for Bethlehem, if anyone could find a historical reference for Jesus actually being from Bethlehem, I'd really love to see it. Historians don't think much of the first two chapters of either Matthew or Luke. The gospels disagree on why Jesus was born in Bethlehem (because his family lived there or because of a census), and it sure looks like pious evangelists arranged for their Son of God to have been born in the city of David. If there's a historical source that takes these references as reflecting historical fact, let's find it. Leadwind (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, with all due respect, the concept that Jesus is God incarnate is as old as the Gospel of John; we know from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch that some people believed that Jesus was only God and not man at all. See [[1]] and also Docetism. Its implausible that one jumps from the belief that Jesus is only man to that Jesus is only God; there must have been a transition point when people though he was both Gabr-el 02:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gabr-el, it is good to hear from you. I was only stating my personal preference, not stating an opinion on what the article should or should not say. My personal belief is that the followers of Jesus knew he was the Son of God and the Son of Mary possessing the traits of both. You might remember that I am a non trinitarian in that I believe in three distinct members of the Godhead, but also three separate members, but one in purpose. It is my opinion that the formulation of the Trinity was a product of dealing with monotheism; if there is only one God there could not really be a Son of God, but only God himself therefore Jesus must be God the Father. I emphasize three persons in one God, whereas the Trinity emphasizes one God in three persons; the difference is sleight, but real. This is a complicated topic; suffice it to say that I focus on Jesus born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life free of sin, performed miracles, bled in the Garden, was crucified for our sins, rose on the third day, appeared again to his disciples, returned to sit on the right hand of the Father, and will return again one day. --^StormRider 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Leadwind, it sounds like you have been reading Ehrman among others. There are at least two ways to read the Bible; from a devotional perspective and from a historical perspective. In topics of faith, a dedicated historian has little respect, meaning that disciples of Christ will not be too interested in their opinion. Instead, a disciple will seek out teachers of great faith who instruct us in how better to follow Jesus, provide sacraments, etc. To confuse or mix the two in conversation leads to conflict and offense. The doctrine of the Trinity should be respected simply because it is held as a bedrock belief of the majority of Christianity; there is no need to criticize it in an offhanded manner. It is better to just state your beliefs without giving the impression of denigrating those of others. In an intellectual conversation, I fully understand what you have said and I am versed in its provenance. However, when it comes to faith I freely admit the weakness of my own intellect and rely on God. Cheers. --^StormRider 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gabr-el, the gospel of John doesn't say that Jesus was God incarnate. It says that he was the Logos incarnate. As the Logos, he was understood to be distinct from God. That's how it played out in the Logos controversy and theology of the 2nd century. The New Testament epistles portray Jesus as the first-born of all creation, the be-all and end-all of creation, the image (not the essence) of the invisible God, and the heavenly high priest for Christians. It wasn't until later that Jesus was reinterpreted to be fully God. Oh my, we have drifted far afield, haven't we? This will be my last tangential post on this thread. Leadwind (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John 1:1 -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

please add Psalms 2 & 110, Second Coming

Please add a ref to Second Coming that is clear in Psalms 2 and Psalms 110 predicted by David approx 1,000 BC or 3,000 years ago. David / J desc 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A healer for living? - no, a carpeter for living? - yes

plese change from healer for carpter, Jesus never worked as a healer for living. while the signs show that he might have super-natural abbilities. none show a was an herbist or something, correct me i wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.59.232 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus lived as an autonomous charismatic prophet, an itinerant preacher and healer (especially an exorcist). He apparently relied on the hospitality of his hosts and on the support of patrons (including women). He made his way as a healer. Before that, he had been part of John the Baptist's following, perhaps an ascetic disciple, or else still living with his family in Nazareth, doing carpentry. Presumably before John came along, Jesus was a carpenter like his father. Leadwind (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bilbe never says that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus only followed God. He did not come to be a healer, even though he did do healings and wonders, His sole purpose was for Him to come and die upon a cross so that we might have salvation through Him.

Depiction of jesus

In the movie "Malcolm X", it was explained that there was a phrase in the bible telling that he was yellowish in skin tone. Perhaps the main picture needs to be altered at the article. Also, I know that at the article "depictions of jesus", there is a image of a black jesus, but this wouldn't probably have been accurate neither (just like the picture that is on the main article now). Instead of black, he would be have been between black and white (-quote said: woolly hair and bronze-colored skin-), just like the population's skin tone of Palestine (Nazareth) Also see following link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/DDG0VM628B1.DTL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.145.23 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew spelling of Messiah

The spelling of the Hebrew origin of Messiah is highly unusual: מֹשִׁיַּח. All dictionaries offer the much more intuitive vocalization מָשִׁיחַ, to which i corrected the current spelling. I also added a common Latin spelling "Moshiach", used in many English texts. User:RavShimon undid it without an explanation. I try to follow WP:1RR, especially on an article as sensitive as this; so - is anything wrong with my edit? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While מֹשִׁיַּח is the pronunciation in modern Hebrew, is there any evidence that this was the pronunciation in use when the Greek word "Χριστός" (from which "Christ" is derived) appeared as a translation of it? As you say, all dictionaries give מָשִׁיחַ as the pronunciation in the Hebrew of that time. To make the matter less contentious, I have removed all Latin-script indication of the pronunciation, leaving only the indication in pointed Hebrew of what is considered to have been the most likely pronunciation at that time. If that still does not meet your desires, we can, I suggest, just give the consonantal spelling, about which there is no dispute. OK? Soidi (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

מֹשִׁיַּח is not the pronunciation in modern Hebrew. I have never seen this word vocalized like that in a Hebrew text. The only Hebrew vocalization of that word is מָשִׁיחַ. Maybe someone tried to artificially vocalize in Hebrew the Ashkenazi pronunciation Moshiach, which is common in Chabad publications in English, for example; in Hebrew it is still written מָשִׁיחַ. (It's interesting to note, that whoever did that, bothered to put a dagesh in yod, which is not obvious, but theoretically correct, and didn't use furtive patakh on the heth, which is much more obvious.) Correct me if i'm wrong.

Mentioning the spelling "Moshiach" and the Israeli pronunciation may be useful to some readers, so they will be able to relate the word with what they may see in modern Jewish publications, though it is less important. Correct Hebrew spelling and Tiberian transcription are essential. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information that, in spite of what is given on several websites (are they perhaps all based on Wikipedia?) מֹשִׁיַּח is not the "standard" vocalization in Hebrew (modern or non-modern). That confirms that it should not appear in the article. While "Moshiach" may, just perhaps, be helpful to some readers, I think that for by far the greater number it is only confusing, and will have most of us mispronouncing the first vowel as in "Moses". Soidi (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

מֹשִׁיַּח is a very weird spelling. If other sites are using it, it is quite troubling. This vocalization is pretty much impossible in Hebrew. Any proper Hebrew dictionary gives the spelling מָשִׁיחַ, for example BDB.

Actually i met a lot of people who confused Moshe (Moses) and Moshiach (with its various spellings). Mormons also have Mosiah to add to the confusion :)

When i think of it, the various spellings of Moshiach can be discussed in the article Messiah and they don't have to be here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mystery solved, here's where it comes from:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messiah&diff=190273307&oldid=189964172
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messiah&diff=prev&oldid=259933060

Oh well. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to add...

First, I want to say that I have never been to this page before, so if this has already been discussed, just tell me how to get to the archive so I can read it...
Why isn't the (supposed) relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned? While I myself do not think it happened, this is a NPOV site, and there is significant acknowledgment of the possibility. Remember, if this discussion has already been had, just tell me so. Joshua Ingram 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no significant acknowledgment of the possibility. A Dan Brown novel does not count as significant. Books by people with PhDs who teach history in universities - that's significant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And films starring Tom Hanks are also questionable sources, too! (but they do make for interesting possibilities, don't they! Ref.: The Da Vinci Code (film); ALSO see: Jesus Christ Superstar. Too bad the story sounds only like so much fantasy/fiction.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is no significant acknowledgement'? Maybe you should check your sources. The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, are just a few of many properly published books on the subject. If you go to the Jesus Bloodline page, there are several sources, and none of them are written by Dan Brown. Again, I have no special interest here. Just curious why it isn't mentioned, even as a point of contention. Joshua Ingram 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are works of fiction or pseudoscience. Tell me which one you think is a work of scholarship. I mean, let's add a section on the (brief) time Jesus spend time in a space ship. Oops, that was Brian, sorry. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, someone has to agree with you in order to create a scholarly work? You know what? Nevermind. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now, trying to reason with the people that control the pages, but you know what? I am wasting my time. But here is a thought: If your faith is so weak that you can't allow one tiny bit of dissent, then you should reexamine your faith. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Bible. And I have no problem reading these books, because my faith is strong enough to know that I am right, even in the face of contrary opinions. And it is strong enough to allow those contrary opinions to be heard, unlike some people's. Good riddance. Joshua Ingram 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote, "Tell me which one you think is a work of scholarship." You could not. Typical. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

reference

There are no references for the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narendramodi1 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is because it is the lead paragraph, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the article and should thus be without citation unless a statement is extremely controversial. Farsight001 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the guideline that the lede requires no references is no longer current. I couldn't find it last time I looked for it. Leadwind (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it - in most cases it is common sense (the only exception I think is when the lead contains highly contentious material) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As the lead text is a summary of the article, the information reappears below. IMO, notes should be placed there. Now we have notes both in the lead section and in the text and I think they appear unduly scattered. It's better to simplify the lead section as much as possible. Those who look up notes read more of the article, anyway. --Årvasbåo (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In theory I agree that there should be no need for citations in the lead. In reality, however, articles get altered piecemeal over years, and there's no way to maintain a neat relationship between lead and body. I'd put a citation anywhere someone asks for one. Leadwind (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph

"Joseph, husband of Mary, appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood. No mention, however, is made of Joseph during the ministry of Jesus." It says he's the 'husband' of Mary; as an Eastern Orthodox I'd only regard him as being the 'betrothed' as they never got married, and I presume this to be fairly significant because if they had been married the expectation would have been to at least try for children, as it is, we do not even believe that Mary slept with anyone, hence the title 'Ever-Virgin'. Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me where in the Gospels it says "they never got married" and where does it say "they never had children?" Just the book, chapter, and verse please. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, and indeed agree. But the gospels are a primary source. I suspect there are secondary sources that take a different point of view. If yes, how do we reflect this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The historians I have read say little, aside from what is in the well-cited sentence in the intro (so there are no reliable secondary sources to my knowledge ... maybe Crossan has commented somewhere?). As for theological iews, I suggest those would belong in articles on Mary and Joseph who are little-noted as historical figures but are of importance in diferent religions. Or it can go in articles on Catholic and Muslem beliefs ... Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there is not historical support for this position. It lies firmly in the realm of beliefs and theology. I think you will find a conflict here because of the brothers and sisters that some believe Jesus had; again, even that is left up to the interpretation. --^StormRider 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikhism

I think its fair that if all other religions are mentioned about their views of Jesus, that a small little section must be included. I added a small section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannyisthebest (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kinderpornographische Darstellung im Google Bild Netzwerk

• http://images.google.de/images?gbv=2&ndsp=20&hl=de&q=jesus+am+kreuz&revid=92770662&ei=JgQCSouqOJi6jAfC8tSgAw&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1

87.194.122.68 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)