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.

Existence

Well obviously people have mentioned the non-existence of Jesus before, but there is still a problem when there is no mention of it. If the topic has been mentioned enough times to have a place on the "FAQ" list, then why is there still no place in the article that mentions that there is supposedly a debate on whether or not a single man named Jesus Christ actually ever existed? This is the most important thing to include in the article, because anything else you could possibly mention will only be an extended elaboration on something every English-speaking human being is already aware of... whereas the point of reading parts of an encyclopedia is generally to learn something new.Rayvn (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, that's why. Peter Deer (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not to be short or rude, but have you read the article? see Jesus#Mythical view. We DO have a section on that view specifically. Not sure what your complaint is because there clearly is a place in the article that mentions that there is supposedly a debate on whether or not a single man named Jesus Christ actually ever existed. And you didn't even have to read the whole article to find it. It is clearly a section in the table of contents (not to mention footnote 11 in the lead).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view in general

Reading over this article and its discussion page there seem to be a lot of issues both raised and not mentioned regarding NPOV. I'm sure its been beat to death here but this seems like a pretty important article to get right. I'll leave the details to the experts on this subject but just looking at the basic flow of the article and presentation of the viewpoints its obvious that there's considerable bias. Obvious examples that struck immediately are his dates of life and presentation of his name itself. First lets compare how his date of birth and death are viewed throughout the article. I think this shows a good example of the bias presentation which seems to be weighted towards to top of the article. The article starts out stating he lived (c. 4 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE). This is the strong statement regarding his dates in the article. Farther down the page it is then clarified "Scholars conclude that Jesus was born 7–2 BC/BCE and died 26–36 AD/CE.[34][35]" as a stand alone statement with a further clarifaction being added to that in the paragraph below it questioning even those dates. The statement "Scholars conclude that Jesus was born 7–2 BC/BCE and died 26–36 AD/CE." is clearly an attempted to breach the NPOV policy. "Scholars" is the key word here. It should really have some kind of clarification. If we went around presenting what 2 or more scholars have agreed upon in that manner in every article we could just write fiction.

Lets really think what would happen if someone wrote "Scholars conclude that Jesus was fabricated."

The weighted presentation of this article is amplified when taking into account that in this very same article the existence of Jesus is questioned by 2 or more scholars. Of course, this is towards the bottom after nearly every paragraph has had matter of fact statements regarding the man. One of these statements being "Jesus of Nazareth". I know this is a common name to refer to him but his location of birth is contested. Presented in that wording followed by how his dates are presented really start the article painting an overly simplistic and defined picture of the man and do a disservice to the research on the field.

In general this whole article needs to be rewritten to present a more impartial view. This article reads very easily as a summation of the religious view point of Jesus. The counter viewpoints of that detached and even then they are accompanied by statements refuting them, some of them entirely too vague, while the religious based recount of Jesus goes with little or no mention of its critics intermingled. Just look at the first section. No where does it discuss the refuting of much of what is claimed about him. "Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation." is probably the strongest statement toward that yet there are several articles devoted towards the critical science and investigation of this man. Simply taking the more critical or even complex views and placing them in their own sections or pages neither meets the requirement for NPOV nor allow an article to circumvent it.

As to not just bash on your efforts, here's a suggestion. Look at Gautama Buddha's article. At least for the date, this article presents a much better depiction of the uncertainty surrounding a man important to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.96 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We used to give a range of dates in the lead and infobox, but that was changed because some felt that having that many numbers and that many hyphens was a bit bloated. the prefix c. stands for circa, which means "around", and is intended to signify to the reader that these numbers are an estimate or "approximate" date. Arguments could be made to reverting back to giving ranges instead of circa. That said, almost all historicans/scholars of Jesus agree on dates within that range. Before we go saying this is biased and what not, can you name any scholar that dates Jesus' life outside those ranges? I can see with Buddha, if a number of contemporary scholars have changed their mind, or only give a 20 year estimate, that would be one thing, but scholars of Jesus are more precise, and unanimous. I'd consider your proposed changes online in light of new sources disputing these years. We need to make sure we are giving due weight to prominent and minority views, and we need to make sure what we are presenting is verifiable and sourced. Thanks for your critical analysis of the article, I'm sure you have a lot to offer to help improve the article! -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is a good place to start. Alvar Ellegard's conclusion is that Jesus was not from Nazareth, and lived 100 years earlier that taught by the Church. St.Trond (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this Ellegard an internationally renowned biblical scholar with a PhD, or is he, like so many others, autodidact? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

May be Soviet Union had education on PhD level for "religion as a practical subject". There are probably no biblical studies for those who does not believe in ghosts. Ellegard is a linguist, so it is a science complementary to the ordinary history. The point is, imho, that he arrives at a chain of events, i.e. an order of appearance of texts, which may have a logical explanation, without relying upon the gospels at all. I hope you will read the book, then you could explain where I am wrong. Best regards St.Trond (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the above comment. Many leading universities in the United States 9and UK) have Departments of Biblical Studies; many universities have departments of Ancient Near Eastern studies that have within them people who specialize (as professors or graduate students) in Biblical Studies. Smaller Universities might have a Department of religious Studies or Religion, and even smaller ones usually collapse Biblical Studies into History. But Biblical studies is a well-established secular discipline. It requires knowledge of Biblical languages (Greek, or Hebrew and Aramaic) and depending on one's focus languages required for comparative or source documents (Uggaritic, Akadian, etc.). It requires some knowledge of archeology. It requires skills that are also employed by other historians and by people in departments of comparative literature. The old-fashioned break-down of Biblical Studies was Higher Criticism, which seeks to establish when different parts of Biblical texts were written, by comparing them to contemporary texts and archeological data, and Lower Criticism, which studies the texts as literature and employs various methods of hermeneutics - in fact, hermeneutics grew out of Lower Criticism, although it is employed by philosophers and literary critics today.

What matters about Ellegard is whether he was trained in Biblical languages and the study of texts written in those languages. He certainly can have expertise in this and have found employment in some other department than Biblical Studies. But he does not. His expertise is in English and no, despite what some die-hard British nationalists may thing, Jesus did not speak English. Ellegard made the Dead Sea Scrolls his hobby after he retired but I do not see ANY evidence that he studied Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, or Koine Greek, or that he has any graduate degree in Biblical Studies or Ancient Near Eastern Studies that would give him the expertise and skills needed to contribute to researchon the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ellegard's conclusions are certainly fringe; whatever his chain of reasoning, so far he has not convinced people who are experts in New Testament Studies or the history of Second Temple Judaism or the history or Roman occupied Judea and Galilea. What makes a view fringe is of course not our judgement as to how "logical" the person's argument is. What makes a view fringe is its standing among experts in the relevant field. Apparently St. Trond is ignorant of the existance of this field, but I guess all of us who come to Wikipedia are ignorant about something. In this case, there is an established scholarly field, and the leading scholars in that field agree that it is likely that Jesus lived during the first century, and was born in Nazareth. Ellegard belongs with erik Von Daniken, and not in an encyclopedia article on this topic. We must have academic standards for scholarly research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then Ellegard is in the same league as your biblical PhDs when they discuss metrology, like souls living on clouds, as they did in biblical times, or medicine, where most of the biblical miracles belong. St.Trond (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. St.Trond (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide page references in works by Vermes, Sanders, or Fredricksen where they discuss souls living in clouds. And in what way would Ellegard be in the same ldague as them, when he does not know anything of the literary or historical contexts in which 1st century Jews talked about "miracles." You seem to think that history gives everyone permission to bullshit their way around a conversation. Sorry. I continue to insist that we hold to scholarly standards. If you want to write with authority about 1st century BCE Judeans or first century CE Galileans, you need to have studied the languages and the primary sources available, not just on a topic but on their historical and cultural context, and must be trained in the proper way to read such texts, so as to avoid anachronistic readings. This is what we expect of a Medieval French historian, or of a scholar in Classics, and we should expect the same of a scholar in Biblical Studies. What is distrurbing is not just your promoting Ellegard, who lacks any expertise in Biblical Studies and in this case is expressing a fringe view that has no place in a scholarly article, what is disturbing is that you just do not care about the difference between an established scholar who worked hard to earn a PhD, and credibility through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and a luney dilettante. If you do not care about this difference, what business do you have editing an encyclopedia?

At this point your brazen display of ignorance is such that I can conlude only that you are a troll. You do not know anything about Biblical Studies as an academic field, so you cannot offer anything to improve this article. Your attachment to a pseudo-scientist as in your view a reliable source just shows you to be a POV-pusher as well as a troll. Since you are not capable of a well-informed and intelligent discussion of the topic, I see no point in communicating any further with you. I'd say it is pretty clear that other editors to this page can simply ignore you, it is the best way to deal with a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein: I got stuck in your expression "anachronistic readings". If someone were to perform a play by an ancient writer, we would not be surprised if the performance was based on the reading and the setting of the originating period. When we evaluate life in times long ago, most of us will use our current context, knowledge and expectations. This is were you are wrong. You do not evaluate the biblical content based on the current context. You try to construct a context which is not valid (any more). The content of this page is not generally accepted as valid according to the readers' expectation of an encyclopedia, and it should carry a warning on top. Like: Warning: This page contains religious constructs, and cannot generally be accepted as true. St.Trond (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about St. Trond? We already have such a disclaimer on the "Life and teaching, as told in the Gospels" section Critical scholars find valuable historical information about Jesus' life and ministry in the synoptic gospels but more or less discount much of the miraculous and theological content. I think we have gone a bit out of our way to be neutral, at the risk of possible offending many Christians. So I find it odd that there is opposition from the other side of the debate as well (but I guess in polarizing debates such as religion, there will always be the fringe views). Could you please be more specific on what content of this page is not generally accepted as valid? What parts need further disclaimers in your opinion? To me, it seems like you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I'm fairly familiar with the content of this article, so I'm at a loss to imagine to what portions you are taking aim. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

St Trond makes claims about how I read the Bible. How I read the Bible is irrelevant as we do not put our own views into articles. But NPOV demands we put in significant views from verifiable sources. All significant views refer to the Gospel account so we provide a summary of that account. One significant view is that of Christians, and we summarize that view. Another significant view is that of secular scholarship (whether the scholars are Christian, Jewish, atheist, pagan, whatever their personal views), people with PhDs in Biblical Studies or comparable University programs, and we provide a summary of those accounts. Ellegard's view is not significant, it is fringe, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. I really do not see what else there is to discuss.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein:Find one MD that the claims Biblical resurrection method is a probable, proved, or significant way to heal dead persons. You are so fringe it is unbelievable. St.Trond (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew C: There is no undisputed evidence at all that Jesus lived in the period taught by the Church, so how can you have gone out of your way to be neutral. I am myself counted as a Christian. You ignore the majority of Buddhists, Hinduists etc who cares even less than me. This article belongs in Jesus (Religious view), and not in a general article named just Jesus. St.Trond (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Trond, where have I ever said that the Biblical resurrection "method"(method? Method for doing what? I mean, besides resurrecting) is probable or proved? Where? You also wrote that I should "not evaluate the biblical content based on the current context." Please tell me where i have done this? Are you hallucinating? Please back up your claims with actual evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I also note you have stopped bringing up Ellegard - I infer this means you now acknowledge that his is a fringe view that you should not have tried to introduce into the article, good for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no undisputed evidence at all that Jesus lived in the period taught by the Church but the real question is "disputed by whom?". So you are upset that we have a section on the historical Jesus, because you personally don't believe there was a historical Jesus. Even though virtually all historians of the historical Jesus agree he lived, you want us to give undue weight to your personal beliefs? On Wikipedia, we are supposed to present summaries of all notable published views, and we are supposed to present them in a way that avoids giving undue weight to minor and fringe views. You are saying this article is not neutral, even though we are simply repeating what our sources say? Maybe you disagree with our sources that say the majority believe there was a historical Jesus? Seems odd. The only source you have mentioned (that I remember) is Ellegard, who is obvious a fringe view. We do not bend over backwards for fringe views on Wikipedia. This is why the evolution article and global warming articles are they way they are. They represent the majority view of relevant scholars. Similarly, the historical Jesus section of this article represents those scholars (and we even mention the mythist minority). So I really don't see any validity in your complaint. Furthermore, do you have issues with the other sections of the article? About the gospel plot summary, or the religious views section, or the cultural impact section? Or are you just focusing on the chronology/historical Jesus sections. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-Christian sources confirm that there was a Jesus early in the 1st century, and that's good enough for neutral historians. The idea that Jesus never existed reached its apex 100 years ago and is no longer current. If anyone wants to tweak Christians on this issue, there's no point in using 100-year old scholarship. Current scholarship does a fine job of that. Leadwind (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical compatibility of descriptions of the birth of Jesus.

Herod had been dead for 9 years when the census was performed. Thus both historical indicators cannot be true simultaneously. The two descriptions are incompatible. Source: Chronology section on Jesus page. St.Trond (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable third party source on that. Wikipedia cannot be its own source. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the new level of scrutiny, and look forward to see it applied to some other parts of this page, resurrection, virgin birth, etc. What about using the same sources as were used in the chronology section, would it suffice? Or is it the word "incompatible" that has to be sourced? Regards St.Trond (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiable views. It is not our task to explain what appear to us to be contradictions between Gospels or between a Gospel and other historical texts. Christians surely have their own ways of interpreting this. Historians have their own ways of interpreting this. The question is, do we want this level of detail in the article? Does't one of the linked articles go into greater detail on debates among critical Biblical scholars about this? Don't other linked articles go into more detail on Christian beliefs? The Anchor Bible has critical commentary on each Gospel - and the amount of commentary is huge. We cannot possibly fit it all in one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Herod was not just a name, but a title and a position. When one Herod died, another Herod replaced him. so yes, Herod died 9 years before the census. His replacement, also called Herod, was there for the census though. Hence no contradiction.Farsight001 (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we clarify that one is Herod the Great and the other Herod Antipas? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If only to keep from confusing people, sure. Just one problem - I don't know which is which. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Herod" was a family surname, like "Ptolemy" or the "Tudor dynasty" or the "Rothschild family". History has recorded which Herod ruled where and when, and the Bible is quite clear which Herod was being referred to in the Gospel, so there was actually a very serious contradiction. Maybe you could look up the Herod dynasty in an encyclopedia? Wdford (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely, editors working on this page know the difference. Herod the Great was the first Herodian king, the one who came after the Hasmoneans. He is the king mentioned in Matthew 2:1-22. Antipas was his son and tetrarch of Galilee and mentioned in Matt. 14:1-6. The Herods refered to in Acts (by the way) are Agrippa I and Agrippa II, Herod's grandson and great-grandson. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell, Herod the Great was the only Herodian "King" - his descendents held lesser titles, as you mention above. Wdford (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right! Worth double checking though. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that Matthew's and Luke's nativity accounts contradict each other on Jesus' birth year and other points. Since the reference to the census is Luke's invention by which he gets Jesus (from Galilee) to be born in Bethlehem (the city of David), historians don't credit it. Historians don't use the census as a marker for Jesus' birth year. Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit to comply with the Manual of Style re reckoning years

Wikipedia:Manual of Style provides:

• • Years are numbered according to the western calendar eras based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus.
    • AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. However, CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style.
      • Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE or AD 1066.
      • BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops).
      • Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).
      • Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

[Emphasis added]

Using both reckoning notations is awkward and silly. If any article should have the BC style it is this one. Moreover, this article began with that style and should have retained it (per the second bolded portion from the Manual of Style). Mamalujo (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review the archives, and there surely is substantial reason to change (according to some at least. page after page after page of reasons). Furthermore, the MoS (first bolded point)'s intention was to make sure editors don't change back and forth between the different styles. It's intention was to maintain consistency in articles. I say that we are following the spirit of that due to our consistent use of the same notation (even if it is awkward). We are not switching back and forth between the two. Besides, a couple silly letters after years are not hurting anybody. There are much more serious issues to tackle (like bringing this article up to FA status). (and to play devil's advocate) If any article should have the CE style, it is this one because it is nonsense and a logical fallacy to say "Jesus was born 4 years before Christ". So what? Christ descended 4 years after Jesus was born, like adoptionism? Furthermore, arguments could be made that BCE is more neutral, and it is even more important to not take sides on the "Christ/divine" issue on religious articles. But again, those are just theoretical arguments.:P Being awkward and silly is fine with me if it keeps the peace, and we focus on more important content related matters. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing to think about. What do you care more about, the MoS, or promoting your preferred era notation? The MoS does not give preference to either AD or CE. So would you be willing to accept using only CE, for the sake of being in line with the MoS, or are you more interested in promoting AD? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It should stay with whatever it had first - which was probably BC/AD. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the FAQ it seems its been agreed to leave it as-is, so I'll go with that and retract my point. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for Jesus' birth incomplete

The source for Jesus' birth is labelled as "Sanders (1993)" which is incomplete - should this source be removed until a better/more complete source can be found? Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking again at the article this applies to quite a few of the other sources too. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are istaken. What you are looking at is an in-line citation. The complete informatiuon about the source is in the works cited section. This is a standard academic practice. Remember, Wikipedia's guidlines for sourcing have changed over the years. There was a nime when (like many encyclopedias) no sources were provided. Then there was a time when in-line (or Harvard) citation was dominant. Now another form of citation is dominant. But do not mistake two styles for sourcing as meaning that one is incomplete, the other complee. It sounds like you were just unfamiliar with how inline citations work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I just didn't realise how they worked. However if that's how they are going to be done they should all be done in that style, and there is a definitely a mix of styles of referencing in the article. Eraserhead1 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say in this case, the Sanders citation IS incomplete, because it is likely not referring to the entire work, but instead a specific page (or set of pages). Even with the short hand, we should be including page numbers where ever possible. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the page numbers were missing, I added them in, p. 11 and page 249. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Jesus' relation to the sun

Looking through this article, I was surprised to find absolutely no mention whatsoever that Jesus' birth, death, and ressurection all seem to coincide with the movement of the sun in northern hemisphere.

This seems like a hugely significant fact to have missing from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.145.15 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this theory published? If so, by whom, and is this view notable? If so, then we can easily add mention of this information, and cite our source, in accordance with basic Wikipedia policy. However, the way you present the material, it seems like "original research", which is forbidden here (see WP:NOR). Also, on Wikipedia talk pages, we "bottom post", meaning the newest messages go at the bottom of pages.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure 100% what you're refering too, however the christmas article does discuss the date of christmas and it's coinciding with the winter solstace. As to his death, gospel accounts date his death as immediately folowing the passover meal. Passover always occurs on the full moon. Not sure if there's something deeper you're thinking of.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2nd paragraph issue

The second paragraph of this article needs revision. What is the point of referring to the "synoptic gospels" or the "canonical gospels"? This isn't a christian study text book. The names of the gospel's arent' that long to list. For example, instead of:

"The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels"

It should read:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) and the Gospel according to John, which together with the Synoptic Gospels, form the the four canonical Gospels of the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.17.21 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The gospel of John is not generally regarded as a source of historical information about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Jesus christ a christian?

I don't want to come over like someone from a forum (which i am.). But i wonder if Jesus Christ was a Christian himself? On many pages of Wikipedia there is a place in the box that says Religion: Christian (Roman-Katholic/-//Protestant,), but Jesus was born a Jew and he never actually renounced his religion. So my question is was Christ a Christian or a Jew?

Gr. Neo-S.S.R.

--82.134.154.25 (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article talk-page is not for discussing issues related to what the article is talking about. The talk-page is meant for Wikipedians to discuss ways to improve this article. Please refrain from posting such questions here. Optakeover^(Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question points to a weakness of the article, the lack of source criticism. It is common among scolars in Biblical hermeneutics to assume that Jesus was a Jew. The New Testament has presented two incompatible lists of predecessors to prove it. It is however disputed. If being "Nazarene" means being Essene, or being of an earlier Christian sect, then local names of places he is connected to (besides Jerusalem) are Tyre and Sidon. Then he don't actually have to be a Jew. St.Trond (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew and his restoration movement was within the scope of Judaism (see E. P. Sanders, etc.). Doesn't the article already say as much? Leadwind (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

birth of jesus

why does it say jesus was born in 4 bc? wasnt he by definition born in 0?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)