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.

Quite Confused - Article needs clean up!

============================

There are so many talk pages that I did not know where to make my points, hence I'm posting them here.

We are constantly told that 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. So when there's discussion on any personality, it must be clear to the first time reader on the subject, if the person is real or fictional. This is not clear at all in the "Jesus" article.

If the person were real, then the start point should be.. 1. His given name, as he was called and known when he was alive, in the language of the region. 2. There should be no ambiguity regarding his existence. 3. The sources that cite his existence, should be available for verification and must not have been 'doctored'or edited in the first place. 4. Independent verification from other independent sources should be possible.

When this rigor cannot be employed to satisfaction, then the personality under discussion cannot be cited to be historical and is clearly fictional or mythological at best.

If the person is deemed to be mythological, then once again that must come out in the way the article is presented and the tone therein, instead of any allusions to the contrary. When that indeed happens and creeps in during the course of various edits, then it needs to be cleaned up and rectified.

It makes little sense in getting the sense about a person, in an encyclopedia of all things, as J - the Myth, J- the Religious figure, J- the Historical figure, etc as if these are 3 different entities. History is fact. It need not necessarily be borne out with accurate dates. Myth, however can be documented in books and can be passed on as fact, but that would not make it factual. Myths can also be set in a particular time and period, but that would not make them factual and real.

Accepting this without emotion, in an academic enterprise such as the wiki, is key to bringing about credibility.

I would like all people who are associated with this article, to employ wiki's insistence on verifiability and employ such rigor to all sources, even the so called "primary sources".

IMO, the article needs a major clean up and a presentation of truth to the reader... TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement in "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels"

The end of the opening paragraph in the above mentioned section seems to contain a sentence ("Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.") that is both out of place and lacking a source. This kind of statement seems to be a matter of opinion instead of a fact since the statement is not universally accepted by Christians. Mayofmay (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Looks like someone slipped that in on the 14th. Feel free to make bold edits yourself (I understand this article is semi-protected, so that only established users can edit. In a couple days, after you've made 10 edits, you will be "autoconfirmed" and able to edit semi-protected pages like this article). For the time being, I've gone ahread and removed the sentence. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the first comment in this section goes. The book of John chapter 14 verse 6 states (new living translation) "Jesus told him "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."" So there is a source for it. It may have been out of place, but it seems like an important statement and maybe should be added to the appropriate section.

Also, in the section about his death, there is a line that reads "He asks God to forgive those who are crucifying him, possibly the Romans and possibly the Jews." I believe he was praying for all of mankind when he said "Father, forgive them, for the don't know what they are doing" (new living translation, Luke 23:34) Also translated as "Father god, forgive them, for they know not what they do" It is because of the sins of all mankind that he was crucified, so while he was dying, he was praying for all of humanity as well as his executioners. I think that point of view should be pointed out as I have heard it from many different churches and ministers. —Preceding Chris H, AZ, No Wiki Profile comment added by 24.119.230.242 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. We should not be using the bible directly as a source, as it is open to interpretation, and because of WP:NOR, we cannot present your personal interpretation in the article. We must cite sources making these interpretations. That said, since you say many churches and ministers make these claims, it shouldn't be hard to track down a source and then attribute it. If you find a source, and come up with a new phrasing, I'd be glad to help you get the content back into the article. That said, one final note. Because of WP:NPOV, we cannot say stuff like "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is the truth and the way", because we are taking disputed statements and presenting them as facts. We'd need to qualify them with something like "Christians Church X believes Jesus is...." or "Scholar J. Q. Public states that Jesus is..." Get the idea? Anyway, if you have questions about that, or have sources, I'd be glad to assist you further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate did not order Jesus' execution. He found Jesus innocent, but the Sanhedrin made him take a vote from the general population. The people voted for him to be crucified.

Concept of salvation (citation)

"Jesus' teachings that religious works are unnecessary.[209][Need quotation on talk to verify]" Could the Bible verse Ephesians 2:8-9 be used instead of the current citation? Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8.For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9.Not of works, lest any man should boast.Sydtrolls (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)sydtrolls

We generally don't allow primary sources to be used like that. We'd need at least to cite a secondary source (preferably a contemporary, notable, reliable scholar in the field) to back up this material. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the letter to the Ephesians is ascribed to Paul, not Jesus; thus it can't really be used as evidence of Jesus' teachings.Eulogius2 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus as God

A statement from the intro that "Scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as...God" was removed recently. The claim was that this applied to "Christ" not "Jesus" and that we cannot take sides on whether they were the same.

We are not taking sides by making this claim. Scholars have indeed offered descriptions of Jesus as God, and also that Jesus and Christ were the same person (hint, it's a majority view among Christians). It is something that is frequently claimed, by scholars as well as others, and we should record it. Remember we are not saying it's true, we are just saying that scholars say it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think my real problem is this: the paragraph begins as a paragraph about what critical scholars believe. In the introduction, in general, different points of view are given different paragraphs. I think that this paragraph should be restricted to what critical scholars believe. I do not see any reason why the beliefs of Christian scholars should be in the same paragraph as the the beliefs of critical scholars, when there is another entire paragraph describing Christian beliefs. At the ver least it is redundant and it is deceptive, as some readers may think that this is one belief held by some critical scholars. I think the views of Christian scholars fall under the general category of what Christians believe. I do not know when someone slipped the views of Raymond E. Brown into this paragraph - I have no problem including his views but under Christian views. Take away his view, and the claim about God, i.e. the two Christian views, and wat is left is indeed what various critical scholars have suggested. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Our trouble here is that our intro appears to divide the world into two groups: "Christians" who believe Jesus is God and "critical scholars" who don't. Whatever the merits this creates the impression that all 'scholars' are on one side and 'Christians' on the other.

But to back up, what exactly do we mean by 'critical scholars" here? Do we mean scholars of textual criticism? Or scholars critical of Christianity? Or scholars in general (using 'critical' in the sense of theatre critics) If the first, then I don't think that scholars of textual criticism deserve their own paragraph - they are a pretty small group. If the second then we are crediting the critics of Christianity with the title 'scholars', ignoring the scholars who have come down on the side of Christianity. If the third then some 'critical scholars' clearly believe in Jesus as God. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

By critical scholars, we mean scholars of both the lower and higher criticism. It does not matter whether this is a large or a small group; their view is significant and therefore merits inclusion. As to your second point, we should not sugest that there are no Christian scholars. But what do you want to do? Have a paragraph that says "Christians, including Christian scholars ...?" Or Do we wish to have a etence on debates among Christian scholars, at the bottom of the paragfaph on Christianity? I would not oject to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently the structure of the introduction is as follows: (1) general introduction, stating Jesus' importance (2) canonical Gospels are the principal sources for his life (3) the views of critical scholars (with the exception of the last line), (4) the views of Christians and (5) the views of Muslims. It is only the last sentence of the third paragraph that does not fit easily into this structure, but this can easily be corrected. I plan on moving the views of Christian scholars from the third paragraph to the fourth. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to devote to this debate right now, but I don't. I'm going to have to leave it to others. Sorry to stir things up and not follow through. I'll have to defer to others opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

competing descriptions

This sentence in the lede could be better:

"Critical scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement."

It's true that there are scholars outside the mainstream and that within mainstream scholarship there's a split about whether Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, but there's more agreement than this sentence suggests. The reader deserves a clear statement of the mainstream view, something like: "Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an autonomous, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse." This view squares with Vermes, Sanders, and Theissen. We should expand on the divergent views in the body, and for the lede we could add something like: "Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse." Crossan is the most important representative of this view. The idea that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah gets little play in contemporary secular scholarship, but we could deal with this idea in the body of the text. James Tabor seems to take this view. Leadwind (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think that the existing sentences in the second paragraph are good. I think what you propose is good too. So, with very minor changes, I have added both sentences to the article. However, given (1) the real research you did to support eachsentence and (2) the chance for contention here, would you mind adding citations to the new sentences? I trust that you have them handy. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory (CMT)

Ifeito, the "Christ Myth Theory" is pseudo-history, fringe, and is flatly rejected by modern historians as such. See the wiki article Christ myth theory, where it says:

The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles,[3] biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it,[4] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship[5] and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism,[6] Holocaust denial[7] and moon landing skepticism.[8]

Also:

As Mark Allan Powell, the chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, has stated, "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."[136]

Therefore, a statement saying that he is a "mythological figure" does not belong in the lead or the body of the Jesus article. Perhaps you can add it to the "See also" section, which is what is done with the Apollo moon landing hoax in the Apollo program article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you find it amusing to discredit a theory which has been presented in serious works since the XIX Century. However there HAVE BEEN scholars presenting it and it deserves a mention in the introductory paragraph of this article. I believe you have broken the three revert rule without reaching a conclusion here. I will revert it and I request that you DO NOT revert it until you prove that NO AUTHORS have presented it seriously. Schicchi (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not broken the 3RR (just check the history). Second, I don't have the authority to discredit the theory any more than you have the authority to promote it. Modern scholars have already discredited it as pseudo-history, fringe, and akin to Holocaust denial, the so-called moon landing hoax, and flat earthism (did you even bother to read the quotes I gave above???). Also, see FAQ #2 here. If you pursue your POV pushing any further, we'll both be meeting again on the Admin noticeboard. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IFeito, you do not understand Wikipedia policy. Many people have published books saying that God created all the forms of life on earth. But we do not mention them in the first paragraph of the evolution article because they are fringe science or pseudoscience or simply not science. The fact that some people have claimed that Jesus never existed (the proponents of the "Jesus myth" school seem to be using myth to mean non-existent, although this is not how scholars use the term "myth") is irellevant. Their views are simply not significant among legitimate scholars. This article in fact has a section covering the view, because we do not just provide scholarly views, we also provide dogmatic views such as those of the Catholic Church, for example. But this view is fringe by any standard and should not be in the introduction. This is something people who have made serious contributions here (i.e. based on serious research) have discussed at length. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet outside of the bible which has no first hand accounts of Jesus, being stories written at least decades later, we have no trustworthy accounts of Jesus at all (193.248.94.202 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Jesus was a Judean

In the Bible, a person who was an inhabitant of the Roman Province of Judea was known as a Jew and the religion of these people was Judaism. Jesus was born in Bethlehem which was in the territory of the Roman Province of Judea. Jesus' ethniticity is not known and Jew did not refer to ethniticity in the Bible (this is a 20th century occurence). It either refered to a citizen of Roman Judea or a believer of Judaism. --Jfrascencio (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was from Galilee, which was outside Judea Province. The whole situation is complex, and at the very least we'd need a majority of cited, reliable sources to state he was Judean, which I highly doubt is the case, because I believe historians are in consensus he was Galilean (I'd gladly pull out Meier and Ehrman to double check). However, that said, your comments about listing "Ethnicity" as "Jewish" may be apt. Can you back up your assertions with sources? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's correct in regards to his parents being from Galilee, but Jesus being born in Bethlehem (Judea). What I was referring to was references to him being a Jew in the Gospel books and if it is correct to conclude this referred to ethnicity versus being from or an inhabitant of Judea, such as "King of the Jews" ("King of the Judeans"). Also, John 4:9 [The Samaritan woman said to Jesus, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?"]. He was also referred to as a Samaritan: John 8:48-49 [The Jews answered Jesus, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"] Mark 14:70 [Again Peter denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."] I'm leaving the article as is and will be seeing what I could find in regards to sources. --Jfrascencio (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While the Roman definition of "Jew" may have been "an inhabitant of the Roman Province of Judea", I'm afraid, with all due respect to Jfrascencio, that was not the definition used in the Bible. Firstly many parts of the Bible were written before the Roman Empire existed. But even if we restrict ourselves to the New Testament (all written after the establishment of the Roman Empire) we find the word "Jew" used in a context where it clearly doesn't mean that. Much of the Book of Acts refers to Jews who live in places a long way from Judea (19:17 , 24:19 and 28:17 are merely three examples among many). Who is a Jew will give you an idea of how Jews have regarded themselves over many centuries, and it's been based to a large extend on inheritance (i.e. ethnicity) for many centuries. It is inconceivable that a Jew in the first century would have considered themselves no longer Jewish just because they moved to a different province. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reference to "Jew" does not appear in the Old Testament until the book of Ezra. This is after the Kingdom of Israel is divided into 2 (a Northern Kingdom of Israel -10 tribes and a Southern Kingdom of Judah - 2 tribes Benjamin & Judah) because of conflict among the descendants of Jacob/Israel (the Israelites). Then the Northern Kingdom of Israel is conquered by the Assyrians. Then later, the Southern Kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylonians and this is when reference to Jews begins to be first used in the book of Ezra and using context Jew appears to mean someone from the Kingdom of Judah. There were many people from Judah (the predecessor to Judea) taken into captivity in Babylon and they were referred to as Jews. It appears to be in reference to place of origin because despite being in the land of the Babylonians or the Persians they were referred to as Jews (In the case of Daniel and the Book of Daniel, he is only referred to only as being from Judah). John 11:7 [Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."] John 11:8 ["But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"] --Jfrascencio (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No need for original research, Shaye JD Cohen (the leading historian on this time period) has a whole book on how Jewish identity took shape. During the Hasmonean period through the reain of the Herodians, "Judean" slowly but clearly changed from meaning a resident ot Judah (regardless of ancestry) to a Jew (regardless of shere s/he lives). All major historians believe Jesus was born in the Galilee; everyone agrees he grew up there and was culturally a Galilean. Everyone also agrees that he was an ethnic Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul

While it is accepted that the gospels were written decades, even maybe a century after Jesus, for some reason, the letters of Paul are said to be mid-first century onwards (see article) but we have no evidence of this. The earliest writings we have of Paul is P46 manuscript, from about 200 AD. While we have many copies of the letters attributed to Paul, there are many variant readings to the point that there is probably not a single verse in the letters of Paul that have the same wording in all surviving manuscripts. There is also the point that christians were not persecuted till mid-third century, which casts doubt on the Saul story.(193.248.94.202 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

You may like to read Pauline Epistles which presents a more widely accepted view of the dating of Paul's writing. You may also be confusing local jewish persecution with widespread Roman persecution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)...

Most historians accept some of Paul's epistles as authentic (written by Paul), and also use Acts, critically, as a source for that time. But Paul is a source for the history of early Christianity, not Jesus, as he never met Jesus (in the flesh). Most historians also agree that Jewish authorities were critical of any Jew preaching the restoration of the Kingdom, which was a direct threat against Roman authority. But when paul talks o persecuting Christians, he means he was persecuting another sect of Jews - not a group of non-Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CoI

It should be noted that there is little contemporary evidence that was not from a viewpoint that is in direct conflict of interest regarding many major events of the life of Jesus. Impartial evidence should be distinguished clearly as to not mislead readers. "ex scientia vera", as they say. Slaja (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)