Talk:Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

historical Jesus in the lead

Here is our current lead paragraph about the historical Jesus. It's pretty good, but I can imagine a more informative treatment. Before I jump in, I'd like to survey you other editors on how you see this paragraph. One question is whether it should really be second, or whether the Christian View paragraph should be second and this one third. The other question is open: how could we handle this material better? Thoughts?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi[19] from Galilee who preached his message orally,[20] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[21] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[22] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life. The widely accepted calendar era (abbreviated as "AD", sometimes alternatively referred to as "CE" in politically correct environments), counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus.

And here it is with sources included.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that [[Historicity of Jesus|Jesus existed historically]],{{efn|In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, [[Bart Ehrman]] wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".<ref>{{cite book|first=Bart|last=Ehrman|year=2011|title=Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are|isbn=978-0-06-207863-6 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=MtOMO8i4GLoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false |publisher=HarperCollins |page=285}}</ref> [[Richard A. Burridge]] states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".<ref>{{cite book|title=Jesus Now and Then|first1= Richard A.|last1= Burridge |first2= Graham |last2= Gould|year=2004| isbn= 978-0-8028-0977-3 |page=34 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing}}</ref> [[Robert M. Price]] does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|first=Robert M. |last=Price |title=Jesus at the Vanishing Point|encyclopedia= The Historical Jesus: Five Views|editor-last1= Beilby|editor-last2= Eddy|year= 2009 |publisher= InterVarsity| isbn= 978-0-8308-7853-6 | editor-first= James K.|pages=55, 61 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=O33P7xrFnLQC&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false |editor2-first= Paul R.}}</ref> [[James Dunn (theologian)|James D.G. Dunn]] calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|title=Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus|encyclopedia=Sacrifice and Redemption|first= Stephen W.|last= Sykes |year=2007| publisher= Cambridge University Press| isbn= 978-0-521-04460-8|pages=35–36}}</ref> [[Michael Grant (author)|Michael Grant]] (a [[classicist]]) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".<ref name=Grant1977>{{cite book|first=Michael|last=Grant|title=Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels|publisher=Scribner's|year=1977|isbn=978-0-684-14889-2|page=200}}</ref> [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=16}}<!--Note that this is a different statement with a different qualifier from the existence statement-->}} although the [[quest for the historical Jesus]] has produced little agreement on the [[historical reliability of the Gospels]] and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the [[historical Jesus]].{{sfn|Powell|1998|pp=168–173}} Most scholars agree that Jesus was a [[Galilee|Galilean]],<ref>[[Jonathan L. Reed|L. Reed, Jonathan]]. ''Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence'', 2000.</ref> non-[[Pharisees|Pharisaical]] [[Jews|Jewish]]{{efn|Although raised in a [[Hellenistic Jewish]] culture, Jesus' teachings and religious origin differ significantly from modern [[Rabbinical Judaism]] which originate from the dogmas of the [[Pharisee]]s.}} [[rabbi]]<ref>Catherine Hezser ''The social structure of the rabbinic movement in Roman Palestine'' 1997 -Page 59 "'''b – Rabbi as an Honorary Address''' ... Since Jesus was called "Rabbi" but did not conform to the traditional image of post-70 Jewish rabbis, and since pre-70 sages do not bear the title "Rabbi" in the Mishnah, most scholars assume that the meaning and usage of the term "Rabbi" at the time of Jesus differed from the meaning which it acquired after the destruction of the Temple: in pre-70 times, "Rabbi" was used as an unofficial honorary address for any person held in high esteem; after 70 it was almost exclusively applied to ordained teachers of the Law."</ref> who preached his message [[Oral gospel traditions|orally]],<ref>James D. G. Dunn, ''The Oral Gospel Tradition'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. pp 290-291</ref> [[Baptism of Jesus|was baptized]] by [[John the Baptist]], and [[Crucifixion of Jesus|was crucified]] in [[Jerusalem]] on the orders of the [[Roman governor|Roman prefect]], [[Pontius Pilate]].{{sfn|Levine|2006|p=4}} Scholars have constructed various [[Portrait (literature)|portraits]] of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an [[apocalypticism|apocalyptic]] movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]] [[social reform]]er.{{sfn|Köstenberger| Kellum | Quarles |2009 |pp= 124–125}} Scholars have correlated the [[New Testament]] accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated [[Chronology of Jesus|chronology of Jesus' life]]. The widely accepted [[calendar era]] (abbreviated as "[[Anno Domini|AD]]", sometimes alternatively referred to as "[[Common Era|CE]]") counts from [[Anno Domini#History|a medieval estimate]] of the birth year of Jesus.

Leads are important and worthy of extra effort, and this lead of ours shows that it's already gotten a lot of good editing effort. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica article on historical Jesus. It represents the mainstream historical view, so it might help us in judging due weight while describing that view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My first issue is that the first clause is too weak. They not only agree that he existed but that he was baptized by John and crucified under Pontius Pilate. I would drop that first clause and just never bring up that he existed. Obviously he existed, and the Jesus-myth hypothesis is too fringe to warrant inclusion here, even in the negative (that it's wrong). Anyone mind if I cut that first line and start with "The quest for the historical Jesus..." Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ? (Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q 3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?). --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not, so thanks for the link. I'd still like the clause to pull more weight. Maybe we move it to the end and say "Various attempts to show that Jesus was mythical have been discredited." Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

These two Christian sources have the same message, that the historical Jesus project hasn't produced any general agreement about who Jesus was.

the [[quest for the historical Jesus]] has produced little agreement on the [[historical reliability of the Gospels]] and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the [[historical Jesus]].{{sfn|Powell|1998|pp=168–173}}

Scholars have constructed various [[Portrait (literature)|portraits]] of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an [[apocalypticism|apocalyptic]] movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]] [[social reform]]er.{{sfn|Köstenberger| Kellum | Quarles |2009 |pp= 124–125}}

Since this paragraph is the historical Jesus paragraph, how about we see what some secular sources say on these two topics? Maybe it's just the same as the Christian sources, but let's at least check. What do people think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to stand up for either of these lines and say that they are balanced summaries of each topic, representing due weight? If not, I'll substitute better lines. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised that no one stood up for these lines. I changed to first one to say that historians value the Synoptic Gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And now I've changed the second line to summarize the contemporary, mainstream view of who Jesus was. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospels

As it turns out, I've done a fair bit of editing on the Portraits of Jesus section. It's fun work for the most part, and I have lots of good sources for this material. If other editors have feedback on my work, positive or negative, I'm listening. Basically I'm trying to describe all the portraits of Jesus rather than inventing a single, new, composite portrait. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed redundant John's prologue about the beginning of the Word, it merely reiterates gospel text with no encyclopedic information and inflates the already big article. Brandmeister^talk 23:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brandmeister. Thanks for giving me the feedback I requested. I'd sure like to reach a compromise with you on this material, and I assume that that's what you want, too. If the treatment that I gave it doesn't suit you, what treatment would suit you? How should we include John's prolog, if not the way I included it? It seems like some people don't want to include the prolog at all, but I'm not sure why, and it's notable. Here's my observation from writing that section: it's jarring for John's prolog to come first, even though the beginning of the universe comes chronologically before Jesus' virgin birth in Bethlehem. How about we change the birth-narrative section into a "prologs" section. Then we can put the prologs in order of their composition: Mark (no prolog), Matthew (Jesus as newborn king), Luke (Jesus' lowly birth), and John (Jesus as Logos). And we can put in some encyclopedic information, too. How does that strike you? PS: When you delete work, it helps other editors if you can name a policy or guideline that the material violates. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brandmeister, you deleted the section about Jesus as the eternal Logos. Would you please discuss what sort of compromise we can make? What treatment would you like to see that material get? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm generally fine with the article as it is. More opinions from atheist or otherwise unaffiliated, particularly Soviet scholars (such as Iosif Kryvelev, Alexander Kazhdan, Mikhail Kublanov) could be added, but in a concise form due to article's size. Brandmeister^talk 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Brandmeister, for sharing your personal opinion. I asked how we could reach a compromise on including John's prolog. Your answer seems to be that you oppose including the material in any form, and you're not open to discussing a compromise. You'd prefer that I just honor your opinion and not try to add the material. Or how would you describe the situation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brandmeister. Deleting another editor's work and then not discussing the issue can be seen as contentious editing. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave my rationale for that above. If you insist on John's prologue, how do you want it to be presented, aside from the previous version? Brandmeister^talk 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You criticized the previous version for simply rehashing the prolog without encyclopedic content. So I'd like to add the section back in and add a couple well-sourced lines about what it means for Jesus to be the Logos. If that's not acceptable to you, could you please tell me under what conditions you would allow the material to be added? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you give a specific example of that proposed addition? It would be easier to evaluate. Brandmeister^talk 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. First, I cut some other lines that seemed a little extraneous. I know you're concerned about the length of the article, and I appreciate that. Then I cut the lines about Jesus' incarnation because that's what the rest of this section is about, and for space. Then I added a powerful comment from a solid source. Please see my edits to the page. If you delete this section again, I beg of you please tell me something about the circumstances under which you will accept this topic on the page. Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made cosmetic tweaks for smoother flow there and now don't object such an inclusion. Brandmeister^talk 09:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me to arrive at this compromise. Let's agree to leave it as you have it. That said, I'm not happy with John's prolog being buried in the introduction while the rest of the Gospel material gets the standard treatment in the Gospel summary sections. It's not clear to my why you want to de-emphasize John's prolog. To me that prolog seems like some of the most important information that the Gospels share about Jesus. But like I said I am happy to have reached some sort of compromise, and in the spirit of good faith I'm not going to debate your edit. It's important that we editors learn to work together despite differences in our beliefs. Thanks again. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus as a mushroom

Why is there no mention on this page of the Dead Sea scrolls and their translation by John Marco Allegro? His book - The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - is one of the more scientific works concerning this figure and most of his conclusions are generally accepted as being correct. Modanung (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. We don't have that for the same reason we don't discuss the Da Vinci Code or Jesus showing up on toast. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross destroyed John M. Allegro's credibility in academia. "His conclusions are generally accepted as being correct" by you and some stoner -- not mainstream academia. His work receives no support from mainstream historians, which is the standard Wikipedia goes by. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Like Ian said, it's not up to us whether to include the Jesus-mushroom theory. All we can do as WP editors is look at the best sources and describe Jesus the way he's described there. Since the Jesus-mushroom theory gets no play in the best sources, we don't give it any play here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes a good song, though [1]. Paul B (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked the works of "John M. Allegro" on scholar.google. His book "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" seems reputable enough to be mentioned in the article.--5.107.40.244 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not, per WP:FRINGE. Sundayclose (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a joke? What is the mushroom? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a joke. The idea is that Christianity is based on hallucinogenic mushrooms. It was the 70s, so maybe that explains it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

prologs: Matthew, Luke and John

Currently the prologs from Matthew and John get discussed but not John's prolog. John's prolog is notable and deserves inclusion. How would my fellow editors like to see the material included?

• In chronological order, so it comes first, since John's prolog covers creation?
• In a section called "Prologs," after Matthew's and Luke's prologs?

I have a preference, but my main goal is to see this material included, so I'm happy to follow others' lead on the format. Currently the "Logos" comes up with no explanation in the Christian views section. John's prolog is a moving piece of work and deserves some attention. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

chronology in the lead

Currently the lead says this...

'Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life. The widely accepted calendar era (abbreviated as "AD", sometimes alternatively referred to as "CE") counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus.'

The first sentence has little content and apparently serves as a way to provide a wikilink to the chronology of Jesus' life. Also, the sentence is wrong. It's only the Synoptics that historians use, not the NT in general. And the only points on his life that we have a handle on are his birth and death. The second sentence is true, but it's undue weight to put this much text into the lead on this topic. What other tertiary source puts this information so prominently? I like the sentiment, but honestly it should read something like: "Jesus is so foundational to Western civilization that even our secular calendar system counts years roughly from the year of his birth." Or, "Jesus was so foundational to Western civilization that the practice of enumerating years since his birth replaced the older practice of enumerating years according to local royal lines." Unfortunately, I've never run into a statement like that in my reading, so I can't offer a good source. I'd like to delete those lines to make more room in the lead for good information about Jesus. For instance, we still haven't mentioned that he preached forgiveness and the coming Kingdom of God. Those items each deserve more weight than lines about chronology. What do my fellow editors think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As a biographical article dealing with the difficulty of determining Jesus' birth and death dates, and the importance of said dates to our very way of reckoning time in the West, I find the lede appropriate. I think deletion could cause questions and attempts to reintegrate the two sentences (or something similar to them) back into the lede. Comparison to the ledes of other biographical articles may not be appropriate in this case simply because of the exceptional impact of Jesus' birth and death dates on time reckoning. All that said, it certainly could be modified. Perhaps altering "New Testament" to "Synoptic", or to "New Testament biographical entries", would resolve that issue. The second sentence, meanwhile, probably better belongs in an article on AD/CE, and could be deleted or replaced with something like "Medieval estimates of Jesus' birth in 1 AD have proven somewhat inaccurate." Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jtrevor. I agree that looking at a biographical article of someone else wouldn't necessarily give us the guidance we need. That's why I recommend looking at how other tertiary sources treat Jesus. It looks to me as though the first sentence lacks content and the second one is undue weight. You say that these sentences are appropriate, but do you have any evidence to back that up? How about a good source? This paragraph doesn't even talk about why Jesus was killed or what message he preached. It doesn't mention the Kingdom of God. Surely these two lines are not more important to an understanding of Jesus than his parables about the Kingdom of God. Are there other tertiary sources that give this content prominent placement? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence that they're appropriate; that was my opinion based on reading the ledes of other biographical articles of major figures. While those sentences do not deal with the topics you mentioned, which of course are critical to any discussion of Jesus and belong somewhere in the lede, they do tackle problems with precisely dating his life on Earth, and discussion of important biographical facts are appropriate for a lede. I furthermore would posit, though of course cannot prove, that many people come to the Jesus article looking for information on birth and death dates, due to the impact of those dates on the AD/CE era. In short, I think they belong in the lede, and think they quickly address questions many who come to this article have, but simultaneously recognize the importance of other topics that are perhaps overly deprioritized due to the inclusion of these sentences. All that said, now I need to read the "long discussion" linked below. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points about the second sentence, about AD, and it has some support in the archives. What about the first one? I would put a [[cn]] on the sentence to ask for a citation, but I don't want to make the lede on this good article look sketchy. Can someone supply a citation for the Jesus chronology sentence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence was added to the lede in December 2013 after a long disucssion. See Talk:Jesus/Archive 122#No mention of Anno Domini/Common Era? and Talk:Jesus/Archive 122#RfC: Sentence about A.D. or C.E.. Since the result of the RfC was in support of inlcuding the sentence, I'm not sure if we can remove it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

"Jesus" is wrong. The name "Jesus Christ" is given to Jesus in all encylcopedias apart from wikipedia. Therefore the correct name of this article should be Jesus Christ.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q 1: What should this article be named?.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

With all respects, that doesn't answer the question about why wikipedia doesn't follow the same style every source on Jesus in the world does.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the evidence that every source on Jesus in the world has complete agreement on anything.—Kww(talk) 01:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1916 Jewish Encyclopedia has him as "Jesus of Nazareth". (Singer, Isidore; Adler, Cyrus (1916). The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Funk and Wagnalls. pp. 160–178. Retrieved 12 June 2015.) and the 2008 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia doesn't mention "Christ" anywhere in the entry. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1 May 2008. p. 986. ISBN 978-1-59339-492-9. Retrieved 12 June 2015.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Christ", since it is a title, probably is not appropriate for this article since only Christians ascribe that title to him. It's the same reason why we don't title the Muhammad article "Prophet Muhammad" - Christians and other religions deny that he was a prophet. All that said, the Jesus FAQ linked to above covers this quite well. (And to be absolutely clear, I am not discriminating against Christians here. I myself am a Baptist.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

fix wordiness or not?

Editor2020 prefers the long-winded version of the first sentences about John the Baptist. I prefer a concise way of saying the same thing. Editor2020 doesn't say what's better about the long version. Try reading these sentences aloud as a check for which version reads better.

Compare versions

Opinions? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus."

This isn't true. 1 AD, while paying homage to Jesus, is the first regular year of the Julian calender. Years earlier than this, even though on the Julian calender, had leap days every three years. See Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error. The Christians that got rid of the AUC system certainly knew that the birth of Jesus in the Bible is internally contradicted as well. I propose "counts from the mythical birth year of Jesus." with a note that reads "Also the first regular year of the Julian calender. See Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error." Scientes (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in ther Julian calendar article seems to support what you are saying, and the use of "the mythical birth year of Jesus" would just be a none-too-subtle way of promoting the validity of Christ myth theory. BTW, how did User:Scientus mutate into Scientes? Paul B (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point about the christ myth theory. (which I don't agree with) scientus is a misspelling of the latin and sometimes i log into the wrong account.Scientus (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the "first date aligned" column. While the calender aligned Jan 24 1 BC (5 days before the start of March), the first fully aligned year was 1 AD.Scientus (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also look how Anno_Domini#History "However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus; much less does he explain or justify the underlying date." That sentence contradicts the lead to this Jesus article. Scientus (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least get a reference for this sentence? I challenge it's notability, so I'd like to see a reference that demonstrates its notability. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Related section on Wikisource

Why is s:Author:Jesus of Nazareth not the appropriate Wikisource item for this article? It is clearly the correct item. This article is not Christianity, and source texts regarding Jesus are not necessarily Christian. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

s:Author:Jesus of Nazareth seems right for source texts. The Christianity portal is mostly about the Church. I'd revert to BT's version, but I don't want to be aggressive, and I'd love to hear the other side. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

dead?

If The Bible says that Jesus resurrected, how can he be dead?