Talk:Jesus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:53, 21 January 2018

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

The FAQ provides links to archived talk page discussions.
Please read the FAQ.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally.^[1] For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine,^[2] Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."^[3]^[4]
Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?

A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?: Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.
Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?: The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
^ Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
^ Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 3, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 15, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 14, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 27, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 21, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 21, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
July 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
May 28, 2013	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
August 15, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core FA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion FA‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bahá'í Faith FA‑class High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ancient Near East FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible FA‑class Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.
Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
Omer Benkajob (27 April 2017). "Why Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune Won't Save the News". Haaretz. Retrieved 30 April 2017.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137

Obsolete subpages

Topical archives

2nd Paragraph Debate

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

"Christians believe him to be the Son of God ...."

As with celebrating Christmas (discussed a month ago), not all Christians believe Jesus was the "Son of God". I can name several Christian groups that do not believe this, so we need to say "Most Christians believe him to be the Son of God ...." Softlavender (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support this change, especially if a citation is given inline which explicitly says something like that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree O3000 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with an exact fit of a citation that would cover all angles, but I think we can make the change and then cite later if needed. I don't really know what to search under to find a comprehensive citation. Here is some stuff I picked up; don't know if any of it helps:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-divine/ origins of the concept
http://www.mvucc.org/ten-things-people-think-christians-have-to-believe-but-dont/ perspective from a United Church of Christ site
https://books.google.com/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&pg=PA203 random book page

Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian/Universalists sites may help. O3000 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I didn't check any (I merely did a generic search). There also many other so-called denominations that do not believe Jesus was the Son of God. I'm kind of tired of searching right now ... :) Plus the thing I liked about that UCC link that popped up is that it doesn't say "we" (meaning this specific sect) believe such and such, it says Christians don't have to believe such and such. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making the change and finding a more comprehensive citation if needed sounds reasonable to me. I just think that as many people gave the misconception that verification in the lead would be useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I'm not great at researching theology though. :) Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a hurry here. Any claim that all people of a certain creed believe the same things is absurd on its face. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reverted the addition. I do see and emerging consensus here, but a much more thorough discussion is neeeded to change a long-standing consensus on a featured article. The thing is, "Son of God" is a very soft wording already - most, if not all, groups who reject the deity of Jesus are happy for him to be called "Son of God". Secondly, the sources above a very weak. We would need a clear reference from a Christian group rejecting the concept. The UCC site cited above does not do this. St Anselm (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we also have to consider the difference between Chistian ethos and religion. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" The thing is, "Son of God" is a very soft wording already - most, if not all, groups who reject the deity of Jesus are happy for him to be called "Son of God"." I strongly disagree; the phrase "Son of God" is wikilinked to an article which immediately states "In Christianity, the title Son of God refers to the status of Jesus as the divine son of God the Father." So Son of God as defined by Wikipedia is thus the divine and only Son of God. "We would need a clear reference from a Christian group rejecting the concept." No, we wouldn't. A Christian is a self-described follower of the teachings of Jesus, and it is manifestly untrue that all Christians believe him to be the Son of God. There is no "consensus" to keep inaccurate wording that has never come into question, and since it is manifestly false, it needs to be changed or reworded. As O3000 states above, "Any claim that all people of a certain creed believe the same things is absurd on its face." Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God; the doctrine didn't even come into being until after his death. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divinity, not deity. Groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses to reject the idea that Jesus is God, still believe that he's the Son of God, and indeed make much of it ("Many who believe that Jesus Christ is God have difficulty explaining why he is called the Son of God. Logic suggests that he cannot be both"). And "Christians believe" does not have to mean "All Christians believe"; it can mean "Christians generally believe". The point is, the phrase "Son of God" was chosen for the lead for a reason; it's pretty much the lowest common denominator of Christian belief. St Anselm (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. As stated above, many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine, and to state that as a fact in Wikipedia's voice is egregiously inaccurate. "And 'Christians believe' does not have to mean 'All Christians believe'; it can mean 'Christians generally believe'." No, it's an absolute statement, just like "Christians annually celebrate his birth on Christmas", which we changed seven weeks ago because it was inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been "stated above" that "many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine" but do you have a citation? Is there any evidence for that? St Anselm (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here[1], are separate statements that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian but did not believe in the divinity of Christ. If you read The Jefferson Bible, it discusses the life of Jesus in 100+ pages with no mention of divinity or miracles. O3000 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say Jefferson was a Christian; it quotes him as saying that he was a Christian. St Anselm (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TJ said he was a Christian. You don’t need a license to be a Christian. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It may have been "stated above" that "many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine" but do you have a citation? Is there any evidence for that?" The early Christians did not; that concept was invented by Paul and then dogmatized at the Council of Nicaea. Likewise, since the the mid-1800s (Christian Science, etc.) many Christians have rejected the divinity of Jesus. This is in addition to individual Christians like Jefferson, etc. Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure what son of god means. I think the original word for son in Aramaic or Greek had a broader definition, including those taught by a master. And some religions consider all of humanity sons of a god. And if someone claims to be a believer, but doesn’t fit an exact definition by a religious organization, who gave them the power to claim they don’t fit a broader religious classification? If we state that religious organizations can declare someone is a nonbeliever, then depending on the source, 80%-98% of American Catholics may be ruled non-Catholic as they have used some form of birth control. And, even excommunicated Catholics are considered Catholic and Christian at this time. We simply cannot claim that 100% of any branch of religion must fit into a specific pigeon hole. To not use a qualifier, sources must show that all adherents fit the claim. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lots of sourced over at Nontrinitarianism.--Moxy (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I don't have time to read the above discussion, so I'll drop my thoughts here]. The term "Son of God" does not necessarily imply divinity. While there are groups that reject Jesus' divinity, I can't think of any groups that reject Jesus' title as "Son of God". Asking for a source for that sates that all adherents believe that Jesus is the Son of God might be difficult because of the ambiguity of the term. My guess is that all Christians agree that "Son of God" is one of Jesus' title (since that is what the Bible says), but some might have different interpretations of what "Son of God" means. I think it's best to change the sentence to "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament."— Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureTrillionaire (talk • contribs)

All Christians do not accept every word of the Bible (only Fundamentalists do). And we've already noted several Christian groups and individuals who do not agree with the "Son of God" appellation. That said, as long as we include the word "Most", I would accept "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament." or something along those lines. Softlavender (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UCC wiki article says this: "The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior." The other links you provided discusses Jesus' divinity, not Jesus' title as "Son of God". My issue with changing it to "Most Christians believe him to be the Son of God" is that I can't think of any groups that reject the title itself, since the title doesn't imply divinity. I'm glad that you can accept the compromise I provided.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with most anything so long as the first word is most. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we know for a fact that not all Christians (individuals or groups) "believe him to be the Son of God", so whatever we write, we have to use the word "Most". Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And, I’m not even willing to state that fundamentalists all agree, as the Bible contains contradictions. And, a pope or two have stated that parts of the Bible are apocryphal. Various doubts long preceded a nail on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. And I’m not even going to the origins of Christian dogma. We’re an encyclopedia, not an encyclical. Folk are allowed to believe what they wish without WP saying they don’t belong in a particular club. But, most works. O3000 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support using "most Christians" - in fact, I would change it to "Most modern Christians" because it was not true at all times in Christian history. The full details of Christology are too involved for this article, but "All Christians" would be misleading. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern Christians is better yet. O3000 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got a citation for that? St Anselm (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "Most modern Christians", because that implies the belief that Jesus is the Son of God is a new, modern belief/outlook (which it isn't, it goes back to Paul or at least to Nicaea). I think what you are trying to imply is that some modern (as opposed to pre-Enlightenment or whatever) Christians do not accept/believe Jesus to be the Son of God, but that's not the way to express it. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gospel" in introduction

In the second section, the "historical reliability of the Gospels" is mentioned, without (or far before) the term "Gospel" is presented as an account of the life of Jesus. It is probably not right to just assume familiarity with the term. To fix this, at least some of the structure of the second section would have to be changed. Perhaps it could be parted in two, one outlining the life of Jesus, and one discussing historicity and sources? St.nerol (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is serious issue. If the reader is not familiar with the term, they can click on the wikilink. The lede is already very long, so I'm not comfortable with adding more sentences.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FutureTrillionaire. I think it is safe to assume that most people will have at least heard of the gospels. If they have not, there is a reason why we have wikilinks. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC and crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD

We now know the actual birthdate of Jesus: Saturday (Sabbath) April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC (see astronomer http://MichaelMolnar.com ). The Knights Templar discovered it in 1128 when excavating beneath the Temple Mount. It's been encoded by Freemasonry, e.g. in 1717 4 London Lodges created the first Grand Lodge, the design of golf's Old Course, July 4, 1776 / 17 Tammuz (4th month), Empire State Building is 417 yards high, former 1 World Trade Center was 417 meters high. Jesus was lashed 39x and crucified on the first day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. He was 34-years-old and turned 35 ten days later. 2601:589:4700:97D0:C129:9F7B:16E0:CDCC (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation/opinion. O3000 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis to believe these (alleged) Templar discoveries are any more accurate than any of the other POV/OR data that has accumulated in the past 2000 years on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is long-term abuser User:Brad Watson, Miami Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age at death

If Jesus was born in 4 BC in the second half of the year and died in 30 AD or 33 AD in the first half of the year, then he aged 32 or 35, not 33 or 36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.66.190 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Year zero. O3000 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the info box should be changed because he is not dead today, he is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyDust81568 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a Christian I also believe that, but of course such a statement does not belong in an academic setting. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a religious belief that cannot be added to an infobox, though you are free to hold personal beliefs. Cheers, CookieMonster755 ✉ 01:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an atheist, but I actually think that's a funny and somewhat useful idea; doing something to indicate that Jesus is alive every Christmas (but only on that day). It would be cute and a little funny and would help spread good will and cheer, and if there's one thing the surly herd of neckbeards here need more of, it's good will and cheer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very cute, @MjolnirPants: I don't think other editors would allow such a kind-hearted gesture on an encyclopedia, though. Maybe for April Fools day. I know Wikipedia gets into the spirit of that. CookieMonster755 ✉ 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, unfortunately. See "surly herd of neckbeards" above. Sigh. But at least with one Christian opposing and at least one Atheist supporting the notion, nobody could point to it as any kind of religious ideological disagreement if we ever had a serious discussion about it. Just disagreement as to whether it's "appropriate" (read: self-important enough) for the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the infobox says is accurate - Jesus was most likely born in 4 BC and died by crucifixion in 30/33 AD. Christians (myself included) believe that Jesus was alive before that time as God the not-yet-incarnated Son and after that time as as the risen savior, as the article also explains. -- LWG ^talk 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist? An atheist writing an article on Jesus Christ is like visual impaired person (since birth) writing about The Birth of Venus. It's possible, but there's no first hand experience. You need to believe to edit your work; sooner or later, you have to feel the truth! Celiaescalante (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you can't report an Earthquake if you don't believe how an earthquake feels. If an Earthquake hits town, some of the town people are going to feel it and other's who lacked sound judgments did not. You NEED to BELIEVE in Earthquakes to report the ACCURACY of earthquakes! It's an OBSERVATION! Celiaescalante (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Celiaescalante: There's a difference between believing that Jesus was God and believing that Jesus, as a historical human, existed.

And at any rate, the site doesn't care about user experience and does not use it -- all we do is cite and summarize professionally-published mainstream academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not die??? What??? He died, resurrected and Ascended!!! Add the dates, Communist Atheist Public School Robots! Celiaescalante (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Celiaescalante: Personal attacks are not acceptable here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They'd be more acceptable if they were even remotely insulting, to be honest. Funny counts for even more than that. "Communist Atheist Public School Robots" is just boring. Try "bloviated fucktard" next time; the contrast of highbrow and lowbrow verbiage can be amusing to some. Or go for something less direct and more descriptive, like "you wouldn't know Jesus if he made passionate man-love to you on a bed of roses." Or possibly go for the ultimate insult and tell me exactly how fat my momma is.

Or (and this one is a longshot, I know) you could try to engage with the patience and civility your religion encourages you to adopt, and which aren't a violation of our behavioral guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Born, Died, Resurrected and Ascended

Add to the table age/date Resurrected and Ascended. Those are vital information. Celiaescalante (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus Celiaescalante (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus Celiaescalante (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make Emmanuel sound like a Disney character. He is a famous person and not a fictional character.

If you don't believe in honorable sources, then that makes Wikipedia sound like an unreliable source. Celiaescalante (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The resurrection of Jesus or resurrection of Christ is the Christian religious belief..." Not fact or history. And cool it with the name calling please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Celiaescalante: Wikipedia does not cite itself. While I am a Christian, I understand that if we present one religion's doctrines as empirical history, we have to do so for others. Would you be fine with us presenting Aiwass reciting Liber AL vel Legis to Aleister Crowley as historical fact instead of Thelemite belief? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a biblical theology class. Please be mindful of neutrality policies on Wikipedia. Thanks, CookieMonster755 ✉ 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Jesus' Birth Year from 4 B.C. to 0 A.D. Greasy Reptile (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a year 0 A.D. The year after 1 B.C. was 1 A.D. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: As per Mediatech492 above, and sources say 4 BC. O3000 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox Should is Misleading

Simple, if you can date the age at birth, then you can date the age at resurrection and ascension.

Why even put an info box?

The info box makes Jesus sound dead and out of reach. Anyone can point at the figure and say Jesus is dead, do it is insulting to followers of Christ.

Making certain mistakes shows lack of comprehension. If one takes the time to read the entire Holy Bible, one would demonstrate an understanding of reality. Celiaescalante (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the historical figure known as Jesus. There is no empirical evidence that "resurrection" and "ascension" exist in reality. You'd have a better case at Christ (title). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Homo unius libri, attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas. As an encyclopedia, we are not here to follow or proselytize the beliefs or books of one of thousands of variations of belief systems. We simply describe them. And, as NeilN states, this particular article is about Jesus the person. (Although it goes off-track now and again.) O3000 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7D:31B9:FE00:80DB:3589:AA4D:8052 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It is not clear what you want changed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Jesus' birth

Dosen't the New Testament state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Jesus could have been born Nazareth as well. Why isn't this information mentioned in some kind in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardElric2016 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information that the Bible states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is in the body text of the article (Jesus#Genealogy and nativity), but since the Bible is an unreliable source for facts about the historical Jesus, only the overarching known scholarly facts are in the infobox. His hometown is listed as Nazareth in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the Bible is an unreliable source for facts about the historical Jesus That's actually not entirely true, but close enough for what we do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MPants – however, scholars cannot agree on the historical Jesus' exact place of birth, so we exclude Bethlehem in the infobox. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still assert that he was born in Hoboken, NJ, and nobody can prove me wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The (pretty interesting) FAQ points to this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the clarity. Though on Buddha's infobox, his traditional place of birth (Lumbini) is given though it explicitly mentioned that this is a traditional claim. I don't see why we can't do the same for Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C300:3BD2:9563:81E4:5A4C:214B (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an encyclopedia, which deals with facts, and this article is about the historical person known as Jesus, and problems or issues with other articles should be addressed on those articles, not here. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't know that mentioning the traditional place of birth in the infobox was such a big problem. And of course I know this is an encyclopedia which deals with facts. The fact is that the NT states that Bethlehem is the birth place of Jesus. Whether that's historically accurate I cannot say and wasn't my point to begin with. I was merely comparing the two articles as the one I compared it to (Buddha) did mention the traditional place of birth in its infobox. I was just looking for some consistency in this website.

The discussion regarding the birthplace in the infobox was discussed back in 2011. I think it would be appropriate to open a request for comment regarding that to see if consensus has changed. CookieMonster755 ✉ 16:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with that. I actually agree with the IP; the traditional place of birth should probably be put in the infobox, though we might want to also mention what historians believe his place of birth to be, as well (Nazareth). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants let's start a request for comment form regarding the birth location. CookieMonster755 ✉ 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A RFC does not trump WP:RS/AC. We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. If anything, the case for Bethlehem is even flimsier now. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has argued that Bethlehem is actually the correct birthplace. Any reliable source will agree, however, that it is absolutely the traditional birthplace. As I said above, I think we should show both the traditional birthplace and the scholarly consensus (Nazareth). That wouldn't contradict any RS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people are positing that certain locations are correct (i.e. "the truth"). There are articles on Jesus the person and Jesus the figure in various religions. I should think this article should take a scholarly view, and religious articles as presented by related religious texts -- all with proper qualifying footnotes. O3000 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. the article on Jesus the Sinatrarian should list Hoboken. O3000 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's the one editor preaching The Truth™, but they haven't posted in a couple days. But neither me nor the IP, nor CookieMonster have advocated for it. I know that even if we do list Bethlehem as his traditional birthplace, we need to be explicit that it's the traditional. And as I said, I'd also want to mention the scholarly consensus, and mark that one as exactly that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we have to look for the alleged census that is mentioned by some religious sources. It is alleged, since Joseph is said to have been born of Bethlehem, that the whole family would need to travel there to be counted. It seems only logical that we look for some record of such a journey (or even such a census), before making any statement as to where "Jesus" was born. Therefore, I propose the actual page read "Nazareth/Bethlehem(unk.)" to demonstrate that there are multiple possible locations.R0tekatze (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49

[Hick_page_27-2] Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.

[ConrandHyersFooterBio-3] Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.

[4] Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 276: / Line 276: @@
 :::::::<small>e.g. the article on Jesus the Sinatrarian should list Hoboken.</small> [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 :::::::There's the one editor preaching The Truth&trade;, but they haven't posted in a couple days. But neither me nor the IP, nor CookieMonster have advocated for it. I know that even if we ''do'' list Bethlehem as his traditional birthplace, we need to be explicit that it's the '''traditional'''. And as I said, I'd also want to mention the scholarly consensus, and mark that one as exactly that, too. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 07:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
+::::::::It seems to me that we have to look for the alleged census that is mentioned by some religious sources. It is alleged, since Joseph is said to have been born of Bethlehem, that the whole family would need to travel there to be counted. It seems only logical that we look for some record of such a journey (or even such a census), before making any statement as to where "Jesus" was born. Therefore, I propose the actual page read "Nazareth/Bethlehem(unk.)" to demonstrate that there are multiple possible locations.[[User:R0tekatze|R0tekatze]] ([[User talk:R0tekatze|talk]]) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)