Talk:Jesus

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

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

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)

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

Jesus was born in zero BC/AD if you understand the beginning of a new fiscal calendar. So, zero BC/AD is really the beginning of months because John the Baptist was born in 6 months BC and Jesus was born six months later.--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"

Oh, boy, here we go again: year zero. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Zero BC/AD is the same as the first day of Creation. So, when know that number of years from Creation to the birth of Jesus equal BC/AD that 3,719 years one month. "One for Jesus"--"One for Jesus" (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC. Source Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin "One for Jesus" (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"

Very meaty page full of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.--Moxy (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"John the Baptist was born in 6 months BC"

How do you know when John the Baptist was born? The only reliable source we have on him is Josephus, and he does not mention the age of John at the time of his execution. Simply that he was executed at Machaerus. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

requesting source quotes for Jesus is Jew claims

In many cases we have statements here with sources after them, but the sources are not cited in a clear enough way that we know which portion of them is being cited, when it comes to books. I am hoping for some page numbers and actual excerpts to expand these parts. For example:

• "was a Jewish preacher and religious leader" and "was a Galilean Jew" (appears twice) and "Jesus was Jewish" all link to "Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia: First Fortress. pp. 20, 26, 27, 29"

While the book exists on Google Books, there is no preview so no way of telling what is on those pages. It would be helpful to know an example of what is on these pages. Given that they're mostly saying the same thing as the book's title (with one elaborating 'Galilean' the other 'preacher and religious leader', both of which I think we could establish using other sources) I'm not sure why 4 separate pages need to be cited. Can't we pick the most prominent one that best demonstrates whatever argument it was that Géza Vermès was making and quote him? ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nazareth is in Galilee, so pretty much any source connecting Jesus to the city depicts him as a Galilean. A number of sources also point that several of the people associated with Jesus were fellow Galileans. Saint Peter, Andrew the Apostle, James, son of Zebedee, John the Apostle, and Matthew the Apostle were all said to reside in Capernaum, a fishing village in Galilee. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What. The Fuck?! Is there even some bizarre conspiracy theory claiming Jesus wasn't a Jew? I mean, I get that he's usually portrayed as European (or Black, or Asian, depending on where the portrayal was made), but I've never heard anyone express any doubt over his actual ancestry before now. I don't see any need to reinforce this. Even if I'm wrong and there is some fringe group doubting Jesus' Jewishness, they're too fringe for us to consider them here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The main sources I've seen for the argument that Jesus wasn't Jewish are either white supremacists or black supremacists. Both will ludicrously hair-split between Israelites (which they imagine to be either white or black) and Jews (who are in some third category), and pull some one-drop rule deal to argue that Jesus was really either Egyptian (if black) or Hittite (if white). (Though the black supremacists at least use the one-drop rule in an inclusive manner such that, despite me having pretty solid British ancestry, my advocacy for Nazi-punching could lead me to be identified as just "really really light, but still black".) This is not to say that this is necessarily what OP is getting at, however. I think it's enough to say that WP:BLUE renders the current version sufficient, even if clearer and stronger sourcing is always welcome. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed a weird request. But see also Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus#Jewish background where his mother's Jewishness is being questioned. Of course, if his mother wasn't, then he wasn't. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't say it's surprising that supremacists would argue this, but I've never actually seen it done before outside of tongue-in-cheek rants on white supremacists sites. I didn't think they actually believed it, just that they thought it pissed off non-nazis. But I need to stop now because your small aside is making me nostalgic for the days when there really was a neo-nazi group in my neighborhood and nazi-punching was less of a funny meme and more of an occasional pastime. <sigh> Good times... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As Doug Weller says, there's a similar discussion about Mary, though please note it's been started by the same user. So we have one individual user arguing this topic. I'd respectfully suggest it may be more of an issue with that user's interpretation than anything else. There is no scholarly disagreement whatsoever on this topic. Besides, the claim is well-sourced already. Jeppiz (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "Positive Christianity" promoted by the Nazis back in the 1930s and 40s claimed that Jesus was not Jewish and that he was actually an Aryan hero who exposed the "lies" of the Jewish people, but that the Jews crucified him because he posed a threat to their evil plans for world domination. Obviously, this has never been a mainstream religious or historical interpretation and, since the Nazis lost in World War II, it has been mostly relegated to the dustbin of really weird Nazi pseudohistory. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

On a less racist note, there is the historical novel King Jesus (1946) by Robert Graves, where Jesus is depicted as a secret son of Antipater (c. 46 – 4 BC), as a grandson of Herod the Great (c. 74-4 BC), and as having partial ancestry from Edom. Graves depicts a Jesus who has a serious claim to the throne of Judea and the leadership of the Herodian dynasty, as Herod's senior living heir. Our article on the novel is a rather poor stub. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Main image

In this edit the main image was changed to Christ Pantocrator (Sinai), the oldest known Pantokrator. It was reverted here, since "major changes should be discussed on the talk page". As the revertor also pointed out, the Sinai Pantokrator is "clearly more historically significant". It is also a less stylized and more realistic image, but nontheless of great aesthetic worth. I therefore think the change was for the better. More opinions? St.nerol (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm indiffrent. I prfer the old image from an aesthetic standpoint, but the proposed replacement has obvious merits, as well.

FWIW, I agree that such changes should be discussed first, but also that there's no foul in being bold. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

On the whole, prefer the old (Sinai). I think we have had Cefalu for periods in the past. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the image very couple of years, but in the last poll, the Sinai Pantocrator lost out to the current image. A number of editors thought it had a symmetry problem. So we would really need a new poll, I think, to form a new consensus. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I see! The asymmetry is usually interpreted as symbolic – as representing the mild and harsh sides of Jesus (or alternatively as a theological expression of his human and his divine aspect). It seems to be the major stilistic choice in an otherwise quite realistic portrait. (In the old discussion I can see tree users commenting on it, whereof two regarding it as problematic and one regarding it as unproblematic at a larger-than-thumbnail size.)

I'm unfortunately not familiar with how to start a poll.

St.nerol (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

After looking at both and considering their respective historical significance and aesthetic merits, I strongly prefer the Sinai Pantokrator image as more historically significant, probably more accurate (the current image looks almost blond), and in my opinion better aesthetically (the asymmetry being, as has been pointed out, a deliberate artistic choice). I am of course willing to defer to consensus if the community prefers the other image, but if everybody here is either mildly indifferent or cautious of someone else who might hypothetically oppose the new image, I say let's Be Bold and then discuss it with anyone who strongly opposes when and if they object. -- LWG ^talk 14:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Mmm, I would caution making any major changes to the article, including the image in the infobox, without some sort of wider community participation, though I don't wish to tell you to not be bold. While I'm indifferent to the image used, I feel that more persons should weigh in before a change is made; but if you feel that changing the image now is your prerogative, so be it. Javert2113 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the Cefalù Christ Pantocrater mosaic (the current main image) because I think it looks better, but I am not strongly opposed to the Sinai icon, which definitely has very strong historical significance as the oldest surviving icon of its type. I do not like the fact that the Sinai icon is asymmetrical, but I understand that, obviously, this was an deliberate artistic choice on the part of the icon-painter to represent Jesus's dual nature as both God and man. I also do not like the darker colors of the Sinai icon; whereas the Cefalù mosaic is much brighter and more colorful. The Sinai icon is obviously much more worn because it is much older and I think the wear detracts from its visual appeal. Obviously, no one knows what the real, historical Jesus looked like (probably nothing at all like the handsome, long-haired, bearded Caucasian man he is usually depicted as), so artistic quality and historical significance are the main criteria for determining which image we should select. I would be fine with either image, but I would prefer the Cefalù. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

Icantthinkofanyotherusername (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I wanna change this on the second pagaragph theres a grammar eroorm

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC Jesus supposed return

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here are some intersting coincidences. 2015 is "TO" (twentiieth letter in the alphabet and fifteenth). History of the world goes TO this point. John 20:15 is the first time Jesus speaks after his death. Revalation chapter 20 has 15 verses, with 20:15 being the most scary text of all in the Bible. Mathews 5:13 speaks of salt losing its power. What does Jesus mean by salt? Probably faith, since this is the most central theme of his teachings. Thus he speaks of losing faith. 5:31 speaks of divorcing your wife, your life partner. Your life partner, true for all humans is this world we live in, thus divorcing this world, the end of the world. Now 5*13*31=2015. Strange coincidences, or is there some hidden meaning? Since the world did not end 2015, GOD MUST BE DEAD. (As Nietzsche said)Per in Sweden (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC) edit Per in Sweden (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for my bluntness, but is this some kind of joke or are you really serious? Bible code is complete nonsense; if you look hard enough, you can find "codes" or "hidden messages" like this in anything, even a lump of swiss cheese. It is caused by a psychological phenomenon called pareidolia. By the way, you do realize that the chapter and verse numbers we use today are not part of the original Biblical texts, right? They were added in the Early Modern Period for the simple convenience of being able to cite specific passages without quoting them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

My personal theory is that Flying Spaghetti Monster killed God in a cosmic fight. ;-) Per in Sweden (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC) On a serious note, see Existence of God talk page.Per in Sweden (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Indentation added Per in Sweden (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC) As for chapter and verse numbers, it does not matter when they were made, see God controls fate through controlling quantum randomness, thus quantum randomness is not random but controlled by God to suit is plan for the the fate of the world. Per in Sweden (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

Add Jesus Christ Superstar to section "Depictions of Jesus". This is a valid depictions of the character Jesus Christ TakumiTheFox (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)