Jump to content

Talk:Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:3037:c:5d0c:1:2:264a:c58e (talk) at 12:13, 25 December 2021 (→Agreement on historicity.: Shortened statement for brevity.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleJesus 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 12, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Added at the bottom

Jesus is a religious, cultural, worldwide icon, and is among the most influential people in human history. (Reference here) - User:Sleetimetraveller — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 21 July 2021

25 December

@Aeden Noel: If the NT gospels are to be trusted, it wasn't in the winter. Otherwise, all bets are off. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. December 25 was arbitrarily set because, amongst other reasons, (1) that was the date pagans celebrated the "birthday" of the sun (in association with winter solstice), and (2) that set Jesus' naming and circumcision, i.e. the date he was officially recognized as part of his family and the Jewish population, to January 1, 1 AD. If Luke's account is to believed, it's likely Jesus actually was born sometime between late spring and early fall, because shepherds could not be out in the open at night in Judean wintertimes - it would be too cold. Of course, ultimately the exact day doesn't matter that much. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely wasn't December 25 (Christmas). It had to have been a warmer month. Papal Rome (previously Pagan Rome) just was confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Years Active

I was browsing the InfoBox:Person template and noticed it has a years_active parameter. Based on the citations available in Chronology of Jesus, I think we could reasonably list AD 28 (or 29) through death as active dates. I wondered if there'd be any support for doing so. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your logic and I find the information interesting. My only concern is that info-boxs can be magnets for near pointless controversy and therefore I like to keep them short. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that point. Anyone else want to weigh in? Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is He a Jewish preacher and religious leader

If Jesus is a religious leader how come several times in the Bible he calls the religious leaders brood vipers and says “But do not copy what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” In Matthew 23. Also how is he a Jewish preacher I get He is most likely Jewish, but he did not teach Judaism. Kaleeb18 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Christians seem to have had a different opinion. Christianity was yet another one of the competing Jewish religious movements, and the Jewish Christians remained faithful to the Halakha.
To call Jesus Jewish is misleading. What Jewish today means is entirely different from what it meant in Jesus' time. For example, Rabbinic Judaism (the mainstream form of Judaism today) came hundreds of years after Jesus and has nothing to do with him. There is virtually no connection between Jesus and Jewishness as we know it. DayTime99 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rather pointless arguing about whether you think Jesus was Jewish or not. Wikipedia builds on sources, not opinions. There is completely consensus among academics in the field that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, and the article build on such sources. Whether any Wiki-user disagrees with that is rather irrelevant. Another Wiki-policy everyone is encouraged to respect is WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your own thoughts about Jesus or about Judaism. We describe Jesus as a Jewish preacher because that is the academic consensus reflected in the sources. Jeppiz (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where has it been established that such an academic consensus exists, Jeppiz? Also, the sources I've read certainly agree that Rabbinical Judaism is different from what Jesus was born into. DayTime99 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes religions are different in different places and 2000 years can change them too, yet we still use the same words as shorthand (we can develop the concept in the main text). What religion/ethnicity do you think the academic consensus says he was if not Jewish? Sorry to answer a question with a question but it is quicker than me running off to read more books on the topic in the desperate hope of finding one that contradicts all I have previously read. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the sources I've seen, in terms of ethnicity he was a Hebrew. In terms of religion, he would be a branch of Judaism that is all but extinct today. That is the main problem with calling him a "Jewish preacher", its misleading nature. Jesus had nothing to do with the Talmud, which came later and is indispensable to Judaism as people know it today. DayTime99 (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that thinking we’d have to rename Jewish–Roman wars (to what though?) and rename and re-write a host of other Judaism articles the pre-date Rabbinic Judaism. I don’t think so. DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still wondering why are we calling him a religious leader he had nothing to do with the religious leader? Kaleeb18 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I take your point, at the very least, the historical and/or literary figure of Jesus both led the apostles and taught them about religion. While it is certainly possible to argue semantic points (e.g., whether religion is "true" or not), in the common use of these terms, it seems the description is inarguably true. If you could provide reliable sources which support your position here, it would be helpful. Cheers, and happy Monday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might need to reword it better or something because other readers like me might think that they mean Jesus taught Judaism but you guys really mean he was Jewish and a preacher and when y’all say religious leader it sound like Jesus had something to do with the religious leaders like the Pharisees and the Sadducees but y’all really mean he was a religious leader because he has followers and disciples. There must be a better way to say that so other including myself don’t get confused. Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As another Wikipedian pointed some years ago, the uncharitable description of Jesus is apocalyptic cult leader. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Messianic ideas were far from uncommon in the Second Temple period. Apocalypticism seems to have already emerged by the 2nd century BCE, when the Book of Daniel and the Book of Enoch were written. If Jesus believed in an imminent apocalypse, he was not alone in his beliefs. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I get He is most likely Jewish, but he did not teach Judaism." (Kaleeb18). I'm glad you think he was "most likely" Jewish, since Paul had no doubts at all on that score (he says Jesus was "born under the Law", the law being the Torah), but what makes you think he didn't teach Judaism? Everything he taught was Jewish, and he specifically said that he had not come to destroy the Law. Achar Sva (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus did teach some parts of Judaism, but in Judaism the people dont believe Jesus died and rose from the dead. So if Judaism believes that how can he teach that. Kaleeb18 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s flawed logic. “Jesus didn’t teach Judaism because Jews don’t believe he died and rose from the dead”? There is no logical connection between what Jesus taught and whether Jews believe in the resurrection. Jesus was, at the time, considered and called a rabbi (teacher of what version of Judaism existed at his time). That is recorded and clear both in the Bible and multiple secular sources. Of course his life, teachings, death and (according to believers) resurrection did not fully adhere to the Judaism that existed in first century AD. But claiming that he did not teach Judaism in the 1st century because the Judaism of the 1st century does not match the Judaism of the 21st century seems like a colossal waste of time for all involved, especially when RSs are nearly unanimous in agreeing that he either taught an entirely new religion, or a radical form of 1st century Judaism. The discussion should be on whether he taught out of the 1st century form of Judaism, and the article already discusses that point pretty well. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested by at least one experienced editor that this discussion is straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Any further discussion likely should be shifted to user talk pages. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtrevor99: sorry I think i worded the thing I was trying to say I was really trying to say exactly what you said “he either taught an entirely new religion, or a radical form of 1st century Judaism.” I do think we are straying off topic I originally was just trying to say that the one section in the lead was misleading to me. Kaleeb18 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As DayTime99 didn't quite say, to call Jesus Christian is misleading. What Christian today means is entirely different from what it meant in Jesus' time. For example, evangelical Christianity (the mainstream form of Christianity in America today) came hundreds of years after Jesus and has nothing to do with him. There is virtually no connection between Jesus and evangelical Christianity as we know it. (As he didn't say, the basic rule is that we anchor every major statement to a reliable source, and if we have a reliable source saying JC was a Jewish preacher and religious leader,we can't arbitrarily change it). Achar Sva (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirely different discussion. This discussion is about whether Jesus taught the 1st century form of Judaism and, if so, if calling him a teacher of Judaism is confusing since that form does not match the 21st century version. If you want to discuss whether he taught Christianity in its 21st century form, that needs to be a different thread. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrevor99: no, this discussion is not about whether Jesus taught 1st century Judaism (though he did), it's about reminding people of the basic rule that everything we say has to follow reliable sources. The statement in the lead follows such a source, and therefore stays.Achar Sva (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you are correct regarding reliable sources, that was the response, not the original post. The original post, and the title of this thread, was as I stated. Any discussion which deviates from the original topic needs to go elsewhere, if it's even topical. Jtrevor99 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"God the Son" in intro paragraph

This term should be switched to "Son of God", which is universally accepted by all Christians, as opposed to "God the Son" which is rejected by non-trinitarians and some trinitarians sects who oppose the term due to the fact that it is not found in the Bible. BakedGoods357 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this change. I think the only reason it is written as "God the Son" is because that is what its corresponding page is titled as. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Son of God (Christianity) which is maybe a better link. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like those 2 articles should be merged. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-trinitarians aren't really Christians.Achar Sva (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unitarians would beg to differ with this assessment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one person agrees with your idea does not mean you have reached a consensus. The fact is, all of mainstream Christianity accept and use the term 'God the Son' and the 'incarnation' is an integral part of Christianity. Therefore there is absolutely no need to change the original intro to 'Son of God' as it is talked about below anyway. Strongly disagree with this change.--Thebighomie123 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Futhermore, with over 45000 Christian denominations there is no term that is 'universally accepted' by all Christians so your argument for changing it is redundant. Thanks and have a good day Thebighomie123 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about “mainstream Christianity”. As previously discussed, “Son of God” is used by all Christian groups, while “God the Son” is not, so reverting this change doesn’t make sense. In addition, the article that the term “Son of God” redirects to explains the beliefs of different sects of Christianity, which is more appropriate for the article.BakedGoods357 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Groups like Unitarians (though some British/American Unitarians might not consider themselves Christian those that do aren't Trinitarian and then there is the Unitarian Church of Transylvania which definitely considers itself Christian) and Christadelphians. Then there are groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (not a small group). Historically there have been other Unitarian Christian groups such as Polish Brethren. --Erp (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on which of the two links should be used. The word "Most" should not be removed, though, as proposed by @BakedGoods357:. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reason behind the removal of this word is that I have not been able to find any Christian denunciations that do not use this term. If someone could show an example of one I would agree that it should not be changed.BakedGoods357 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH. The lead summarizes the body, and the cited statement in the body says "most". Also, the burden is on you to establish consensus for the change you are proposing, not an anyone else to provide you with citations. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is why I’ve reverted BakedGoods357 edit (as well as it being premature claiming this edit has consensus support from this thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I would like to request the editors of Wikipedia to change the Name of article from "Jesus," to "Jesus Christ."--Splashen (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Christ" is not a name it is a title synonymous with "Messiah". --Thebighomie123 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Q1 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article say he was born in 4 BC?

I find it odd it says this because the word BC means before Christ, so shouldn’t he have been born in 1 AD(Year of our lord)? Because if he was born in 4 bc, then does that mean he was born before he was born? MrBeetleReed (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly correct. We calculate years based on the traditional estimate of his birth, but the article correctly gives the current academic consensus of when he was born. Jeppiz (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an understandable query, MrBeetleReed, but it must be understood that when the A.D. system of dating was created by Dionysius Exiguus and updated afterward, they were working with very imperfect information. If we assume for the moment that 4 B.C. is in fact the correct year, it's fairly amazing the dating was that close! This is one reason that many now prefer "CE/BCE" as the terminology, since it does away with the difficulty you highlight. We could shift "A.D. 1" with updates scholarly beliefs, but it would be rather jarring if we suddenly declared that next year will be 2018 rather than 2022! I hope this is some sort of help. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just subtract the B.C. Numbers by four, so that way we can still have accuracy, but also the tradition if that makes sense.Tailorbird134 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have just kind of blown my mind Tailorbird134! So you propose 5 BC becomes 1 BC, and then what are now 4, 3, 2, and 1 BC are neither B.C. nor A.D.? Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot do that if the sources don't. It's an approximation caused by calendar errors over the last 2.000 years or so. Have a good Christmas, whichever Christmas you think it is. Britmax (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement on historicity.

In the article it is mentioned that virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed historically. However, I think it would be of interest for the article to clarify to what extent scholarly opinion is informed by theologians, as such scholars are likely to have bias. From reading the article, there seems to be some evidence that Jesus existed, but not enough to establish this as fact; considering that the earliest sources are dated about 30 years after his death, and have religious bias. More discussion about this, from some experts, would be highly appreciated. 90.174.221.142 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More on this and links to related articles articles can be found at Q3 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone asking why historians are so unanimous about Jesus's existence should read this. It's not because of influence from theologians. 2601:601:1A00:6C80:F5CB:EFA2:4892:DBB2 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that was an impressive comments section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a bit more, and now think that the majority of historians regard Jesus existing historically as the best theory that fits the evidence; and, given what I have read, tend to agree. But, I guess it would be good in the article to clarify how difficult it is to be certain about anything, given how limited, and possibly biased, the evidence is.
That said, I guess it is easy to see that any claims about the life of a peasant thousands of years ago would be difficult to be very certain about, given, for example, the high levels of illiteracy among the people, and lack of surviving documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.221.142 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don’t think such a section would be helpful. Our evidence is limited and possibly biased on literally every historical person, event, etc. of 2000+ years ago. Doing so would be akin to specifying that “the sky is blue” and then looking for reliable sources to that effect. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your first statement definitely makes sense: it is difficult to apply exreme standards of scientific rigour to events that happened over 2000 years ago. It's definitely not the same as arguing whether the sky is blue however - anyone can clearly see for ourselves that is the case. Moreover, modern historical events, such as the life of Stalin, show how easy it is for history to be rewritten and distorted over a lifetime. So whilst it is highly likely than not that Jesus existed, and there is some truth to the gospel stories, there is likely a lot more uncertainty to the specific facts, especially considering that we do know that certain statements from the Gospels were false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:C:5D0C:1:2:264A:C58E (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=1061988637"