Talk:Jesus

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. 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, 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."
• 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

Claim that Jesus existed

You cannot use one source to say all scholars agree that Jesus existed. Plenty deny he existed. Written material on Jesus was created over a century after he was claimed to have lived. Various positions exist for and against Jesus being a real person.

Early life, family, and profession

In this section, there is mention of Jesus' brothers and unnamed sisters, but should there also be mention of Joachim and Anne, his maternal grandparents? And although he is mentioned multiple times in this article, there is no reference of John the Baptist's relationship to Jesus, being that he is a second cousin. I think that this section of the article could be expanded a little; there is limited information on Jesus' family, so I think that the information we have should be mentioned. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, my gut would be that the relationship to John the Baptist certainly deserves mention, but Joachim and Anne are going a bit further than we need (despite their later artistic importance!). I am curious though about a "second" cousin. I understand "cousin," but I am not sure how you arrive at that specificity. If you don't mind enlightening me, I would be grateful! Happy to hear others' opinions and whether I am simply wrong on either or both calls. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware, the Biblical account (Luke 1 especially) only states that Elizabeth and Mary were “relatives”. I think the idea that Elizabeth was Mary’s aunt, and thus John and Jesus were second cousins, comes either from Quranic tradition, or extrapolation based on Elizabeth’s significant age compared to Mary’s. But the Quran appears unclear on this point. Either way, I’m not sure we can say definitively that they were second cousins - only that they were related and nearly the same age. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I used this source to gather my information, however I'm unsure if it uses the Quran as a reference. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid and Jtrevor99: Hey, any thoughts on the above? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Only to the extent that I would be more comfortable leaving the specific relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus undefined, since that has always been a bit unclear, so far as I know. Other than that, I support that inclusion but lean against Joachim and Anna (though will not be upset if they are included). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: The material below in bolded quotations I have drafted this to put into the section. What do you think? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jesus' maternal grandparents are named Saint Joachim and Saint Anne in the Bible and are first mentioned in the Gospel of James. The Bible also records that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Non-biblical contemporary sources consider Jesus and John the Baptist to be second cousins through the belief that Elizabeth was the daughter of Sobe, the sister of Saint Anne."

As I have said, I lean against those inclusions, but I am not dogged about it. Assuming you can find anyone else who agrees, I would consider that a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I will wait for User:Jtrevor99 to respond. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My opinion matches Dumazid’s on this. I’m generally against including since it seems too speculatory but I don’t strongly oppose either. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I think I'll still add it, but is there any way that you think I can change it to gain your support/make it less speculatory, but keep the basic material? (Just asking because I don't want to make anyone too upset in my edits.) - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you not to add it at this time, as you basically have two "soft no" votes. I am certainly okay with adding something about the idea that John and Jesus were related in an unspecified way, but I would wait on the rest until you have more of a consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. May I ask how come you are opposed to adding Joachim and Anne? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to ask anything you like! Joachim and Anne just feel a bit attenuated to me, both in their relationship as grandparents and their placement in tradition. The tradition is early, but certainly post-canonical gospels. Seems unnecessary to me, but as I say, I also understand the counterargument so if consensus goes against me, that's fine. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, alright. The reason I think that Joachim and Anne should be mentioned is because they are mentioned in the Bible as Jesus' maternal grandparents, which is pretty notable considering the lack of knowledge we hold on his family, but also because it offers an explanation (as I gave in the suggested prose above) to Jesus' relation to John the Baptist. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm going to add the changes and if there's any opposition, we can discuss then. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

BLP

How come there is no biography of living persons notice for this article? 47.137.179.4 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because Jesus died long ago. The belief that he is alive is not objective knowledge. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hm, there would be more articles like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Linking to Hebrew in first sentence

I noticed that the lead for this article doesn't link to the Hebrew article in the second parentheses. Should {{lang-he}} be used, i.e. '''Jesus Christ''' ({{lang-he|יֵשׁוּעַ המשיח}}) to produce "Jesus Christ (Hebrew: יֵשׁוּעַ המשיח)"? SWinxy (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear why Hebrew is being referenced at all since the "Christ" part comes from Greek. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So does the Jesus part (from Greek Iesous).Achar Sva (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Religious perspectives

This section needs some modifications to provide a balanced coverage of each religion's views on Jesus.

• Two sections are dedicated to the Druze faith and the Baháʼí faith, while the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, which have more followers and very distinct views on Jesus, are only briefly mentioned in the same sentence without any description of their perspective.
• Jesus#Druze faith has the exact same text as Religious_perspectives_on_Jesus#Druze_Faith, and Jesus#Baháʼí_faith is longer than Religious_perspectives_on_Jesus#Baháʼí_Faith. Both sections should be summarized in one or two sentences and moved to Jesus#Other in accordance with WP:SUMMARY.
• There is a misleading statement regarding the Baháʼí_Faith, claiming that "it is similar to the Christian concept of incarnation", whereas the source actually says that "Jesus incarnated Gods attributes", not the same thing. Another dubious statement is "Bahá'í thought accepts Jesus as the Son of God", whereas the source says that "Shoghi Effendi accepted his 'Sonship and Divinity'", not exactly the same thing. The first source says that "The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body".
• Also, there is a section entirely dedicated to the comments made by an Isma'ili historian with only one source and no established notability, it should be deleted.
• Section title "Perspectives" to be renamed "Religious perspectives" to better reflect the content.

Further changes may be necessary, let's discuss these first. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that your username is a tad provocative, but you seem to be knowing what you do. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Any other opinion on these proposed changes? Maybe by making one change at a time other editors will have the opportunity to react. Here is a schedule for the changes, from the least to the most contentious:

1. delete "Isma'ili faith" section
2. rename section "Religious perspectives"
3. summarize "Druze Faith" in three or four sentences
4. summarize "Baháʼí Faith" in three or four sentences
5. transfer "Druze Faith", "Baháʼí Faith" and "Manichaeism" to "Other"

SanctumRosarium (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edits make sense and seem like they would better balance the article. I am not sufficiently versed in Baha’i to understand “Son of God” vs “Sonship and Divinity” (Effendi comment), and that was the only piece I was unsure on. I trust your judgment there. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There are misleading or doubtful statements in the article regarding how Jesus is viewed in the Druze faith.

• The first sentence "In the Druze faith, Jesus is considered the Messiah and one of God's important prophets [452][35]". The first source doesn't says that Jesus is the messiah, the only statement regarding Jesus in the book is that he is part of the Seven Major Prophets. The other source says "It was the true Messiah, Hamza, who directed the deeds of the messiah Jesus, but when Jesus strayed from the path of the true Messiah, Hamza filled the hearts of the Jews with hatred for him". Which would mean that in Druze faith Jesus is considered a false messiah. Therefore it would be better not to use "messiah" when describing how Jesus is considered in the Druze faith as is can be confusing and misleading.
• Another misleading statement is "the belief that Jesus delivered the true Gospel message", which could imply that the Druze faith accepts the Gospel message, whereas the source actually says that "he delivered what Druzes view as the true message." The source doesn't explain what is the true message and it doesn't refer to the Gospels.
• Regarding the statement that "Druze believe that Hamza ibn Ali was a reincarnation of Jesus", the source says: "They further believe that Hamza ibn Ali was a reincarnation of many prophets, including Christ, Plato, Aristotle, and Adam". However, as the true Messiah/Christ in Druze faith is Hamza and not Jesus, the source probably refers to Hamza when it says "Christ", and not Jeus. It would be better not to include such a doubtful statement.

Therefore, it would be better to focus on the fact that Jesus is considered one of the Seven Major Prophets in the Druze faith, which is the only statement that all sources agree on. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor changes in the lead section

This is a discussion about the last paragraph of the lead section, summarizing non-Christian perspectives.

• In the sentence "Jesus is also revered in Baha'i faith, Druze faith, Islam and Manichaeism", these four religions are not listed in any logical order. Here are two possible orders to improve it:
  • chronological order: "Jesus is also revered in Manichaeism, Islam, Druze faith and Baha'i faith."
  • current number of followers: "Jesus is also revered in Islam, Baha'i faith, Druze faith, and Manichaeism."
• the sentence could begin with "Jesus is revered as a prophet" instead of "Jesus is also revered", it would provide more information about how Jesus is revered in these four religions.
• Judaism should be mentioned first in the paragraph, as it is the case in the "Perspectives" section and because its views on Jesus precedes other non-Christian views. Move the last sentence to first: "Judaism rejects the belief...", then continue with "Jesus is revered...".

SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I neither support nor oppose the last changes you mention, but I think in the lead, they should be listed in alphabetical order. In my opinion, listing them by largest number of followers gives connotations that the article would be referring to the religions as if they were "better" by having larger numbers. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's right! The chronological order should still be an option though. The "Perspectives" section is presented in chronological order. SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with chronological order, though for me it's not really an improvement, more of a lateral change. To make the order meaningful, we would have to explain it, which I think would be too much. All that is to say, chronological is fine. Happy Friday, all! Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not about better, it's about greater due weight in policy terms. More populous religions are almost invariably more discussed, and hence, more deserving of space. I would frankly question the presence of Manichaeism altogether, since it is wholly unclear if that religion still exists - outside of some murmurings about closeted followers in China. Aside from the weighting point, the Baha'i faith and Druze faith quite obviously both follow on from Islam and emerged in an Islamic setting, so they revere Jesus in the same way that they revere Muhammad, by virtue of them being built on the Abrahamic faith model of specifically Islam, so they should really come after - to that end, I suppose the chronological order achieves the same end - though again, as I mentioned, I would drop Manichaeism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a revised version for the last paragraph in the lead, in a list format to make the comparison easier:

Current version

• Jesus is also revered in the Baha'i faith, the Druze faith, Islam and Manichaeism.
• In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement. Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.
• In contrast, Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.

Revised version

• Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.
• Jesus is revered as a prophet in Islam, the Druze faith and the Baha'i faith.
• In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement. Muslims believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.

This could be an improvement as compared with the current version because:

• it makes sense to mention Judaism first, because Jesus was Jewish and presented himself like the messiah awaited by the Jews. It is a very significant information for the readers to know that Judaism rejects Jesus and such information must be emphasized.
• there is a logic in listing other religious views chronologically and according to their historical significance, rather than alphabetically/randomly.
• the fact that Jesus is revered in these religions as a prophet is a significant information for the readers and it doesn't add too much text. Writing that he is "revered" without further detail is too vague as one can be revered as a divine being.
• manichaeism is no longer mentioned, as it is not a significant religion today.

SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, the religions where Jesus has a prominent role should be listed first. Jesus has no role in Judaism except at most as one of many failed messianic claimants. Erp (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

He never existed

This is going nowhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus never existed, this article must show him as a fictional mythological character, this encyclopedia will lose credibility if it doesn't, this isn't NPOV Jamesman666 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC) There is no evidence that he was a god. But, scholars have concluded that he did at least exist as a person. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC) He didn't exist as a person, the character is a myth from birth to death. Jamesman666 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Our opinions do not matter. We use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC) It's not an opinion, it is a demonstrable fact that Jesus is mythology Jamesman666 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC) See WP:NOTTRUTH. Wikipedia writes articles based on general consensus of reliable sources, not "the truth" per se. Proceed to demonstrate to us that a consensus exists amongst reliable sources that Jesus never existed, and this can be updated in the article.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Holding the position that Jesus didn't exist is currently very small minority amongst professional scholars and historians – Christian and non-Christian. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Where is your proof of that? Jamesman666 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) The reliable sources that indicate that are already cited in the article. You would do well to read them. Do not state your opinion as if it is fact. That opinion, which disagrees with a supermajority of secular sources including those cited herein, is irrelevant to this article. This article, like all of WP, relies on reliable sources to establish fact - and they disagree with you. You would also do well to browse the archives of this Talk page, where posts identical to this one have been made and refuted multiple times. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Can you demonstrate that a consensus exists among reliable sources Jamesman666 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) See the article. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC) It's not in the article, it merely states it without any evidence. All the source are 7 guys who state that most scholars believe he existed without any evidence, just giving their own opinion. Show me the poll that every scholar of antiquity believes he existed. The existence of a historical figure should not rely on hearsay and the imagination of a handfull of people who lived 2000 years after they supposedly lived. Jamesman666 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are not based upon editor opinion, but upon WP:VERECUNDIAM. The germane guideline is WP:RS/AC. Scholars don't take polls in order to establish the academic consensus, see Scientific consensus and arguments from authority on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC) It is a fact Jesus never existed, and you cannot prove the majority of secular source’s accept the existence of Jesus, no non-Christian contemporary sources support the existence of Jesus, he has no existence outside the Christian mythology, and this encyclopedia loses it's credibility attempting to appease believers of Christian mythology. Jamesman666 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC) I think this discussion should be closed. You state that Jesus never existed; where is your proof? Editors having to respond to these comments again and again is stagnant. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Where is your proof he did exist, it's not the reader's job to prove mythological figures existed. Jamesman666 (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

Would like to also add his Jewish name as to which he was referred when he walked upon the Earth: Yeshua. This will give jewishness to "Jesus" as he was born a Jew, died a Jew, and ascended into have as the Jewish Messiah. Please allow his Jewish name to be reflected to give more truth and context to this amazing historical and spiritual figure. Mauriece212 (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This appears to already be included in the very first section of the article. What specifically are you looking to change? Tollens (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)