Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 84 Featured Article Canidate?, Virgin Birth, Joseph as father, Convert from Judaism, RfC and more on BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, Rabbi Hillel, incorrect reference regarding mythist/historicity, real face of Jesus, YHWH and pronunciation
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 85 Christian views on gospel's historicity, Jesus myth unsupported, Give me proof that Jesus existed, Fictional Character, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Possessive of Jesus, youtube links, Neutral or not?, Important figure in other religions
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 86 Date and Year that Jesus Christ was bornm Jesus is a Greek Name, Not Hebrew, "A-Class Jesus work group articles", Categories and religions, 2nd paragraph of lead and mythists
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 87 1 Islamic view of Jesus in the introduction, Jesus was Not a Jew is the Islamic View, Jesus not a prophet according to Mormonism, Clarification Request For Genealogy Section, Historicity of Jesus, Certain/Most Distinction, Kenyon, Life/Death/Rebirth, Does Jesus exist? ORLY?
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 88 1 JW view, Template, relatively preserved New Testament? Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 89 1 Jesus Christ in Proto-Indo-European, Birth year, Lead sentence... again, Jesus' Siblings, Reasons for Removal of Alternate Dating Notation
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 90 1 Request for edit, Yeshua is His name, Raelian view of Jesus, Feature?, 1st paragraph of article, Official religion of Roman Empire
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 91 POV pushing in introduction / Both POV's presented in introduction, Just Curious
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 92 Milton Steinberg's opinion, Bias in the first sentence
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 93 BBC image

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

2nd paragraph

If the subject of the second paragraph is what historians think, then put them in the first sentence. Please see [1]. Anyone second the motion? Leadwind (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me. I think it makes sense to specify what the principal sources are, and then provide different views (interpretations) of the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the topic of the sentence the gospels, or is it historical Jesus? I thought the topic was the gospels until you said the topic was historical Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you do not understand how historians work. Historians analyze and interpret historical sources. Therefore, we begin by naming the sources they are interpreting, and then we provide their interporetation of these sources. 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs)

Is the topic of the paragraph the gospels or is it the historical view of Jesus? Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When someone who disagrees with me won't answer a straight question, maybe it's time for a different tack. Leadwind (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Historians use the gospels, M, M, L, & J, as primary sources of information on Jesus' life"? That way we put the gospels in the first sentence, and we put historians in the first sentence. The gentle reader understands that this paragraph is going to be about historians. Leadwind (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My answer to the queston is in comments on the talk page on January 10 and January 17, and an edit summary on january 29. Sorry, but expressing my view three times is my limit. And frankly, I consider your asking me what my view is after we have discussed this in several sections of the talk page to be a sign of bad faith. If the first three times i explained myself didn't satisfy you, all I can conclude is that no answer I give will satisfy you. You can keep arguing this if you want. I have explained my position. "When someone who disagrees with me" ignores my explanations and keeps insisting I explain myself, I start to feel insulted and played with. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua's Birthday

Yeshua's birthday IS somewhere around September during the Feast of Tabernacles.The K.O. King (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And your proof? The Shepherds were in the fields with their flocks all night. This happens in that part of the world only in the Spring when the Ewes are dropping their Lambs, and sometimes you need to help that happen. I've been through this with goats which are very, very similar animals, and you need to be able to deal with a breech presentation and also predators who will find a Ewe in labor to be unable to defend herself. --BenBurch (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, man, totally. 71.68.15.63 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben, as you say, Luke implies that Jesus was born in spring. But most scholars don't regard the nativity stories as historical. Luke's inclusion of shepherds might have been to emphasize Jesus' humble humanity, just as Matthew's inclusion of wise men emphasized his kingship. Leadwind (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If some of you guys would study instead of just shooting stuff down you might find out some things. I'm telling you the truth. The K.O. King (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

chronology

I fixed a reference to the last supper in the chronology section. Someone was using a primary source to say that the LS in Mark isn't Passover.

I'd like to pare the chronology section down. Consider, for a moment, the fate of our gentle reader, coming to this page to learn something about one of the most remarkable folks in history, only to get bogged down in a highly detailed treatment of chronology, none of which does anything to tell anyone anything about Jesus. There's a main article for all the detail anyone could want. Here's what a regular old reader needs to know:

• Approximately when Jesus was born, when he ministered, and when he died.
• That the gospels give varying accounts of these years and dates, and that John's account of the last supper gave rise to one of the first schisms in the early church (Quartodecimanism).
• That Jesus' birthday being set at 25 December didn't happen until later and doesn't reflect the gospels.

We can do that in a paragraph. A clear, clean paragraph that summarizes the high points is better than a highly detailed section that turns off all but the devoted student. The section could also use an image.

I'm trying to identify ways to improve this page that aren't POV mine fields. How did I do? Leadwind (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AD/CE and BC/BCE Usage

Ok, I'm not trying to start *that* flamewar again. But I do need to note that the current dual usage is technically incorrect. Years written in the AD system are written "AD 1925," thus writing something like "1925 AD/CE" is incorrect. The Manual of Style agrees with me noting:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before a year (AD 1066) but after a century (2nd century AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other

It seems to me that this article should use either the BC/AD system or the BCE/CE system exclusively. It is impossible to use both systems simultaneously and continue to be correct with the AD usage unless somebody wanted to write something such as "AD 1925 or 1925 CE." Cheers. --Burzum (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I want the Common Era system. Is there consensus for that? Is there a single person that wants the AD system instead? Hmm... looks like we don't have consensus then. Oh well. Given the vast number of times we have discussed this, and the depth and length we have discussed this, I am highly skeptical that there is consensus to support using only one of the systems exclusively. So the working compromise, for the past few years, has been to use both. The manual of style has changed a bit over the years, but one of the key points historically was an emphasis on consistency (i.e. not to randomly mix CE and AD, but instead to consistently use one.) In the spirit of that, we consistently use both. I apologize if I am pessimistic on change regarding this issue. I really don't want another big discussion to start and eventually end again with no consensus for change. But perhaps I don't need to be pessimistic. Is everyone on board with me in getting rid of the clunky AD/CE style and using BCE/CE exclusively?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I am all for your idea of getting rid of the clunky AD/BC thing and sticking to BCE and CE. However, I have to say, I would welcome some sort of compromise if it made it possible for people with different views to work together ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have a vote on it? This isn't something where one side is the correct usage and the other in incorrect (except the third side of dual usage which is obviously incorrect). As far as Wikipedia is concerned both AD and CE are valid so we might as well choose based on which side is preferred. Or we could flip a coin. It really doesn't matter. Arguments are useless in this case since Wikipedia really doesn't care which one is used as long as it is consistent. If the Manual of Style ever recommends using the BCE/CE system for one purpose and BC/AD for another then we could argue one system over another. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone just change it real quick and we'll stick with that. We have more important things to worry about. Wrad (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the AD/BC system. Either one works, but, I've always used the AD/BC so I have to agree with that. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go and read the archives. There have been literally years worth of writing wasted on this topic. The current version has come through many previous cycles of discussion. To cut things short, it was usually found that "there is a consensus that there is no consensus for a change". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's breaking MOS rules. It's not that big a deal what we use. Just fix it. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another" Couldn't that present a possible answer? We go to the very first revision that uses one of them and see what the choice was. I think anything would be better than a straw poll. On a further not, I apologize if this idea has already been brought up, argued, debated, voted, and no consensused. In terms of watching this page, I am not a veteran.--CM (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, whoever changes it first, that's what we'll use. That's the way the rules work. If it doesn't really matter, you stick with what's already there. Right now we're breaking MOS rules, so someone change it so we can move on with our lives. Wrad (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been living with this crutch for years. People have been constructively edited this article and generally had no problem going on with their lives. The current situation is not a serious problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not serious, no, but breaking MOS yes. It is preferable that we follow the general wikipedia consensus about style rather than ignore it. You're the only one opposing right now. Someone just fix it. Wrad (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got an idea. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 20. If you get within 5 of the number, we'll change it to BC/AD. If you're more than 5 away, we'll change it to BCE/CE. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

16 Wrad (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a serious problem, but we should note that even during the 'color' vs. 'colour' flamewars, they didn't decide to use 'color/colour' or 'colour/color' as a compromise inside the text of articles.--Burzum (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with that set of wars, and you're absolutely right. The fact is, rules are rules. The way to stop wars like this is to stick to the rules, so let's do it. Wrad (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the oldest versions. They use various weird constructions, e.g. "1 A.D." and "4 before the Christian Era". This article long predates the current version of WP:MOS. Applying the rules retroactively doesn't work.

I'm not against changing this article (after careful consideration, I'm in favor of CE/BCE, as there are people who have real issues with AD/BC, while the arguments for AD/BC are rather thin - the best is "I'm used to it", and the other is "everything else is an atheist conspiracy at work"). However, I've been around this article for a while and think the chances of finding consensus are slightly less than that for world peace in our time. Hence I oppose this discussion as a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed on this issue. The rules say that you go with what is already there. What is here now is against MOS, so whatever comes up next that keeps MoS is what will stay according to the rules. The whole reason you've been having issues here is because you haven't followed the rules. If you do that, then if anybody whines you can just point him to the rules. If you don't do that, then it's the big subjective mess you have on your hands now. Wrad (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The number was 7.... Wrad picked 16. That means we change it to CE/BCE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's change it. Wrad (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See how easy wikipedia can be? Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. That is how it is now. It doesn't really mater that much, so th rules state we should stick with what's already there. Thus, if anyone complains, just point that rule out to them. Wrad (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. *leans back, opens a pack of pistachios and waits* ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem if you stick to the rules. I have added a template at the top to help us out. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to longstanding BC/BCD AD/CE compromise. It may not be technically correct, but this was settled on to prevent edit wars. Do not change it unless a new protracted discussion forms a new consensus. This must be done on the talk page. ^rossnixon 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It breaks the rules and violates the MoS consensus. Consensus is not needed on a silly issue like this. The consensus has already been established at MoS very clearly. If you have a problem with those rules, then take it up on the MoS page and try to change consensus there. No need to start an edit war preserving a version that clearly violates MoS. Wrad (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The MoS states that this should be "approached with common sense and the occasional exception". ^rossnixon 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, please do not continue to vandalize the article. If you are familiar with Wikipedia rules, you should try to gain a consensus for changes via polite discussion on talk pages. ^rossnixon 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I'm following the MoS consensus, and there was a consensus on this talk page for the change. Please respect that. Wrad (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the compromise that was worked out long ago for the BC/BCE style was achieved with the explicit recognition that it went against the MoS somewhat. That was deemed an acceptable price for the relative peace after so much edit warring over the issue. This present discussion began only five hours ago and had input from only eight editors when it was deemed that consensus for changing the longstanding compromise was made. I am surprised that anyone here thinks that the issue has received enough attention from the community of editors interested in this article that some notion of consensus can be formulated at this point, especially given the general acceptance that the old solution had and the empirical benefits it has had in terms of keeping edit wars away from the page. I appreciate the desire to conform to the MoS better, but I think folks are being way too hasty here and are ignoring the very real danger of launching another series of edit wars. I urge Wrad to self-revert until editors have had a proper opportunity to consider this change, and I think at least a week is necessary to provide such an opportunity. alanyst ^/talk/ 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any negative intent. But I'm a big partial believer in WP:Consensus through luck of draw. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go. The way we just did it has effectively ended edit wars over the spelling of Color at that talk page. You pick something and stick with it and refer people to MoS if they have a problem. Endless debates are thus unnecessary. Just let it go and move on. Wrad (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go against MoS then you re standing on shaky ground and leaving yourself open to more and more debate. If you follow MoS then you can refer everyone there if they have a problem and delete all year discussion from the talk page as unrelated to the topic. I have boldly offered a solution that I don't intend to change because I feel it is the best option. I did nothing wrong and I'm not going to change it back. I'm not going to revert again if someone changes it, either, though. Wrad (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back, as there has been insufficient time for enough editors to discuss this. ^rossnixon 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2) There have not been endless debates, nor ongoing edit wars, on this page since the compromise solution was instituted. Sure, the issue comes up now and again by new editors unfamiliar with the situation, but they generally recognize the compromise for what it is. My fear is that by picking a style arbitrarily with almost no input from the community of editors here, you will not prevent further debate and edit wars but rather will inflame them. The situation is different than that at Color because both styles were being used here and everyone was basically at peace with that. I hope I'm wrong and that things will be stable, but I fear that your approach is so ham-handed that enforcing the one style over the other will be an endless bone of contention. Insisting that the MoS is the final authority here doesn't help either; common sense says that style guidelines can be overridden in exceptional cases, and this is one. alanyst ^/talk/ 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not use an incorrect format for AD. All that the compromise has achieved is instead using two correct formats we are using a combined incorrect format. While there can be exceptions to the Manual of Style they should be due to exceptional content in the article, not due to trying to stop an edit war. The correct solution is probably to go to a RFC or another dispute resolution procedure and get a binding vote. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of responses to this discussion, but not any to OkiefromOkla's call for an FA push awhile ago. Let's just forget it and move on. I don't really care that much. I just want this to be an FA. Can we do another FA push? What's holding us back? Wrad (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wrad. Best comment in the thread IMO. FA is way more important that a few silly letters after years. The compromise has been there fore years because it is what works to keep the peace.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I know of a group that will help at the drop of a hat, if the editors here are motivated to go for it. Wrad (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to hijack this thread, but I think the last FAC should have gone in our favor. I believe Homestarmy (and to a lesser extent me) worked hard to address all of the concerns raised at the FAC, and that the article met the FA criteria. I think there are still some weaker sections of the article, but basically everything is sourced, and stable, and relatively well written and so on. I'd be glad to assist in where ever I can. Any ideas what sort of work should be undertaken before the next FA nomination? The to do list is pretty dated.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic started with a suggestion that AD precede the year. THREE points: 1> AD/CE is not necessarily just a mix of AD & CE, it is a "suffix" in itself, used other places than here, with its own standard context - viz, AFTER the year. 2> Many style guides do permit AD after the year, anyway 3>even our MoS does not specifically say AD MUST precede a year, AND it is completely silent on the combo of AD/CE 4> some FA reviewers might object to dual usage of AD/CE. Having a good NPOV article is more important than getting FA status, no matter what a few FA reviewers might get stuck on. 5> We even had AD33CE appear a few years ago. Fighting over the placement of AD is being too picky, and all it seems to have done is upset the truce that has been established --JimWae (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to let the Christians win this one and go with BC/AD. They've lost a lot of ground over the years, and I'd be OK to give them a little freebie. But I don't have any illusion that it's worth discussing. Leadwind (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood why Christians viewed it as a defeat to acknowledge that people exist in the world that do not agree with them. Surely they can believe that I do not accept Jesus as my Lord and savior, yet I respect and honor their own faith. This should not be about winning or losing. Also, this is not about MOS being equivalent to Federal Regulations or the New York State Criminal Code. Wrad talks as if mommy will send us to our room with no supper if we continue to break the rules. But the Manual of Style is a guideline, not a policy, and does not have the force of rules. even the policies are not really rules - remember WP:BOLD? As far as I can tell, the only policies that function as actual rules are NPOV, NOR, and V, none of which come into play here. So we are not "violating" anything. There is no problem that needs fixing. All we have here is a unique solution to what could be a thorny problem. Oh my - we are different! Well, what is wrong with that? Jim Wae and Stephan Shulz are entirely right here. The only one I see who wants to "argue this endlessly" is Wrad, maybe s/he can do so on his/her own talk page so we can move on with the business of making this a better article based on, well, you know, real research, knowledge, all that stuff. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, let's be fair and remember that Wrad was the first one to suggest not pushing this discussion further. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FA push

I'm serious about this, so I'm putting it in its own section. Who's willing to go for another push? I just want to know how many hands we'd have from the start. Add your sig below. Wrad (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Wrad (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC) - So why is it that when Wrad suggests it, there's feedback, but when I suggest it... blank stares. Hmm.

I'm really surprised at this. To all of you who have your names in that box up at the top as "active contributors", how can you call yourself that if you're not willing to go all the way when an opportunity presents itself? I don't mean to be rude, but there's little chance of this article reaching FA if its best editors aren't motivated. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy. :) You haven't even given people a whole day to respond yet, it's a weekend and it's church day for a lot of people. Give everyone at least a few days to notice the thread and respond. Vassyana (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just me. Okie did the same thing weeks ago with the same response. Plenty of people are interested in arguing about dates. Nobody seems to care about FA stuff. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'd be glad to try and help where ever I can. Sorry I'm usually out and about on Sundays not sitting in front of a computer ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I give up. Hope you guys have fun arguing about insignificant issues. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Piss Christ image

I think the Piss Christ image should be included. I understand that the depiction of Christ immersed in urine might offend some Christians, but it is important and famous artwork. Yes, there will be Creationists that want it removed, but the encyclopedia should not bend to the wishes of fundamentalists, as this is an issue of freedom of speech. This is important contemporary art and leaving it off is omitting information just for the sake of the Christian editors. I respect their beliefs but I do not see why their beliefs should prevent this image from being displayed here. This artist was persecuted by religious fundamentalists and that sort of thing should not continue on Wikipedia.--24.57.157.81 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't include images just for the sake of including them. This image is irrelevant to this article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is completely irrelevant - it's a modern depiction of Christ, and as such in principle of similar relevance as the Pieta or the El Greco. But I don't think it would add much to the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's of similar relevance. I mean, what's the point of having a picture of Christ getting peed on? ... it doesn't make sense. There are paintings of Christ sexually abusing small children too. But that would be equally as out of place here. We can get a normal modern depiction of Christ if another is really needed. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Normal" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and not usually something art strives for. It's more or less a feature of much modern art that not everyone "gets it". This picture could potentially be used to demonstrate how Jesus is still used to intentionally break taboos. But as long as this article does not have a section on the modern view of Jesus, the image is somewhat pointless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess anon is trying to make a WP:POINT here(see [2] - The issue there is the inclusion of pictures of Muhammad). I agree that this depiction of Christ should not be added to this article because there are many other drawings that far more notable than this.--Be happy!! (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That is all I'm saying. It has nothing to do with art - art's not supposed to be normal, of course. The anon user seemed to want the picture's inclusion simply because "we can" -- as an act of "freedom of speech" against "fundamentalists." That's not what we do here... There's just nothing in this article that would necessitate including this picture. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfectly good illustration of what Jesus' crucifixion would be like. I would prefer Piss Christ to the current illustration, just for variety's sake. I am not saying take down the other pictures, just that it seems you are leaving this one out merely because a few religionists are offended. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Piss Christ - which is in fact quite a beautiful image - does not depict Jesus "being peeed on" as someone claimed. It depicts a crucifix saturated in a glowing golden light, which happens to have been created by immersion in urine. It is, however, very much in copyright, and so is not available. Frankly, I doubt that the person who has suggested Piss Christ gives a piss about either the image or this article but is trying to make some point. Paul B (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a top-level article, and as such there are frequent requests (or even demands) by new/anonymous users to introduce material which simply doesn't have a rightful place here. We arrange the content of an article in a particular manner, and subjects which are best suited to their own articles are spun off. Individuals who are unaware of sub-articles (or even more relevant articles which may not be content forks) often continue to request the addition of information which is of tenuous importance to an article of a general nature.

With that being said, the image at hand is completely misplaced and is irrelevant to the content of the article. Yes, the image includes a crucifix, but beyond that, its relevance only extends to the image itself and its author, as well as to the concept of blasphemy (as the author was charged for this particular image) and to the concept of modern depictions of Jesus.

There are likely thousands upon thousands of images of Jesus, many of which are iconographic and of historical importance and/or depict elements from the Gospels. To position the proposed image, one would need context to understand why the depiction is notable at all, and at that point any elaboration would probably violate WP:UNDUE, as this peripheral subject is only of tenuous importance to the core subject to which this article is devoted.--C.Logan (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that wonderful explanation, C. Logan. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I thin the point is that Piss Christ is far more notable than the BBC image. Also, since all the other images in the article illustrate diferent ways Christians or artists have viewed Jesus(without necessarily making any claims that they were historians), this image is more like the other images in the aticle than the BBC one. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think it depends on the content which would provide context to these pictures. We don't want to orphan images that would actually be useful and relevant with context. The BBC image is only remotely relevant to the "Historical Jesus". The section doesn't detail his appearance or ethnicity to any extent, and therefore the focus of the study has no relation to "reconstructions" based in "history". There is apparently no section devoted to depictions of any kind (and at that, modern ones), so the Piss Christ doesn't fare any better, in my opinion.--C.Logan (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Piss Christ is irrelevant. This whole debate about the "notability" of images is also, I think, completely off the point. Images do not have to be "notable" in themselves. We do not prefer an image, for example, simply because one artist is more famous than another. Images are chosen to illustrate points and to visually enliven articles. Many images - for example diagrams, maps etc - are made by Wikipedians. There is no requirement that these images be shown to be "notable". All that matters that they illustrate the article and that any information they provide is sourced. Many, many articles on Biblical characters contain images that have been chosen more or less at random from the history of art (see Moses for example). The Piss Christ tells us nothing of interest or relevance to this article. The Neave image does, since it is a reconstruction of a 1st century Jew. The idea that its "notability" has to be demonstrated is a complete invention which is simply inconsistent with both policy and practice with regard to image use. Wikipedia notability pages say nothing about images neeeding to be "notable". They refer to people and sources. Slrubenstein's constant demand that the "notability" of the image be established is yet another red-herring designed to exclude something he doesn't like, comprable to his odd claim that the image represents a "fringe" POV. Neave's own notability is perhaps relevant (though really only his competence needs to be established). However, it is beyond doubt, despite silly attempts to minimise his status by saying he did "some work" for MU. He was at MU for years[3] (as it happens, I was visiting my colleague at Manchester Uni's Art and Archaeology department on Friday. They had posters relating to an upcoming conference with one of Neave's reconstructions all over the walls!). There is of course no reason why this image should have been discussed by academics in science journals, since it does not contribute to science. It's an application of it. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is, what is the purpose of images in this article? I agree entirely with Paul that they should illustrate points in the article (my point is only that the points of view they illustrate should be notable points of view). It seems to me that the images this article does have are representations of changing artistic images of Jesus. In this context, Piss Christ may be appropriate. Of course, I have argued, for a long time and consistently, that this articles should not have images of Jesus and that images of Jesus should be in their own article on artists' (or Christians') representations of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have to take that much seriously every trolling adept like this one? :shrug:

Herbrand --81.1.120.126 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

About a problem with "Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity"

The problem is with calling these groups, as listed further down the page, the church of latter day saints and Jehova Witnesses Christians.

It is commenly known, first of all, that these sects have not been considered christians by the vast majority of those who are Christians nor do they deny that there is a vast difference with the rest of those who have been called Christians in the family of faiths dating way back before the inception of their religions. When one thinks of Christians, these two religions are seperate from the basic meaning of that concept.

Moreover, the biblical example of those who were called Christians shows that they all believed and taught that Jesus was God in the flesh and that this was a central teaching regarding Jesus. The disciples worshiped Jesus and worship anyone but God was breaking the ten commandments and everyone knew that. Even if they did refer to themselves as Christians would that make them christian. The KKK refered to themselves as Christians also but were they. These groups aren't the KKK obviously but nevertheless there is a deviation to what those who were called Christian were and to what those today who are called Christian are. The Jehova Witnesses and the Church of LDS both rely on other books as their authority whereas Christians have no other authority than that of the Bible. I am seeking consensus here and I believe that this will be agreed upon by the vast majority.

My proposal is to use the word "Nontrinitarian religious groups" or something to that extent that could be discussed in order to be more accurate about what Christians think and what other groups think. HisTruthsetsfree (talk)06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because, of course, there is only one right way of thinking in order to be a Christian. Pairadox (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources identify Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian denominations. They may be heterodox but that is a different question than if they practice a form of Christianity. Vassyana (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree they are not Christian, but the label "Nontrinitarian religious groups" is a good compromise in that it says nothing any group finds erroronous . It names them for what they are, rather than what they are not. --Carlaude (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Taken literally, classical pagans are a "nontrinitarian religious group", as are Muslims, Shintoists, and Zoroastrians. Nontrinitarians are Christians first, in that they accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, the son of God, and believe in the absolution of sins by his sacrifice. The core theological differences are so extremely subtle that I doubt most Christians can explain them. See also our article on Nontrinitarianism, which affirms this as a Christian belief system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph, again

I just reverted two edits by Scifiintel which I believe were POV pushing and editing to make a WP:Point. First, he changed sedition to rebellion against the Romans - this I reverted on simple grounds of stylke: sedition is less wordy. Second, he removed "on orders of Pontius Pilate." But this is indeed what most historians think. The following paragraph describes the Christian POV, and there is a section that summarizes the Gospels - these are two other places in the article that express alternate views. Let's stop trying to put Christian views in the paragraph on historians. There is a separate paragraph for Christian views. You want to put forward a Christian view? put it there! Third, he linkied "King of the Jews" to the article on kings of the Jews. This I consider tendentious since no Jew and no historian believes Jesus ever was a Jewish king. According to the Gospels the Romans perhaps accused him of pretensions to be the king, but he was never actually the king. Linking this to a disambiguation page that links to lists of the Kings of Israel, Judeah, and the Hasmonians makes no sense at all unless you are pushing a POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, and thanks. Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice for GFDL Attribution Requirements

Content from Jesus: the Jewish POV was merged into Jesus in 2005. The subsequent redirect was recently nominated for deletion at RFD. Per the debate, the original page was moved to Talk:Jesus/the Jewish POV to maintain the history per the GFDL and the new target deleted. This notice is simply to let folks figure out what happened if there is ever a future question. -- JLaTondre 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Care for an athiest view? Nobody knows what Jesus looked like, therefore these images are all PoV (artists PoV) images. It wouldn't bother me, if they were removed all together (see similiar discussion at talk: Muhammad). -- GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Images as such are not "POV" because they are not assertions. Assertions can be made about images. There is no opposition to images in almost all branches of Christianity - indeed in the most widespread forms they are positively encouraged. The opposite is true in Islam, hence the problem with images of Muhammad. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-known historical works of art by notable artists directly related to the topic at hand hardly qualify as POV. Much of this work represents views of Jesus espoused by denominations of Christianity, Islam etc. which each boast millions or hundreds of millions of members: as such, their significance in relation to the topic cannot be ignored. Besides, would we have to remove all painted portraits of famous individuals such as members of royalty or ex-Presidents simply because the technology for photography did not exist at the time that they were living? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, quite true. Most historical figures haven't been photographed. Anways, I've no desire to remove the images. Wheter they stay or not, isn't that big a deal, the article content is the main thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a small thing thou Jesus wasn't there when he was painted. Many historical figures were painted when they were there. So if I would decide, I would keep almost any portrait of any one resembling to the texts as Jesus. Skele (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How's the dispute go about Jesus's image? Was he white with straight brown hair & blues eyes? Or was he brown, with short curly black hair & brown eyes. Interesting indeed. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The dispute has been archived by Slrubenstein, depite the fact that the debate was clearly not concluded. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, the text is almost intentionally ambiguous on the issue. The clearest description is found within a book of metaphorical imagery, so its presentation can not been seen to have great validity in terms of "how he looked when he was alive", even though Afro-centrists and White supremacists equally cite it (interestingly enough) as evidence of appearance.--C.Logan (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're trying to justify eliminating these images on the basis of POV, we would have to do the same with every depiction of war made before the advent of photography. The image at right, Washington Crossing the Delaware, is an example of this. It's a classic work of art, widely recognized, but it was made in 1851 (long after Washington's death) and it portrays George Washington in a decidedly heroic, stalwart manner. Does this violate NPOV? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Above, Paul writes, "Images as such are not "POV" because they are not assertions. Assertions can be made about images." I think virtually all art historians and most cultural historians (if not all) would disagree. In many places and times images have been principle ways views were expressed. Now, I do think it is wrong to object to including an image because it is POV - the whole idea of the NPOV policy is that articles embrace multiple points of view, as long as they are notable and properly identified and if needs be contextualized. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Would they now? I am an art historian, Slrubenstein, and I obviously don't agree. [4] [5]. I am also apparently 'naive' about BBC documentaries - even though I have appeared in five BBC documentary programmes, a fact I've not mentioned so far, since I didn't think it appropriate. "In many places and times images have been principle ways views were expressed." Yes, indeed, but if you read carefully what I wrote you will set that I said images as such are not POV. The image of - say - Rameses crushing his enemies represents Rameses' POV about his military achievements, but the image is dumb without a discourse surrounding it - hence "assertions made about" images. It can also serve the assertion "This image shows the vanity and dishonesty of Rameses". The meaning is an extrapolation from the image. It depends on the assumptions and knowledges we bring to it. The assuptions we bring to most images of Jesus do not usually include the proposition "this artist believed that the historical Jesus actually looked like this". Paul B (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey gentlemen, I was only making a general comment on article images. I'm in no way demanding these images be removed - I didn't want these to become a full-blown discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I am pleased to meet a real art historian. I agree completely with your explanation of the "as such" but I would say that this is actually true about many other things we take to be assertions of view ... for example, something Jesus said. NOR instructs us that we can quote the Gospel saying "Then Jesus said ..." only to illustrate what the Gospel says. But a Wikipedia editor cannot then put in his or her own explanation or interpretation of what Jesus meant. NOR requires that we use secondary sources (According to historian X, this means a... According to theologian Y, it means b...) To use your words, I would say that this is because the quote (from the primary source) is dumb without a discourse surrounding it. If to my assertion that a given image of Jesus expresses a particular view, you as an art historian want to correct me that, no, there may (and almost certainly) actually are at more than one views about what view the image expresses - well, I am glad to stand corrected and if this is basically what you have meant () I agree and (2) regret any prior misunderstanding. However, it does not change what I consider to be my basic point which is that images ought to be used in Wikipedia with the same care as other sources, guided by our NPOV and NOR policies among others. As to BBC documentaries, I have not been in any though I have been asked to consult several and my opinion stands. To be clear: I have never said that the inclusion of something within a BBC documentary means it is not notable beyond the TV audience for news or entertainment (e.g. among art historians, physical anthropologists, or historians). It may be. But inclusion in a BBC documentary is not in my experience sufficient grounds to know that it is a notable view (among say art historians, physical anthropologists, or historians). It may be, but we would need other documentation.

If we may return to the image under discussion ... if the medical artist who created it claims that it is a highly probably image of what Jesus looked like, I doubt that physical anthropologists and historians would take him seriously. If he said that this is a probable image of what many 1st century Galileans looked like, well ... I would have to know what physical anthropologists and historians think. Do they agree? Do they disagree? Or do they not take serious note of it? If there is little or no discussion among historians of 1st century Galil, or physical anthropologists who have worked with skeletal remains, I would conclude that it is non-notable (how else would we know what is notable or not?) Certainly you have indicated that among the historians and scientists who are experts in the matter, there is no discourse surrounding it. A careful scholar would say that there is a world of difference between even the claims that "this is what many 1st century Galileans may have looked like" and "this is what Jesus looked like" and I wonder how many people watched the BBC documentary (or looked at the image here) end left with the belief that this is what Jesus "really" looked like or even (and worse!!) "this is what scientists think Jesus really looked like?" That may well be another discourse attaching to the image. And I would want to know that his is indeed a notable view among th relevant scholars, before including it in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, this has seeped over here too? Zazaban (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate Jesus

Is it possible to have an image of the 'Chocolate Jesus' placed in this article? Would we need permission from the sculptor? What's everyone think? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the same concerns raised above regarding the Piss Christ image apply here as well.--C.Logan (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Images have to qualify for notability first to the topic at hand, and if it qualifies there, undue weight must also be considered. You may notice that most of the images which appear in this article are among the most famous and historical works. This is neither. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was just wundering about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why discuss so much'

wyh —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterWiki (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)