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 Storm Rider (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 13 May 2017 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017: there is a difference between personal beliefs and historical facts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ.
The FAQ provides links to archived talk page discussions.
Please read the FAQ.

Template:Vital article

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

Infobox image proposal

Mosaic from the holiest site in Christianity. I proposed this image a year ago and it was declined because it was too early for a new picture at that time and because of glare. Now that enough time has past and the glare is fixed I bring it up again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The discussion that led to the current image is here. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the current one looks better, and is easier to see at reduced size. Better yet, we haven't had any complaints yet (despite the obvious minefield), so if it isn't broken, don't fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the potential sensitivity of this topic it's probably wise to follow the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but this image is growing on me. It's a typical depiction of Christ Pantocrator and of all the churches to have a prominent wikilink in the lede caption the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would be the most appropriate. How old is the mosaic? Even if it's 20th-century it could still be an appropriate lede picture as an illustration of Orthodox art sticking very closely to the traditional formulas. Ham II (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the current image is better. On big articles like this it may be a good idea to rotate after a few years, but I think the next choice should not be another Byzantine-style one, but more Western church. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' existence, England

user:General Ization wants to add a survey about people in England's views on Jesus' existence. However, this doesn't belong in this article as it says more about religious views of the English than it does on the historicity of Jesus. This is a classic case of Argumentum ad populum.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FutureTrillionaire: First, I was not the original editor who introduced this content; I reverted your reversion of Redhat101's contribution. Secondly, yes, to respond to your hypothetical, if a responsible poll published in a reliable source indicated that 40% of the population of any country or other sizable population believed that George Washington never existed, it should certainly be mentioned at George Washington. Popular skepticism about the very existence of the subject is relevant to the subject of this article. I'm less confident that Derek Murphy's claim belongs here, but that can be taken up as a separate discussion. General Ization Talk 03:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for Argumentum ad populum, no, no one is making a case that 40% of the English don't believe Jesus existed, ergo he did not exist. Your invocation of that claim as an argument against the content is itself fallacious. General Ization Talk 03:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that 40% of England not believing in Jesus might belong in the religion in England article, since it says more about religious belief in England. We already have a section on the Christ Myth Theory, so I'm not sure why you want to add specific statistics from specific countries.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a responsible poll published in a reliable source which provides insight into the acceptance of the theory by a large Western population (which happens to be English) of a country largely considered Christian, and is relevant to the subject of this article. The fact that it also might belong somewhere else is not a valid argument for its removal here. General Ization Talk 03:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory. The user that added that statistic to this article copied it from Christ Myth Theory. If you have a statistic on popular acceptance of this theory on a worldwide level, and maybe it's significant enough to belong in this article as well. However, as statistic for just England is not.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what other editors think. The results of the Church of England poll, which was limited to an English population because that is where the church is based (obviously), tend to show it may not be not as much of a fringe theory as you seem to think, whether or not those who were polled knew of the theory or know it by that name. General Ization Talk 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Christ Myth Theory: "In modern scholarship, the Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory, and is accepted by only a small number of academics." Obviously, opinion from experts in the field is more valuable than layman's opinion (in this case, an apparent popular misconception in England). The England statistic is okay for the Christ Myth Theory article, but it's undue weight for this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed the "layman's opinion" argument. As I said, let's see what other editors think. At this point, we neither have consensus for its retention or for its removal. General Ization Talk 04:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against adding the statement, it looks so out of place and is skewed towards a certain demographic. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really as much a case of "undue weight", it is really more of a case on whether a survey should belong on a summary of another article, and it clearly does not. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 12:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, is it higher or lower than the percentage in Mongolia? StAnselm (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Jesus by Richard Neave

I was wondering why the more realistic depiction of Jesus, as created by Richard Neave for Popular Mechanics, has not been included in this article? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/

The article includes many obviously unrealistic art, so why the absence of scientific depiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a copyrighted image. It would need a fair use rationale and to be in low res, but the article already has so many images that it may not be warranted. If there is an actual study associated with the reconstruction, the article could cite it, though. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, such a picture may be better suited for the Historical Jesus article - again, if there is a study to back it up. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather Race and appearance of Jesus. The Neave reconstruction is already mentioned there, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Press Criticism - Wikipedia's Multiple Parallel Narratives

An article published three days ago criticized our coverage of Jesus as follows:[1]

One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth.

I have tried to verify this claim. A talk page comment from the late Steven Rubenstein from 12 years ago summarized it as follows:

Please remember the history: in an attempt to keep the Jesus article NPOV, detailed accounts of a variety of views were added, and the article became too long for many servers. There was a quick consensus to have the article focus on the Christian POV, with sub-articles on other points of view, and very brief summaries with links as subsections of the Jesus article. The main topics spun off were on the historical and cultural context for Jesus, which placed Jesus in the context of what we know about Jewish history and culture; one on the "historicity" of Jesus, meaning, debates over whether or not Jesus actually existed; this article, and I think one or two more on the critical study of the NT and Christology.

I propose we take this criticism seriously and consider whether some restructuring of the various Jesus articles would be appropriate. Things have moved on significantly since 2003-04 when the current structure was created. The suggestion of "Multiple Parallel Narratives" on such a high profile topic is damning to our project.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the case 12 years ago, but the continued existence of all those pages is due to Wikipedia:Summary style. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When New Atheism was more fashionable the Jesus article was a mess. You had militant atheists pushing the unscholarly view that Jesus never existed. It was largely done by footnotes to crank sources. For readers who took the time to view the footnotes and had some familiarity with the scholarship surrounding the historicity of Jesus, it made Wikipedia look very unscholarly. Militant atheists are just a small minority of the world’s population and their unhistorical POV should not have been as prominent as it was formerly. As far as the press coverage, I have my doubts that the warring camps of Wikipedians will ever stop fighting over the article. One suggestion I have is to break up the Christian view of Jesus into two camps: theologically conservative/tradtional Christianity and liberal Christianity. desmay (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One famous and telling example is the history of the Wikipedia page for Jesus: as tensions and disagreements grew between believers and nonbelievers, the article was broken up into a number of new ones, splitting into one page for Jesus and another for Historical Jesus. Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Wikipedia attempts to sidestep it altogether, allowing both sides to enjoy their version of the truth."
Is it really "famous"? I was not around when Historical Jesus was created so I don't know the circumstances but it is not the case that articles about Jesus are split into different pages for believers and unbelievers, that would be WP:POV fork and is not allowed. The different articles about Jesus concentrate on different aspects of Jesus studies.Smeat75 (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard - I cannot regard as important that someone somewhere doing a vague criticism of Wikipedia claimed something wrong happened in this article 12+ years ago.
First, in this side remark of a long piece against Wales generally, the opinion writer did not give a date or other reason for credibility of his own claims about this article. And if this is being given as a famous, clear, or worst example he has or could choose makes me think not well of that critic. What is actually in the page creation says nothing like that, and what you have seems not a good match. There *was* a deletion discussion and mentions done circa archive 7 of Jesus, I think I will respect it as more credible than this critic's portrayal of motives.
Second - neither that article nor this RFC is proposing something, so if there is no alternative in sight then ... it seems rather pointless whingeing. The focus should be whether it is a valid article today and whether the content is good, not on something 12 years ago which may have been (was) far different content than today.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gads, going back twelve years in order to base a critique? Just thinking of all the changes that have occurred in twelve years can take your breath away. The leap is too far to take it seriously. It reminds of sibling squabbles, "You took my candy five years ago and now I want your candy!" Who cares what happened five years ago much less twelve years ago. For me the take away is, okay, I hear you and let's be sure we continue to be as fair as possible and base our decisions on proper reasoning. Anything more does not make much sense. --StormRider 04:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Disregard The news article has obviously been well thought out and is valid and the writer/journalist has obviously as much a stake in Wikipedia as we have. He may not be a WP member, but he thought enough about WP to write the article in the first place. I think we can take a lesson from what is regarded as truth. They say Truth is objective, and I truly believe in an ideal world, a perfect world, it would be, but were are not perfect. You also seem to be missing the point, about the reference being 12+ years old, how can it be valid? Of course it is valid, as soon the page is written, it become history, and becomes subject to the tenants of historical research. So anything 3 days ago, is now history. It could be 3 days, 3 hundreds years, it is still valid, if you can extract meaning from it, and it has value. I think he is doing what any professional historian would do, even though he is not a professional historian (I don't know). At the end of the day, WP is a product, and such it has a lifecycle. There is no guarantee that what is written now, won't satisfy future generations, and a complete or partial rewrite could occur. Taking an example of what could be suspected of being subjective truth, is the Walt Disney article, a possible comparison. The article is perfectly written, beautifully formatted with excellent references, a ton of time spent on it because he is cultural icon, quite rightly so, but completely misses two key points, which are: his terrible childhood, and the fact he was a terrible racist and bully, which was perhaps the result of his childhood. So I think you need be careful with events/reports like this. Take a good hard look at it, a proper critique, and see where it can be improved. When you start resting on ones laurels, then that is the time to be on ones guard. scope_creep (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current structure is fine. Our primary source for the life of Jesus is the NT, which is why we have a large section devoted to that. The historical views section focuses on various analysis and conclusions from scholars.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see the point of the criticism, but I am afraid that there is not only one Truth, but many different truths: summarizing the NT legendary claims about Jesus (without saying they are true or false, render them just in order to know what the NT talks about), analyzing the historical facts about the life of Jesus, analyzing what the theologies of the most important denominations say about Jesus, analyzing what notable heresies said about Jesus, analyzing the historicity of Jesus, analyzing notable fringe claims about Jesus, and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Wikipedia isn't a free market of ideas, but only ideas from reliable sources are allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This newspaper article seems to be a defensive response to the proposal by Jimmy Wales to create a wikiproject to filter out unreliable "news". This newspaper article is written by a journalist, who is presumably feeling attacked by the "insinuation" that newspapers are unreliable. In the attack they are seeking to portray Wikipedia as unreliable, in a transparent version of "who are you to point fingers at us, you are even more unreliable than we are." I wasn't around 12 years ago, but a brief glance at the current Jesus article will make it obvious that the article considers all aspects of the topic, and that the large number of Jesus-related articles are due to the sheer quantity of material, not to a desire to give each side their own (conflicting) page. In printing this attack-article, the journalist is actually guilty of biased and unreliable reporting, thus proving Wales' point that extra fact-checking of "fake news" is actually required. I don't think that the current Jesus article needs to be changed, but in this age of post-truth and the manipulation of information, it would be a good idea to be constantly on our guard against editors with agendas trying to twist Wikipedia articles to "support" their own version of reality. Wdford (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reflecting on the above discussion, it seems clear that we all feel the criticism is unfair. There is also some reluctance to ignore it though. Perhaps the simplest resolution would be to rename the Historical Jesus article. It is the easily misinterpreted "headline" of the name of that article which makes it easy for readers to think it was written by a group of editors who couldn't get their views represented elsewhere. And when you read that article, it is poorly structured and overlaps with Historicity of Jesus and Quests for the historical Jesus. As such it is an easy target for criticism. But also an easy fix. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should make any knee jerk reaction. scope_creep (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No need to merge, there is already a lot in this article about it, but it seems patently obvious that there has been enough scholarship about Jesus to justify multiple pages under our policies - (echoing Onceinawhile maybe not two pages Historical Jesus and Quest for historical Jesus?) but that is not a problem with this particular article. "Multiple parallel narratives" is exactly what we are required to write about under the core policies, when that is what is represented by the available scholarship - this page does a fair job of linking to them and offering brief summaries of the different articles. Seraphim System (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Author

I was thanked by the user:Germanymeekah (no user page), for the above edit. The user is a SPA account has only a single edit on the 12th March 2017. I suspect he could be the article author. scope_creep (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are against it, but if he is, then hopefully he learned something about Wikipedia from the discussion above. Wdford (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parents?

Joseph was His foster father. If you are talking about Jesus Christ, then you have to write that His father - God the Father. Otherwise it does not make any sense. In Russian Wikipedia we wrote that His father is God the Father. It is absolutely not important what Muslims, Jews and godless think. Their opinion can be voiced somewhere at the end of the article. Алессия (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way this works. Bias towards any religion is not on here. The idea that god is Jesus' father is a belief not a fact. Britmax (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article tells about Jesus Christ - the central figure of Christianity. In the Bible His Father is God the Father. What sources do you use to get information about Joseph as Jesus Christ' father? It does not make any sense. The information about Joseph is also taken from the Bible. Why take information from the Bible and distort it? Алессия (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a footnote next to Joseph. That should be good enough. The infobox doesn't explicitly say that Joseph is Jesus' biological parent.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be written that His father is God the Father, and the foster father is Joseph. Is not it? And I do not understand why the footnote speaks about Muslims? Their opinion is not of primary importance.Алессия (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Theological claims do not amount to objective knowledge. Wikipedia isn't written for true believers, it is mainly concerned with objective facts, not with subjective beliefs (but objective facts about subjective beliefs may be rendered, e.g. that Christians think that Jesus is God, or "a god", as Jehovah's Witnesses do). Miracles cannot be accepted as objective historical facts, since post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism. For the contrary view, see Twelftree on YouTube, but for Wikipedia such view is WP:FRINGE/PS. Did Krishna decide the fate of WW2? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph as the father of Jesus is an "objective fact"? Where did you get information about Joseph? From the Bible, right? But the Bible says that Joseph is the foster father of Jesus. And His real father is God the Father. Why in the article written only part of the information from the same source? Besides, the article tells about Jesus Christ - the central figure of Christianity. For everything else there is a "historical Jesus." Алессия (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, as a flesh and blood person is (or was) the historical Jesus. Jesus fathered by God is a mythological Jesus. As real, objective fathers for Jesus there are two known candidates: Saint Joseph and Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. God has not fathered Jesus in any objective meaning. Do take heed of WP:POVFORK: articles should not be forked to the exclusion of valid information about somebody, just in order to please the POV of his/her fans in one of the forked articles. Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, it does not have a Christian bias. According to WP:RNPOV, Christian religion is just one religion among many other religions, for Wikipedia it isn't inherently better (or worse) than other religions. Wikipedia does not cater to true believers. Don't be ridiculous: we can't put in Wikipedia's voice that the father of Jesus is God. That's not a fact, that's a subjective belief. Your argument is special pleading for accepting myth as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my question: where did you get information about Joseph? From the Bible, right? Why then do you think its "real, objective"? Pantera is from the Talmud. Why did the Talmud become "real, objective" for you? What's the point? Your prejudgement it that real ridiculous. Алессия (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars have made arguments for miracles and the virgin birth. Other scholars have made arguments against it. It's a controversial issue for sure. Probably in our best interest to not dwell too much on it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historians make the call, not ordinary Bible readers. Historians critically analyze the Bible, they don't take it at face value. Not distinguishing between objective information and subjective claims is a matter of WP:CIR#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, in terms of familial and legal lineage, Joseph IS named in the Bible as Jesus' father. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an WP:NPOVN topic about this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was because we have failed to convince at least two editors. At least this is my impression. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a bit to realize Tgeorgescu is correct. The second editor, Daniel Klimovich, has not commented here, but made edits directly to the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I have not commented here is because I am brand new editing on Wikipedia. I do not know the rules yet. I did not even know there was a place to chat with others on Wikipedia until about an hour ago. Daniel Klimovich 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Daniel Klimovich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Klimovich (talk • contribs)
The existing version seems to handle a neutral description adequately. The proposed edit stating God as Jesus's father as fact is quite obviously not acceptable per our content policies, particularly WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my opinion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Stating_as_an_objective_fact_that_God_is_the_father_of_Jesus, but I can repeat: My point of view: the information about Joseph is taken from the Bible. There are no other sources about Joseph. But the Bible says that the father of Jesus Christ is God the Father. What's the point? Do you believe the Bible that Joseph existed, but do not believe that he was a foster father? There are three normal ways: 1. Father is God the Father. 2. Write only about Virgin Mary. 3. Write about Joseph is the foster father. Алессия (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mention any reliable source stating that Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus. The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY religious source, and and according to WP:OR it cannot verify any claims for Wikipedia, except for the most straightforward and uncontroversial platitudes. So: "father is God the Father", that cannot be an objective truth, it is a subjective religious belief; "only Virgin Mary", as said above, you need serious WP:SOURCES for this; "foster father", again, sources are lacking, we cannot take the Bible at face value and pretend that that's an objective historical fact. As said, historians make the call, we simply render what historians consider. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is bad if there will be "God" and a footnote "according to the Christian doctrine"? I don't ask to write - "it is an objective fact." 2. Ok, not "Virgin Mary", but "Mary". If there is no consensus about the father, maybe just don't write about him? 3. Are you want to say that there is consensus of scientists that Joseph existed and was the father of Jesus? Алессия (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As argued by Bart Ehrman, the scenario that two disciples took the corpse of Jesus from the tomb, on the way they met two Roman soldiers, they drew the swords, they were slain by the Romans and the three bodies were dumped outside the city is for historians a million times more probable than the scenario that a miracle has happened. There is no evidence for either scenario, but one of them would be preferred by default to the other by post-Enlightenment historians. Similarly, for rank-and-file historians choosing between "Joseph has impregnated Mary" or "the Holy Ghost has impregnated Mary": the mundane event is millions times more probable than a miracle, so it will be preferred by default. How were those lyrics? "The deck is stacked, the game is rigged..." Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Thievery Corporation - The Numbers Game. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is bad" is that you personal belief is not universal "Christian doctrine", and Christian doctrine, universal or not, is not the only point of view. I'm not particularly well-versed in the Bible, but even within Trinitarianism a naive reading of Matthew 1:18 suggests that the the father (in biological terms, as far as they apply) is not God the Father, but the Holy Spirit. The title "God the Father" is more strongly derived from "God, the creator and father of the universe" than from his (or her, or its) role in the conception of Jesus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at the end of the WP:NPOVN discussion, Алессия does not seem to understand what WP:NPOV is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bible has been revised multiple times, has multiple translations, and includes contradictions. And, it is just one of the “holy” books of the Abrahamic religions. And, there are innumerable other historical and academic texts that study the same time periods and development of religion. And, there exist innumerable non-Abrahamic religions. It appears you wish to use whatever version of this one text you like as the ”only source” for “the truth”. That isn’t going to work in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These being said, the very first line of the article says that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. So it is not like we would shove this under the carpet. The article says it upfront, so why does it have to be stated in the infobox? As far as I have understood, the infobox is for data whereupon there is wide agreement, regardless of one's religion or lack of religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says most Christians believe this. But, the article goes on to talk of other religions. The infobox cannot show the "belief" of one group, as if it's fact. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Jesus is not a holy figure in just Christianity. We can say that Christians think his father was the son of god, but it is not an "objective fact" it is subjective at best. Also lets not forget, we are all children of god, so maybe it is meant to be allegorical.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

As a Wikipedia editor coming across this page, I noticed that the lead was poorly written and looks like it was a result of fighting. I was going to try to fix it and came across the notes saying not to edit the page, so I didn't. I suggest you remove the tags discouraging editors. That is all. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notes are a request not to edit the article without reading at least some of the discussion that brought it to the condition it is in today. As doing this can save editors time and trouble it is unlikely that these notes will be removed in the forseeable future. Britmax (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

1. Please change "was a Jewish preacher and religious leader" to "was a non-denominational, non-religious leader" because Jesus was not part of any religion or denominations and these were formed after his death. Religion if separated into Re-Legion is the regrouping of a legion, which the definition of is revealed in Mark 5:9. [The New Testament, Recovery Version] 2. Please change "Christians believe him to be the Son of God" to "Christians and Born-Again Believers believe him to be the Son of God" because Born-Again Believers believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and they do not classify themselves as Christians or any religious denomination. [The New Testament, Recovery Version] 3. Please change "Jesus was a Galilean Jew" because Jesus was not a Jew or any other specified group causing separation; some only think that because they are interpreting the New Testament or Bible incorrectly. The correct interpretations are revealed to those who believe in Jesus Christ. The veil is lifted from their eyes and minds to be able to understand the Word of God. If the word Jew is separated into Je-w than one can translate Je into I and the words become Iwe or Ewe, which could then be translated into sheep. Throughout the New Testament, we are told that he is the Lamb of God because he is as innocent as a Lamb. [The New Testament, Recovery version] Acerfamily888 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acer, I will not debate your beliefs nor will any other editor here. Your changes above don't appear to have any reliable reference for such a position. I can provide many for the exact things you are wanting to change. Do you have any secondary references that support your position? --StormRider 00:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=780108406"