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 FilthyDust81568 (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 25 December 2017. 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

Christocentric POV

This is a revival of a discussion in June archived for inactivity. Jesus' role as prophet, messenger, and Messiah in Islam is given nearly equal prominence to his non-role in Judaism. My good faith edits on Jesus' role as the Messiah in two similarly-sized religions should be reflected per NPOV. The current lede has a "separate but equal" vibe. Plumber (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with plumber's grievances about his edits being reverted. By not including information about Islam and Jesus in the lede, the article has a pretty clear bias towards a Christian perspective. But since those are not the only prevailing perspectives of Jesus, it pretty clearly violates NPOV, in my opinion. --Potato muffin (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but I can only find two explanations for Potato muffin's comment above, either he doesn't know what "lede" means or he hasn't read it, because there is a whole paragraph in the lead "the section before the table of contents and the first heading" which includes information about Islam and Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support Smeat75. As the page you linked clearly states, a good lead should be about 4 paragraphs. The separate but equal status quo is six paragraphs, with my revision much closer to an ideal lead both in this regard and involving NPOV. Plumber (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Plumber on this as well. The lede feels like it's violating NPOV by devoting equal space to Jesus in Islam and Judaism, when it makes more sense to do so with Jesus in Islam and Christianity given population numbers. ShrimpHeavenNow (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a featured article, so if there were some sort of hard and fast rule about the number of paragraphs in the lead, or an obvious POV problem, it would not have achieved that status.Smeat75 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I got this article to FA status a few years ago, the lede was only 4 paragraphs (see [1]). But then people kept adding stuff to the lede so it became longer. Take a look at that version. Do you like it better? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm strongly inclined to agree with the user Plumber above. While Jesus is infinitely important in Christianity, I feel that there needs to be more focus on his role in Islam, in line with Plumber's argument. Stamboliyski (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. I'm seeing two accounts registered to comment on this topic and now a user who, after a year of inactivity and no prior edits to a religion article, has decided to come here. Why on Earth would this issue result in behavior that looks like off-site canvassing? No comment on whether Christianity and Islam's views on Jesus should be one paragraph distinct ones, just observing something. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson is right. This looks a lot like either canvassing or sockpuppetry. We have two users with brand-new accounts and a third user who has been inactive for over a year suddenly popping up to agree with a user who has strong convictions about the subject. This is definitely quite suspicious. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's something very fishy going on here. ShrimpHeavenNow says in his user page that his old account is User:Beanbeanbean, whose contrib history shows that he created Plumber's talk page 10 years ago.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen (admittedly more malicious) accounts lumped together at SPI on more coincidental evidence than that. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So file an SPI as per DUCK, or find a CU. But, quite correct that it doesn’t affect the argument. I still think the article has a biased emphasis. Objective3000 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, now I feel almost offended. This is indeed not a vote. I hope you'll forgive me for taking an interest in a figure who holds a lot of importance to me, and refrain from unfounded accusations. I haven't been inactive, just dormant. I still take an active interest in topics that matter to me. Stamboliyski (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, why was I included in this investigation? I haven't commented on this issue in months and yet I also got accused of being part of this sockpuppetry or canvassing effort. I think this looks transparently like a bad faith effort to derail from the issue and dismiss the support Plumber has had. -Hemavati (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside observer, I will comment that the timing of your diff WAS suspicious and in line with confirmed sockpuppetry/canvassing I've seen on other articles. You were absolved of any wrongdoing, so frankly I wouldn't worry about it. Heck, I've been accused of sockpuppetry and this is the only account I've had in 10+ years. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been here for ten years, but this is the first time I have been accused of sockpuppetry. The same user who did so had previously attempted to hide the original discussion, so I am reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt. Those in favor of making the changes originally were accused by proponents of the status quo of acting in bad faith, subjected to personal attacks ("Muslim sympathizers"), and so on; whenever the subject is brought up there is a concerted effort to derail it by one method or another. Plumber (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote; there doesn't seem to be any disagreement here about this page having a biased POV in favor of the subject's role in one religion of ~1 billion people at the expense of another with ~1 billion people. Plumber (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this consensus, the edits were reverted again without explanation. Plumber (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call this a consensus considering the Sock Puppet accusations. Some of the users that discussed previously probably aren't interested in discussing this again. Best to start an RfC if you want this to move forward.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File a CU or an SPI (W:DUCK) if you suspect sockpuppetry. I've never engaged in such things on a wiki and I don't plan to anytime soon. No one has raised any objections to the edits themselves. Plumber (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"No one has raised any objections to the edits themselves." Not true, I have,several times, and as FutureTrillionaire says, there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over on a talk page, so I don't need to say I do not agree with your proposed revision more than the at least three times I have already said it. And stop edit-warring.Smeat75 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumber --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No socks found. Plumber (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely convinced by the simplistic ~1 billion vs. ~1 billion argument. Not saying it's entirely irrelevant, but nor do I find it to be the only aspect to take into account. There is no denying that Jesus is much more central to religion focused on him, than to one focused on Muhammad. True, Muslims consider Jesus important and hold other beliefs about him than Christians. Keep in mind, though, that Muhammad has been enormously important to the history of Christianity (both by Muslims occupying large previously Christian areas and by Christian and Muslim theological arguments). Christians believe Muhammad was a fraud, yet I would be very reluctant to suggest we give that view equal prominence in the article on Muhammad as the Muslim view. Jesus and Muhammad are, arguably, the two most important people to have lived for their role in shaping the two largest religions, and many people will have many views on them. While recognizing that fact, I still think it makes sense that the article on Jesus gives prominence to the Christian view and the article on Muhammad to the Muslim view (just a I find it logic that Moses should have a mainly Jewish perspective despite being important to both Christians and Muslims.) Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your sentiments, which is why the revised edits still give more prominence to Christianity than Islam. The previous status quo's imbalance is such a violation of NPOV that it nearly equates Jesus' important role in Islam & his absence of a role in Judaism. This also leads to redundancy that hurts readability—instead of one sentence with the commonalities of Christian and Muslim views of Jesus (Messiah, ascension, etc.), these are segregated by paragraph. Plumber (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like the crux of the matter is WP:WEIGHT, and there are two opposing viewpoints: 1. NPOV requires equal treatment of Christianity and Islam in the lede due to nearly equal numbers of adherents. 2. NPOV requires greater treatment of Christianity than Islam in the lede due to the relative importance of Jesus in the two religions. NO ONE, thankfully, is arguing that Islam does not belong in the lede at all, as that would be clearly fallacious. Personally, I find 2 the more persuasive, but until editors can come to an agreement on this, this controversy will continue. I suggest a WP:DRN if it cannot be resolved here soon. Jtrevor99 (talk)
    • I agree with you that per WP:WEIGHT 2 (greater preference to Christianity) is preferable to 1 (equal treatment). When these edits were first dicussed months ago, they were more in line with 1, but we reached a compromise. Unfortunately, the compromise was continuously reverted, with those in favor of a change being met with uncivil accusations instead of factual objections. Now, after passions have cooled, there is a clear supermajority in favor of changing the status quo to a 2-based solution, because the status quo is such a severe violation of NPOV. Instead of Christianity having greater weight than Islam, as everyone here seems to agree on, the lede features Islam having slightly greater weight than Judaism (where Jesus is irrelevant entirely.) To me, the issue seems to be largely settled based on the consensus-driven discussions I have been involved with in the past — there is a supermajority in favor of a compromise, with a small minority opposing the changes. Plumber (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems we have a consensus. Plumber (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise edit as is still seems too Christocentric. I preferred to have all Abrahamic doctrine in one paragraph, but if we keep it to multiple paragraphs as it is now, some sentences on Jesus in Islam could simply be moved up to the lead. Plumber (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a compromise edit. That's just the edit you've been trying to make for months. Much of the changes in the edit (e.g. changes to the 4th and 5th paragraph) were never discussed. Stop trying to claim there is consensus and compromise when there is none.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wide consensus here, which you do not support. This does not mean you can unilaterally revert the new consensus. I would welcome a further discussion on the actual points of debate, however. Plumber (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence that a consensus exists above. I do not see one. Although this is not a vote, my brief (and possibly inaccurate) count shows 5 in favor of changes, 6 against, and 1 neutral. For: Plumber, Potato muffin, ShrimpHeavenNow, Stamboliyski, Objective3000. Against: Smeat75, FutureTrillionaire, Ian.thomson, Katolophyromai, Jtrevor99, Jeppiz. Neutral: Hemavati. Obviously I may be biased because it's my preferred position, but I would give greater weight to the established editors of this article. That said, I think it's the degree of changes that is under debate, and the approach you're taking. With something as sensitive as this article, it's best to draft the changes here, and come to a consensus on the actual wording/changes, rather than to just make them. THAT I would be in favor of. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not neutral, I was on Plumber's side about the issue, I just hadn't been involved in this conversation for a couple of months so I found it odd that I was included. But I definitely agree with Plumber's take on how the lede should include the importance for Islam. --Hemavati (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware we were including users who also wanted a change to the lede for being too Christocentric, but if we are: in addition to the 6 users on record of opposing the current revision in this section, Lipsquid, User:Isambard Kingdom, Erp, Eperoton, Alexis Ivanov, and Cookie Monster have also recently sought to change the first paragraph to include a mention of Jesus' role as a Messiah, prophet, and messenger in Islam. Plumber (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that drafting changes here would be a good idea. The principle is the lede is in violating of WEIGHT by giving nearly as much presence to Jesus in Islam as Judaism. The first paragraph doesn't mention Islam as all. A previous suggestion by FutureTrillionaire to combine doctrinal aspects of Christianity and Islam (Messiah, virgin birth, etc.) was a good one; unfortunately he reverted the compromise in the beginning of a pattern of goal-post shifting. In my view, only you have opposed properly (with Smeat75 & FutureTrillionaire using ad-hominem attacks both now and in the archived discussion, instead of commenting on the merit of the changes), with 6 others supporting aside from the neutral Ian.thomson and Katolophryomai (whose objections to the process have been resolved.) Plumber (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"with Smeat75...using ad-hominem attacks both now and in the archived discussion, instead of commenting on the merit of the changes". I strongly object to that statement and would like to know what you are talking about. See WP:NPA - " Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."Smeat75 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize for the mistake! I somehow confused Smeat75 with 209.182.115.214. How embarrassing! x.x Plumber (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This thread and its intention and precise request(s) seems unclear. Unless someone can state clearly what they want (with suggested precise text changes provided), and why, and unless there is substantial agreement to that, this thread seems to have no consensus for change. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My edit recently reverted is a good place to start, although I think it can be improved by further discussion. Plumber (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are responding to me, you should indent your post to indicate that. Also, since you have not provided the requested suggested precise text changes, nor supplied a specific WP:DIFF, the matter is still unclear and there is certainly no consensus for change. I suggest we all consider this matter stale and unsupported and move on. Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was no consensus to change the lede when Plumber suggested it back in June, and there's still no consensus now. If you really don't want to drop the issue, Plumber, you should start an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back to the roots of the debate, I feel a simple addition such as this one was the right place to start. My preferred compromise (left) attempted to resolve the earlier discussion over the word Messiah by clarifying that they mean different things in Christianity and Islam. It also included FutureTrillionaire's past suggestion of merging common Christian and Islamic doctrine. Figuring out the wording of the changes seems to be the main obstacle ahead to a clean revision, since there have been at least 12 users (Lipsquid, User:Isambard Kingdom, Erp, Eperoton, Alexis Ivanov, Cookie Monster, Plumber, Potato muffin, ShrimpHeavenNow, Stamboliyski, Objective3000) over the past few months to find the lede to be biased in favor of Christianity, with three (StAnselm, Smeat75 and Jtrevor) in current legitimate disagreement over what appeared to be a consensus to include more information on Jesus' role in Islam in the lead. I said there seems to be a consensus above, and no one objected for over a week or two; in the previous months a RfC ultimately had the same lack of response. The discussion is making great progress and I feel this revision by David Eppstein is a fine replacement of the status quo. I would prefer to combine the doctrinal paragraphs into one paragraph per W:LEAD, but am open to suggestions here. Plumber (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some misunderstanding/miscommunication over the word "lead". In WP:LEAD, it means the whole section, but I think some people have been using the word to refer to the the lead paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plumber, I can't find the RfC you refer to; could you provide a link, please? StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All, I would suggest a WP:DRN at this point. The discussion has been continuing for two months without completion. WP:DRN is an appropriate venue for civil discussions where well-intentioned authors cannot come to a consensus, which I believe describes the present situation. Meanwhile, I thank everyone for continuing to be civil and WP:HERE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN filed. Hopefully we can get this resolved soon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The DRN request was obviously closed as unfeasible and unwarranted. That said, there doesn't seem to be any cause for an RfC either, as there is only one editor pushing for a change and said change(s) has been rejected by numerous neutral experienced editors. If the editor who wants the change wants to open a clear, precise, brief, neutral WP:RFC, let that be their choice and their action. As it is, this lengthy thread appears to simply be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of that editor. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice. My apologies for the premature DRN but I was unaware of the RfC option. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, at least 12 people so far vs. 4 editors are pushing for changing the first paragraph to include Islam rather than keeping it in a Christocentric POV. ShrimpHeavenNow (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Stamboliyski, no editor with any article-space edits has agreed with Plumber in this thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to chime in to this discussion to mention that a reasonable compromise to this dispute would be to implement the David Eppstein revision shared above. Potato muffin (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for that. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And The only change David Eppstein made there was to replace the words "A majority of": [2], which is no longer even applicable in the current neutral and accurate sentence he added that to. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current sentence is inaccurate and another violation of NPOV. It implies everyone in the world celebrates Christmas, or that all Christians and no non-Christians celebrate Christmas. Plumber (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12/16 participants in the discussion expressing displeasure in alleged bias of the lead seems to be a consensus; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have yet to see any opposition to the David Eppstein revision on the basis of content — what exactly makes the current lead not a NPOV violation compared to that revision? Plumber (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Stamboliyski, no editor with any article-space edits has agreed with your changes to the article. And please for heaven's sake learn to provide WP:DIFFs. The only change David Eppstein made there was to replace the words "A majority of": [3], which is no longer even applicable in the current neutral and accurate sentence he added that to. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant criticism has been addressed. This is not a site where only editors can read articles. Plumber (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the minority of editors here opposed to the changes: are there any of you who have any text-based objections to this aforementioned compromise? Plumber (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until you state what specific text you are talking about, or provide a WP:DIFF, no one can know precisely what you mean. Also, except for Stamboliyski, no editor with any article-space edits has agreed with your changes to the article. Softlavender (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Christians believe him to be the Son of God ...."

As with celebrating Christmas (discussed a month ago), not all Christians believe Jesus was the "Son of God". I can name several Christian groups that do not believe this, so we need to say "Most Christians believe him to be the Son of God ...." Softlavender (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support this change, especially if a citation is given inline which explicitly says something like that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree O3000 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble with an exact fit of a citation that would cover all angles, but I think we can make the change and then cite later if needed. I don't really know what to search under to find a comprehensive citation. Here is some stuff I picked up; don't know if any of it helps:
Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unitarian/Universalists sites may help. O3000 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I didn't check any (I merely did a generic search). There also many other so-called denominations that do not believe Jesus was the Son of God. I'm kind of tired of searching right now ... :) Plus the thing I liked about that UCC link that popped up is that it doesn't say "we" (meaning this specific sect) believe such and such, it says Christians don't have to believe such and such. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making the change and finding a more comprehensive citation if needed sounds reasonable to me. I just think that as many people gave the misconception that verification in the lead would be useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; I'm not great at researching theology though. :) Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a hurry here. Any claim that all people of a certain creed believe the same things is absurd on its face. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have reverted the addition. I do see and emerging consensus here, but a much more thorough discussion is neeeded to change a long-standing consensus on a featured article. The thing is, "Son of God" is a very soft wording already - most, if not all, groups who reject the deity of Jesus are happy for him to be called "Son of God". Secondly, the sources above a very weak. We would need a clear reference from a Christian group rejecting the concept. The UCC site cited above does not do this. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And we also have to consider the difference between Chistian ethos and religion. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" The thing is, "Son of God" is a very soft wording already - most, if not all, groups who reject the deity of Jesus are happy for him to be called "Son of God"." I strongly disagree; the phrase "Son of God" is wikilinked to an article which immediately states "In Christianity, the title Son of God refers to the status of Jesus as the divine son of God the Father." So Son of God as defined by Wikipedia is thus the divine and only Son of God. "We would need a clear reference from a Christian group rejecting the concept." No, we wouldn't. A Christian is a self-described follower of the teachings of Jesus, and it is manifestly untrue that all Christians believe him to be the Son of God. There is no "consensus" to keep inaccurate wording that has never come into question, and since it is manifestly false, it needs to be changed or reworded. As O3000 states above, "Any claim that all people of a certain creed believe the same things is absurd on its face." Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God; the doctrine didn't even come into being until after his death. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Divinity, not deity. Groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses to reject the idea that Jesus is God, still believe that he's the Son of God, and indeed make much of it ("Many who believe that Jesus Christ is God have difficulty explaining why he is called the Son of God. Logic suggests that he cannot be both"). And "Christians believe" does not have to mean "All Christians believe"; it can mean "Christians generally believe". The point is, the phrase "Son of God" was chosen for the lead for a reason; it's pretty much the lowest common denominator of Christian belief. StAnselm (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. As stated above, many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine, and to state that as a fact in Wikipedia's voice is egregiously inaccurate. "And 'Christians believe' does not have to mean 'All Christians believe'; it can mean 'Christians generally believe'." No, it's an absolute statement, just like "Christians annually celebrate his birth on Christmas", which we changed seven weeks ago because it was inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been "stated above" that "many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine" but do you have a citation? Is there any evidence for that? StAnselm (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here[4], are separate statements that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian but did not believe in the divinity of Christ. If you read The Jefferson Bible, it discusses the life of Jesus in 100+ pages with no mention of divinity or miracles. O3000 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say Jefferson was a Christian; it quotes him as saying that he was a Christian. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TJ said he was a Christian. You don’t need a license to be a Christian. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It may have been "stated above" that "many Christians do not believe that Jesus was divine" but do you have a citation? Is there any evidence for that?" The early Christians did not; that concept was invented by Paul and then dogmatized at the Council of Nicaea. Likewise, since the the mid-1800s (Christian Science, etc.) many Christians have rejected the divinity of Jesus. This is in addition to individual Christians like Jefferson, etc. Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not even sure what son of god means. I think the original word for son in Aramaic or Greek had a broader definition, including those taught by a master. And some religions consider all of humanity sons of a god. And if someone claims to be a believer, but doesn’t fit an exact definition by a religious organization, who gave them the power to claim they don’t fit a broader religious classification? If we state that religious organizations can declare someone is a nonbeliever, then depending on the source, 80%-98% of American Catholics may be ruled non-Catholic as they have used some form of birth control. And, even excommunicated Catholics are considered Catholic and Christian at this time. We simply cannot claim that 100% of any branch of religion must fit into a specific pigeon hole. To not use a qualifier, sources must show that all adherents fit the claim. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lots of sourced over at Nontrinitarianism.--Moxy (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: I don't have time to read the above discussion, so I'll drop my thoughts here]. The term "Son of God" does not necessarily imply divinity. While there are groups that reject Jesus' divinity, I can't think of any groups that reject Jesus' title as "Son of God". Asking for a source for that sates that all adherents believe that Jesus is the Son of God might be difficult because of the ambiguity of the term. My guess is that all Christians agree that "Son of God" is one of Jesus' title (since that is what the Bible says), but some might have different interpretations of what "Son of God" means. I think it's best to change the sentence to "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament."— Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureTrillionaire (talk • contribs)

All Christians do not accept every word of the Bible (only Fundamentalists do). And we've already noted several Christian groups and individuals who do not agree with the "Son of God" appellation. That said, as long as we include the word "Most", I would accept "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament." or something along those lines. Softlavender (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The UCC wiki article says this: "The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior." The other links you provided discusses Jesus' divinity, not Jesus' title as "Son of God". My issue with changing it to "Most Christians believe him to be the Son of God" is that I can't think of any groups that reject the title itself, since the title doesn't imply divinity. I'm glad that you can accept the compromise I provided.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with most anything so long as the first word is most. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, we know for a fact that not all Christians (individuals or groups) "believe him to be the Son of God", so whatever we write, we have to use the word "Most". Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And, I’m not even willing to state that fundamentalists all agree, as the Bible contains contradictions. And, a pope or two have stated that parts of the Bible are apocryphal. Various doubts long preceded a nail on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. And I’m not even going to the origins of Christian dogma. We’re an encyclopedia, not an encyclical. Folk are allowed to believe what they wish without WP saying they don’t belong in a particular club. But, most works. O3000 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support using "most Christians" - in fact, I would change it to "Most modern Christians" because it was not true at all times in Christian history. The full details of Christology are too involved for this article, but "All Christians" would be misleading. Seraphim System (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern Christians is better yet. O3000 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You got a citation for that? StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "Most modern Christians", because that implies the belief that Jesus is the Son of God is a new, modern belief/outlook (which it isn't, it goes back to Paul or at least to Nicaea). I think what you are trying to imply is that some modern (as opposed to pre-Enlightenment or whatever) Christians do not accept/believe Jesus to be the Son of God, but that's not the way to express it. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gospel" in introduction

In the second section, the "historical reliability of the Gospels" is mentioned, without (or far before) the term "Gospel" is presented as an account of the life of Jesus. It is probably not right to just assume familiarity with the term. To fix this, at least some of the structure of the second section would have to be changed. Perhaps it could be parted in two, one outlining the life of Jesus, and one discussing historicity and sources? St.nerol (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is serious issue. If the reader is not familiar with the term, they can click on the wikilink. The lede is already very long, so I'm not comfortable with adding more sentences.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FutureTrillionaire. I think it is safe to assume that most people will have at least heard of the gospels. If they have not, there is a reason why we have wikilinks. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC and crucified on Friday April 7, 30 AD

We now know the actual birthdate of Jesus: Saturday (Sabbath) April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC (see astronomer http://MichaelMolnar.com ). The Knights Templar discovered it in 1128 when excavating beneath the Temple Mount. It's been encoded by Freemasonry, e.g. in 1717 4 London Lodges created the first Grand Lodge, the design of golf's Old Course, July 4, 1776 / 17 Tammuz (4th month), Empire State Building is 417 yards high, former 1 World Trade Center was 417 meters high. Jesus was lashed 39x and crucified on the first day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC. He was 34-years-old and turned 35 ten days later. 2601:589:4700:97D0:C129:9F7B:16E0:CDCC (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation/opinion. O3000 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis to believe these (alleged) Templar discoveries are any more accurate than any of the other POV/OR data that has accumulated in the past 2000 years on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is long-term abuser User:Brad Watson, Miami Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brad Watson, Miami. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age at death

If Jesus was born in 4 BC in the second half of the year and died in 30 AD or 33 AD in the first half of the year, then he aged 32 or 35, not 33 or 36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.66.190 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Year zero. O3000 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the info box should be changed because he is not dead today, he is alive.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=817062859"