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 2601:406:4e02:467d:993d:ee:266:6ade (talk) at 16:13, 10 February 2018 (→‎Born, Died, Resurrected and Ascended). 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

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]

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC. 

        Chart 50-1
  • Jesus Was Born in Zero BC/AD

11-February/Shebeth 753 AUC 11-February/Shebeth 974 AE = After Israel coming out of the land of Egypt 2-February/Shebeth 3719 WC = World Calendar

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat

  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 "One for Jesus"--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Feel free to share the source of your information with us. Britmax (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin"One for Jesus" (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyDust81568 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a Christian I also believe that, but of course such a statement does not belong in an academic setting. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a religious belief that cannot be added to an infobox, though you are free to hold personal beliefs. Cheers, CookieMonster755✉ 01:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm an atheist, but I actually think that's a funny and somewhat useful idea; doing something to indicate that Jesus is alive every Christmas (but only on that day). It would be cute and a little funny and would help spread good will and cheer, and if there's one thing the surly herd of neckbeards here need more of, it's good will and cheer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, unfortunately. See "surly herd of neckbeards" above. Sigh. But at least with one Christian opposing and at least one Atheist supporting the notion, nobody could point to it as any kind of religious ideological disagreement if we ever had a serious discussion about it. Just disagreement as to whether it's "appropriate" (read: self-important enough) for the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the infobox says is accurate - Jesus was most likely born in 4 BC and died by crucifixion in 30/33 AD. Christians (myself included) believe that Jesus was alive before that time as God the not-yet-incarnated Son and after that time as as the risen savior, as the article also explains. -- LWG talk 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist? An atheist writing an article on Jesus Christ is like visual impaired person (since birth) writing about The Birth of Venus. It's possible, but there's no first hand experience. You need to believe to edit your work; sooner or later, you have to feel the truth! Celiaescalante (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you can't report an Earthquake if you don't believe how an earthquake feels. If an Earthquake hits town, some of the town people are going to feel it and other's who lacked sound judgments did not. You NEED to BELIEVE in Earthquakes to report the ACCURACY of earthquakes! It's an OBSERVATION! Celiaescalante (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Celiaescalante: There's a difference between believing that Jesus was God and believing that Jesus, as a historical human, existed.
And at any rate, the site doesn't care about user experience and does not use it -- all we do is cite and summarize professionally-published mainstream academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not die??? What??? He died, resurrected and Ascended!!! Add the dates, Communist Atheist Public School Robots! Celiaescalante (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Celiaescalante: Personal attacks are not acceptable here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They'd be more acceptable if they were even remotely insulting, to be honest. Funny counts for even more than that. "Communist Atheist Public School Robots" is just boring. Try "bloviated fucktard" next time; the contrast of highbrow and lowbrow verbiage can be amusing to some. Or go for something less direct and more descriptive, like "you wouldn't know Jesus if he made passionate man-love to you on a bed of roses." Or possibly go for the ultimate insult and tell me exactly how fat my momma is.
Or (and this one is a longshot, I know) you could try to engage with the patience and civility your religion encourages you to adopt, and which aren't a violation of our behavioral guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus died at the age of 31--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"[reply]

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC. Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin "One for Jesus" (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"[reply]

Ah, this crazy book.[1] To quote the Amazon blurb, "This book is the Bible's Bible because it used God's original fiscal calendar for Adam to the birth of Jesus Christ. This calendar present the true before Christ (BC) date. This book shows when God's original fiscal calendar was change into Israel's original fiscal after Israel coming out of the land of Egypt. This book also agrees with the historical writing of the catholic priest St. Bede who predate the birth of Jesus Christ using the founding of the Romans Empire calendar Ab Urbe Condita (A.U.C.) Thus, this book used all of the original fiscal calendars to prove the beginning of In the year of our Lord original fiscal calendar beginning at the birth of Jesus Christ". Doug Weller talk 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my copy from Barnes and Noble "One for Jesus" (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus" Is the Ecclesiastical History of the English People crazy as well? "One for Jesus" (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"[reply]

Are you suggesting that a source's credibility is dependent on whether it is stocked in Barnes and Noble? Or what? Britmax (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely no. Just a comment to show how crazy the comment was, about amazon above yours. 2601:406:4E02:467D:993D:EE:266:6ADE (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"[reply]

Born, Died, Resurrected and Ascended

Add to the table age/date Resurrected and Ascended. Those are vital information. Celiaescalante (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus Celiaescalante (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus Celiaescalante (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make Emmanuel sound like a Disney character. He is a famous person and not a fictional character.

If you don't believe in honorable sources, then that makes Wikipedia sound like an unreliable source. Celiaescalante (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The resurrection of Jesus or resurrection of Christ is the Christian religious belief..." Not fact or history. And cool it with the name calling please. --NeilN talk to me 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Celiaescalante: Wikipedia does not cite itself. While I am a Christian, I understand that if we present one religion's doctrines as empirical history, we have to do so for others. Would you be fine with us presenting Aiwass reciting Liber AL vel Legis to Aleister Crowley as historical fact instead of Thelemite belief? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a biblical theology class. Please be mindful of neutrality policies on Wikipedia. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus ascended into heaven on Friday May 28, AD 31.--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"[reply]

This book "Why Jesus Didn't Resurrect on Easter Sunday" by Clarence Boykin proves when Jesus death, burial and resurrection occurred, starting from John 12:1 six days before the Passover to Jesus death on Wednesday April 14, AD 31 to His resurrection on Saturday April 17, AD 31 and the first day of the week Sunday April 18, AD 31. Then to Jesus ascension 40 days later on Friday May 28, AD 31. The Jewish original calendar month April has 30 days; and May has 29 days. Do the math. 2601:406:4E02:467D:993D:EE:266:6ADE (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Change Jesus' Birth Year from 4 B.C. to 0 A.D. Greasy Reptile (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There never was a year 0 A.D. The year after 1 B.C. was 1 A.D. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was born in zero BC/AD if you understand the beginning of a new fiscal calendar. So, zero BC/AD is really the beginning of months because John the Baptist was born in 6 months BC and Jesus was born six months later.--"One for Jesus" (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)"One for Jesus"[reply]

Oh, boy, here we go again: year zero. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero BC/AD is the same as the first day of Creation. So, when know that number of years from Creation to the birth of Jesus equal BC/AD that 3,719 years one month. "One for Jesus"--"One for Jesus" (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The catholic priest St. Bede book "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", in Chapter II he states, "Britain had never been visited by the Romans, and was, indeed, entirely unknown to them before the time of Caius Julius Caesar, who, in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord." The catholic priest St. Bede predated the birth year of Jesus Christ by sixty years BC using the AUC calendar. All pundits have misinterpreted the writing of St. Bede the catholic priest, who correctly dated the year of Jesus Christ birth in the year 753 AUC. Source Jesus Was Born in Zero BC by Clarence Boykin "One for Jesus" (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "One for Jesus"[reply]

The Infobox Should is Misleading

Simple, if you can date the age at birth, then you can date the age at resurrection and ascension.

Why even put an info box?

The info box makes Jesus sound dead and out of reach. Anyone can point at the figure and say Jesus is dead, do it is insulting to followers of Christ.

Making certain mistakes shows lack of comprehension. If one takes the time to read the entire Holy Bible, one would demonstrate an understanding of reality. Celiaescalante (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the historical figure known as Jesus. There is no empirical evidence that "resurrection" and "ascension" exist in reality. You'd have a better case at Christ (title). --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Homo unius libri, attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas. As an encyclopedia, we are not here to follow or proselytize the beliefs or books of one of thousands of variations of belief systems. We simply describe them. And, as NeilN states, this particular article is about Jesus the person. (Although it goes off-track now and again.) O3000 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

2A02:C7D:31B9:FE00:80DB:3589:AA4D:8052 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not clear what you want changed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Jesus' birth

Dosen't the New Testament state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Jesus could have been born Nazareth as well. Why isn't this information mentioned in some kind in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardElric2016 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information that the Bible states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is in the body text of the article (Jesus#Genealogy and nativity), but since the Bible is an unreliable source for facts about the historical Jesus, only the overarching known scholarly facts are in the infobox. His hometown is listed as Nazareth in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the Bible is an unreliable source for facts about the historical Jesus That's actually not entirely true, but close enough for what we do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MPants – however, scholars cannot agree on the historical Jesus' exact place of birth, so we exclude Bethlehem in the infobox. CookieMonster755✉ 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still assert that he was born in Hoboken, NJ, and nobody can prove me wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The (pretty interesting) FAQ points to this discussion. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the clarity. Though on Buddha's infobox, his traditional place of birth (Lumbini) is given though it explicitly mentioned that this is a traditional claim. I don't see why we can't do the same for Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C300:3BD2:9563:81E4:5A4C:214B (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an encyclopedia, which deals with facts, and this article is about the historical person known as Jesus, and problems or issues with other articles should be addressed on those articles, not here. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't know that mentioning the traditional place of birth in the infobox was such a big problem. And of course I know this is an encyclopedia which deals with facts. The fact is that the NT states that Bethlehem is the birth place of Jesus. Whether that's historically accurate I cannot say and wasn't my point to begin with. I was merely comparing the two articles as the one I compared it to (Buddha) did mention the traditional place of birth in its infobox. I was just looking for some consistency in this website.

The discussion regarding the birthplace in the infobox was discussed back in 2011. I think it would be appropriate to open a request for comment regarding that to see if consensus has changed. CookieMonster755✉ 16:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with that. I actually agree with the IP; the traditional place of birth should probably be put in the infobox, though we might want to also mention what historians believe his place of birth to be, as well (Nazareth). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants let's start a request for comment form regarding the birth location. CookieMonster755✉ 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A RFC does not trump WP:RS/AC. We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. If anything, the case for Bethlehem is even flimsier now. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has argued that Bethlehem is actually the correct birthplace. Any reliable source will agree, however, that it is absolutely the traditional birthplace. As I said above, I think we should show both the traditional birthplace and the scholarly consensus (Nazareth). That wouldn't contradict any RS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people are positing that certain locations are correct (i.e. "the truth"). There are articles on Jesus the person and Jesus the figure in various religions. I should think this article should take a scholarly view, and religious articles as presented by related religious texts -- all with proper qualifying footnotes. O3000 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. the article on Jesus the Sinatrarian should list Hoboken. O3000 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's the one editor preaching The Truth™, but they haven't posted in a couple days. But neither me nor the IP, nor CookieMonster have advocated for it. I know that even if we do list Bethlehem as his traditional birthplace, we need to be explicit that it's the traditional. And as I said, I'd also want to mention the scholarly consensus, and mark that one as exactly that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we have to look for the alleged census that is mentioned by some religious sources. It is alleged, since Joseph is said to have been born of Bethlehem, that the whole family would need to travel there to be counted. It seems only logical that we look for some record of such a journey (or even such a census), before making any statement as to where "Jesus" was born. Therefore, I propose the actual page read "Nazareth/Bethlehem(unk.)" to demonstrate that there are multiple possible locations.R0tekatze (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient support within the New Testament as well. The Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Gospel of Mark claims that Jesus was from Nazareth, and does not mention anything about Bethlehem. The Gospel of John explicitly claims that Jesus was from Nazareth, and its first chapter has a character questioning: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John does not mention Bethlehem either. The Gospels also disagree on Jesus' family background.:
  • Joseph, father of Jesus is a relatively major character in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, receives a brief mention in the Gospel of John, and is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in the Gospel of Mark. In Mark, Jesus is repeatedly called "Mary's son" and no character mentions a father for him.
  • Mary, mother of Jesus is a relatively major character in the Gospel of Luke and (to a lesser extend) Matthew, gets three passing mentions in Mark (where she is otherwise insignificant), and is a minor, anonymous character in the Gospel of John. Also the story of the miraculous conception of Jesus and Mary's supposed virginity turns up in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, but is completely absent in the Gospels of Mark and John.
  • The Brothers of Jesus are named in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, briefly appear in the Gospel of John, and are only mentioned once in the Gospel of Luke, which otherwise ignores them. In fact the narrative of Finding in the Temple in Luke strongly implies that 12-year-old Jesus was an only child.
  • A number of unnamed sisters of Jesus are mentioned as residents of Nazareth in the Gospel of Matthew, and are briefly mentioned in a scene in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus seems to be rejecting his own family. The Gospels of Luke and John mention no sisters at all.
  • A maternal aunt of Jesus is mentioned, but not named, in the Gospel of John, where she is present in Jesus' crucifixion. The implication is unclear, but tradition identifies Jesus'aunt with Mary of Clopas, a character who appears in the next verse of the same chapter. The character does not appear in the Gospels of Luke, Mark, or Matthew, though there have been attempts at identifying her with minor female characters from these gospels. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we have to look for the alleged census that is mentioned by some religious sources. No. That would be original research. It's not our job to confirm or refute the scholarly consensus, only to report it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either Bethlehem or Nazareth should be listed as the birth place, not both of them. Scholars are split on the birthplace, though many advocate that he was born in Nazareth. I only suggest a RfC, and did not advocate for one or the other at this point. CookieMonster755✉ 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If scholars are split, who are we to pick one? I hope we can avoid an RfC as it will be difficult to close. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a scholar claim that the scholars are split. Ehrman has written that "There is no way that this can be historically correct." referring to the traditional birthplace of Bethlehem, and the worst (accurate) criticism I've ever heard of his work is that he's done nothing more than parrot the scholarly consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there is no consensus to start an RfC, then one should not be opened. It seems like the current setup works. CookieMonster755✉ 16:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current setup is completely acceptable. Listing Jesus's place of birth in the infobox would be opening an unnecessary can of worms. It is fine to simply state that Nazareth was his "hometown," which is something that everyone - evangelicals and scholars alike - will absolutely agree on. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=824954106"