Talk:Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Heavy Christian bias in article

The claim that virtually no scholars doubt that Jesus existed is absurd. Scholarly refutations of a historical Jesus are substantial and growing. And the statement that some have begun to question whether the Biblical account of Jesus is accurate is laughably understated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

See also Echo chamber (media), and the standards Wikipedia uses to determine what refutations are scholarly or not. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The refutations of a historical Jesus are anything but substantial and almost nothing on top of ta is scholarly. Its a VERY wide consensus among historians that Jesus was a real person. Basically, the Jesus-myth theory is to historians what Intelligent Design is to biologists - a big giant joke given an air of credibility by a very small but very vocal minority. And per WP:NPOV, fringe groups that are small enough do not even warrant mention in an article. So the very fact that it is mentioned at all is, imo, undue weight for it. All mention really should ideally be removed.Farsight001 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, anonymous editor, for sharing your opinion and demonstrating interest in this important topic. Please find a reliable source that confirms your opinion, and we will make sure that the viewpoint is given proper weight. Lots of people have opinions, but we really value evidence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And talking heads like your favorite celebrity anti-religion activist don't count. To sate your wary mind: David Copperfield, the magician, existed, but he can't actually fly without, say, an airplane. Claiming someone historically existed does not indicate any religious bias here. Last I checked, being a realist doesn't mean foaming at the mouth because inconvenient truths are being upheld by academically minded people. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Copperfield analogy is not apt in the slightest (and the analogy to Creationism is especially ironic). The primary documentation of Jesus comes from Christians who thought he really really was magical and would claim that Noah's ark, talking snakes, etc. were just as historically real as Jesus. There are no non-magical accounts of Jesus from even near his alleged lifetime. Note also the straw man argument here; having doubt that Jesus existed is not the same as claiming that Jesus did not exist per se.

The primary documentation of Jesus comes from several ancient texts written over 1900 years ago, in or near the lifetime of Jesus, supported by the fast majority of scholars of antiquity and historians. Sorry, but doubting that Jesus existed is about as reasonable as claiming he didn't.

And as an aside, people would be a whole lot more likely to take you seriously if you didn't use words intended to offend like "magical" or expose how little you know about Christianity by suggesting that they all think talking snakes really happened.

But in the end, this is all irrelevant. We report what scholarly sources say, even if we disagree. They say he existed, so we say he existed. If a significant enough minority according to WP:NPOV suggest otherwise, we describe that position too. There is not, however, a significant enough minority. The analogy to creationism is not ironic. Is is precisely on point and thinking the Jesus-myth theory different and special just illustrates further how apt the comparison is.Farsight001 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to remind the IP in particular about WP:SOAP. Any further discussions about what some individual user believes about Jesus and about academia could be removed. This is not the place for explaining personal beliefs of any kind, neither about Jesus nor about scholarship about Jesus. This is where we rely of scholarly sources to discuss how to form the article.Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't respond to the ad hominems, but 1900 years ago is by no stretch of definition within the lifetime of someone who was supposedly executed over 2000 years ago. Regarding Farsight's aside, the gospels unequivocally depict Jesus as magical (or if you prefer, supernatural). With regard to the issue at hand (the phrasing in the wiki article, which may be overly dismissive of doubts about Jesus' existence), I recommend replacing the mildly pejorative "virtually no scholars" with the nearly identical but less loaded "small minority of scholars" or something of the sort. Even Bart Ehrman--who is cited profusely in the article and opposes the Jesus-myth theory--has acknowledged that arguments for the Jesus-myth theory are "fairly plausible" and even represent the "dominant view" in some parts of the world. Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Virtually all" is true to what the source says, and we don't rephrase what sources say based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Jeppiz (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Where'd you get the idea that anyone thinks he was executed over 2000 years ago? Again, we need wp:rs for your ideas and we need enough to overturn wp:npov. IF you don't have that, you're wasting your time.Farsight001 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I would like you to add something cited to Ehrman to the page. Especially if you try to summarize what Ehrman says rather than cherry-picking something you like. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The proper question is not "did Jesus exist or not?" but rather "did the Christian version of Jesus exist or not?". From a natural point of view, "the Christian version" of Jesus is not based on "reliable sources". None of the Gospels meet the criteria of a reliable source.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

According to whom does "none of the Gospels meet the criteria of a reliable source"? And neither this article nor any serious scholar has even proposed that the gospels should be taken at face value, so not sure what the point is here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't based on the gospels, it's based on comparisons between them and known historical facts by professional academics, which is how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. The sources discuss the historical Jesus, and point out that the majority of professional academics expect that it's a safe bet some sort of Roman Judean messiah claimant with a then-dead-common name who was baptized by a guy with a still-dead-common name and crucified by a group known to do that. Whether a Christian version of Jesus existed is a matter of theology, not history. No historical Jesus? There can still be a Christian Jesus. Historical Jesus existed? Doesn't mean He was divine -- because Jesus's historical existence and divinity are an example of Non-overlapping magisteria. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Human Chlorophyll, thanks for joining the effort to make this page better! There is plenty of room for improvement in the Historical Jesus section. That's a great place for the reader to learn in what ways the historical figure of Jesus is similar to or different from the Gospel versions and the version found in the Church creeds. If you are looking for a reliable source on historical Jesus, may I recommend Encyclopedia Britannica Online (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303091/Jesus-Christ)? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus and Inferno Doctrine

The article mentions the historical Jesus and considering his statements as such based on a divergence from Jewish and later church traditions. What is the general view from historians on Jesus and what we call hell? I've heard it both ways from the public and commentators. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I second the idea that we could use a treatment of what Jesus thought in terms of eschatology: the coming apocalypse, eternal punishment, etc. Would love a summary of Jesus' religious beliefs in general. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dale C. Allison's Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet estimates that Jesus believed in a 'hell' which he analogizes as the 'resurrection to judgement'. Of more interest, I find, is the belief in an interim period to which he speculates 'Jesus and later Christians might not have thought much about'. He references Luke 16:19-31 to suggest that Jesus may have believed in a somewhat common (he says) Jewish belief that the dead existed in a glorious interim state but that the text is a parable and such a suggestion is basically slippery ground.

I'll keep looking for more. Allison's work seems a bit dubious at times, if honest about his own short-shortsightedness. Hopefully something more stoic, less from the perspective of a theologian. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a tricky topic. Thanks for looking into it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would particularly be inclined to say that anyone who says 'Jesus believed in hell' or even 'inferno' without first making stipulations I would view skeptically. These words appear hundreds of years after the writings' first appearance in Greek and have no direct connotation to any singular, uniform concept Jesus referred to. They're modern doctrinal substitutions for words which would otherwise be transliterations in English: 'Hades' and 'Geenna'. Forgive my linking to the same ecclesiastic dictionary on both accounts, all the secular ones I could find on onelook.com were very informal and nondescriptive. In any case, its quite falsifiable that the exact modern doctrine(s) were a later construction. One should keep that in mind when investigating the matter.

However, I think classically Catholics recognize Gehenna as an allegory for inferno, whereas Hades is just called Inferno. In English Bibles these are bother rendered as the same concept, Hell. The actual nature of all the doctrines is quite confusing: for example, the resting place of faithful Hebrews is also called inferno. Some argue this is more faithfully translated as the Catholic purgatory. I thought I'd just put out some background for anyone investigating, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the historical section could use a section on Jesus' religious beliefs in general, and we could cover the afterlife and judgment day as part of that section. Also: guardian angels, free will, etc. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesus as fictional character on Facebook

Is there any way we can ask Facebook to show our article accurately, without the description of him as a "fictional character"? I don't blame people for thinking that it is an integral part of our article, as it certainly looks like one. Britmax (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We could petition as a group. Maybe contact Wikipedia's legal department if misrepresentation is that much of an issue. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Petition Facebook if you want. The WMF has nothing to do with it and it's not a legal issue (no idea why you think it would be). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN. Any individual can petition Facebook, or start a group petition, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia and I don't see a reason Wikipedia should get involved.Jeppiz (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not Facebook itself, but Freebase. There is also a means to start correcting it. At the Facebook page on Jesus, you'll see a button that says "Edit" between the "Like" button and a gear button. Click the "Edit" button, and it will open up a new page that says "Category" and to the right of that, "Edit." Click that new "Edit" button, and it will display the "Fictional character" category with a "Yes" button and a "No" button. Click the "No" button, then the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. If enough people do that, the page will eventually change.

One area they are royally fucking up is having Walmart under the "Related Pages." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Freebase shutting down in a month or two? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't heard it, but wasn't listening for it either. Article indeed says they are. Hopefully that'll get Facebook to quit pulling data from it. Or, if they transfer that bit of data to Wikidata, we'll be better able to get rid of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just followed the suggestion above, and it's quite easy. I gave "Religious character" as an alternative category. Maybe if enough people give the same alternative category the change will be made. Britmax (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but from what I can tell, his description on the Jesus facebook page is essentially up to a vote. If enough people on facebook select "fictional character" as the preferred descriptor (over say, historical figure), then it automatically changes to fictional character. If enough people vote for an alternative, I believe it will change automatically. I'm sure some trollish hacker slaved a bunch of computers to vote him as a fictional character or some group got together and thought it would be funny.Farsight001 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw a petition several days ago on Change.org about this very topic your discussing. Interesting! I do agree, Facebook categorizing Jesus as a "fictional character" is not Wikimedia's problem. However, I do think somebody should do something about it. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Facebook categorizing Jesus as a "fictional character" is not Wikimedia's problem"

This^^. End of.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

was Jesus "really" Jewish?

Oncenawhile would like the historical Jesus section to point out that the term for "Jew" in the New Testament could refer to ethnicity, not necessarily religion. I've removed this note three times because it was twice sourced to Christian source, not historical-Jesus sources, and a third time to another WP page. I'd be happy to see this note in the Christian views section. Something like "Christians acknowledge that Jesus was referred to as a 'Jew' in the Gospels, but they say he was not a Jew in the religious sense and point out that this term sometimes referred to ethnicity rather than religion." Is that a notable view? I can't say that it is, but I wouldn't object to it being in the Christian Views section if there are Christians here who really want to see it on the page. It just doesn't belong in the historical views section. Even if it's literally true, it doesn't get enough weight in historical treatments to warrant inclusion here. Historians regard Jesus as a religious Jew in the regular sense. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If I'm following this, the claim that Jesus was ethnically but not religiously a Jew is really far-out fringe. I would think that any vaguely competent historian of the era would call that distinction anachronistic to begin with, but I've never found anyone who claimed that Jesus wasn't observant. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any serious source that would state that the modern concept of being 'ethnically' Jewish existed at the time. In any case it is difficult to see how it would be relevant, since Jesus is clear that not 'one jot or one tittle' of the (Jewish) law is to be neglected 'until all is fulfilled'. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The idea of Jesus being "not really Jewish", either as an anachronistic "ethnic Jew" or not a Jew at all, is a fringe idea in my experience mostly propounded by anti-Semites who don't really understand Christian history or theology. If Jesus were not Jewish, how could he come from the line of David? Why would he be circumcised on the eighth day? Why would he be described in the gospels as going "up" to Jerusalem with his family at the Jewish holidays? (The concept of going "up to Jerusalem" is significant in Judaism.) Why would the apostles call him "rabbi"? Why would he be tried by the Sanhedrin? Why would "INRI" be affixed to the cross? The list really goes on and on. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Like the previous three commentators, I find this an extreme fringe view that would be WP:UNDUE in any section of the article. A large number of sources from leading scholars can easily be found stating that Jesus was a Jew, a religious, Torah-observing Jew. I don't know of any contemporary scholar in the field who have said the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be constructed out of antisemitism, very provably false from primary and secondary material. Not even technically correct for the time period. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We can cover antisemitic views if they're notable. Maybe the page could explain how early Christians saw Jesus as disowning the Jews in favor of Christians. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. I'm not finding your contributions here constructive, Jonathan Tweet. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I'll try to be more constructive in the future. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ioudaioi

I agree with all of the above comments, except Jonathan's original post which looks to me like an accidental straw man. I do not have a view as to the question raised in the title of this thread by Jonathan, and frankly I don't even understand the question. What I am proposing to retain in the article is a clause, which has been in the article for a few years, stating "...a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both". For anyone with passing knowledge of Koine Greek this is arguably a WP:BLUE statement. However, here are a number of sources:

• Daniel R. Schwartz (2014). Judeans and Jews: Four Faces of Dichotomy in Ancient Jewish History. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442648395.
• Miller, David M. (2012). "Ethnicity Comes of Age: An Overview of Twentieth-Century Terms for Ioudaios". Currents in Biblical Research. 10 (2): p293-311. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• Garroway, Rabbi Joshua (2011). "Ioudaios". The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford University Press. pp. 524–526. ISBN 9780195297706. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Miller, David M. (2010). "The Meaning of Ioudaios and its Relationship to Other Group Labels in Ancient 'Judaism'". Currents in Biblical Research. 9 (1): 98–126.
• Mason, Steve (2007). "Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History" (PDF). Journal for the Study of Judaism. 38: 457–512. doi:10.1163/156851507X193108.
• Esler, Philip (2003). "Ethnicity Ethnic Conflict and the Ancient Mediterranean World". Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul's Letter. Fortress Press. ISBN 9781451416077.
• Harvey, Graham (2001). The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature. BRILL. pp. 104–147. ISBN 9780391041196.
• Freyne, Sean (2000). "Behind the Names: Samaritans, loudaioi, Galileans". Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 389–401. ISBN 0-88920-356-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Cohen, Shaye (1999). "Ioudaios, Iudaeus, Judaean, Jew". The Beginnings of Jewishness. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520211414.
• Williams, Margaret H. (1997). "The Meaning and Function of Ioudaios in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions" (PDF). Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 116: 249–62.
• Smith, Morton (1987). Palestinian Parties and Politics that shaped the Old Testament. SCM Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780334022381.
• Lowe, Malcolm (1976). "Who Were the Ioudaioi?". Novum Testamentum. 18: 101–130.

Does anyone disagree with the statement? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was traveling. Oncenawhile, can you show us how this concept helps the reader understand historical Jesus? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a section on "Language, ethnicity, and appearance". Without the sentence you removed (shown below in strikethrough), the paragraph on ethnicity currently states:

"Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of first-century Palestine,[246][247][248] (Ioudaios in New Testament Greek, a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both).[h] However, in a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine writes that the entire question of ethnicity is "fraught with difficulty," and that "beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish', rarely does the scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means".[250]"

Without the struckthrough clause, a reader is left confused by what exactly Levine is referring to when she writes of the question "what being 'Jewish' means".

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

People today are still confused by what exactly "Jewish" means. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Whilst the article still pipes Levine's question to our wiki article "Who is a Jew?" (on modern Jewish identity), the spectrum of what it means to be Jewish today is very different to what the spectrum of what it meant to be Jewish / Ioudaioi 2,000 years ago. This is explained in detail in the sources above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a confusion about the relationship between the two statements (which both make sense to me)? i.e., we need to make it clear that "Modern scholars" and Amy-Jill Levine are not disagreeing with each other - AJL is not providing an opposing view, but adding historical nuance. 'Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew, but AJL points out that that's a complex designation' - or simply point out that while Jesus was undoubtedly ethnically Jewish, Judaism as a religion has changed in 2,000 years. But either way, it needs clarification. --Rbreen (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan Tweet, do you have a strong view either way on this and has your question of 21 April been answered? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's well established that Jesus practiced the Jewish religion and was a Rabbi. Drsmoo (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

None of us are disputing this statement. (Although, Drsmoo, on Jesus as a Rabbi you might be interested to read Catherine Hezser The social structure of the rabbinic movement in Roman Palestine 1997 -Page 59: "Since Jesus was called "Rabbi" but did not conform to the traditional image of post-70 Jewish rabbis, and since pre-70 sages do not bear the title "Rabbi" in the Mishnah,29 most scholars assume that the meaning and usage of the term "Rabbi" at the time of Jesus differed from the meaning which it acquired after the destruction of the Temple: in pre-70 times, "Rabbi" was used as an unofficial honorary address for any person held in high esteem; after 70 it was almost exclusively applied to ordained teachers of the Law." I took this source from the Rabbi article and will add it here too.)

I am hoping Jonathan will explain his views either way on whether we should provide any information on the word Ioudaioi to help readers understand AJL's question.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to read that you're not disputing that Jesus practiced the Jewish religion. Regarding the term Rabbi, it is still frequently used in contemporary Jewish life as an honorary for a teacher of Jewish knowledge. A person does not need to be ordained to be referred to as a Rabbi. For example, in Jewish religious schools, the teachers who teach studies related to the Jewish religion are all called Rabbi. Your link shows an interesting link between ancient and contemporary Jewish life in that sense. Drsmoo (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The explication of the Greek word for Jew doesn't explain AJL's question. If anything, it confuses the reader by suggesting that maybe Jesus was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so. This fits the Christian narrative that Jesus founded a non-Jewish religion: Christianity. The approach of looking for the definition of a Greek word from the New Testament is what Christians do. Christians come to terms with the fact that Jesus is referred to as a Jew in their holy book. Historians have no such concern. They come to terms with the fact that Jesus was Jewish, but they are not hung up on the definition of a word from scripture. Let's talk Due Weight. What other treatments of historical Jesus point out the meaning of this word this way? I've never run into it in my considerable reading. I have run into this line of thinking among Christians. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must take exception with the assertion that the "Christian narrative" is that Jesus "founded a non-Jewish religion". He did no such thing. The Christian narrative is that Jesus formed the Church (that is, the collective group that would today be called Christians), which was originally Jewish in all senses of the word and identified as part of Second Temple Judaism, and that over the next century and a half this group became separated enough from mainstream Judaism that it defined itself as apart from, or in place of, Judaism, as Christianity. It isn't until AD 49, about two decades after the crucifixion, that the first step is made towards breaking away when the Church in Jerusalem decides not to make gentile converts be circumcised or observe Jewish law. (see Wilson, Marvin R. (1989). Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. pp. 87–90.) Even if you're going solely by what's in the New Testament, the council's decision at Jerusalem is in Acts, after the Gospels. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite. For more detail, see Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, you wrote: "The approach of looking for the definition of a Greek word from the New Testament is what Christians do... Historians... are not hung up on the definition of a word". Your statement is wrong. The term Ioudaioi is used in a vast multitude of historical sources, not just scripture, and historians of the highest caliber have focused on its definition.

You then ask for more sources, without a single comment on any of the 12 sources at the top of this thread. We cannot make progress here unless you are willing to read and comment on the sources provided so far. If you want to provide sources of your own in addition, that would be great. Or perhaps you want to make an argument regarding the specific relevance of each of the sources above. But please be respectful of other people's "considerable reading" as well as your own. Or if you just don't have time at the moment, perhaps you'd be kind enough to say so and we can pick this up again when you are ready.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to summarize the traditional Christian view, the one that was commonly held before modern historical investigation. If I got the summary wrong, it was an honest mistake. My problem with the sentence is that I don't see how it helps the reader understand the historical Jesus. Can someone tell me in one plain sentence how this sentence helps the reader understand the historical Jesus? I don't think anyone can. It looks to me like it will confuse the reader. That said, several editors have made it understood that they feel very strongly that the sentence should be included. I'm inclined to lift my objection as a show of good faith and a willingness to work together. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan, I appreciate that. I have selected a handful of the above sources, returned the clause back into the article, and removed the word "However" before the AJL sentence. Without the "however" the paragraph flows better and reads more intuitively. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonathan, I appreciate the sign of good faith. A small point: in your last edit summary you refer to "non-religious 'Judaism'". This is a misnomer. I think what you mean is the modern idea of non-religious cultural/ethnic "Jewishness" that has come to the fore since the late 19th century, at least part because of anti-Semitism (as you said above, a lot of Christians found it hard to come to terms with the idea that their Saviour was one of those covetous Jews). —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand the arguments in this whole discussion; it's pretty obvious that in ancient times (and sometimes today as well) many peoples considered their religion and their nation to be the same. And if not the same then very related concepts. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, u:Cliftonian. Looking back at it, I wish we'd tried to craft a compromise clause about Jesus being a "Judean," instead of struggling over whether to include that clause. Maybe there's a clause that would have made all of us happy. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

add section on Jesus' message

Since the historically probable Jesus was as preacher and the founder of an apocalyptic religious sect, can we please summarize his teaching? It seems like his religious message about the Kingdom of God deserves a section within Historical Jesus. He preached of an imminent revelation of God that would turn the world upside down, and he advocated radical forgiveness (turning the other cheek). His religious mission seems like a prime topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That would repeat Jesus#Teachings.2C_preachings.2C_and_miracles. I doubt that biblical scholars, particularly Christologists, offer a radically different view of his teachings. If anything is really missing in that section, it should be added in a succinct form as the article looks big enough. Brandmeister^talk 15:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that if the reader wants to know what the historical Jesus probably taught, they should read the section about what Jesus taught according to the Gospels? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If scholar view of Jesus' teachings radically differs from Gospel accounts, then that may go to Jesus#Historicity_of_events, I think. Brandmeister^talk 20:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"can we please summarize his teaching?"

I think you'll find that various groups of Christians, schismatics and heretics have been trying to do this for the past 2000 years. Any attempt by Wikipedia to do so would doubtless result in Internecine Christian editing wars because everyone claims a different "message".

"if the reader wants to know what the historical Jesus probably taught..."

Then the readers should probably be looking at the "Historicity of Jesus" page rather than here.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. The reader ought to look to the Gospel section first for a summary of Jesus' teachings. There's no need to add another subsection to the historical Jesus section, at least not before the Gospel section is in good shape. So let's work together on the Gospel section. When you (all of you) look over the Gospel summaries, what do you think could be better? When I look at them, they seem to be missing a few big-picture themes: the messianic secret, the obtuseness of the disciples, John's and Jesus' predictions of an apocalypse, and the dichotomy between a successful mission in Galilee but a fatal mission in Jerusalem. To make room, I bet we could cut material of secondary importance. Anything else? I would say let's add in more about how the Gospels set Jesus against Judaism, but that's a thorny topic, so let's not touch it. What else would make this section better? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan, I hate to pull you up on this, but I notice that you make reference to the Gospels "set[ting] Jesus against Judaism". The Gospels do absolutely no such thing. Jesus spoke from within Judaism and the Gospels make this very clear. The Gospels set him against other Jews and the contemporary leadership of the main Jewish sects, yes, but not against Judaism itself. Same applies to the Apostles and to Paul in other parts of the NT. (see Wilson, Marvin R. (1989). Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 92). —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Cliftonian. It seems as though we are in agreement that we shouldn't add material about Jesus being presented in some verses as opposed to Judaism. Since we agree on that, you and I could debate how certain verses portray Jesus and Judaism, but it would be beside the point and we have better things to do with our time. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

eschatology

Jesus is the Savior. That role is fundamental to his identity as Christ, the Son. The lead and the article in general don't pay much attention to Jesus as savior. In Christianity, isn't "savior" a distinctive role for Christ? Isn't the point of Jesus that those who believe in him are saved and have eternal life? The lead talks about Christians worshiping him, but it's more than that. Christians rely on him to save them from hell, right? To gain eternal life? The lead talks about Jesus' returning, but it doesn't explain the circumstances. He's coming back to judge the living and the dead, right? Judgment Day. I know that these days lots of Christian groups don't talk about Judgment Day or hell as much as they used to, but it seems like we're missing a vital element in understanding Jesus. Or at least the Christian perspective on Jesus, which is notable. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Christians would almost universally call Jesus savior, but the meaning varies quite a bit from denomination to sect. I normally advocate looking through the sources and summarizing them, but Google books is glutted with, making it a bit hard to kind the stuff we'd need like Wiley-Blackwell or Brill Publishers. Going through existing articles and citations, I managed to cobble together:

"Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God,(cite: Oxford Companion to the Bible p.649; found at Jesus in Christianity), and attribute important roles to him in Christian eschatology, including judging the dead(cite:Introducing Christian Doctrine (2nd Edition) by Millard J. Erickson (Apr 1, 2001) ISBN 0801022509 pages 391-392; found at Kingdom of God (Christianity)) before or after their resurrection,(cite: refs 6-10 at Christian mortalism). Additionally, most Christians believe that Jesus either has established, is establishing, will establish the kingdom of heaven, with some modern and postmodern theologians positing that eschatology is largely symbolic, and Jesus's role in eschatology has more existential or societal implications than concerns about the afterlife.(cite: The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology By Millard J. Erickson, p. 95; found at Idealism (Christian eschatology))"

Oddly, I've run into a lot of Christians discussing such matters, but I live in a region where a used book store would see no problem putting Left Behind somewhere between Karl Barth and Martin Luther in the "religious" section, while chucking the Tao Te Ching next to Tony Robbins and Think and Grow Rich in the "self-help" section. Admittedly, it's not as casual a conversation topic as it was from 1998 to 2002 and from 2010 to 2013. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly object to the wikilinks to Preterism, etc. - I think it's a bit simplistic to connect that to whether the kingdom has been or is being established, etc. I think the paragraph is a good start, but it seems a bit weighted towards eschatology. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How about:

"Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God,(cite: Oxford Companion to the Bible p.649; found at Jesus in Christianity), and will judge the dead(cite:Introducing Christian Doctrine (2nd Edition) by Millard J. Erickson (Apr 1, 2001) ISBN 0801022509 pages 391-392; found at Kingdom of God (Christianity)) either before or after their resurrection;(cite: refs 6-10 at Christian mortalism) though some believe Jesus's role as savior has more existential or societal concerns than the afterlife,(cite: The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology By Millard J. Erickson, p. 95; found at Idealism (Christian eschatology)) and a few notable theologians have suggested that Jesus will bring about a Universal reconciliation.(cite: Richard Bauckham, "Universalism: a historical survey", Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47–54. ; found at Universal reconciliation)"

Would that work? Meant to include the universal reconciliation bit initially, but it got lost in the eschatology. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - I was forgetting this was a section on eschatology! So there is no problem with that weight, of course. But I like your second paragraph better. "Judge the dead" could be wikilinked to Last Judgment; there should be something about coming back, too. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how about:

"Most Christians believe Jesus enables humans to be reconciled to God,, and will judge the dead either before or after their bodily resurrection; (an event tied to the Second Coming of Jesus in Christian eschatology); though some believe Jesus's role as savior has more existential or societal concerns than the afterlife, and a few notable theologians have suggested that Jesus will bring about a universal reconciliation."

References

...? Note that instead of the purposed references from Christian mortalism, I used different ones as the first I found did not discuss the intermediate state Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Just one last quibble: can we get rid of the Idiots' Guide as a reference? StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'm not going to put it in myself unless others approve it, but I won't revert anyone else adding it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to work together like this, and I'm glad people agree that Jesus' eschatological role is notable. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

historical Jesus in the lead

Here is our current lead paragraph about the historical Jesus. It's pretty good, but I can imagine a more informative treatment. Before I jump in, I'd like to survey you other editors on how you see this paragraph. One question is whether it should really be second, or whether the Christian View paragraph should be second and this one third. The other question is open: how could we handle this material better? Thoughts?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi[19] from Galilee who preached his message orally,[20] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[21] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[22] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life. The widely accepted calendar era (abbreviated as "AD", sometimes alternatively referred to as "CE" in politically correct environments), counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus.

Leads are important and worthy of extra effort, and this lead of ours shows that it's already gotten a lot of good editing effort. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica article on historical Jesus. It represents the mainstream historical view, so it might help us in judging due weight while describing that view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My first issue is that the first clause is too weak. They not only agree that he existed but that he was baptized by John and crucified under Pontius Pilate. I would drop that first clause and just never bring up that he existed. Obviously he existed, and the Jesus-myth hypothesis is too fringe to warrant inclusion here, even in the negative (that it's wrong). Anyone mind if I cut that first line and start with "The quest for the historical Jesus..." Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The "crucifixion of Jesus" is a Christian POV. It's approved mainly by scholars from Christian background, and it is rejected firmly by scholars from Muslim background.

There is an obvious "selection bias" in the sources of the article. One example is the so-called "crucifixion of Jesus". While the majority of scholars within the Christian world have approved this Christian religious story, the majority of scholars in the Islamosphere have argued against the historical reliability of this Christian religious belief.

One would say: "Virtually all modern scholars from the Muslim world have argued against the historical reliability of this Christian religious belief."

The authors of the Global Arabic Encyclopedia which was edited by 3000 scholars from the Arab world have argued against the historical reliability of this Christian belief and considered it unauthentic. According to them, the "crucifixion of Jesus" is not mentioned in the "religious Jewish tradition [i.e Talmud]". According to them, the Jews have only heard about the "crucifixion of Jesus" from the Christian religious books.

• Note: You can download the Global Arabic Encyclopedia by clicking on this link: https://ia701500.us.archive.org/12/items/GlobalArabicEncyclopedia-2011/GlobalArabicEncyclopedia.zip

I know that it is impossible for a Muslim like me to reach consensus with anyone of you, since most of you are Christians or from Christian background and aren't inclined to be neutral or objective in any discussion about Jesus, Muhammad, Christianity or Islam, but I leave this comment here since my edit was reverted.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And be advised that future edits of that kind of talk pages will be also be reverted as per WP:NOTHERE and WP:SOAP. Claiming that all users who belong to a different race or religion "aren't inclined to be neutral" is downright ridiculous. At Wikipedia, there are good and helpful users from every religion and there are trolling disruptive users from any religion. Disqualifying anyone just for their background passes WP:NPA with flying colours and is entirely unsuitable.Jeppiz (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a whole series of articles about Jesus in Islam and they are linked in this article. People expect this article on Jesus to be about the Jesus in Christianity, not any other religion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? I just expect it to be about Jesus. Britmax (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Britmax has it. I do note that the content about the crucifixion is properly attributed to the gospels, but it is worthy of mention that the crucifixion is contested by Muslims.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree to a certain extent. Every scholar I've ever read, most of them non-Christians, hold the crucifixion as one of the very few undisputed facts of Jesus' life. If the Muslim opposition to it is religious, it definitely has a place in Jesus in Islam but I don't think we should qualify a sourceable fact with a religious opinion.Jeppiz (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article briefly notes, with attribution, purely religious perspectives, such as the blood and water pouring from Jesus's side and the crucifixion causing earthquakes. I would think a similar note that "Islamic texts hold that Jesus himself had been spirited away prior to the execution and that the figure crucified was either an illusion or a substitute placed there by God" would be warranted. One sentence with an appropriate link to Jesus in Islam would suffice.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, didn't mean to suggest it could be mentioned anywhere in the article. But the OP seems to want to challenge that the crucifixation took place, or making it out as only a Christian view. That is not the case. However, given that there already is a section on Islamic views of Jesus where we do mention that Muslims don't believe he was crucified, I'm not sure what we should add.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, my next argument was going to be then there should be a Jesus in Christianity article, but there is. Sooooo, yea this should be about Jesus and other viewpoints should be mentioned. The Islamic belief that he didn't die on the cross should be mentioned in the Islam section. Jesus's death is considered important by many and other viewpoints then biblical are also important. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The only people who deny that Jesus was crucified are:

1) Advocates of the Christ myth theory - who deny that Jesus existed at all

2) Muslims - who still admit that someone "mistakenly" believed to be Jesus was still crucified in Jesus's place

That's it. Belief that Jesus was not crucified is comparable to the belief that Jesus came back from the dead: a religious belief.

It is a historical fact that, if Jesus of Nazareth existed at all, Roman soldiers crucified someone that everyone at the time believed to be that individual. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It would make an interesting conversation over at that historicity of Jesus thing. Surely, if Christian scholars are able to unswervingly discard their religious notions, view the evidence and find that Jesus existed, Muslim scholars are just as capable of discarding their own religious beliefs and it's just a coincidence that Muslim scholars find that the evidence shows that Jesus wasn't crucified and Christian scholars find that the evidence shows that he was. Couldn't be a result of bias, just not possible.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Outside of Muslims, who affirms that a physical Jesus existed (so no Docetists or CMTers) but claims that the person crucified as Jesus of Nazareth was actually someone else? That bar's on par with "outside of Christians, does anyone think Jesus existed and was crucified?" Ian.thomson (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it a fact that Muslim scholars actually hold this view? The claim in the first post here seems unsupported. --Pete (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Pete, I would also question this. In any science, it's possible to find the odd academic who believe in creationism, or in the resurrection, or whatever aspect most mainstream scholars discard. That's why we have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The question is not if there is any Muslim scholar who disputes the crucifixion, as there no doubt is, but is that view beyond WP:FRINGE among Muslim scholars? And let's be clear here that an WP:RS scholar holds a PhD and publishes peer-reviewed research in their field, a scholar is not a "person with an opinion".Jeppiz (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by a "Muslim scholar". Obviously a Muslim theologian would say that the crucifixion of Jesus did not happen, but would not deny that a crucifixion took place. The Quran is clear that there was the appearance of a crucifixion, just that it was some sort of miraculous conjouring trick. In effect that's no different from saying that the bread really turns into Jesus' body in transubstantiation. It's a theological concept, but the appearence is de facto the same as reality outside of that. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing in my first post here that the Islamic beliefs should be mentioned in the article as historical facts. I wasn't presenting what the Islamic beliefs are in my first post. I was actually presenting what the majority of scholars and historians from the Muslim world agree about. I cited the Global Arabic Encyclopedia's article about Jesus in order to backup my argument, and it is indeed a most academic source on the topic. It argues against the historical reliability of the crucifixion and says that the Jews have only heard about the crucifixion of Jesus from Christians.

The issue here is that the article is selecting the opinions of several scholars (mainly from Christian or ex-Christian background) and presenting them as undisputable facts. The opinion of [[James Dunn], for example, which is cited in the infobox as absolute truth: "the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus command almost universal assent" is nothing but a personal opinion [a claim] of James Dunn, and I have cited the Global Arabic Encyclopedia's article in order to prove that it isn't true that the story of the crucifixion is universally approved.

It's not a disputable issue that the majority of scholars from the Muslim world would argue against the historical reliability of the crucifixion, and it is also not a disputable issue that the majority of scholars from the Christian world would argue in the favor of the historical reliability of the crucifixion. That is why the "crucifixion of Jesus" is a disputable issue, and that is the thing that can't be disputed.

Please pay attention to the following question in particular:

1. How many reliable historical sources from the first half of the first century state that a man named Jesus, son of a woman named Mary, was crucified somewhere in the Levant?
2. If you know such a source, then please mention it. Otherwise, the "crucifixion of Jesus" is not a historical fact, but a matter of dispute among variable scholars.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The question is utterly irrelevant, as it implies that you make yourself the judge of the entire field of historical research to disqualify the methods historians use. There are almost no historical facts from Antiquity for which we have sources dating to less than 20 years of when they took place.

2. Sorry, but this utterly ridiculous. There is a large scholarly consensus about this, and whether you think that the scholars use the right methods or not is irrelevant. There are creationists who dismiss the methods of scholars as well, and we don't give any space for that either.

3. Could I encourage you to use less personal arguments and more sources if this discussion is to advance? As for Global Arabic Encyclopedia, I have never heard about it and there's no Wikipedia article for it, contrary to most serious Encyclopaedias. That does not mean it could not be WP:RS, but it's reliability has not yet been established in this discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Global Arabic Encyclopedia has an official website for it: click here. It says in it that: "About 3000 scholars and specialists from the East and the West have contributed the basis for the work in addition to 1,000 institutions, researchers, writers, university staff members, scientific editors, technicians, proofreaders and consultants from different parts of the Arab and Islamic world." There is also an online version of it that is still under the construction: click here.

Here you can read a general description of the Global Arabic Encyclopedia given by a natural party: Encyclopedias about Muslim Civilisations, Aptin Khanbaghi, 2009, ISBN 978 0 7486 3970 0 p 16.

Now, all what you can do is to click on the link I offered in the first post, download the encyclopedia, and then ask an authoritative translator to translate the article of Jesus for you. You will find it saying what I told you in the pervious posts.

Now I understand that citing sources from other languages could cause irritation for some of you, but this is the only way to present the consensus of scholars from the Arabic world, since those scholars from the Arab world publish their works in Arabic only.

Here is an online checkable source, not published by Muslim scholars, but it acknowledges the issue that "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion of Jesus" Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions -- The Second Princeton ... By James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny

I think this is quite enough to disqualify the claim of James Dunn who is by the way a Christian preacher [i.e. a theologian], not an independent scholar. In addition, he didn't explain in his book on what basis he reached to his conclusion that the "crucifixion of Jesus command almost universal assent". He didn't cite any statistics of any kind to support his claim. All what he did is that he pushed a personal uncited POV and then moved on.

Virtually, not all scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross.

The Jewish religious tradition doesn't maintain that Jesus was "crucified", but that he was "stoned", so can we say that the cause of death is "stoning" instead of "crucifixion"?! here is a source for this: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, By Robert Van Voorst, 2000, ISBN 0-8028-4368-9, p 116

I would suggest to say that the cause of death is "stoning according to the Jewish religious tradition" per the source given above, "crucifixion according to the Christian religious beliefs".

Here is another source for "stoning of Jesus": Fifty Synagogue Seminars, By Jeremy Hugh Baron, ISBN 978-0-7618-5107-3, 2010, p 64

Here is another source which says that "Jesus was stoned": A Manual of Christian Evidence: Containing as an Antidote to Current ...By John Relly Beard..

Another source here also: Jesus was stoned to death by Robert Sheaffer.

Finally, the Global Arabic Encyclopedia' article says that the "crucifixion of Jesus" is not mentioned in the Jewish religious tradition, and it seems that the previous sources have supported this claim.

You can find a lot of other sources as well: click here--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That Jesus was not crucified is a traditional belief in Islam, and will be referenced in many works. Like Jewish traditions on the point, this originates from several centuries after the relevant time, far later than Christian traditions and scripture. The matter is purely peripheral to Jewish religious beliefs, and modern Jewish scholarship generally does not endorse these late antique and medieval polemical positions. The issue is well-covered in other articles (such as Yeshu and Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Islam), and does not belong here. See also Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts_and_references for early non-Christian references to the crucifixion.Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod and note in passing that some of the sources given above are not close to being WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The Telegraph article is about one guy - which does not counter "virtually all," and his mention of the Stauros only brings up Jehovah's Witnesses arguments that Jesus was crucified by being nailed to a pole instead of .

The Voorst ref says that Yeshu Ben Stada (who was a different individual) was stoned, and was only later identified with Jesus. The other ref you bring up does not end on the stoning, and still deals with the individual that your own references say was not Jesus.

Robert Sheaffer is not an authority on the ancient near east, and is about as appropriate to quote on the origins of Christianity as Christopher Hitchens is on Islam.

Human Chlorophyll, that you completely distort those claims brings up questions of incompetence or outright dishonesty on your part. It's obvious that you are only looking for sources that you can misuse to push your agenda, instead of just looking at as many sources available and checking as many tertiary sources as possible to discover the academic consensus.

The stoning of Jesus search is flawed -- you're just as likely to find reference to this verse and to Ben Stada as you are to supposed methods of execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)