From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q 1
What should this article be named?

A: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that Jesus, rather than Jesus Christ, is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q 2
Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q 3
Did Jesus exist?

A: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q 3a
Is "virtually all scholars" a term that can be used in Wikipedia?

A: The issue was discussed on the talk page:

  • The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.
Q 3b
What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

A: Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q 3c
What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

A: The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

  • Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
  • Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Finkelstein and Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q 3d
Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

A: The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q 3e
Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q 4
Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (ISBN: 978-0-06-177818-6, page 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are 3 aspects to this question:

  • Some of the most respected late 20th century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus, e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, etc. are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book "Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 0800698010 page 132). While much of the older research in the 1950-1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field "The Historical Jesus in Context by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., John Dominic Crossan 2006 ISBN 0691009929" is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the #1 Bestseller Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.
  • Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based - although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book "Can we Trust the New Testament", pages 49-50. While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
  • Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.
Q 5
Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

  • Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
  • A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" - some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
  • More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q 6
Why is the info box so brief?

A: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q 6a
Was Jesus Jewish?

A: Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.

Q 6b
Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?

A: The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q 7
Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years, e.g. see the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the Nov 2010 discussion, etc. One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q 8
Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and hyper-links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q 9
What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Featured article Jesus 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
May 3, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept
October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved
July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
May 5, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
May 28, 2013 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
August 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Date of death[edit]

Surprisingly, there is no section called "Death of Jesus" or similar in the article. The more religious-based #Life and teachings section has a subsection #Crucifixion and entombment which is entirely appropriate there, but which does not discuss the date of death directly. This makes sense the framework of the religious orientation of that section, where the date has lesser importance. However, the following major section #Historical views also does not discuss the date of Jesus' death directly. The subsection #Passover and crucifixion discusses it indirectly. The closest one can come in that section to learning the date of death, is that he died shortly after Passover, but even that is not stated unambiguously.

It seems to me the date of Jesus' death needs its own subsection to discuss. (And maybe a FAQ entry.) For one thing, as I recall from reading Bart Ehrman (forget which one, maybe Misquoting Jesus), that depending on which gospel you trust, it's not clear whether he died on a Friday or a Saturday. Secondly, for other reasons, it's not clear whether he was 30 or 33, and I can't remember if this is because of uncertainty of his birth year, or death year. All of this should be laid out somewhere in a subsection of #Historical views. (I can probably locate the Ehrman citation, if no one else has it.) Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? When did he die? Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
30 or 33. StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


According to current historical records Herod died in 4 bc. The slaughter of the innocents took place 2 years before. Therefore the accepted date of Jesus birth is around 6 bc not 4 bc. Tbhighland (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Massacre of the Innocents is a dubious event, recorded only in the Gospel of Matthew. "The massacre is reported only in the Gospel of Matthew (2:16) and other later Christian writings likely based on that gospel. The Roman Jewish historian Josephus does not mention it in his history, Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 AD), which reports many of Herod's misdeeds, including murdering three of his own sons,<ref>Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV, his mother-in-law (Antiquities 15:247–251; LCL 8:117–119), and his second wife (Antiquities 15:222–236; LCL 8:107–113)." Its historicity is questionable, and the two contradictory accounts of the Nativity of Jesus have one key difference: No involvement of Herod the Great in the account of the Gospel of Luke.

As usual, you can't trust what the Gospels are saying. The historical Jesus was likely neither born in Bethlehem, nor was even connected to the town. "According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin." Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all?[edit]

Nonsensical suggestion that goes nowhere.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically." Dubious, overly broad assertion. Historical Jesus Christ is very much in doubt.AaronCBurke (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not he existed, the evidence that historians think he existed is compelling. Do you have evidence otherwise? See the FAQ Q3 at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This mutual admiration society is beneath my notice.AaronCBurke (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mutual admiration society"--nonsense from a troll. Closing thread.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus himself is a god?[edit]

were this two the same?. Hansonjay (t@lk) 06:06, 21 May 2018 (utc)

The talk page is not a forum, it is for talking about possible improvements for the article.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hansonjay: Jesus is traditionally identified in orthodox theology as God the Son, one of the three hypostases ("persons") of the Trinity. I would recommend reading the article God in Christianity for further information. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus is not only 2 at the same time he is 3 the father the son and the holy spirit and yes he is a God (with a capital g) Meldoythemush (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jewish vs Judean[edit]

In my opinion, the constant use of the term Jewish should be replaced with the term Judean as there is a large difference between what we call Jews and Judaism today and the Judeans of the Bible. In addition, the use of the term rabbi is also extremely misleading and, in its context in the bible, simply sounds as if it is a synonym for teacher, rather than the Jewish religious leaders we call rabbis today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talkcontribs) 17:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we stick to professionally-published mainstream academic sources -- not to editor opinion (or even original research). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: this is an editor who replaced "antisemitic" with the white separatist term "counter-semitic"[1] and is editwarring at an article to remove categories relating to Jews[2] instead of adding a source which shows Funk meets the categories.[3] There are more, see his contributions.[4]. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
And right or wrong, I wonder how he ended up at Talk:Donát Bánki? You get one guess. And there's [5] - and more, the list goes on. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so he's WP:NOTHERE. I'm blocking then. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018[edit]

initial request answered Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please change: After crucifixion

The Resurrection of Christ from a 16th-century copy of La Passion de Nostre Seigneur After Jesus' death, his followers said he rose from the dead, although exact details of their experiences are unclear. Some of those who claimed to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection later died for their belief, which indicates that their beliefs were likely genuine

to remove: , which indicates that their beliefs were likely genuine

because this is a dubious assertion without and causative evidence to support it Rasputinmd (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I did it while you were responding. I don't see how the sentence makes any sense. How does the fact that some followers died suggest he was resurected? In any case, it's just an opinion, and this article isn't about CHristianity. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I attempted to write a replacement that, I believe, captures the original intent of this statement while making it objective. I don't feel particularly strongly about this though, so feel free to revert if you still don't like it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We summarize sources here. Sanders is cited there, and Sanders doesn't discuss martyrdom as being related to the sincerity or genuine-ness of their beliefs, that i could find. There is no page number cited. That whole bit appears to be somebody's editorializing.Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disciples' faith and the resurrection[edit]

Thread has degenerated into general discussion of the topic. Closing this and opening new subsection below Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Noting - without that bit, the paragraph reads perfectly: After Jesus' death, his followers said he rose from the dead, although exact details of their experiences are unclear. According to Sanders, the Gospel reports contradict each other, which, according to him, suggests competition among those claiming to have seen him first rather than deliberate fraud.(sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=276–81), That bit was obviously plopped in after the first sentence in some sort of effort at apologia. Which we don't do here. I am betting that is what happened. Will go diff hunting. Jytdog (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • yep, see this version (which had a ref after the 1st sentence) from Nov 2015. The content that got stuck in the middle was first added to the page in this diff in Dec 2015 in a diffrerent place, and a few diffs later was moved to follow the first sentence, but in front of the ref. Horrible editing. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

[[6]] this contains the exact wording of Sanders, who said this statement as a credentialed scholar. The content does not exclude plausibilites of hallucination or delusion, so no problem.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:33, 27 May 218 (UTC)

As we can see from the first diff Jytdog provided, it was first added by Jonathan Tweet, an obvious atheist-meaning for the first time it was added, it was not out of a desire for apologetics(perhaps the sloppy moving is, but that is besides the point). This gives weight to my argument.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So I have Sanders. It is the version linked in the citation, which google books says published in 1995 and has isbn 9780141928227 (which is the same isbn cited). Interestingly the citation itself, has the date 1993. Which is just odd and doesn't match the link or the isbn. Anyway, in the version I have, pp 279-80 is a discussion of Jesus and the wicked (at the end of the chapter "Contention and Opposition in Galilee" - -jesus hanging out with the wicked was part of his contentiousness.) I searched my book for the phrase from the book linked above, and that phrase does appear on p 333, in a chapter unsurprisingly called "Epilogue: The Resurrection" Maybe the 1993 edition was organized differently; maybe Sean McDowell got the page wrong. Who knows. But I am not a "liar" as claimed here; you cannot go back and strike edit notes, unfortunately.
So OK, this is sourced. It still does not belong where it is - I showed above that it was plopped, sloppily, into the middle of the flow of the thought of the first two sentences. Phrasing it more as McDowell does, would make it less apologia-esque as well. I am open to suggestions for phrasing and location. To which I will respond tomorrow, after I wake up. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Licona is WP:FRINGE: historians cannot prove miracles, period.
Wills, Garry (10 March 2015). The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-698-15765-1. (Candida Moss marshals the historical evidence to prove that "we simply don't know how any of the apostles died, much less whether they were martyred.")6  Citing Moss, Candida (5 March 2013). The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. HarperCollins. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-06-210454-0.  Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor do we have reliable accounts from later times. What we have are legends, about some of the apostles – chiefly Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, and John. But the apocryphal Acts that tell their stories are indeed highly apocryphal.

— Bart D. Ehrman, "Were the Disciples Martyred for Believing the Resurrection? A Blast From the Past",
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Licona is not "fringe". He is in fact, a [friend of and respected as a historian by Bart Ehrman, whom you cited here as a reliable source.]It is just that proving miracles lie outside the field of history-this does not make a historian who argues for them to their specific demographic "fringe". You don't seem to understand how academic agnosticism works;I will grearly appreciate it if you stop the misinformation, period. Also, you doln't seem to get what I am saying: This is not exclusively and necessarily an argument for the resurrection as it first added here by a knowledgeable-on-the-topic atheist, and does not exclude possibilities for hallucination or delusion. How we even got to discussing "proving miracles" is ridiculous.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Licona says he can prove the resurrection, historically. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Using the historical method is not the same as posting your beliefs as objective history. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk)11:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Neither version adequately portrays the century-old theological controversy surrounding the credibility of the Gospel ressurection narrative, which is ridden with discrepancies. See [7] That the apostles upheld their convictions in spite of suffering and death is only a minor argument of several that have been brought forward to support the credibility of their narrative. -- (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Which supported their narrative no more than that Jim Jones's followers upheld their convictions and drank the poison Kool-Aid. Would they have died for a lie? Yes, yes they did. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Unreliable source, and as I said before, not what is being talked about. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
So, we’re saying that assuming the gospels (known for contradiction, passed down, and translated) accurately portrayed events from 2,000 years ago, and assuming devote followers of a nascent philosophy were in a rational state of mind, and that a belief in resurrection may have resulted in their deaths, then this suggests that they would have honestly believed they saw the resurrection. And, that they believed this so strongly further suggests it actually occurred. Seems mighty thin for inclusion in a bio. Maybe in an article on theological arguments of Christianity. O3000 (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Suppose an Ancient document would be discovered stating that Antiochus Epiphanes was raised from the dead and appeared to several thousand people. Would that constitute historical evidence of Antiochus's resurrection? Obviously not, so the case of Jesus is just special pleading and WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, religious pseudohistory, even according to the article you linked to, is The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and not attempting to prove a miracle to a Christian audience (the Christian audience means that he is not passing it as historical truth). Funny how you are somehow better at judging a fringe historian than Bart Ehrman is.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that everyone here is talking about whether or not Jesus was actually resurrected because that is not what the statement that was removed from the article was saying. As far as I can tell from reading it, it was only saying that his followers genuinely believed he was resurrected, which is not an apologetic claim and is something that most scholars of early Christianity agree on. Sanders, as has already been mentioned, devotes a whole chapter of his book The Historical Figure of Jesus to a historical analysis of the resurrection. In the original book, which was genuinely published in 1993 (meaning Jytdog is definitely working with a later reprint of it which may not have the same pages numbers), this discussion is found on pages 276 through 281. In the course of this discussion, Sanders writes, "I do not regard deliberate fraud as a worthwhile explanation. Many of these people in these lists were to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the risen Lord, and several of them would die for their cause. Moreover, a calculated deception should have produced greater unanimity. Instead, there seem to have been competitors: 'I saw him first!' 'No! I did!' Paul's tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some people to suggest that Jesus's followers suffered mass hysteria, but mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions." Sanders ultimately concludes, "That Jesus's followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was behind those experiences I do not know." In other words, he says that the disciples definitely thought he was resurrected, but that he does not know whether those beliefs were correct. [What Sanders means when he says "resurrection experiences" is "experiences in which they thought they saw the risen Jesus," not "experiences in which they definitely really saw him."]

I shall further elucidate Sanders's reasoning here because there seems to be confusion over it: He is not saying that the fact that some of those who thought they saw the risen Jesus later died for that belief in any way proves that the belief was true, but rather he is only saying that it indicates that the belief was sincere. In other words, that they genuinely thought it was true. Now, Tgeorgescu cites Candida Moss, who argues that "we simply don't know how any of the apostles died, much less whether they were martyred." For the most part, Moss is correct, but we do, in fact, know for certain that Jesus's brother James (who was not officially one of the twelve apostles) was stoned to death under the orders of the High Priest Ananus, since this event is described by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews Book XX, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1. Josephus was probably in the city of Jerusalem at the time and may have even witnessed the event himself; furthermore, he mentions it off-the-cuff in the context of Ananus's removal from the office of High Priest, so there is every reason to believe his account is disinterested and accurate. We also have a strong early tradition, referenced as early as John 21:18-19, supporting the possibility that Peter may have also been martyred in some form or another. There probably is not enough evidence to support the idea that Peter was really crucified on an upside-down cross in Rome under the Emperor Nero, but it is not unreasonable that he may have been executed. (See pages 84-86 of Ehrman's 2006 book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Early Followers of Jesus in History and Legend for discussion of this tradition.) Paul lists both James and Peter as witnesses to the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which means we have at least one, probably two, disciples who are known to have claimed to have seen the risen Jesus and later died for that belief. Then, we also have Paul himself, who describes his vision of Jesus in Galatians 1:11-24 and references his imprisonment in his own Letter to Philemon. We do not really know if Paul was executed as the pseudepigraphical Second Letter to Timothy tells us, but the fact that he was willing to suffer imprisonment clearly shows that his beliefs were sincere. Once again, this does not mean that those beliefs were necessarily correct, only that he really held them.

Bart D. Ehrman, whom Tgeorgescu has already quoted, devotes two whole chapters of his 2014 book How Jesus Became God to a discussion of what we can and cannot know about the resurrection historically, spanning from page 129 to page 210. The discussion is very lengthy and in-depth, so I cannot quote any small part of it here and still do it justice, but Ehrman marshals a great deal of evidence and research, including psychological work dealing with "bereavement visions," in which people sense that a person they knew very well that has recently died is still with them and modern people who have claimed to have seen Jesus or the Virgin Mary. He ultimately concludes that the disciples really thought Jesus had risen from the dead, but that this belief was based on misunderstanding, hallucination, or some kind of visionary experiences, probably induced by their shared sense of grief. He also says that we cannot really know for certain what caused those experiences, only that people experienced them. In other words, he comes to mostly the same conclusion as Sanders.

Maurice Casey, another major biblical scholar, who, like Ehrman, is not a Christian, writes on page 487 of his 2010 book Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching that "...the accounts of the Resurrection appearances in the Four Gospels contain very little information that is literally true. There is some literal truth behind the accounts of Mark and Matthew. Jesus's male followers, having fled from the Garden of Gethsemane, kept out of the way and soon returned to Galilee. There some of them had experiences which they interpreted as appearances of the risen Jesus." Thus, like the others, Casey concludes that at least some of Jesus's followers genuinely thought he was resurrected, although he goes on to state that at least a few of them apparently refused to believe this, because Matthew 28:7 states that "some doubted": "This must be true, for neither Matthew nor the tradition before him would have made it up. It was desperately unforgettable, because some of the inner group of the Twelve did not believe in Jesus's Resurrection, and they had nothing to do with the formation of the early churches or the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles." Ehrman, it should be noted, also mentions this fact in his discussion and also accepts it as historically true. Both of them, however, agree that at least some of the disciples genuinely believed that their leader had been raised from the dead.

My conclusion, therefore, in light of what appears to be an overwhelming consensus that at least some of the disciples really thought that Jesus was raised from the dead, is that the removed statement should be restored to the article, but reworded to avoid making it seem as though it is actually claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead, which, of course, is something that we cannot know historically. It seems the crucial point of confusion here is the word "genuine," which I think the original person who wrote this statement probably intended to mean "sincere" or "genuinely felt," but which people in this discussion are wrongly interpreting to mean "vindicated" or "factually accurate." I apologize for the overwhelming length of what I have written here, but I felt all this was necessary to explain and clarify my point and I did not realize how long this would be until I was finished. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

arbitrary break[edit]

there is no consensus to add anything along these lines. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A bunch of the discussion above, is general discussion of the topic, which is not ok per WP:NOTFORUM, not to mention unproductive, and I have closed it. Would people who would like some content about this please:

  • a) propose specific content, with specific sourcing
  • b) state precisely where they would like it to be placed?

Please keep discussion focused on specific content, sourcing for it, and where it goes. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Katolophyromai may have a good argument for including this in an article on Christianity. But, not convinced his bio should contain angels on a pin arguments. Which is to say it belongs elsewhere, not in this article. O3000 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
No change. I'll go with not restoring [8]. The article is fine now. Controversial views are unneeded. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Objective3000: Considering that the resurrection is discussed in virtually every biography of Jesus ever written and Ehrman says that belief in Jesus's resurrection was one of the main factors that distinguished Jesus from the many other apocalyptic Jewish preachers who lived during the same time period, the sincerity of the disciples' belief in his resurrection is clearly an inherent issue of Jesus's life. It is not an "angels on a pin" argument at all, but one that is necessary for us to address. @Tgeorgescu: I would not consider the fact that Jesus's followers sincerely thought he was resurrected to be a "controversial view" at all; all the scholarly sources I have found agree that they did and I have yet to find any scholarly sources arguing that they did not sincerely think he was resurrected. Furthermore, even if you regard this as controversial, it is still an inherent issue that needs to be addressed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that it would be controversial that they believed that. I think that right now the article does enough to acknowledge such view. So there is no need for "they died for their faith", which is controversial. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Non-trinitarian Christian religions, and the one-quarter of the world population that is Islamic believe he was a prophet, but not divine. To me, an article on Christianity is better location for controversial aspects of divinity. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Objective3000: The resurrection has very little to do with Jesus's divinity and, on its own, it certainly does not in any way imply that Jesus was necessarily divine. As Ehrman and plenty of other scholars clearly state, the earliest Christians probably did not believe that Jesus was divine, a fact which is supported by how, in all the writings of Paul and in the three Synoptic Gospels, our earliest and most reliable accounts of Jesus's life, there is no point where Jesus is ever claimed to be God incarnate - not even once. Such claims are only found in the later Gospel of John and Epistle to the Hebrews. Paul and the Synoptics, however, all clearly refer to Jesus's resurrection on numerous occasions, and Paul even names it as the most fundamental belief of the Christian faith. Belief in the resurrection came long before belief in Jesus's divinity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I mean After Jesus' death, his followers said he rose from the dead, although exact details of their experiences are unclear. is enough, there no need for a controversial argument being added to it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. O3000 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

proposal 1[edit]

The fact that some early Christians died for their beliefs about Jesus' actions, death, and resurrection, has been used in popular apologia for Christianity and by some scholars to justify either that their beliefs were sincere or that these events actually happened; these are two distinct claims. Some martyrdom narratives are less reliable than others.

  • This could go as a second sentence in the lead of Jesus#Historicity_of_events, right after "Scholars have reached a limited consensus on the basics of Jesus' life."

--Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal 1[edit]

Sorry about the mess of diffs. Something was breaking the formatting. In any case, please discuss here Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree with the general sentiment, but I do not agree with the wording at all. The way this is worded makes it sound as though it is just as likely that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected as it is that he really was resurrected, which is not the case at all. As far as I can, most scholars, if not the vast majority of them, seem to widely accept that Jesus's disciples genuinely believed he was resurrected, but very few secular historians would accept the claim that he really was. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually the proposed content doesn't make any claims about reality. It describes arguments made by some apologists and scholars. That's all it does. With respect to the last bit, that could be more clear, I agree. In any case, please feel free to proliferate proposals -- I was hinting at that with "proposal 1. Or suggest an amendment here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: The phrase "that these events actually happened" is clearly referring to claims that he was really resurrected and the fact that this statement is presented alongside and in parallel wording with the statement that their beliefs were genuine implies that both possibilities are seen as equally probable. Furthermore, presenting apologists and scholars together makes it sound as though they belong in the same category. I see no reason to include mention of the apologists' claims about the resurrection here. It is better to just stick with what scholars say on the subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I already understood that and said that I understood that. It is just matter of writing - please offer an amendment or a proposal of your own, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That people who "experienced" the resurrection of Jesus died for their faith is controversial/lacking historical evidence. It is plausible that James, the brother of Jesus died because of his position. Whether Peter was executed for being a Christian instead of causing uproar or advocating sedition cannot be known. Romans in the beginning did not understand that Christianity is different from Judaism, so they had little reason to persecute Christians for being Christians. As Ehrman states in his TTC courses and Moss agrees, for most of the first 300-400 years of Christianity it wasn't illegal to be a Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu the proposed content says nothing about "experiences". It says "beliefs". It also says "some" Christians died for their beliefs, and makes it clear that some martyrdom narratives are less reliable Please respond to the actual proposal. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
My view is that it would unduly legitimize a controversial claim. I don't disagree that apologists have this view, I don't agree that it is a mainstream scholarly view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
When you say "it", it is not clear what which of the four claims you think is FRINGEy. (the proposed content mentions two groups - apologists and scholars and two claims - sincerity of beliefs, and historicity. So four claims of "X says Y." Which one(s) of the four? Also, this is hard question, but what sources support your view that about "not mainstream"? Please try to avoid making arguments based on personal views. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't deny sincerity of beliefs. I deny that it is an established fact of history that earliest Christians died for their faith. Apologists state that it would be a fact of history. I have quoted above Ehrman, who says that the argument "Christ was really resurrected because the witnesses of the resurrection died for the faith" is a weak argument because there is no evidence that earliest Christians died for their faith. Moss agrees with this lack of evidence (see the quotes I offered above). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I have the Moss book. In the version I have, page 136 is a page of footnotes to the introduction and does not say that there were no early Christian martyrs. I do not see anywhere, were Moss says that were no martyrs. Please provide more context so I can find it. (Moss is making an argument in the book that throughout the history of christianity there have been many MANY unsubstantiated stories of martyrdom and these stories are being used today among some Christians to depict a world where Christians are under threat. That is a fine argument. But it does not require denying all martrydom and I doubt that a scholar as qualified as Moss would make such a claim. But I look forward to more description of the part of the book you are citing.) Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
She does not prove a negative. She states that there is (almost) no evidence for the apostles being martyred. Ehrman concedes about James. About Stephen he stated that Stephen was not reported as a witness to the resurrection, nor was Stephen a disciple. Some read the Bible as saying that Peter was martyred. Ehrman states that the Bible does not talk much about the lives of the twelve apostles, much less of their deaths. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
She doesn't have to prove a negative; her goal is only to say that the stories about then are unreliable and are being pushed way too hard today. You are ironically doing what she warns against, pushing it too hard the other way. If you want to argue that there were no Christian martyrs then you need to bring a source that says that. If you are not arguing that there were no Christian martrys, then you are not responding to the actual proposal, and I will again ask you to focus on actual content. Your objection is, as of now, not based on sources and I will not be replying in this thread to you further, until you start to use this talk page appropriately. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What she wrote is "we simply don't know how any of the apostles died, much less whether they were martyred." That's what I was saying. I did not say that there were no early Christians martyred (since early Christians existed for 200-300 years). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The content does not say "apostles". See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

proposal 2[edit]

Some early Christians died for their beliefs about Jesus' actions, death, and resurrection. Some martyrdom narratives from the early Church are less reliable than others and many cannot be verified.

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal 2[edit]

If we cannot find a way to relate martyrdoms and historicity (and I am not sure we will), then we can put this in the Early church section. There is no need to mention "sincerity of beliefs" as that is incorporated in "died for their beliefs". Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree that there were at least some early Christians who died for their beliefs, especially when martyrdom had become popular and people sought martyrdom was a way of receiving great rewards in heavens. "Early Christians" do not necessarily mean the initial group of Christians who claimed that they saw Jesus resurrected. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The content, again, says nothing about "seeing" or "experiences". Again, see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support for either proposals[edit]

So far no one has expressed support for either proposal. We can't reach a consensus if keep going this way. Let's put our opinions below so we may reach a consensus.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What people have said, is that nothing along these lines belongs in this page. I am OK with that. I just wanted to put out there what kind of content might work, and where. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Other proposals here[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Knowing and thinking[edit]

This request violates the Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit: Christians did not believe Jesus is Christ they knew and we still do Meldoythemush (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surface-waterwalking or swimming with style?[edit]

The NHK World showed an updated form of mizugumo. It's not designed for surface-waterwalking, neither is useful enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:821E:7800:F93C:28ED:282B:C51B (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not relevant, unless you have a specific change you would like to propose we make to the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The founder of western civilization[edit]

tl;dr: It was me. I got this time machine, went back in time and smoked a few joints with some swarthy guys, started talking philosophy (as one does when smoking a few joints) and BOOM! Western Civilization. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the current edit warring going on about the founder of western civilization, the one thing I would hope everyone can agree on, is that it wasn't just one person. If you had to pick three, Alexander the Great is clearly one of them, and numerous ancient accounts of his exploits survive. Socrates might be a contender, except that nobody ever would have heard of Socrates (who didn't write at all) were it not for Plato. Similarly, most historians would agree that no one would ever have heard of Jesus, were it not for Paul of Tarsus. So, Alexander, Plato, and Paul get my vote for the top three. But if I got another pick, I'd add Themistocles, who saved western democracy from extinction when it was only 27 years old. Not sure who I'd go with for #5; maybe Constantine. Mathglot (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"the" does not necessary mean "one", it could be something particular ("The Colloseum does not mean there is only one colloseum for example) An example is here from one of the sources:"." Notice that Jesus is one of two, but is stll THE foundation of Western civilization. And "no one would ever have heard of Jesus, were it not for Paul of Tarsus" has no relevance to whether he is a particular founder or not.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ScepticismOfPopularisation: First of all, the use if the definitive article in this instance clearly implies that he is the one and only "founder of Western civilization," because there is nothing in the sentence you wrote that would indicate otherwise. If you had wanted it to be read that he was one of several founders, then you should have either written that he is "a founder of western civilization" or "along with Socrates, Plato, and others, he is the/a [whichever you prefer] founder of western civilization." Just because a definitive article does not always imply singularity does not alleviate the fact that it does in this instance. Secondly, very few modern historians would subscribe to the outdated notion that Western Civilization is the product of a few "great men" because (1) immeasurably many "great men" have contributed to it over the course of its 3,000-or-so-year history and (2) because all "great men" (even Socrates, Plato, and Jesus) are products of the societies in which they live. If you want to talk about "founders" of Western Civilization, then you really have the name whole societies: the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Jews, the Romans, the Germans, etc. It is quite a long list, actually. We should not unduely promote a single, rather outdated opinion in the first paragraph of the lead. Finally, the first paragraph should explain basically the most intrinsic aspects of the person, what everyone thinks of when they think of Jesus. Not many people immediately think, "Oh, yeah, the founder of Western Civilization!" They more likely think, "Oh, yeah, Jewish guy. Told a lot of stories about religion and ethics. Christians say he was God," which is more-or-less what the current lead describes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1. Then I will use "a particular founder" instead (which was actually the original wording I put in until HiLo challenged it for nonsensical reasons; if you check the edit history you will see that2. Not "outdated", one source is from 2002. Please provide a source for your claim, and even hen "outdated" would still be an overgeneralization. 3. This article is not about Jesus in Christianity", this article is about Jesus in Christianity plus Jesus in scholarship; "Oh, yeah, the founder of Western Civilization!" is what most scholars think of when they think of Jesus.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ScepticismOfPopularisation: Umm... No. I have read an exhuberant number of scholarly books about the historical Jesus and interestingly not a single one of them that I can recall even mentions anything about him being the "founder of Western Civilization." Certainly, that is not the first thing any scholar will think about him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but "particular founder" makes no sense at all. I am concerned about suggestions that the "civilisation" I am part of was created by someone we cannot even prove existed. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I agree that "particular founder" makes no sense. Regarding Jesus's historical existence, we have been through this time and time again on this talk page; he certainly existed, as any competent historian will tell you. Our strongest witness to Jesus's historicity are the eight authentic surviving epistle of the apostle Paul. In Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, written probably only around sixteen tears after Jesus's death, making it, by ancient standards, a very early testimony, he tells us that he has met Jesus's brother James and knows him personally. If Jesus was not a real person, his brother would certainly be the one to know. There are also dozens of references to Jesus as a recent historical figure throughout Paul's other letters, which Mythicists merely dismiss with ad hoc explanations. The gospels, while clearly embellished with legends and later fictions, also contain pieces of information that only make any sense at all if they are historical, such as the fact that Jesus came from Nazareth, Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist, and Jesus's crucifixion by the Romans. These are all things that early Christians would never have made up in a million years and would never have said unless they were historical facts that everyone else knew. These were all things that would have been utterly humiliating for any sane-minded person in the ancient world to say about their savior. Nazareth was a tiny, worthless cow-town, not at all a place for the Savior of the world to come from. Being baptized by someone else implied that the other person was spiritually superior to the one being baptized and also implied that the one being baptized had sins that needed to be forgiven. Crucifixion was seen as the absolute most degrading, disgraceful, horrifying way a person could possibly be executed, a punishment suitable only for slaves and the worst of criminals. In fact, the gospel-writers go to great lengths trying to explain these facts away. For further information, here is a link to my extremely abbreviated, but generally adequate, summary of the compelling evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus: [9]. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that all I said was that we could not prove Jesus existed. That simply has to be true for something that allegedly occurred 2000 years ago. I did not say that he did not exist. Yet you respond with absolute certainty that he did exist. That's the problem with religious stuff. You responded to my expression of doubt with absolute certainty. It's not logical. HiLo48 (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Proof is for math and whisky. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I did not "respond with absolute certainty"; I am saying that it is as certain as history can be. Sure, it is hypothetically possible that, maybe, if there was a massive, organized conspiracy in the first century to forge evidence of his existence, then maybe it is possible that he might not have existed, but that is such a wildly unlikely possibility given the surviving evidence that it simply is not a reasonable conclusion. We cannot empirically "prove" history, despite what crackpots may say, because that is inherently not how history works. We have to rely on evidence and documents that have survived from the past. We cannot travel back in time and meet Jesus (or any other historical figure) in person to confirm that he existed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
User:HiLo48, don't be disingenuous. Any sane person will take your comment as understood to be referring to the Christ myth theory, especially the context. It is also understood that Katolophyromai's statement came with the given assumption that it is talking about stuff we do know. It is also clear that you are an attention hog. And don't respond any further-your nonsensical claims do not contribute anything o the encyclopedia. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Please cite the grammatical rules I violated with "particular founder"-or are you just here to get attention? Your comment is absolute proof that you are biased in this regard; what you say here therefore doesn't count.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This might make for an interesting classroom discussion. I don't see any place for it in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will use "a" then. User:Objective3000 If you are talking about "existence", Katolophyromai was just replying to HiLo. If you are talking about this section: it is about improving the article-nothing more needs to be said. User:Katolophyromai, do you have any further concerns with adding the content as it is now, but with "a" instead of "the"?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk)
I see no historical consensus on any particular folk comprising the founders of Western civilization. O3000 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Please read the sources before you comment. what you said is patently not true, there is a general consensus that certain men founded western civilization, only with generally slightly differing emphasesScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Katolophyromai, perhaps you are right on it not being the first thing scholars think about, but it is still what makes him notable. I'm pretty sure the first paragraph contains what is most important about a person, now what is most "intrinsic". If the latter were the case then maybe we might be promoting misconceptions in the leads. I've responded to your concerns, do you have any further responses/concerns?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@ScepticismOfPopularisation: You have addressed my first criticism, but you have totally ignored my second and third. It is not reasonable to describe anyone as the "founder of Western Civilization," not even Jesus, despite the obvious influence he has had on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, you've provided two sources of one source, which is the musings of Nietzsche. This isn’t close to establishing anyone as a founder of Western Civilization, particularly a Middle Eastern guy from before the Dark Ages, 13 centuries before the Renaissance. O3000 (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
They're more than musings of Nietsche, they are commentaries on Nietsche. And don't speak like that when you don't even know that there is no such as a "Dark Ages". Here's a sample:"the dominant view of Jesus in this historicist Kultur-Protestantismus is that Jesus (usually along with Socrates) is the foundation of Western civilization". Quite a consensus, eh? I could bring in many more sources if you want.

Also, "Middle Eastern" is misleading-the Middle East he was born into, was not the present-day Middle East, even culturally. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Googling "founder of Western Civilization" and choosing images returns a bunch of hits for The School of Athens, but not a single image of Jesus. Indeed, (excluding the famous fresco) I've so far found Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, Christopher Columbus, Moses, Napoleon Bonaparte, Atilla the Hun, Some fictional black Roman Centurion that the political right went apeshit over a few years ago, Ghandi, Stefan "Could he possibly really be that dumb?" Molyneux, Caesar, Jordan "Duh, Imma give talks like I don't know shit about the subject I have a PhD in" Peterson, Malcolm X, a statue that might be Sargon of Akkad but probably isn't, Paul of Tarsus, Leonardo DaVinci, Alexander the great, a bunch of random teenagers posing in front of American monuments, a bunch of random tweens posing with margaritas, Adolph "Wargle blargle" Hitler, random folks from the middle ages through the early modern period and Edward Motherfucking Snowden, but not a single Jesus.
Think about the fact that I get (multiple) hits for Stefan Molyneux, who could find a feminist conspiracy in a Gor movie and would definitely make a youtube video whining about it, but not a single hit for Jesus. Clearly: the internet and my highly-academic-and-hardly-political google history both think that random idiots bemoaning the fall of Western Civilization (at the hands of women, naturally) for dat Youtube money is more relevant to the phrase "founder of Western Civilization" than Jesus is.
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is WP:UNDUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea." Mahatma Gandhi O3000 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I gave serious thought to giving Gandhi the "motherfucking" sobriquet, just for the sheer awesomeness of so many of his quotes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Your entire search is bollocks. please don't do "images", which is of course is not going to give you anything, but please use Books. And your comments here are suspiciously promotive and WP:FORUM-like. I have found endless SCHOLARLY sources citing Jesus as the foundation of Western civilization, which is far more indicative of what scholars think than your shitty Google image searchScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You've found "endless" scholarly sources, have you? I await your list with baited breath. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: Please refrain from throwing a hissy fit over people pointing out problems with your position; it'll save us the trouble of having to drag an admin in to block you. Thanks. ;D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1.I don't need to list them as one source already states this is the dominant position :that Jesus is one of the people listed among the Human foundations of the West.

I do have them all right, but listing them is tacky-I'll do it tomorrow, as I am a human being and need to sleep. (Also, why demand a list, when you could easily search them for your self?) Buh-bye.

And I sense that you are just doing this based on your personal feelings, given you tones and your promotive c and forum-like comments above.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@ScepticismOfPopularisation: See WP:BURDEN and WP:TERTIARY. You have one source that presented that author's opinion that Jesus is one of many founders within a specific context. If the founder bit was due, there would be tertiary sources documenting the argument over the "the vs A" nuance. "I've got it right now but I'm not going to show you" stops being believable after second grade. "I have a girlfriend but she goes to another school... in another country... and her modelling career takes her all around the world" at least displaces the proof. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants is getting at is that even Western Christians during the Renaissance, who could only think in terms of "Western Christian society = modern civilization (no distinction possible)" did not consider Jesus to be the founder (much less a founder) of their civilization.
What we have so far is one source that lists Jesus as one among many founders within a very specific context, and a quite significant absence of anything remotely similar elsewhere. If the statement is anywhere near due weight, then anyone would be able to find multiple sources not only arguing over whether or not Jesus was a founder, but arguing "the" vs "a," especially tertiary sources documenting the argument between the two. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Ian, that is because the comprehensive study of western civilization did not really exist during the Renaissance, but only began during the 19th century. Also, some stuff that is notable among scholars do not make it to pop knowledge or even many high school textbooks-like Hebraism, even though as important as Hellenism, far morepeople are aware of the significance of Hellenism than they are of Hebraism, and the same seems to be the case for tertiary sourcs. The inverse is also true of largely unscholarly ideas-like the Dark Ages; most people still believe that, and it is still emphasized strongly in tertiary works, despite scholarly scrutiny.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Western Christians during the middle ages and renaissance believed that Jesus was their highest king and that the guy on the local throne was Christ's political regent as the Pope was Christ's spiritual regent. To have even implied otherwise back then would have gotten one into a lot of trouble. The only reason for them to have not listed Jesus as the founder of their civilization would be if they looked around and said "ok, our philosophy ultimately traces back to Socrates or Zoroaster, our laws to Solon and Moses, our military to Alexander the Great, and our religion to Abraham..." Jesus was the central point but still not the founder. Also, the study of Hebraism by gentiles and discussion on Hebraism's influence on western culture begins in the Renaissance. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So far, the argument is "I have tons of sources, and you all need to take my word for it because I showed you one source". I think we all know what that argument's worth, so it appears that we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Agreed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, a lot of aspersions are being cast: look at both responses to me, as well as the section below. That's not indicative of a productive discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a silly discussion. There is no "founder of western civilisation." WP proceeds by consensus and it should be clear, ScepticismOfPopularisation that there is no consensus for your proposed edit. Please drop it.Smeat75 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson., much of your comment only affirms my points. s for the last line, Hebraism=?=Western civilization, and that is very obviously because of their religiosity rather than out of any secular comprehensive take on the subject. MjolnirPants, if a single reliable source says "this is the consensus", then that is enough and I said that, contrary to what you portrayed I said, if you need more I'll post them, but only tomorrow after I get up. I never said that you be take my word for it because of one source, so no that is not my argument. Smeat75, there is no consensus because the discussion isn't even really over yet. Responses like "We all know how much that argument's worth" is indicative of incompetence in preventing one's feelings from interfering. There is one thing all of you have in common, and it is that all of your liberals. Your responses lack scholarly argument and seem to trend towards dismissing this discussion despite it not being over. This is evidence of a slight liberal COI on your parts.

For now: Of course I will post my sources, but tomorrow after I wake up.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Show me a single, reliable source saying "The consensus of Historians is that Jesus is the founder of Western Civilization." You haven't even come close to that, and you've reacted to all criticism like a child; playing rhetorical games and trying to shift the focus to shit-talking me. The best advice for you is the first law of holes. Stop digging; you're not going anywhere but down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • this diff is the one we are discussing. I oppose this because:
a) it is not summarizing anything in the body
b) it is an overstatement
I also note that it has no support here except for its proposer. I suggest the proposer drop this. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
a)It is the most important thing,like "centralfigure ofChristianity'
b) Nothing is an overstatement if it is reliably sourced
Don't do that when I haven't even posted my sources yet. And please everyone, stop responding until I present my sources- I'm only responding right now because I delayed my usual sleeping hours.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"Like a child is a nice insult considering that you don't seem to understand that I am going to present all my sources TOMORROW Stop spewing rhetoric that you know is unnecessary. I f you respond further, everyone will see that you don't understand that the source will come TOMORROW. And please stop responding until I show my sources, per above. Any response like the one you posted above will be seen as offensive, and, truly, a personal attack- it is pretty clearly defamatory in nature, unlike my simple accusations of COI.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
How old are you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"Not in lead"[edit]

This suggestion seems to be more out of personal distaste/whims than out of any sincere suggestion to build an encyclopedia.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines exist for good reason, and departing from the requires good reason. WP:LEAD has been part of the manual of style for a very long time. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"central figure of Christianity" is not in the body either. Don't respond until the above discussion ensues, when I wake upScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
If I may offer some viewpoints from an outside perspective. 1. This discussion is devolving into personal attacks. I would recommend everyone just step back for a day or two. 2. As "the founder of Western civilization", or any adjacent statement, is inherently subjective, a WP article only can factually comment on whether certain scholars of note consider it to be true. In my opinion, only unanimous (or at least supermajority) factual information belongs in the lede of any article. 3. My recommendation is that any such statement does NOT belong in the lede, but, I think it could have a fit in the article. Perhaps expanding on the impact Jesus had on western civilization would fit into the "Historical views" section, or its own, entirely new, section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Any edit claiming Jesus as "the founder of Western civilization" would have to be backed by evidence that Western civilization did not exist prior to Jesus, and that would be hard to do since ancient Greece and ancient Rome are agreed to have been important elements of Western civilization.Smeat75 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.