Talk:Jesus in comparative mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Source Vetting and the Challenges of Writing an Article on a Living Religion[edit]

Right now this article does its damnedest to portray Christianity as an exceptional religion that somehow appeared in a vacuum, exactly followed it scriptural narrative and had no influence from the world around it. It stands an example of how writing about Christianity in the west presents unique challenges: How many of these "scholarly sources" are in fact defenses of the religion—in this case Christianity—that the author holds? How many of these sources are from Christian institutions? How many of these sources are actually form people working in relevant fields, such as mythology and folklore, rather than theology and religious studies? This is a real issue with this article as well as Christ myth theory, another mindfield of an article. Right now this article is a total mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You are bang on the money :bloodofox:! This article is a joke. Every single opening paragraph ends with a statement that "most historians disagree ..." or similar. The citations are rubbish; they state things like "surely everyone agrees ...", while others are just the opinion of a single person (e.g. Richard Carrier), who was obviously included purely on the grounds that he subscribes to the views presented in the article. The reasoning being that if Richard even agrees, then it must be true! Disaster.
Why do these editors insist on helping the critics of Wikipedia. If we cannot write (or let others write) objectively about things we don't necessarily agree with, then WP will never be taken seriously.
There should be one "Critics" section at the bottom of this article in which objections to the Jesus Myth theory could be placed, with their citations properly reviewed! Imagine if every WP article was like this one, and you were trying to read about the moon landing for example, and were constantly interrupted with advertising from critics. HappyGod (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing/Identical content[edit]

The passage about Porters stance ( is identical to one on the Gerald Massey Article ( This may constitute Close Paraphrasing as described in the wikipedia guidelines, although it is not paraphrased, but more or less identical. As one cannot edit this article, maybe an admin can look over this issue. ( (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC))

Requested move 18 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. In a descriptive title like this one, we normally use the parent article's title, unless it would be confusing in context. Here, it is difficult to even imagine a scenario where a person would find Jesus to be ambiguous without Christ appended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in comparative mythologyJesus in comparative mythology – I would've thought this would be sufficiently uncontroversial to do it myself, but a move to this title was reverted a few years ago, referring to talk page discussion. There hasn't been an RM, though some discussion in Archive 1 shows the rationale for "Christ" being that the article discusses Jesus as Messiah. But so do many Jesus articles. I don't think that's a good reason to deviate from the parent article, Jesus, or WP:CONCISE. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support this move. The main article is Jesus and it is the primary topic for than name. The disambiguation term "Jesus Christ" is unnecessary. What other Jesus is relevant to comparative mythology? Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious, really. StAnselm (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONPRIME. Subtopics follow the title format of their parent topics. bd2412 T 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.