Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus

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

Requested move 22 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by a page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Judaism's view of JesusJesus in Judaismwp:PRECISE, wp:CONCISE, and wp:CONSISTENCY with Jesus in Christianity and Jesus in Islam. Also, Judaism isn't a person; the 's possessive should be avoided for impersonal possessives. Judaism not being a person means it doesn't have views of its own; it has views associated with it (e.g. Jewish views would be a step in the right direction).
Judaism's view of JesusJewish views on Jesuswp:CONSISTENCY (see here) and clears up the issue of Jesus not being a religious figure in Judaism. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC), amended 03:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: its not a comparable situation, Jesus is a figure in Christianity and Islam. Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith therefore he is not in its teachings. The proposed title fails WP:PRECISE, while the current title meets it perfectly. Ebonelm (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that since Judaism considers Jesus to be a false prophet, that puts him in Jewish teachings just as much as false prophets are in Christian teachings. Which they are—1 Tim, 2 Tim, 2 Peter, Acts, 1 John, and Rev all warn against them, and there are too many references to the same effect in the Hebrew Bible / OT to count right now. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I continue to oppose this nomination even in its new form. This is about Judaism's view on Jesus not the view of the Jewish people. See: Who is a Jew?. Ebonelm (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a view about Jesus according to Judaism, but he is not acknowledged as a Jewish figure by Judaism itself. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't agree that the current title is necessarily grammatically incorrect. I googled "inanimate object" possessive grammar and there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule saying you can't use the apostrophe -s possessive for non-living things. Some sources even prefer it in the spirit of conciseness (e.g., "The book's cover was red" vs "The cover of the book was red"). I wonder if OP's preference is due to the difference between British vs American English? Jesus in Judaism could have multiple meanings that don't really apply as much to Jesus in Christianity/Islam. Another option if the current title really irks some editors so much could be, "Views of Jesus in Judaism"? PermStrump(talk) 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a US–UK difference (it very well might be), but it's always been drilled into my head that the 's form is generally reserved for people or collections of people, and "of" is generally used for impersonal contexts. I would say a good alternate new title would be "Jewish views on Jesus". Actually, this would probably be the most WP:CONSISTENT; see here. Will amend nomination. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW People who participated in move proposal 6 months ago apparently didn't like "Jewish views on Jesus". Who would have thought it would be so difficult to come up with a less awkward name for this article? PermStrump(talk) 05:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Warning to Jujutsuan: do not alter my comments. I have reverted the parts of your most recent edit which altered my and JudeccaXIII. You should have closed this nomination and opended a new one. Ebonelm (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, please wp:LIGHTENUP. It takes time to learn every last detail of proper procedure around here. No need to use scare-boldface "warnings". Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was never, ever expressed to me by my English teachers that apostrophe-s is reserved for people or collections of people. I've never even heard of such a thing before. So if that's your concern, don't worry about it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
JudeccaXIII, Jujutsuan has altered my comments in the past, which is against policy. Jujutsuan, if I see it again, you are getting reported. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755 and JudeccaXIII: My "alterations" were a very tame instance WP:REFACTORing. The meaning of the comment was entirely preserved, and unambiguously clarified. Not everything around here is report-worthy. I recommend WP:RELAX. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the nomination as proposed (both versions), but I would support moving from "on Jesus" to "of Jesus", since it's clearer and more natural. I have never heard of the supposed rule about possessive nouns mentioned here, and don't believe it is a concern. (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A Jewish view is not necessarily the same as a Judaism view. That really is two articles. Basileias (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content dispute regarding addition of material from User:GoodJBoy[edit]

In this edit, GoodJBoy has re-introduced the following material

 === God is not corporeal ===
 A central tenet of Judaism is that God does not have any physical characteristics.[1][2] God’s actual essence cannot be fathomed.[3]  Judaism therefore rejects the concept of a man being a god.


  1. ^ "Exodus - Chapter 33 (Parshah Ki Tisa)". Retrieved 2016-12-08. 
  2. ^ "The Guide for the Perplexed". Wikipedia. 2016-11-16. 
  3. ^ "Chapter 1: G-D – Part 1 |". Retrieved 2016-12-08.  C1 control character in |title= at position 16 (help)

Originally, the statement was sourced to Chovot HaLevavot, an eleventh century Jewish theological treatise by Bahya ibn Paquda. When it was pointed out that this book does not hold the status of "central Jewish tenet", the material was reintroduced without this source, but now sourced to Maimonedes' The Guide to the Perplexed, another book that, rather than holding the status of "central tenet", has been described by some Jewish communites as heretical. The source does, in fact, state that "God's actual essence is unfathomable.", but this is not the same as the basic statement of the section, that God is not corporeal. This may well be a central tenet of Judaism, but the sources that GoodJBoy has provided to not verify this fact. The final statement, "Judaism therefore rejects..." can only be regarded as synthesis of the available sources, as none of the sources actually state this fact. I have tried twice to remove this addition, as it is poorly sourced, but GoodJBoy has twice restored it. I ask him and any other interested editors to join this discussion as to whether this material should be included. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism's view of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)