Talk:Mental health of Jesus

Specifics?

The bulk of this article's materials seems to be a list of sources claiming Jesus either was or wasn't mentally fit, but not a lot of details into the argument. Is that something we can expand upon? What evidence or clues are these sources using? For example, Binet-Sangle is quoted as saying "the nature of the hallucinations..." leads him to the conclusion of mental affliction, but what nature is he talking about? Obviously anyone who doesn't believe in divine revelation can call it a hallucination, but I assume they offer more evidence than that. 2600:8800:23A5:5D00:6837:1C32:8B39:603 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is a compilation of the sources for and against Jesus' mental disorders. If someone wants, he can expand it with a detailed argumentation. The sources are linked (full text) – especially the two main authors – Binet-Sanglé and Hirsch. Wikipek (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Apostles

@MaxwellWinnie102: It is simply unknown how the twelve apostles died. See Talk:Apostles in the New Testament#Unexplained deletion. So neither claim is right: neither "they were martyred", nor "they weren't martyred". We simply don't know what happened to them. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah I did not know that. MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

But still it shouldn’t say it like it’s a fact. MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Article Title or Reorganize Article?

Most of the people cited in this article belonged to psychiatry before it had matured (and it still has a lot of room for growth. However, back in the early 1900s, we were closer to lobotomizing people than we were to treating them). It'd be like an article on alchemy discussing it solely through quotes of alchemists in the 1600s without the judgment of modern science. Perhaps, the title should be "The Historical Investigation of Jesus' Sanity" with pop culture being a separate section rather than laymen books being treated as serious philosophical or scientific works. Then, there could be an article on his sanity that is reserved for authoritative, modern analysis. Alternatively, the sections could be branded: Early Conjecture, Pop Culture, and Modern Analysis. To be clear, both sections suffer similar problems other than the study at Harvard, but I do suggest, given how this article is, that someone with knowledge of psychiatry read it for everyone's sake.

To understand what I'm talking about better, one linked author couldn't be found through a Google search. One was quoted from his blog. The last to mention was labeled a "lay theologian". Many of the people just mentioned have little authority on this topic unlike how the article reads now ("Mental Health of Jesus"). We're talking about outdated conjecture from before the DSM 4 or 5 had been created. A different title like "The Historical views about Jesus' sanity" could improve things. One article would be about the historical jabs and parries while the other is about the actual best guess of Jesus' mental status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.212.102 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Every reasonably clever reader knows very well that when people who were contemporaries of Jesus (relatives, other Jews) claimed that he was "mad" (J 10:20), "beside himself" (Mk 3:21), they did so on the basis of their common knowledge. 19th-century writers also did so on the basis of the knowledge available to them. 20th century psychiatrists and psychologists also did it on the basis of psychiatric and psychological knowledge of the time. The 21st century neuropsychiatrists did the same (2012). Theologians, too, could do so only on the basis of the knowledge available to them. There are not so many of these opinions to create separate sections or even articles for specific fields of knowledge or time periods. If some opinions come from, for example, the first half of the 20th century, it is well known that they are, in a sense, historical. It does not need to be emphasized too much. Wikipek (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

For the article title, see: Category:Health by individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipek (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Offensive and ridiculous Article : Consider Removal

Hello, to whomever has moderation authority over entire articles,

The very nature of this page is horrifically offensive and blasphemous, and it’s existence seems unusual compared to what you would see for any other religion.

I see no articles referencing the mental health of Moses, or Abraham, or Noah, or Muhammad, or Buddha. Of course, it is always Christianity that is used as the punching bag of the bitter western intellectuals.

There is absolutely no way to give a reasonable mental evaluation of a man who lived 2,000 years ago in any capacity anyways.

The only evidence cited here are verses from the New Testament, which clearly are meant to depict the priests not fully grasping the capabilities of Jesus and not understanding where his power comes from.

Besides that, Jesus displays phenomenal levels of intelligence, religious education, common sense, and speaks in powerful and easy to understand parable and metaphors throughout the Bible. Nothing he says would lead anybody to question his psychiatric state.

The only thing you could criticize would be his claim of divinity, in which case that can be applied to all and any prophets, chosen people, divine leaders, gurus, etc. And in that case an article about religious leadership itself should be established.

But here it is specifically and only against Jesus Christ in an obvious backhanded, passive aggressive attack on Christianity specifically.

Would recommend removal of the page. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:468:17BB:DABB:AF2E (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about the discussion that has taken place and continues to take place about Jesus' mental health. Participants in this discussion include psychiatrists, neurologists, psychologists, philosophers, theologians, priests, journalists, and others. Arguments for and against are presented along with a detailed and comprehensive reference to the sources of information. There are many similar articles about discussions and disputes on specific topics on Wikipedia, for example: Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, Public image of Hugo Chávez, Macedonia (terminology), Muhammad and the Bible, New Perspective on Paul, Brothers of Jesus, Sexuality of Jesus, Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, Possible monorchism of Adolf Hitler, Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler. Wikipek (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLASPHEMY.

First, "Messiah=God", "Son of God=God", and "Son of Man=God" are typical Christian misunderstandings. The Jews did not and do not believe something like that. Neither did the historical Jesus. So, he was not having the delusion that he is God Almighty. Psychiatrists who think he did don't know history.

Second, for Ancient Jews declaring themselves to the Messiah was a method of inciting riots. And the Romans knew this, too, being especially alert during Passover. So, there was nothing crazy in an apocalyptic Jew declaring himself the Messiah. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Provided he didn't want to be crucified and wasn't planning on it. Because if he wanted and planned his death..... And if he thought that after death he would come back "in clouds with great power and glory"... Quote from source 4:

In advance, he explained to his followers the necessity of his death as prelude for his return (Matthew 16:21–28; Mark 8:31; John 16:16–28). If this occurred in the manner described, then Jesus appears to have deliberately placed himself in circumstances wherein he anticipated his execution.

Wikipek (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Mental health of Jesus – “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”

The recently published book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” by Igor Chernyavskiy makes a definite statement about the mental health of Jesus. Based strongly on available information from the New Testament and using modern medical terms and science the book is making a case of Jesus being a neurological patient manifesting multiple symptoms of serious neurological conditions. In the New Testament Jesus is recorded as having dyscalculia (most prominent is parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20)). Jesus most obviously recorded as having Multiple Personality disorder (MPD) presenting himself as God, Son of God, Biblical Prophet, King of Jews and Son of a Man. His choice of personalities reflects the symptom of the Delusion of Grandeur. Jesus also had a Greek personality (as non-Jew). Jesus also suffered from persecutory delusions reflected in his fears of being killed by the mob. One of the manifestations of neurological illness in Jesus was pseudobulbar affect (crying), also called PBA. It mentioned in the Gospels, but most prominently highlighted in the Hebrews 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Jesus also suffered from the propensity to throw neurological tantrums, and one of them, triggered by the combination of dyscalculia (he needed to exchange money) and multiple personality disorder is known as cleansing of the temple. Jesus in the New Testament is also shown playing “Neurological Games.” Many manifestations of the illness are in the Gospel of John, as eyewitnesses died out and the new generation of writers did not understand that they are looking into the records of mental illness withheld for valid reasons from the Gospel discourse by the previous writers. From the information available in the Gospels the onset of the neurological conditions of Jesus was caused by severe head trauma. In the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” there light shed onto the abuse of Jesus as a vulnerable adult while he was alive, and distortions of records after his death. Both factors were tremendously detrimental for proper posthumous diagnosis of Jesus. First correct diagnosis of Jesus was performed by comparing his illness history to the living patients with similar conditions in the middle of 15th century in the course of what is named in the book as the Verrocchio/Da Vinci project. Findings of the project encoded in multiple works of art on public display. The similar methods were independently used in modern times and documented in the book “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” Gchernya (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a book like The Da Vinci Code [1]. Wikipek (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For the first 92 chapters the book does not mention Leonardo Da Vinci, Dan Brown or Da Vinci code. It has 111 chapters and replicated hundreds of pages of the New Testament, along with accessible medical information. Gchernya (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is difficult to quote in this article a man who is only known to have written this book and who, apart from these "hundreds of pages of the New Testament, along with accessible medical information", theorizes that "Jesus was an actor manipulated by a sect led by John the Baptist" and that "John the Baptist, aware of Jesus' vulnerable state, provided him with protection and clandestine support while convincing Jesus to advocate for the new religion designed by John the Baptist and meant to replace traditional Judaism" [2] (what is this far-fetched theory based on?) . Moreover, he adds another theory that "Leonardo da Vinci and his teacher, Andrea del Verrocchio, were likely aware of this theory, subtly encoding this truth in their art, including The Last Supper" [3] (what is this even more advanced theory based on?). Wikipek (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The book "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" proves all those statements with various degree of certainty, and since the book was written several famous works of art, and not only by Andrea del Verrocchio and Leonardo Da Vinci, but also by Raphael were "decoded" for the messages related to the relevant research. Raphael was not part of the original team and was informed by Leonardo Da Vinci and inspired to invest several years of work into the artwork that amplified the message. It is apparent at this time that high ranking clergy were notified about findings of the research in the early 16th century, before the onset of Reformation, and chose to sweep findings of the research under the rag, probably for the reasons of overwhelming evidence and unpredictable impact. At the time of this writing modern insured value of all the art pieces that were dedicated to the message about origins of Christianity similar to the one spelled out in the book is over $3 billion. Gchernya (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

He does not know much about Ancient history. For a start, we can't be sure that any sayings attributed to Jesus in the NT gospels were really uttered by Jesus. They got written after a game of telephone across several languages and countries, a game which took decades.

The consensus of modern, mainstream Bible scholars is that Jesus never claimed to be God. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is incorrect. The book "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" came out with hypothesis that outcome in Jerusalem was a dismal failure of the sectarian security services, and survivors were sequestered and deposed. Those depositions are the basis for the Gospels, not oral tradition. The surviving reminder of those records is known as "Secret gospel of Mark," and it paints unflattering picture of Jesus and the whole enterprise. Words of Jesus were distorted and embellished but not outright falsified. Gchernya (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Any reliable sources for the explosion of theses contained in the book and in this discussion? Outside of this book, of course. Besides – for example – drawing conclusions about alleged dyscalculia based on Matthew 20:1–16... Well, sorry. This gives an "appropriate" certificate to the author. Good night. Wikipek (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

While scientific community was informed about the discoveries, the responses are private. The book is not about what is discovered, however scandalous it is, but how it was discovered. There is a YouTube channel dedicated to the book. Anyone welcome to view and comment. There are about 25 presentations on the channel that fit scientific standard, even some of them only one minute long. Both book and channel are PG-13. Gchernya (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE --Wikipek (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Consensus is incorrect"—that's a judgment you are entitled to make at your own blog, but Wikipedia is not allowed to make. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As an example, one of the things that was established in the book "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is that Markan Priority was firmly determined in 1495, and the Gospel of Mark is written about the year 50 C.E. In the book (and in real life) Leonardo Da Vinci attests to this fact. After the book, it is discovered that Raphael attests to the fact twice before the 1514 C.E. That is how much consensus can be in disagreement with the book. Gchernya (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Enough. The talkpage is not a WP:FORUM to promote WP:CRACKPOTtery. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SAID

@Wikipek: Regarding your revert, read MOS:SAID:

Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...

On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said.

50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It is written in the gospels that "Jesus' family, followers, and contemporaries seriously considered him delusional, demonically possessed, or mad." This is a fact. See: Mark 3,21-22; John 7:20, 10:20. Wikipek (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Jesus' family, followers, and contemporaries seriously considered him delusional" Apparently, they figured out what was wrong with him. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipek: As you very well know, none of the passages you quoted prove your claim that It is written in the gospels that "Jesus' family, followers, and contemporaries seriously considered him delusional, demonically possessed, or mad. See also WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. You'll need to quote reliable scholarly sources (not your own interpretation) for your claim. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I canceled your last edits due to: WP:TALK#DISCUSS, WP:TALK#PROPOSE. Here are some selected comments.

• The article An Inquiry into the Mental Health of Jesus: Was He Crazy? was published in the magazine "Secular Nation" (April–June 2001), as noted in the footnote. It is only quoted in full on the blog.
• None of Gene Kasmar's opinions are quoted in the main body of the article, but only in a footnote - his comments regarding the English translation. Therefore, he is not treated here as any substantive expert.
• Kryvelev is cited only in a footnote as a source confirming the claims and opinions of Meslier, Binet-Sanglé, Mints. Therefore, Kryvelev's personal opinions, cited by you as objections, are unnecessary. He was not a psychiatrist, but a religious expert and historian.
• Regarding Mark 3:21-22, John 7:20, 10:20 read my closing comments. But I'll make some minor adjustments. How Jesus addressed accusations of possession (Mark 3:23) is not the subject of this article. This is an article only about the opinions of various people for and against the sanity of Jesus.

These are just some of my comments on your latest edits. I wouldn't be able to mention all of them now. The article has been systematically created, supplemented and gradually improved for 6 years. He currently has 120 followers. I believe that your excessive questioning, undermining of sources, scrupulosity in this regard, and your demand for ultra-neutrality in presenting only one of two opposing opinions (inherently non-neutral, but the other is not neutral either) - this all points to your lack of neutrality regarding the entire article. This is also indicated by your theological attempt to defend Jesus (expansion of the quote about Mark 3:23) in a section that does not address this. Such numerous changes, made in a short period of time, going in one direction (not neutral) should be discussed early on on the article's talk page. Wikipek (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"indicated by your theological attempt to defend Jesus" How is theology and its crappy arguments remotely relevant to an article on mental health? Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipek:

It is only quoted in full on the blog. Then cite the article itself and forget about the "SF Atheists" blog. The blog cannot be used as a reference. A random blog is not a reliable source, per WP:BLOGS and WP:SELFPUBLISH.

his comments regarding the English translation. Again, this random atheist activist "Gene Kasmar" is not a reliable source for anything, and therefore cannot be used as a reference. Read WP:RELIABLE. Find an alternative reference.

Kryvelev You are using the Kryvelev reference in WP:WIKIVOICE to espouse an opinion he explicitly argues against. So no, that reference cannot be used in the way you currently want to use it. You must clearly state that this is merely a claim Meslier made, and that Kryvelev argues against it. That's what I did, before you reverted it.

read my closing comments I have. They're incorrect.

This is an article only about the opinions of various people for and against the sanity of Jesus. And the sentences immediately following each quote you cherry-picked are relevant to that. It appears you're trying to engage in quote mining. That's why it's important to state what reliable sources say, not your own interpretation of WP:PRIMARY source material.

The article has been systematically created You do not WP:OWN this article, not any article on Wikipeida, so don't act like you do.

your demand for ultra-neutrality in presenting only one of two opposing opinions (inherently non-neutral, but the other is not neutral either) Huh?

This is also indicated by your theological attempt to defend Jesus This comment suggests you have a WP:AGENDA and are engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. By that logic, your comments indicate you have an agenda against the subject of the article. Is that correct? Read WP:NOTHERE.

(expansion of the quote about Mark 3:23) in a section that does not address this. The quote is about demonic possession, so obviously the sentence immediately after has relevance to the perception of people on this matter.

going in one direction (not neutral) See WP:POTKETTLE.

50.221.225.231 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Point-by-point responses to your arguments:

• "SF Atheists" – This is the "San Francisco Atheists" blog and quotes in full an article published in "Secular Nation", an organ of the "Atheist Alliance International". WP:NEWSBLOG
• Gene Kasmar – ok, I won't be dogmatic. Kasmar's linguistic comments can be removed, although his book is known and cited.
• However, you quote in the main text the psychiatric opinions of a man who was not a psychiatrist (Kryvelev) – to be deleted. The footnote serves only as a source to confirmation the claims and opinions of Meslier, Binet-Sanglé, Mints.
• Mark 3:23 – Any man's opinion of himself is not authoritative. Quoting the opinion of Jesus' contemporaries that he was possessed by Beelzebub or demons is appropriate in this article, because in those times mentally ill people were often considered possessed. This is therefore not a theological argument. However, the "How can Satan cast out Satan" argument is purely theological. Satan is a theological concept. Moreover, I would like to point out – this is not an article about "what Jesus thought about himself" – quoting out of context and WP:PRIMARY are out of the question.
• You are not the WP:OWN of this article either, and by making such numerous, large and unilateral changes without prior consultation on the talk page, you are acting as if you were. WP:POTKETTLE
• Regarding WP:AGENDA, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE – this article has two main and opposing sections. The second one (which you haven't edited yet) has seven paragraphs. Five of them are my work. WP:POTKETTLE

My "agenda against the subject of the article" is simple – to present as many outside people's opinions about Jesus' mental health (for and against) as possible. This should be the plan for every topic article on Wikipedia. Wikipek (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipek:

• This is the "San Francisco Atheists" blog Again, a random atheist blog on blogspot.com is not a reliable source for anything, including what other sources say. Forget about the blog, and cite the source itself.
• You quote in the main text the psychiatric opinions of a man who was not a psychiatrist (Kryvelev) Neither is Meslier, whom you're trying to use in WP:WIKIVOICE. Furthermore, I wasn't the one who added Kryvelev. You or someone else did. I merely corrected the way the article was misrepresenting him.
• The footnote serves only as a source to confirmation the claims and opinions of... No. You are using it in WP:WIKIVOICE. You must clearly state in the body that these are the claims and opinions of...
• My agenda [is] to present as many outside people's opinions about Jesus' mental health (for and against) as possible. Obviously not. You deliberately cut out the very next verse, which opposes the view you're trying to push: Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

50.221.225.231 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your points:

• SF Atheists: Unfortunately, the article is not quoted in full anywhere else on the Internet. This is a review article, a comprehensive one that discusses the issue in great detail. Much of the article (essay) is here (pp. 143–158). Therefore, I will provide both sources.
• Meslier - Kryvelev: Beginning of the article: "The question of whether the historical Jesus was in good mental health has been explored by multiple psychologists, philosophers, historians, and writers." Jean Meslier is categorized among philosophers and writers. I added a footnote to Kryvelev because he was a religious scholar and historian, so it can be treated as a source confirming the fact that Meslier, Binet-Sanglé and Mints formulated their opinions. You entered Kryvelev's opinion on Meslier's opinion into the main text. In this article, we do not quote opinions about opinions. Well, unless it is an extensive and comprehensive opinion defending the sanity of Jesus (Schweitzer, Bundy, Kneib, Werner, Schaefer) and therefore criticizing opposing opinions, then it is worth placing it in the appropriate section. But Iosif Kryvelev did not defend Jesus' sanity. In the article about him you can read that he was a supporter of the Christ myth theory.
• I do not have to clearly state in the content, with each author, that these are statements and opinions. The section titles are: "Opinions challenging the sanity of Jesus" and "Opinions defending the sanity of Jesus". Even in the case of psychiatrists, psychologists and neurologists (Storr, Hirsch, Sargant, Persaud, Schaefer, Hyder, Martinez, Sims, Binet-Sanglé, Schweitzer, Witwicki, Sapolsky, Murray, Cunningham, Price) these are, of course, only opinions. The introduction to the article ends with the sentence: "This view finds both supporters and opponents."
• If you think I'm trying to promote something, it's opinions and views on Jesus' mental health. Both those for sanity and those against it. In the "Opinions defending the sanity of Jesus" section, I personally posted the opinions of 13 out of a total of 16 authors. But if someone wanted to quote all the opinions of Jesus' contemporaries defending his sanity (which you seem to suggest), he would have to quote almost entirely of the four canonical gospels. The opinions of Jesus' contemporaries questioning his sanity are included in the article on the basis of rarity and uniqueness. That such opinions were formulated then, which not many people know about these days. But ok, let's leave John 10:21.

Wikipek (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)