Jump to content

Template talk:Gospel Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which pages to include on the template?

[edit]

Which articles are noteworthy enough to include on the template? I considered adding several of the others, but someone said that the Hell one was too minor, I figured some of the childhood ones could fit as subdivisions of Child Jesus, etc. It's all very difficult to decide, so, say here which of the following we should have on the template. Bolded ones are the ones we currently have. By George Parassidis Of Boston Ma. Framingham 01701

Consider including a description of the Jewish culture Jesus was born into here; expectations/ laws that would have impacted/ determined how Jesus lived. For example, Jewish law required men over the age of 18 to marry (Schlesinger, Benjamin, 1971, The Jewish Family, Toronto, University of Toronto Press). The Talmud describes five responsibilities of a father to his son: "He must circumcise him, redeem him, teach him the Torah, teach him a trade, and find him a wife." And scripture provides evidence that Joseph fulfilled at least four of these five responsibilities with Jesus. While no spouse is mentioned for Jesus, no spouse is mentioned for Peter either. In Strutures of Christian Priesthood, Jean Audet highlights that Peter may well have been labelled a celibate too had Peter's mother-in-law not been sick with fever.

-Silence 07:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Crucifixion, definitely — RDF talk 22:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I still support including "Harrowing of Hell", myself; we don't have anything on his actual death right now. -Silence 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist. Let someone else take them out. — RDF talk 23:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Anyway, new question: what do you think of the new template, which I made to try and make it possible to put the template somewhere in the Jesus page other than the very bottom, thus making it easier to access? Do you think we should (1) use the same template on all the articles linked to with it, and accordingly move it to the upper-left corner of the article (I'll try that on Nativity just to test how it looks), or (2) should we create two different templates, one box-shaped one for the middle of the Jesus page and one elongated one for the bottom of the other pages, or (3) should we revert it to the old style and not worry about putting the template into a topical area of the Jesus page? -Silence 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest "option 2"! :-) I wikified one to go right (under another) and one to center. — RDF talk 00:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Jesus}}

Major events in Jesus' life in the Gospels

Also, I think you should go ahead and put it in the applicable articles. Good job! — RDF talk 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try it at Chronology of Jesus too. — RDF talk 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an existentialist and believe that inclusions of pertinent lost books would be a less biased article. Also, links to important events, such as The First Council of Nicaea would show how influential rulings shaped the current views of Jesus of Nazareth.--Bynaural (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Major events in Jesus' life in the Gospels

Nativity | Childhood | Baptism | Temptation | Sermon on the Mount | Transfiguration | Last Supper | Passion | Crucifixion | Hell | Resurrection | Ascension


Relativity to Life of Jesus

[edit]

I have a problem in particular with the link to Crucifixion. That page is not about the Crucifixion of Jesus, it is about crucifixions in general. Placing this template on that page obscures that fact, so I am removing it. However, I'm not sure where to link the template to. Didn't there used to be a Crucifixion of Jesus page? There's certainly enough material for it, so I wonder what ever happened. Regardless, the template only belongs on pages or at least sections relative to Jesus's life. You wouldn't expect to see this template on childhood, baptism, temptation, or Hell, so it doesn't belong on crucifixion either. Davilla 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crucifixion is mostly discussed at Passion. The actual death of Jesus is now discussed at Death of Jesus.

The Hell part isn't actually really mentioned in the Gospels, so it shouldn't be on the template. The Harrowing of Hell comes from things like the Gospel of Nicodemus, and other medieval and apocryphal (New Testament apocrypha) traditions, but doesn't really belong on a list of events from the Canonical Gospels.Clinkophonist 13:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article that could be linked

[edit]

There's now an article on Commissioning the twelve Apostles that could be linked. 75.14.213.69 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) i love grace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.148.220 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 90.210.148.220, 21 March 2011

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I request that the Apostles Creed be changed to what it actually says, which is this: " We believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ His Holy Son our Lord. Who was conceived of The Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Polit, was crucified,.. Dead, and buried,.. He descended into Sheol. On the third Day He arose from the Dead and ascended into Heaven and sat down at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there He shall come to judge the Living and the Dead. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Elected Universal Church, the Communion of Saints, The Forgiveness of Sins, The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting, Amen,.." 

the grace is the best

90.210.148.220 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: sorry, don't see a request here. — Bility (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 64.134.67.232, 21 March 2011

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} The bible never uses the word crucified, the term was crux simplus, in most bible the word impaled is used. To say he was crucified would be to put a personal opinion over fact.

64.134.67.232 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 December 2011

[edit]

The Gospel Of Jesus Christ By George Parassidis Of Framingham 01701


71.184.209.72 (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The passion?

[edit]

This is getting a little bit out of control. Of course, it's The Passion, not to be confused with passion in general. What's next? Sermon on the mount? 75.14.220.131 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 March 2012

[edit]

Jesus of Nazareth

"Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,[53], and some early Christian sects denied that Jesus existed as a physical being (see below), most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but that the supernatural claims associated with him cannot be established using documentary and other evidence."

I'm a student at the University of Massachusetts majoring in Biblical Philosophy. Even though i'm a devoted Christian even I can understand that this is incorrect/needs more proof. There is no evidence that Jesus existed, earliest documentation of him was well over 50 years after his death and is debatable wether it's fiction or not. I know this is a very controversial topic, but I believe it's important to state that there needs to be more evidence to confirm his existence, not the other way around. Absence of evidence in favor for non existence isn't justifiable to support the existence of a statement (If something never existed, finding evidence to support the non existence is rare if impossible). The default claim should remain that he probably didn't exist until proven otherwise. Though it's debatable wether there is evidence against him or not, there are plenty of biblical errors that discredit the bible from being a true story (though it probably was based on some true historical events) including how Jesus could not have been from Nazareth; archeological findings have shown that Nazareth didn't exist until 200 years after his birth.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Sincerely Michael Monleon

108.210.66.134 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This is not the right talk page for this request. Please move your request to Talk:Jesus. While you are doing that, please provide less argument and more request and references to support the change. I see that there are 5-6 references at the end of the sentence you quote, so you need to weigh those sources against the two you provide. (Wikipedia is not a reliable source.) I looked at those two and neither strikes me as an arguably reliable source, but neither do either of them claim that the sentence you quoted is incorrect. You may want to find something on point, saying that most scholars do not agree with that. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 April 2012

[edit]

Just pls change Jesus' to Jesus's (as it is in the rest of the article and) per the Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition and on.

118.93.29.221 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound, the current form is acceptable. StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✗ Not done Please gain consensus first. mabdul 17:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request April 28, 2012

[edit]

"Giving the great commandment" links to someplace bogus - how about Great Commandment?--67.180.106.165 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sections in the template

[edit]

This is a useful template, but it is long, like the Long Island Expressway and hard to follow. Perhaps sections should be used with different shadings, say Passion as one, Resurrection and Ascension as another, Nativity, etc. as another, etc. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 1 January 2013

[edit]

Jesus' circumcision should be included in stories of his early life. According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (traditionally January 1). Jewish law holds that males should be circumcised eight days after birth. The event is celebrated as the Feast of the Circumcision in the Eastern Orthodox Church on January 1 in whichever calendar (Old or New) is used, and is also celebrated on the same day by many Anglicans. It is celebrated by Roman Catholics as the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus


71.192.139.79 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think this is an excellent suggestion. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this was subsequently reverted but either way I am setting this to "answered". —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this gospel only?

[edit]

Why can we not add the couple things mentioned in Islam or his lost years?

The template is already too long. tahc chat 18:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: So it's fine to exclude Islamic content here in favor of keeping it confined to Christianity because it's "already too long", but we can't confine the 98% Catholic {{Christian mysticism}} template to Catholic mysticism to prevent it from becoming too long, muddled, and unclear? What gives? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 10:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think more people are more interested in events recorded in the gospels-- and many of those are allready left out-- but we could leave out even more items from the gospels.
If you wan to shorten {{Christian mysticism}}, I proposed spitting it into two already. I would also agree to just cutting out the some of the people and (better yet) cutting Papal views. tahc chat 13:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've proposed splitting it the wrong way. It should be split by denomination (C vs EO), not at some arbitrary point in time. That would be a terrible idea and result in lots of double sidebars in the same section, unlike a C/EO split. But let's take this back to Template talk:Christian mysticism. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Gospel_Jesus&oldid=1231400624"