Talk:Jesus/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

"Galilee" vs "the Galilee"

I just noticed Noon (talk · contribs) added "the" before Galilee, which was promptly removed by ‎HiLo48 (talk · contribs) who said he had "never seen that before". From my experience either can be correct but we should be sure to use one or the other use exclusively in the article. "The Galilee" tends to be favoured here in Israel (and in many Biblical translations) as that is the literal translation from Hebrew (הגליל; haGalil).

A cursory search in Google books seems to find more results for "in the Galilee" rather than in "Galilee". But since this article is in American English, I think we should use whatever the prevailing usage there is. I don't feel particularly strongly on this issue, I just thought this note might be helpful to others. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the education Cliftonian. It prompted me to look at Wikipedia's own content on the matter. We have an article called Galilee, but nothing called The Galilee. The Galilee article contains 97 mentions of the name, and in 29 of those instances it's preceded by "the". So we are wonderfully inconsistent on this. I can see that it's obviously valid to put "the" in front, but here in little old Australia I've never heard it or seen it. I won't push either option. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've personally never heard of the usage of "The Galilee" either, it seems particular to those using the literal translation, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

More historians, fewer reverends

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.

---

More of the sources for the statement that he definitely existed should be historians. Reverends have an obvious bias, and professors of religion are more expert on religious culture and philosophy than history. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been some studies of the biases of professors of religion; many tend towards the same biases as the reverends. Not to say we shouldn't use them, but identify their biases. A professor of religion who has written a stack of books defending the truth of any one religion should be seen as the biased advocate he is. Torquemama007 (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we note a similar bias when a given historian writes a stack of books arguing for the truth of her understanding of a given historical event? What about an atheist who has written a stack of books defending the invalidity of all religions? ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

When you find more historians who have stated that Jesus definitely existed, or that he didn't for that matter, we can quote them in the article. Historians do not bother with that question as "Jesus never existed" is an extreme fringe idea and contradicted by "very abundant evidence" as Michael Grant said. The only actual historians I am aware of who have written on the subject for many years are Michael Grant, quoted in the article, and Donald Akenson who takes the evidence for Jesus' existence for granted but uses the epistles of Paul as the most valuable source of historical information. But maybe there are more historians who have written on the subject that I don't know about, in which case I would like to, please tell us who they are.Smeat75 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be defending the statement "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree" with the claim that hardly any scholars say anything about it. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't for me to defend it, it is a paraphrase of a quote from leading NT scholar Bart Ehrman. WP editors are just supposed neutrally to summarise what reliable sources say, not defend or attack them. And your first comment in this section asked for more historians to back up the statement that Jesus definitely existed, and there is a difference between historians and scholars. Few historians have bothered to address that question, quite a few other scholars have though and are quoted in the article.Smeat75 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point I've lost the logical thread. I also don't know what a "NT scholar" is. Historical claims should have the backing of historians. You argued, I think, that we know historians view it as a settled matter, because historians say nothing about it. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

To be a bit more specific, I think he/she means that historians say little about it anymore. This is much in the same way that scientists say little about plate tectonics anymore.l The issue is heavily studied, but the question of whether or not it is real has long since been moved past.Farsight001 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is an historian as well. He is in fact one of the most well-known historians of early Christianity. For example, he was selected as the editor for the Early Christianity area of the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Ancient History. This is the single most comprehensive encyclopedia of ancient history ever made and is the most authoritative today. [2]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement is cited to a footnote which includes " Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". If there are other classical historians who have written something on the matter since then, please tell us who they are. It seems very unlikely that there are historians, or scholars, who disagree with that assessment by the very eminent classical historian Michael Grant, but refrain from challenging it.Smeat75 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Eminent he may have been, but not uncontroversial. And that article, sadly, doesn't ell us anything of his religious position. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the comment of a critic - "“even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit” referring to a work for general readers that it was felt tried to pack too much material into too short a space, but as you see the reviewer does not doubt that Grant was "the most learned and gifted of historians". His "religious position" is irrelevant, the whole point of his book "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" was to approach the historical figure of Jesus as a trained historian, the same way he did the figure of Cleopatra, for instance, and his position on Egyptian or Hellenistic religion was irrelevant in that case also. But as I keep saying, please, find another historian if you don't like that one who has published on the question "Was there ever such a person as Jesus?" and then he or she can be quoted in the article too.Smeat75 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A person's religious beliefs can NEVER be irrelevant on matters like this. It would be absolutely impossible for someone who was a Christian to believe that Jesus never existed. It's almost more relevant than anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a historian's job to examine the evidence as impartially as possible. Whatever Grant's personal beliefs may have been, I really think he would have said "there is no evidence that Jesus existed" if that is what he found. Instead he said there is "very abundant evidence" for his existence.Smeat75 (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You are free to think what you like, just as I am free to point out flaws in your language and logic. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

According to wiki policy, a scholar/expert's personal beliefs are EXACTLY irrelevant here. You've been around long enough. You should know this.Farsight001 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)ic over-rules it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if you think "wiki policy" says that, logic over-rules it. No person can possibly be Christian, AND believe that Jesus did not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

People are perfectly capable of believing things for which they know there is no evidence. I don't know whether Michael Grant was a Christian or not and it doesn't matter, he was a historian who found "very abundant evidence" for the historicity of Jesus. It is sooooo ridiculous the way some editors on WP seem to think that if you say "Jesus certainly existed" that means you want to force the whole world at gunpoint to chant the Nicene creed or something, I have read that book of Michael Grant's along with a lot of Bart Ehrman's and they both more or less say that Jesus was a pitiful deluded maniac who thought the world was about to come to an end, they both really stress that he was an "apocalyptic" preacher, and that he was wrong, it is far far from any Christian viewpoint. But that there was such a person there is no question, it is confirmed by numerous Roman and other sources.Smeat75 (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's all possible, but discussion here hasn't demonstrated that. It's simply proven the poor logic and/or discussion skills of those pushing the "Jesus definitely existed" line. I persistently wonder why that is the case. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, what's this all about? Has someone got a suggestion for improving the article? It might be good to discuss the reliability of a particular source for a particular statement, but this discussion seems to have no focus, and swapping opinions on the general case concerning authors and their beliefs does not seem very productive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for improvement. The statements being made about the historical reality of Jesus require more historians as sources, or at least, fewer reverends. The idea that reverends are unbiased about whether Jesus was real is pretty amusing. Alternatively, the article's treatment of that aspect should be made more equivocal. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You are making two assumptions that are unwarranted. First that anyone, historian or not, is unbiased. Decent historians recognize they are biased and take steps to address that (much like decent scientists seek evidence against their pet theories). Second is that being ordained means one cannot be a good or even decent historian of that era. Given the nature of the field those who have gone to seminary or divinity school will dominate because they are more likely to have the basic building blocks to enter the field (e.g., know Latin, Greek, Hebrew) and more likely to have an interest. However the scholarly field contains quite a few who aren't ordained and within the field being ordained or not or being Christian or not should not matter. What matters is the quality of the history and we, as Wikipedia editors, can only judge that by the scholarly consensus. Erp (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I made neither of those assumptions. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Erp - it requires no assumptions at all to say that a Christian historian could never say that Jesus did not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2013 (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.

pronunciation of Ἰησοῦς

σδθ look similar, no? Maybe this is more a problem with using the English IPA for Greek names, but I don't believe it is pronounced 'Iesous'. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the name is pronounced e-toes, but the correct pronunciation does seem to lie somewhere between these two examples. Ethos isn't a perfect rendition but it is a lot closer than Iesous. Lostubes (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation could be variable based on ancient or modern greek pronunciation rules (and obviously any transliteration that happened as the name moved from hebrew/aramaic/etc to greek). However, I do know conclusively that my own name (Jason) is (Ιάσονας) and pronounced iasounos and ieasous is certainly the way I would pronounce Jesus in greek. This is of course WP:OR (but so is yours ;) ) In both cases the final "ous" is often dropped (Iesu, Iason) by people pronouncing both names Gaijin42 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

'In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have been Jewish / Judean (Ioudaios as written in Koine Greek) on three occasions, although he did not refer to himself as such. He was so described by the Magi in Matthew 2, who referred to Jesus as "King of the Jews" (basileus ton ioudaion); by the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, when Jesus was travelling out of Judea; and (in all four gospels) during the Passion, by the Romans, who also used the phrase "King of the Jews".'

I am about to remove this (which was removed before). I can't see what it adds to the article, although the source it is cited from seems to be making the point that Jesus would probably have seen himself as an 'Israelite' rather than a Jew. That's an interesting point, which could well be included here, but as I don't have the original article I am loathe to cite from it. However, the point it is used to support in this article is not helpful. The Matthew reference is to the Nativity story, of dubious historicity, and the John story of the Samaritan woman is also likely a literary creation (there are no eyewitnesses, and it follows an Old Testament model). The Passion story is very possibly accurate, but this is what the Romans described him as, and we don't know why. Besides, being 'King of the Jews' is not quite the same as being Jewish. The point in the preceding sentence, from Amy-Jill Levine, is possibly worth expanding on, about what 'being Jewish' would mean in this context. But maybe that's too much detail for this section of the article.--Rbreen (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. While his ethnicity may be somewhat important to a historian, in terms of Christianity it's not that significant (compare, for example, Colossians 3:11), besides the lead section already deals with that. The usage of the phrase "King of the Jews" is not the best evidence for ethnicity since it doesn't necessarily indicate that Jesus himself was a Jew. Neither does Jesus pay special attention to the aforementioned Samaritan woman's concern about Jews vs. Samaritans. Brandmeister^talk 19:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually the ethnicity of Jesus is hugely important, since one of the major developments in New Testament studies since the Second World War has been the scholarly recognition of Jesus' Jewish identity and the cultural placement of his teachings in Jewish tradition (and in contrast to previous approaches which downplayed his Jewish identity, and even denial of his Jewish ethnicity, for example the Nazi scholars who insisted that Jesus was an Aryan, a claim which led to the revival of the search for the historical Jesus as scholars realised the dangers of leaving the field to those on the fringe with an axe to grind). But there is a difference from what we understand to be a Jewish identity and how Jesus, as a Galilean, would have seen himself, since the word 'Jewish' - if I get what the cited article was saying - was am identity developed by diaspora Jews and not those in Palestine. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jesus, as a Nazarene, was a Jew. Like the great majority of those then living in Nazareth and Gallilee. Unless there is evidence otherwise… --Pete (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

To some extent this is just a terminological quibble. We now use the term "Jew" to mean all those who continue to follow the faith inherited from the Isrealites, even though the word historically refers to the tribe of Judah. In that sense he was clearly "Jewish". As a Galilean Jesus may not have identified himself as a "Judean", but it is clear from the biblical passages given above that the term Jew/Judean was being used in a inclusive sense at this time. It's fairly clear from the Gospels that the reunification of the Isrealites as a whole ("scattered tribes") is one of Jesus' preoccupations. Since modern Judaism is the product of the Pharisaic tradiion, and Jesus was critical of Pharisaism, one could argue that he was not in a straightforward sense "Jewish" as we now understand the term. The current section says, in essense "he was Jewish but we don't know exactly what that meant", which is not ideal, but is a concise way of summing up the issue. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that Jesus was born into a family which practiced the Jewish religion, although that might not be quite the same as the practices of the Jewish religion of today. However the issue here is ethnicity, and once again, the ethnicity of the Jews of that period was most likely quite different to that of modern Jews. Most of the Jews of today in the western world are of Central European or Eastern European descent, and are about as "white" as it gets. However if you journey to Israel today, you will meet Israeli Jews who appear indistinguishable from their neighboring Palestinians - because they ARE indistinguishable - they are of the identical ethnicity, whatever that is. As there were few Eastern European Jews in Galilee in Roman times, the chances are good that Jesus was of the "Palestinian ethnicity", whatever one might call this today. Wdford (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not determined by genes. Jews of old sabra descent may have a similar phenotype to Palestinians (and probably even a very similar genotype), but they are almost always not of the same ethnicity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a footnote in the article explaining this? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the points above as to Jesus' motives and the definition of his apparent or not apparent "Jewish-ness". Obviously some of these discussions/comments are immaterial to the original thread point, but still... As Rbreen has rightly stated, its a big deal (both Biblically, Historically, and Philosophically) if you turn Jesus into a non-ethnic Jew. Please place whatever footnote you have in mind here prior to editing into the document. Ckruschke (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The claim above that "Most of the Jews of today in the western world are of Central European or Eastern European descent" is an outdated theory than has been quite thoroughly debunked by modern science which allows for genetic testing. As for the actual question, it's a non-question and it seems we have too much of personal opinions and too little of WP:RS in the discussion. There is broad agreement among scholars that Jesus was Jewish in every sense, both etnically and religiously. Many sources for this are already present in the article, so I'm not quite sure what the point of this argument is. Apart from WP:RS, I'd like to recall WP:NOTAFORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Despite this diversity, Ashkenazi Jews represent the bulk of modern Jewry, with at least 70% of Jews worldwide (and up to 90% prior to World War II and the Holocaust). As a result of their emigration from Europe, Ashkenazim also represent the overwhelming majority of Jews in the New World continents, in countries such as the United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia, and Brazil. In France, emigration of Jews from North Africa has led them to outnumber the Ashkenazim .[67] Only in Israel is the Jewish population representative of all groups, a melting pot independent of each group's proportion within the overall world Jewish population.[68]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity footnote

Per the suggestion above, I agree that a footnote would be helpful. The fact that so many people here have an opinion on this topic, and how diverse those opinions are, suggests some explanation here is warranted, and a footnote is a good way of doing it.

Many of the points here have been discussed by scholars in great detail - see Ioudaios#External_References

As a starter for ten, how about we go with simply: "In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have been Jewish / Judean (Ioudaios as written in Koine Greek) on three occasions, although he did not refer to himself as such. He was so described by the Magi in Matthew 2, who referred to Jesus as "King of the Jews" (basileus ton ioudaion); by the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, when Jesus was travelling out of Judea; and (in all four gospels) during the Passion, by the Romans, who also used the phrase "King of the Jews"."

The benefit of this is simplicity. It sets out the only three primary sources regarding Jesus' Jewishness, and instead of getting mired into what Jewishness means, it just links to Ioudaios where a reader can find further info. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

James D. G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition ... A HISTORIAN

See also the Oral gospel traditions and the Gospel of Matthew

Dunn, one of the world's leading historians, argues to understand Jesus one must look at Second Temple Judaism along with the impact of the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, for Christianity began as an enthusiastic Jewish sect. In other words we must study how the traditions of Jesus, might have functioned in first-century Palestine.

There is a growing number of historians that believe:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. Rabbis or teachers in every generation were raised up and trained to deliver this Oral Tradition accurately. This Oral tradition consisted of two parts: the 1) JESUS-TRADITION (logia or sayings of Jesus) and 2) INSPIRED OPINION. The distinction is one of authority: where the earthly Jesus has spoken on a subject, that word is to be regarded as an instruction or command. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. The testimony of Papias records that Matthew wrote down the Jesus-tradition (logia or sayings of Jesus) in a Hebrew dialect. This testimony is independent of the Gospels themselves and "explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves." Although it Papias who tells us about the origins of Matthew's Gospel we should not draw from Papias' statement an inference that Papias distrusted oral tradition
5. Although it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language it should not be assumed that this Hebrew Gospel was translated into the canonical Gospel of Matthew (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)
6. It is important to note that these sources are NOT saying that "Matthew's collection sayings in a Hebrew dialect" and the Gospel of Matthew are the same work. Indeed there is clear evidence that "Matthew's Hebrew Gospel" was NOT translated into what we call the Gospel of Matthew. Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source.

Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. How many times do we have to repeat the cycle? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dunn's book was just released. What he says as a historian is very important to our understanding of Jesus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

When it was released has exactly no relevance here. dunn also appears to be a theologian, not a historian. This, of course, doesn't make him unusable as a source, but it does effect what we can use him as a source for.Farsight001 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are correct in saying that Dunn is a theologian. James Dunn is also regarded worldwide as one of today's foremost biblical scholars. Having written groundbreaking studies of the New Testament, Dunn has turned his pen to the rise of Christianity itself. In Jesus Remembered he delved into history of the first 120 years of the Christianity establishing himself as a credible historian. In his most recent work he puts forward the historical importance of understanding that Jesus was Jewish. On p 285 he states re the historical Jesus that we should come at the task from a different angle. "We should look first of all for the Jewish Jesus rather than the non-Jewish Jesus." - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Geza Vermes published Jesus the Jew forty years ago. It's been a mainstay of biblical scholarship ever since that to understand Jesus, you have to begin with the Jewish context of his life and beliefs. What's changed? --Rbreen (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. What exactly is being argued about here? Jesus was Jewish? Yes, we know that. Is there some content that is being proposed? Paul B (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Minor issues of clarity in the text

These comments refer to minor issues in this article.

Section: "Etymology of names"

The statement "The first-century works of historian Flavius Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with this name" is rather vague. It may be taken to imply that Josephus used Yeshua that was being discussed just before then about 20 times. I think the sentence intends to say that writing in Greek Josephus used Iesous on many occasions to refer to a number of individuals. That would be certainly correct.

The statement: "The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus" is also certainly correct. Yet it should be pointed out that Iesous may have arisen from a number of slightly different variants of Yeshua, with no certainty as to which variant it may have been. That may be worth a clarification.

Section: "Canonical gospel accounts"

This states: "Most scholars agree that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke also share some content not found in Mark. To explain this, many scholars believe that in addition to Mark, another source (commonly called the "Q source") was used by the two authors."

This is a correct reflection of modern scholarship on the subject. However, it conflicts with the absolute statement of the first paragraph that "The first to be written was the Gospel of Mark". There is no absolute agreement on that, and the opening text is best remedied to reflect the correct statement of the third paragraph.

In the first paragraph, the statement "They often differ in content and in the ordering of events" is somewhat vague. The intent seems to be to state that John's account differs, for the next paragraph correctly states that other three are "similar in content, narrative arrangement, language and paragraph structure". That can obviously clarified with minor effort.

Section: "Proclamation as Christ and Transfiguration"

This states: "At about the middle of each of the three Synoptic Gospels, two related episodes mark a turning point in the narrative: the Confession of Peter and the Transfiguration of Jesus." This is certainly the case. However, it would be worth mentioning that this "turning point" in the Gospel accounts comes not long after the death of John the Baptist in Mark 6:27.

Finally in the section about Ascension, it states: "The Acts of the Apostles describes several appearances of Jesus in visions after his Ascension." The term "several" is vague, given that the rest of that text correctly lists the exact sequence, with nothing else missing. Given the exact sequence provided, there is no need for additional ambiguity by using "several".

Section: "Islam"

The article uses the term "Ahmadiyya Muslims". Some clarification is needed there, to the effect that in some parts of the world the Ahmadiyya are not even allowed to use the term "Muslim" to refer to themselves, and use alternate terms to describe themselves. Hence Ahmadiyya Movement may be more appropriate term.

Section: "Depictions"

It would be worth pointing out that Exodus 20:4-6 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is one of the 10 Commandments and except for minor exceptions stifled the development of depictions at the time of Jesus and made Jewish depictions of ancient individuals a scarcity.

These are, of course, minor issues and the rest of the article seems to be free of errors of omission or commission, overall. Scholarly comments (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Change capitalization of "the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity" in lead to "the second of three persons of a Divine Trinity" per WP:INUNIVERSE. X2Y2k6 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Formerip (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

First WP:INUNIVERSE is completely unrelated to this question. Second, with such a minor edit you can just do it yourself. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an autoconfirmed user yet, so no, I couldn't do it myself since the article is semi-protected. The exact rationale doesn't seem that important, but I can come up with additional MOS points if you'd like. But that doesn't seem necessary, since nobody seems to be claiming that "Persons" should be capitalized. (I do see how using INUNIVERSE as a rationale on a religion article could be insensitive to other editors, despite personally thinking it to be valid for the requested change, so I apologize for that.) X2Y2k6 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the further comment below, let me clarify it once again. The "personally thinking it to be valid for the requested change" part about INUNIVERSE is of course absolutely incorrect, given that as stated below, "the Bible" does not refer to the concept of the Trinity and it came about much later, and the debate goes on as to exactly how it came about, some say it was Tertullian, others that earlier creeds had references to it. Hence no one who is remotely familiar the subject would even suggest that the Trinity is part of the Biblical account and hence may be a work of fiction. It is not part of the Biblical account but is theology of the 2nd r 3rd century. It is a 3rd century "teaching" not an account. And of course, that is why it is linked, so those not familiar with the concept may read the appropriate pages carefully, before suggesting applicability of incorrect policies. As Reformed Arsenal correctly stated, it has no applicability here at all, in any case. Scholarly comments (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliance on INUNIVERSE is of course out of this world, so to speak, as pointed out above. However, the term person should link to the page Person (theology) in any case, for the uninitiated reader may well confuse it with the usual form of the term person. The usage here is technical, not generic. In scholarly usage, various authors East and West use capital or lower cases for the term, e.g. both Sergei Bulgakov (Eastern) and Karl Rahner (Western) use lower case at times, while Bulgakov himself(among others) sometimes uses upper case. I do not see it as a big issue as long as it is linked to declare its technical usage. Scholarly comments (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

INUNIVERSE is for literary works of fiction. Even if you believe that the Biblical account is false, that does not make it a literary work of fiction. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is not applicable here. And I was agreeing with you on that, but obviously did not make it clear enough. Reliance on INUNIVERSE would be totally improper here. And of course "the Bible" does not refer to the Trinity at all, and the concept came about much later as part of theology. Hence even the mention of INUNIVERSE is of course out of this world. Scholarly comments (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I was actually wondering if there was something appropriate to wikilink "persons" to, and that's been provided above (it'd be helpful to make that addition, since I'm still not autoconfirmed to edit this article). However, since there seems to be more unexpected debate on this, I certainly think the spirit of WP:INUNIVERSE applies fine here, even if it's not quite the right guideline. As in, the use of "Persons" would only be consistent with a specific non-encyclopedic viewpoint (in-universe), rather than a generic encyclopedic "person", which we should use as we're analyzing the material from an external perspective. There are definitely better guidelines for this particular point, and as I mentioned above, I don't think I was even being appropriately cordial to other editors by invoking that particular guideline in any case. Now, if anyone thinks we actually should capitalize "Persons", that's another debate to be had; but I still don't see anyone suggesting that. X2Y2k6 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no debate to be had here. And if you still don't understand why INUNIVERSE is irrelevant here, then I can not help you. Scholarly comments (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the link. If you use "Person" instead "person", the choice is not really a matter of viewpoint which is encyclopedic versus a viewpoint which is non-encyclopedic. It's just a stylistic choice which some writers use to distinguish the term as a term of art. It's the same as in Plato; when some writers write about the philosophy of Plato, they'll use "Forms" instead of "forms", and "Good" instead of "good", etc. The writer who says that Plato has a theory of "Forms", is not representing a non-encyclopedic viewpoint just because she capitalized the word. It's really just a stylistic choice. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. Just a stylistic, trivial issue, given that authors such as Bulgakov switch back and forth on it themselves. Time to end this trivial discussion, I would say. Scholarly comments (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Jesus the Jew

Of course you are correct! Jewish historian Geza Vermes' work has been important in shaping a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment Yet this sourced material has been deleted from many, many articles at Wikipedia. Look on the talk page of the Oral gospel traditions for the spurious arguments justifying such deletions!

Enough is enough

Enough is enough! Dunn argues it is time for historians to alter the default setting which might be called institutional anti-Semitism, or more accurately anti-Judaism, which has for so long disfigured NT scholarship. Dunn states in very blunt language, that whether we are studying the trustworthiness Papias pp. 227 & 327 . . . or Oral gospel traditions p 290 . . . we must take care to distinguish between Biblical Scholarship based on reliable historical evidence and “the age-long, inbred, instinctive Jew-hatred” of the West. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the edit, which you claim deletes sourced material. The edit was the deletion of the second sentence in this passage. "Today, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew living in Jewish Palestine. Indeed there is a consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment. " Since the second sentence is just a repetition of the first sentence in different words, its deletion seems sensible! The fact that Jesus was Jewish was not deleted, just the pointless repetition of it. I see no need to throw around accusations of antisemitism and "inbred, instinctive Jew-hatred". Where is all this anger coming from? It's obviously a spill-over from long disputes about "oral traditions", but it's largely unintelligible here. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem seems to be resolved. There now seems to be consensus that Jesus was Jewish. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there ever was any dispute about it. Paul B (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course I agree with you but I do suggest you look at this Google Link as well as this Google link. Thanks for your input. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I nearly added "outside the neo-Nazi Christian Identity movement" to the above comment, but it seemed unnecessary, since they aren't in much evidence anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I'm aware. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Ret.Prof is referring back to a previous incident of blanking reliably sourced article content, such as this one. The connection to this specific article seems tenuous, but I understand the general point he is making. Ignocrates (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Anno Domini is abbreviated "AD"

In the Chronology section, It is stated that "Anno Domini" is abbreviated "AD" OR "CE". This is false. The only correct abbreviation for Anno Domini is "AD"(Please look up the definition of the word "Abbreviation"). "CE" is, in fact, an abbreviation for "Common Era"- a recent attempt to remove the reference to Christ from the calendar started in his honor and based on his approximate birth. If the calendar had been based on the birth of ANY other historical figure (such as Alexander the Great or Julius Ceasar), the reference to that figure would remain forever. "CE" is not and abbreviation for Anno Domini and never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That was an easy fix. (If you'd like anything re-added from what I've cleaned off from your double post, please let me know.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Saint Luke" etc.

Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Existing Relics

Suggest that we delete the words "Most scholars" from the phrase "Most scholars think that not a single, reliable, authenticated relic of Jesus exists". The source listed only makes the claim of one author, not "most scholars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.121.212 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. "Some scholars" or even "many scholars" would work as the book cited summaries the research of many scholars. But it makes no claim that a majority of scholars hold that view. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Changed "most scholars" to "no consensus".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to the Oral Gospel tradition

Dunn, and Ehrman have taken the position that Since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360, Casey 2010 p 12 & Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117

Please see Talk:Oral gospel traditions. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Why is this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah in italics? This isn't a quote from Dunn. And what's the relevance? Does the article claim that Jesus was Welsh? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point! See Talk:Oral gospel traditions where your concerns are more fully addressed! Happy Holidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical listing in Bibliography?

Hello all - I have just gotten done linking many of the author names that appear in the bibliography section. While doing that, I noticed that most of the bibliography was alphabetical by author, but towards the end there were some entries that were not. Was this intentional for some reason? Could someone more familiar with the gathering of bibliography sources for this article please address? Here is what I am referring to:

So far so good...

• Twelftree, Graham H. (1999). Jesus the miracle worker: a historical & theological study. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-1596-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4368-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Walvoord, John F.; Zuck, Roy B. (1983). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. David C Cook. ISBN 978-0-88207-812-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

...but now it goes from "W" to "T".

• Theissen, Gerd; Winter, Dagmar (2002). The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22537-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vine, William E. (1940). Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Fleming H. Revell Company. ISBN 978-0-916441-31-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Witherington, Ben (1997). The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-1544-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

If there is a reason for this, please comment here. If not, then I am just going to go move the bullet points around to make them alphabetical. (Unless someone else gets to it first.) Thanks KConWiki (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not having seen any rationale or comments to the contrary, I am going to alphabetize these now. Please let me know if any concerns. KConWiki (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Legacy section?

Would anyone oppose the creation of a brief legacy section in the article? We can also mention how Jesus is listed as #3 in Hart's The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, or #1 in Who’s Bigger: Where Historical Figures Really Rank. Bart Erhman calls him "the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not really necessary, as the information it would contain is already covered elsewhere. Whether to include it or not is a just stylistic choice, and given that other editors have raised concerns of your beginning to WP:OWN this article, I'd hold off on it for now and focus on resolving those concerns. -- LWG ^talk 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article will greatly benefit by communicating that Jesus has been evaluated as having been the "greatest figure...", or other such statements identifying him as having "a greater impact on individuals and societies than anyone else in world history" (posted in quotation block in earlier section above), or some other quote to that effect.

I agree with the view that legacy info covered within the body already does not need to be repeated in a separate new section. But if there are significant things that haven't been covered, then it might be a good idea. As for inclusion of a single overarching statement regarding how historians evaluate Jesus's significance in the context of all of human history, or all of Western history, I see such a statement to be something that would belong in the lede. It makes for a very concise way to communicate how important this person is viewed. He is the Michael Jackson of messiahs.

...and I don't say that just for giggles. The MJ article is actually a good case study for how a lede can communicate a person's impact in a broader context. Quote: "...Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time..."

That quote is from the second sentence of the lede.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Anno Domini/Common Era?

I was quite surprised to see that this article had no mention of the fact that Jesus is the person behind the typical way that years are reckoned (Anno Domini/Common Era). I took the liberty to add this statement to the lede:

The year taken as the beginning of his life is a calendar era widely used across the globe and is referred to as Anno Domini (abbreviated as "A.D."), or inclusive of non-Christian peoples as the "Common Era" (abbreviated as "C.E.").

In less than half an hour, it got reverted by Paul Barlow, under the view that this information is not significant enough for the lede. I would assert that this could easily be seen as the most ubiquitous influence this person has had on the globe, affecting Christians and non-Christians to include atheists. Yet this extensive Wikipedia article makes no mention, and the person doing the revert expresses no desire to see this info within the body of the article, let alone the lede.

Many critics of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia editing process say that it is a broken system. This would appear to be a stunning example of that. I may decide to poke through the article history and archives to look back on past efforts toward having this article to convey this very simple bit of information.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to include it, I think the best place to put it would be the "Chronology" section, not the lede. I remember we used to have "Legacy" section, but that was later removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, and as a purely procedural matter, per WP:LEDE whatever goes into the lede needs to be in the body of the article, else should not be there in the lede. So technically Paul Barlow made the right call, and you were also right to bring it up on the talk page. My view is that:

There should probably be a brief mention of Anno Domini in the body of the article, but not in the lede.

Regarding the statement about the most ubiquitous influence this person has had, the FAQ has links to several archive items on those and the the statement that the discussion will be of the impact of Christianity not Jesus, given that the decisions made were often post first century; Anno Domini itself going forward to the 6th century.

In general I think a discussion of the impact of Christianity vs Jesus himself will be a Pandora's box larger than the LV case just removed from Red square, and the archive links were correct in separating it out from this page. Scholarly comments (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarise the content of the article. See WP:LEDE. It's not a place to put things you want to get noticed, but are never referred to the article thereafter. I have no objection to the inclusion of this fact, but unless we were to also add a whole section discussing era notation, it woulds not be appropriate for the very first paragraph of the article. I did look for somewhere else to put the sentence, but it didn't seem to fit easily in the current structure. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, talking about sourcing, if that is to be added to the chronology part it will need a suitable source of course and needs to be worded carefully; for there is no agreement on how Dionysius Exiguus selected the year 525 to represent the consulate of Flavius Probus, etc. And the fact that Bede was instrumental in its use may or may not need a brief mention. Rens Bod, "A New History of the Humanities", Oxford Univ Press 2013 p 87 is a suitable source for the discussion. However, the Wikipedia article on Anno Domini includes several errors (as does the Atlantic article by Teresi used as a source there - the Oxford reference has a correct analysis) so I would caution against just obtaining text from there, or using the Atlantic article as a source. In any case, I added a brief mention, using the suitable source. Scholarly comments (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to give thanks to y'all for helping to restore my faith that the Wikipedia process works! I'm well aware of the WP:LEDE policy, and I made that edit knowing that it was putting the cart before the horse. The current revision now has mention in the body. With that, it would now conform to policy to re-add the info to the lede. Of course, consensus could swing the other way to have this removed from the body, for some reason. Thanks also for shedding some light regarding the legacy of the Legacy info. For the time being, I will step out of this and just observe how the article continues to develop.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The process worked in this case, and time will tell how it will work on other pages such as Anno Domini - pun intended. I should, however, make the passing comment that although everyone has some notion of the issues about Jesus, this is in fact a very complicated topic. For instance, scholars who support the egalitarian social reformer profile of Jesus hold that Jesus intended to make an impact on history; while those who support the apocalyptic preacher profile hold that he expected the world to end soon after the first century. If one holds the second viewpoint, he never expected a fifth century, let alone a calendar system. So this is a far more complicated topic than may seem at first. Scholarly comments (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that that aspect makes for a major complication.

But for this single issue at hand: the fact that a widely used global standard for a calendar era is anchored upon the year taken to be that of his birth, I see absolutely nothing controversial about it at all. Many people may not like using it, but the fact is that they do use it. The U.N. uses it. I expect that every single country on the planet uses it. It is our duty here as editors to craft an article that reflects this simple fact. We can safely assume that Jesus never intended to become an ISO standard, but there you have it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My comment was not just about this dating issue, but a more general observation regarding the profiles, etc. But let us conclude this thread and get on with life. Scholarly comments (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This issue has not yet fully resolved, as it was asserted that this info, being part of the most ubiquitous impact on our global society that is related to Jesus, belongs in the lede. I maintain that view. And for anyone who may wish to dissent, try posting your opinion to Wikipedia without those words being tagged with a number that is related to Jesus. Can't be done. All our computers have been converted, if you will. This is a simple fact that the lede is doing a disservice by ignoring.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The degree to which something affects our daily life is not necessarily the same as the importance of that something being mentioned in the lede. In weighing whether something needs to be mentioned in the lede, we should consider the extent to which reliable sources discuss the issue. The beliefs various groups hold about who Jesus was and what Jesus did are the subject of far more discussion in reliable sources, and I imagine the concern of many more of our readers, than the fact that our dating epoch is based on the estimated date of Jesus's birth. I'm not opposed to the idea of including it, but you're arguing the wrong case. -- LWG ^talk 02:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My argument has never been that this is of primary importance. I have asserted that it is of sufficient notability. No one is recommending a focus. My position is that it is a mistake for us to ignore this major fact in the lede.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, however it would be better to give examples of discussion about dating epochs in reliable sources, which we can use on wikipedia, rather than pointing out that wikipedia timestamps use anno domini, which is not inherently significant to the issue. Furthermore, you have to understand that there is an enormous number of notable facts about Jesus, and we have to strike a balance between readability and completeness. -- LWG ^talk 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd - I've just read this whole thread and many editors have agreed with you that your stance that the article is missing mention of "AD" is legitimate and that you should write a sentence/section to that point on the page. I also agree that this is a glaring omission - whether it was done in the 6th Century or not - its clearly a testament to who Jesus was. So rather than arguing over what is right now a moot point, why don't you just start there? Once your writing is done, we can focus on the clearly separate issue of whether it should be in the lede. I agree with you "in principle" that mention of AD/BC should be in the lede, but right now it shouldn't because, as many editors have pointed out, the lede summarizes the body of the page. If it isn't in the body, it can't be in the lede. Ckruschke (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The info was added to the body in this edit. So now the entire focus of this discussion is on the need to include this in the lede. LWG suggested finding examples. I just now did a cursory GoogleBook Search, and here is a quote from the opening chapter of the 2009 book Jesus Christ in World History:

Jesus of Nazareth has had a greater impact on individuals and societies than anyone else in world history. ...Jesus has influenced not only individual persons and religious communities but also world history as a whole. Our calendars reflect his central importance, as most of the world marks the passing of years in terms of the date of his birth: B.C. (before Christ), or B.C.E. (before Christian/Common Era).

That's from Chapter 1, Paragraph 1 of a book that has more than 460 pages. Other authors put even more importance on this particular issue. In the 2006 book Jesus: Myth Or Reality?, Ian Curtis devotes an entire chapter which he titled "History of the Calendar". This chapter concludes with: "It is enough to know that the entire world today is regulated by a calendar devised by the Roman Catholic Church." One out of 24 chapters in this book on Jesus is dedicated to the calendar. There are loads more sources out there, and I see them to give strong support to the view that our article here can add a single short statement in the lede to communicate this simple fact.--Tdadamemd (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

August is named after Augustus, but that's not mentioned in the lede for the article on him. July is named after Julius Caesar, but that's not mentioned in the lede of the article on him. Wednesday is named after Wōden, but it's not mentioned in the lede of that article (or the Odin article). The ledes of Moon and Sun say nothing about the fact that Monday and Sunday are named after them. In some other articles such things are mentioned. Frige (Anglo-Saxon goddess) mentions in the lede that Friday is named from her. Mars (mythology) mentions the fact that March is named from him, and Janus mentions the fact that January is named from him. There is certainly no consistency, but in general it seems to be mentioned if it is one of the most notable aspects of the person or divinity in question, or if it's relevant to their identity ('January' is related to the fact that Janus is the God of beginnings). Otherwise it's just a fairly marginal fact. Of course in one sense these things affect our lives every single day, but only in a trivial way, since in reality it would make no real difference to our lives if we counted centuries differently or named days and months after different gods and heroes, or anything else. They are just numbers and words. I don't think this is worth a lengthy section in this article, any more than it is in the Augustus or Julius Caesar articles.
BTW, the "entire chapter" in the Curtis book appears to be seven pages long. And it is about what it says, the History of the Calendar, not about Jesus. It discusses the Roman calendar and then the differences between Gregorian and Julian etc etc. Also, the book is published by iUniverse. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd - Sorry - missed your edit insertion. Apologies.

I'm not sure one sentence in the body automatically equates to inclusion in the lede, no matter how important it is, but I'll have to disagree with Paul B on one point - this is not a discussion about word roots. That is a dramatic over-simplification of the issue. Its also not about types of calendar types - which again is not a good parallel. We are talking about the separation of historical time periods as we know it - time periods that were "Before / After Christ". I know its not PC anymore to say AD/BC, but even if you use CE/BCE, the split is still "essentially" corresponding to Christ's birth (eventhough we all know His birth wasn't on 25 Dec, 1 BC). I'm not taking a hard side on this, but we should at least have the discussion in the right context. Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The context is the calendar. It's simply the closest analogy there is. Yes, it's numbers rather than words, but it's still about the fact that a part of the calendar system "comes from" a person, and that fact has no real impact on life, since it's just a system of abstract symbols. Sometimes there nothing more relevant to say about it. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I really can't see this as being important enough to include in the lede. The calendar was not named after Jesus, or invented by Jesus, and the AD/BC (or whatever) usage did not come about until centuries later (and, as someone pointed out, it's unlikely Jesus expected anyone to be around then). It's not central to why Jesus is considered important. I think it gets a mention in the Nativity of Jesus, and I suppose it should be mentioned in the article, but it doesn't belong in the lede.--Rbreen (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not central to why Jesus is considered important? I think that reasoning is backward. The fact that all nations on our planet use a Jesus-based year system tells a key part of the story of just how important Jesus has been to human history. As that book quote stated, he "has had a greater impact on individuals and societies than anyone else in world history", and the BC/AD thing is a HUGE fact that's an integral part of communicating this accurately. If the impact of Jesus were to be boiled down to a single concise statement, here's what I see to be the top two choices:

- His teachings were used to found the most widespread and popular religion on the planet today.

- The most widely used system on the planet for marking years is based upon his birth.

Of course, the second statement is a result of the first. So if our Wikipedia article were to be limited to only one sentence, then I would agree that this fact should not be included.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede FAIL, #1 & #2

Yesterday I posted the two top statements that can be made about Jesus, as I see it. And while this section had been devoted to the second one (no mention of AD), I just now re-read the lede and was struck with the realization that it fails on the most important point. Sure, it gets straight to the fact that Jesus is central to Christianity. But what is not communicated is how widespread and popular Christianity is. Click though to the Christianity article, and that fact is promptly presented ("Christianity is the world's largest religion"). That fact needs to be stated here. And it needs to be stated at, or near, the top of this lede. I will repeat what I see to be the most important statements that can be made to communicate the notability of Jesus:
- His teachings were used to found the most widespread and popular religion on the planet today.
- The most widely used system on the planet for marking years is based upon his birth.

As the lede stands today, it fails on both accounts.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So rather than saying "this sucks", what is your suggested rewrite/addition to the lede? We seem to spending alot of time debating opinions/POV without actually getting to the discussion of page content. I know I'm bucking Talk page tradition here, but I'm getting weary of reading through Talk page pontifications trying to divine what people's points are... Ckruschke (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The very first post in this section included the lede change that I had added to the article, and got deleted. As for this particular subsection, I've just edited the article. I don't anticipate much controversy with this fix to Point #1. We now return to the regularly scheduled program, Point #2...

--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So you state your own lede changes still don't meet your requirements that you want to see in the lede? Hmm... I think I asked you to let us know what you'd put in. However, please feel free to be snide. As I appear to be one of the few people who agree with you, I guess I'll just bow out of the discussion... Ckruschke (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I read these talks, hah, you people argue like spoiled children. No respect, no tact, no honor, just a bunch of children bickering and getting hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.117.184 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that your position is that better Talk posts consist of insults and non-constructive criticism posted anonymously.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No objection or rebuttal has been posted here in the last two weeks. Points 1 & 2 are now both fixed. Point 1 had actually been reverted, with the rationale that the info was redundant. The justification for re-adding was because this info does not appear anywhere else in the lede that I can see.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Info about the Christianity being the world's largest religion is not found in the body of the text, so it does not belong in the lede. Furthermore, Christianity didn't become the world's largest religion until the 20th century. Also, it is widely agreed that Christianity today is very different from the movement founded by Jesus. The AD system was not developed until the middle ages, way after Jesus' lifetime. Jesus did not create this system, so he does not deserve credit for it in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It was stated long ago here that the click-thru to the Christianity article provides this fact at the very top of that article. 'Christ-Christianity' is not any stretch into the realm of non-notability. And notice that the info is provided in a parenthetical, which indicates that the info pertains directly to Christianity.

As for your other objections, you are making an argument that essentially says that a person's legacy does not belong in an encyclopedia article about the person themself. And that is an argument that simply runs counter to the concept of an encyclopedia. Your point does not fit with what Wikipedia is, and the guidance we are given regarding the info that this article needs to present to readers looking for info about Jesus.

Above, it was presented that authors who have written about Jesus find this info to be significant enough to mention in the very first paragraph of the very first chapter of an entire book written about Jesus. Also, there was an example given where an entire chapter within a book was dedicated to the calendar issue. The extent of rebuttal was that the chapter was only seven pages long, and that the chapter focused on the history of the calendar instead of Jesus the person. But that whole chapter of seven pages was in a book titled Jesus: Myth Or Reality? - a book about Jesus, the person. Not a book dedicated to the topic of calendars.

What these authors are doing is their best effort to communicate how important Jesus was. And that is what this lede had been failing to communicate. Many authors go so far as to assert that Jesus was the single most influential person in all of human history. While I see such an assertion to be well supported, I think that might be going too far for what is needed in the lede. It is a statement of opinion that isn't a clean objective fact. What the current edit is doing is simply presenting the objective facts where a reader can gain a sense of that impact. THIS is the info that belongs in the lede.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. Most of the editors at the talk page were clearly against the inclusion of the AD system in the lede. I think you need to review WP:CONSENSUS.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Reply posted in the new subsection you've opened below.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Ownership (a subpoint regarding process)

FutureTrillionaire, before you make another edit to this article - and by that I mean any edit on any aspect of this article - I invite you to review WP:OWN. You do not own this article. I do not own it. We are all here working collaboratively toward helping each other to create the best quality article that we can, together. I am saying that because of the stats provided on this page.

And for those who know how to read stats, the info being presented is not merely quantity, but also rate. The second editor on that list has contributions spanning more than eight years. You got to the top in a span of less than 10 months.

Because these stats are dynamic, I will post what the first lines read right now:

---

Edits ↑	User	first edit	last edit
924 (809/115)	FutureTrillionaire	2013-02-25 16:23	2013-12-17 13:39
917 (844/73)	JimWae	2005-01-01 00:06	2013-07-09 22:10

---

--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

False accusation. The only person whose edits I have recently reverted in this article is you, because you're adding material that most editors don't want to see in the lede. I have had no problems with any of the other editors who have recently edited the article (e.g. KConWiki).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whose edits you're changing, and whatever rationale you have justified all of your edits, you still are acting as though you are the owner of this article. Clearly, you are not. Jimmy Wales himself does not own this article. If someone named Jesus were to be doing what you're doing, it is still improper.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, statistics can prove anything! Looking at the bright side, we're not getting any problems at Talk:Barack Obama at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly seen by anyone who follows any discussion I've been involved in that I do not value the use of ad hominem attacks, regardless of how often such strategies may be used against me. And yes, the stats quoted do speak volumes. To me. Maybe not to you.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply having made a large percentage of the edits to an article does not in any way constitute ownership. Article ownership is the phenomenon where an editor (generally, but not always, one who is a major contributor to the article) behaves as though all changes to the article must be approved by them before being made. It may be that FutureTrillionaire is doing this (though he asserts that his opposing your suggested changes is backed by other editors here), however posting his edit count does nothing to further your case against him. I suggest you review the oexamples of ownership behavior here and then post diffs of cases of FutureTrillionaire demonstrating them. -- LWG ^talk 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The data I highlighted was not a case of this one editor "simply" having made "a large percentage" of edits. It is the most number of edits. And it was a skyrocketing to the top of that list in the span of a handful of months. You really want me to take more of my time here so that I get properly schooled on what ownership is and what ownership isn't? I will suggest to you that the timesaving solution for everyone involved here is to recognize that the hard data just might be an indication of ownership behavior, and the person being called out can choose to take the simple action of doing nothing here for a certain span of time. Wikipedia will not break. It will still be here upon returning.

If I ever see merit in the possibility of me investing my time to become an expert in what exactly WP:Ownership is and what exactly it isn't, I may decide to follow up on your suggestion and pursue the info you've highlighted. But for now, my reply to you is to offer you a suggestion that you're barking up the wrong tree. Is me posting that data really not furthering a case against this editor? I happen to see it as a stand-alone open and shut case that this one single person needs a break here. No, not that this person may feel they need a break. It is Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia community of editors that needs it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not long after posting the reply above, I got caught up on other discussions on this Talk page and was very glad to find the RfC that was opened. My response to that was to go to the User Talk Page to express my thanks and appreciation, and also to apologize. I posted that HERE.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS (a subpoint regarding process)

@Tdadamemd: I'm well aware of the policy. It's true that I have made the most number of edits to the article, but that alone is not a violation of WP:OWN. All I did was revert your anti-consensus edit. Most of the editors at the talk page were clearly against the inclusion of the AD system in the lede. I think you need to review WP:CONSENSUS.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So when is OWN actually violated? When a single editor makes >100 times the number of edits than all other editors combined?

The reason why I took the extra step to post the exact numbers was to show hard evidence that you are in gross violation of this policy. It is clear that you have been all year long. I hope you will re-evaluate for 2014.

Now you are saying that I am in violation of policy. Is it possible that the two of us are both in violation? Yes, that's possible.

What merit is behind your position?

Consider this direct quote from WP:DUE:

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

Discussions such as this one is not to be settled by a simple vote, and then the majority is declared to have established consensus. Wikipedia is Not a Democracy (details at WP:NOT#DEM). The balance is heavily weighted by what can be supported with reliable sources.

I have provided reliable sources to support my position, and multiple editors have voiced agreement. What sources have been presented to support your position? The most I've seen has been a listing of Wikipedia articles that might be seen as having similar issues. In that same post, the editor made it clear that there was no consistency among those examples. Hardly constitutes a solid portfolio of reliable sources. Sources were stacked in favor of the proposal. Two weeks went by with no rebuttal posted. I exhibited a great level of patience. And then I posted the edit, with my explanation given here.

You had two weeks to provide such support. You still have the opportunity to present sources. You have chosen to not do that. Others here have chosen to not do that.

...and I am the one being accused of edit warring? Any dust kicked up in this discussion had long since settled. There was a stable edit regarding the popularity of Christianity, and you clobbered both changes. If you take a step back, you might happen to see yourself as being prime cause in this edit instability.

And I have a full expectation that the change history as well as the Talk history for this article will show a pattern of such behavior throughout 2013.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Other than yourself, are there any editors here who have expressed an opinion that this information belongs in the article lead? I'd also like to remind everyone that limiting yourself to one revert is a good practice - and not to engage in edit warring. Prodego ^talk 03:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it may have a place. But adding it in the second paragraph of the lead is far too prominent a place imo unless it is established by scholarly consensus that this is indeed a very important part of Jesus' legacy. But I am skeptical about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources would be needed, but on its face it seems like a very important legacy. The ubiquity the use of AD in Western cultures is remarkable (as is the face that so many people don't know its origins or meaning). Just my 2¢. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that sources may be needed. But adding this fact in the second paragraph immediately after Jesus's name and birth details makes a statement that this is a central aspect of Jesus's life and legacy. I have some problems with that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in Dr.K. and EvergreenFir I think we could definitely have a good discussion on this. I see that there have been a few more reverts since yesterday. We need to stop this revert warring until we can come to a conclusion one way or another on the talk page here. The comment under the lead says that it took quite some time to develop as the consensus version. If that is the case, I think we would probably need to show consensus to add, rather than have consensus not to include this new edit to the lead. The bar would be lower for including the information elsewhere in the article, and there does (at least to me) seem to be consensus here to definitely have it include it somewhere in the article. Prodego ^talk 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS states: "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." This means that the new material in the lede cannot be reinserted without a conesensus. The status quo (no mention of AD system) remains until then. To resolve this dispute, I think we should start an RfC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Sentence about A.D. or C.E.

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.

---

Should the following sentence be included in the lede? "The year taken as the beginning of his life is a calendar era widely used across the globe and is referred to as Anno Domini (abbreviated as "A.D.") which means In the year of the Lord, or inclusive of non-Christian peoples as the "Common Era" (abbreviated as "C.E.")."

Information about Anno Domini can be found in the Chronology section of the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, something about "AD" should be there, but (a) the sentence should be shorter (b) the sentence should not be at the end of the first paragraph of the lead as it's given too much prominence and (c) it should not be cited - the wording should be drawn from the material in the body of the article, which is already cited. Suggestion: add "The calendar era Anno Domini (abbreviated as "A.D.", alternatively referred to as "C. E.") is based on the birth of Jesus." after the current end of the 2nd para ("Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.") Bencherlite^Talk 16:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It seems rather to put the matter backward:

In about 525 AD, the usage of "Anno Domini" or "Year of the Lord" replaced a prior system of counting years from Diocletian, and earlier systems dating from the founding of Rome. "1 AD" was calculated to be the first year of the Christian Era at that time. In the late Twentieth Century, the use of "CE" for "Common Era" became widespread as a secular abbreviation for the same numbered year. "BC" is used to indicate "Before Christ", and "BCE" for "Before Common Era" to indicate years before the year 1.

I rather think this addresses all the issues heretofore presented. It is, moreover, pertinent that the "zero point" was not used for quite a while after Jesus lived. I find it interesting, but not usable in this article, that AH dates to only a hundred years later in usage and is widely used as the Arabic calendar, but does not conform to the solar year, resulting in the widespread popularity of "AD" and "CE" numbering. See also Ab urbe condita of course Collect (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Bencherlite's proposal (both the sentence and its placement, with possible slight tweaks of the former). The sentence should be relatively concise so as not to inflate the lead, the interested reader would be able to find more in the related wikilink. Even though that fact is widely known, it's hard to ignore its importance. Brandmeister^talk 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Somewhat absurd that a similar sentence isn't already there... Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs)
• Support I am open to different wording, but something about it should be in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, the sentence absolutely should be in the lead. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of this fact, which is central to the calendar system employed by nearly 100% of the people on the planet. Roccodrift (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, yes, I'd support this. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Brandmeister. A very important fact, since it has significant historical and literary (ergo RS...) usage, and large parts, but far from all, of the world uses, or knows of, this system.

To avoid a WP:LEAD violation (see Bencherlite's comment above), the content and reference must FIRST be included in a much more detailed form in the body, before a very shortened summary is included in the lead. That shouldn't be hard to accomplish. (Shameless plug: More info on creating a good lead section.) -- Brangifer (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, with thanks, appreciation and a public apology posted HERE.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2013 (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.

• Oppose. This is only peripherally to do with Jesus. It only happened centuries later. Jesus as far as we know had no interest in calendars. It does not even relate to his real year of birth. Of all the important issues related to Jesus, this hardly figures. Why are we putting trivia in the lede? --Rbreen (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)..

Congratulations

Wow, hadn't realised that this article had been promoted to FA – congratulations to all editors involved in getting this vital article to to such a high standard. I've not given the page a thorough read-through yet, but, having skimmed over it, that Criticism section seems to me to be a little out-of-place – devoting an entire section to the opinions of a couple of 19th/20th century authors seems like an odd choice to me, especially Hitchens's, whose views on the matter I thought had essentially been discounted by this dicussion. I notice that, in the revision of the article that was ultimately featured, the part about criticism was just a paragraph at the end of the Other Views section, and, unless I'm missing something, I can't see any discussion of its expansion on either this talk page or its two most recent archives. Since the article will now be on the front page for the next ~22½ hours, shouldn't we make sure that it's as high a quality as it possibly can be? Thanks, 86.173.42.182 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hitchens is a very recent addition. I would have thought the additions would have got more attention considering this is an FA. Aren't there supposed to be all kinds of people patrolling FAs? In any case, I think the quotes can be pruned a bit more. StAnselm (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there was no discussion here, but User:Howunusual and I had a discussion on our user talk pages. Howunusual had added a whole lot more, and I pruned most of it. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations getting such a big article through FA. That thicket of 'main articles' is quite something in itself, as is the number of talk archive files. Well done all round, and a deservedly Happy Christmas too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Congratulations to all of the editors who worked to get this article to FA status. That was a great accomplishment. Merry Christmas! Mistercontributer (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulation ,

and a Happy Christmas! Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized either and it's wonderful to see such an article where it belongs on Christmas Day. Thanks a million to those who promoted such an important article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include Hitchens. The discussion noted above by 86.173.42.182 is regarding the existence of Jesus in a historical sense. Hitchens would not likely be regarded as a reliable source in that context due to his lack of scholarly credentials. However, in a section specifically on criticism of Jesus, Hitchens seems as notable an author as many others, and perhaps more notable than most. The section surely should be maintained to adhere to the requirements of a Featured Article, but I'm surprised the article achieved FA status without a section on criticism in the first place given FA criterion 1.b., that it be "comprehensive" and "neglects no major facts or details". I think the section just bears monitoring to make sure it is constructed commensurate with an FA.

Merry Christmas! Airborne84 (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Carpenter

The section covering tekton is borrowed from the equivalent section in Historical Jesus using a version mainly written by me. That has (main difference in bold):

Jesus is identified in the Gospel of Matthew (13:55) as the son of a τέκτων (tekton) and the Gospel of Mark (6:3) states that Jesus was a tekton himself. Tekton has been traditionally translated into English as "carpenter", but is a rather general word (from the same root that gives us "technical" and "technology") that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders. But the specific association with woodworking was a constant in Early Christian writings; Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) wrote that Jesus made yokes and ploughs, and there are similar early references.

I have cautiously returned it to "a constant in the traditions of Early Christianity" from "a constant in the traditions of the first and second centuries", as I'm not aware of other references that early, though there may be some in the pretty sparse body of non-NT material from before 200. The issue does not come up in the NT. No other references were used. For some reason the page number in Fiensy is now different at 74 - different edition? Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, p. 74 of the same edition sort-of-quotes Justin again, but pp 68-69 are the main ref. Looking at Fiensy's text again, he he mentions an indirect ref by the pagan anti-Xtian Celsus and maybe some apocrhyphal gospels as being before 200, in what seems a complete list of the earliest references. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Christians believe"

Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return

This is an extremely problematic statement as it presents Christians as a homogeneous group with identical beliefs. Many reliable sources will state that not all Christians believe all of these things. C.S. Lewis tried to capture "Christian beliefs" in Mere Christianity, with debatable success. I will add a caveat at the beginning and preface it with an attempt at being more abstract, which, if editors here are looking for a blanket statement, should be less controversial. Airborne84 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you definition of "Christian" is. If its the generic "the whole Christian peoples", then I agree with your viewpoint as many people who call themselves Christians do not agree with all of this statement. I'm not sure the statement is "controversial" - again it depends on your viewpoint. I wouldn't agree with major caveats as this would make a largely-true statement meaningless. Ckruschke (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Just change it to "most Christians believe" or "Christians generally believe" if there are notable minorities which identify as Christian yet dissent. -- LWG ^talk 16:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I like "Christians generally believe" wording. But moreover, which Christians do not believe that? We talking 1% or 10%? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I made an attempt in the text. It's problematic using the caveat "most" or "generally" because we run into problems of defining what percent we're talking about—and since we're talking about multiple ideas, it becomes very challenging. I wrote it as "Christian doctrines include the belief that [a, b, c....]" (It could also be stated as "Christian beliefs include the following:".) By stating it in this way, we don't have to discuss and commit to weights.

I also preceded it with a more abstract statement which could reasonably apply to all Christians. It is sourced from Linda Woodhead's statement—while noting the diversity of beliefs in the OUP book Christianity: A Very Short Introduction—that “Whatever else they might disagree about, Christians are at least united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance.” I hope that is acceptable to the editors here.

I appreciate the discussion. Airborne84 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, the issue isn't that a particular percentage of "Christians" do or do not hold those doctrines, it's that "Christians" is an ill-defined category and depending on who you ask may or may not include various groups whose beliefs differ greatly from the groups most commonly considered. -- LWG ^talk 18:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Mormons & 7th Day Adventists wouldn't agree with some of these statements for a start and I'd think they, and most non-Christians, would call themselves Christians. The Reformed Church & Anglicans do not believe in the end times return of Christ so that last statement is out for them. However, this statement is a good catchall for what a typical Christian espouses to. So this is why I'm agreeing with Airborne84 - I think the term "Christians generally believe" (thank you LWG) should be added in, but a major change is not needed. Ckruschke (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

"The Reformed Church (which one?) & Anglicans do not believe in the end times return of Christ so that last statement is out for them." - untrue I'm pretty sure, as far as traditional beliefs go. Evidence? Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

LWG - My question on percentages was just to get an idea of what size minority we're talking about. The reason I like the "Christians generally believe" is that there's no clear sense of magnitude, where as "most" means over 50%. Mostly was just curious as to who didn't believe that (thank you Ckruschke and Johnbod). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not true Anglicans and reformed protestants believe in the return of Christ in the end times. Source- 39 Articles; Articles 4 and 6. 50.80.153.173 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible to just compare the parts of Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed related to Jesus and extract the relevant common beliefs. Btw, unless I'm not mistaken, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians combined consitute over 50% of all Christians. Brandmeister^talk 11:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Believing the statement are Catholics 53%, Protestant 29.6%, Eastern Orthodox 9.3% and Anglican 3.6% totaling 95.5%. Not believing the statement are Non-trinitarian churches 1.2%. Not perfect as there are some not included and there is some disagreement over Anglican and there are a few Protestant that do not believe the statement, but still a vast majority. http://www.888c.com/WorldChristianDenominations.htm Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Certainly we should change the lead to the "generally" version, and this should be discussed in an article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

-- Honestly if you're going to change "Christian's Believe..." based on there being many groups of Christians, the "Virtually all scholars agree..." should be changed as well. I mean come on, [I] Christian [I] scholars may agree... And also the fact that this article picks apart scholars from the 18th and 19th centuries as being biased against Christians; it was the beginning of science, it was the first time scholars questioned a lot of things, it's called the "Scientific Revolution," and you've all benefitted from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Christian creeds include belief that Jesus, the only Son of God, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, dead, and buried. That he was resurrected and ascended into Heaven, and that he shall return to judge the living and the dead.

would seem to obviate any poll that (say) 3.2% of current self-identifying Christians do not hold those beliefs. Some of the initial wording is likely not in accord with some larger groups, so I stuck with what is in common for the two dominant creeds. Collect (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

birthday unknown?

why birthday so vague? This man so popular, so famous for thousands of years but no one know his birthday?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.117.184 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hard to pinpoint events 2000+ years ago. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the birthday is unknown. This man was not famous when he was born, and not famous to any record-keepers while he lived.Jeppiz (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can his birthdate be stated with any confidence, even within the range given in the article? Should this be left out? I would add that the reference to the census in Luke suggests a date of 6 AD, which cannot be reconciled with the reference to Herod the Great in Matthew, but neither an a possible date of 2 BC given in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but please don't change this on the basis of your opinion while it is on the main page & everybody is eating turkey, causing the infobox and lead (and main page summary) to disagree, and so on. I have reverted, & I suggest you don't change until a clear consensus has emerged. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty weak arguments, can you actually defend this date range? PatGallacher (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

See Chronology_of_Jesus#Year_of_birth. There has been considerable efforts to determine Jesus' birth year, at least the approximate year range. The upper bound of 7 or 6 BC has been accepted by biblical scholars since the late 19th century and is based on Kepler's calculations. The lower bound of the winter of 3/2BC, in turn, is based on Luke, St. Clement and St. Eusebius: [3]. Brandmeister^talk 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason at all not to include something. See WP:DOB. Roccodrift (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Family

Why isn't James stated as the brother of Jesus? It appears briefly in the etymology section within a passing quote, but this just notes a passage where James is "referred to" as this. I saw an archive discussion about this, but it seems that the person who said they were going to restore the mention of James as his brother never did.

As far as sources to support it, of course, it's stated in non-Catholic Bibles, but it's elsewhere also. Josephus clearly names James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews. In Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan states:

That Jesus had brothers is, despite the Catholic doctrine of his mother Mary's perpetual virginity, virtually indisputable. It is a fact attested to repeatedly by both the gospels and the letters of Paul. Even Josephus references Jesus's brother James ... There is no rational argument that can be made against the notion that Jesus was part of a large family that included at least four brothers who are named in the gospels—James, Jospeh, Simon, and Judas—and an unknown number of sisters who, while mentioned in the gospels, are unfortunately not named.

The article on James notes other sources as well, such as the following: "Hegesippus in his fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says 'After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem.'" Certainly, the Catholic disagreement with this would be notable enough to mention, but that doesn't mean that the latter cancels the former sources; it just means they are all included.

I invite discussion. Airborne84 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why its not stated here that one of the James in the NT is Jesus' brother. As you've shown, there are many sources beyond the Bible that support this. Ckruschke (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I listed this within the text of the "Life and teachings in the New Testament" section. I sidestepped around listing Joseph as Jesus's father because ... well, I assume it's obvious. I suspect there has been discussion about that before here, so I'll let that further develop before setting off any land mines myself. Airborne84 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think info about James would be more appropriate in the "Early life and profession" subsection rather than the "Life and teachings in the New Testament" intro. Perhaps we should rename the subsection to "Early life, family, and profession"--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I made the changes. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've put in a bit more, cited, information on this point.--Rbreen (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bible Videos

Please insert in the External Links section, the following link:

• Free Bible Videos from the Mormon Channel

--79.192.47.68 (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Technical 13 (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed

I am concerned the WP:FRINGE "Authentic Matthew" content is again going to be introduced to wp articles. In particular would appreciate extra eyes from anyone familiar with NT manuscripts at Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect request

It's not like anyone is going to vandalize this article. I see no reason in locking it. Brogre4Life (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, would that this were true. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

AD Placement

if we're using AD, which is a Latin phrase, should it not precede the date to be in line with proper usage? (i.e. A.D. 30-33 rather than 30-33 AD)

--Aquahelper (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ERA for style. Editor2020 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

criticism of jesus/plucking eyeballs out/slavery

Jesus has been criticized as vindictive, intolerant, prudish, and unkind. Several scholars have noted that he appears to condone slavery.

− − The cardinal Avery Robert Dulles stated that Jesus “said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In his paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that Jesus often encountered slavery, "but not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery,” and argues that Jesus must have then condoned it. [4] [5]

−

How come the Catholic removed this section in his words "because it didn't appear to be criticism" is this a joke? − Friedrich Nietsche argued that “a war was declared on passion” in the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says of sexual temptation: "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out." According to Nietsche, “Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity, today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who "pluck out" teeth so that they will not hurt any more…. the Christian who follows that advice and believes he has killed his sensuality is deceiving himself: it lives on in an uncanny vampire form and torments in repulsive disguises.”[Friedrich Nietzsche, 1878, Human all too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, The Wanderer and His Shado, aphorism 83] [6] Cluelesswonder (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what many websites claim, I haven't seen a single evidence where Jesus explicitly condons slavery. Check Luke 4:16-20 or John 8:31-36 for instance. Jesus merely used slavery in the parables for better understanding (like Luke 12:35-48 to exemplify himself as the one who will return in the Second Coming or the Parable of the Master and Servant). Even if the assumption that Jesus didn't actually say anything in opposition to slavery is true, that doesn't necessarily mean Jesus condoned slavery. Brandmeister^talk 14:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

::I know that it's a difficult concept for some to get their head around, so focus very hard on what I'm about to say SOME PEOPLE (the Cardinal that was referenced included) HAVE CRITICIZED JESUS FOR NOT CONDEMNING SLAVERY. Do you get it now? It's complicated for some, I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluelesswonder (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And why do you think this is a big enough detail to include in the article? some people have criticized Jesus for all sorts of odd things. We simply can't include everything ever said about Jesus here. The article would be gigabytes long. Why do you think this particular issue is important enough?Farsight001 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cardinal Dulles doesn't "criticize Jesus" in that article. First, it's a book review. So he's summarizing what someone else has written. Second, he merely states that Jesus didn't explicitly criticize slavery. A mere statement like that can't be taken for criticism of Jesus without more. And there's no more. Not having the book Cardinal Dulles was reviewing, I can't speak to what the book's author has to say. Dmvjjvmd (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Farsight/Brand. Cluelesswonder - your citation is a voice in the wilderness and should rightly be considered "trivia". You don't seem to understand that just because it is "a" voice, doesn't mean it is a significant one... Ckruschke (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Another note having just read the Giles article you linked to. That also doesn't criticize Jesus for anything. It, too, merely notes that Jesus didn't utter any criticism of slavery. The article itself is, in fact, a criticism of fundamentalists who read the Bible literally. Giles is saying, "If you read the Bible literally, you'll end up thinking slavery is ok, and slavery isn't ok, so don't read the Bible literally." Note that Giles does not say that Jesus endorsed slavery. There's no criticism of Jesus in that article. Sorry, friend. Dmvjjvmd (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are any number of things that Jesus didn't directly criticise - the use of torture; rape; sexual abuse of children; terrorism. If we complain that there are no recorded criticisms of one thing, why not list all the others anyone can think of, including those in the future he could have divinely predicted? Paul B (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluelesswonder has now been indef'd as a sock.Marauder40 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Map on this Article is Historically Inaccurate and Contrary to Reality / Removal or Replacement?

The maps was drawn by a religious theologian on top of a modern map. His reference for naming places was an abstract of how the bible translated those names into its stories. rather than based on independent Historical documents. I say this because Palestine has been made to appear near non-existent. Even though Greek said it made up all of what was between Phoenicia and Egypt.

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.

Here is a Much older map from the United Nations, The Holy Land or Promised Land (Formerly Palestine), Recently Depicted and Published by Nicolaes Visscher 1659 CE --> http://www.wdl.org/en/item/210/#q=Palestine&time_periods=-8000-499&qla=en ~ The General point being the currant map should be removed. It is not based academic history. It is a map of what the bible described to a Theologian, not map maker. Because Palestine does not occur in Bible as a land mass, the author of the map penciled it in along the edge. We know for a fact that it reached from the coast to the Dead Sea. Before Jesus. and I have a map from 400 Years After Jesus. http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/ So the current Jesus map is wrong or at least not academically accurate, because it ignore history from multiple books, and uses a single book as he complete source. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a map from about 43 CE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Mela But I honestly think they drew in the names. So I did not originally include it. But academically it is probably not less the the current chosen map. Wikipedia is an impartial encyclpedia. Not a place that operates on religious dogma. We believe in facts that can be known.

Scholars agree there was a Jesus.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: Derailed into forum being used to disruptively make a point and persisted after repeated requests to stop.

---

Please please please, they do not. All the sources quoted here are from "New Testamnent Historians." Scholars do not all agree on Jesus at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q_3:_Did_Jesus_exist.3F and then come back if you have any concrete suggestions on how to improve the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly been discussed before, but rational, open and honest discussion on the matter is difficult. It's a big POV problem for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Most scholars do agree on the historical existence of a man named Jesus. If you have citations proclaiming otherwise then list them instead of disagreeing. Otherwise your comment is a opinion and one without evidence. --86.21.101.169 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Are those scholars Christian? If so, their opinion is of no value. A Christian could not possibly declare that Jesus did not exist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: That's a bit silly. Muslims and Jews couldn't declare it either by your logic (and both acknowledge Jesus as a prophet). It's like saying a Muslim couldn't study Jesus. Regardless, we don't choose sources based on the writer's religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me what it's "like saying". Stick to the words I actually said. Tell me how on earth a Christian scholar can be considered a reliable source on the existence of Jesus? HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Because scholarship is assessed per WP:RS. If the scholar is properly accredited, and their books have been peer reviewed we take the system that affirms their scholarship as the yardstick to judge it. And by the was, analogies are a perfectly valid way of drawing attention to weaknesses in an argument. However, it's worth noting that Jews do not "acknowledge Jesus as a prophet". Paul B (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've delved into that stuff. Thought some Jews acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, just not the messiah. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way would being a Christian invalidate their scholarship? That sounds like a text-book ad hominem to me, saying, basically, "they're Christian, so they're wrong." Would you also suggest that an atheist scholar claiming Jesus never existed could likewise not be considered a reliable source on the existence of Jesus? I'd bet not. As Paul said, and I will say more bluntly, wikipedia does not give a shit about your or their sources' religious persuasions, and neither should we.Farsight001 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

NO!!!! it is NOT LIKE saying "they're Christian, so they're wrong.". That is a false analogy. If you cannot see my point, and want to argue against a false analogy, feel free, but you will be wasting your time. If you CAN see my point, don't like it, and still want to argue against a false analogy, you're STILL wasting your time. Try discussing what I actually said. I shall return to your first sentence, which was "In what way would being a Christian invalidate their scholarship?" The answer is that a Christian MUST say that Jesus existed. Their conclusion could not possibly be any different. It would be of no use to us. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see your point just fine, HiLo - Christians are untrustworthy in producing proper scholarship in regards to the person of Jesus, which is a fancy way of wording the same damn ad hominem attack. I did, in fact, discuss what you actually said by pointing out the logical conclusion of your words. You are reacting with incredulity because you find my conclusion ridiculous, but you fail to grasp that my conclusion is based on YOUR reasoning, thus making YOUR reasoning ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that some of these scholars BECAME Christians after extensive research?

And again, wikipedia could not give less of a shit what religion its sources are. Your objection is based on absolutely nothing that wikipedia cares about. You've been around long enough to know that by now, so how about you stop wasting everyone's time and let them get on with something productive?Farsight001 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia MUST give such a shit. Find me a Christian who says Jesus didn't exist and I will change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think wikipedia should care, then go to the relevant policy pages and fight to change them so that it matters. Until you do, you're just wasting everyone's time.Farsight001 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I am used to taking non-mainstream positions and being told such things by those with conservative views. It will not convince me I am wrong. That will occur when you find me a Christian who says Jesus didn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservative views? What the hell does that have to do with this? This issue is 100% about wikipedia policy, which says, VERY CLEARLY, that things like the religion of the scholars we use matters exactly 0%. Wikipedia policy says one thing. You say another. You are, BY DEFINITION, wrong. Again, if you have a problem with the way wikipedia works, go fight to have the relevant policies changed, or go start your own wiki. Stop wasting talk page space with a pursuit you full well know is a fruitless endeavor.Farsight001 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't make me wrong at all. It simply but perfectly demonstrates Wikipedia's systemic bias. I won't try to fight policy (it's obviously part of the systemic bias too), but I will continue to highlight the stupidity of sourcing a claim to people whose religious beliefs mean they cannot say otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And the scholars who didn't agree lost their jobs. Just like how the Catholic Church was pissed at Jewish scholars for not having written about Jesus in their Talmud by 521 CE. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, what is this focus on finding a Christian who says that Jesus doesn't exist? How is that relevant to any argument? Of course no Christian says that Jesus didn't exist. But how does that fact say anything about whether Christians can be reliable sources here? The same is true about those who hold the theory that Jesus was an apocalypticist (e.g., Bart Ehrman): None of these people say that Jesus didn't exist either. The same with the Jesus Seminar view. The same with the political revolutionary view [[e.g., Robert Eisenman). By that criterion, all that would be left would be the mythicist view, which would just be begging the question. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your logic has failed completely. It is stupid to source a claim to people whose religious beliefs mean they cannot say otherwise. If the logical extensions of that obvious point are a problem to you, go away and think about it for a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not true that they cannot say otherwise. Ehrman, John P. Meier, etc., can say otherwise, it's just that they don't say otherwise, because they stick to their judgements. So I agree it would be stupid to source people who cannot possibly say anything other than what they do; but no one is suggesting doing so, because the scholars being cited have free will to make their judgements. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course they have free will, and as part of that have chosen to believe in Jesus. That's fine, but having made that choice, I cannot respect their judgement on his existence. Have you thought how this discussion must look to someone who has never had much at all to do with Christianity, someone from, say, India or China? It's a bad look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, don't your arguments assume that the following statements by a hypothetical scholar of antiquity are inherently contradictory? "There is insufficient historical evidence from Elbonian archaeology that Verdigris IV existed" and "I personally believe that Verdigris IV existed". I think they are compatible: one is an expression of what the historical evidence known to date can support; the other is a statement of belief (and it doesn't matter whether that belief is founded on religion, mysticism, a professional hunch, etc.). If you allow that statements like these can be made in full intellectual honesty, then you should recognize that there is room for a Christian scholar of antiquity to believe in Jesus and yet to make a professional statement against the historical conclusion of Jesus' existence. alanyst 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously Verdigris IV is irrelevant to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's just being tendentious. The parallel is easily understood. Your complaints do not deserve to be addressed if you will not engage good-faith rebuttals. alanyst 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious? I just find it amusing, and reinforcing to my view, that those who disagree with me seem to want to talk about anything but the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your fundamental premise is that a scholar who personally believes in the existence of A is necessarily constrained to argue professionally for the historical existence of A. I argued against that premise using a parallel construct to highlight the implications of your logic without the distracting baggage of actual belief systems. If you cannot or will not mentally substitute "Jesus" for "Verdigris IV" in my comment then there's no point continuing to engage in this discussion. alanyst 01:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

HiL, do you respect the judgment of Reza Aslan, author of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, who is a Muslim, yet reached conclusions that contradict both Christian and Muslim views of Jesus? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My point earlier Robin. This is going nowhere. HiLo48 - Your standards are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources. Religious people can be scholars about religion. Atheists can be scholars about atheism. Feminists can be scholars about feminism. Please stop being argumentative and rehashing the same biased opinion over and over. Discuss improving the article or stop talking. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made my point about Wikipedia's standards. If they really allow us to source a "fact" on Jesus' existence to Christian scholars, those "standards" are simply wrong. It's a classic example of Wikipedia's systemic bias. As for my opinion being biased, we are all biased. Your bias just happens to more closely match Wikipedia's systemic one than mine does. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Since it was said that my logic has "failed completely", I thought I would formalise it: H: accepting that Jesus existed (historicism); M: not accepting that Jesus existed (mythicism); R: being a relible source; Domain of discourse: sources for the historicity of Jesus; 1) ∀x.(H(x)∨M(x)) 2) ∀x.H(x)→∀x.¬R(x) 3) ∀x.H(x) ∴ 4. ∀x.(R(x)→M(x)). I did an analytic tableau, and it turned out valid for me. Can you show me why this argument is invalid? To be clear: This is the argument I say is unsound because I reject premise 2 (that is, if no one in the group rejects that Jesus exists, then the group is not reliable); I'm saying that the argument shows that the premisses end up begging the question at hand (which is exactly what 3 does). So, I guess, to answer the question, I'd imagine that someone from e.g. India or China would either show a relevant, open tableau, or agree, or give some other argument. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Per HiLo's admission above, he is here to "highlight systematic bias", not contribute to article quality. Since talk pages are for discussing article improvement only, this entire thread should be hatted or deleted, which I will do in a day or two. This is a giant case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anyway.Farsight001 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's always amusing to watch other people tell the world what I really mean and what I'm really here for. It probably means that what I'm actually saying is too hard to deal with. If this is closed without my points actually being properly discussed, and not just deflected, it will be a travesty. And they think this is Christian behaviour! LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem, HiLo, is that your "points" were addressed above, and it was explained, in detail, by multiple people, why it doesn't change a thing and why you are wrong. All you've done is repeat yourself like a broken record. Hence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Farsight001 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not proven me wrong. You have claimed that Wikipedia's policies don't accept my position. To me that just proves that Wikipedia's policies are wrong. I still cannot see how an opinion on the existence of Jesus from someone who believes in the existence of Jesus can count for anything at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See Compartmentalization (psychology). But even without that, I can very well believe in something, but also acknowledge that there is no historical evidence for it. Not all Christians are uneducated zealots. If you have the impression, you watch too much Bible TV ;-). To avoid disappointing Dawkins, let me make it clear that I personally think that some guy named something that can be transliterated across a few languages as "Jesus" lived around the beginning of the first century, that he was probably crucified, and that he served as a nucleus around which all kinds of pretty and some not so pretty stories condensed. I don't believe he was particularly divine, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was no such real nucleus to the literary figure, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As has already been explained, if wikipedia's policies are wrong, then you need to go to the relevant policy page and campaign to have them changed. Whining here, no matter how much you do it, is not going to change policy, which we are all, including you, obligated to abide by, even if we think its wrong.Farsight001 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2014 (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.

Challenge the Bias of this Article. There are multiple Religious people named Jesus.

This article ignores that reality and should be renamed for a Specific Jesus Bias it holds

1. The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach
2. Isa Jesus of Mohammedanism
3. Jesus as told by, The Lost books of the Bible -- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/774798.The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible
4. Jesus of the Nag Hammadi Library --
5. Jesus of the Ge'ez Bible --
6. Jesus Priest, etc

Where is mention of all these other Jesus narratives? The proper name for the Jesus this article is dedicated to is Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Christ. I move that this current article be renamed Jesus Something or Merged. It lacks the Academic value of being an unbias accord of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigDeep4Truth (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Jesus/FAQ and Talk:Jesus/Archive_11#Page_move_discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple religious figures named Moses, Muhammad, or Elijah... since none of the links you provided are actually notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, then your point is basically invalid. If you're that worried about it, make a disambiguation page and add a reference at the top... I doubt that you'll have enough material for a disambiguation page that sticks though. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Looking for/found language r...

Cramyourspam posted this comment on 22 March 2012 (view all feedback).

Looking for/found language root meanings for Jesus and Christ. Article needs more information on Christ's claims to be the "son of man", a title used often in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Any thoughts? I might be able to find the Theological meaning of Jesus the Christ. But the "son of man", may have been Jesus digging at the priests for impregnating his mother while she was a Temple Maiden of the Jewish Priests from 3-12. She Gave Birth to Jesus at 12 years 6 months old, and was told by the priests that it was a virgin birth. But they ordered Joseph to sleep with her before she went into labor. This comes from a chapter of James the Lesser's book named Protevangelion. The priests insisted Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. Jesus insisted how he was the child of men. And preached a practical faith his whole life.

DigDeep4Truth (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The protevangelion of James was written in 145, long after James' death. Its not exactly a useful or credible source.Farsight001 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

James the lesser is not the same James as in the Approved Canon. Besides the Codex Sinaiticus was 400 years after Jesus death. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter who he was. He could not possibly have known Jesus or witnessed any of the events of his life. Had he lived to 120 (highly unlikely), he still would have only been 5 while Jesus was around. Also, I don't really care how long ago a copy of a document was made. It matters when the originals were written.Farsight001 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul never met Jesus or witnessed his life, yet he is awarded 13 books and Jesus 4. I think you are missing my point. The dates are estimated. And the estimates you post for this unapproved canon is closer to the real time of Jesus, than the estimates of the approved canon. So as scholarly study goes, this sheds a new and missing light on the canon in a time frame no less credible than the approved works. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeees, but how much of the New Testament was written by people who had actually met Jesus? We're looking at collections of oral stories here, associated with those who knew him, rather than written down by his companions. Having said that, is there anything to corroborate this unlikely tale? --Pete (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Estimates for the approved canon are all first century. They are most certainly closer. And estimates or not, at 145 A.D., it is unlikely that this person lived at the same time as Jesus, who died over 100 years earlier. Since, frankly, nothing you asserted is even remotely accurate, it sheds no light whatsoever on historical events.

Furthermore, here at wikipedia, we avoid using primary sources in most situations (this would be one of them), and would instead need a WP:RS tertiary source for this information. On top of that, this idea would have to be significant enough so as not to qualify as fringe to be included in the article. Since it is not significant enough, and since we do not have a reliable tertiary source, we cannot include this information.Farsight001 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Farsight, the follow statement is not true. "Estimates for the approved canon are all first century." Some are nearly 400 CE. Such as Revelations. And the Greek & Roman text of the Christians was altered in the 11th or 12th Centuries CE following the start of the Crusades. Source: Not only were things erased, changed, but whole pages, possible books were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigDeep4Truth (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Revelation in 400? where in the universe are you getting that number? In all my years, I've never seen an estimate later than 96. 400 is when all the individual books of the bible were first compiled into one volume and translated into Latin. The individual books all clearly existed from the first century. Even the wikipedia article on the book of Revelation says in the very first paragraph that it was probably written between 70 and 95.

Furthermore, since we have the dead sea scrolls and other ancient documents, it is very easy to see that while there are some translation issues, this unfortunately popular idea of "wholesale changes" is completely mythical.Farsight001 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good article/featured article

This article is mentioned on both the Good Article list and the Featured Article list. Bill Smith (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

In the original article, it says: Jesus' childhood home is identified in the gospels of Luke and Matthew as the town of Nazareth in Galilee.

Grammatically, it should be: The gospels of Luke and Matthew identified Jesus' childhood home as the town of Nazareth in Galilee.

Nsoftness (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think your version is crisper, but I don't think the original is ungrammatical. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Please change "Jesus probably looked like a typical Jew of his time" under the heading Language, ethnicity, and appearance to "Jesus probably had physical features common to the Jewish people of the time" because many Jewish people prefer to be referred to as "Jewish people" rather then "Jews". This sentence seems a bit abrasive to me. Mathguy1992 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such a change. The idea that the term "Jew" is somehow derogatory is itself derogatory to Jews. See Jews#Name_and_etymology and MOS:IDENTITY. Would you insist that "he was an American" be replaced by "he was an American person"? Paul B (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Paul B although not as strongly. In my mind, I question the importance of the word change - seems like we are making a change to make a change - and agree with Paul that the term Jew is not derogatory as it is a perfectly fine definition/reference in both a religeous and ethnic connotation. Ckruschke (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Lifetime Change

I believe the dating of Jesus' birth should be changed from BC. If you are using AD then Jesus was not born Before his time. Using BCE and CE would be proferred to relieve any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.202.194 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is already a policy on use of BC/AD vs BCE/CE (see WP:ERA). In general, either can be used. Since they both have the same reference time as the change between the eras, it makes no difference which is used. But there is a "cultural tie" in this article to BC/AD so it makes sense to use it here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I only suggested BCE and CE instead of AD because of Wikipedia own article around the meaning of AD, which means In the year of our Lord. It just didn't make sense to have him born in BC, which, when paired with AD, has the meaning of Before Christ/Before the Coming(of Christ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.154.86 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but due to errors in calculations long ago, we're stuck with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"B.C." means "B.C." That's it. It came from "Before Christ" but the meaning of terms can change beyond their etymologies. —Designate (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since when? Dictionaries still define it as "before Christ". EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

gkudkrytekftykw 199.247.66.120 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By day I am a Biblical Scholar... I've never made an edit to this Jesus article, even though I could quibble about many sentences. I agree with the anonymous editor's comment that the dating in this article should be changed to BCE/CE. It is the convention among mainstream academic Biblical Scholars to prefer this more "neutral" dating scheme. Among scholars studying ancient materials and using the historical method, only British classicists and philosophers (and those sympathetic to their style and proclivities) seem to use BC/AD anymore. American scholars almost universally use BCE/CE, and this is the convention of such flagship journals as the Society_of_Biblical_Literature's Journal_of_Biblical_Literature. Potentially, it could be (philosophically) argued that WP:NPOV demands a more neutral dating system. Most Biblical scholars acknowledge that the BC/AD terminology involves a not-so-implicit set of theological claims, i.e. that Jesus was/is Christ (Jews disagree, along with atheists), and that he was/is "Lord," implying divinity. It is also a little bit funny, as the comment above indicates, that Jesus's birth is now commonly dated to "BC." On the other side of the argument is the observation that you can efface the meaning of "Common Era" but the fact is that the system is based on the Christian dating scheme of Dionysius_Exiguus wily nily. So there it is, my two cents. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Was Jesus an Openly Gay Man?

Why isn't there any reference to the possibility that Jesus might have been an openly gay man? Here's an article pertaining to my question: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices Thanks. 70.238.222.12 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because such an idea is ridiculously fringe. There are less experts advocating for the idea that Jesus was gay than there are advocating that Jesus didn't even exist, and I am loathe to call those people experts, as none of the stuff they seem to write factors in ancient Jewish culture. It's all just looking at Jesus through the frame of modern culture.Farsight001 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Find some more reliable sources and we can include it I guess. It is WP:FRINGE though. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If this idea was to be mentioned in the article, it would have to be done not in reference to a Guardian UK blog post on the topic but in reference to scholarship regarding the sexuality of Jesus. While there have been a number of articles on Jesus and sexuality, a very brief search of JSTOR yields no results among the main peer-reviewed publications in the field. The place to look, incidentally, would be to the scholarship on Jesus, Lazarus, and the Beloved Disciple (i.e. in the Gospel of John) but then, WP:NOR Matthew Baldwin (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, did you notice that the cited BBC article is by some random blogger who says he is IMAGINING what some recently discovered (2005-2007) and currently UNTRANSLATED ancient lead "manuscripts" *might* contain? It's absurd not to notice that the article you linked is entirely speculative and is entirely aimed at the point of its final paragraph: that no matter what the documents *do* contain, Christianity will go on unchanged and unchallenged. In other words, the blog post has no news value, no scholarly value, and has content that is entirely speculative, not to mention fringe. WP:NOR in effect! Matthew Baldwin (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that those lead codices which may or may not reveal once translated that Jesus could or could not have been "openly guy", are considered modern forgeries by the vast majority of scholars who investigated them.--Kathovo talk 13:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Matthew 26:60 and Tomb Disparity

The article on Jesus, section entitled "Crucifixion and burial," currently states: "In Matthew 27:62–66, on the following day the Jews ask Pilate for the tomb to be sealed with a stone and placed under guard to ensure the body will remain there." This sentence is completely erroneous. Gospel Matthew 27:60 clearly states that Joseph of Arimethea was responsible for placing the large stone at the entrance to the tomb after the body of Jesus had been prepared.

Matthew27: [60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

The offending sentence under the section entitled "Crucifixion and burial," should be rewritten: "In Matthew 27:62–66, on the following day the chief Jewish priests ask Pilate for the tomb to be secured, and with Pilate's permission the priests place seals on the large stone covering the entrance and set a guard."

This serves to bring the statement into conformity with Matthew 27:65–66, which reads:

"[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. [66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch."

Jasfay (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Jasfay 03/03/14

Done Jasfay appears to be correct. See [7]. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Caner Citations and WP:RS

I'm wondering if we may want to remove any sourcing that is attributed to Ergun Caner. There is a huge controversy right now considering his claims of Muslim Upbringing (there have been several demonstrated lies on his part regarding his Islamic heritage and background knowledge), and many people are pointing out substantial errors that he makes regarding basics of Islamic studies. If this doesn't outright discredit him as any sort of authority on Islam, it certainly calls his status as a WP:RS into question.

Some of his errors:

• Caner does not know the difference between Islam's article of faith and the first chapter of the Qur'an
• He's claimed that the lunar month of Ramadan lasts for 40 days.
• In his book, he writes that he performed all of the rakats (daily prayers). The actual word is salah.

Some of the lies he has propogated:

• He's claimed to have debated Muslim scholars who've never heard of him.'
• Court records from his parent's divorce indicate that he was in Ohio when he was a young child, long before his alleged move from Turkey.
• On his books, his middle name is Mehmet (Muhammad in Turkish), yet it is listed as Michael on his concealed-weapons permit in Virginia. Before 9/11, he went by E. Michael Caner.
• In one speech, Caner told a crowd that outside the mosque in Kabul there was a sign that read, "Do not teach the women to read and write." The story may or may not be true, but Caner, to give authority to the tale, told the crowd what was written in the native tongue: "bahasha uwtara muwtara seeteeroh." That's neither Dari nor Arabic nor Urdu nor Turkish nor Pashtu. It is an entirely made up language.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walid-zafar/ex-muslim-evangelical-exp_b_582225.html for sourcing ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything sourced to Caner in this article. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears ReformedArsenal commented them out. I'd support outright removal. Citing him on Islam is almost as bad as citing John Todd on Wicca. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Sure, there's no need to keep them. And disputes about his alleged lies aside, I see nothing to suggest he's a serious scholar. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with caner but the information is totally correct. We should find other sources to support these arguments.Septate (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement itself is uncontroversial, and already has a citation even without Caner. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment If the above information is true I would have to say that he doesn't meet the criteria of a reliable source. Find a more reputable source or remove the content would be my advice.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead edits

This is regarding edits by Septate in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body of the article concisely. Extra information, such as the number of followers of Islam do not belong in the lead at all as it is entirely unrelated to this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but that passage was added because there is an identically phrased passage in the lede after the word "Christianity", saying "Christianity (the world's largest religion)". The Islam passage merely paralleled the Christian one. Both are about Jesus to the extent that they serve to emphasise his historical and contemporary significance. Personally, I think they are both unnecessary. We don't need to "big up" Jesus. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesus is not just a Christian figure, it is a Muslim one too. If the followers of Christianity are mentioned, then there should also be Muslim membership figures. I don't know what problem do you have with this statement.

Regarding crucifixion, the statement regarding Islam states that "Jesus is neither divine nor victim of crucifixion". Muslims do not deny crucifixition which is an important historical fact. There is just another alternative explanation to this. The denial of crucifixion in the lede gives a wrong impression to reader. Every one does not have time to read the whole article. So the circumstances behind the Islamic denial of crucifixion of Jesus should be mentioned in the lede. There is nothing wrong with this when you see lede section full of christian beliefs.Septate (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost four-fifth of the abnormally huge Lede section is dedicated to christian and scientific views but when it comes to essential Islamic beliefs, the section starts looking too large! Is this just justice with the other Abrahamic faith.Septate (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Muslims do not deny crucifixion which is an important historical fact." The Quran clearly says "but they killed him not, nor crucified him" (sura 4). Yes, I know that there is a minority interpretation that this means they couldn't kill his spirit, but as far as I am aware this very clearly a non-mainstream view. If you have evidence to the contrary, please indicate where it can be found. Are you in favour of removing both the "world's largest" and "world's second largest" religion passages? Paul B (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, I agree with EvergreenFir - the size of Islam has nothing to do with "anything" (this is not a Christian vs Muslim issue) and shouldn't be in the lede. This is a slam dunk, no brainer.

Second, there is no reason to mention what another religion's stance on a super specific aspect of Jesus is such as their viewpoint on his crucifixtion. I would have the same opinion whether it was a Hindu, Buddhist, or Hari Krishna view as none of them believe that he was crucified, died, and rose again like Christians do.

Thirdly, there clearly should be a "Christian" summation view paragraph in the lede and a "Non-Christian" summation view in the lede. Islam is only one of many religions that do not agree with Jesus as Messiah (or many of the other aspects of Jesus that are foundational pillars of the Christian faith) - I mean for flip sake, we don't even mention the Jewish opinion. Therefore, IMO, the first three paragraphs of the lede are fine (1-general overview, 2-historical perspective, and 3-Christian perspective) and the fourth para should be rewritten to summarize the "Religious Perspectives" of all the other religions (sections 5.2-5.5). Ckruschke (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

If it's such a no brainer then why has the passage "Christianity (the world's largest religion)" been there for so long (since December [8])?! Your comment on the crucifixion rather misses the point, I think. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Hari Krishna (which is just a form of Hinduism) have no opinion on the matter, but Islam does, since Jesus is a major figure in the Islamic religion. Islam is not "one of many religions that do not agree with Jesus as Messiah". Jesus is the Messiah in Islam. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you should refrain from commenting if you don't know basic facts about the Islamic view of Jesus. Read Jesus in Islam. Islam is the only other major religion in which Jesus is a significant figure. He has no role at all in any of the others, any more than Buddha or Krishna does in Christianity. Paul B (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul B I don't want to go too off thread about this, but the Islamic and the Christian views of what the term "Messiah" means is VERY different. In Islam he's a prophet just like any of the others - maybe more anointed - but no different whereas in Christianity he is THE foundational figure. For you to imply that these two beliefs are essentially the same is "comically odd", but maybe I just misunderstood in between where you suggest I'm a knuckle-dragging troglodyte...

My point remains the same - IMO there should be a 4th para that sums up all other views - if this is dominated by the Islamic view, then so be it, but it is still just "another religion's" view.Ckruschke (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

You said "Islam is only one of many religions that do not agree with Jesus as Messiah". That is factually inaccurate. Nowhere did I say that Islamic and Christian views as essentially the same. Of course their interpretation of what Messiah means is different, but that's irrelevant. Or rather it's irrelevant to the question at issue. As a matter of fact he is not a "prophet just like any of the others" in Islam. Being the Messiah gives him a very special and unique role. Islam is not just "another religion". It is the only other religion in which Jesus has a mandated role. He has no role in Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Of course Jews and Hindus may have opinions from the perspective of their faith, just as Christians may have opinions about Buddha. But there is no specific "Christian view" of Buddha, whereas there is a distinct and mandated Islamic view of Jesus, which is an inherent part of the religion. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just step in briefly on a particular point - ahem - Islam is not just "another religion". It is the only other religion in which Jesus has a mandated role.
Um - not so Paul. Now lightly stepping back out….--Smkolins (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm going to agree to disagree at this point. Both of us clearly seem to be failing to understand each others points and the thread has now moved on. Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Honestly, I didn't even see the "Christianity (the world's largest religion)" part. That should be removed as well in my opinion (will remove it in a minute). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the size of Christianity and Islam should not be mentioned in the lede. They're irrelevant to this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede problems

This sentence's parenthetical aside doesn't make any sense:

"The most widely used calendar era in the world, in which the current year is 2014 (abbreviated as "AD", alternatively referred to as "CE"), counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus."

2014 is not abbreviated as "AD" (or "CE"), so why does it say it is? Additionally, the following statement appears at the top of the editing page:

"Please do not change the way dates are expressed in this article, unless you have attained consensus with other editors on the talk page of this article. Based on the consensus in this request for comment dates should remain as they are (i.e., with BC/AD only). The only exceptions apply to quotations used within the text, which should not be altered."

It says only BC/AD can be used, yet the parenthetical aside clearly runs afoul of that stipulation. So which is it? (I could be wrong, but I suspect that given the awkwardness of the parenthetical bit, it was added after the original consensus was reached and people have been falsely defending it as being part of that consensus.) JayHubie (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this at all. One can abbreviate 2014 as "2014 A.D" if he wants. But the standard dates remain same.Septate (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Septate - I think JayHubie is referring to how the sentence implies that 2014 is equal to/abbreviated as "A.D.". I clearly don't think the sentence should be removed, but it appears that there is a word missing because "2014" is not abbreviated as "A.D." (since AD means Anno Domini - AD is already an abbreviation) or "2014 A.D." (since an "abbreviation" by definition means a shortening of a longer word/phrase so ADDING A.D. to 2014 is the OPPOSITE of an abbreviation). So my suggestion is that the sentence is missing something that was lost in a rewrite. Here is the sentence as it was on 20 Dec:

"The calendar era Anno Domini (abbreviated as "A.D.", alternatively referred to as "C. E.") is based on the birth of Jesus."

So the sentence has been modified from what was a very clear statement to its current clunkiness by the additions/changes of some words. I was involved in the original concensus that added the calendar year sentence and the current form is obviously quite changed. Because of its current confusing state, I would suggest the sentence be rewritten to read:

"The most widely used calendar era in the world, in which the current year is 2024 A.D. ("A.D.", an abbreviation of the latin word Anno Domini, is alternatively referred to as "C.E."), counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus."

I'm sure that isn't the perfect rewrite so please comment.Ckruschke (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think it could be reworded just by changing the order, that is: "The most widely used calendar era in the world (abbreviated as "AD", alternatively referred to as "CE"), in which the current year is 2014, counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus". Brandmeister^talk 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm for either Ckruschke's wording from Dec. 20 or Brandmeister's wording. The issue I had with the removal of the entire sentence (and the impetus for this section by JayHubie) is that the statement about eras is an important legacy of Jesus. It needs rewording, not removal. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir - agree with your points - the sentence is important which is why I wanted to see it corrected. I also prefer Brandmeister rewrite over mine and will make that change. Ckruschke (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'm mostly okay with this, but I still don't think that describing it as being "abbreviated" as such makes sense. JayHubie (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"The most widely used calendar era, Anno Domini, counts from a medieval..." perhaps? That's what links are for; the whole AD/A.D./CE is in the lede there; it doesn't need more expansion in this article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That should be good. The parenthetical part could just mention the abbreviation -- i.e. "...calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD), counts..." As far as CE, I still don't see any justification for even mentioning it given the notation I originally pointed out. JayHubie (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I feel CE should be included. It's a testament (no pun intended, but I giggled) to the legacy of Jesus that even the secular era language refers to his alleged year of birth. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Going to have to unindent soon at this rate! Anyway, while that's well and true, I just see its usage as being in conflict with the stipulation in that notation. That's all. JayHubie (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken sorce #29 fals source # 30 - not confirming aleged wikipedia statement

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-06-208994-6. "Joshua". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved August 4, 2013.

both source not confirming the wikiopedia aleged statement, 1 broken 2nd divering other

urge to correct misleaduing information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.142.83 (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture

I see this article is already a great-sized one and I'm not sure if this is going to fit in it, but I'm just asking: should be there a section where to mention the portayals of Jesus in films? Or the mentions of him in other non-religious books, in fiction books?--MJ for U (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)--MJ for U (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crucifixion

I have created this section in order to clear the misconception of most of the users here that crucifixion didn't happened according to Islamic point of view. According to Islam Jesus was not crucifixed but another person identical in appearance to him(possibly his disciple) was crucifixed. Jesus was raised alive into heavens by God according to Islam. Hence Islam does not deny the historical event of crucifixion but it has another opinion.Septate (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are wrong about this. The Quran merely says that he did not die, but only appeared to do so. There are several interpretations of this. 1. Someone else was crucified in his place 2. The crucifixion itself was a illusion/mirage. 3. He survived the crucifixion (Deedat wrote a whole book "proving" this). 4. He died physically but his spirit did not die.
Yes the substitute theory is the most commonly cited one, but it's not what is stated "according to Islam", but rather a common interpretation or rather extrapolation of the Quranic text. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've now changed "according to Muslims traditions" to "according to some Muslims traditions". The substitution explanation is not the only one.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The theory that he survived crucifixion is not of Muslims but come for ahmadis(they call themselves muslims) who are not considred Muslims and are not recognized as Muslims by Saudi arabia .Pakistan etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is associated mainly with Ahmadis, we know this. But it doesn't alter the fact that Deedat, who is not Ahamadi, wrote what he wrote. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement "some/most traditions" needs a source, because the current sources do not make this claim. Moreover, the Diane Morgan book is probably not reliable (I couldn't find any info about her; most likely a non-specialist). As an alternative to these sources, it is best to rely on books devoted to the "Jesus in Islam" subject and written by academics. Also, Quran 4:157 should be cited, which explicitly mentions crucifixion.[9] As a side note, the issue of Deedat is disputed, some claim it was misinterpretation/mistranslation.[10] Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The definition of death is final. Jesus son of Joseph's life did NOT end on the Cross on the 1st Day of Passover, Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC. Y'shua had a near-death experience: a term coined in 1974. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

IESVS is exactly how the name Y'shua appeared in Classical Latin on the placard on the Cross

John 19:19 states that "Jesus the Nazarean, the king of the Judeans" was written by order of Roman Pontius Pilate onto a placard that was nailed on the Cross. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. His name appeared in Classical Latin as IESVS. This evolved into Iesvs, then Iesus, then finally "Jesus" first appeared in the first revision of the King James Authorized Version of the Bible in 1629. This article needs to state this. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically that is already mentioned in Jesus#Etymology_of_names. Due to WP:SIZE further details belong to Jesus, King of the Jews and Jesus (name), both of them are linked to the Jesus article. Brandmeister^talk 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitchens quote

I don't really care much about the Hitchens quote that two other editors removed. Certainly not enough to get into an edit war versus following WP:BRD. What I'm interested in is maintaining the article in a Featured Article status. The section on criticism should here be a summary of the parent article. It does not currently exist as such. This is problematic for an FA. At WP:Summary, it states,

Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the main parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.

While the Hitchens quote was certainly plopped in there without much segue or context, certainly the path to maintaining FA status is to not just summarily delete sourced material from the parent article, but to improve it and the section around it in a manner befitting an FA.

I recommend reinstating that quote or some other similar material from the parent article on criticism and shaping that section to meet FA criteria. Airborne84 (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding needing a WP:SUMMARY, I think its funny that you think that quote was the most important thing to pull over. Regarding Hitchens and the quote - He is an exceptionally well known athiest,writing a book that is trying to convince people to become athiests, who has said explicitly that Jesus did not exist - so how could he criticize him, . He isn't criticizing Jesus, he is criticizing the idea of Jesus (and all religions), by making a Sunday school argument ("Why does God let bad things happen to good people?", "If God created everything, that means he created the Devil, and so he created all the evil in the world".). - To say that the most accurate description of this quote is an actual criticism of Jesus is ludicrous. Hes asking uncomfortable questions, to either get giggles from his fellow non-believers, or to make the believers question their faith. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my first sentence. And my third. Airborne84 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Marriage

Headine-1: Scientists Reveal Big Findings About Ancient Papyrus That Refers to Jesus’ ‘Wife’

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/scientists-reveal-big-findings-about-ancient-papyrus-that-refers-to-jesus-wife/

QUOTE: “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex,” she said at the time. Considering the ramifications for such a claim, the papyrus sparked skepticism, as it was the first time that a supposedly ancient document referred to Jesus, the centerpiece of Christianity, having a wife. [Don't expect this to be in the article herein any time soon; but keep it in mind and watch for further development/discoveries.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but my impression of this is that it was "non-news". Considering early returns are that it was written in the 8th Century (if it isn't an outright forgery) and is so small that it contains only a handful of incomplete sentences, I'm not sure what impact this will have other than to give more fuel to the already substantial "Jesus Was Married" crowd that's been fed over the years by various questionable/non-historical sources. Its similarly noteworthy as all the Ossuaries that pop up from time to time that Christians lock on to as historical "proof" of Biblical times. Ckruschke (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agreed. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)