Talk:Jesus/Archive 137

Archive 130

←

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Rephrase "Most Christians"?

Original Text: Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Proposed Changes: All Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son, though there is a minority, which have been deemed heretical by many major denominations, that recognizes neither Jesus as God the Son nor the Holy Trinity. Christians also believe Jesus to be the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Reason Why: Belief in Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son is quite literally one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith. To say that "Most", but not "All", Christians believe in him as God the Son and still refer to them as Christian would be wrong. You are removing a key factor of the faith and acting like it has not been removed. Vilo2023 (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You have provided to reliable source for this. The current text is sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we're not adding in a logically inconsistent "all, except..." language that contradicts the cited source (Ehrman). Please remember not to inject your personal beliefs or synthesis into editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, it could be amended further, yet changes should still be made.

As I have said first, the Trinity and belief in Jesus as God the Son have been established as cornerstones to the Christian faith by multiple different events, such as the Council of Nicea and the Athanasian Creed. To say that a denomination is still Christian while it rejects a fundamental part of Christianity makes no sense. So, the inclusion of "Most", rather than "All" seems quite silly and is the main thing I see needs to be changed.

This isn't merely because of personal beliefs, though I am quite biased as a Christian myself, but because it is part of the doctrine of every major Christian denomination. It would be the same as an anti-Fascist organization participating in Fascism. The bedrock of the ideology has been removed, therefore it no longer fits the grouping. A denomination cannot be both Christian while rejecting the guiding principles of Christianity, which is what denying Jesus as God the Son and the Trinity.

Even the Wikipedia article on Christianity contains neither "Most" nor "All" in a portion of text, which seems to have been copy and pasted over. Either "Most" needs to be changed to "All" in this article, or it could be removed as was in the article the text was taken from. Vilo2023 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming here to condemn other faiths as heretical, but the reliable sources tend to disagree with you, and that's a pretty important thing around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read Nontrinitarianism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And No true Scotsman. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think we could use an FAQ for this as this narrow view keeps coming up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea; I took a shot at it (as Q10). Feel free to modify/improve. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

Intro section:

"He was arrested in Jerusalem and tried by the Jewish authorities turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judaea."

I suggest to change "He was arrested" to "He was eventually arrested". It's a very minor edit but this text is preceded by a description of Jesus' activities and adding "eventually" will show more clearly that there is quite a bit of time between him starting his own ministry and his arrest. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:8D40:6944:3880:BC12 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe this change is necessary. The text's statement that Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem does not imply that he was immediately arrested upon arrival.

The length of his ministry is irrelevant to this section of the article, the purpose of which is to highlight the scholarly agreement that Jesus was a real, historical person. Zoozoor (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, thank you for responding. 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:6965:6918:9D4D:3E40 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

All Christians believe in Jesus as the Messiah

In the introduction paragraph, I can understand the phrase "Most Christians" for the belief in the Son of God, however universally all Christians believe in Jesus Christ as the awaited Messiah of Judaism, as that is a central tenet of Christianity. Augustus2714 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. While it may be true the vast majority of Christians hold the belief, there are some sects that do not, therefore "all" is not entirely correct. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate link in the lead

Hello,

I noticed a duplicate link in the lead. Ordinarily duplicate links should be removed, but I wanted to ask out of consideration of the note requesting discussion before edits.

The duplicately linked page is Second Coming, referred to in the 4th paragraph from both "will return" and "Second Coming." The MoS cautions against repeating links within a major section.

I suggest an alternative way to indicate that "will return" is referring to the Second Coming: "...from where he will return (known as the Second Coming)." abcasada (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest linking to "itinerant teacher"

In the third paragraph of the lead, it's mentioned that Jesus was an itinerant teacher. I'd recommend linking to the appropriate page. abcasada (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please

Please, put that Jesus has central role in Christianity AND SPIRITISM. It's so annoying how christians think they are the only who beieve in Jesus. Fix it, please. João L. Paiter (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While Spirits certainly can be Christians, that isn't a requirement. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the majority, more than 90% are christians, so it is better to put something like "Major role in christianity and spiritism (most cases)", or something like that. João L. Paiter (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article and the article makes no reference to this. We don't add stuff to articles without reliable sources even if we know it to be true. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm brazillian and I live and convive with lots of spiritists and in spiritism (not just here I live) Jesus is treated EXACTALY like in christianity. What do you want as a reliable source? João L. Paiter (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Click on blue link in my reply above. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant "Spiritists". Sometimes the spellchecking means trouble. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

TRUE NAME OF MESSIAH

The Messiah was a Yahudim (Hebrew). He had a HEBREW name, it is YaHushua or in short they wrote "Y'shua", they commonly shortened many long Hebrew names then and now. He never used their Greek name, "Jesus or Ie'sus" as they typically call him. He was a Yahudim, not a Greek. He was raised Yahudim and practiced as such whether He agreed with the Pharisees or not, He practiced and lived as a Yahudim. The Hebrew inscription of his name says "YaHushua", not Jesus or Iesus. His true Hebrew name was YaHushua and it means "salvation of YaH". Shalom Bobdanyels (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, however if you'd like it included in the article you will need both reliable sources and a reasonable amount of context in relevance and notability. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: "The Hebrew New Testament"; "The Cepher Besora'oth"; "The Peshitta, Aramaic English New Testament"; "Y'SHUA (YAHUSHUA), the Jewish Way to say Jesus"; among many other resources. 64.224.81.174 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You may or may not find something interesting in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

Please re-add the line "Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine." that was removed on November 11th 2023‎ by "Baruch Benedictus Spinoza."

Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of 1st-century Palestine.[428] Ioudaios in New Testament Greek[r] is a term which in the contemporary context may refer to religion (Second Temple Judaism), ethnicity (of Judea), or both.[430][431][432] In a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine writes that the entire question of ethnicity is "fraught with difficulty", and that "beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish', rarely does the scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means".

I think it is fairly obvious what Baruch's edits are intended to subtract here. Zuberii (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, that text is found at Jesus#Language,_ethnicity,_and_appearance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

HAIR OF WOOL, SKIN OF BRONZE. Get an accurate picture. The source is the friggin bible’s description of Jesus. Get real! 2600:1017:B8B6:A8F4:20A7:CBDB:228F:DA59 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And where, in your opinion, is an accurate picture of this person of which there are no surviving depictions from his lifetime? WP:LEADIMAGE may or may not be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

feet like bronze glowing in a furnace. And don't forget the sword coming out of his mouth. Anyway, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you mad his “hairs are [not] white like wool” as stated in the translated passage you’ve cited?

In any case, the oldest known depiction of Christ is the likely most appropriate iconography if one is to be supplied. It’s historically interesting and the least controversial. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to forward your individual historiography or messianic race theories. Palmetto Carolinian (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Harrowing of Hell in the lede/article

There's no mentioning of the harrowing of hell even though it is a pretty substantial piece of early Christian theology that is still taught today. Is there a consensus on not having this in the article? Ayyydoc (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently some previous discussion exists: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Harrowing is a bit of a funny one! As you say, it is certainly early and attested, but exists basically non-canonically one might say. I don't see why it couldn't be mentioned in the article, but I tend to think including it in the lead would be a bit much. As ever though, reasonable minds can certainly differ on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You can start with proposing (or WP:BOLDLY add) a cited WP:PROPORTIONATE text for Jesus#Christianity. If that gets accepted, we can look at if it's reasonable to mention it in the WP:LEAD. Hopefully, there are some usable sources at Harrowing of Hell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we rename Jesus' entry "Jesus of Nazareth"?

Hello,

Thank you for not calling him "Jesus, the anointed one", and I don't think we would confuse him for some other Jesus, but a name change might suggest a nontrinitarian stance and that Wikipedia sees him as no more or less divine than anyone else. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:134F:919:A36B:DBFC (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

General Wikipedia policy is to refer to subjects by the name which they are most commonly called. When you say "Jesus", almost everyone would assume you're talking about Jesus Christ. And similarly, he is most often referred to simply as "Jesus".

We also refer to Muhammad, Buddha, Moses etc. mononymically. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the current title fits WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

sentence structure correction

First sentence of the third paragraph:

Jesus was circumcised at eight days old, was baptized by John the Baptist as a young adult, and after 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, began his own ministry.

The above sentence is clunky/confusing to read. I suggest rewriting into several sentences, e.g.:

Jesus was circumcised at eight days old. When Jesus was a young adult, he was baptized by John the Baptist. After 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, Jesus began his own ministry. 2600:6C55:69F0:7EB0:49BA:41CB:A27B:2D76 (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes

I'm waiting. What is your reasoning for reverting my changes? Khassanu (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The existing infobox is fine: this is a featured article and it's been laid out with relative care. In my view, and likely in the view of the editors who added that note, these additions are contrary to an infobox's purpose, which is to relay only key facts at a glance, as briefly as possible. Please be receptive to this attempt at concision and parsimony in your numerous highly visible edits you've made recently across many highly developed articles: less is more with infoboxes. Remsense ‥ 论 21:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Khassanu (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So why did you add many changes to the infobox again without prior discussion, as both I and the article specifically asked you to do? Among other unexplained edits, it's not clear what point these template swaps are doing. You need to explain these things and ask beforehand if you don't understand as a new editor—on featured articles, especially ones as highly visible as this one, many things are the way they are for good reasons. Remsense ‥ 论 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(One more thing, for when you should be adding one, please do not just put line breaks between the items of a list, per WP:NOBR) Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Baháʼís and Druzes has a population that is incomparably smaller than Islam. The infobox should be accordingly. Who knows him because he is a Baháʼí and Druze prophet? The infobox is already pretty simple.
• One of the most familiar things about Jesus from the Islamic perspective is that he performed miracles and had the Gospel (Injil) revealed to him.

Khassanu (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So, what is your objection? Khassanu (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine the way that it is. The lead summarizes the body of the article proportionally, which reflects the cited sources proportionally. That can't just be crudely measured by raw word count, especially when dealing with passages as brief as this one. The summary is perfectly concise and fair. The distinction is slight, but the article is about Jesus, not the Gospel, so an aside about the Gospel in Islam is unwarranted in such a broad summary, reflecting the relative importance of Jesus and the Gospel in Islam versus in Christianity. Remsense ‥ 论 05:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, what do you say about the infobox? Khassanu (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On top of changing what was already well-weighted, you seemed to destructively remove formatting templates that serve a purpose. Remsense ‥ 论 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Baháʼís and Druzes has a population that is incomparably smaller than Islam. Who knows him because he is a Baháʼí and Druze prophet? Khassanu (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at above about "representation ≠ raw word count": these are brief passages, and the idea that you're making it "more fair" by adding more detail to something that's not meant to be detailed at all is not good editing. Remsense ‥ 论 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the edit I made before. I'm not talking about that. The edit I made is extremely short and simple. Khassanu (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Baha'i, Druze and Rastafari are already gathered in one place. ("Imporant figure in Baháʼí Faith, Druze Faith, and Rastafari") Khassanu (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)