Talk:List of people who have been considered deities

What About Nimrod?

How about including Nimrod? Splashen (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Did Nimrod exist? Despite what historians have been saying, it's still doubtful that this person actually existed in history, isn't it? 2602:FEDA:3E:E35B:1BF7:ADF4:D2F8:76F3 (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, historians have been trying to find this person in history books and at sites, but there's no very credible 2602:FEDA:3F:8C46:6A12:B72E:533E:A44C (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: move Jesus from self-deification into Posthumous deification category

Greetings! I realize this is contentious. The passage given (Romans 1) is clearly written about Jesus, not recording His own words. To my knowledge, Jesus never claimed that He was God or wanted to be seen as a deified being. He said "I and the Father are One" (John 10:30), which could be a Hebrew idiom stating their purposes and aims were aligned, typically used in matters of business or inheritance as a claim of authorization. The "One" in the Greek (even though this is not the language spoken, but it is the record we have) is neuter, not masculine, indicating that the meaning is not "One person" but "One entity".

"Even Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) does not claim being (a) G-d either. Angels are also (potentially) immortal and created before mankind (as we can read e.g. in Job 38:4-7). The "Sons of God" בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (Bnei Elohim) were definitely not Gods in the monotheistic conception, but part of creation.

The report about Thomas ("the doubter") calling Jesus "My Lord and my G-d" (John 20:28) on touching his side, and Jesus not resisting, does not prove divinity either. We cannot know for certain what word Thomas used since John wrote in Greek, but most likely it was "Elohim", a title that designates a very powerful entity, and while often used for God, the Judges in the eponymous book are also called "Elohim".

We need to discern carefully what Jesus really claimed about himself, and what was later attributed to Him, if we want to correctly categorize him into either self-deified or posthumously or even Involuntarily deified. All of John's writing, if it is not directly quoting Jesus, has to support the second (or third) category, not the first. Mathi80 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia doesn't "discern" things. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it not discern by categorizing? (Isn't categorization the prime form of discernment?) Even the Wiki article on Christology states that there was “broad agreement” that scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God… I do not see any "original research" or synthesis occurring by moving the entry into a different, to my understanding more fitting section. Mathi80 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please get a WP:CONSENSUS before moving it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy to do my part to achieve consensus. How do I go about that? The page you reference is somewhat vague. Can I call a WP:3O? Or what do you suggest? Mathi80 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:3O is a good place to start. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I happen to be reading a book right now (When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein) which discusses this topic, and while it mostly deals with the period about 300 years after Jesus, I can tell you that the scholarly consensus is that even in that period the debate as to his identity was far from settled. Early followers had lots of theories as to his identity and the common version that won out only did so because it violently purged those who disagreed, not because it was in the majority (it probably wasn't.)

As you say, there are Christians today who would argue that Jesus did say he was God, but as far as I can tell that is not the scholarly consensus. I've even seen Christian sources arguing that he was God openly admit that he never actually said he was God (but they usually argue that he "implied" it.) As with most of the bible there are different ways to interpret it, and sometimes translators lean towards one interpretation or another, but we should try to stay away from interpreting it ourselves as much as possible. I would say move the section to "Posthumous deification" and add a note saying that some passages could be interpreted as him self-deifying. Relinus (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can certainly find examples of commentators on both sides of this debate. I'm not opposed to mentioning that in the entry's blurb that it's disputed, but I think there should be a consensus if we were to move it.

Response to third opinion request:

The 3OR request specifically asked for an "independent scholar" to opine on whether Jesus claimed himself as a God, or if this was attributed to him later. The best place to ask such a question would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. With regards to the dispute, we can only include content that is verifiable through reliable sources. We have to follow what ever it is that sources say about the matter. Polyamorph (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Many thanks Polyamorph for the quick response and your expedient help! I'll add a wording to the "blurb", you and Jamie please feel free to adjust as you see fit. Mathi80 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Me again. Somebody removed Jesus entirely from the article now. I consider this unfortunate. I suggest re-instating and moving to the posthumous category. I submit to your scrutiny that we have established now that there actually is scholarly consensus that historically, Jesus was considered an itinerant rabbi, potentially the Jewish Messiah (who by definition has to be a human, born of a mother and father!), but that the whole new religion of Christianity with a central divine founder figure developed posthumously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathi80 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What Happened To Addition Of Mother Teresa?

In the Posthumous section, Mother Teresa was included, as there are locals in Calcutta worship her as an avatar of the Hindu goddess, but, has since been taken out. Is there any reason why? Can she be restored? Splashen (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)