Talk:Jesus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m CE?: nvm
rv malformed edit request, only borderline gibberish but surely impossible for anything constructive to come from
 
Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
|action1=FAC
{{American English|flag=off|reason=very first non-redirect edit (2001-NOV-21) used spelling "Savior" and "recognize".}}
|action1date=21:45, 1 Mar 2004
{{Article history
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Jesus Christ
|action1=FAC |action1date=10:51, 17 January 2004 |action1result=not promoted |action1oldid=6800469
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Jesus Christ
|action1oldid=6800540
 
|action2=FAC |action2date=18:41, 2 Jun 2004 |action2result=not promoted |action2oldid=6800976
|action2=FAC
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2004#Jesus Christ
|action2date=18:41, 2 Jun 2004
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2004#Jesus Christ
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=6800976
 
|action3=FAC |action3date=06:42, 3 Aug 2004 |action3result=not promoted |action3oldid=6801172
|action3=FAC
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Jesus
|action3date=06:42, 3 Aug 2004
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Jesus
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=6801172
 
|action4=FAC |action4date=00:48, 2 Nov 2004 |action4result=not promoted |action4oldid=7044553
|action4=FAC
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Jesus
|action4date=00:48, 2 Nov 2004
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Jesus
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=7044553
 
|action5=AFD |action5date=18:15, 3 May 2005 |action5result=kept |action5oldid=
|action5=PR
|action5link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus
|action5date=00:30, 6 October 2005
|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/Archive1
|action5result=reviewed
|action5oldid=24854473
 
|action6=PR |action6date=00:30, 6 October 2005 |action6result=reviewed |action6oldid=24854473
|action6=GAN
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive1
|action6date=07:48, 12 December 2005
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=31027124
 
|action7=FAC |action7date=02:23, 15 December 2005 |action7result=not promoted |action7oldid=31414159
|action7=FAC
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive1
|action7date=02:23, 15 December 2005
|action7link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive1
|action7result=not promoted
|action7oldid=31414159
 
|action8=PR |action8date=16:38, 14 April 2006 |action8result=reviewed |action8oldid=48433670
|action8=PR
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive2
|action8date=16:38, 14 April 2006
|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/Archive2
|action8result=reviewed
|action8oldid=48433670
 
|action9=PR |action9date=18:44, 27 November 2006 |action9result=reviewed |action9oldid=90476227
|action9=PR
|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus/archive3
|action9date=18:44, 27 November 2006
|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus
|action9result=reviewed
|action9oldid=90476227
 
|action10=FAC |action10date=03:52, 21 April 2007 |action10result=not promoted |action10oldid=124510613
|action10=FAC
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive2
|action10date=03:52, 21 April 2007
|action10link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive2
|action10result=not promoted
|action10oldid=124510613
 
|action11=WAR |action11date=00:09, 21 August 2007 |action11result=approved |action11oldid=152509285
|currentstatus=GA
|action11link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Jesus
}}
{{calm talk}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WPReligion|class=A|importance=High}}
|2={{ChristianityWikiProject
|class=A
|importance=top
|core-topics-work-group=yes
|jesus-work-group=yes
}}
|3={{WikiProject Islam|class=A|importance=mid}}
|4={{WikiProject Judaism|class=A}}
|5={{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=GA
|priority=Top
|core=yes
|listas=Jesus
}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=A|category=Philrelig|VA=yes}}
{{FAOL|German|de:Jesus von Nazaret}}
{{todo|small=yes}}
 
|action12 = GAR | action12date = 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | action12result = delisted | action12oldid = 295717805
==Archives and Live Subpages==
|action12link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jesus/2
{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-b: 3px;"
|align=left|
|- width="100%" align="left" cellspacing="10" style="border: 0px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"
|align=center valign=center|
|<CENTER>'''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] of older discussions may be found here:'''</CENTER>'''
|[[/Archive details|Key to archives]]''', <br /> Archives: [[/Archive 1|1]], [[/Archive 2|2]], [[/Archive 3|3]], [[/Archive 4|4]], [[/Archive 5|5]], [[/Archive 6|6]], [[/Archive 7|7]], [[/Archive 8|8]], [[/Archive 9|9]], [[/Archive 10|10]], [[/Archive 11|11]], [[/Archive 12|12]], [[/Archive 13|13]], [[/Archive 14|14]], [[/Archive 15|15]], [[/Archive 16|16]], [[/Archive 17|17]], [[/Archive 18|18]], [[/Archive 19|19]], [[/Archive 20|20]], [[/Archive 21|21]], [[/Archive 22|22]], [[/Archive 23|23]], [[/Archive 24|24]],[[/Archive 25|25]], [[/Archive 26|26]],[[/Archive 27|27]], [[/Archive 28|28]],[[/Archive 29|29]], [[/Archive 30|30]], [[/Archive 31|31]], [[/Archive 32|32]], [[/Archive 33|33]], [[/Archive 34|34]], [[/Archive 35|35]], [[/Archive 36|36]], [[/Archive 37|37]], [[/Archive 38|38]], [[/Archive 39|39]], [[/Archive 40|40]], [[/Archive 41|41]], [[/Archive 42|42]], [[/Archive 43|43]], [[/Archive 44|44]], [[/Archive 45|45]], [[/Archive 46|46]], [[/Archive 47|47]], [[/Archive 48|48]], [[/Archive 49|49]], [[/Archive 50|50]], [[/Archive 51|51]], [[/Archive 52|52]], [[/Archive 53|53]], [[/Archive 54|54]], [[/Archive 55|55]], [[/Archive 56|56]], [[/Archive 57|57]], [[/Archive 58|58]], [[/Archive 59|59]], [[/Archive 60|60]], [[/Archive 61|61]], [[/Archive 62|62]], [[/Archive 63|63]], [[/Archive 64|64]], [[/Archive 65|65]], [[/Archive 66|66]], [[/Archive 67|67]], [[/Archive 68|68]], [[/Archive 69|69]], [[/Archive 70|70]], [[/Archive 71|71]], [[/Archive 72|72]], [[/Archive 73|73]], [[/Archive 74|74]], [[/Archive 75|75]], [[/Archive 76|76]], [[/Archive 77|77]], [[/Archive 78|78]], [[/Archive 79|79]], [[/Archive 80|80]], [[/Archive 81|81]], [[/Archive 82|82]], [[/Archive 83|83]], [[/Archive 84|84]], [[/Archive 85|85]], [[/Archive 86|86]], [[/Archive 87|87]], [[/Archive 88|88]], [[/Archive 89|89]], [[/Archive 90|90]], [[/Archive 91|91]], [[/Archive 92|92]], [[/Archive 93|93]], [[/Archive 94|94]], [[/Archive 95|95]], [[/Archive 96|96]], [[/Archive 97|97]], [[/Archive 98|98]], [[/Archive 99|99]], [[/Archive 100|100]], [[/Archive 101|101]], [[/Archive 102|102]], [[/Archive 103|103]] .
|}
{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-b: 3px;"
|align=left|
|- width="100%" align="left" cellspacing="10" style="border: 0px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"
|align=center valign=center|
|'''Subject-specific:'''
|[[Talk:Josephus on Jesus]], [[Talk:Virgin Birth]], [[Talk:Jewish views of Jesus]]
|}
 
|action13 = GAN | action13date = 18:18, 5 May 2013 | action13result = listed | action13oldid = 553661601
{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-b: 3px;"
|action13link = Talk:Jesus/GA1
|align=left|
|- width="100%" align="left" cellspacing="10" style="border: 0px solid #C0C090; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin-bottom: 0px;"
|align=center valign=center|
|'''''ACTIVE'' sub-pages'''
|[[/Cited Authors Bios]], [[/Christian views in intro]], [[/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees]], [[/Dates of Birth and Death]], [[/2nd Paragraph Debate]], [[/Related articles|Related articles]], [[/Historicity Reference]], [[Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA|Comments]], [[Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets|Sockpuppets]], [[Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus|Languages Spoken by Jesus]], [[/Historical Jesus]]
|}
----
 
|action14 = WPR | action14date = 28 May 2013 | action14result = copyedited | action14oldid = 557195146
===Recent Archive log===
|action14link = Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2013
* [[/Archive 73]] - Doctors (Finding in the Temple); Inconsistency?; Lostceasar's Issues
* [[/Archive 74]] - Era notation vote; We have an article called "Evidence of evolution" but...; Denomination; Jesus' Family; central figure to founder; With respect to the section on Gnosticism
* [[/Archive 75]] - I could find no other encyclopedias which denied the existence of Jesus; Forensic reconstruction?; Missing the logic; POV, "Little external documentation" about Jesus according to whom? Also, little is too vague/subjective; Wasn't Jesus Black?
* [[/Archive 76]] - Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus, Christian view, 6th century portrait, Jesus in Japan?, lack of modern historians views, trilemma, New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus, African?
* [[/Archive 77]] - Revision of Christian Views, The Great Mystery link, Inline citations, NPOV proportionality, fact of Jesus, Jesus' family, Jesus was Albanian, Scholarship, Kabbalah vs. logia of Jesus.
* [[/Archive 78]] - Cultural effects, The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection, Supernatural/psychic categories, intro and historicity/myth, "...was handed over by Pilate the Roman governor to be crucified," Sanders on Jesus as a Pharisee
* [[/Archive 79]] - Nietzsche, Family genealogy, Myth, BCE/BC, Islam, Magi, Arrest, Judaism's view
* [[/Archive 80]] - William Lane Craig debate, Non-Christian views of Jesus, scholars and the death and Resurrection of Jesus, islamic view of jesus, Jesus' title and race, error in the article, parables, The Jesus Family Tomb and James Cameron, judgement, cousin, myth, Unnecessarily implied atonement theology in intro
* [[/Archive 81]] - Founders of religions category tag, Jesus's Character, Recent significant changes, Judaism View, Minor Edits Reverted, Featured Article Status, Possible Bias?, Atheist views section, Report for violating 3RR, Atheist views - take 2, LIBERAL BIAS, Vandalism! Help! Someone!
* [[/Archive 82]]- Muslim view on Crucifixion, Notes section may need clean up, A Torrent, judgment, slavery, POV tag?, Featured article nomination.... maybe, Sources on Jesus' life, Standardizing references, Historicity or Revisionism?
 
|action15=FAC |action15date=10:04, 15 August 2013 |action15result=promoted |action15oldid=568634194
===Subpage Activity Log===
|action15link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive3
* ''Discussion on Judaism's views moved to [[Talk:Jewish view of Jesus|Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus]].''
* ''Buried vs. entombed," alledged "lack of sources" archived to [[Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro]].''
* ''New subpage created, [[/Historical Jesus]], with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.''
* Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to [[/2nd Paragraph Debate]].''
* Sudden move of [[Christ]]: discussion moved to [[Talk:Christ]].''
* Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_mythology#Citations_and_expert Christian Mythology Talk]] for relevancy reasons
* [[User:Andrew c/Jesus]]: sorting data b/w [[New Testament view on Jesus' life]], [[Christian views of Jesus#Life]], and [[Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels]].
 
|currentstatus=FA
== NT and scholars ==
|maindate=December 25, 2013
|topic=Philrelig
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Jesus|blp=n|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|anglicanism=y|anglicanism-importance=Top|catholicism=y|catholicism-importance=Top|eastern-orthodoxy=y|eastern-orthodoxy-importance=Top|jesus-work-group=y|latter-day-saint-movement=y|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=Top|oriental-orthodoxy=y|oriental-orthodoxy-importance=Top|messianic-judaism=y|messianic-judaism-importance=Top|theology-work-group=y|theology-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Bahá'í Faith|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=High |byzantine-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=top}}
}}
{{Press
| subject = article
| title = Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed
| org = [[BBC News]]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613
| date = 18 July 2013
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 18 July 2013
| author2 = Caitlin Dewey
| title2 = Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven’t read
| org2 = National Post
| url2 = http://news.nationalpost.com/news/demon-cats-helicopter-escapes-and-crayon-colours-the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read
| date2 = 6 November 2015
| accessdate2 = 10 November 2015
| author3 = Omer Benkajob
| title3 = Why Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune Won't Save the News
| org3 = Haaretz
| url3 = http://www.haaretz.com/life/.premium-1.786100
| date3 = 27 April 2017
| accessdate3 = 30 April 2017
| author4 = Richard Cooke
| title4 = Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet
| org4 = ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]''
| url4 = https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/
| date4 = 17 February 2020
| accessdate4 = 27 February 2020
| author5 = Caitlin Dewey
| title5 = The most fascinating Wikipedia articles you haven’t read
| org5 = ''[[The Washington Post]]''
| url5 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/05/the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read/
| date5 = 5 November 2015
| accessdate5 = 8 March 2023
}}
{{Archives |large=yes |auto=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30 | box-width= 285px|index=/Archive index|<center>Obsolete subpages: [[Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios|Cited Authors Bios]], [[Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro|Christian views in intro]], [[Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees|Scribes Pharisees and Saducees]], [[Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death|Dates of Birth and Death]], [[Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference|Historicity Reference]], [[Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA|Comments, PR, FA]], [[Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets|Sockpuppets]], [[Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus|Languages Spoken by Jesus]], [[Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus|Historical Jesus]], [[Talk:Jesus/Related articles|Related articles]], [[Talk:Jesus/Rewrite|Rewrite]], [[Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate|2nd Paragraph Debate]]</center>}}
 
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
The longstanding text was
*''however, because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy.''
it was changed by LotR to
*''because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified in secular records, some historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy.''
and I have tried out
*''however, because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians debate their accuracy.''
 
{{Annual readership}}
I agree that saying that the historical task is "difficult" is a little POV, so instead of singling out scholars that have difficulty, I changed the —wording to be less decisive and more neutral, stating they debate the accuracy. I also removed "in secular records" which was added, because historians accept multiple attestation as a valid criteria for historical reliability. That means if something can be independently verified in multiple non-secular sources, it can still be considered historical. I hope these changes are well met, but I've taken the time to explain them further here on talk in order to give space for community discussion. Also, I removed the following text that was added in a comment in the main article ''The gospels themselves are historical documents, written within the lifetimes of the apostles. Luke himself is considered by some to be "a historian of the first rank".'' I'm not exactly sure why it was added. It was unsourced and in comment code so it seems like commentary. Is there something we need to discuss on talk? Do we need to make changes to the historical Jesus section? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 17:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
{{section sizes}}
 
}}
:Please don't edit the part of the article in question during a content dispute because it can lead to edit warring. The recent changes are not acceptable because they introduce the weasel word "some" and reintroduce the "secular" notion that I disputed above. Please see [[Criterion of multiple attestation]] for more information about what I mean by multiple attestation. The gospels are not 4 independent accounts. Because of the synoptic problem, it is obvious that the gospels use each other as sources. So something that may be found in 3 different gospels, but all originate from a single source is considered by scholars to be one, not 3 different sources. And the criteria of multiple attestation is just one of many different methods scholars use to judge historicity. Something that may be recored in 5 different independent sources (say the resurrection) may still be considered ahistorical by some scholars. Anyway, there is no need to specify "secular", nor is there a need to say "some" scholars. Is it not true that any scholar holds an opinion on historicity and by publishing, they are entering the general debate? Are there scholars that refuse to publish on historicity? Saying that historians debate the details is just that. Saying "some scholars..." implies that the rest of the scholars don't engage in discussions concerning the historical Jesus, which isn't true to my knowledge.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
::I don't know why LotR is ignoring the talk page. The edits are problematic. Scholars don't decide whether something is historical based on whether there is non-Gospel attestation. If that were the case, there would a very, very minimalist Jesus because there is almost no non-Christian information on Jesus. Perhaps we do need to phrase the sentence better to be more clear. However, the changes are simply false. Look through any of the mainstream scholars' books on the historical Jesus (E.P. Sanders, Raymond E. Brown, Bart D. Ehrman, John P. Meier, etc). They all use multiple historical methods to judge the historical probability of the various aspects of the Gospel accounts. They don't just say "oh, this pericope isn't found in secular sources, so it must be made up". -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 00:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 200K
 
|counter = 139
:::First, let me apologize for ignoring the talk page — it was not intentional, but in my haste I honestly did not notice that anything was being posted here. The text as it stood before was problematic, suggesting that the gospels (and consequently, the entire New Testament canon, since all the books portray a consistent picture of Jesus) are ahistorical. I am not a historian, but I do have a little knowledge in the matter. I am aware that Mark's gospel was the earliest account, that Matthew and Luke have material in common with Mark, and that the later evangelists probably drew upon Mark. However, there is material in Matthew and Luke not found in Mark, suggesting another non-Markan source (Q). There is also material unique to Matthew (M), and then again other material unique to Luke (L). My point being is that the 3 synoptic gospels are not merely carbon copies of a single source. The Gospel of John, unlike the synoptics, claims to be written by an eyewitness. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts contain excruciating details relating the otherwise "insignificant" events of the story to the larger context of world history and contemporary events. Many of these details in Luke's accounts have been verified and, while not providing anything in the way of theology, nevertheless establishes him as an accurate historian. In fact, his gospel starts out with the claim:
|algo = old(30d)
<blockquote>
|archive = Talk:Jesus/Archive %(counter)d
:::"I too, having followed the whole course of events accurately from the first, have decided to write an orderly account for you, in order that you may be sure of the reliability of the information which you have received." — Luke 1:3-4
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
</blockquote>
|target=/Archive index
:::The 4 gospel accounts, along with the Epistles and Acts, are remarkably consistent, yet written by different authors, and they do not all draw upon a single source. They were not considered authoritative by the early church because "they are in The Bible," but rather they were included as part of the biblical canon at an early date precisely because they were recognized as accurate and authoritative. If they were secular documents, they would probably be considered authentic beyond all doubt. In my rewording I attempted to restore NPOV; while there may be modern scholars who debate their accuracy, the gospels nonetheless cannot be subtly dismissed as "unscholarly" or "ahistorical," as they were before. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
|mask=/Archive <#>
::::To say that critical scholars debate historicity is true, but it is less informative than the reader deserves. Critical scholars have reached a broad consensus, that the gospels are partly historically reliable and partly not. The debates are not about whether the gospels are accurate. They're about which parts are legit and which are not. Even within this debate, there is broad agreement on big issues, such as that the Gospel of John is far less historically reliable than the synoptics (some would say historically worthless). These are basic, noteworthy viewpoints that are simple to state and relevant to the topic of the gospel narrative. "Critical scholars hold some parts of the gospels, such as Jesus' parables, to be more historically accurate, and others, such as the Gospel of John, to be less historical." A reader who's curious about these debates about historicity would be grateful for the informative version. I understand that Christians hold a virtual veto on adding things to this section, but can't at least the sentence about the [[historical-critical method]] and its treatment of the gospels get a pass? [[User:Jonathan Tweet|Jonathan Tweet]] 02:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0
 
|indexhere=yes
::::Thanks for coming to talk. Hopefully we can fix this problem. I'm not happy with the current version. The current version is simply inaccurate. It is saying that Christians cannot be critical. It is saying that someone like Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic priest, can't hold the belief that Luke's info on the census is ahistorical (which is Brown's view). It is saying that someone like John P. Meier, another Catholic priest, finding that the "stilling of the storm is a product of early Christian theology", not a historical event. Christian scholars can be critical and it false that "Christian scholars generally believe the gospel accounts to be historically accurate". This isn't a Christian vs. secular thing. I'm going to have to say that the previous version was far superior. All we need to say is that scholars debate (or discuss) the historicity of the events in the text. We don't have to say that there are some biblical literalists out there, and we don't have to say that there are mythists either. The whole purpose of the intro to the "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" section is to say that "hey, this is a plot summary of the biggest sources on Jesus' life, we aren't saying either way if this is 100% historically accurate or 100% historically bogus." Editors were concerned that this article read like a sunday school lesson and was thus not neutral. It still confuses some people how big of a plot summary of the NT we have, but I personally think it is fine (or at least was fine with the previous wording of the intro). -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
}}
:::::I don't know how to describe the two camps: those that take the gospels at face value and those who differentiate between historical and ahistorical elements or sections. Maybe "Christian scholars traditionally regard the gospels as historically reliable. Critical scholars, including some modern Christian scholars, regard some parts (such as the parables) as more historically accurate and others (such as the Gospel of John) as less." Here are my comments on the original: "however, because few of the gospels' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy." This line implies that the gospels themselves come across as accurate and it's only lack of ''external'' verification that's the issue. In fact, the gospels are internally contradictory (esp. synoptics v. John), and John was identified in the early Christian era as not so much a historical account as a spiritual one. The following version of the line, I'm guessing, would be forbidden from this section: "however, because few of the gospels' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, because they contain extraordinary claims, and because the gospels contain some internal contradictions, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy." If we want to say "hey, this is a plot summary of the biggest sources on Jesus' life, we aren't saying either way if this is 100% historically accurate or 100% historically bogus," then let's not be coy. "This summary of the gospels takes them at face value without analyzing them according to standard historical methods." [[textual criticism|Textual critic]] [[Bart D. Ehrman]] says that constructing a unified story from the four gospels, all of which are different from each other, is tantamount to creating a new gospel, one that differs from each of the four. Maybe a reference to that viewpoint would help the reader understand this section in its context. [[User:Jonathan Tweet|Jonathan Tweet]] 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::For the record, ''John was identified in the early Christian era as not so much a historical account as a spiritual one'' - by that you mean Origen, and only him. The Church Fathers otherwise didn't say as much, and the earliest witness, Papias, said it was the most historical.
::::::Remember also the scholars who believe that a historical analysis of the Gospels leads to the ''conclusion'' (not assumption) that they are historically accurate. This groups is not reperesented in the above.
::::::[[User:86.141.9.225|86.141.9.225]] 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 
I reject the terms secular scholar and Christian scholar; there are only scholars. Individual scholars may be people of faith, but those are personal issues. Use a reference; outside of that be careful creating reasons why they are unreliable. History is difficult to verify because we don't have mulitple, independent sources for the same event. Scripture, by it very nature, is first and foremost an instrument of faith. Attempting to make it more than that is difficult. --[[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 
:First let me say that I am not attached to the present wording, and am certainly open to iterations. The term "Christian scholar" came into play when the term "Christian" was introduced. To clarify, when I say "Christian," I implicitly mean "orthodox Christian," so the wording "Christian scholars generally believe that..." is, by-and-large, a correct statement, since orthodox Christianity claims to be founded upon historical events. Again, I am not attached to that wording, and I believe we can find an agreeable solution. I feel that my main point is being completely missed, however, namely that traditional scholars (Christian and otherwise), using the historical method, have concluded that the essential elements of the gospels are indeed accurate. I recognize that there are other scholars, particularly modern, who draw different conclusions, and who may reject certain aspects, especially anything supernatural. The original wording did not give me that impression. To me, the underlying message I draw from ''"because few of the [[gospel]]s' details on Jesus' life can be independently verified, historians have difficulty gauging their accuracy,"'' is ''"the gospels are without historical merit because they cannot be independently verified by secular sources"'', which is not only POV, but incorrect. The word "secular" keeps rearing its ugly head because, as I thought I conveyed above, the NT documents, written by several different authors and based upon multiple sources, ''themselves'' provide independent verification. I get the impression that the objection here is that "well, they are also part of the Bible, so they are not independent." The text needs to be written to convey the notion that some scholars, using the historical method, affirm the historicity of the gospels, while others reject some, or even most elements of them. [[User:LotR|LotR]] 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::'''John was identified in the early Christian era as not so much a historical account as a spiritual one'' - by that you mean Origen, and only him.' I meant Clement of Alexandria, c 200. Origen, too? I see a pattern. [[User:Jonathan Tweet|Jonathan Tweet]] 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Clement said nothing of the sort. [[User:86.141.9.225|86.141.9.225]] 09:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a debate we have had many times in the past - I agree in general with AndrewC and Jonathan Tweet. There is an important issue here and it is a tricky one. On the one hand, it is silly to say that all scholars are the same, just scholars ... a theologian and a historian are both scholars, but they are driven by different interests and use different methods and are accountable to different communities. On the other hand, it is silly to suggest that because one is a Christian, even a devout and pious Christian, one cannot use the same methods as - let's say, for the sake of argument - an atheist. The problem is what kind of language to use. In the past I have favored the term "critical scholars" not because I distinguish between them and Christians but because it is an attempt to define a kind of scholarship independent of one's religious beliefs. perhaps a more precise and effect way to do this would not be to use an adjective to qualify "scholar" at all, but an adjectival phrase like "scholars who employ x y z methods" - wordy, I admit, but clearer. Be that as it may, we do have to distinguish between scholars (whose degrees may be in theology, Bible, or religious study) who study the Bible ''as historians'' and other scholars who study the Bible for theological or homilitic purposes. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 
==Yahshua==
Should this article feature a ref to "[[Yahshua]]"? Or would that be confusing since "Yahshua" is arguably merely a sect based, dogmatically informed translation of "Jesus" with apparently no true historical or philological merit?[[User:L.C.Porrello|LCP]] 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 
:There doesn't seem to be a logical place to fit that link anywhere in the article. We can't put it in the "Names and title" section because that is a subsection of the Historical Jesus section. As you state, the name has no historical merit so, I presume the view isn't held by any notable historians. So then, it is a view held by a sect, so it could go in the Religious views section. However, we have to decide how notable the sect is, and would be giving a minority position undue weight by including it in a top tier article? We can only fit so much information in this one article. If we put it anywhere, perhaps we could write one sentence about the name and the movement in the "Other views" section. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
==Pretty important information!==
I think it's a little strange that nowhere in the first paragraph does it mention that Jesus is regarded by Christians as the son of God! Is this left out for a reason or may I add a sentence to the first paragraph please?
 
Also, there is a sentence about fulfillment of prophecy that claims that Jesus fulfilled "many" of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. According to the New Testament, every prophecy was fulfilled, and I think it may be misleading to suggest that there are some prophecies Jesus may have not fulfilled (according to the Christian faith.) Should that be changed to a more neutral stance?[[User:Bonjour123|Bonjour123]] 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 
Whether or not you believe Jesus to have forfilled all the Jewish prophecy concerning the Messiah, depends upon which account of Jesus' life you believe in. For instance, if you believe Jesus died upon the cross, then you cannot believe that all the prophecy was forfilled. This is because one of the prophecy's is that Jesus would bring the word of God to all Jewish people's. During the time of Jesus, Jewish tribes were scattered as far west as France and north Africa, and as far east as Persia, Afganistan, and Sindustan (modern Pakistan). Orthodox Christians believe Jesus died before personally being able to preach to these Jews. Some other groups do not.[[User:86.4.59.203|86.4.59.203]] 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Holger.
 
:Good thing there's nothing in that prophecy about Jesus having to bring the word of God to the Jewish people during His first lifetime, that'd sure make those Christians look pretty silly, huh. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 
== Jesus' father?? ==
 
The Wikipedia article states, factually, that Joseph was Jesus' father. From the point of view of this world religion, the Virgin Mary and Jesus' miraculous birth are absolute and fundamental concepts in Christianity without which the religion is reduced to nothing but folklore. The article should state instead that Joseph led Mary and the baby Jesus to safety in Egypt after being warned in a vision to do so.[[User:194.54.8.205|194.54.8.205]] 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)RKravis May 2007
 
In history and the Bible Joseph is considered Jesus father but this article should also add he is not Jesus birth father and how Jesus was born soley from Mary/--[[User:Migospia|Migospia]] 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 
:According to Christian orthodoxy, Joseph was not the father. What the Gospels actually mean is something that has been debated by theologians and historians and Bible critics. What "the truth" is of course is not relevant to Wikipedia. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 
I would gather that as Wikipedia is an impartial source the article should either project certain facts about the man Jesus is believed to have been (he does turn up on Roman records) or present both viewpoints, I'd go for the latter but I am a mere WikiNoob. [[User:Henners91|Henners91]] 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 
:Sorry if this is off topic, but you brought it up. What are these Roman records of which you speak?-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 
How is this even an issues? He should obviously be referred to as Jesus's father here. There is an article about the Virgin Birth linked from the introduction. It would violate NPOV to claim that Joseph wasn't Jesus's birth father. But it already mentions the debate when it links the Virgin Birth article. I see nothing wrong here. [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 
:Hold on a minute, is this over the article saying that Joseph is Jesus' father, or that the article is somewhere stating that Joseph is Jesus' biological father? If it's the former, I was ignoring this discussion because that's accurate, though not necessarily clear, since legally speaking, Jospeh was indeed Jesus' father. But if the article is saying that Joseph is Jesus' biological father, it seems to be that itself would be violating NPOV, it would clearly be siding with a naturalistic stance on things. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 
=='''Frequently asked questions'''==
According to the Christian belief, a required belief to be a Christian, Jesus had no biological father. If there should be a "father" mentioned, it should be God, since Jesus many times refered to God as "Father" and "My Father". -[[User:Yancyfry jr|Yancyfry]]
<!--Moved FAQ here because FAQ banner is invisible in mobile-->
:Jews refer to God as our father all the time, it does not mean we claim a biological relationship. Jesus calling God his father was consistent with jewish practice at the time. I am not saying this to dismiss the Christian view, only to remind people that it is not the only view. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 10:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:27, 5 December 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1985873230}}<!-- END PIN -->
{{Talk:Jesus/FAQ}}
 
== "[[:Christ Agony]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
No, the article correctly refers to Joseph as Jesus' father, as many christians also do, but then explains the Virgin Birth belief. How can you do this any other way? [[User:JeffBurdges|JeffBurdges]] 12:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_Agony&redirect=no Christ Agony]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#Christ Agony}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[Balsam poplar|🌳]] '''[[User:Balsam Cottonwood|<span style="color:green;">Balsam</span> <span style="color:blue;">Cottonwood</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Balsam Cottonwood|talk]]) [[Christian cross|✝]] 07:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
== "[[:Savior (Christianity)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savior_(Christianity)&redirect=no Savior (Christianity)]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#Savior (Christianity)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[Balsam poplar|🌳]] '''[[User:Balsam Cottonwood|<span style="color:green;">Balsam</span> <span style="color:blue;">Cottonwood</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Balsam Cottonwood|talk]]) [[Christian cross|✝]] 08:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 
== Add ==
Because he is trolling. Just like that. Putting Jesus' biological paternal line aside, Joseph was indeed Jesus' legal father, just and simply like that. I am Catholic and I've never had doubts or trouble about Jesus and/or other Jewish people calling Joseph his father. However, God IS his Father. Capitals making a big difference in here. Jeeze, trolls rant about this as much as about Jesus' brothers and sisters...--[[User:Kim Kusanagi|Kim Kusanagi]] 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 
Add Hebrew name Yehoshua which was original name [[User:Jacksonthe|Jacksonthe]] ([[User talk:Jacksonthe|talk]]) 16:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
== Christianity vs. Mormonism (Debate) ==
 
:It already has this under the section [[Jesus#Name|Name]]. [[Balsam poplar|🌳]] '''[[User:Balsam Cottonwood|<span style="color:green;">Balsam</span> <span style="color:blue;">Cottonwood</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Balsam Cottonwood|talk]]) [[Christian cross|✝]] 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Moved to Mmirachi[[User talk:Mmirarchi|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]. Please join in...
 
== third sentence wording ==
==Picture Caption==
The following has been added "As customary since the legalisation of Christianity in the 4th century, he is shown bearded and with the long hair and strong features that identify him as a Jew. He is enthroned as in the [[Book of Revelations]]". Firstly what on earth does it mean to say that "strong features" identify Jews? Secondly, beards were unfashionable in the 6th century, yes, but they were fashionable earlier and are regularly depicted on Antonine rulers. More importantly, they were depicted on ancient Greek philosophers. Early depictions of Jesus do not show him as bearded, and it's unclear whether this convention originally emerged as a specific signifier of Jewishness. The phrase "Greco-Roman priest and king" has nothing to do with paganism. It refers to his costume and regalia. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 
currently, it states he is considered 'to be the incarnation of god the son and awaited messiah'; this previously read 'the messiah', which seems better to me, but was recently changed by a now-banned account. is the current form grammatically correct, and is there a reason for the lack of a 'the'? if not, i think it should be reinstated [[User:Adamd9NEW|Adamd9NEW]] ([[User talk:Adamd9NEW|talk]]) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Early depictions of Jesus were indeed greek in style, and somewhat similar to greek perceptions of deity. The public image of Jesus change dramatically upon the re-immergence of the Turin Shroud approximately 1300AD. After which time, the typical image of Jesus became established.[[User:86.4.59.203|86.4.59.203]] 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Holger.
:I '''agree''' that we should restore the wording "to be the incarnation of God the Son and '''the''' awaited messiah". The present wording is awkward and structurally ambiguous and grammatically awkward, almost inclining towards reading "Son and awaited Messiah" as being a single grammatical unit modifying "God" rather than the correct reading of "the incarnation of God the Son" and "the awaited Messiah" as being the two things Jesus is considered to be. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:I edited the change in since it seems to be a fairly minor issue, if there is a problem with it I suppose it can be discussed here [[User:Adamd9NEW|Adamd9NEW]] ([[User talk:Adamd9NEW|talk]]) 13:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Remsense|Remsense]], can you explain why you disagree with this change? The wording using 'the messiah' is seen, for example, in faq #10, and appears to have been in the article for some years, looking at recent edits; though, I acknowledge that pointing to it being changed by a sockpuppet is mostly ad hominem. I believe that the sentence illustrates two qualities of Jesus: firstly, that he is the incarnation of God the Son, and secondly, that he is the awaited messiah, or Christ, which does not seem to be clearly communicated in the current form. [[User:Adamd9NEW|Adamd9NEW]] ([[User talk:Adamd9NEW|talk]]) 13:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:One problem with "the" messiah is that in Jewish tradition there may have been a concept of more than one messiahs [[User:Vegan416|Vegan416]] ([[User talk:Vegan416|talk]]) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
::The sentence in question is describing the beliefs of "most Christians", though, and in that context there is only one [[Messiah in Christianity]]. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 20:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
 
== Commas ==
:Nonsense. It's a trivial exercise to find images of Christ predating 1300 with the "typical" appearance. ''[[User:Csernica|TCC]]'' <small>[[User_talk:Csernica|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Csernica|(contribs)]]</small> 01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 
I may have slept through an English class or two. Could someone explain to me why we need [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=prev&diff=1302603728 these commas]? @[[User:JacktheBrown|User:JacktheBrown]]? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 13:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
:Well since I've has no reply from the editor who made these changes I will remove some of the text, which is rather too long and unwieldy now. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 12:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Surtsicna}} in fact, I made a mistake in undoing your edit; I didn't check, sorry. Thanks [[User:Remsense|Remsense]]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=1302604432]. [[User:JacktheBrown|JacktheBrown]] ([[User talk:JacktheBrown|talk]]) 13:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)