Talk:Jesus/Archive 135

Archive 130

←

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

Agreement on historicity.

In the article it is mentioned that virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed historically. However, I think it would be of interest for the article to clarify to what extent scholarly opinion is informed by theologians, as such scholars are likely to have bias. From reading the article, there seems to be some evidence that Jesus existed, but not enough to establish this as fact; considering that the earliest sources are dated about 30 years after his death, and have religious bias. More discussion about this, from some experts, would be highly appreciated. 90.174.221.142 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

More on this and links to related articles articles can be found at Q3 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone asking why historians are so unanimous about Jesus's existence should read this. It's not because of influence from theologians. 2601:601:1A00:6C80:F5CB:EFA2:4892:DBB2 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that was an impressive comments section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I've read a bit more, and now think that the majority of historians regard Jesus existing historically as the best theory that fits the evidence; and, given what I have read, tend to agree. But, I guess it would be good in the article to clarify how difficult it is to be certain about anything, given how limited, and possibly biased, the evidence is.

That said, I guess it is easy to see that any claims about the life of a peasant thousands of years ago would be difficult to be very certain about, given, for example, the high levels of illiteracy among the people, and lack of surviving documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.221.142 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally don’t think such a section would be helpful. Our evidence is limited and possibly biased on literally every historical person, event, etc. of 2000 years ago. Doing so would be akin to specifying that “the sky is blue” and then looking for reliable sources to that effect. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your first statement definitely makes sense: it is difficult to apply exreme standards of scientific rigour to events that happened over 2000 years ago. It's definitely not the same as arguing whether the sky is blue however - anyone can clearly see for ourselves that is the case. Moreover, modern historical events, such as the life of Stalin, show how easy it is for history to be rewritten and distorted over a lifetime. So whilst it is highly likely than not that Jesus existed, and there is some truth to the gospel stories, there is likely a lot more uncertainty to the specific facts, especially considering that we do know that certain statements from the Gospels were false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:C:5D0C:1:2:264A:C58E (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I am saying that a statement along the lines of "our evidence is limited and possibly biased on someone who lived 2000 years ago" is equivalent to saying "the sky is blue". It is unnecessary to state for that reason. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does the article say he was born in 4 BC?

I find it odd it says this because the word BC means before Christ, so shouldn’t he have been born in 1 AD(Year of our lord)? Because if he was born in 4 bc, then does that mean he was born before he was born? MrBeetleReed (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's perfectly correct. We calculate years based on the traditional estimate of his birth, but the article correctly gives the current academic consensus of when he was born. Jeppiz (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an understandable query, MrBeetleReed, but it must be understood that when the A.D. system of dating was created by Dionysius Exiguus and updated afterward, they were working with very imperfect information. If we assume for the moment that 4 B.C. is in fact the correct year, it's fairly amazing the dating was that close! This is one reason that many now prefer "CE/BCE" as the terminology, since it does away with the difficulty you highlight. We could shift "A.D. 1" with updates scholarly beliefs, but it would be rather jarring if we suddenly declared that next year will be 2018 rather than 2022! I hope this is some sort of help. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should just subtract the B.C. Numbers by four, so that way we can still have accuracy, but also the tradition if that makes sense.Tailorbird134 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You have just kind of blown my mind Tailorbird134! So you propose 5 BC becomes 1 BC, and then what are now 4, 3, 2, and 1 BC are neither B.C. nor A.D.? Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid Yes that was what I was thinking! Hopefully in the future I can propose the idea to some major calendar and scholars.(P.S. Sorry I responded VERY late, as I mentioned on my talk page I am a cobweb account!) Cheers! Tailorbird134 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We cannot do that if the sources don't. It's an approximation caused by calendar errors over the last 2.000 years or so. Have a good Christmas, whichever Christmas you think it is. Britmax (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't the name of this article named "Jesus Christ".

People throughout history including scholars, philosophers, saints and monks have always referred to him as "Christ" as well as "Jesus Christ" from 70AD to the 21st century. The name 'Christian' originated in Antioch around 70AD which came from the Greek word "Xristianos" meaning "Christ follower" however the name was used in a derogatory sense used to mock the disciples and those who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, but in turn it became an accepted name for those those who follow Christ. In the Orthodox Church and in Eastern Christianity in general the word "Christ" has always been used even in the divine liturgies when referring to him and has always been that way from the foundation of the church to the present day 21st century. Even the religion named 'Christianity' literally contains the word "Christ" in it. So it makes perfect sense to change the article title back to "Jesus Christ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paok117 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Because Christ was a monicker he earned later, not his real name, and he never used it himself. It's a title. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

See also Q1 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Jesus

I want to know more what year did he die 2601:4A:8100:1FE0:84A3:711B:A4A1:3285 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The traditional answer to this is 33-34 CE, but I would recommend reading the article and the cited sources for more information. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Index to Talk:Jesus

I just discovered that the talk pages for this article have an index!! This is a pretty cool idea -- given the vast amount of information covered in the Talk pages, much of which I'm sure is repetitive(!), an index would be a super useful tool. However, I'm a professional indexer and...well...this isn't an index. It's more of a table of contents that just copied and linked the headings for all the talk sections. As such, it isn't nearly as useful as it might be (headings like "2d paragraph" are utterly meaningless, for example -- who knows what topic is really discussed in that section?). Does anyone know if it was autogenerated? If so, can it at least be made to ignore leading punctuation when sorting, or strip it out when generating the index so that for example section headings that are in quotes don't all end up at the beginning, but rather in their appropriate alpha location? Or can it be manually edited to improve it? Or (best of all) could I create a proper index to replace it? Failing all of that, could we at least change the name to something other than "Index" so nobody is misled into thinking it's something it isn't? Perhaps "Talk section headings list", that's more accurate. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 16:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bookgrrl, it seems per the "code" that this is autogenerated by something called User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, or rather its' successor. Perhaps you can get some answers at User talk:Legobot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Socking

Decades old, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What age was he

I don't know 71.38.195.159 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

First words of the article are "Jesus (c. 4 BC – AD 30 / 33)". Britmax (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias on lead regarding historicity

The lead states that

... the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.

which contradicts section on "Sources" where Josephus and Tacitus are presented as conteporary sources that mention basic events, including that he "died a violent death".

The lead should say

... the only detailed records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.

that is qualify the statement with "detailed". Nxavar (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

While I understand your objection, this seems okay to me, insofar as Josephus and Tacitus give us what I would characterize as "mentions" or "anecdotes." I think the current wording adequately conveys the impression that the Gospels are the only actual narrative of Jesus' life. Reasonable minds may differ, but to me, the difference in quality and quantity of the references makes the wording as it stands appropriate, but I am happy to listen to other proposals or to bow to consensus, should it be against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A "mention" or an "anecdote" is still a "record." These terms aren't mutually exclusive. Therefore, the claim "the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels" is unequivocally false. Thankfully, nobody in their right mind takes Wikipedia seriously. 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree, but as I am apparently not in my right mind, feel free to disregard. Have a nice day, and happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia claims "the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels" when in reality there are extrabiblical records of the life of Jesus. Which means Wikipedia is engaging in misinformation. Now, why would Wikipedia spread misinformation and lies about Jesus? Who and what else is Wikipedia spreading misinformation about? This is just one of many reasons why nobody in their right mind takes Wikipedia seriously. Jesus is an important figure and this article is old; yet, the Wikipedia 'editors' are unwilling or incapable of correctly publishing accurate information about Him. What does that tell the readers who are of sound mind? 2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, as you have defined me as not being in my right mind, I don't think I should speak for those you think of as being "of sound mind." I've given you my thinking on the subject. You are fully entitled to disagree, and if you can achieve consensus, you are fully entitled to make any changes you like with no care or concern for what my unsound mind might imagine. Have a wonderful weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Side note. You already told me to have a good Friday. Now you're telling me to have a good Weekend. What's next? Have a good week? Have a good month? I have no intention to edit anything because Wikipedia is garbage and is mainly edited by people who are interested in pushing agendas and lies. I only come here for the lulz.2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

When I wished you a happy Friday earlier, it was closer to the middle of the day for me. A nice weekend is a late-in-the-day aspiration for me, but if you dislike my well wishes, I'll make note of that. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Who doesn't like cringe and obviously disingenuous well wishes?2601:182:0:C580:6C62:D002:CA98:C7DA (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If you would prefer a different sort of tone from me, I'd be happy to oblige. Or, you know, you could try hanging out somewhere that's not garbage? Might be an option worth exploring! Dumuzid (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Nxavar's proposal. 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:F0D7:3929:97F3:E7CD (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia's reliability, I personally do not take leads at face value because they are very hard to get them 100% objective and very easy to spin. It's worth giving it a try though to make them just a little better. A few years ago it was a matter of debate whether the BC/AD calendar is based on Jesus's birth year. I did not have high hopes for this one. Nxavar (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, while BC/AD is nominally based on such a date, things get a lot murkier as one investigates the details! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Most Christians"

Apologies for making an edit prematurely. May I know the reason it is written as "most Christians" and not "Christians"? From what I am aware of, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ was God the Son and was the awaited messiah, however someone who does not believe this is not exactly a Christian. Please get back to when you can, thank you! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: I might phrase the question a little differently.

But first, a little background: The edit I reverted was the removal of the word Most from the phrase Most Christians believe [Jesus] is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, in a paragraph that includes a notice that indicates the specific wording of the paragraph was arrived at by consensus.

I think what you're asking is, is there any group of people who can legitimately be called Christians who do not believe in exactly what is specified in that sentence (and all of it)? I do not know the answer, and I suspect you may not be certain of the correct answer either, so that is why we pose the question here for discussion and a new consensus, if one is to be found. Usually a wording developed by consensus is very carefully considered after significant debate, and I suspect the word "Most" is there for a reason. General Ization ^Talk 04:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that believing in the divinity of Jesus is the definition of a Christian, but the sentence is unsourced and should be deleted if it can't be supported.Achar Sva (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So Isaac Newton wasn't Christian? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Defining a Christian is a very challenging task. When Christians want to prove their religion is true, they will often say "Look how many of us there are!", claiming anyone who has possibly set foot in a church in their lifetime. When they want to distance themselves from some who are obviously not nice people, or who don't fit the classical definition outlined above, they will quickly say "They're not really Christians". It's a classic example of nailing jelly to a wall. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to use the dictionary definition then. Merriam-Webster defines as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". The second portion (the awaited messiah, that is, the Christ) is a required tenet by definition. The first may not be: and to be clear, there is a difference between "Son of God" and "God the Son", as nontrinitariasts would attest. That, I believe, is why "most" is used here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If the article says that Most Christians, who are those and also who are the minority? The question is: Which would be the Christians who DON'T believe Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible? Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I could’ve sworn I just answered that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is not a reliable source on matters of theology. Achar Sva (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a dictionary can’t be used for this! I believe most strands of Unitarianism do not accept the divinity of Jesus, but describe themselves and/or are described as Christian (including our article). Likely, some/many Christians may well deny that they are Christian. There’s two ways to go with that: sources or self-description. The problem with sources for this type of theological point is that, well, it’s theological. “Jelly on the wall” as someone said earlier. I guess it might be possible to work out a preponderant view in the RS per WP:NPOV but I suspect it’s going to be difficult. Self-description is the better route. That’s what we generally do for most religions eg the Ahmaddiyya v Muslim mainstream issue. So if there are Unitarians who describe themselves as Christian but deny the divinity of Jesus - which is indeed the case - then the statement in the article is correct. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

We are getting perilously close to debating the filioque here! But yes, I concur that given the proliferation of doctrines and creeds both throughout time and in the modern world, best to leave this one wide open. Cheers, all! Dumuzid (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - as that’s the point I was trying to make with nontrinitarianism. Perhaps the only commonality across all Christendom is in the name: Jesus as Christ. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And of course Merriam-Webster is not a RS. I did not imply it is, and am quite familiar with WP:DICTS. That was a starting position for the point I was making. If it is easy to demonstrate by an imprecise dictionary definition that not all Christians believe the tenets mentioned, then “most” is appropriately retained. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intention. I think the point I want to make here is that it's probably best to avoid saying things like "Christians believe...", as it's so hard to find a source that will satisfy everyone. Better in my view to say something like "The major Church creeds (names) define Jesus as (whatever)." That can be sourced easily enough. Achar Sva (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A long time ago I think it said this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate." What can be done is to leave the text as it is or add the word "trinitarian" so that it reads: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to infobox

Hello. In the infobox it says Jesus is known for "inspiring Christianity", although I would suggest the wording be rephrased to "founding Christianity". I propose this change for self-explanatory reason. Please let me know your thoughts. Kind regards. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Jesus, perhaps more so than other religious founders, this is particularly susceptible to POV interpretations. It has quite frequently been argued that the teachings of Jesus more reflected a desire to reform Judaism than they did an intention to found a new religion. Christianity is an amalgam of Jesus' teachings and the writings of early church figures such as Paul of Tarsus and Peter. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Maurice Goguel (17 December 2020). The Birth of Christianity. Routledge. p. 28 paragraph 2. ISBN 978-1-00-022752-9.Moxy- 05:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Jesus was not convicted by Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate did not convict Jesus, but Jesus was crucified anyway, by a mob. Matthew 27:23-24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.121.113 (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wishful thinking or propaganda. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu what makes you dismiss it with those terms considering how few primary sources we have on the matter? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

NotAnotherNameGuy -- I tend to agree with tgeorgescu, though I would phrase it differently. If we have any primary sources on the matter (a proposition I personally doubt), then at most we have 3, and they all disagree with the IP's version of events, so I think it is fair to be skeptical. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

Dfasfndo Implement a comment describing the resurrection of Jesus and that he didn't die. Dfasfndo (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done That he did not die is not an objective fact. That he was resurrected is not a historical fact. Some believed he was resurrected, that's a historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But some apparently SAID that they believed he was resurrected. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Article unbalanced

This article appears to have several problems, not least with its handling of the perspectives of different faiths on Jesus, with other major monotheistic religions being excluded from the opening paragraph (as expounded in the discussion above). Furthermore, there is a worrying lack of exposition of less orthodox perspectives and narratives about Jesus, with all of one paragraph dedicated to non-canonical gospels, apocrypha, etc., making this a rather lopsided and poorly fleshed out preparation of the much broader scholarship that exists within the academic community with respect to Jesus. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Why have you created a separate thread? This is the topic of the active thread above. DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: No it isn't. I am raising a much broader point about imbalance of which the lead issues are just the tip of the iceberg. See my opening coment. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's rather weird to see a featured article called "unbalanced", and this is one of the most watched articles on WP where a lack of balance would be noticed. The issue raised is the same as for Muhammad; that article also focuses on one religion (Islam) and little attention to how Muhammad is viewed by other religions (Bahá'í, Druzes etc.). For Jesus, the situation is a bit better as we actually have a separate article on how he is viewed in Islam. With that in mind, I don't really see much of an imbalance in this article (which, once again, has been evaluated as one of the best on Wikipedia). Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I made two points, but everyone appears to be fixating on the former. The second imbalance I found, even in a fairly cursory search, was the neglect of non-canonical material. Jewish Christian identity also gets short thrift. And I imagine there is more that had been missed/neglected/is out of date. What made FA in 2013 doesn't necessarily deserve it today. WP:CCC. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is fine the way it is currently. It was written out years ago by a large set of editors and agreed on by an ever larger group of editors. Adding material to the lead and expanding certain areas in the article that is just repeated information elsewhere is simply repetitive and is dragging the article out more. I also strongly agree with Jeppiz's point on Muhammad. Additionally, as Jeppiz stated, this article is high up on Wikipedia's list and is constantly edited and watched. It has remained in the current state it is in for years, with only a few changes here and there. If there was an issue on WP:NPOV, it would have been addressed much earlier. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in the Lead

Christianity and Islam are the world's two largest religions and share many agreements about Jesus. Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah. Christian and Muslim doctrines include the beliefs that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, performed miracles, and ascended into Heaven, whence he will return. Muslims and a minority of Christian denominations reject Trinitarianism, to varying degrees. WP:NPOV means it makes more sense to group these similarities together rather than separate the Islamic view of Jesus in the last paragraph, although that paragraph may be used to specify differences as it does now. Additionally, Christmas should probably not be explicitly labeled December 25 since Orthodox Christians celebrate it on January 7. Plumber (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure emphasising the “similarities” in that way really is NPOV. I think it is actually more likely to be misleading than NPOV. However, regarding this edit and its revert, I think there may be case for including a reference to Islamic belief in the first paragraph while leaving the bulk of the text in its existing position. I don’t think it would be repetition but would be more balanced to add the following to the end of the first paragraph: In Islam, Jesus is revered as an important prophet but the Christian view of the divinity of Jesus is rejected. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Hi, you seem to be agreeing that a more balanced first paragraph is necessary, as does everyone here, so what is it you would like to discuss? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, I’m proposing a different edit to your one. Are you saying you are happy to drop your edit and support what I propose? DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That alone would not do the trick. Jesus is also a messiah in Islam and my edit also moved up the also critical summary on Jewish perspectives. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Then why did you ask what would I like to discuss? If you don’t agree with my proposal why did you ask that question?That seems non-sensical. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean if you broadly agree, why revert and badger the point? Why not simply tweak as you see fit? Now, discuss if you want to discuss. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Because there’s a giant nowiki notice embedded in the lead asking editors to have the courtesy of discussing changes on the talk page before making them in the article. I presume this is because on an article like this the existing text took considerable amount of effort to reach a consensus on. Passers by “tweaking as they see fit” are often disruptive on an article like this. As far as your edit is concerned, I didn’t agree with it because the prominence it gave to Muslim and Jewish belief disrupted the WP:DUE balance too far and is not an improvement. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Islamic and Jewish views on Jesus is warranted in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are already in the lead. The question raised is whether to move the references to a different position in the lead. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be a discussion. MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem not to realise how Wikipedia works. Have a read of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Iskandar323's edit; I think it makes more sense to "front" the differing views of Jesus that way. VQuakr, could you be a bit more specific about your statement above--i.e., if you have any thoughts as to where in the lead such views should be? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: sorry, thought this was lead vs body not lead paragraph vs later in lead question. To be clear, in neither case should citations be in the lead; those go in the body per WP:LEADCITE. These aren't contentious statements we're making. This version has a very stubby first paragraph and only mentions Christianity. It also has a very weird "the world's largest religion" aside which isn't directly relevant to the topic of this article. As such, this seems a straightforward improvement. The typo "Heavene" should be fixed (and not capitalized I think?). Not sure we still need the final paragraph in the latter version; I think that's fine as body material. The lead is overlong anyways. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, I think I see a rough consensus for the changes as described (and amended) by VQuakr; would it be okay by you for one of us to make those changes? Cheers, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

the early marthyrs

how do there lived Ogbaoo (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ogbaoo This is the page for discussing improvements to the WP-article about Jesus. Perhaps the article Christian martyr have something of interest to you. If you want to ask a question about history, you can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Errors in section about the canonical gospels

In the section about the canonical gospels there is a few errors. It is stated that Jesus never washed his hands. No part of the new testament states that Jesus never washed his hands. There is a part about Jesus critizising ritual hand washing, "the traditions of the elders", but it never states that Jesus never washed his hands. Jesus follwed the law of the jews, he washed his hands and cleaned himself when he were contaminated and dirty. The gospel of John never claims that Mary Magdelen were the only one that visited Jesus tomb, but her name is the only that is mentioned. In John there is no claim of Jesus showing weakness, however it does not state that Jesus showed no weakness. And I can go on. If you read the bible, you'll come to a different opinion than the source.

The point of adding 4 books about the life of Jesus to the bible, is to show his life from different angles, with different focus. Some people who read this will probably claim this is "original research", but I think it is only rational to remove sources that clearly haven't read the book he is commenting on. 77.16.61.185 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added the word "ritually" to hand washing, because I tend to agree that the synoptics are not saying that he never washed. As for your others, I apologize, but I don't find your arguments more convincing than the sources mentioned, though reasonable minds may certainly differ. While reading the bible is something I would personally recommend, we need to remain cognizant of WP:PRIMARY and do our best to rely on secondary sources. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference between "Jesus does not ritually wash his hands." and "...is not said to not wash his hands" isn't that clear... Anyway I've checked the source cited and in the page 113 there is nothing at all about that. I've even searched the whole book for "wash"/"washes" but no result.

If it's not there we should find the correct reference, another source or put a "citation needed". Bardoligneo (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right insofar as I am verging on WP:OR, but I think I am just inside the lines, so to speak. Still, if you find an appropriate source or wish to revert me, I cannot really complain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

the information below should not be included in information about Jesus. this wiki page is about Jesus and should only include facts about Jesus and not other religions beliefs. It is not part of factual information about Jesus.

but was neither God nor a son of God.[41][42] The Quran states that Jesus never claimed to be divine.[43] Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive.[44] In contrast, Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill messianic prophecies, and was neither divine nor resurrected.[45] Unstoppablem (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is even actually a version of Jesus that can readily be extracted from the context of religious beliefs. A strict biography might be elusive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: We do have Historical Jesus, but that article's very existence indicates that this article is not meant to be about just that. (Although here I think OP is saying "facts about Jesus" includes all Christian doctrine about Jesus, so wrong for two reasons.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sound like it, they didn't mention removing "Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

On WP, that text (or something close to it) should be included, per the WP:NPOV policy. It can be counterintuitive in parts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

The lead paragraph says that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Yesterday, I edited this to list other major religions that venerate him as an important figure, including the quickly-successful Manichaeism and Islam, as well as Druze and Bahá'í. I was told that since there exists a consensus from two years ago, a new discussion should be started to come to a new one. GOLDIEM J (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus already in place. There are a multitude of other religions which consider Jesus an important figure apart from Christianity, & they don't deserve to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.Neplota (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Other religions may not need mentioning individually, but the opening paragraph does need to mention that Jesus is held in esteem of other religions. MOS:OPEN is perfectly clear on the need for neutrality in the first paragraph: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. Not much here to explain. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of MOS:OPEN here. Jesus' status in some other religions is already mentioned in detail in the last paragraph of the lead, & that should be enough. No other religion in the world apart from Christianity considers him to be a central figure. Muhammad for example is held in high regard in Baha'i faith, Babism and Druzism but the first paragraph in article Muhammad only mentions Islam because he's central figure only in that religion. Furthermore the statement "a major figure in numerous other world religions" is still generalizing a lot despite using the word "numerous" in it, unless we mention those religions individually. Regards Neplota (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to disagree with MOS:OPEN; it is part of the manual of style, and the guideline is very specifically about the first paragraph: it does not say a lack of neutrality in the first paragraph can be balanced by alternative viewpoints in a later paragraph. If you think a prior consensus is in place, you need to prove it, not just fake it till your make it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's your interpretation of MOS:OPEN that I am disagreeing with here not MOS:OPEN itself. And your interpretation of it is wrong as I already explained by giving the example of Muhammad. You don't get to define guidelines or what constitutes neutral here. I am just defending the stable version of the article here. You are the one who came here and made that change, so the onus to justify those changes and get a consensus lies on you not me.Neplota (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You said that you "agree with the consensus already in place", so I would request you provide your proof of prior consensus-forming discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes the consensus that has been in place for 2 years now, and corresponds to the stable version of the article that I am defending here. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make here?Neplota (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Being part of the stable-ish version of the articles does not mean something has consensus, which means a past agreement has been reached between editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You are unable to understand what I am trying to say here, and failed to counter the argument which I provided against your changes. In any Wikipedia article, if you make some change to a previously stable version, you need to convince other editors about that change, something you have failed to do here.Neplota (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: No, I actually don't. I merely wish to abide by the guideline MOS:OPEN, which you have not provided any evidence of a consensus to contravene. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And you have failed to provide evidence that we aren't already abiding by MOS:OPEN. You keep using this term as if it has some kind of meaning of its own, while failing to provide any argument in favour of the change you want to make.Neplota (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty bloody obvious, but I also already spelled it out on your talk page: Asserting that Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else in that same opening paragraph is the opposite of neutral: it is a clearly biased point of view. When a figure is revered by multiple faiths, including the second largest no less, it is a fairly extreme lack of neutrality to only mention one view. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have have agreed to your objection if the lead paragraph had said Jesus is revered only in Christianity, which obviously isn't the case here. And you still haven't replied to the analogy I gave you about Muhammad. No matter how many other religions revere Muhammad, the fact is that he's central only to Islam & that's what the first paragraph of the article dedicated to him says. The same goes with Jesus, no matter how many other religions, regardless of their size, revere him, he the central figure only in Christianity. Regards Neplota (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source WP:WINARS, so it is quite possible that the Muhammad page gets this wrong as well. That's a topic for another page. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and I try really hard to assume good faith, but Iskandar323, I'm not sure if you're serious. You've misrepresented Neplota's position on MOS:OPEN (No, Neplota never said they disagree with it) and you have misrepresented what the opening paragraph says (No, it doesn't say "Jesus is a Christian figure and nothing else"). Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: So ... you also think that the rather explicit instructions in MOS:OPEN for neutrality in the first paragraph can be backdated in the fourth paragraph? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Using the term "was" instead of "is" for Jesus. Please change. God bless. 2A00:23C7:7E91:9B01:C05D:B477:A8C6:317B (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but we write our articles from a nonsectarian point of view, and thus the past tense is appropriate here, though no disrespect is intended to any faith community. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

This article has the suggested birth date of Jesus and the suggested death date but does not include the date he resurrected. There should be an added line beneath the death date that states his resurrection in the same suggested years. Primary sources for this our the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and the rest of the New Testament, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Josephus F. history of the Jews. Thank you 32.215.42.37 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We do already list the death date as either 30 or 33 AD, however the specific date is unknown. Obviously it must have been in April and on a Friday, but the exact date is unknown. Some scholars say 3 April (from research I have seen), but there is not much more known. Jesus resurrected three days following his death, so a Sunday, but then again, the date is still unknown. Adding the resurrection date most likely needs a consensus. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, since his resurrection is a subjective religious belief, not an objective historical fact. This isn't Sunday school. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree too. It is NOT obvious it must have been in April and on a Friday. Nor can the resurrection be declared a fact at all. That's simply a religious belief, not universally shared. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Infobox template doesn't have a "resurrection_date=" parameter...DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also disagree. There is broad consensus among historians for when Jesus was born and when he died. There is no consensus (to put it mildly) that he was resurrected, hence we will not add it to the infobox as a "fact". Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Rename section

Just a suggestion here; should this section be renamed to simply "Name", as it matches other articles and its current wording seems a bit clunky/awkward. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Christians and the church

I think the first sentence should be "Christians believe he is the Son of God the Father and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." WalkingRadiance (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing a consensus for this sentence in the lead Christians believe he is the Son of God the Father and the head of the global church. WalkingRadiance (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The way it is written now is perfectly fine and is broad enough to include all Christians. Also, please do not edit without a consensus. Starting a conversation on the talk page without any other editors commenting is not a consensus. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Very much agree with Therealscorp1an here -- especially in the lead, we should be very broad, and include all Christianities, even those with differing ideas about the person of Jesus or the hypostatic union. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with WalkingRadiance. I want to make following[1] minor changes in the wording of the lead paragraph. I think it would make sense mentioning Jesus being considered as the Son of God rather than "most Christians consider him incarnation of God the Son", as it obviates the need to use "most" as well as all Christian denominations agree with the former title including the non-trinitarian ones. There is also a major need to mention the status of Old & New Testament scriptures for better understanding of the reader, which collectively make up the Christian Bible. Regards Neplota (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Dumuzid too agrees with the change I am proposing after reading his/her comment. They are right the sentence should include all Christians including the non-trinitarian ones. So Son of God is better than God the Son. I don't know which version Therealscorp1an was talking about, but they too seem to be in agreement. Son of God covers all versions of Christianity.Neplota (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think beliefs without the Trinity with the God the Father, God the Son Lord Jesus Christ and Son of God and Son of Man and the Holy Spirit/Spirit/Holy Ghost are heretical.

Orthodox Christianity is the beliefs in the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed on the union of the natures of God and man, and the Athanasian Creed.

I have posted these on my talk page.

I think the lead should make it clear that Christianity professes that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man. I disagree with the statement that there are branches of Christianity that do not believe this. WalkingRadiance (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Jesus (c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ, was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Christians believe he is the Son of God, whose coming as the messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament in Christianity) and chronicled in the New Testament.

I think the lead should include a statement that Christianity includes the belief that Jesus Christ is alive today in heaven and seated at the right hand of God and he wil return to judge people alive and dead. I think the lead should also include a statement about the doctrine that Jesus is the head of the church and the church is the body of Christ.

I think that "Most Christians" should not be included because it mixes heresies that do not confess the Trinity and Godhead with orthodox Christianity. There are three major branches in Christianity, the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Greek Orthodox. I think the first sentence about the messiah is kind of confusing because then the entire Old Testament has to be delved into.

I think its simpler to have a lead that is not specific to the prophecies of the Old Testament and applicable to all people (Gentiles). Many cultures do not have the Jewish prophecies but have converted to Christianity for example the conversion of Iceland. I think for Jewish readers this sentence is easy to understand but for people not from Jewish culture this part should be moved to later in the article.

I have the following first sentence:

Jesus (c. 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred to as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion which professes him to be the Son of God. WalkingRadiance (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Neplota, you are quite right that I am in agreement with your approach! WalkingRadiance, I mean this with all due respect, but your approach is wrong for this page. This is about the figure of Jesus, and in a non-denominational and inclusive way. Wikipedia does not take sides on doctrinal schisms or controversies. What you call "heresies" other people call "faiths." While I think your version encompasses a large majority of titular Christians, there are many sects both old and new which differ. It's not Wikipedia's place to define orthodoxy. It's our place to describe things in as neutral and universal a way as possible. Your insights would obviously be appropriate on articles with a more specific sectarian bent. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@WalkingRadiance I have to disagree with some of your statements. There are both trinitarian & non-trinitarian denominations (although a very miniscule minority) of Christianity and they may consider each other heretical, but Wikipedia is neutral in this regard. As long as a denomination considers itself Christian, no matter how "heretical" its beliefs are, Wikipedia will consider it Christian, consider the Mormons as an example. You said and I quote I think the lead should include a statement that Christianity includes the belief that Jesus Christ is alive today in heaven and seated at the right hand of God and he wil return to judge people alive and dead. I think the lead should also include a statement about the doctrine that Jesus is the head of the church and the church is the body of Christ, there's already a detailed article Jesus in Christianity for this purpose, and this article's body also describes this in detail. This also leads to the same problem as before as it details the beliefs of a particular subset of Christians, so there's no need to mention that in the lead. Regards Neplota (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion here, I think no one has a problem with minor changes I was proposing in the lead paragraph, & they in fact got confused with the more broader changes WalkingRadiance was proposing, therefore got reverted as a consequence. Regards Neplota (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

While I do feel that "Son of God" is better than "God the Son" as it covers more of Christianity and is less esoteric, I do think keeping "Most" is necessary. I'm pretty sure most of the major heterodox Christian denominations (Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses) would agree with the statement, I am not certain of all sects of Unitarians or Liberal Christians or some of the early heterodox Christian groups that might consider Jesus as a moral teacher but not divine in any way. Retention of "Most" has been fairly consistent in all recent consensus building discussions that involved a larger number of editors, so this discussion with only two editors favoring its removal might be considered only a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at this point. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter, the denominations that you have mentioned i.e., Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Unitarians all consider Jesus to be the Son of God, so your argument against my minor changes in the lead paragraph doesn't hold. The statement Son of God can be interpreted in both divine as well as spiritual sense, therefore, it's the best way to describe Jesus' status in Christianity. Furthermore it links to Son of God (Christianity) article which further elaborates on the idea. Most importantly, Wikipedia articles aren't set in stone and we editors can make changes as long as they are factual, so using WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as justification to revert my changes makes no sense, especially when my edits were initially reverted for the reason that I didn't bring the matter to the talk page first and hadn't gotten a consensus. I have abided by the rules. Regards Neplota (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter Furthermore it's not my fault that more editors aren't participating to statisfy your requirement for a "broader consensus". Perhaps they consider the changes I am making too minor to be worth a discussion.Neplota (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: Both the discussion from three months ago and the discussion from six months ago showed a consensus to keep "Most". Articles certainly aren't written in stone, but sometimes other editors get tired of repeating themselves, especially when the same topic is being brought up repeatedly. Let the current consensus percolate for a few months or go through a more formal DR avenue, such as an RFC, to make sure it isn't a case of a local consensus. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the statement trinitarian Christians believe this would be a way to add the sentence to the lead. WalkingRadiance (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Or say "most Christians" as consensus after multiple debates has determined is the best solution. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa can you explain how's the edit incorrect?Neplota (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean this one? Unitarians, other non-trinitarians, the fact that it's a matter of huge debate who is and who isn't Christian etc etc etc, discussed frequently - see the talk page archives. DeCausa (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa:@FyzixFighter: As per BBC [2] many Unitarians don't even believe in God, others do but don't consider themselves Christian and than there are some Unitarians who consider themselves Christian. As per the official website of Unitarian Universalist Church [3] it has no official doctrine in regards to God or Jesus, believers are free to consider themselves to be Christian or not, and consider Jesus to be the Son of God or not. So you are referring to a religion that doesn't even have a fixed belief regarding God's existence or its affiliation with Christianity, let alone Jesus. Unless it has an official/mainstream doctrine in regards to Jesus, you can't use it as a counter to my edit. No other contemporary non-trinitarian Christian denomination doesn't consider Jesus to be the Son of God. So using the word most is highly unnecessary as it assumes a good chunk of Christians don't consider Jesus to be the Son of God or the Messiah, which really isn't the case. Neplota (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC) ::@DeCausa:@FyzixFighter:Frankly using the term "most" here is same as saying "most Muslims or most Christians believe in God", which is absurd as you need to be a theist in order to be a Muslim or Christian. Same goes with Jesus being the Son of God and the ultimate Messiah, all Christian denominations with official doctrines agree with this. The very term Christian is derived from Christ which refers to Jesus' nature as the Messiah. I am not even a Christian but that's just common sense. I hope you people got the point, I was trying to explain. Regards Neplota (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You've confused Unitarian Universalism and Unitarianism. "I hope you people got the point" is not a good way to persuade others to a view that's been expressed more effectively and on multiple times previously, yet still did not on those occasions change consensus. You've raised nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: there's nothing insidious about my edit. The only change that I made post discussion was to alter "most Christians" to "Christians overwhelmingly" which emphasized the fact that only Unitarians out of countless other Christian denominations don't consider Jesus son of God. However, it still stayed true to the consensus here that not all Christians consider Jesus to be the son of God. @FyzixFighter: your input in this regard will be appreciated too as my trivial change to the wording of the sentence is being blown way to much out of proportion. RegardsNeplota (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: I see where I have stated my preference for "Son of God", I'm not seeing where DeCausa has agreed to this change. What I do see appears to be DeCausa getting sick of repeating themselves to an editor who doesn't hear it. You are edit warring - you have reached the 3RR in less than 12 hours. Please revert to the long-standing version. If you did hear the community disagreement you would come to the talk page and not edit war. The previous consensus is from November of last year, and you have been slow edit warring around this sentence since then (in January, February, April, April, June, June). Start an RFC, go through the DR process, but stop edit warring. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: DeCausa only objected to my edit involving the removal of the word "most" [4]. No issue was raised on rest of the changes i.e., using the word Son of God instead of God the Son by DeCausa. Our main point of discussion was whether all Christians agree that Jesus is the Son of God. DeCausa gave the example of Unitarianism as a counter to my insistence on removing the word. Therefore I finally accepted their claim. But in my final edit instead of using "Most Christians" I changed it to "Christians overwhelmingly" which wasn't reverted by any editor for almost 15 days. RegardsNeplota (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As is mostly the case with your edit summaries and posts, that's untrue. What you said in this edit summary was I have restored the article to the version that other editors including DeCausa agreed. What you said above is different: that I didn't object. I didn't object because i wasn't involved in that point - i didn't need to be because the consensus is clear. But "DeCausa agreed" is just a straightforward lie. Also "I finally accepted their claim" and then changed it anyway. The consesnsus was not to change the current text. So what you did was to do it with a misleading edit summary in the hopes no one would notice. But they did. What is "sentence" supposed to mean as an edit summary? Oh I know: "I want to get my edit passed consensus so I'll use a bland and meaningless edit summary rather than saying what I'm actually doing because no one will check that". You've been up to these tricks in multiple articles, not just here. Unfortunately, Neplota, nothing you say can be relied on or believed, which is why there's an ANI thread about you already even though you've only had a few hundred edits. Are you going to explain yourself there or are you going to continue to hide from it? DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR is not yet violated but Neplota is on the very edge. Warning added to Talk page and situation mentioned on ANI. RFC is the correct way to go here; both WP:CON and WP:STABLE warrant a refresher. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit by RayLucero123

Please discuss this edit here rather than edit war. Please read WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

Change to fiction or cite reliable source(s). Parents are listed as Mary and Joseph. Not God- contradicting the fictional virgin birth story. 75.188.142.162 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject, but I think our article does a decent job of walking the line of historicity and tradition. My sense is this will not be a successful request, but hope springs eternal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

OP cannot prove it is fiction any more than religious adherents can prove it is nonfiction. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done-explained by others above. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

First sentence: " Jewish preacher and religious leader"

This description is misleading. Jesus was born a Jew. Jesus was preacher and a religious leader, but Jesus was not a Jewish preacher or Jewish religious leader. Jesus was rejected by Judaism and accepted by Christians. Jesus and his followers created a schism, and those who remained Jewish rejected him as a heretic. Look at section in: Historical Heresies and Modern Jewish Identity by David Biale in Jewish Social Studies: "We begin with Jesus, the most famous of Jewish heretics, whose heresy points not to secularism but to the foundation of a competing religion".---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

While no one would deny that Christianity split off to form a separate religion, I think you have properly identified Jesus (to the extent he existed) as a heretic--a Jewish heretic. To the extent we can reconstruct anything about this person, he certainly seems to have broadly fit in a Jewish milieu: reading Torah, holding the Temple sacred, etc. There were obvious heterodoxies, no doubt, but this is one where it strikes me that we really must follow the weight of the reliable sources, and even your source uses the adjective "Jewish." So while I understand and appreciate your argument, for me, the better course is retaining that labelling, especially in a general text for non-specialists. Then again, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt Jesus was Jewish, born so. But assigning to him the label of "Jewish religious leader" is WRONG on so many levels, it is a label that says that he was a "religious leader for Jews", which is rejected by almost all Jews now and through the entire history of Christianity.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But, for me, it seems accurate to say that he (in theory) led Jews at the time (even if gentiles were included and it rapidly spread among them afterward). Again, I simply respectfully disagree with regards to the preponderance of reliable sources, even if I credit your argument to some degree personally. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Might a description that pigeon-holes less and generally leads to fewer issues be something like: ... a first-century religious leader and preacher of Hebrew scripture. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I know that many Jews consider that Jesus was a convert to Paganism. However, they conflate the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith. The band of Jews formed around Saint Peter were keeping the Jewish law, and it seems that they were marginalized by Pauline Christians, and their offspring were later hunted down as Judaizer heretics. So, the aura of Paganism around Jesus is mostly due to St. Paul. While we cannot know for sure that Jesus's own teachings were 100% orthodox at that time, it seems that he pushed his own brand of Pharisaism, and his quarrels with Pharisees were mostly due to the fact that they were competition. It also seems that Jesus was highly apocalyptic, so according to him there wasn't going to be a long run, i.e. no time for another religion growing from Judaism, but he meant that the world was about to end really soon. So, if you mean that he was a false prophet because of that, it is acceptable. However, the Book of Daniel is crammed with failed prophecies, yet made it to the canon of both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. Paul, too, did not think he was founding a new religion, since he was equally apocalyptic. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As I replied to Lilach5 in an earlier thread there's an MOS:LABEL issue with calling him a "heretical Jewish preacher", as seems to be Lilach5's peference per this. It's too complex and value-laden to wrap up in a simplistic approach like that. "Heretic" doesn't have any absolute meaning. It only can mean "viewed by X as a heretic". In this case, Jesus was a heretic as viewed by subsequent Jewish orthodoxy (in the general sense, as opposed to the branch of Judaism). But I don't see that as impacting his role at the time as a leader and preacher of a Jewish sect, along with a whole boat load of other Jewish sect leaders and preachers that wee don't now know the names of. So I don't see a problem with the description per se: he was a "Jewish religious leader" even if he was rejected by most Jews at the time and all observing Jews subsequently. But there is a question of WP:DUE: that's not what he is primarily known as. For the 1st sentence there is a strong case for taking "Jewish" out of the first sentence. His role as a "Jewish religious leader" is very much way down the list of possible descriptors of Jesus, even if accurate. The second paragraph goes into his Jewishness, and there the nuances of that are fully explained. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Jewish religious leader" would be more misleading than the current text. Jesus, though Jewish, railed against the Jewish leadership of the day and everything it stood for. If anything, he was a religious "rebel". He led an anti-establishment movement of followers that morphed into Christianity. The current text of religious (unspecified) leader preacher is better. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only mention of Jesus as a "religious leader" of any type on the page is in the first sentence, and this is cited to a single source: Vermes. The only other mentions of "Jewish leaders" in the article are those in opposition to Jesus. So this whole "leadership" attribution potentially has some further MOS:LEAD/WP:DUE issues worth addressing. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant to type "Jewish preacher and religious leader" i.e the current text, although I think the text reads as though "jewish" qualifies both preacher and religious leader. (The current text of religious (unspecified) leader preacher is better. isn't what it says either. But in any case, even if he led only 12 Jews it doesn't preclude "Jewish religious leader". But I think this is a red herring. DeCausa (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

User:DeCausa, describing Jesus as "a first-century preacher and religious leader" is an elegant solution. Thank you for suggesting that! Explaining his relation to Judaism is expanded on later in the lead. Can we all agree on this change? ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose this, for the reasons above: mostly insofar as I believe the Jewish milieu is important and my belief (though it could be mistaken) is that this continues to be represented in a great many sources. All that said, should consensus find differently, I will not complain. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as the 'Jewish milieu' is amply covered in the second paragraph. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Opposed. Removing “Jewish” removes an objective fact, and important sociopolitical context from the entire first paragraph, and break a link to the material developed later. If you are concerned about a conflation of “Jewish” people vs “Jewish” religion, I would suggest replacing “Jewish” with “Judean”. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The straight dope from List of messiah claimants: Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BC – 30/33 AD), leader of a "marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult" tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: It's ambiguous whether "Jewish" covers both "preacher" and "religious leader". Even if he didn't "lead Jews" (though he was a rabbi), he's certainly a "Jewish preacher". The bigger problem is the very sloppy sourcing; unacceptable for an FA. For a start, the Vermes reference should be split into four citations. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, Talk:Jesus/Archive 128#“A Jewish preacher" (2016) discussed it, and it appears "religious leader" is following Britannica. But the consensus was just for "preacher" - I'm not sure when "religious leader" was added. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Just preacher is preferable to religious leader, in my opinion. Most agree that during his life he headed a marginal cult for a short period of time. His significance as the head of a religion rose many years after his death.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You may be attaching too much to the phrase "a Jewish...religious leader". It doesn't (necessarily) mean "religious leader of the Jews" (leaving aside the ambiguity over whether "jewish" qualifies "religious leader"). A leader of any small Jewish grouping or sect could still be a "Jewish religious leader". The requirement is to be (a) Jewish (b) be a religious leader of something, not necessarily the whole Jewish people. DeCausa (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, City of David

When asked Siri who was the founder of the Catholic Church??? Siri answered Jesus Christ which is correct, but failed when mentioned that Jesus Christ was born in Nazareth. Jesus Christ was not born in Nazareth, he was born in Bethlehem, The city of David. Him and his Mother and St Joseph returned to Judea to he town of Nazareth when King Herod died. They remained in Nazareth. 122.57.70.147 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article on Jesus. Your concern appears to be with Siri. We have no control over what Siri says. You need to take that up with Apple. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, Jesus's birthplace is murky, we just leave it at "no consensus", although IMHO there should be "probably Nazareth". tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hand washing

In the section on the canonical gospels, there is a list comparing the synoptic gospels with John, and the following description is given: "Jesus is not said to not wash his hands.". This is cited to a book by Witherington, to which I don't have access. Anyway, is the (awkward) sentence "Jesus is not said to not wash his hands." correct? Mrs. January (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The apparent double negative is intentional, to convey that, while Jesus and his disciples were criticized in the Gospel account for apparent lack of ceremonial hand-washing, that does not mean that they did not wash their hands. A better rendering might be something like “it is not actually clear if Jesus and his disciples refrained from washing their hands…” Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I support rephrasing so it will not be a double negative. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, rephrasing would be good. That was a tortured compromise as Jtrevor99 describes above. Dumuzid (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I did this, a bit like Jtrevor99 but a bit shorter. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 08:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Religious significance of Jesus in lead paragraph

Should the opening paragraph in the lead summary outline the religious significance of Jesus to world religions other than Christianity, and how should it go about this? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes In accordance with MOS:OPEN: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. At the moment, after the purely biographical detail, the first paragraph mentions only the Christian point of view. This is not neutral or balanced. It mentions neither the views of the religious community from which he came (Judaism)[5], the views of the world's second largest religion (Islam)[6], or his significant as a figure in various other world religions, e.g. Baháʼí, etc. Even considering due weight, and the fact that Jesus is the central figure to Christianity in a way that can not be said of other faiths, the opening paragraph should still outline, at the bare minimum, that the relevance of Jesus extends beyond the bounds of Christianity, rather than leaving the subject entirely untouched as the first paragraph currently does. This issue has been raised several times before, e.g. here and here, but without the coalescence of any clear consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree. The first paragraph needs to be more inclusive. Especially, his position in Judaism and Islam is currently missing there. Khestwol (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• No -ish "Outlining" its significance in other religions in the first paragraph would I think be WP:UNDUE. However, a sentence at the end of the paragraph just saying something like "Jesus is also a revered figure in other religions" would be ok as an intro to the more detailed paragraph at the end of the lead. DeCausa (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: Thank you for your input, but isn't that a yes-ish? I actually tried to add a fairly innocuous sentence very similar to that, only to be rebuffed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was focusing on the phrase in the question outline the religious significance of Jesus.... I think "outlining" sounds to me more than what I was suggesting or what your edit was doing (which looks ok to me except I'm not sure about "numerous"). Semantics perhaps. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes And also mention that plenty of people don't believe he even existed, or don't care whether he existed. And no, I'm not trying to be provocative here. I just want this alleged person to be treated the same as any other alleged historical figure not attached to a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is a silly comment. Jesus is as well-documented as many other ancient figures whose existence is unquestioned. Take it from a fellow Australian (an atheist!). 67.170.60.41 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Not true. There is plenty of material about other historical figures from around that time that was written while they were alive. Not the case with Jesus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

While the first written sources we have are Paul's, there was obviously a strong oral history surrounding Jesus. We don't know when the Q and other sources were written but the First Century texts were based on existing sources, written or not. The weight of scholarship is firmly with the historical Jesus; the arguments of mythicists tend to be shallow and short on evidence. Atheist scholars such as Bart Ehrman provide copious annotated and bilbliographed material. We can talk of Jesus the man as distinct from the supernatural being that the later Christians describe him as being. Get rid of all the myths and magic and Jesus is just a Jewish preacher, of which there were presumably many thousands about in First Century Palestine. You are sureluy not suggesting that there were no rabbis around in a Jesish society just because we don't know their names and addresses? --Pete (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If you had read the linked article, you would be aware that there are many ancient figures whose existence is only supported by texts written after their own lifetimes. Jesus is far, far from unusual in that regard. 2601:601:1B00:7530:A041:9CE9:BBF9:3768 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul and especially the Gospels - both canon and apocrypha - quote many sayings of Jesus. While undoubtedly many were distorted or fabricated there is general agreement that some are genuine. The scholarly debate is about which ones. Oral history or written, these sayings must necessarily have been collected during his lifetime. John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Thomas, which is entirely such material, was compiled earlier than generally accepted. The reality is that Jesus only became prominent and notable after his execution and his life and sayings became of interest to those beyond an immediate audience. Hardly surprising that we have no written record composed during his short life but plenty after when he became the central figure of a vigorous new philosophy. --Pete (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. The present framing is balanced. The notability of Jesus, the significance of Jesus, in a purely neutral sense, to any and all readers, is overwhelmingly a function of his status as the central figure, in a sense the founder, the object of worship, of Christianity; in fact, I would argue that his significance as a peripheral prophet or guru or what-have-you for other religions derives from this fact and depends upon it. A full paragraph of the lead, albeit the last, comments on his place in the Islamic and Judaic traditions. It is not possible or desirable to cram everything into the first paragraph; it is interesting that Jesus is a manifestation of God in the Baháʼí faith, but it is undue in the first paragraph. Regulov (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Balance is certainly something to be weighed carefully, but can ignoring all other traditions associated with Jesus honestly be considered "purely neutral"? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just to say I think the "neutrality" argument is a bit of a red herring. We have a whole paragraph in the lead on other religions. I think adding to that substantively in the first paragraph does start causing a WP:DUE problem (especially a specific reference to Jewish non-belief). For me the best argument to include something in the first paragraph is a stylistic one. The lead flows better if there's a linkage (however brief) to the last paragraph - rather than that it coming "out of the blue" at the end. Currently, it looks like an artificial "add on". or afterthought. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I respect that, and wholeheartedly agree with your stylistic point: the lack of linkage between first and last paragraphs was also a thing that struck me. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• No. The disputed text is an addition to the sentence, "He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, as well as a major figure in numerous other world religions" (emphasis supplied), an addition too vague and misleading to make by itself, and requiring more explanation than belongs in a three-sentence lead paragraph. The fourth paragraph of the lead ostensibly serves this purpose, although not very well, since it is almost entirely concerned with Islam—where Jesus appears to be a relatively minor figure, despite the conspicuous claim to the contrary in the subsection about Islam—with a brief mention of Judaism, in which he is not an important figure at all, at the end. Other religions are not mentioned at all. This paragraph needs to be significantly rewritten in order to serve its purpose—and it cannot reasonably do that and be folded into the lead paragraph.

As far as the purpose of this proposal, I can see two equally bad results, each of which misleadingly claim to create NPOV, although they do not. 1) the first diminishes the significance of Jesus as the central figure of Christianity by placing undue weight on his supposed importance in other religions, although his role in other major religions is in fact minimal, and his role in smaller religions is mostly—if not entirely—derived from his importance to Christianity; 2) the second enhances the significance of Jesus as a figure of importance in multiple religions besides Christianity, by exaggerating his role in them, as well as creating a false equivalency between relatively minor religions and Christianity—also an example of undue weight if forced into the lead paragraph.

The lead paragraph cannot adequately describe every important aspect of this topic—even with several subsequent paragraphs it is only possible to describe them briefly. This attempt to shoehorn one particular subtopic into the lead, where it would be too vague to be helpful, and imply a disproportionate significance to that subtopic, is simply a bad idea. P Aculeius (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: This RFC does not reference a specific text, but throws the floor open to ideas. As I mentioned, this issue has cropped up again and again. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

And that was just the starting point for my reply. If you agree that the text originally added is too vague to be helpful in this context, then you must realize that this proposal would require some extended discussion in the lead paragraph—which is currently three basic and fairly uncontroversial sentences outlining the cultural significance of Jesus in general terms. Once you start listing other religions in which he is in some way acknowledged as a person of historical or religious significance, you risk undermining the purpose of the lead paragraph. The fact that there is a great deal of significant material to discuss in the topic is why the lead is four paragraphs long; why does his role in other religions need to be one of the first things said? That clearly gives undue weight to a relatively minor but complex series of relationships in other religious traditions. It would be like insisting that Jesus be mentioned in the lead section of Hinduism, simply because some Hindus regard him as a divine or semi-divine figure, and he's so important to other religions. P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• No per the reasons given above. This entire article lead was also written by a group of editors and agreed on by a large consensus, so for that reason, amongst others listed, I think it is fine the way it is. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• No to say as well as a major figure in numerous other world religions is flat untrue, if that is what we are talking about. The last lead para says he is "revered" in Islam, which is theoretically true, but actually most Islamic mentions have been pretty hostile for many centuries. There's too much on Islam in the lead, but a word or two on Baháʼí might be appropriate. Not sure the absence of any significance in Judaism is lead-worthy either. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  'Flat untrue' why? There are at least four here. And 'pretty hostile' based on what? Jesus in Islam is both major prophet and vital eschatological functionary. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Druze are hardly a "world religion", others are extinct. The significance of Jesus in Islam is pretty small, not least because Islam considers there is no reliable record of anything he taught. There is a very long record of hostile and derogatory comments on Jesus by Muslims. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• No as already explained in our previous discussion.Neplota (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• No It is already mentioned in another paragraph. The article does not contain that much material on the perspectives of other religions. Senorangel (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  • No as per passed rfc and WP:DUE. whole paragraph in the lead on the topic. Moxy- 01:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Moxy: I couldn't find a past RFC on this particular subject specifically, so if you know of one, it would be useful if you could link to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral - There's no concrete proof that the fella ever existed. Anyways, whatever is decided, is good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Probably not I confess, I am a bit unclear as to what exactly is being proposed, but I will offer some general thoughts. First is that this is one of many disputes where I don't think policy gets us very far--either rendition could be perfectly compliant. But I tend to think a very broad, simple reference in the opening paragraph is best, as we have it now, to be expanded later in the article. I think maintaining the focus is better -- but I can certainly go either way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes this RfC is very vague, but the significance of Jesus in religions other than Christianity is relevant to the subject and merits some mention on the lead. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It is in the lead—there's a whole paragraph about it. This discussion is about whether it needs to be discussed in the first paragraph. P Aculeius (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: ah, thanks for clarifying. I'm obviously aware it's in the lead already; I read this as being about whether it should be retained. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Probably not. The first paragraph should define the topic and establish article context per MOS:OPEN. Neither of those requirements dictate that Jesus's significance in other religions be mentioned. A specifically-worded, very terse proposal could plausibly change my mind. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Jesus is a sufficiently major figure in Islam, at least, that it ought to be mentioned. I'm not sure there are other faiths that are simultaneously major enough and have Jesus as a significant enough figure, but that one is the obvious one. Compare eg. Moses and Abraham, which are (roughly) equally important in Islam and get such a mention in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) The WP:LEADPARAGRAPH is there to "define/identify" the topic, "without being too specific"; and to "establish the context", give "location and time", and "establish boundaries". Given the topic of "Jesus", adding information about Islam's view to the lead paragraph does not follow the recommendations of the guideline for the opening paragraph. As to whether it should be present in the lead at all, I would say that this is almost entirely a WP:DUEWEIGHT question, based on the answer to the question of whether the view of Islam is one of "the most important points" to know about Jesus. My impression is that only a very small proportion of the enormous amount of published material about Jesus discusses Islam's view, and so I would say that it does not belong in the lead, but could be mentioned in the body; however, such impressions would require data to back it up. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• No as per the reasons given above. Also, the layout of the opening lead was agreed on via a large consensus involving a large group of editors and things like this I am sure have been discussed before. The other religions are also mentioned further down in the lead, there is no point of bringing them up to the first paragraph when the subject is not even the main focus of those religions. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, with suggestion Having browsed the above reasoning plus discussions in multiple archives on the same point, I see little reason to expand on other religions in the first paragraph, when the fourth already does so, per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH and WP:DUEWEIGHT. That said, moving the first sentence of the fourth paragraph ("Jesus is also revered in other religions") to the end of the first paragraph may assuage concerns here, and better connect those two paragraphs together, improving flow. I would find that acceptable. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  This sounds like a good proposal to me. As a novice, I won't claim to be across the nuances of WP:DUEWEIGHT. In terms of how it reads, however, I do think mentioning that Jesus has relevance to some outside of being "the Central figure of Christianity" enhances the clarity of the opening paragraph and has informative value appropriate to a lead paragraph. This addition seems a decent middle ground to achieve this without undue detail or emphases that would through off balance. Also agree the change would improve flow. Equal Inequity (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• No for the first paragraph; from what I understand, Jesus is a main character in Christianity and roughly a second-level character in other major world religions.

Neutral for a mention in the second or third paragraph of the lead. CraigP459 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia should counter Systemic bias, such as a Christian-centric approach to religion. Has this RfC been shared with WikiProject Islam? (I would do so but want to avoid the appearance of lobbying.) I would revise the second sentence along these lines, with about six words:

• He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, and a major figure in Islam.

That should suffice, especially since Islam is discussed lower down in the lead section. Could mention Druze, etc. there, too. ProfGray (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If bias existed in the first paragraph, that suggestion would merely bias it towards two Abrahamic religions instead of one. It needs to either remain as is (focusing on Christianity per both WP:LEADPARAGRAPH and WP:DUEWEIGHT - which in an article on the religious significance of the central figure of Christianity, who has only secondary or tertiary in others, is not systemic bias), or at least mention all faiths for which he is significant. Hence why I made the suggestion I did. I will mention that the lead of Moses handles this by enumerating all major faiths in which Moses is significant; I find that unwieldy and would prefer my prior suggestion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Christian-centric. Christianity has more than five times as many articles as Islam (95000 vs 17000) and probably double all religions combined. This also reflects a Western (and White) bias.

Islam deserves more weight here because of its size and significance. Other Abrahamic religions are relatively much less important. Your suggestion is fine but would not be my preference.

Also, Jesus is more significant for Islam than people realize. It's not merely a matter of Jesus within Islamic beliefs, it's that Jesus is the 1st or 2nd best way to differentiate between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, though less weighty), along with scripture. So when I teach about the world's religions, Jesus is a major factor, doctrine aside. ProfGray (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is like saying a Christian perspective of Muhammad needs to be in the first paragraph of that article, which is just simply not true. Islam is literally mentioned further down in the lead, it should not matter if it is in the first paragraph or not. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict with prior comment) The statistics are immaterial to this discussion. Focusing an article regarding the central figure of Christianity on Christianity fits the aforementioned WP policies. Any systemic bias needs to be addressed in articles that do not have such a valid claim. If focusing only on Christianity when Christianity considers Jesus important is bias, then so is focusing on only Christianity and Islam when they both consider him important. That said, I would not oppose an intermediary along the lines of “Jesus is also revered in other religions, especially Islam” (and perhaps Baha’i or whichever ones are deemed to fit here.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion by @Jtrevor99. I might phrase it as: "Jesus is also significant in other religions, notably Islam." In any case, it's good to aim for consensus among editors. I don't think the decision should be based purely on numbers (given WP policy) but you might want to revise your comment to a "Yes, with suggestion."

Let me also respond to: "This is like saying a Christian perspective of Muhammad needs to be in the first paragraph of that article..."

• This is flawed reasoning. Jesus is a major figure in Islam. Muhammad is not a factor in Christianity at all. I've taught Christian theology and never had to mention Muhammad once.

ProfGray (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be closed soon, as currently five people say yes, one is neutral and fifteen say no, which is a large difference in numbers; this should be, if not is, enough for a consensus. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. My current count (including a couple below this) is 8 in favor, 10 against, and 4 largely against but willing to accept something terse. I did not count neutral / no opinion votes. Please check my counts, but appears to me the vote is close. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes I'm inclined to a brief mention in the opening paragraph of Jesus's being highly significant in Islam especially since Islam is a major world religion. Note the size of the article on Jesus in Islam and many references in the Quran to Jesus. I note also that in the article on Moses, the opening sentence is "Moses is considered the most important prophet in Judaism and one of the most important prophets in Christianity, Islam, the Druze faith, the Baháʼí Faith and other Abrahamic religions." This is perhaps going overboard in the other direction with mentioning more minor religions. The article on Abraham also mentions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the first sentence. --Erp (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, the cases of Jesus vs. Moses/Abraham can be distinguished. Moses & Abraham et alia are similar in importance to Christianity and Islam. But Jesus is uniquely important to Christianity. (Whether Jesus is a more significant figure than Moses in Islam can be debated, but his centrality to Christianity is indisputable.) ProfGray (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  But Moses and Abraham are overwhelmingly important in Judaism yet the mention of their roles in Christianity and Islam is not pushed out of the first paragraph. Erp (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is that comparing Abraham in Islam to Jesus in Islam is just not the same thing. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the requirements of MOS:OPEN, there are strong arguments from the perspective of consistency with other key Abrahamic figures. Picking just Abraham is a bit straw man. Moses is a better example - that subject is overwhelmingly important to Judaism, yet the neutral first paragraph still finds time for proper encyclopedic context. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Have the WikiProjects for Islam, Druze, and Bah'ai been notified? I'd suggest reaching out to them for comment, especially if we want to avoid the appearance of systemic bias. ProfGray (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, at the very least Jesus in Islam needs to be in as Jesus is a significant figure in Islam. Judaism has to be mentioned too, since the first sentence says he was "Jewish preacher and religious leader". That is misleading without stating the Jewish position. If he wasn't called a Jewish religious leader, then possibly it could be left out, but with that statement up there a clarification is needed.לילך5 (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. I don't really see the need for clarification, esp. given the last sentence of the opening ("Judaism rejects...") but what statement would you suggest? ProfGray (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Modifying my previous Yes, My suggestion might be adjusting the second sentence to "He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, and a major figure in several others including Islam, the second largest religion" and possibly adjusting some others. The intro of the article seems to be (a) opening paragraph with sentences (i) setting time frame and that he was a Jewish teacher (btw I think "teacher" would be better than "preacher and religious leader") (ii) position in Christianity (which should be the sentence about positions in Christianity and Islam and other religions) (iii) sentence on what his role is for most Christians (the current wording implies that the role is different for a few Christians and for other religions so being explicit about this though useful isn't essential in the first paragraph). Next (b) Paragraph laying out generally accepted facts about his life expanding the first sentence of the opening paragraph. The remaining paragraphs expand the last sentence (iii) of the intro: (c) a paragraph on Christian doctrine about him and (d) a paragraph about Muslim doctrine on him with a sentence about Jewish views on him appended (I note that the "In contrast" is in contrast to both Christian and Muslim views so should probably be in its own paragraph and not included in a paragraph almost solely about Muslim views). --Erp (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. You might want to enter a Yes or modified Yes, since you are suggesting a change. Might also decrease the indentation so it shows up more clearly. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Calling him a "Jewish preacher" is misleading, He is rejected by Jews and was a heretic.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Per MOS:LABEL calling him a "heretical Jewish preacher", as you want to, doesn't work. It's too complex and value-laden to wrap up in an adjective like that. Calling someone a "heretic" requires explicitly defining in whose eyes they are a heretic. It's not an objective descriptor. Plus he was Jewish and he was a preacher (we think) so it's not wrong anyway. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Calling Jesus a "Jewish religious leader" is very wrong and misleading. Christians took him as a leader, Jews rejected him. Jesus was a Jewish heretic. Look at : Historical Heresies and Modern Jewish Identity: "We begin with Jesus, the most famous of Jewish heretics, whose heresy points not to secularism but to the foundation of a competing religion". I opened a section below---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits for review by sock puppet

As per WP:SOCKSTRIKE edits by User:Neplota should be reviewed...

Edits by Neplota to this page. Moxy- 21

30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I reviewed all edits not already tagged "Reverted". Of those, only three are in the current copy, not counting a single typographical fix and link addition. I do not believe any special action is needed on these:

• 12:28 21 March 2021. Deletion of the statement "Christians too believe that He was raised into Heaven 40 days after his Resurrection". This was added 13 days earlier to the Islam section. Probably unnecessary and the reverted author declined to discuss on Talk.
• 14:23 16 June 2022. Change from "Maryam" to "Mary" in the Islam section. The linked article is "Mary in Islam", so "Mary" probably is preferred.
• 09:52 03 July 2022. Moved mention of reverence of Jesus in other religions from end of 1st paragraph to beginning of 4th. Discussed recently in Talk above, and no consensus on whether to retain or change appears to have been reached yet.

Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion re: Nontrinitarian Christians

Council of Nicea Tedw2 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Trinitarian Christians generally believe that Jesus is the Logos, God's incarnation and God the Son, both fully divine and fully human. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is not universally accepted among Christians. With the Reformation, Christians such as Michael Servetus and the Socinians started questioning the ancient creeds that had established Jesus' two natures. Nontrinitarian Christian groups include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses.-----

I do not think this is an accurate statement of the facts. It implies it was only at the time of reformation that the Doctrine of the Trinity was questioned. It should be added that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not official doctrine of the early Church until 325 and the Council of Nicea. Arians questioned it long before the Reformation. Wikipedia should be accurate on the matter Tedw2 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually think this is a very good idea. I never noticed it, but I think you're right about the natural reading of the sentence. Do others agree? Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree too. The nature of Jesus was hotly disputed in the first centuries of the Christian churches. It only solidified in 300-400, the Reformation era questioning are not new, but a rekindling of long dispute. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

And today, most evangelical orgs tend to just discard it entirely.--SinoDevonian (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns

Since there is no record of Jesus expressing preferred pronouns, some sort of neutral term should be found. 76.65.24.235 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Male pronouns are used in all recorded sources, therefore male pronouns are neutral. Happy (Slap me) 14:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, according to the biblical record, he often referred to himself in the third person (as the Son of Man) and preferred masculine pronouns. StAnselm (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, we need to be careful not to project modern cultural inventions onto historical cultures. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, in Hebrew, היא, pronounced "he" is in fact "she," so I say we throw our hands up and keep the article as is. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Geezus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Geezus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Geezus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"Jesus as Jew" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jesus as Jew and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Jesus as Jew until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In the Jewish Perspective section of this article on Jesus

In the Jewish Perspective section of this article on Jesus, the most vital and important points regarding Judaism's perspective of Jesus should be added in this article, and they are: Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry, and rejects the claims that Jesus was divine, an intermediary to God, or part of a Trinity.. Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. The belief that Jesus is God, the Son of God, or a person of the Trinity, is incompatible with Jewish theology. Therefore, consideration of Jesus as deity is not an issue in traditional Jewish thought. Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy. Belief in the Trinity is also held to be incompatible with Judaism, as are a number of other tenets of Christianity. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaism, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."

Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God. The Jerusalem Talmud states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." Thank you to all fellow Wikipedians108.30.240.77 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

You are conflating between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. Jesus himself did not believe much of the stuff Christians believe about him. As the saying goes, the religion of Jesus is Judaism, Christianity is a religion about Jesus.

We don't know very much about who this Jesus was, or what he thought, but by all chances he was very much unlike traditional Christian theology depicts him. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu You are, with rather flippant carelessness, basing your argument on "facts" that are both very critical and highly contentious. And I say "flippant carelessness" in the sense of throwing them out there in a way and with a tone such that one hopes that they'll be taken without serious examination (sort of like, well, as we all know ...). I particularly refer to your phrase, "Jesus himself did not believe much of the stuff ..." For 2000 years scholars far more learned than I'll ever be have dissected the question of what Jesus believed. And the word "stuff" suggests that what Christians believe is largely to be dismissed out of hand. And I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion of whatever point you're trying to make, anyway. The question here is about what a--presumably informed and faithful--Jewish person would thing about Jesus. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: In the Bible scholarship taught by the Ivy League it is not really disputed that there is a big gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. But since the point is moot to our discussion, I won't pursue the argument further. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

IP, as far as I can tell the section more or less says what you say, albeit in an abridged form. That's appropriate per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE because we have a whole article on it. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, thanks for your response. Part of it (the idolatry) is in the Islamic views section in this article, but I do not see anywhere in this Jesus article where it clearly states these basic, simple, abridged, important points: Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus, Mary or any past or future Messiah's or King's) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which is why it regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaism, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Judaism also teaches that it is heretical for any man (or woman; any person) to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son (or daughter) of God. The Jerusalem Talmud states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." Thank you DeCausa.108.30.240.77 (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't appear in this article because it isn't relevant. All that needs to be said is "Jews do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah". It can then be said on the page for Judaism all of your points. סשס Grimmchild 10:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course Judaism rejecting the claims of Jesus' divinity, resurrection, death atoning for others sins, and Judaism's affirmation that worshiping any person or messiah, including Jesus, is considered idolatry, etc., are all completely relevant. Moreover, A LOT more than your quote is actually said in this article, including: "Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was divine or resurrected. Judaism rejects the idea of Jesus (or any future Jewish messiah) being God, or a mediator to God, or part of a Trinity, and the Mishneh Torah states that Jesus is a "stumbling block" who makes "the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord". Judaic criticism of Jesus is long-standing, and includes a range of stories in the Talmud, written and compiled from the 3rd to the 5th century AD. In one such story, Yeshu HaNozri ("Jesus the Nazarene"), a lewd apostate, is executed by the Jewish high court for spreading idolatry and practicing magic. According to some, the form Yeshu is an acronym which in Hebrew reads: "may his name and memory be blotted out." Judaism holds that Jesus is not the messiah, arguing that he neither fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh nor embodied the personal qualifications of the Messiah. Judaism argues that Jesus did not fulfill prophesies to build the Third Temple, gather Jews back to Israel, bring world peace, and unite humanity under the God of Israel." According to you, 99.9% of all of this, which is already in this Jesus article, and remains in it, should be deleted and "said on the page for Judaism." Of course not.

Furthermore, this Jesus article also contains this: "Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son. Jesus' followers believe he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin named Mary, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement for sin, and rose from the dead. The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three persons of the Trinity. However, there is a small minority of Christian denominations that reject trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural. Muslims believe Jesus was neither God nor a son of God. The Quran states that Jesus never claimed to be divine. The Quran emphasizes that Jesus was a mortal human and affirms that Jesus is considered to be neither an incarnation nor a son of God. Islamic texts emphasize a strict notion of monotheism and forbid the association of partners with God, which would be idolatry. There is no mention of his resurrection, and his death plays no special role in Islamic theories of salvation. Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but have different views about him – from challenging his mental health, to emphasizing his "moral superiority"." According to you, 99.9% of all of this, which is already in this Jesus article, and remains in it, should be deleted and "said on the pages for Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and Atheism." Of course not.108.30.240.77 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So 99.9% of what you want to say is in the article? Why are you complaining? סשס Grimmchild 07:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, everything that is already in the article should be in the article. However, according to you, 99.9% of what is already in the article should not be in the article, but should be "said on the pages for Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and Atheism." Judaism rejecting the claims of Jesus' divinity, resurrection, death atoning for others sins, and Judaism's affirmation that worshiping any person or messiah, including Jesus, is considered idolatry, etc., are the most vital and important points regarding Judaism's perspective of Jesus and are all completely relevant. That is why these basic, simple, important affirmations of Judaism's view of Jesus should also be in this article, including these basic, pertinent affirmations with reliable sources cited: Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus or any past or future Messiah's) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which is why it regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaism, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Judaism also teaches that it is heretical for any person to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son (or daughter) of God. The Jerusalem Talmud states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." I'd think that even an abridged version of this - because it is so pertinent/important and so basic/simple - should be added to the article.108.30.240.77 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I only mentioned Judaism, it can stay if you think it's important, and stop copy/pasting the same block of text every single comment you make. It's annoying. סשס Grimmchild 10:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's "annoying" that's just too bad for you, you are not being forced to read it nor reply to it. Stop complaining and stating glaringly obvious relevant, important facts are not relevant and should be said on another "page.' It's annoying. 108.30.240.77 (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I only meant that we can already see your opinions in an earlier message. Why is page in quotes? Why don't you change the page yourself if it has problems? That's the entire point of Wikipedia, after all. סשס Grimmchild 12:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This article on Jesus is a protected page that cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least TEN edits to Wikipedia). It may only allow edits by editors with the extended confirmed user access level, which is granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days' tenure and at least 500 edits. Many Wikipedia articles are also protected like the articles on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Rabbi Meir Kahane, Jewish Defense League, Israel Defense Forces, Kach, Munich massacre, State of Israel, antisemitism, Holocaust, First Intifada, Zvi Yehuda Kook, etc. Moreover, whether articles are protected or not, in many cases any edit will result in edit wars when editors who disagree about the content repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors should reach consensus on the talk page. These are the reasons I went to the talk page.108.30.240.77 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's semi-protected; you only need e days' tenure and 10 edits. סשס Grimmchild 08:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, thanks for your response. Part of it (the idolatry part) is actually in the Islamic views section in this article, but I do not see anywhere in this entire Jesus article, including the Judaism's perspective section, where it clearly states these basic, simple, abridged, important points: Judaism considers the worship of any person (including Jesus, Mary or any past or future Messiah's or King's) a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which is why it regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaism, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Judaism also teaches that it is heretical for any man (or woman; any person) to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son (or daughter) of God. The Jerusalem Talmud states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar." I'd think that even an abridged version of this - because it is so pertinent/important and so basic/simple - should be added to the article. Thank you. 108.30.240.77 (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

“He” hyperlink - God’s Gender article

Hello,

I have noticed that there is a recent change to this page making the “He” in the second sentence of the main summary of Jesus link to an obscure article talking about the gender of God in Christianity.

I think this change needs to be undone.

First of all, the gender of God in Christianity in 99.9% of Christian discussion is not up for debate or an issue of confusion. To put this right in the second sentence of the MAIN summary about Jesus is ridiculous, and quite honestly, offensive.

Secondly, the article it links to isn’t even well done and was clearly written by someone biased in favor of questioning God’s gender, which once again, is a very very small minority view.

And to have this gender-ideology ridiculousness be pushed into the very first sentences on the summary of Jesus Christ is horrifically disrespectful to Him and to followers of Christianity.

If you want to put gender related, post-modern, 1,234 gender Marxist ideology discussion somewhere wayyyyy down on the bottom of the page, then go for it I guess…

But right in the MAIN. summary of Christ? Seriously?

Change this. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:3DCA:8308:F6A4:A7CC (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That addition was only part of the article for a few minutes and has already been deleted. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of exchange between Tiberius and Abgar

@Dumuzid I find your reasons for the reversion to be lacking. You state that "we don't have any record of the letters dating to that time": firstly your personal standards of history don't matter here, all that matters is what reliable, scholarly sources state. But that said, this is silly and sets an impossible standard; if we did have such a record then by that logic we'd need another record of that record, and another record of that record, etc. infinitely. You also say "many modern scholars consider them pseudepigrapha" which A) Weasel words and B)These letters aren't discussed much in the literature but I actually haven't found anyone definitively denouncing them as false and indeed the reception I find them getting, such as in the journal article I cited from the Journal of Syriac Studies, is that they are authentic or at least have an authentic core. I highly, highly encourage you to read the article as it makes quite a reasonable case here: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/hug-2014-160112/pdf. There's really nothing in them that isn't in other sources like Mara Bar-Serapion. The most interesting thing about them really is their date. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

These letters aren't discussed much in the literature—that's exactly the problem. Jesus attested in 35-36 AD is a huge claim, so the lack of discussion is telling. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there AlphabeticThing9, I don't really disagree with your reasoning. You're right that my personal standards aren't at issue, and that reliable sources are what we're after. If you can establish a consensus for this change, then I won't make a fuss! But I will explain why I don't personally feel like this is WP:DUE, though tgeorgescu has already sort of given it away. As noted, the claim is gigantic for the field. And while we look to reliable sources, WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (emphasis added). While I think you have given us a reliable source, I think you would agree that the field of (for lack of a better term) the "Historical Jesus" is a vast one. So, though your source is good, it and its claims do not seem to have caused much of a ripple in the field. For that reason, I would say it is not a significant view (though I am prepared to accept evidence to the contrary). Moreover, while Ilaria Ramelli is a fine scholar and perfectly usable as a source, inserting a claim that seemingly only she makes without attribution or qualification strikes me as not proportionate to the views of the field. That is all to say that authoritatively stating that the Abgar letters (which themselves are only know through Eusebius, born more than two centuries after the fact) represent the earliest evidence of Jesus is not supportable by me at this time. It is clear that tgeorgescu agrees with me, so for the moment, I would say that is the consensus view, but you are more than welcome to try to persuade us or others to your stance. After all that, Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"are only know through Eusebius" Oh, great. A historian who admitted that "that it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood", and has a centuries-old reputation for dishonesty. We even have a source which describes him as a "political propagandist". Dimadick (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually the wording in the source (Ramelli, Ilaria (2014-01-01). "The Possible Origin of the Abgar-Addai Legend". Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies. 16 (1): 325–342. doi:10.31826/hug-2014-160112. ISSN 1097-3702. Retrieved 2022-10-21.) given is "In the narrative frame, two exchanges of letters are included, one between Abgar and Jesus, a blatant forgery, and another, much shorter, between Abgar and Tiberius." So only the Abgar & Tiberius letters, which are not in Eusebius's works but found in a Syriac document (Doctrina Addai) of the fifth century, are in question. Ramelli argues that the hypothesized Abgar/Tiberius letters originals (which would have been in Greek not the Syriac they are in in the 5th century with likely modifications) are contemporary to Jesus's death and reflect the political situation at the time. The only source I can find mentioning Ramelli's work finds the argument that they reflect the political situation of Jesus's time as unconvincing (chapter 5 of Wood, Philip (2010-12-01). ‘We have no king but Christ’. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958849-7. Retrieved 2022-10-21.). Note this is a cursory look. Erp (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Jesus is not dead. Where is His resurrection date?

Jesus is not dead. Where is His resurrection date? 32.215.42.37 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus/Easter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

I think it would be appropriate to change the birthdate, approximately to the deathdate, i.e AD 1-3, like AD 30-33, and the modern description of "Jew", as in contemporary Jewish people, which had not yet developed into the same people group of today, to "Judean", i.e relating to Judea 2A01:C22:90C7:6F00:A1EE:993D:6C91:A259 (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please additionally ensure that you provide reliable sources for your proposal. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

I just want to add more bible stories to page about jesus Jessie H Christian (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not really a proper edit request, though you could start another section. Start with a story you'd like to add, and we can discuss it here--being such an important and heavily visited page, it is always best to discuss first. Having said that, I think including more stories might be an uphill battle, just because we try to keep the page succinct. But that doesn't mean it can't be a successful battle. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Uphill battle indeed. The assumption in this article is that Jesus existed, making this an historical biography. So, we can’t relate stories that are not reliably sourced. The various versions of the Bible and other Abrahamic religious texts (Talmud, Book of Mormon, Quran) are not reliable sources for history. We must depend on scholars. That is to say, I don’t think Bible stories can be added here. Easier in a religious article, like Jesus in Christianity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Basically, what Dumuzid says. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In the introduction it should say carpenter as well.

Not just preacher and prophet but was a carpenter for nearly all of his life but the last 3-4 roughly. 47.5.27.207 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Carpenter is mentioned in the article, but IMO not so much it should be in the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

Jesus wasn't born in 4BC he was born in 0. BC literally stands for Before Christ. How can there be 3 years Before Christ if he was born in 4BC. There is no logical sense in this. 81.108.218.116 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See Date of birth of Jesus. (Nothing is as absolute as you would like it be, and dating systems, and understanding of historical events, have changed over more than 2000 years.) General Ization ^Talk 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"Eashoa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eashoa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Eashoa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Jesus Christ, our savior and lord. Amen. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Merciful Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Merciful Jesus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Merciful Jesus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why birth date is 4BC and not BCE

The date of birth is listed as 4BC which is confusing as BC denotes Before Christ. How was Christ born 4 years Before Christ?

It seems the appropriate term to use would be the more modern, and scientifically accepted term, BCE, or Before Common Era.

I understand this is a religious topic and as such, the term BC would be more apropos. But there still remains the question of how Christ was born 4 years Before Christ. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:8853:6A04:333:B1FE (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, actually, but as you mention, this is a religious article, so there is that, and also, our understanding of dating has changed since the advent of the AD/BC system (the latter of which I usually think of as an innovation of Bede?). Couple that with our manual of style, which essentially says BC or BCE is acceptable, but go with the sources and the way the article is presently written, and you wind up in our current situation of Jesus born four years before himself. I would personally support a change in this article from BC to BCE, but would want to see a strong consensus for that change, and would not be hopeful that it is likely. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor change to the lede

Sorry, I only saw after editing that we are supposed to discuss changes to the lede. In the previous version of the lede, the mention of oral transmission looked a little out of place, slotted between various details of Jesus in his lifetime. Since the oral transmission largely took place after Jesus' lifetime, I have moved it down to after his death, and mentioned how the oral transmission is connected to the written scriptures. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good edit. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Riopex's changes

Hello all and Happy Holidays to those who celebrate--Riopex recently made some changes and contributions to the Jesus in other religions section, which was reverted, then Riopex reverted, and I in turn reverted once more. Somewhat unusually, I think I actually support the changes! But given the nature of this article, I thought it best that we do some canvassing here before going live, so to speak. I would, therefore, invite Riopex to make his case, and anyone else to give their thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Dumuzid: for your support. I thought the last paragraph of lead put too much emphasis on Islamic beliefs while ignoring views of other world religions such as Baha'i faith, Mandaeism, etc., which also consider Jesus to be prophet and the Messiah. I collected the citations to support my edits. Then @SonoCat: added Druze too which made it more accurate and comprehensive. Therefore, I request other editors to support these changes. Riopex (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Like @Dumuzid:, I also reverted yet I also support the changes. However, @Riopex:, the edit warring must stop. If there's a clear consensus of many users speaking out here in favour of the change, we could add it in two-three days. If no users speak out against the change, we could add it in about a week. Jeppiz (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't support the changes, at least in the form that Riopex introduced. While I agree the other religions should be listed, it's WP:UNDUE to include Islam as just one of the list in that way. Jesus is an important prophet in Islam, a major world religion. It's entirely disproprtionate to put that on a par with the likes of Mandaeism. However, I think there is scope for shortening the text on Islam. Something like:

Jesus is also revered in other religions. In Islam, Jesus (often referred to by his Quranic name ʿĪsā) is considered the penultimate prophet of God and the messiah, who will return before the Day of Judgement, but was neither God nor a son of God. Most Muslims do not believe that he was killed or crucified, but that God raised him into Heaven while he was still alive. He is also considered a prophet and the messiah in the Baha'i faith, Druze faith, and Mandaeism. In contrast, Judaism...

DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Baha'i faith is a world religion too, while Mandaeism is older than Islam, and both of these religions consider Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah. Yet a whole lengthy (often repetitive) paragraph is dedicated to Islam in the lead while conveniently ignoring these two faiths. How's this encyclopedic in any way?Riopex (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

While Riopex continued edit warring is problematic behavior, I rather agree on the subject matter. If the Baháʼí Faith, Druze faith, and Mandaeism all hold Jesus to be a prophet and the Messiah, that seems equally relevant to the Muslim view. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:, in the Druze tradition, Jesus is known under three titles: the True Messiah (al-Masih al-Haq), the Messiah of all Nations (Masih al-Umam), and the Messiah of Sinners. Jesus is considered in the Druze faith the Messiah and one of God's important prophets. (see here [7], [8], [9]).SonoCat (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: The question of prominence in the lead can't be about the relative significance to the religion of Jesus. (Should a non-Christian religion with 10 adherents but considers Jesus a prophet be mentioned?) Per WP:DUE, it should reflect coverage in WP:RS. I very much doubt an obscure religion such as Mandaeism will attract the same coverage on its views on Jesus compared those of Islam. Although not as obscure, the same point follows in relation to the 8m Bahai's. It would clearly be a failure of WP:DUE to give Islam, a religion of 2bn adherents and an extensive body of WP:RS on the role of Jesus in that religion, the same prominence as the other religions. @Riopex:, don't add the text back until there is consensus in this thread otherwise you will be blocked. Read WP:EW. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea why Mandaeism is there. Jesus is barely mentioned on that page, except to explicitly say he is not regarded as a prophet. I haven't checked out the reference, but the contradiction suggests his role is not important enough to be in the lead in this article. StAnselm (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@StAnselm: as per the reputable Los Angeles Times "Mandaeans, named for the language of their writings and rituals, also are sometimes known as Sabaeans, a name they adopted in the 7th Century. Mandaean is a dialect of Aramaic, the tongue spoken in the time of Christ.

They revere Jesus as a messiah and a prophet, but not a god. He is regarded as an angel who will return to Earth, said Anis Zahrun, a physician who serves on the central council.

“Christ will remain 500 years,” he said. “Then comes the end of the world.”

John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, is the Mandaeans’ primary prophet." Riopex (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the LA Times at the best of times - I'm certainly not going to accept them as a reliable source when they blatantly contradict a subject-specific source. StAnselm (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Baha'i and Mandaen views

I have mentioned the views of Baha'i faith and Mandaeism regarding Jesus in the lead paragraph in addition to the already eloborated Islamic and Jewish views.Riopex (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted these changes. Your edits removed a couple of in-use references, leaving the article with referencing errors; as well as some referenced material that went with them. Maybe an addition or elaboration about Baha'i would be a good idea, without changing existing material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

All that applies to Christ, not to Jesus (the Christ of faith vs. historical Jesus). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will make sure that no in-use references are removed in my for changes to prevent any disruption. Riopex (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Jesus name

Isnt jesus real name Emmanuel 50.72.185.22 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

See Jesus#Titles_and_other_names_for_Jesus. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Any reason why these abridged, basic, simple, important affirmations of Judaism's Perspective of Jesus should not also be in this article (Judaism's Perspective section), including this with reliable sources cited: Judaism considers the worship of any person a form of idolatry, and also forbids the worship of any person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Monotheism, a belief in the absolute unity and singularity of God, is central to Judaism, which is why it regards the worship of a person as a form of idolatry. 108.30.240.77 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Added at the bottom

Jesus is a religious, cultural, worldwide icon, and is among the most influential people in human history. (Reference here) - User:Sleetimetraveller — Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 21 July 2021

Adding a comment so the archiver will get it at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates require updating

Dates require updating from AD 2022 to AD 2023. 2001:8003:30AA:DE01:15D6:BF5B:E9BC:BA73 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I updated again - the template was not being referenced correctly. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

24.222.216.121 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Information about the history of Jesus Christ can be obtained from a number of sources, many of which are Biblical and which also serve as a basis for followers of Christianity to build their faith. Religious scholars have the task of interpreting Biblical teachings for followers to apply to their everyday lives. However, historians are also interested in more objective sources that give information about the existence and life of Jesus Christ in a non-Biblical context.

When looking for facts about the history of the life of Jesus Christ, the idea of multiple attestation is important. Multiple attestation means that a Biblical passage or a bit of historical information about Jesus that appears in two or more sources which are independent from one another is likely to be authentic. So, if, for example, a Biblical passage claims that Jesus enabled a blind man to see, and the same incident is documented elsewhere by a non-Biblical figure in Roman history, then the incident is more likely to be true. 50.205.154.101 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is true facts 50.205.154.101 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Invalid. Please re-read the edit request template; this is for specific, concrete requests in the format of "change X to Y." As it stands, this is not an edit request. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

23.226.166.177 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)this page is devil propaganda and this is not real for his name was given to him not earned so once again this is devil propaganda

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Louise B. Perrotta

User Mattdaviesfsic reverted my deletion of a sentence from Louise B. Perrotta's book Saint Joseph: His Life and His Role in the Church Today, with the question that he could not see how she was not a reliable source. My understanding of sourcing for articles like this is that we should use recognised scholars, and Perrotta is not a scholar - she seems to be the author of numerous devotional books. The question of whether she's right or wrong doesn't arise, but you'll certainly find many scholarly sources saying the same thing. It's those that should be used as sources.Achar Sva (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on it either way, but I wasn't certain to what extent that she might be an unreliable source, although I do understand the reasoning of it being removed. If any other editors have an opinion, please do say. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that rather than deletion of the edit, use of {{Better source needed|date=January 2023}} would make more sense. The information is not contentious. The source is verifying the statement: Although Joseph appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood, no mention is made of him thereafter. which is certainly true, as regards the gospel narratives. I would suggest it might not need a citation at all, but someone will probably disagree. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would only disagree on the basis that it's an FA (and WP holds high standards on referencing for FAs!). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this page be protected?

This page is one of the most viewed in the world, why isn’t it protected? MayoForSam2023 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected. If you think it should be Extended-confirmed protected, you can bring it up at WP:RPP. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I see for the prophet Muhammad that the page is fully protected so I do not understand why this page isn’t aswell. MayoForSam2023 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Protection level is need-based only, based on editing history of the article. Full protection can be applied if needed, but until it is needed, WP generally recommends against it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So why does the prophet Muhammad article need more protection then? Is it because the article is subject of more vandalism? MayoForSam2023 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never spent much time at that article, but my sense would be that if it is protected, that is why. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much vandalism as there are a number of hot topic issues - such as images of Muhammad, a section on criticism and the opening sentence saying he is the founder of Islam - which some Muslims find controversial. It's been prone to perrenial edit-warring and disruptive editing as a result. Also, it's not "fully protected", just Extended Confirmed Protection. (By the way, MayoForSam2023, could you indent your posts per WP:INDENT) DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not like to protect articles. When done, it is the minimal protection for the shortest period that is felt needed to deal with a particular situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)