Talk:Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Template:Vital article

birthday unknown?

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Chronology_of_Jesus#Year_of_birth. There has been considerable efforts to determine Jesus' birth year, at least the approximate year range. The upper bound of 7 or 6 BC has been accepted by biblical scholars since the late 19th century and is based on Kepler's calculations. The lower bound of the winter of 3/2BC, in turn, is based on Luke, St. Clement and St. Eusebius: [1]. Brandmeister^talk 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Christians believe"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulation ,

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

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

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

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

Carpenter

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

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

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

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

Bible Videos

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

• Free Bible Videos from the Mormon Channel

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

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

Eyes needed

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

Unprotect request

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

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

AD Placement

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

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

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

criticism of jesus/plucking eyeballs out/slavery

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

− − The cardinal Avery Robert Dulles stated that Jesus “said not a word against slavery as a social institution", and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either. In his paper published in Evangelical Quarterly, Kevin Giles notes that Jesus often encountered slavery, "but not one word of criticism did the Lord utter against slavery,” and argues that Jesus must have then condoned it. [2] [3]

−

How come the Catholic removed this section in his words "because it didn't appear to be criticism" is this a joke? − Friedrich Nietsche argued that “a war was declared on passion” in the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says of sexual temptation: "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out." According to Nietsche, “Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity, today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who "pluck out" teeth so that they will not hurt any more…. the Christian who follows that advice and believes he has killed his sensuality is deceiving himself: it lives on in an uncanny vampire form and torments in repulsive disguises.”[Friedrich Nietzsche, 1878, Human all too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, The Wanderer and His Shado, aphorism 83] [4] Cluelesswonder (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I know that it's a difficult concept for some to get their head around, so focus very hard on what I'm about to say SOME PEOPLE (the Cardinal that was referenced included) HAVE CRITICIZED JESUS FOR NOT CONDEMNING SLAVERY. Do you get it now? It's complicated for some, I know.