Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 94 2nd paragraph, Yeshua's Birthday, chronology, AD/CE and BC/BCE Usage, FA push, Inclusion of Piss Christ image
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 95 About a problem with "Nontrinitarian Christians profess various other interpretations regarding his divinity", Second paragraph, Notice for GFDL Attribution Requirements, Images, Chocolate Jesus, Why discuss so much', Biased reference, Wrong Interepretation of Jesus, Joseph, Step-father
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 96 "Me!", Joseph dies, Birthdate, Adding "Peace Be Upon Him", "Other religions", Citations, What is the better topic?
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

Black Jesus

There should be information in here about the way some of the African American community pictures Jesus.(black skin, white hair,...)71.188.142.171 (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See Race of Jesus. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Autobiography" of Jesus

User:Quartermaster insists in adding an "autobiography" of Jesus written in 1894 to the References section. First, I can't imagine we'd accept "autobiographies" written centuries after the death of any other historical figure, and second, the obscure book is not referenced anywhere in the article, so how can it be a "reference"? Camillus 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It has no place here, certainly not labelled as if it were genuinely written by JC! In any case, it's not a source and it's not notable. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Genealogy - Via What Father?

An issue to discuss (tactfully) in the genealogy section is how Christian theology frames the "descent" of Jesus from King David, etc. -- presumably via Joseph -- when Joseph is only Mary's husband, not Jesus' father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.149.153 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be that tactful; most Christians openly acknowledge that Jesus's geneology is traced through Joseph even though Joseph is believed to not be his biological father. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition to "Genealogy & Family"

Holy Blood Holy Grail and then the Da Vinci Code esp popularized the idea that Jesus had a family and so descendants. This was prophecized in Isaiah 52:13 and 53:12 "And He shall see his seed" and "And he shall sprinkle his seed over many nations" - and the only real discussion of proof of this Holy prophecy is The Jesus Presidents (2004) Jesus Descendants Down To Today

Resurrection, according to whom?

The previous text to the infobox regarding Jesus' Death said: "According to Christians, he rose two days later." This text has been changed to say "According to The Bible...". The reason behind this initial change was the editor believes Catholics have Easter too clearly implying that Catholics are not Christians. I don't think "According to the Bible" is a good change because we could be more accurate (according to the New Testament, or according to the gospels, or according to Matthew 28:1-10, Luke 24:1-8, and John 20:1-2, etc). Saying "the Bible" is a little vaugue/inaccurate (if it is presumed to the "Hebrew Bible"), and if it is the Christian Bible, then the vast majority of the text has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus, and it would help our readers to narrow down the scope. I don't think we needed to make a change, but if editors do feel a change is needed, then we should be more specific and accurate than saying "The Bible". I suggest restoring the long standing content while this discussion is underway.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that particular bit really requires a cited secondary source, because there's going to be a lot of fighting over it. Peter Deer (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, please be bold and revert the change. I see no need for a change that is both lacking in specificity and unnecessary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it once, and my revert was reverted. Being a fairly strict 1RR sort of person, I decided to start a talk page discussion thread on it instead of risk edit warring ;) I've invited the user who reverted me to join us here and explain further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my edit is I think there are some Christian who don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. But it is undeniably in the Bible. So it would be more accurate to state the Bible as a source of the resurrection than most Christians. Andrew C may have a point- it might be better to say specifically where the resurrection is stated in the Bible rather than just saying 'the Bible'. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to put you on the spot, but can you (or anyone else) name a group of Christians who do not believe in the resurrection? I know there has been debate (i.e. Marcus Borg vs. Tom Wright) regarding a physical or spiritual resurrection, but both the liberal Christian and the more conservative Christian in that debate clearly believe in the resurrection (the details they disagree on). I'm sure there are more liberal Christians than Marcus Borg, but not many, eh? We should be sure that saying "According to Christians, he rose..." is inaccurate before changing it. One way to address the issue is adding a qualifying adjective before Christians such as "vast majority" or "most". I have a tendency to lean towards "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". That said, as I mentioned above, we could work together to come up with a wording that is more specific than just "the Bible". I personally haven't thought of anything that is more specific that isn't too verbose for an infobox.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

here's one source

and another

maybe this one, not sure

Jeffrywith1e (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• None of the links above are about churches; they are all about individuals. Do you know of any Christian church whose doctrine states clearly that Jesus of Nazareth was not resurrected?

Again, we should never use "Christians believe"...anything i.e. take your pick of beliefs. We are capable of identifying what churches teach, but not what individual Christians believe. This is very easy to fall into, but we should strictly avoid using Christians and use Christian churches instead. I am not aware of a single Christian church that teaches Jesus was not resurrected. Does anyone know of one? The scholars from the Jesus Seminar seemed to have a problem with it, but they do not represent any churches. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

In Sanskrit Jesus (Sanskrit: ईसा, translitererated as Easa) and ईसा मसीह Easa Maseeha). Is considered being the son of God born to a virgin and is an Brahmin with two births.

I'm astonished that this ungrammatical assertion has been allowed to stand, attributed to a populist and unscholarly book. I will not revert-war, but leave it to others. Anyone interested can read the relevant article, or the sources. The Bhavishya Purana mentions both Jesus and Muhammad, both in ways which clearly indicate the influence of Islamic doctrine, which is hardly surprising since no manuscript predates the nineteenth century. BTW, the expression 'with two births' refers to the Hindu concept that scholars are both physically and intellectually 'born' - born to the body and born to ideas. The usual phrasing is 'twice born'. As it stands the sentence is unintelligable. Also the idea that Jesus is "considered being the son of God born to a virgin and is an Brahmin" in "Sanskrit" is unsubstantiated. It comes from the BP, and the BP alone. Paul B (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Won't comment (for now) on the sourcing issue, but I can hardly make heads or tails of that sentence. It is gibberish. Random puncuation, capitalization, and very poor grammar leaves me wondering what is the intended meaning. Who ever wants this sentence included, please revise and fix the sentence so it's intelligible to the average reader.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be more accurate,

Jesus Christ appears with the name Easa. He was born when the era of Kali Yuga reached three thousand years in the land of Huna. He is considerd to be the Son of God born in the womb of a virgin. Jesus Christ is known by his well known name as ‘Easa Maseeha’ in the Hindu scriptures. --Veer87 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian history category

I reverted an earlier removal of the "Christian history" category, and that category has recently been removed again. Is the "Christian history" category being deleted? Is there some reason that Jesus doesn't belong there? Much thanks. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Comment

In John 8:58 Jesus is not "...claim[ing] the title of I AM" as stated. He is referring to his prexistance "Before Abraham was, I am" is what is stated (KJV) -- lower case. With an article on Jesus it is difficult to keep opinion out of it, I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.8.149 (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

BC/BCE?

Shouldn't we change this to either BC or BCE? I'd say we should use BC in this particular article, given that it's used in many articles with a lesser Christian connotation such as Ancient Rome and Julius Caesar. WhackyMole (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We are using dual designations due to very protracted discussions of what date format should be used, on many occasions. The current state is an awkward but largely accepted compromise. ^rossnixon 07:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Truth

According to the Bible, Jesus died, and rose THREE days later, not two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arty21782 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He died just before sunset on Friday, and rose after dawn on sunday morning, that is less that 48 hours. Charles Edward 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, he did not die "just before sunset", he died at 3pm on Friday. Nonetheless, he remained dead for less than 72 hours and probably sometime between 72 hours and 48 hours, depending upon what time his ressurection occured..

Where does it say on teh Bible that "Jesus rose three days later?" Thats in the past tense, so it sounds like a spoiler to me and no Gospel writer acually wrote down "Jess rose three days later". The closest we get is "I shall ear down this temple and within three days rebuild the temple." Unfortunately there is an ample amount of poorly translated bibles out there taht replace the words within 3 days to just in 3 days which is a big difference because Jesus rose within three days, on Sunday, which is the Third day from Friday. Friday is day1, Sat day2 and Sun day3. The Niceaen creed says "rose on the third day", not three days later. Tourskin (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to debunk your myth. The jewish day starts and sunset- so the first hour of the day (as opposed to first hour of the night) in the spring would be about 7-8 am. He died the ninth hour of the day which would be about 4-5pm (count nine hours from dawn), and sunset at that time of year (early spring) would be about 6-7pm. Another way to deduce that he had die very close to sunset was that there was only time to carry him to the tomb but no time to embalm his body, that is why mary was coming back first thing sunday morning - to embalm him. (they could not ebalm him satuday because it was the sabbath). So he died just a couple hours before sunset on friday. (sunset started the second day of his death) He was not in his grave very early sunday morning (which was the third day of his death) when mary showed up to embalm him. So let's count, 4pm friday, to about 9am sunday morning = 28 hours. SO he was dead ON three different days, but only for a couple hours on the first day and the third day. The point is, the article is fine, it don't need changed. Here's a good source, you can google some more [1] Charles Edward 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 24 hours of saturday plus 7 hours of sunday morning makes it over 30 hours. Why don't we count shall we? 4pm - 12 midnight friday is 8 hours, saturday is 24 hours and 8 hours of sunday morning makes it a total of 40 hours, not 28. Thats based on your speculation which (a) is irrelevant and (b) cannot be taken for granted. Tourskin (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, 3pm in the afternoon my sound like a myth to you, but if one is to believe in the ressurection, one may as well not get too irritable with the details. No can prove it was a myth, no matter what some scholar says. Tourskin (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I am not counting the twelve hours of the of the evening. But we are agreed in the main point, probably less than 48 hours? and definitely less than 72? :) Charles Edward 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, less than 72 and probably less than 48 too. Tourskin (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Finnish psalm "Isä meidän" which is "The Lord's Prayer" is said that "nousi kolmantena päivänä kuolleista" "rose on the third day from death"(roughly translated). So if he died on friday that would have been the first day and sunday would have been the third day, I would suggest he died between the 36th hour and maybe the 60th hour. Skele (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in any case, it feels strange to read: "According to The Bible, he rose two days later". According to words and phrases in the Bible, he rose "on the third day" or "after three days". According to descriptions of time passed in the Bible (as detailed by all of you here), he rose in actually fewer hours than that required for "two days later". So why don't we change that infobox part to something like: "According to The Bible, he rose on the third day of his death." Otherwise, I think more people might come to this talk page confused. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that. Tourskin (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me too Charles Edward 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeap, it's good. Skele (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I still take issue with the first half of the sentence, the "Bible" part, as mentioned here. We really need to be more specific (and a citation wouldn't hurt). Once we have a citation, we can be sure that our source is saying "three" instead of "two" as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "According to Matthew 27". That is where it says he died about the ninth hour, yet was not in his tomb early sunday morning. Charles Edward 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Was he any good at his day job?

I was looking at the article in search for more information about Jesus and carpentry. Although it's a somewhat esoteric subject, considering He's one of the biggest historical figures ever, I figured there would have been a bit more substantial info on the topic including a line explaining that the idea that he invented the table is an urban legend.--72.1.222.205 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you stupid? What did the Romans, Celts, Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians... oh you know what this is stupid, the question is as stupid as it gets, but the answer is of course not. - He did not invent the table. Tourskin (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

This article should have a In Popular Culture section. I mean it. The perception of Jesus has changed a lot in modern times, and this is shown a lot in TV shows, like Family Guy or South Park, etc. Even The Da Vinci code can be mentioned. Just a thought. Take it or leave it; I'm too afraid to touch the article myself.--Seanpatnaude (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Family Guy and South Park type shows joke about many things. Aren't the Da Vinci theories already mentioned? -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's significant because these shows change the perception of Jesus to a lot of people, especially kids. Jesus isn't treated with much respect nowadays, and how he's viewed in popular culture reflects this, and influences this. I don't mean just a trivia list, but just some mention about the trend of how he is treated by the popular media, and people make jokes about him smoking weed (bong hits 4 jesus) and generally not being the figure that people used to view him as. Also the movies The Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma, and so on.--Seanpatnaude (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one reject those type of sections. It makes what is supposed to be an encyclopedia into something more akin to the National Enquirer or People magazine. What amazes me is the people care about what those shows say; as if it has import in serious articles or topics. Should we also report what the comics said over the last several decades? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you reject it? How does it make it into a People magazine or National Enquirer? It's not gossip, but a discussion about how popular culture treats him, which is with no respect at all. It causes children to not take him serious, and this is a atheistic talking, so I'm not being biased. But I do think its relevant how they treat him in popular culture. It reflects and continues the trend of people not believing in him. Don't you think that is relevant?--Seanpatnaude (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)