Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:05, 20 August 2017

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information. Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages? The issue was discussed on the talk page: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages. The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms. The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus. Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard? Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus. Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed? The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that: Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens. Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him. The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves? The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus". Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead? A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items. Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question: Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013). Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global. It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty." Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc. Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first: Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization. More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc. As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below. Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish? Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box. Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox? The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that. Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. References R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49 Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 3, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted May 5, 2013 Good article nominee Listed May 28, 2013 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited August 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bahá'í Faith High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015. Omer Benkajob (27 April 2017). "Why Jimmy Wales' WikiTribune Won't Save the News". Haaretz. Retrieved 30 April 2017.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137

Obsolete subpages Cited Authors Bios Christian views in intro Scribes Pharisees and Saducees Dates of Birth and Death Historicity Reference Comments, PR, FA Sockpuppets Languages Spoken by Jesus Historical Jesus Related articles Rewrite Topical archives 2nd Paragraph Debate

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

"Performed healings" in lead

I´d like to change it to "engaged in healings" per source Levine, I think "performed healings" is a little problematic in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus was"

I read the FAQ. "Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information." I would disagree. There is very little physical proof that Jesus actually existed, and even if he did, how do we know that "Jesus" existed under than name or any similar name? I propose we add in the very first sentence: "was, according to ..." or something, instead of "was". I thought Misplaced Pages was based on fact. "Jesus was a real human being" is not a known fact. It's a hypothesis, or at best a theory. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I liked this lead sentence from the featured article summary better. "is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament." That does not assume that Jesus was a real person right off the bat. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's been quite clearly demonstrated that the idea that he was not a real human being is WP:FRINGE. StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, has stated: "Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance.It's about that bad."Smeat75 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the opening sentence, the phrase "preacher and religious leader" seems a bit redundant ... unless you want to be really pedantic I would say all preachers are by definition religious leaders. Searching for "preacher and religious leader" reveals that this article is one of only two articles on Misplaced Pages that uses that construction (and the other one doesn't use it in the first sentence). Would people here be in favour of removing one of the two, and if so which one? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Christ Myth theory is about as fringe as it is possible to get. There are no reputable scholars who support it and the vast majority of its proponents are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. In regards to the "preacher and religious leader" question, I do not think there is currently a problem. The words have different meanings and connotations and I do not view having both of them as redundant. If you do decide to delete one of the words, I would recommend keeping the word "religious leader" since it is more technical term and seems more historically appropriate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You guys are just throwing WP:FRINGE at me. You're throwing people's opinions at me. But you're not giving me solid facts. You're saying "it's a conspiracy theory" etc. without backing it up. To be fair, those scholars you're referencing are doing that too. Where's the real proof that Jesus was a human being that existed? Why is it that religious books are really the only solid account of Jesus' life? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is about facts, not majority opinions. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What's next? "Because a majority of English speakers on Earth are Christian, we should start writing Misplaced Pages as if all elements of that religion are factually true."? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page it says:"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We are not here to debate "the facts" among ourselves. WP proceeds by summarising reliable sources and virtually all reliable sources on the subject say that it is a fact of history that Jesus existed.Smeat75 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Such "reliable sources" often exhibit bias more than evidence -> Misplaced Pages exhibits bias more than evidence. Should this really be how it is? And quit accusing me of "treating this like a forum" because I'm not. I'm trying to improve the article at hand. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I'm just saying that there is an extreme likelihood that he did not exist as was told by the main accounts, and a possibility that he never existed at all. Yes, that IS a possibility, whether you like it or not, and we have to treat that as if it were a possibility instead of being ignorant and just listening to people's religious bias which is the majority opinion. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: As Smeat75 has already pointed out, this is not a discussion forum. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to explain the views of mainstream scholars; it is not our job to decide whether or not Jesus really existed. Since you are asking, though, I will provide a brief explanation of why modern scholars unanimously agree he existed: The oldest writings we have pertaining to Christianity are the authentic epistles of the apostle Paul, of which there are at least eight (possibly nine if Colossians is indeed authentic). Paul does not say a whole lot about Jesus and he candidly admits that he never actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he does tell us that he knew Jesus's "brother" James, as well as his closest disciple Peter. Although Mythicists often claim that Paul only speaks of an incorporeal "spiritual" Jesus, they have repeatedly failed to adequately address the dozens of places in Paul's letters where he very clearly speaks of Jesus as a recent, historical figure. Usually, they try to explain these occurrences as "later interpolations" without offering any valid evidence to support such a conclusion other than the fact that it would be convenient for their hypothesis. Further evidence to support Jesus's historicity comes from the fact that the gospels contain details that can only be explained if Jesus was a historical figure. Embarrassing, or mundane facts about his life are mentioned in Mark, the earliest gospel, but are rationalized or contradicted in the later gospels in overtly obvious attempts to overwrite the earlier account. Finally, there are also distinct cultural features within the gospels that only make sense in the context of early first-century Aramaic Judaism, but not late first-century Hellenistic Christianity. These are not the only reasons by any means, but I do not want to go into detail here. For further information, I highly recommend reading Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? by Maurice Casey, both of whom are renowned scholars on this subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific viewpoint missing

The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament." Where is the scientific view? It should also be in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear what exactly you are referring to. As the sentence clearly states, this is what Christians believe. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not Jesus was really the Messiah. The notion of a "Messiah" is a religious concept; it is not even a scientific question. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean history, and it's in the second paragraph: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically..." StAnselm (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been a very busy editor in the two days of his existence. Perhaps he's just happy to be here. I suspect, however, that he's a sock. Do not give feet to the sock, that's my advice.PiCo (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The lede says "Christians believe him to be the Son of God". What is the Scientific view? Why the Scientific view is not stated in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"According to science, Jesus is not God's son." That will be added to the lede after the 14th citation in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You got a reference for that? I can't imagine science says anything about God's son... StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Love to see a source on this too ....comment seems way out in left field.--Moxy (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The notion that mainstream science has any official consensus at all in regards to whether or not Jesus was the son of God is ridiculous. The concept of a "son of God" is a religious concept and has nothing to do with science. You cannot prove or disprove that someone is the Messiah, which means it is not a scientific question. Besides, even if you really were making a scientific statement, you would require sources to support it. "According to science" is nothing but weasel wording; you would need specific, scholarly sources stating that your sentence reflects the majority view of modern scientists. I should, however, note that your statement does not reflect the views of modern scientists--not even by a longshot: According to Pew Research Center (), roughly thirty percent of scientists in the United States are Christians, whereas forty-eight percent are irreligious. This suggests that scientists are generally sharply divided on religious issues as a whole, which makes it extremely unlikely that they would reach any kind of consensus like the one you seem to be maintaining they have adopted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A source verifies "Most scientists reject the belief that God formed the universe" I started with God. Now we can work on this article.

References

1. William Kinkade (1829). The Bible Doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Atonement,faith, and Election: To which is Prefixed Some Thoughts on Natural Theology and the Truth of Revelation. H. R. Piercy, Printer. pp. 131–.

"Jesus is not possibly God's son." is even better. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Books published by Xulon Press are generally not reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the problem StAnselm has already pointed out, your source says nothing about whether or not scientists consider Jesus to have been the Messiah; it only talks about the question of whether or not God created the universe, which is an entirely separate issue. Even if you had a reliable source which flat-out said, "Most scientists do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah" in those exact words, it still would not matter, because this is not a scientific issue we are talking about here. If you find a reliable source stating that most Biblical scholars do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then we may have something to work with. (By the way, just to clarify: the terms "son of God" and "Messiah" are not interchangeable and there is a distinction between them. The word "Messiah" usually refers specifically to the "anointed one" prophesized in the Hebrew Bible, whereas "son of God" refers to anyone under Divine favor; King David is referred to as the "son of God" in Psalm 2:7 and the nation of Israel itself is referred to as the "son of God" in Exodus 4:22-23, Hosea 11:1, and Psalm 80:15. Today, most Christians use them interchangeably, but, in ancient times, the terms had very different meanings.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus is not possibly God's son."

References

1. William Kinkade (1829). The Bible Doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Atonement,faith, and Election: To which is Prefixed Some Thoughts on Natural Theology and the Truth of Revelation. H. R. Piercy, Printer. pp. 131–.

So far no objection to using the source I presented. QuackGuru (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the problem is here......the scientific community doesn't have a position on the fact of his existence let alone that he's God's son.--Moxy (talk) 17

55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nor is the source from 1829 a good one. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm; a book published in 1829 does not reflect the current scientific consensus, nor is a book published through a Christian self-publishing company a reliable source for what most scientists believe about the universe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Re: "According to science Jesus is not God's son." A scientist who takes a strong position on completely unverifiable religious beliefs other than to say that they are scientifically unverifiable isn't a very good scientist in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-religious view missing from the lede

New Atheists reject Jesus' divinity.

References

1. R. Albert Mohler Jr. (25 July 2008). Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists. Crossway. pp. 56–. ISBN 978-1-4335-2262-8.

A simple sentence will do the trick. A source is not needed for non-controversial claims, but I provided one for your reading pleasure. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article does not claim that anyone except Christians believes Jesus was divine. Emphasizing New Atheism is WP:UNDUE. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Only Christians believes Jesus was divine. They are the minority view. We can briefly mention the non-religious view. QuackGuru (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

So the world only consists of Christians and New Atheists? Better go tell the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs. The views of different non-Christian groups are mentioned and you'd know that if you read the article. What are you trying to accomplish besides disruption based on a concerning lack of understanding of the subject? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say the world only consists of Christians and New Atheists. I clearly explained the non-religious view is not stated in the lede. Please focus on content not the editor. See WP:FOC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

The 2014 book God And His Coexistent Relations To The Universe states "Only the disciples wrote that Jesus is the Son of God."

References

1. George D. Shollenberger (30 January 2014). God And His Coexistent Relations To The Universe:: Scientific Advances Of The Little Gods From Pantheism through Deism, Theism, and Atheism to Panentheism. AuthorHouse. pp. 100–. ISBN 978-1-4918-5530-0.

It is a bit confusing from reading this source. Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, so this is not a reliable source. Mohler is reliable, but I'm not sure the claim is significant enough for the lead. In any case, it is hardly surprising that atheists don't believe that Jesus is God. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You did not address all the questions. "Where does the article clarify what Jesus thought? Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? If the article is not clear on this point then I propose it be made clear." QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The point has not been made clear in the article because historians have not been able to make a clear case for Jesus's self-perception. The article covers what topics historians can agree on but beyond that there's not much agreement. Your questions operate on such flawed assumptions that they suggest that either you are operating with a (hopefully unintentional) total ignorance of not only the article's contents but its very subject (which wouldn't be nearly a problem if you demonstrated awareness of WP:RS) or you are just trying to disrupt the article because of your feelings about related subjects. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Section "Resurrection and Ascension" and Gospel of Mark

The section on the resurrection and ascension treats the "long ending" of Mark as if it were original, when the general consensus is that it's not - i.e., Mark has no post-resurrection appearances. I wonder if the section should be re-written to reflect the shorter ending. PiCo (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it does - it only refers to the first seven verses. StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your meaning Anselm - the first seven verses of Mark's resurrection story? Mark ends (short version) with the women fleeing the tomb after finding it empty "because they were afraid" (famous phrase). What I'm suggesting is that we note that the shorter ending is regarded as authentic, and that Mark therefore has no post-resurrection appearances. (He does have a resurrection, but it's implied rather than stated - in a rather odd way, as the disciples are told by the angels that Jesus will see them in Galilee, which is Matthew's ending. And of course there's a big difference between Matthew and Luke, with Luke having the disciples told explicitly to remain in Jerusalem to meet the risen Lord, while in Matthew there's no meeting in Jerusalem and they go to Galilee instead. And John combines both traditions). Anyway, that, really, is what I'm suggesting.PiCo (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the same section we mention the incident in John where the risen Jesus breathes on the disciples to give them the Holy Spirit. This is the same incident as mentioned in Acts, though the narrative details differ - the coming of the Paraclete. It reflects the ancient Jewish belief that the mortal human is formed of three divine elements, namely flesh, blood and breath, all of which are the gift of God alone (God forms Adam of clay, blood is forbidden to Noah, and breath is life itself). And of course, Matthew's detail of the earthquake and the risen dead is derived from Daniel's promise of the resurrection of the virtuous dead of Israel. The bible is so rich, and people miss so much.PiCo (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that this article is based on the shorter ending of Mark. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was reading it wrong. PiCo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add a sentence to the Mark bullet point , that's fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm fine :) PiCo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

The content failed verification. I provided a source to verify the claim. The source was removed with the edit summary "rv WP:UNDUE. Everyone who isn't a Christian rejects Jesus's divinity". The revert does not explain why the edit was reverted. Providing a source to verify the claim is not WP:UNDUE. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• FA-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• FA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• FA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• FA-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• FA-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• FA-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• FA-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press