Talk:Jesus in Christianity/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Notice: This is a daughter article of Jesus Christ - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:19, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Amen. We all need to appreciate this before we all get merge happy. Unfortunately, merge proposals are popping up all over Jesus-related articles. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not Wikidissertation. archola 05:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Page layout

This page looks as ugly as sin on my screen because the timeline of JC starts just to the left rather than just underneath the initial picture/portrait. This creates a 3 column effect... one column of main text, one column of timeline and one column of great empty white space... all roughly equal in size. Do others have the same problem? Could the fancy HTML code be altered to fill the screen like all other pages. (My screen resolution is 1280x1024) Pete 12:03, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven."

I remember reading that this quote contains a translation/transcription error. The original is said to read: "It is easier for a cable to pass through the eye of a needle...", which makes more sense ("cable" is in the nautical sense, i.e., thick rope (no cable TV B.C., right? :-)). Does anybody know anything about this?

mikkalai 25 Nov 2003

The Theory Of Jesus Christ or "Jesus Christ"

Others

Most of the ones in "Others" have just a Christian connection to Jesus, not direct Jesus-related, e.g., A Plea for Captain John Brown, Midwest Christian Outreach, Revised Standard Version, Tomb, Torah, Veil, Thirteen, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Theology, Seventh-day Adventist Church, The supernatural in monotheistic religions, and of course, there's Superman (it's actually listed there). --Menchi 12:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Adrain Pingstone's sentiments. But along these lines, was it deliberate symbolism or a simple mistake to list sin twice? Pete 12:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't the See Also material be hived off to another to another article, e.g. List of Christian topics or List of topics related to Jesus, depending on JDRs motives. Then See Also can be reduced to the important articles and the list of ??? : ChrisG 12:30, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm in favor of creating List of Christianity-related topics? Someone already started a List of Hinduism-related articles. To me, each of these links suggests at least a few more unlisted articles that are just as relevant, so the list could grow quite large. It seems there may be Jesus/Christian scholars that want to be able to track changes to all of these articles. GUllman 02:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For me; what it comes down to is this: a See also listing should not be a comprehensive listing of backlinks. It just isn't useful. There are plenty enough links in the articles themselves, most of the time. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:58, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

This is way over the top. I'm guessing about 20 might be immediately relevant. Superman has got to go. DJ Clayworth 17:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

article looks

Personally, I think this article looks great. Not perfect, but in the top 5% of our articles. I hope we don't butcher it too badly (a camel is a horse designed by a committee), or waste too much time that would be far better spent in bringing the other 95% up to this standard. Andrewa 20:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title itself

Hate to rain on a parade, especially on a subject that raises such strength of feeling with people, but is the title itself not flawed? "Christ" is itself a Greek equivalent for Messiah and thus assumes the thesis under discussion, thereby failing NPOV. Could use just "Jesus" perhaps, most people recognize whom the name refers to. Chris Rodgers 11:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to say something about this for some time. I'm thinking that the article Jesus Christ might arguably contain the "Christ" title, because the appellation "Christ" has taken on a life of its own as a name apart from its latin meaning. (Although I think it borders on POV.) But on this page, where the subject of the article is whether Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, I think we need a title change, perhaps to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. COGDEN 05:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Use the most common used term for the title? JDR 06:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would go for Jesus as Christ and Messiah here, and Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth for the other article, with Jesus Christ redirecting to that other article. --Henrygb 15:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Christology Difficulty

This section will be as hard to write as Christianity because there are so many various christological views.

Christology is important, because Christians who belive in the Trinity . . .

Like I said, hard to write

Nice job, Wesley. If you can flesh it out and make it more substantial, I won't wine about it. I cast my lot with you, if you can bear this cross . . . Ed Poor getting silly, so it's time to sign off.

Christology - Messianic Jews

"A number of early Christians believed that Jesus was not divine, but was simply the human Messiah promised in the Old Testament. The inclusion of the genealogies of Jesus Christ at Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 are sometimes explained by this belief. An alternative explanation is that they were in opposition to Gnostic Christian doctrines that Jesus Christ only had the illusion of a human body and, thus, no human ancestry at all. This view was opposed by church leaders such as Paul, and eventually came to be held only by small, marginal sects such as the Ebionites and (according to Jerome) the Nazarenes."

I think the last sentence here should relate to the first sentence and not the one it follows (i.e. the Nazarenes and Ebionites believed Jesus was human and not an illusion). Can someone who knows more reorder / rephrase to make things more clear? DopefishJustin 22:44, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Christology section

This section should be shortened with the link to the main article at Christology. Any improvements or expansions needed could be made there. Comments? Wesley 20:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems fine the way it is to me. I don't think there is enough info, or enough seperateness, for a seperate article. CheeseDreams 23:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism

What is this all about?

In many sects of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism), it is believed that Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection and taught some early Americans, whom The Book of Mormon says were of Israelite descent.

In many sects of? Why aren't we simply stating that the Book of Mormon says it? Are we implying that some sects of Mormonism (the Latter Day Saint Movement) don't accept the Book of Mormon? It sounds very double-speakish and confusing. Tom - Talk 07:14, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tom, long time no see! Are there any LDS sects that don't take that part of the account literally? Maybe the Community of Christ (hope that's the right name... if not you'll figure out the one I mean.) Anyway, if there is a group like that, they may have wanted to leave room for themselves by phrasing it that way. But I'm just speculating wildly here. Wesley 16:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that while the Community of Christ accepts the Book of Mormon as an additional scriptural witness of Jesus Christ they make no claims as to its historicity. Glenn4pr 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats with all the "white person" "black person" stuff??!

I happen to be a Christian, and accept the trinitarian view of God.........but whats with all this "three white persons" stuff?? I have no idea (nor do I care!) whether God is White Black Yellow or Sky Blue Pink with Yellow dots on! I think that section is bordering on a NPOV violation, unless you can provide some evidence for what you're saying. 80.177.152.156

I think it was vandalism. I'm removing it. Friday (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Since this article and Jesus in the Christian Bible otherwise known as New Testament view on Jesus' life follow very much the same format is there any reason to keep them both? I have also proposed that the New Testament view on Jesus' life be merged with Historical Jesus as again they follow a similar chronological order of his life using the new testament for the vast majority of the material.

I'm not out to step on doctrinal toes but at the moment it is hard to find definitive data and much of what there is is duplicated so the chance for error and the editorial work required to keep them in sync are high. SOPHIA 10:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of the page. Eliminating unneeded duplication is good; eliminating a fair, balanced and nuanced discussion of the myriad varying viewpoints would be bad. archola 05:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How is this page different from christian views? I can see how it could possibly be different but at the moment it seems just another rerun of the info in the NT. If you could specify what different information this page should present it would help. Having myriad viewpoints is great in the articles. Spreading that out into multiple confusing pages that are virtually the same means the reader is unlikely to find all the stuff they may want. SOPHIA 07:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see this page as much different than the New Testament view article. I do see a difference between these two articles and the Historical Jesus article (as I noted at Talk:New Testament view on Jesus' life. I've also grown a bit paranoid after finding several merge proposals on the Jesus subpages. I probably overreacted. If I did, I'm sorry.

My approach is to try to outline the main Jesus subarticles and see what's there before rushing into a merger. archola 08:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I realise I'm probably the wrong person to suggest mergers and people may misinterpret my motives so no offence taken. I used to be a DBA and I can remember spending most of my time asking the question "well how will you find that data?". I've had a quick look at your template and it's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. If we can map the current structure then hopefully the areas that need specific articles will become obvious. Number of articles is not an issue with me as long as they follow a proper hierarchy with associated differences in the data that is all linked together in a structured way. At the moment it's a bit of a random walk through the various veiws and your chance of coming across the exact info you are after depends on the luck of the links you find.

For me this issue really has nothing to do with any POV in the articles. How we structure the data I see as a separate issue (obviously taking into account that it is a religion with a definite POV so the article heirarchy should reflect this). Since you seem to have done most of the ground work needed I'll look further at your template and respond on your talk page with any suggestions if that's ok with you. SOPHIA 09:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. archola 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Having browsed through this article I advocate merging into New Testament view on Jesus' life, whatever the name is. The very few things covered here that do not fit into such a Biblical framework (e.g. Modalism) can be dealt with in an article on Christology. Str1977 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we make New Testament view on Jesus' life the main article as that seems a more precise title. I'm on Guide camp this weekend so when I get back I'll look over both articles and start transfering stuff. I've never done this before so if anyone can point me to the wiki tutorial I need I would be grateful. If anyone else want to do it I won't be offended!

Is it worth leaving this article as a stub with an intro paragraph saying this is for the different denominations to put their differing views of Jesus or are they all so similar that it doesn't warrant a separate article? SOPHIA 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the differing views of different denominations would fit better under the Christology article. If the merge does not take place, perhaps it would be better to summarize New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christology and other relevant articles here. Either way, we need more summaries and less out-and-out duplication, but without losing (appropriate) data. archola 16:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This debate seems old now and it looks like nothing happened, does the merge notice now even apply? Homestarmy 21:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. I can't speak for others, but I suggest we table the merge proposal until we settle our differences re:Rob on the Jesus article. That's where I've been spending most of my time lately. Arch O. La 21:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion to table until other disagreements are settled relative to this topic. drboisclair 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A bolder proposal

Since the title "Christ" only makes sense in the context of Christianity, is there any reason not to rename this article to "Jesus Christ," rename Historical Jesus to "Jesus of Nazareth," and keep the main article at Jesus? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that Jesus Christ is called Jesus Christ only in Christianity, though it is pretty widespread information. Homestarmy 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Differences in interpretation?

What is the Christian views of Jesus article doing with a section discussing Jewish objections and a final sentence about the Muslim view? That whole section seems really off-topic, why is it in there? Homestarmy 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. It seems to me that really need only say something like: "Religious Jews disagree. (See Judaism's view of Jesus.)" As for the Muslim view, all we need is a link to Isa in the "See also" section at the end of the article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is supposed to be the Christian view, im not sure why we need to say anything at all, and just put Isa and Judaisms view as a see:also at the bottom. Homestarmy 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We might say something about Rabbinic Judaism's view, since after all Christianity was also Jewish until Paul got ahold of it. But notice how short my something is above. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But if it's a modern-day Rabbinic view, they are not representing the same type of Judaism that Christianty arose out of, im pretty sure there was no responsa or a bunch of summaries of books or whatever it is Judaism supposedly has now. Homestarmy 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

True. It's usually said that Rabbinic Judaism emerged from the Pharisees. Other forms of Judaism, such as Saducees, Essenes and Zealots, are now extinct. I'm just one of the people who find it interesting to explore the question of why Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity—both of which emerged from first-century Judaism—wound up so different from each other. Of course, here is another "see also": Judaism and Christianity. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Im starting to get the feeling a whole bunch of these articles almost do nothing but quote each other in different forms :/. But I get what your saying then I suppose.... Homestarmy 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to promote my "summarize, but do not duplicate" philosophy. I've met with limited success. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same discussion has been held on the Jewish article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting external links about Islam, which takes up all of one sentence of this article, and perhaps has even less to do with the article topic than the sentence does. Islam as far as I know has nothing to do with Christian views of Jesus, why is that here? Homestarmy 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The external links don't belong. I'd move them to Isa. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did the Jews reject jesus?

Try googling that phrase and see what the results say. I do not think it is mere unsources speculation that most Jews (then and now) have a different concept of messiah than the Christian concept. And its obvious that the Jews (then in now) (with a small acception for Ebionites and messianic Jews) rejected Jesus as the Jewish messiah. If the sentence in question is so controversial, could anyone please make a case here why it needs to be striken completely? --Andrew c 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source please provide it. The earlier Jewish writings discussing the rejection of Jesus date hundreds of years later and don't crystalize until over 1000 years later. And, of course, this topic is Christian views of Jesus. There is an article on Jewish views of Jesus. Where do you feel this statement should belong? Bbagot 07:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

If you don't like an unsources statement in an article, the normal procedure is to mark it with a {{citation needed}} tag, and perhaps mention it on the talk page. Wait a couple weeks, and if the citation doesn't show up, THEN remove it. Also, you reverted my formatting of tables and fixing a redirected wikilink. Please be more careful when you revert so you don't erase neutral contributions. I am restoring the sentence, and adding a fact tag. Please do not delete it for at least another week (if not more, preferably). We'll see if anyone else has an opinion on this matter.--Andrew c 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about the other deletion. I will remember the etiquette you mentioned, although if a citation was the only difficulty, I would not have removed it. The statement is a Jewish view of Jesus, and inappropiate for this topic. There is a Jewish view of Jesus topic specifically created for that type of statement. Bbagot 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

So wait, let me get this straight, the reason why you want to delete this sentence is because you feel that POV does not belong in this article? Hmm... I'm not sure how I feel about this. Obviously, in other articles, this would be unacceptable due to NPOV. However, this is already a POV-fork. I think with topics that you can't avoid creating POV-forks, the idea is to present the main POV, and then have a section briefly describing alternate POVs, with wikilinks to the main pages on this topic. I see nothing wrong with presenting the Jewish POV, even if this article is specifical about the Christian POV, in order to stay NPOV. Just as long as the main focus stays remains the topical POV, and the alternative POVs are minor (and wikilinked where applicable). Is anyone else watching this page? Are we giving undude weight to the Jewish POV?--Andrew c 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this is the proper forum to force a viewpoint that does not match the topic. I've looked to see if I'm applying a standard to the Christian view as far as keeping the article Christian that doesn't apply for the Jewish or Islamic views. What I have found is that neither the Jewish or Isalmic views of Jesus have references from Christianity or links to any sites except those within their religious traditions. I've also noticed that there are no thoughts from Messianic Jews allowed in the Jewish views of Jesus, so for others to be concerned about the disclaimer that I inserted in regard to wide latitude in Christian views would seem to be rather dubious when this is take into consideration, especially since the person who erased it is an extremely vocal contributor to that other topic. Bbagot 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I think Wikipedia:Content forking should be kept in mind. Just because an other article does something does not automatically make it right. Policy trumps in this situation. Furthermore, having a disclaimer in the opening as you propose is also not covered by policy. What you should do is either expand the article to cover a more diverse range of christian views, or tag the article with a NPOV tag at the top. --Andrew c 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Opps, I have been reading your "disclaimer" wrong this whole time. I apologize. You seem to be using the No true Scotsman argument. You are upset that something that you don't consider "Christian" is being called Christian? Could you be more specific about your concerns regarding the content. There is no precedent to use a disclaimer for such a claim, and the claim in and of itself seems very biased to begin with. --Andrew c 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to get into great detail other than to say that not all groups that are tied to Christianity in this article are viewed that way by the majority of Christian denominations who do not include those groups. It would be misleading for readers from the outside to believe there is a general acceptance of all groups discussed as being Christian.Bbagot 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

Please get into greater detail? There is already this "disclaimer" in the actual article: Many of these doctrines were rejected as heresies by the Ecumenical councils of Christianity, and some modern variants (for example, Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses) are at times excluded from the umbrella of Christianity, particularly by Evangelicals, though they often call themselves Christian. See Christology, Mormonism and Christianity. There is no precendent supporting your added disclaimer. There is no policy supporting it either. Furthermore, the information I believe you are trying to convey is ALREADY covered in the article itself. SO there are 3 reasons not to have that at the top of the article. I hope you can agree to remove it. --Andrew c 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the disclaimer you have noted and attempt to make revisions with this in mind. Bbagot 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I've removed the POV from the intro, and sourced the other stuff. As to whether undue weight is given here, not sure, but I've linked to Judaism's view of Jesus as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The header is problematic. The MOS style only talks about having an initial first line for "see also" in regards to topics with similar names (or for disambig purposes, see this). In addition, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates may be applicable. While strictly not a temlplate, it doesn't seem like policy to inform the reader of a warning or disclaimer about the content of the article. If anything, the best replace for that would be a disputed or controversial tag (see bottom of template:disputed). In regards to the bigger issue of whether to remove this sentence or not. It is a tought call. I don't like the idea of POV-fork articles that only allow one view to be shown in them. It goes again NPOV and wikipedia in general. On the other hand, how else are we going to break down all the different views on Jesus? I believe the best solution is the have small 2-4 sentence sections on the other POVs in each article, linking to the others as a template:main tag. Therefore we aren't focusing too much on the other POV, but we aren't censoring them on pricipal either. But that is just my opinion, I would love to hear what others think (if anyone else is watching this page).--Andrew c 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bbagot, please stop adding lengthy un-Wiki disclaimers to the top of this page, and please stop inserting unsourced, factually incorrect, and POV material into the Jews/Jesus section. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to what you think is factually incorrect, or POV for that matter. If you have information you would like to share, then I would like to hear it. I thought I tightened it up quite a bit over the previous version, which was also unsourced. In truth I'd have no problem with this section being removed as it doesn't really have anything to do with the Christian view of Jesus, merely a history lesson into verse differences between the Old and New Testament. Bbagot 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

This whole section was inaccurate: Early Christians, and some Christians today, relied on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was popular in Jewish Alexandrian communities at the time of Jesus. Much prophetic quoting from the New Testament matches this text. Since most modern Christian Bibles translate from the later Hebrew Masoretic Hebrew text, there can be some confusion as to why there are subtle wording differences unless this difference is understood. It is not true prophetic quoting in the New Testament matches the Septuagint, nor that the Masoretic text "later" than the Septuagint. More importantly, if you have no problem with the section being removed, then why do you keep restoring it? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to understand your knowledge base or where it comes from. It's not exactly hidden knowledge that many NT quotes that don't much the OT are due to different translations. Isaiah 7:14 is one of the best known, but it's one of many. The history of the Masoretic text isn't exactly a secret either. I restored the section that was removed because you kept putting back the earlier form which was rambling and poorly written. I've made no secret that my wish was that this article would match the title -- Christian views of Jesus. That section is peripheral. Bbagot 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

Isaiah 7:14 is, in fact, the only arguable case where this happens, and even then its an incorrect claim, since the Greek word parthenos does not only mean virgin - in fact, even in the Septuagint it is used to refer to Dinah after she is raped. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Identifying problems in this article

Comparing this article to its counterpart articles, Judaism's view of Jesus and Jesus (prophet in Islam), a few problem areas stand out to me that perhaps might be helpful to mention. The other two articles are specifically focused on addressing the perspectives of those religions concerning Jesus' nature and role. This article, however, seems more unfocused. Maybe one of the problems is that there actually already exists three articles that describe Christianity's view on Jesus' nature and role, namely Christology, Christ, and Messiah. It doesn't leave much left for this article to say that isn't already said. Also, this article is missing reliable sources that clearly describe the Christian view of Jesus. This is something the other two (Jewish and Muslim) articles do much better, but there's no citations in this article. I only have a minute here, so I'll come back to discuss more later, these are just my first observations. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are all good points. Should we try to merge this article with another article? or vice versa?--Andrew c 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think something like that is in order. I'm not sure there's anything here not already somewhere else. I'm thinking this article should be redirected to Christology. In fact the second paragraph of the Jesus article states, "Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology)...". Since Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the Christian views of Jesus are already in dozens of articles on Jesus (and specifically his nature and role is addressed in Christology). An article on the XYZ views of Jesus really only make sense for describing views of Jesus outside of the originating religion for whom he is a central figure. This applies to Mohammed, for example, as well. It makes sense to have a Judaism's view of Mohammad and a Christian views of Mohammad, but a Muslim view of Mohammad would be unnecessary because as the central figure of Islam, these views are already described in other articles. Similar arguments could be made about Buddha, an article on Buddhism's view of Buddha would be inane. Thoughts? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As a Christian theologian I would agree with its merger with Christology. You might want to differentiate what is formal theology from popular impressions and views. Could both articles be redirected to a new merger article "Christian views of Jesus (Christology)"? This is a suggestion. The broader topic would be "Christian views of Jesus" and the narrower topic would be "Christology". "Christology" is what is called a "locus" [place], "article", or "section" of Christian theology. So you have the core of what Christianity says formally about Jesus Christ, and you have the divergence of what is believed and taught about him in diverging traditions. Because groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the United Pentecostals fall under the wide of umbrella of "Christian" traditions. Their views should possibly be included. --Drboisclair 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be a wise change. Bbagot 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I agree that these four articles should be merged. "Christian views of Jesus" would seem to be more comprehensive and a counterpart to articles "Judaism's views of Jesus" and "Islam's view of Jesus." You could then have subsections: "Christology", "Messiah/Christ" [as you know these are the same title: Messiah is Hebrew, Christ is Greek]. Putting them together helps the reader get all the data. "Christology" may be too formal or arcane a title for this. All in all they should be merged. --Drboisclair 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit clash!)I'm not an expert so forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question but the dictionary definitions I have seen of Christology describe it as a theology or doctrine based on Jesus and his deeds. The Muslims also accept Jesus as a prophet and a search of "Islamic christology" does return 10,000 hits [1]. Maybe Christology should be the top article with all the types of Christology linked below. The previous merge I suggested was with the New Testament view on Jesus' life which virtually mirrors this article (or did when I last looked). Any thoughts anyone? Sophia 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such a thing as Islamic Christology! Live and learn.

The Jesus article oversimplifies a bit. Christian Christology is a subset of the Christian views of Jesus. Christology is the theological view of the nature of Jesus himself. It answers the question, "What does it mean that Jesus is Christ?" Christian views of Jesus also include views of Jesus' life and teachings, what they mean, and how they relate to Mosaic law; the prophecies that Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled, and those that remain to be fulfilled at the Second Coming; why it was necessary that Jesus suffer and die, and what his ressurection accomplished. So, you might want to merge Christian Christology into this article, and also explore here the other aspects of Christian views of Jesus. What SOPHIA learned of Islamic Christology could be merged into the Isa article (or whatever name that article goes by these days). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Building on what others are saying here, maybe we need to go even broader, have a Views of Jesus disambig page that directs to specific articles addressing views from all the different perspectives: formal Christian views (Christology), Christ, Messiah, New Testament views of Jesus' life, other religions' views (Judaism, Islam), and any others that could be subsumed under this topic. Some articles in the list may be merge candidates. I think this particular article does currently seem to look more like New Testament view on Jesus' life, but maybe since the broad title makes it hard to pinpoint what the focus should be, it could redirect to a Views of Jesus disambig page. Or this article itself could be a disambig page to other articles that address various aspects of Christian views of Jesus. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the reason I suggest some sort of disambig page (either Views of Jesus or make this page a Christian views of Jesus disambig page) is because I think it would be helpful to have some sort of clearinghouse place listing all the different articles on the topic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, "Christian views of Jesus" is a theological interpretation of "New Testament view of Jesus' life." A merge of those two articles makes sense, except that somebody pointed out a few months ago that the NT gospels are also the main sources for historical interpretations. So, it depends on how you read the texts ;)

How would Views of Jesus be different than Jesus? Except, of course, that the "Jesus" article is a summary of all views and not a disambig page. Meant to be a summary, that is, but it's gotten a bit long. I do have a list of related articles that perhaps need to be weeded. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to a Views of Jesus page, keep in mind we already have a Religious perspectives on Jesus page. New Testament view on Jesus' life currently is just a plot summary of the 4 canonical gospels (and perhaps the title should be changed to reflect that). This article's "Life" section and the Jesus article's "Life and teachings based on the Gospels" seem to cover too much redundent content found in New Testament view on Jesus' life. Just things to think about. I don't have any proposals yet. Also, am I the only one who things poorly of the recently added disclaimer at the top of the article?--Andrew c 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On your last comment, I concur the disclaimer doesn't belong. I just reverted the latest edit before yours to remove the disclaimer, but then also commented out the apparent disputed section on interpretation, which, seems a bit out of place for the current article anyway, and it invites too much comparison with other views, which starts getting offtopic.

On the other comment, Religious perspectives on Jesus does indeed seem to already address what a Views of Jesus disambig would do. It would be good to compile a list of all the related articles and try to sort out the redundancies, Archola seems to already have what might be a "clearinghouse" main page at his project page. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, I like the idea of a disambig page, MP. It is an elegant solution to a number of location problems. Unless we think a cat would serve better...

On the existence of this page, as long as the info finds its way elsewhere, that would be fine by me. As far as Christology goes, it traditionally covers everything that Jesus ever said and did, his nature as God and Man at the same time, his place in the Godhead, etc. The focus is mostly theolgical, however. The very term confesses a belief that Jesus is Messiah. So, I do not think there is an equivalent in Islam or Judaism. The best solution, I think, then, is MP's. --CTSWyneken 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A disambig in addition to the summary at "Jesus"? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Christology or Jesus, either works for me. Jesus is mostly about the Christian view of Jesus anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mess

Omg, i give upp! This is a complete mess!

I vote for a total overhaul and reorganization of this whole mess, there is no organization here, just a bunch of loosly related articles that nobody cares to have a overview over. I am starting some suggestions: Talk:Christian views of Jesus/Jesus. --Striver 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments?--Striver 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus/Related articles. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I condensed the life section as part of my project to have 1 NT bio of Jesus on wikipedia (instead of 3). I kept in the parts that seemed to be more on topic, but removed most of the plot summary. However, this article is still a mess. I like Arch's outline a lot, but it goes to show that this topic has a dozen or spinout articles, which creates a problem. Should this just be like an index page for the spinout articles, with maybe a condenses paragraph or two on each topic? I feel that could work.--Andrew c 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my proposal, before "somebody" took upon himself to delete my proposal. "Thanks"... --Striver 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gary Sellars's edits

First of all, first person (I, we, our, etc) is not to be used on wikipedia per the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid self-referential pronouns. Second of all, you do not capitlize pronouns refering to deities (He, Himself, etc) also per the MoS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents. Emoticons and personal commentary only belongs on talk pages, never in the main article space. Wikipedia follows what is called neutral point of view, which means that all relevent points of view are given with due weight, as long as the claims are cited per WP:V using reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot say who is or isn't a "True Christian", nor say which interpretation of scripture is correct. All we can say is that a number of interpretations exist and "X holds Y belief" while "A holds B belief". Saying things like Most people who call themselves "Christians" don't believe everything in the Bible and refuse to believe the main points above. sounds like original research, clearly needs a citations, and at best needs to be qualified with who holds that opinion. This article is not the place to push a personal POV of what makes up a True Christian. We must include that Catholic POV, Protestant, JW, Mormon, conservative, liberal, etc where applicable (and keep in mind this article is about Christian views of Jesus, not about Christianity which has its own article). Things like showing us the authority here is genuine authority from above and previously authorized; revealing to us God's actual involvement in His leadership in spiritual authority exercised by His disciples should clearly be avoided for many of the above stated reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. If there are any questions about wikipedia policy, or concerns over the content of this article or my reverts, please feel free to talk things out here. --Andrew c 14:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) P.S., when editing, try to avoid making a number of small edits in a row. It is hard to keep track of things in the history, and it puts unneeded stress on the server. In the future, try to compress all your edits into only a few edits, instead of ~50 in a row. Thanks.--Andrew c 14:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew for taking the time to explain the rules, but it's of no consequence now. It has been clearly shown to me that Christian views under "Christian Views" is not going to be allowed because anything that disagrees with the blasphemous deceit that was posted is not going to be allowed under one guise or another. It's not worth my time to play all the games required to get genuine Christian views approved only to strain the censor's brain to find some excuse to disallow it. ... but, again, thanks for your efforts in explaining.-- Gary

After reading what you left on my talk page, I don't think anyone is going to feel sympathetic about how downtrodden you feel you are. Wjhonson 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia is to include all relevent POVs. While your POV may be relevent, it is only important if you can back it up with verifiable, reliable sources. Approaching this article by claiming it is "blasphemous deceit", and claiming you hold the one "genuine Christian view" is not in line with wikipedias NPOV policy. You need to accept that other people who are equally qualified to be called "Christian" may hold views that differ from you. It is not ok to remove or change veiws that you disagree with, if they are held by other Christians (even if you don't consider those people to be Christian). Also keep in mind that we cannot give undue weight to minority positions. Because 1 and 6 Christians are Catholic, most articles should have a Catholic slant to them, just because that is the majority Christian POV. Please try working on finding sources to back up your edits. And instead of inserting things like "True Christians believe X, while others are simply wrong in the interpretations". Add things like "Evangelical scholar B beleives Y" or "Southern Bapitists believe Z" and things like, if they are included with proper citations. If you have questions or need help with how to cite things, I'd be more than happy to help you out, but keep in mind wikipedia is not a soap box for personal views, and it isn't the place to decide what is and isn't the correct Christian doctrine. --Andrew c 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

proposal

Just to make sure nobody missed it, i proposed this--Striver 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Satan

This article and the main Jesus article give scant attention to Satan. Jesus came to undo the works of Satan. The first (or one of the first) prophecies in the Bible (about the serpent and the son of Eve) refers to Jesus and Satan fighting. The world's going to end with Jesus going toe-to-toe with Satan. Satan deserves at least a passing mention. I'm happy to put something in this article (and maybe the Jesus article as well). Jonathan Tweet 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Upgrade

Recently, there was an attempt to upgrade the section in the article on Jesus called "Christian views of Jesus". In that process, the woeful state of this article was recognized. There were statements made that this article should receive attention, but none was given, and it limped on in its inadequate state. I took it upon myself to revamp this article, working on it on my project page. Since there was little activity here (which should be no surprise) this was done unilaterally. I hope that others will be inspired to contribute more to views which I am not able to well describe, but I am sure this overhaul is an upgrade. It concerns only the first part of the article, and does not take up the issued of Jesus's live, and views therein. For this reason, it actually replaced little of what was in the article, and represents new, needed material, without undoing the content of before. The second half of the overhaul, of course, is that on Jesus' life, which will come later. This section focused more on Christology and the like. PS, I archived the old talk, since it doesn't seem relevant to the new material, obviously. Lostcaesar 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Trinitarians

This passage "In antiquity, and again following the Reformation until today, differing views existed concerning the Godhead from those of Trinitarians and the related traditional Christology" is not correct. Throughout the history of the Church there have been groups who denied part of the "traditional Christology". This passage makes it sounds like these ideas miraculously reappeared during the Reformation. Wjhonson 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which groups in particular are you thinking of. Lostcaesar 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as one example see Bogomil#Doctrine Wjhonson 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While after the first councils, Orthodoxy grew significantly, there has always been small, but significant splinter groups. I agree that saying only in antiquity and only following the Reformation are these differing views found seems like a bad generalization. --Andrew c 02:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is to reflect that the groups of antiquity with these teachings ended at a given point, and that the groups with these views which exist today have continuously existed from the reformation. Groups like the Bogomils and the Cathars are groups that appeared and disappeared in the Middle Ages. I'm not sure how notable they are since there are not, to my knowledge, any reconstructionists movements today concerning them, nor were they very large, but we can try and work them in. Perhaps we could say "sporadically in the Middle Ages", or something like that, in the sentence in question. Lostcaesar 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that the Lombards and Vandals were Arian well into the early Middle Ages, which wouldn't be called "antiquity". In fact, at one point the Arians were the dominant group in the Church. Wjhonson 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Lombards and Arians were groups of Late Antiquity, and their Arianism ended in during the period termed "transformation of the Roman world". I guess one could be really picky about whether this is late antiquity or very early middle ages, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. Lostcaesar 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lombards and Vandals who were Arian, did not end in "late Antiquity". Please define the exact time period that you are calling "late Antiquity", and when you'd say we're into the "Early Middle Ages" ? Wjhonson 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another group for you to ponder Paulicianism. Note the years they flourished and that they denied the Trinity. Wjhonson 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there is some overlap. Under the old classification, one would locate the middle ages beginning in 476, which would precede the end of Arianism. More recent scholarship talks less of a fall of the Roman Empire and more of a "transformation of the Roman world", which covers the whole of the barbarian invasions, of whom the Lombards were the last. Often the beginning of a medieval period is a matter of local circumstances — it started earlier in England than Italy, for example. Indeed the Arianism of the Lombards was in many ways the last gasp of antiquity in the West. I'd say by Charlemagne's coronation we are undisputedly medieval. Before that, like I said, splitting hairs. But it is certainly fair to call them Late Antique groups that lasted into the Early Medieval period, and I wont argue that at all. Lostcaesar 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, though its streaching my knowledge of obscure groups, I thought the Paulicianism were Trinitarians; heretics, but Trinitarians. Could be wrong though. Lostcaesar 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Heretic" is Catho-normative language. They weren't Trinitarian. Read the article. Wjhonson 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And "Catho-normative" is some kind of odd jargon, but I'll forgive it if you forgive a Catholic who talks like a Catholic. Lostcaesar 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

honest truth

I agree that this phrasing is weird. Honest truth is redundent, and if a quote should at least be quoted. But I find no need to clarify "historically true" with this i.e. business, especially when taking about the predominate Christian view, but using the words found in a Catholic document. I really think the sentence is fine without the second clause.--Andrew c 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the quote:

'"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught... The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels... always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus." Dei Verbum 19

Lostcaesar 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's back now with blockquote and ref for that one work. I moved the other refs up to the previous sentence, not really sure where they go now. Wjhonson 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained Blanking

An anon editor blanked the info about the LDS views on the resurrection. You can see the edit in question [2]. Without an explanation, and as the only edit from the IP 69.250.146.41, I assumed it was random. If I was wrong, revert. Pastordavid 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias concerns

Traditional teaching. While it is possible to identify the now-predominant forms, it is harder to identify the traditional forms without introducing our various biases. Many early splits, e.g. the Arian and Christological controversies, involved alternative interpretations of one preexisting tradition. Both sides of the Arian controversy portray their works as the clarification of the original traditions, and their opponents' works as changes to, if not betrayals of, the original traditions. I suggest simply referring to the predominant teaching. Jacob Haller 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since some bias is inevitable I'd recommend erring on the side of whichever view is in discussion in each section or passage. Jacob Haller 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Minor, non-POV related quibble: I'd recommend changing "Christians predominantly profess" to "most Christians profess" or "Christians most often profess" in the Predominant view section.
I'm not sure how to expand the "other views" section. I think the Predominant view section mostly describes Chalcedonian Christianity, so the Other views could start with (1) Gnostic & Docetist Christianity (2) Sabellian, Arian (&c.), Macedonian, Nestorian, Monophysite & Monothelite Christianity (unless we treat the last three as variations within Pred. view (3) later developments. Jacob Haller 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources used I guess we could note that the canonical gospels and epistles reflect the predominant views of the early church. Many of those in group (1) above, had their own gospels or different versions of the gospels, while those in group (2) above used the canonical ones.
I suggest putting "the writings of the Church Fathers" before the "decrees of the ecumenical councils" because they start earlier. These record either the predominant view or the official view of their time, and become sources for later times. Of course, many of those regarded as fathers in later centuries were regarded as partisans at the time, and they mat reflect the extreme, rather than the most widely-accepted, positions of their time. Jacob Haller 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Christology Okay, this introduces more serious problems. I'd suggest moving more technical positions, and later-defined positions, towards the end of the section. It seems to do the opposite right now. I'd suggest moving the entire section after Legacy, because it amounts to the interpretation of His life and legacy in theological terms.
Hypostatic union The issues are old, but the formula reflects relatively late (5th-6th) century controversies, and the Chalcedonian position within them. Jacob Haller 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Trinity The term can describe several doctrines, with different in-groups and out-groups, e.g. the "economic trinity." Nicaea itself left a lot of ambiguity, so it might be better to say that the majority position developed between Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (383), e.g. with considering the Holy Spirit a person (rather than a non-personal being of God, e.g. divine grace). Jacob Haller 02:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The baptismal formula doesn't really prove the now-predominant doctrines. Arius writes somewhere, arguing it proves his doctrines! It implies Jesus' participation in salvation history. Jacob Haller 02:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Only Son of God I suggest moving this to the top of the section, changing the header to Only-begotten Son of God because some, including some within the predominant view, refer to salvation as adoption by God, use son(s) of God and children of God in wider senses, etc. Might also note the variant reading only-begotten God. Jacob Haller 03:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-trinitarians First off, the term includes those who do not regard the Son and Holy Spirit as divine and those who regard the Son and Holy Spirit as dive, but hold different doctrines of the trinity than the predominant view. As regards the Son, much comes down to just what personality, divinity, and humanity mean.
I think we need to emphasize the differences between 4th-6th century Arianism and the modern doctrines noted nearby. The primary sources assume more than they explain, so it's hard to pin things down, but the former definitely worshipped Jesus, while the latter do not all do so.
Sandwiching Gnosticism, then Arianism, then the Gospel of John's response to proto-Gnosticism doesn't really help.
I tentatively suggest moving non-trinitarian concerns within the above three sections.
As an alternative, we could start by discussing Jesus as the Only-begotten Son of God, then move to discussions of Jesus as Fully God and fully human with (1) developing different concepts of this and (2) discussing alternative (non-human and then non-divine) Christologies. Unfortunately, no matter how we handle that, somebody will object to including Arianism as a minority position in the former group, and somebody, probably me but likely someone else too, will object to including it in the latter group. Jacob Haller 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Humanity merge into the above sections. Jacob Haller 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article quality... Kýrie, eléison

This article is sadly, sadly lost in the woods. I do not even know where to start my complaints, there are so many. The entire article is a mish-mash of randomly picked items, not representative at all. I think the sections on Miracles and Legacy epitomize the sad state of this wannabe article. The Miracles section lists 9 randomly picked miracles, in a haphazard order (Cana comes towards the end!) and some are unclear, e.g. Curing a sick child who was near death without links, etc. The Legacy section has one terse paragraph without a single WP:Secondary source, then a much larger section on the Book of Mormon. How does that describe the "Legacy of Jesus" in Christianity, when just one paragraph sans secondary references is used, and then the views of just one denomination? Kyrie Eleison, Lord have mercy! This article really needs a rewrite. I do not have time to rewrite it now, but will flag it as such. Help from knowledgeable editors will be appreciated.... Kyrie Eleison... History2007 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Two months later, it is fixed now, flags removed. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus in Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906114843/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

File:William Blake - Christ as the Redeemer of Man - WGA02225.jpg

@The New Classic and Hazhk: I still don't think this is a good image for the lead. Yes, it does represent the ascension of Jesus, but Blake's style is rather atypical. The painting by Vannini is far more recognizable as something typical, and its very well written caption recounts an important Christian belief about Jesus. The Blake image has been removed (at least) twice, and I support removing it once again. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. That's why I thanked you for your reversion.--Hazhk (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Blake's atypical style is better as it is not cliche, and recounts more Christian beliefs than the other picture. It recounts Jesus' incarnation, deah, resurrection, and transfiguration by showing God the Father receiving Jesus. By showing Satan at the bottom, it displays Jesus' triumph over the Devil after his sacrifice that saved the world from the Devil's temptations-thus it even includes the belief the other picture's caption says, and in a more subtle way.The New Classic (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A lead image doesn't have two pages of commentary, which, like many religious images by Blake, this would need. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The commentary I put here is only about as big as that of the current leas image.The New Classic (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it hardly explains the image. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it is suficient. It is also hard evidence that the picture I chose delivers so much more info than the other one. Besides, Willam Blake seems to be much more notable an artist than the other painter (look at the size of their Wikipedia articles).The New Classic (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think your primary motivation here is improving this article. You're only interested in pushing William Blake artworks into articles. But in this case, your image isn't actually informative. Wikipedia is not an image repository or art gallery; It's not a place for you to show off images you like. Every image in this article illustrates an event in Christ's life or an aspect of his ministry. --Hazhk (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint view on Jesus

“Latter Day Saints teach that Jesus is the result of a physical union between God the Father and Mary.”

Not quite, and in fact, this is very offensive and quite misleading. There is no footnote to this paragraph, and I move it be struck out. I would do it myself (as I have done elsewhere), but I don’t want to get into a edit fight with someone ignorant and persistent, because to some (or many) the Latter-day Movement itself is controversial.

This was a birth through a virgin (no intercourse), though, as with many other Christian sects, Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, which means (in the LDS) that while God the Father is the father, the method of the seed transmission is not stated, and is extremely unlikely to be through what we call introitus, as this would leave Mary __NOT_ a virgin, and would not be a virgin birth. There’s not more in the Bible than what Gabriel tells her.

Bottom line: Mary remained a virgin until she had relations with her husband, Joseph. Bseegmiller (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing presence

I'm struck by the lack of discussion of Jesus' ongoing presence in both this article and Christology. Many Christians believe in and/or experience Jesus as present with them or as an active agent in the world at the current time. I imagine it would be appropriate to include Jesus' presence in the eucharist, his presence in the hungry, strangers, the naked, the sick, and prisoners, and especially his presence in prayer. Of course, we'll need to find some sources on this topic to guide our writing, but I wanted to point out what seemed to me as an obvious lack. Daask (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree largely with you, and have reflected upon this topic a great deal. It boils down to, in my view, that for those who follow Christ, the gifts of the Spirit and the witness of Jesus as Savior are present, but it is extremely difficult to articulate in words that might pass Wikipedia’s guidelines. C.S. Lewis does an excellent job. Bseegmiller (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of Requested move

There is currently an open requested move on Talk:Christ to move the page from its current name to Christ (title). ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. Was Jesus not his name?! The Messiah is coming (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Like my edits? (=

Added more detail wording and links. The Messiah is coming (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this recent edit might be problematic [3], because it adds an external link to a specific website, which can be seen as promotion, and does not adhere to neutral point of view. – Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 13:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I will revert this specific edit for now so that we can discuss. – Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that your other edits are fine, at least in my opinion. ;) – Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed your modification to add the rapture. It is not accepted by all Christians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

They weren't both FULLY human because God is holy and much higher then any human. The Messiah is coming (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Pls don't remove my other edits. The Messiah is coming (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, who were both fully human? You cannot start in the middle of a discussion and expect others to understand what you're talking about.; Your edits are simply not well written, accurate and in this case, fraught with simple errors like splitting the word "virgin" in two and then removing the space after it to create a non-word and incorrect capitalization of "Old Testament". Then there's the poor theology in the statement. Pauline theology equated "the first Adam" with Jesus as "the second Adam". To insert Eve into that mix is probably politically correct, but theologically problematic. Finally there is the WP:SPAMLINK which is not even added as a reference but as ain inline external link, which is not permitted. (See WP:ELPOINTS No. 2). With that said, it was good to include a brief discussion of Jesus' miracles, but it should be done with respect to the rest of the article's contents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GOD capitalization

Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus; but Ancient Egyptian myths about the Nile's annual flooding, and an exodus of refugees from Soviet religious persecution). Therefore, Jesus's Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension must be capitalized. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

They're not in the way you applied them here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I did apply them to everywhere the specific event is denoted, and I left unmolested the lowercase generic references. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong because MOS:ISMCAPS does state that spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents. There were many crucifixions, but this is a specific one. And Jesus resurrected two people before his own, but this is a specific event. Let me self-revert and let others weigh-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jesus in Christianity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 19:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sections

It is noted that two sections of the article were removed during the review as OR. If nominators or editors (TSventon) could refrain from updating this particular article that I am reviewing until it is complete, I would appreciate it that there are no edit conflicts. Please address any concerns in below the GA Review. Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru, apologies if my edit was unhelpful to you. I am not aware of any guidance about not editing articles during GAR. TSventon (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

TSventon While it was a big deletion, you were right; it was OR (and from one source only). I could not locate the original entry by Oct13 neither here nor in the Jesus article.

Observations

Lede

Is it reasonably well written?

OK

Core Teachings

Is it reasonably well written?

Reference 12 has 4 links embedded; Links to Sproul and Bahnsen are broken. Consider archive.org
Those Christian groups or denominations which are committed to what are considered biblically orthodox Christianity (is poor grammar and) might be better expressed as,

   Those Christian groups or denominations which are committed to what is considered as biblically orthodox Christian belief nearly all agree that Jesus:

Reference 15 , 16 and 17 offer very good summations of the milestones in the life of Jesus.
This section is about the core teachings of Jesus (as held in common and in belief by many Christian denominations). Devotion to the name of Jesus is a matter of faith, not core teaching, and as such, does not belong in this section.

Christ, Logos and Son of God

Is it reasonably well written?

on two separate occasions by God the Father as a voice from Heaven is eisegesis. It is reading doctrine directly into the text, which the text will not bear. Recommend dropping God the Father and leaving it as a voice from heaven.

excellent summation of Chalcedon and the hypostatic union.

Incarnation, Nativity and Second Adam

Commencing with Colossians is the correct Christological opening for introducing the Incarnation.

Reference 49 does not address the damage of Adam; it addresses Mary as the New Eve. Consider.

One argument against this would be a contradiction in Jesus' genealogies ... How is this argument about genealogy relevant to Jesus in Christianity?

Reference 54 is an excellent source.

page numbers occur outside citation: generally indifferent to people's racial appearance or features.[61][62][63]:48–51

Ministry

The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have and enjoy life, and have it in abundance (to the full, till it overflows).—John 10:10 (Ampl) Kindly explain meaning of (Ampl).

Jesus seemed to have two basic concerns with reference to people and the material: (1) that they be freed from the tyranny of things and (2) that they be actively concerned for the needs of others.[25] This is a bit specious, and verification is not available. A page is not cited from this text to subtantiate. What material are we referring to here? I would consider that the ministry of Jesus is about the proclamation of the Kingdom of God (and its presence in the here and now) rather than the tyranny of things. Suggest this be substantiated or replaced with something more appropriate.

Reference 68 does not seem to validate anything. The online version has no page numbers and searching back and forth for the citation it is supposed to support does not give a date for the end of Jesus' life between AD 30-36 (if it is supposed to refer to that).

Last sentence in this section:

The final ministry in Jerusalem is sometimes called the Passion Week and begins with the Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem.[82] The gospels provide more details about the final ministry than the other periods, devoting about one third of their text to the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem.[83].

Use of the term Passion Week is uncommon with respect to the last week in Jesus' life; sentence commences with one term and ends with another and links to it. Consistency would indicate Holy Week is the preferred term.

Teachings, parables and miracles

Why does the opening citation of John . — John 14:10 also need a reference to Osborn (Reference 84)? Why is that particular reference here?

(the gospel of John includes no parables) suggest rewrite to say has no parables.

the reference to John 3:34 goes nowhere. Suggest https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:34 ... or an acceptable translation. Linking to scripture that goes nowhere is not acceptable. Ditto John 7:16. Kindly correct these linkages.

The Discourses section is neat and concise and well referenced. In one aspect, the Beatitudes are eschatalogical and also belong to the future of humankind and the Church.

Please examine Reference 101 ... the isbn is not found.

Can we sort out the correct title for Reference 103? The free-to-read (public domain version) on Google Books says the title is 'The Biblical Cabinet or, Hermeneutical, Exegetical and Philogical Library Vol 29. It is not Lisco, Friedrich Gustav, and Patrick Fairbairn. (Fairbairn is the translator.) The parables of Jesus Explained and Illustrated Volume 29 ... the citations are entirely correct; the title may be incorrect. Consider.

Reference 106: Why is that there?

Walking on water. [Mt 14:34-36] is cited in NRSV. It seems the correct citation is [Mt 14: 28-33].

Link to Mt 10:8 goes nowhere. Consider.

the miracles were evidences of his deity (you are referring to a specific 'god' when you use the term deity) --> should be the miracles were evidences of his divinity.

... each miracle involves specific teachings ... is a brilliant statement to include.

The question of why aren't all of Jesus' miracles included is an interesting question to conclude this section with. I am not altogether enamoured of citing the Catholic Encyclopaedia (with no direct reference) serves the cause of winding up this section. The Catholic Church, whatever it says about Scripture and Tradition, does not own Jesus nor his miracles. Consider.

Crucifixion and Atonement

according to MOS the first instance of canonical gospels will be linked; the remainder will not be linked. Link the first reference in Core Teachings section, and remove duplicate links.

Opening with agency Christology in the section on Crucifixion and atonement dismisses classical Christian theology of the atonement and the redemption won by Jesus. It also neglects the prophecies of Jesus on the Journey to Jerusalem. Christian history is based on salvation history, the crucifixion and salvation attained thereby, and the transcendental effects of the atonement in the past, present and future. This should be referenced before the statements on agency Christology. We need to be careful not to be restating material already addressed, viz., the Incarnation and Colossians.

Reference 124 (Matera) is a citation from another work.

Reference 127 makes no statement about Jesus arguing his innocence before Pilate. It speaks of the Sacerdotal Office in the Gospel Commentaries. Reference 128 makes the correct argument from Calvin. Kindly consider Reference 127.

Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming

the link for new era to the World to come article is a bit weak and soppy. It might be more appropriate to link directly to Christian eschatology. Consider.

for Jesus was designated the Son of God by his Resurrection. This is open to argument. There are many who would say that the designation of Sonship occurred at the baptism of Jesus. Consider replacing designated with confirmed as the Resurrection engages divine revelation and both reveals and confirms the Sonship.

Reference 135 is a very interesting inclusion and reflection.

Reference 144 should reference § 21 and not page 15 (this reference is all one page).

This section does not address the Ascension.

This section does not address the Second Coming / Parousia.

Observation

It is noted there is no reference to Jesus in Apocrypha, in particular the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, nor other apocrypha.

Final

May we attend to matters discussed above? On hold --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Situation

The nominator made a drive-by nomination and has only edited the article twice, five years ago.
The highest count editor - VanishedUserABC departed Wikipedia in 2013.
The next editor with the maximum contributions was sought to take on the nomination.
This editor has not responded to the review.
The article contains a considerable amount of Biblical theology, hermeneutics and Christology.
Should the article be nominated again, the abovementioned matters will need to be attended to, else the new nomination will fail. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus is not the son of God , he is the servent and messenger of Allah .

Jesus is not the son of God , he is the servent and messenger of Allah . 103.28.133.120 (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you have confused this article with Jesus in Islam. Stepho talk 10:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)