Talk:Jesus/Archive 102

Jesus is often mistaken for being god in religion but infact is technically a demigod, as he is the son an by that through the father. This little fact needs to be put in somewhere in the article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod#Christ_as_a_demi-god —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.44.140 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must Disagree In the Christian Sense Jesus is Part of God. As explained by Saint Patrick"s Holy Trinity Sermon. He is the Son of God the father. One part of the trinity Not the son of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpc100 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also "in fact" is two words, not one...all this is opposite to Christ who is One with the Father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's important to make Wikipedia proper for the audience that is viewing it. I know a lot of you are obsessed with "secular multiculturalism"...but it is quite silly to create an encycolopedia for a nonexistent audience (i.e. Muslims who care to get their information about Jesus from the American version of Wikipedia). I'm not saying that the Muslim perspective shouldn't be discussed (it already is as far as I can tell) but you guys have gone bat shit if you think that we should measure the sections and force them to be the same length even though we believe in Jesus the Christ, biological Son of God, and they only believe in Jesus the Messiah. I would also point out that Muslims spend more time denying the Ascension and the Virgin Birth than discussing any of what the historical Jesus said...the Muslim Jesus is something quite separate from the historical Jesus and even further from the Christ...the historical Jesus and the Christ as defined by Christianity are far more similar than "the Islamic Jesus"...who seems to be in the Koran more to make a showcase of Muhammad's denying his divinity so as to put Christ on the same level as himself (a regular old full human being who was nothing more than that). It is quite understandable why Muhammad would do this when he was in the middle of building a "universal" religion around himself...which is more a cult of personality.

I am confused by the following quote from above "I would also point out that Muslims spend more time denying the Ascension and the Virgin Birth". It is the Koran (and so Muslims) that states that Jesus(PBUH) was born from a virgin, not crucified and did not die (has been ascended to heaven - due to return). So any 'Muslim' that says Jesus was not born from a virgin or that he was crucified or that has died on earth and did not ascend to heaven, cannot be a Muslim as these 3 scenarios have all been explicitly stated about Jesus in the Holy Koran [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As the other guy said...we don't suggest that the page on Muhammad include at least as much of the opinions of Christians about Muhammad. None of that makes sense and the fact that there is a section at all for Islamic views of Jesus is more than sufficient.

The difference is (many/most) Christians do not aknowledge Mohammed as a prophet (which is why Christianity is not mentioned on that page) where as Muslims acknowledge Jesus as one of the greatest prophets and actually accept His beliefs/message that he sent. And so Islam's acceptance of Jesus, who he is, what he taught, what happened to him and what will happen to him (i.e. his return) is all very relevant to Muslims & this page[[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:I'm sorry if I use point to another article within wikipedia but the information in it seems to make sense. In Christianity god is not one being but three, the Trinity, which consists of "Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, human as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete or advocate)." Conceptions of gods. So I would say Jesus should be considered god, BUT not God. Skele (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe Jesus should be stated as a "demigod" within the article. The term deity is probably more preferable. If you say demigod you are putting a definition that only applies to segments of Christianity, see the God in Christianity. There are many different views on the level of christs divinty ranging from simply human, (as muslims believe), god himself (as the the oneness believe), as a part of a three personality being (as in the trinity}, or as a divine human son of God (like you refrence to a demigod). All of these are accurate, dependant on which theological position you take. The term deity fits all these descriptions. Charles Edward 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion of the divine vs. human nature of Christ is about two millennia old at this point. I don't think it's going to be productive to try and define it one way or another in this article. We should just note the notable standpoints on the subject with reliable sources and let the discussion of which one is right to the theology arguments of the world. Peter Deer (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't say what Jesus "was" at all; we should only say how notable points of view view Jesus. We do a pretty good job of covering this. I think theological debates ought to be explored fully, but in the Christology article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Christians and other biased sources may consider Jesus anything consistent with their views, however, Mary was human, therefore by definition Jesus was a demigod. Apologists arguments should be placed in other sections, and not used here.GESICC (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)GESICC

The importance of Jesus in Islam is reduced to little more than a footnote. Surely the beliefs of a quarter of the world's population deserves more mention than this. Come on

That would be true except; 1.Moslems do not mention Jesus as often as Christians do. 2.Jesus is not as "central" to Islam. 3.This is an English audience encyclopedia. The majority of Moslems do not speak english. ^rossnixon 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is considered to be a Divine Messenger in Islam, the same station held by Muhammad Himself. Saying Jesus isn't central to Islam is like saying Moses isn't central to Christianity. As to what the majority of the world speaks, that doesn't matter, what matters is informative and neutral coverage of subjects. The original poster makes a point that the notability of the Islamic perspective merits its coverage being expanded, and I agree. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea I've been considering is creating a section parallel to "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels", but it would focus on the accounts found in the Qur'an. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moses is not as central to Christianity as Jesus is. Come on, if theres a religion named after Jesus, its gonna get the Lion's share of views anyhow. Shall we add in a Christian view of Muhammad, or shall we all keep our heads in place? Tourskin (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad is not part of the Christian creed. Jesus, however, is a major prophet of Islam. The situation is not remotely symmetric. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To add: Ross, I find your remark about Muslims not speaking English a complete non-sequitur. Why do you think this is related? On the one hand, there are very many Muslims that do speak English. On the other hand, why should non-Muslims be shielded from knowledge about other religions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The original poster, as well as Peter Deer and Stephan Schulz are all correct. Jesus is a significant figure in Islam which is one of the world's major religions. I agree that a significant expansion of that material is in order. Doc Tropics 09:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do support the idea of including any relevant non-Christian (Jewish, Islamic) or alter-Christian (Mormon, Moonies) perspectives on the person called "Jesus of Nazareth" somewhere in this article but I strongly disagree that "Jesus is central to Islam" or "Moses is central to Christianity". Both of these figures serve supportive historical roles in the respective faiths but NOT central ones. If they were central then we should find a large number of Christian denominations with the name Moses in them. We do not. Moses is closer to the Jewish faith than to Christian faith and even there you would be sore-pressed to find a synagog dedicated to Moses. John the Baptist, a minor prophet in the whole scheme of Christianity - his role was mostly human harbinger, at least has a denomination named after his teachings (baptism) but I have never seen a "Church of the Ten Commandments" and the references to "Genesis" and "Exodus" in Christian organizations seem to have little to do with Moses himself. I also have never seen a "Mosque of the Prophet Jesus". -- Low Sea (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Those of you are not Muslim, before doing anything else, ask a Muslim the importance of Jesus to their faith. To speak out of ignorance is the first sign of a lack of wisdom. Jesus is/was a major prophet in Islam and in their faith he will play a significant role in the future. Of course, Jesus does not fill the same roll as found in Christianity, even those "alter-Christian" (which I have never heard of and equating Moonies with Mormons is another...here's your sign) churches, but that is why they call it Islam and not Christianity. My patience fuse wanes short when I see this kind of silliness. You are invited to fill out the section. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I do not equate Moonies and Mormons, I merely place them in the same category. Both groups are "alter-Christians" (followers of an alternative form of Christianity) -- that is, they are religious denominations who have declared Jesus as the Son of God yet have either added to or changed the biblical teachings attributted to Jesus. Mormons have based their faith on the Bible plus the Book of Mormon. Moonies (aka Unification Church members) have based their faith on the Bible plus the book Divine Principal. Both of these books provide significant additions and variations to the "traditional" teachings of Christ used by most Christian denominations. Jews who believe in the historical existence of Jesus call him a rabbi (teacher) and Muslims call him a prophet but both reject any idea that he is/was the Son of God and therefor are non-Christian by definition. -- Low Sea (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Low Sea, I do not take issue with any of your comments per se, except that they seem to be more about Christianity than about Jesus. Your 01:45, 9 May 2008 reads like a series of non-sequitors. Okay, Muslims view Jesus differently than Christians. Does anyone here doubt this? has anyone ever suggested otherwise? What is your point? This is not an article on "Christianity," it is an article on "Jesus." There are obvious reasons for including Christian views of Jesus in this article. But there are no obvious reasons for excluding other views of Jesus, per se. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein. Respectfully I think you misread my post. I do NOT wish to exclude other views at all...

This thread on this talk page complained that the article is too Christian-centric, I agree. My comment was

(A) in support of inclusion of other perspectives on Jesus, and

(B) a reply to the above comment by Peter Deer at 02:07, 21 April 2008.

This is an article about the "man" called Jesus. His argument that Jesus was "central to Islam" and that Moses was "central to Christianity" was erroneous. Both arguments would have been correct to say these men were/are "important" or "significant" but "central" is too strong. Islam is not "Christ-centric" and Christianity is not "Moses-centric". This article is however "Christianity-centric" and needs expansion to meet WP:NPOV. -- Low Sea (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the Book of Mormon teaches only one doctrine not found in the Bible that I recall off the cuff; that children do not need to be baptized because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, by his grace and their innocence they are saved without the need of baptism. The only purpose the Book of Mormon serves is to testify to Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. The rest of the doctrines of the LDS church can be found, according to LDS, either in the Bible or by new revelation. All of the most controversial doctrines are believed to come staight from the Bible. If what you are saying they are non-Trinitarian and they are Restorationist, yes. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While it may seem "wrong" or "unfair", the neutral point of view is quite simply presenting the information in about the same balance as it appears in the body of reliable sources. The vast majority of reliable sources discussing Jesus in depth do so from a Christian perspective, or from a view examining the Christian perspective. There are small minorities, in terms of the body of reputable sources, that express distinct views. These should be covered in an appropriate small proportion of the article. The minority views can be covered in more detail in their own articles. Vassyana (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you change Jesus' birthdate because Jesus is christ and he cant born before himself and the Romans conquered all of his home country and jesus is the sign of chistianity and oh so confusing!!!!!!!! Never Block Me (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus never said, "I was born on 1 BC" or 1 AD, whatever. This was the calculation of a Monk. Why is that there are so many people who assume that modern day norms are correct, or even so necessary to be correct? Note your own words, Jesus is the sign of Christianity. Not exactly when his birthdate is! What so confusing? Rather, Jesus was not born 2008 years from me typing this message, but rather 2012 years ago. I can assure that all that will do for most people is make their prediction of the end times off by a few years too soon. Tourskin (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an informative reply, unfortunately Never Block Me is a trolling sockpuppet. Now blocked, so no feeding needed ;) .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua's (Jesus) birthday is somewhere in September during the Feast of Tabenacles. The K.O. King (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for that?. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Havn't answered visited this page in a while. My source is my Pastor, Pastor Jeff. The K.O. King (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My socials studies book says he was born CE 3 or 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.127.224 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

His birthday can be established with some certainty using the bible. He was 33 and one half years old when he died according to the gospels. He was killed at passover, which is typically in march april. So six monthes prior to march or april is sept or october. I also read somewhere that a study was done to determine the exact date of his death because according to the gospels a total eclipse of the sun occured on the day of his death - the only total eclipse to occur over Isreal between 29 and 39 AD was in 33 AD. This same eclipse was used to reset the calender during the papcy Pope Gregory. So the gregorian calendar dates are nearly perfect. Jesus was born in the october or september of 1BC. Remeber the year zero was skipped - so he turned 1 in the year 1 AD. And to probably confuse you just a little - in the original julian calendar, which was in use when jesus was born, March was the first month of the year. So jesus would have been born in the decemeber, which was at the time of his birth the tenth month of the year. When the calender was realigned several hundred years later october became the tenth month, decemeber was bumped to 12th, and jesus' birthday along with it. Now this is all based using bible dates. But all this is besides the point because his birth is listed properly as somewhere between 1bc-1ad. (and i read teh sockpuppet comment this is just and FYI) Charles Edward 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But when you said "Jesus was 33 and one half years old when he died" do you mean he was that old according to the julian or gregorian calendar? And if the years go faster in the julian calendar and if jesus was that old according to it wouldn't that mean he was born about 5 AD? complicated questions: I know. Skele (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add content and references from the above into this article, under Jesus#Religious_perspectives, appropriately just after the treatment of Jesus#Dharmic_religion_views or in Jesus#Other_views. Scientologists regard Jesus as a pederast who was known for his expressions of hatred and for his violent outbursts of temper.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is Wikipedia ... don't ask someone to do it, just add the content yourself but be very certain you have reliable independent verifiable sources for references or it will vanish pretty darn quick on this page. :) -- Low Sea (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now what would you do if, like me, you still found the article locked to prevent you from doing it. You'd ... ask ... someone ... else ... to ... do ... it, or just to have the article at last un-semiprotected for the sake of all. The reliable and verifiable independent sources are all cited in Jesus in Scientology. Got a problem?Childnicotine (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just explaining how WP works and trying to encourage what I thought to be an inexperienced user to join in the fun. I was unaware that the user was unwilling/unable to sign into the system, that was not mentioned in their post. If the user is blocked/banned then asking someone to edit on their behalf violates WP:MEAT, in which case there would be a problem but not mine. -- Low Sea (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Low Sea, this article (but not the talk page) is semi-protected, which means new and anonymous users cannot edit it. Childnicotine needs to wait 4 days to be able to edit (well less than that now). Coming to talk to suggest a good faith edit is fine. I think part of the problem is no one has the time (or is willing) to write the proposed section. If Childnicotine could come up with a concise summary paragraph, I'd be glad to add it if it meets wikipedia policy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's with including a Scientology view? How can the view of a science fiction fabrication be relevant? What's next, a Pastafarian (Flying Spaghetti Monster) view? ^rossnixon 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a valid addition to the article; I would say it violates fringe policies. If Scientology should we not include the Rastafarians, or every other group with a unique view? Andrew, do you really think this is important? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that, Childnicotine evidently wishes to include allegations that Ron Hubbard believed Jesus to be a "hateful pederast" (See Jesus in Scientology talk page). That's just a recipe for pointless conflict over a very fringy view. Paul B (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Childnicotine's a banned user (sockpuppet of banned user). Chensiyuan (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like some of the content may be original research (or fringe, as others noted). It seems the pederast view is coming from a disputed primary source (court document). We'd need to cite a third party analysis of this content, instead of directly citing primary sources which the official church disputes. And we'd need to have the official church position much more prevalent than the position of the church's critics. That said, we really need to focus on WP:WEIGHT and decide if the Church of Scientology's view is notable enough for this article. How many adherents of Scientology are there vs. the number of Mandaeans or Theosophists or Ahmadiyya or Unity Church or Chrstadelphians or Oneness Pentacostals? We mention a number of minor sects and we have to see if Scientology is less notable than all of those. I have a feeling that we probably should include perhaps 2 or 3 sentences (maximum) on Scientology's view. I also wanted to say that RossNixon's comments are extremely offensive and fly in the face of basic wikipedia tenets like NPOV. It's fine and dandy to have your own personal opinions about other's beliefs, but personal bias is no reason to exclude content. Atheists have huge criticism of Christianity, so should we disregard the Christian view? Many Protestants really dislike Mormons, so should we disclude the Mormon view? Please, in the future, stick to policy points when arguing for inclusion or removal of material. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the weird jumble of opinions presented in the Jesus in Scientology page is at all representative, I doubt that any clear characterisation of Scientology's view of Jesus can be usefully presented. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be a little too narrow in my perception of this article. Scientology is not based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and their views are more like commentary than anything else. Basically it can be summed up as, "we don't have a great deal of respect for the fellow called Jesus, and by the way, he could not control his anger and that he was a pederast." I can see how it would be relevant to the article on Scientology, but not here.

I have reflected on my thoughts to determine if they are based in a bias about Scientology and I feel that they are not, but rather in logic and policy. I have only a limited knowledge of Scientology; however, I am strongly against the persecution of minority groups because of their religion. I think this a fringe concept and is more appropriate for a subarticle. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.barnea (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, but not entirely off as well. See Yeshua (name) for a detailed discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)