75.60.228.75 (talk) →"Lord" Jesus: new section |
Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 394: | Line 394: | ||
Since Jesus was first introduced via Christianity and the Bible, and in that source he is said to be the "Lord", I would like to suggest that somewhere within the first paragraph of the wikipedia article that he be referred to as "Lord Jesus". Currently the word Lord is not found in the Jesus article until about half way down. Christianity's idea of salvation hinges on the idea that "Jesus is Lord" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. There is another good reason to refer to him as "Lord Jesus", seeing as he rose from the dead-- when he comes again, one would want to refer to a person of such great power with the title (Lord) due unto him. When the president comes into town you don't just call him Barack, you say Mr. President or President Obama. Likewise, when you are dealing with the Lord of Lords, it is highly advisable to honor the name of Jesus using the title that God has given his son, "Lord". Thanks for your consideration. I believe it is right to make this edit because without the Bible, there wouldn't even be an idea of who Jesus is, and the Bible is very clear about Jesus being the Lord. Thanks [[Special:Contributions/75.60.228.75|75.60.228.75]] ([[User talk:75.60.228.75|talk]]) 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)discipleofjesus12345 |
Since Jesus was first introduced via Christianity and the Bible, and in that source he is said to be the "Lord", I would like to suggest that somewhere within the first paragraph of the wikipedia article that he be referred to as "Lord Jesus". Currently the word Lord is not found in the Jesus article until about half way down. Christianity's idea of salvation hinges on the idea that "Jesus is Lord" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. There is another good reason to refer to him as "Lord Jesus", seeing as he rose from the dead-- when he comes again, one would want to refer to a person of such great power with the title (Lord) due unto him. When the president comes into town you don't just call him Barack, you say Mr. President or President Obama. Likewise, when you are dealing with the Lord of Lords, it is highly advisable to honor the name of Jesus using the title that God has given his son, "Lord". Thanks for your consideration. I believe it is right to make this edit because without the Bible, there wouldn't even be an idea of who Jesus is, and the Bible is very clear about Jesus being the Lord. Thanks [[Special:Contributions/75.60.228.75|75.60.228.75]] ([[User talk:75.60.228.75|talk]]) 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)discipleofjesus12345 |
||
:When the messiah comes, ALL the dead will be resurrected. I don't think we are going to go around calling each other "Lord;" I am just hoping I will remember the names of all the dead people I know! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:17, 16 June 2010
![]() | Jesus was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral
Recent Archive log
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate
Subpage Activity Log
- Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
- Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
- New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
- Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
- Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
- Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
- User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.
principal sources hard to understand
".. are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."
I would like it to read:
".. are the four canonical gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."
Ideas please?
Etymology
The statement 'A "Messiah" is a king anointed' is not complete. Anointed ones (Messiahs) in the Bible include prophets, priests, and kings not just kings.
Problems with citations in first section
Citations 17 to 28 are not done properly and need work. Very little of the information from the edit page is displaying on the article page. This is likely due to an error in formatting. Eh1537 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Jesus myth theory
No, I do not mean to bring up discussion on this article and the myth theory again. Fortunately, there is an article addressing this theory, which handles it for us. However, there is also a FAQ page which is currently a source of major contention. People who watch this page should consider looking at the FAQ here and then participating in the deletion discusion here.
As I understand it, the bone of contention is whether the "FAQ" are not really frequently asqed questions about the Christ Myth, or Jesus, or how historians work (which I guess would be okay), but a veiled editorial opposing or defending the Wikipedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Too much references on Islam in a Jesus article
The 1st paragraph has a reference on Islam. The 5th paragraph is solely devoted to islam. Why are other notable abrahamic religions such as baha'i faith or judaism not offered this type of coverage? I sense undue weight. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- You sense undo weight because other groups do not have information about their beliefs; the choice is then to delete the information for Islam? What about simply entering information about the groups you mentioned? It is not undue weight to discuss the views of one of the world's biggest relgions, particularly when it consists of a few sentences. --StormRider 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- All right. i will do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Islam is a major religion that reveres Jesus as a prophet (and the Koran has more content regarding St. Mary than the NT; I point this out only because her relevance is directly linked to her son's). Judaism has no central authority, but while individual Jews may have an opinion about Jesus, at best "Judaism" considers him one guy among thousands who was crucified by the friggin Romans, and at worst considers him a false god mistakenly worshiped by others. So that pretty much covers the "Ambrahamic" religions. It is not that the article fails to give adequate coverage of Judaism, it is that Jesus just really is pretty unimportant in Judaism. I see no need to use this article to belabor the point. "Undue weight" does not mean that all views should receive equal weight, it means all views should be given appropriate weight. The Jewish view, such as it is, is given complete expression. You really can't ask for more than that, can you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with what Slrubenstein says here. If there's something on the Baha'i faith you'd like to see covered there's a number of editors such as myself who would be willing to look into it provided it meets Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion. Peter Deer (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Islam is a major religion that reveres Jesus as a prophet (and the Koran has more content regarding St. Mary than the NT; I point this out only because her relevance is directly linked to her son's). Judaism has no central authority, but while individual Jews may have an opinion about Jesus, at best "Judaism" considers him one guy among thousands who was crucified by the friggin Romans, and at worst considers him a false god mistakenly worshiped by others. So that pretty much covers the "Ambrahamic" religions. It is not that the article fails to give adequate coverage of Judaism, it is that Jesus just really is pretty unimportant in Judaism. I see no need to use this article to belabor the point. "Undue weight" does not mean that all views should receive equal weight, it means all views should be given appropriate weight. The Jewish view, such as it is, is given complete expression. You really can't ask for more than that, can you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Its inclusion is valid. Though incorrect, the beliefs of Islam on Jesus are popular enough to be discussed in an article on Him. (It is "encyclopedic content") See: Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Religion —ron2(talk) 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Alternative theories on Jesus Christ´s life and death
There are several claims that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist thought. It is claimed that he spent his youth in India where he came into contact with Buddhist thinking which is obvious in his teachings, like peacefulness and reincarnation. Several authors (e.g. Elmar Gruber and Holger Kersten) claim that he did not die on the cross, but was in a coma and was brought back to life by good care. He was then urged to return to Persia and India where he would be safe. His frist sighting was in Damascus, on the way to the Fars East. He lived and taught there until his death in Srinagar where he was buried. His grave has been preserved until today by his descendants, now Muslims. Many of these claims can be verified by historical evidence. e.g that there were Buddhists in Palestine at that time, and Jews in India. There are many parallels between the evangelists and Vedic teachings. Modern Christianity has more similarity to Buddhism than to Judaism. Some examples: Christianity and Buddhism know monasteries, Judaism does not; note folded hands when praying in Buddhism and Christianity, not in Judaims; ancient Judaism has a vengeful God, Buddhism and Christianity preach love etc. The three Wise Men who came from the East to worship newborn Jesus, believed to be astrologers, could have been ancient colleagues of those Buddhist leaders who, with astrological methods, find the new Dalai Lama. Thus it seems possible that little Jesus was chosen as an early Dalai Lama, taken to India as a teenager, taught Buddhism and then returned to Palestine where he taught love and peace. This teaching was not welcome with the established Jewish authorities, and he was handed over to the Romans to be executed. He was not dead, however, when taken from the cross, but simply unconscious. He was not on the cross too long. This can be confirmed by the fact that he bled when the Roman soldier pierced his breast with a spear. A corpse does not bleed. All this makes more sense than the official teaching of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, of course. That Jesus was a Buddhist who went to India, based on no reliable historical evidence makes much more sense than those first century gospels those pesky Christians throw around. --Ari (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. This may actually belong in the museum of the dumbest comments ever made on a talk page (I mean the one by Ontologix, which shows that people who cannot spell logics may also lack it.) Look, we do not have a section on Jesus according to Andrew Lloyd Weber, even if he did author an extremely popular account of Jesus' life. I don't oppose articles on fictionalizations of Jesus' life, but they do not belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
See for example Caesarion and donations of Alexandria. Read also what Cleopatra VII had planned. Caesarion fled to India and came back years later to hang out with the Essene and Nazorean people. Isa/Issa means son of Isis. Issa Nezer means means branch of the son of Isis. There are no historical mentions of Nazareth, Isa of Nazareth mean son of Isis branc of son.
Caesarion fled to India and Himalaya, spent some 15-20 years there, before returning to Syria/Palestine to look for his sister and brothers. He had became highly spiritual during his journey and wanted to conquer back his dad's kingdom, but not with weapons and bloodshed, but by creating a new religion (as was planned in the new era plan Cleopatra VII (and also Julius Caesar)). Caesarion was thought to be a son of god as his father was declared a god by the Roman senate after he was murdered. He had already years ago taken a new identity Issa (son of Isis) Nezer (Nazar). After returning to Syria/Palestine, Jesus found his sister Cleopatra Selene II who took a new identity Mary Magdalene and his brothers Alexander Helios who is known as Thomas Judas Didymus and Ptolemy Philadelphus who is known as James. It is not known, if the crucifixion happened, who of the four siblings were actually hanging on the cross. Anno Domini could refer to anointing. Perhaps year 0 or 1 refers to year when John the Baptist baptised Caesarion, so that he could start his public work in Jerusalem. Otherwise years roughly 50-1BCE and 1-50CE were superimposed. Caesarion had already spent time in the Essene community, teaching them spirituality and they were highly cosmological, a new group evolved which were the Nazorean (branch of son of Isis), who were not that hardcore in their devotion to asceticism as the Esseneans were. Nazoreanism eventually evolved into christianity that we know today, although heavily altered by the Piso family (caretakers of Caesars will) of Rome who edited the later canonized NT gospels and by the emperor Constantine I and the likes like of the Nicea council. The philosophy of the Essenes and Nazoreans, refuse of violence (wars), temple sacrificial, nonacceptance of slavery and vegetarian eating were in conflict with the agenda of pharisees and Roman emperors, hence the new age medieval version of christianity. Jesus also spoke that he is an example of how to live, act and think, not anything people could outsource their killing, murdering, robbing and raping on.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I really hope you don't plan on adding that to the article without citing sources. My atheist friends would be raising eyebrows. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Bio Dates
I went ahead and updated the first note concerning the birth date. Its a minor change, that most readers wont see, that expands the note to say: "Sanders says ca. 4 BC/BCE. Vermes says ca. 5/6 BC/BCE. Finegan says ca. 3/2 BC/BCE. Sanders refers to the general consensus, Vermes a common 'early' date, Finegan defends comprehensively the date according to early Christian traditions." I feel this gives the new reader a sense of where these scholarly dates currently stand. I feel Finegan is noteworthy because he comprehensively supports the traditional date 3/2. Finegan doesnt enjoy wide consensus, but he does enjoy wide respect and is considered plausible even by those who support the 4 BCE consensus. Id like to see a similar note for the timing of the crucifixion. I along with others am strongly convinced the date is exactly year 32. So in the article the "ca. 30" is slightly annoying. Other scholars argue 33. I didnt change anything with regard to the death date however. Haldrik (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed, I inadvertantly continued a previous error, the Vermes date should say "6/5" not "5/6", since it is BCE. Il go ahead and update that too. Done. And I also changed the words so-and-so "says" to so-and-so "supports" the given date. This better reflects the scholarly tone. These scholars certainly didnt discover these dates, but merely continue the conclusions of earlier scholars. Haldrik (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- On the death date, Meier, in A Marginal Jew devotes a bit to this, citing a lot of scholars and discussing the various views. In his conclusion: "In brief, then, the year of Jesus' death, in the opinion of most commentators, must lie within the range of A.D. 29-34-and even then we are casting the new as widely as possible., As we shall see, the net is more often cast within the range of A.D. 30-33. In ligh of our frequent ignorance of the exact year of the death of many notables in the ancient world, we should be happy that we can be even this precise about the year of Jesus' crucifixion." Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years, gives some more information, and goes on to give his personal view "In my opinion, A.D. 30 is the more likely date."
- Theissen and Merz say 27 and 34 fit the Nisan 15-Friday of the Synoptics, and 30 and 33 fit the 14 Nisan of John, and that "the year 30 CE seems most probably as the year in which Jesus died, but other years can by no means be excluded". Therefore, I think it is perfectly fine to say c. 30, because not only is it a round circa number, many notable scholars find it the most likely year as well. Both of these sources seem to completely write off 32, so I'm curious why you are so strongly convinced of it.-Andrew c [talk] 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years."
- Yes, but these views depend on those who read the Synoptics to mean Jesus was crucified on the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread *after* eating the Passover lamb, thus he died on the Jewish date Nisan 15, so then the Passover meal would have happened on the day before Shabat. However, the Gospel of John explicitly and unambiguously records Jesus dying on the day *before* anyone ate the Passover lamb (John 18:28), thus Jesus died on Nisan 14, therefore in that year the Passover meal occured on Shabat. Many scholars prefer the account of John because it seems more archeologically informed and closer to the local Jerusalem traditions about Jesus. Jesus died while the passover lambs were still being offered at the Temple for the Passover meal that night, before Jesus was able to eat it. Thus Jesuss last supper actually refers to the Jewish tradition of 'Checking for Leavening' (Bdikhat Khamets), which occurs on the evening before the evening of eating the Passover lamb. That evening Jews ritually remove leavening, especially by eating whatever leavened bread remains in the household. With the last supper being the checking of leavening, it explains *many* problems. One, all Synoptic Gospels have a conspicuous absence of the passover lamb itself at his last supper ... because it wasnt slain yet. Two, the chief priests can call an emergency council together to discuss the imminent danger of a Roman response to Jesuss activity ... *legally* ... because it isnt the evening of the Passover meal yet. And so on. Anyway, the account of John is the right one, the Synoptics are actually ambiguous under scrutiny, and in that year the Passover meal occurred on Shabat. Therefore, the only reasonable year possible is 32. Haldrik (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is no "right one." Or at least, it does not matter what Wikipedia editors think is the "right one." We have to provide all significant viesws from notable sources. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- While what Haldrik says is interesting, and I sure opened the door to that one (sorry), I agree. It isn't which argument seems most logical to us, it's which arguments are most commonly found in the literature (cited sources...) Given the sources, I feel comfortable with c. 30, and leaving it at that. c. 5 is OK with me as well. -Andrew c [talk] 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Really, Im talking about what should go into the endnote, similar to the endnote about birth dates. Something like: "So-and-so supports the consensus. So-and-so supports 33, a common 'late' date. So-and-so supports 32." Besides personal interest, I feel the conflict between Synoptics and John is noteworthy, a fact most scholars note. This gives the new reader a sense of where these dates currently stand. Haldrik (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have to rescind my call for year 32 as a death date. I checked the Finegan book, and he *lists* the calculations that he refers to for the months of Nisan that are considerably different from the ones I had referred to. The ones I accessed used a complex formula that retroactively calculated the Jewish dates from the current year - which Im guessing becomes unreliable after a time. The ones Finegan refers to rely on astronomical precision for the phases of the moon, which not only corresponds to the new moon for Nisan 1, but also helps determine when Jewish 'leap years' (with an extra month) are likely or not. The calculations that he used were published in 1934, and corroborated in 1956 as having an accuracy that enjoys a 'very high degree of probability'. While I would be happier with more recent dates for corroboration, Finegan feels these calendar calculations are reliable, and on a point like this, Finegans opinion cannot be taken lightly. Anyway, Finegan strongly prefers the Gospel of John over the Synoptics for historicity concerning the timing of the crucifixion. So, Jesus died on Nisan 14 before the Passover meal took place. And with these calendar calculations, the date of Nisan 14, the day agreeing with John, actually falls on a Friday in year 30 or 33. So, there is clearly the choice of these two. Interestingly, while Sanders refers to the consensus that prefers year 30, Finegan prefers 33 the common 'late' date. Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Really, Im talking about what should go into the endnote, similar to the endnote about birth dates. Something like: "So-and-so supports the consensus. So-and-so supports 33, a common 'late' date. So-and-so supports 32." Besides personal interest, I feel the conflict between Synoptics and John is noteworthy, a fact most scholars note. This gives the new reader a sense of where these dates currently stand. Haldrik (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- While what Haldrik says is interesting, and I sure opened the door to that one (sorry), I agree. It isn't which argument seems most logical to us, it's which arguments are most commonly found in the literature (cited sources...) Given the sources, I feel comfortable with c. 30, and leaving it at that. c. 5 is OK with me as well. -Andrew c [talk] 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the endnote, it should say something like:
- "For the death date, Sanders supports 30 AD/CE, referring to the general consensus. Finegan supports 33 AD/CE, a common 'late' date."
Maybe even add something like:
- "These two dates derive from astronomical calculations for the new moons of the Jewish month Nisan. These corroborate the historicity of the Gospel of John that times the death to Nisan 14 on a Friday. On this point, the historicity of the Synoptics with their apparent date of Nisan 15 seems untenable or at best ambiguous."
Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Exagerate Number References of references on certain statements
Cause of Jesus trial and later crucifixion It has a whopping 11 references !!!! that is not necessary, a simple foot note reference should suffice if in the at-the-end-of-the article-foot-note all the references are stated... Even taking into consideration that providing references is good practice (even though we all know this one) the fact of adding half a line in references for a simple sentence is not necessary... we need to explore a better way (from the editing point of view) to present this. 190.28.119.128 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- 11 references might be a bit much, but a lot of them are needed there because many people come by, adamantly disagreeing that he was excecuted for sedition, and want it removed. Having a large number of sources to support this statement helps to prevent said objections or article edits.Farsight001 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Those references refer to the entire sentence, not just the end. It's the one that starts Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe...' Maybe we should just cite a single source which is already discussing what most scholars believe about Jesus, and maybe we have gone a bit overboard. But I guess citing a ton of scholars from diverse backgrounds and faiths is one way to make sure we are presenting what most scholars hold. And we used to have all the citations in a single footnote, but someone broke them up (but did a poor job of it, because some are still combined in a footnote). Maybe, to make the page read better, we should combine the footnotes again? Or maybe we could discuss a single source which conveys what we are currently conveying. But of course, if we choose a Christian source, we risk getting accused of bias, and if we choose a secular historian source, we risk get accused of bias. :) -Andrew c [talk] 02:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was about to comment on why there are so many references, but it I guess it does make sense. There are a lot of people who would go into this article and post "Jesus did not exist" and other nonsense, just as creationists/ancient alien theorists will go to evolution articles and state "aliens/God/Chuck Norris did it." Though not in those words I guess. So yeah, more references is really a good thing, despite the fact that it looks bulky. But that's really subjective. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If there are two or more citations for one sentence, and all the citations are only being used once for that sentence, then it is perfectly acceptable to combine all the cites together into one footnote. In the case here, cite notes 18 to 29 are all only being used once for one sentence, therefore they should all be combined into one cite. This improves readability in the article. I've seen this requested at Featured article candidates many times and this article should probably adopt that format. The main thing is to make sure not to combine cites that are being used multiple times in different places since this will cause inaccuracies. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone who is not satisfied with what they learn from an encyclopedia article should do further research. Our citations are great ways for letting people know just where to look if they wish to learn more about a specific issue. If we just had the article with a long list of references at the end, people would not know where to start. but if someone sees the same reference cited for all the parts of the article they find most interesting, they can infer that this is a good book or article to read. Multiple citations have no costs and various benefits - how can anyone in good faith argue against them? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- My suggestion was not to remove any citations, just combine them. Footnotes 18-29 can all be combined into one cite of footnote 18, separating the previous different cites with semi-colons or some other method. And for this 18-29 example, most of the cites are to page numbers of authors listed in the references section, so there shouldn't be any confusion on where to look for more information. Also I'm not saying this article has this problem, but sometimes an article can have "too" many references, mostly if they are low quality ones or very repetitive ones. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you - I hope no one took my earlier comment to express disagreement with what you wrote earlier! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- So, Do we have an agreement on the point that some sources need to be grouped in a footnote already? The other point is that from a wikipedia editing point of view, I wouldn't know how to do it; Any example (article) that uses the proposed method (several references on a footnote) ? Also, some 3-4 footnotes should suffice and do the same get-away-spammer-non-scholar editor type of message without using an entire row for just references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.151.116 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Han Dynasty is an example of an article that combines footnotes. It separates the multiple ones with a semi-colon. If you do this yourself though I wouldn't remove any of the cites, just combine them. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
References to other religious views in the lead
Currently, the lead has two references to other religion's views, in the first and last paragraphs, and it is disorganized. Shouldn't it be combined into one lede paragraph? Flash 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
- Right now the first paragraph includes the views of every religion that cares about Jesus. The second paragraph covers how critical scholars view Jesus, because that is a very significant view, and then the third paragraph has more detail on what Christians believe, because that is also a very significant view. This all seems quite reasonable to me. Judaism has no view, so you can't really say that the last paragraph is about Judaism's view of Jesus. But since Jesus was Jewish and preached to Jews (and perhaps also because Christians spent a good deal of the last two thousand years moaning about why Jews don't care about Jesus) it makes sense to cover this in the lead. But of all the things covered in the lead, I'd say it is the least important, and fitting that it goes last. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"one of the most influential persons" sentence
- Regarding the lead, I removed these two sentences from the first paragraph, see my edit summary: "Several other religions revere him in some way. He remains one of the most influential figures in history." Instead of the first sentence, simply mention any important religions, which already have in the lead and body. And as for the second, it's just redundant and not very encyclopedic. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; references can be found all over the article. Furthermore, while they may seem obvious to most people, a lot of people looking up this article wouldn't know of that fact. Flash 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
That Jesus was one of the most influential figure in history. I should have clarified. Flash 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for clarifying, but.... Hey! Hold on a bit there! Let's discuss this without reverting so often. (I will leave it for now, because too many reverts is a bad thing.) Those two sentences, which have just been stuck back in again, again, and again, are very poorly written. Expressions like "in some way" and "one of the most" are not at all encyclopaedic. If there is something useful to say, please find a better and clearer way of doing so. For the first sentence, listing the names of those religions where Jesus is significant, on a large scale, not down to minor sects and denominations, would not be out of place. The second sentence really is just rubbish. It simply sounds like barracking. (For Americans, that's Australian for rooting - a term that means something very different in Australian English.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that "one of the most influential" is POV. It would be POV to say the word "greatest", or to say that the influence is good or bad, but "one of the most influential" is a matter of fact. Flash 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
- I did not use the term POV. "One of the most influential" is clichéd. It is synthesis. Such words are not used anywhere else in the article. There is no source referenced to say that any reputable scholar has said so. It may have occurred. It may be true, but it's not encyclopaedic language. It is journalistic. It is also unnecessary. It adds nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it's unnecessary? Will this not be useful information to someone who knows very little about Jesus? Furthermore, there are numerous sources which can be cited. "one of the most influential" is not cliched; although I can understand why you would view it as such. Influential has a clear, concrete meaning.
Would it be better to say "some consider him the most influential"? sources can be cited Flash 03:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
- It is so subjective it is absurd. Maybe we could put "According to his mother, Jesus was one of the most influential people ever to have lived." But most Jewish mothers think that of their boys. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia, as well as this article, is full of subjective opinions, which is why it has to have a qualifier such as "some consider" or "some scholars consider". And the sentence has many more reliable sources than you seem to be implying.
Or, alternatively, the sentence could stay as it is. I haven't encountered any sources which say that Jesus was not influential. Flash 12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your first point implies WP:Weasel words of "some consider". Your second point implies WP:Synthesis that since no scholars say he wasn't influential then he must be so. Besides throwing around guidelines, the sentence is simply subjective and not encyclopedic. Comparing articles isn't necessarily a good thing, but I don't see this sentence on Abraham, Muhammad, or Gautama Buddha. On Confucius it directly says what cultures he has influenced. This is comparable to saying Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Adding that he is "influential" is vague and redundant. I request at least one or two good sources stating that Jesus is "one of the most influential figures" be added to the lead, but I would much rather just have the sentence taken out. Also the other sentence of "several other religions" is vague and unnecessary as well, but we'll argue one at a time. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't really say a lot, and just seems there for fluff. And to me, it seems a bit amateurish, one step removed from "Jesus is awesome!". I mean, sure he is, but that doesn't mean we need to say it in an encyclopedia article about him. We revert such edits as vandalism. I was looking at the George Washington article, and it suffers a little bit from this as well, but I think the key differences is it is more specific, and sources. Compare Because of his significant role in the revolution and in the formation of the United States, he is often revered by Americans as the "Father of Our Country".[5][6] and Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the greatest United States presidents. to something more like George Washington remains one of the most influential figures in American history. The former, I feel seems more high school level, while the latter is more grade school. Just because you think something is true and self evident doesn't mean it is proper or appropriate for an encyclopedia article! -Andrew c [talk] 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, it is better to be specific with facts or else you are venturing into WP:Peacock puffery. Saying he is the central figure of Christianity, and revered as God incarnate by many, are more specific ways of saying he is influential. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't really say a lot, and just seems there for fluff. And to me, it seems a bit amateurish, one step removed from "Jesus is awesome!". I mean, sure he is, but that doesn't mean we need to say it in an encyclopedia article about him. We revert such edits as vandalism. I was looking at the George Washington article, and it suffers a little bit from this as well, but I think the key differences is it is more specific, and sources. Compare Because of his significant role in the revolution and in the formation of the United States, he is often revered by Americans as the "Father of Our Country".[5][6] and Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the greatest United States presidents. to something more like George Washington remains one of the most influential figures in American history. The former, I feel seems more high school level, while the latter is more grade school. Just because you think something is true and self evident doesn't mean it is proper or appropriate for an encyclopedia article! -Andrew c [talk] 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
His influence goes beyond being the central figure in Christianity, and I can give sources saying so. Omitting such information makes the article incomplete. As some of you said, that Jesus was one of the most influential persons may be seen as self evident, but many people, especially those who would look up this article, would not be aware of that fact. Flash 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Flash - Influential is a sloppy word. Many dictators and military invaders have been influential, but I doubt that is the kind of meaning you intend. Maybe it would help if you told us some of the ways you think Jesus has been influential. Then we could work on forming some words that retained your meaning but fitted better into an encyclopaedic structure. Since most readers here already understand his role as the key figure of Christianity, maybe concentrate on areas beyond that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
How he has been influential has already been covered in the article, in detail. Thee is a whole discussion dedicated to it. So at this point the the discussion is moot. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, How he has been influential has not been covered in the article. The word influential is only used three times, once in the case in question and two other times where it is not describing Jesus. As I just said, it's a sloppy word. It can have very positive overtones (presumably the intention here), or be used to describe some of the most horrible people in history. If such a thought MUST go in the lead, we need another word, in a better sentence. Please help create it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Legacy section is dedicated to explaining the lasting influence of Jesus. If you think it does not adequately describe "how" he has been influential then that information belongs in that section. The lead is already a good summary I think, a vague sentence about being influential is not needed. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
How many crucified Jews from the time of the Roman occupation get their own Wikipedia articles? In fact, Wikipedia has basic notability standards for inclusion as topic of an article. I do not think anyone is challenging whether Jesus is important enough that he meits an encyclopedia article. So we agree we meet the notability requirements. That should be enough. Again I think it is a moot point. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
From http://www.buy.com/prod/jesus-outside-the-new-testament/q/loc/106/30559465.html
Jesus of Nazareth is arguably the most influential person in history.Through the Christian faith, the world's most widespread and numerous religion, Jesus has had a direct impact on Western culture and an indirect impact on many other cultures. Today many followers of other religions also know about Jesus, and his teachings influence them. Jesus' teachings even attract some agnostics and atheists, who profess to live by the Sermon on the Mount or its "Golden Rule." For scholars, Jesus is a leading figure of the past. Far more learned books and articles have been written about Jesus than about any other person,and the "quest for the historical Jesus" is one of the largest enduring enterprises in humanities scholarship. Yet the quantity and intensity of the academic study of Jesus suggest that interest in him is far more than historical and scholarly. Most people's deeper interest in the life and teachings of Jesus springs not from historical study, but from faith in the present Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world. For them,he is not just "the historical Jesus," or much less as a waggish British scholar once dubbed him, "the late J. Christ of Biblical fame," but the living Lord Jesus Christ.
Information such as this could go in the Legacy section. Flash 12:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Gosh, I sense a point of view here. Anyway, I think the point made here - that people who believe Jesus was a god believe Jesus was a god, is already made in the article. And as HiLo48 wrote, correctly, "influential" is a cliche and practically impossible to prove. I have no idea how anyone can demonstrate how many non-Christians were influenced by Jesus. But it comes down to this (1) there are many diferent interpretations of the Gospels and (2) that the Gospels reflect Jesus's teachings rather than views unique to their authors or views circulating more widely at the time is contentious and hence a matter of POV. With these questions out there, it is impractical to measure influence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Influence cannot be measured but is certainly not cliche. As the source, among others show, his influence goes far beyond being the central figure of Christianity. Excluding this information not only makes the article incomplete, it is POV. Flash 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing that excerpt says is that his teachings may or may not influence people outside of Christianity. And like Slrubenstein said, the teachings of Jesus cannot necessarily actually be attributed to the man himself. Other than the vague influence sentence, what part of his legacy is not mentioned that you want included? That source does not even back up your claim that his legacy goes beyond being the central figure of Christianity. It says most people's interest in Jesus is believing he's the "Son of God". LonelyMarble (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The excerpt also mentions articles, literature, and the influence of his teachings.
This excerpt from the book the essential Jesus expands further:
No matter what you think about Jesus, there's no denying he is the most influential person in all of human history. And what's truly amazing is that his path to influence was so unlikely.
Jesus never became a political, military or government leader; he never wanted to. He never owned a multinational corporation or acquired any wealth to speak of; he didn't need it. He never wrote a book, never staged a concert tour, never appeared on television and never had a radio talk show or even his own blog. He was born in a barn, grew up as a laborer, remained single and childless his entire life, and was executed at the age of thirty-three.
Yet somehow Jesus became the reference point for life ever since - we mark our calendars by his death. He has inspired some of the world's greatest art, literature, music and architecture. His ethical teachings have been hailed as the world's greatest - even by those who aren't his followers. He's been the subject of countless books, articles, television programs and movies. ... Not only that, the book that gives us the most information about him - the Bible - has sold more copies than any volume ever printed.
---
simply saying that Jesus' only influence is that Christians see him as the son of God is not only misleading, it is simply wrong. Flash 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Legacy section does discuss the influence of his teachings and his influence in art, literature and other mediums. Perhaps we can add a sentence to the lead that basically summarizes the Legacy section, this would be in line with what leads are supposed to do. This sentence should mention specific products of his legacy though, not just vaguely state he was influential. I'd also like some sources for such a sentence too. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The legacy section does miss some information, such as the influence on culture, literature, etc, and the calendar system.
It will be hard to summarize all this information in one sentence and not have it be a run-on. Which is why I liked the general clause "most influential". Flash 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence as it was didn't convey any real information and was just fluff. A sentence or two summarizing the Legacy section by mentioning specifics would be more encyclopedic. If other users agree on this I'm sure a good sentence or two can be formed. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that Dionysius Exiguus or Charlemagne had a much bigger influence on the calendar than Jesus. I'd say that Doestoyevsky had a much bigger influence on literaqture than Jesus. So, I still do not see the influence you talk of. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across this reading last night, just to annoy everyone. "There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most important historical and religious figures of all time."[1] --Ari (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Flash - Firstly, carpenters are tradesmen, not labourers. My chippy mates wouldn't like being called labourers. Secondly (and I've been resisting using the first name), but Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were influential too. I use those examples to less subtly make the point that influential doesn't necessarily mean good. If you want to make some sort of positive point, you really do need a better word. Even important, as in that last quote, wouldn't quite express the POV you obviously want in there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Some carpenters are actually more craftsmen than tradesmen. In any case although Hitler was influential, his remaining influence is through what he stood for rather than who he was. Jesus's influence is primarily who he is claimed to be. What he stood for is often of lesser importance - hence the almost Hitleresque (Hitlerliche?) propogation and manifestation of Christianity (and interpretations of it) at points throughout its history. Had the influence of Jesus focussed on what he stood for (serving and loving one's neighbour) then the spread of the religions, and their influence may have been somewhat tempered. As it is the autthority of who Jesus is claimed to be (Son of God and master of creation), the churches have adopted a kind of "inherritence of authority" without necessarily the responsibility, discernment and wisdom which must accompany it. And in essence the influence of Jesus on human history does not even require the actual physical existence of the historical Jesus (a point which some would still argue). In contrast to Hitler's specific sphere of influence, Jesus's influence pervades many different spheres: philosophical, ideological, humanitarian, authoritarian - even affecting what some consider to be the truth of science and scientific interpretation . So when all things are considered I personally would say that Jesus (even if his actual existence is untrue) still ranks as not only one of the most influential, but probably the most influential characters in human history. It will be NPOV and left to the reader to decide whether the influence was positive, or negative, or a combination of the two, and to what degree. JohnArmagh (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Being a Christian myself (and I hope that was not reflected in my comments, as I intended them to be neutral) I would like influential to be positive. But one has to look at the facts - and it cannot be denied that some of the influences, when adopted by agenda-driven people, have clearly been negative. So, once the term influential is used, it is best then to present the facts to the reader and let them decide. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, didn't pick your writings as having any particular bias at all. I agree with presenting facts to the reader and letting them decide. That's where the word influential bothers me. It's a conclusion being drawn by an editor, based on a combination of other material. That's WP:SYNTHESIS, and is strongly disapproved of. And it's simply not needed. As for "one of the most", well, that's just WP:WEASEL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm .... If Jesus's influence is tied up with people's believf in his divinity, we might as well just skip this article entirely, go to the God article and say God is one of the most influential characters in history. In any event, @ John Armagh, Jesus' influence is (like anyone's influence) in the eye of the beholder. King David, Cyrus the Great, and Caiaphas were all messiahs, and David was Son of God to boot, so none of these are marks of distinction. But the bottom line is, we really do not know what Jesus claimed to be from any immediate influence, and the Gospels are by no means clear that Jesus was one with God, and this is something Christains themselves debated for some time. This is why it is much better to list some of th enotable legacies of Jesus, rather than comment on whether jesus' legacy is greater than that of Hammurapi or Moses, or the Buddha or Mao, or James Watt, or Henry Ford, or Albet Einstein, or Alan Turing, or Richard Gatling, each of whom I think someone has made a good argument for having changed the world, which makes them pretty influential. Better just to list the forms of the legacy; it is more informative. What I find most remarkable about this proposal is that it seeks to use a cliche instead of providing substantive information. This to me is always the sign of a POV pusher rather than someone who wishes to contribute to an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Right - so you are accusing me of being a "POV pusher" and not interested in contribution to an encyclopaedia? JohnArmagh (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think he was necessarily talking about you. But anyway, I mentioned earlier, the best thing to do would be to summarize the Legacy section so you get a sentence or two mentioning specific things. A vague sentence stating he is influential is unhelpful. Whether his influence is good or bad is not the problem, the problem is stating a vague sentence with no specifics. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The last two sentences are a comment on the proposal, not any individual editor. That said, i did not think that the proposal was made by JohnArmagh. But if he is claiming credit for the proposal, well, okay, but my opinion of the proposal stands. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am not claiming credit for a proposal. My opinions on the use of the term most influential are strictly NPOV, and most certainly not promoting any agenda. That the subject is influential cannot be denied - because influence is demonstrated not by an individual's own actions but rather on the actions of those to whom the individual is known, or known about. I certainly do not advocate any slant to positivity - as it is clear, as I said previously, that the actions of those influenced have often been negative in the extreme - however it is the job of this encyclopaedia to ensure sufficient information is available on the particulars of the influence, with appropriate links to provide the reader with the information in order for them to come to their own conclusion as to the significant influence which the subject undeniably has had over the past 2000 years. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- (responding on this request for opinion) While accepting the idea that the text itself proves "Several other religions revere..." and "He remains one of the most...", and that it doesn't needs references in the intro, I think they signal some peacockyness that is a little unencyclopedic. Removing them is justified, and the current state of the article is better. Apart from style, the contents of the intro is accurate and pretty well balanced. The only addition I propose is the system rejection of Jesus from Judaism, where some council of high rabbis somewhere, claim that any religious system containing Jesus as an important spiritual figure, is non-Judaism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply.
The reason why I want to include the sentence is because it is important information, without which the article is incomplete. It's not about conveying a "positive" message, it's about giving the relevant information.
There are many sources which say Jesus is either one of the most or the most influential person. IMO, "most influential" is general, but it is not vague or cliche. It belongs in the first paragraph because it is very general information; specific information should be in the Legacy section. Censoring such information is POV, although I don't believe any editor is doing this.
The influence of Jesus, as I see it, can be divided into two parts. The influence of his teachings (turn the other cheek, golden rule etc) on philosophy and the influence of Jesus on culture (literature, architecture, Easter, Christmas, Gregorian calendar, etc.). Flash 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Etymology section Issa and Isus? / Also leader, monk, archetypal, christianity based on sermon on the mount speech
Should there be a mention on the etymology section of names Issa or Isa as Arabic names and Isus or Isu as Egyption names? There is no mention at all of Arabic/Islamic/Muslim name of Jesus. The section lacks of this. Also the Egyptian name should be taken into work on progress.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Only because you want to work in references to Isis to fit your pet "Cleopatra and Caesarion" = "Mary and Jesus" theory. If you have reliable sources linking the etymology of "Isa" to Isis or Isu provide them. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- My edits on Cleopatra and Caesarion are completely not related subject to the question im asking here. I would not want in the article stand anything of son of Isis, the gospels do not mention Egyptian Isis, not in bible not in quran.
- Issa/Isa should be mentioned as Arabic name. In the arab world Jesus is widely recognized as prophet, called Issa/Isa, but the article does not mention name Issa in the etymology section, however, latin, greek, english and hebrew translations are covered.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus' native language was most likely Aramaic which is closely related to Hebrew. The lingua franca of Jesus' time was Greek, and all of the Gospels (the primary sources most closely associated with Jesus) are in Greek. Thus, having mention of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek seem very on topic. The English name "Jesus" (note this is the English Wikipedia) came through the Latin, so mentioning Latin as well (in addition to being a large witness to the Gospel manuscript tradition) seems again on topic. We don't go into details of what Jesus' name is in languages like Japanese or Turkish or, say, Arabic. Jesus in Islam, Wiktionary, or ar:يسوع seem like better locations for your proposed information. If we were to add Arabic entymological information, where would it stop? Would we need to discuss Chinese? Hindi?-Andrew c [talk] 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To many, it does not seem off-topic. In addition to the 4 gospels, quran is a notable source of Yeshua's life (as well as Talmuds and the apocrypha), and quran is read by millions of english speaking arabs/muslims, and they don't find mention of their Issa in here.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is the English Wiki. It should reflect that. The primary entymology should be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek since those were the most likely used at the time. As was already mentioned this is not the place to list all the derivations in every language. The place for that would be in their respective wiki pages. Marauder40 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No historian uses the Quran as a source on Jesus' life. Th largest (population) Islamic ountries are Pakistan (national languages: Urdu and English) and Indonesia (national language: Indonesian) ... so should we provide jesus' name in Indonesian and in Urdu? YES!!! in the Indonesian and urdu Wikipedias. 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Issa or Isa are english translations of Arabic name of Jesus. The western world is populated by great percentage of arabs and muslims. These users use english wikipedia.
- There are no coherent opinions to leave etymology Issa out of the article.
- Not to mention that the area of were Jesus did his ministry, was largely populated by arabs at the time, and still are.
- Coherent opposition lacks.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your edits to the lead violate many issues with WP:Lead including the fact they are stated in the lead but not referenced anywhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be an introduction and a teaser for what is found in the article. Also stating things like "Christian belef is largely based on Sermon on the Mount" is POV. Many say Christian belief is based on the entire life and teaching of Christ. Not just the Sermon on the mount. You are adding unreferenced things to the lead that are not backed up either in a reference or in the body of the article. Also by WP:Bold you are supposed to discuss any issues that people are reverting. Marauder40 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No historian uses the Quran as a source on Jesus' life. Th largest (population) Islamic ountries are Pakistan (national languages: Urdu and English) and Indonesia (national language: Indonesian) ... so should we provide jesus' name in Indonesian and in Urdu? YES!!! in the Indonesian and urdu Wikipedias. 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is the English Wiki. It should reflect that. The primary entymology should be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek since those were the most likely used at the time. As was already mentioned this is not the place to list all the derivations in every language. The place for that would be in their respective wiki pages. Marauder40 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To many, it does not seem off-topic. In addition to the 4 gospels, quran is a notable source of Yeshua's life (as well as Talmuds and the apocrypha), and quran is read by millions of english speaking arabs/muslims, and they don't find mention of their Issa in here.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus' native language was most likely Aramaic which is closely related to Hebrew. The lingua franca of Jesus' time was Greek, and all of the Gospels (the primary sources most closely associated with Jesus) are in Greek. Thus, having mention of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek seem very on topic. The English name "Jesus" (note this is the English Wikipedia) came through the Latin, so mentioning Latin as well (in addition to being a large witness to the Gospel manuscript tradition) seems again on topic. We don't go into details of what Jesus' name is in languages like Japanese or Turkish or, say, Arabic. Jesus in Islam, Wiktionary, or ar:يسوع seem like better locations for your proposed information. If we were to add Arabic entymological information, where would it stop? Would we need to discuss Chinese? Hindi?-Andrew c [talk] 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Issa/Isa should be mentioned as Arabic name. In the arab world Jesus is widely recognized as prophet, called Issa/Isa, but the article does not mention name Issa in the etymology section, however, latin, greek, english and hebrew translations are covered.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How much a catholic christian you are not? Sermon on the mount is his main work main speech, this is where christianity is based on. In the article it was written: "Nonetheless, Jesus was and is a leading and archetypal monk of christian faith and all its branches. Christian belief, christian movement, is largely based on Sermon on the Mount speech." You must know what archetypal means? his life and teachings.WillBildUnion (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what type of "Catholic Christian" I am. You are not following the policies of Wikipedia concerning WP:Lead, WP:NPOV and a few others. Why don't you try adding what you are doing to the body of the article instead of the lead? The lead is a summary of things that are discussed in the article. What you are adding isn't currently in the article so it shouldn't appear in the lead. Also you should read about WP:Bold because if someone disagrees with a Bold edit you are supposed to discuss it before reverting it and getting into a edit war. Marauder40 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"Lord" Jesus
Since Jesus was first introduced via Christianity and the Bible, and in that source he is said to be the "Lord", I would like to suggest that somewhere within the first paragraph of the wikipedia article that he be referred to as "Lord Jesus". Currently the word Lord is not found in the Jesus article until about half way down. Christianity's idea of salvation hinges on the idea that "Jesus is Lord" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. There is another good reason to refer to him as "Lord Jesus", seeing as he rose from the dead-- when he comes again, one would want to refer to a person of such great power with the title (Lord) due unto him. When the president comes into town you don't just call him Barack, you say Mr. President or President Obama. Likewise, when you are dealing with the Lord of Lords, it is highly advisable to honor the name of Jesus using the title that God has given his son, "Lord". Thanks for your consideration. I believe it is right to make this edit because without the Bible, there wouldn't even be an idea of who Jesus is, and the Bible is very clear about Jesus being the Lord. Thanks 75.60.228.75 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)discipleofjesus12345
- When the messiah comes, ALL the dead will be resurrected. I don't think we are going to go around calling each other "Lord;" I am just hoping I will remember the names of all the dead people I know! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Baker Academic, 2002) p. 17.