Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:25, 30 October 2016

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

Archives

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

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

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

Islam in first paragraph, again

There was a discussion a a few months ago about whether Islam should be mentioned in the first sentence. There were suggestions made like "who became the central figure of Christianity and an important figure in Islam." There were steps taken to draft an RfC, but then things stalled. Does anyone wish to pick this up again? I ask because User:Lipsquid has been trying to insert his preferred wording. StAnselm (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not insert anything, I questioned your revert especially since it is well sourced. Lipsquid (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is the sourced material, which is very reliable and in the article, for the statement about Messiah in Islam. https://books.google.com/books?id=D7tu12gt4JYC&pg=PA270#v=onepage&q&f=false. Also the Messiah wikilink in the same sentence includes this section Messiah#Islam with the statement "The Quran identifies Jesus as the penultimate Messiah (Masih), referring to him as "Isa"" from an additional source. There is no controversy, you are just pushing a POV and being disruptive. Do any other editors object besides you? Lipsquid (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it is reliably sourced is not in question - the same claim was already made elsewhere in the lead. The question is whether to have it in the lead paragraph - and whether we should conflate the Christian and Muslim beliefs, since they have very different conceptions of the Messiah. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose, Lipsquid. It is quite obvious that Jesus is more important for Christianity than to Islam. The first paragraph of the lead should focus on these most important issues and lesser details should be given later. There is already a paragraph about Jesus in Islam later in the lead which says that Islam considers him the Messiah. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict - note that I had not read StAnselms' or Finnusertop's response when I wrote this) One comment of note: Lipsquid's sources seem to indicate Islam sees Jesus as a Messiah, not the Messiah. That is my general understanding as well. I am not aware of any tenet within Judaism or Christianity that there would be multiple Messiahs; similarly, the now-altered lead, which reads "both Christians and Muslims believe him to be the Messiah", would appear to be incorrect or at least misleading based on Lipsquid's sources. I am not opposed to Islam's inclusion in the Messiah statement in the lead; but as it stands it is not correct. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: a statement like the following. "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and Messiah (Christ, the Anointed One) prophesied in the Old Testament. Muslims, meanwhile, believe him to be the prophesied and penultimate Masih (Islamic definition of Masih here). Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a possibility, but we probably should have an RfC on it - see the previous discussion for other suggested wording. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jews believe in multiple messiahs and the Messiah that would save the Jewish people (the Messiah of Jewish eschtology). Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah of the Jewish eschtology, but I am not sure if Christians believe in muiltple messiahs like the Jewish people do. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I have two Jewish friends (nationality and religion) and one Messianic Jewish friend who disagree with you regarding multiple Messiahs in the Jewish faith. They differentiate between "saviors", "judges", "leaders", etc. and an ultimate "Messiah", which only belongs to one individual. I am not trying to state you are wrong, but I would like to see some sources that back up your statement so I can learn more about this. Do you have any? Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing sourced content I think is wrong. It should be there but worded differently, something along the lines of what Jtrevor99 proposed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Lipsquid's addition was mostly fine. It is sourced and summarizes content in the body of the article. Note that previous discussion, referenced by StAnselm, was mostly about the first paragraph. This latest suggestion is for the end of the lead. So, I say add it back, and move on. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Any proposal that inadequately distinguishes between the Judaeo-Christian Messiah and the Islamic title emptied of its royal Jewish content is unacceptable. StAnselm seems to be most observant regarding this of all the commenters so far. One cannot conflate two so opposing views simply by calling them both "THE" Messiah. They are two extremely different views of both the person and office of Jesus. The Islamic use of the term is essentially a tactic to self-legitimate by ignoring basic meaning defining that which the term signifies; and simply because there is some historically practiced failure to discriminate does not mean that critical scholars today need perpetuate the abuse of the rich Judaeo-Christian "Messiah" concepts by the empty Islamic name, "Masih." Olorin3k (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then does the Islamic section of the article need to be fixed? If so, can you please fix it? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom ([[User talk:Isambard

Kingdom|talk]]) 17:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Olorin3k The Messiah article compares and discusses the two terms in one article, so we can certainly do so here. Additionally, much of your commentary has a very negative POV towards Islam so it would probably be best to try to remain neutral and not use terms like rich versus empty or "tactics to self-legitimate". It is well sourced and undisputed by Islamic scholars that Jesus is the one and only Muslim Messiah. Quran 3:45 " when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near ." Lipsquid (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: you're mistaken - the edit in question was on the last sentence of the lead: exactly the same sentence as the proposed RfC. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Olorin3k removed a strikeout that I had put in place. I don't know why. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Isambard, please check better before accusing me. I didn't do anything earlier except add the paragraph that I typed in at the bottom. Sorry, but I don't know how you erased your line.

As far as the "Messiah" term goes, we can't operate in effective communication unless we reject the assumption that words are meaningless. Therefore we have an obligation to judge whether it is worth confusing issues simply to allow an illogical claim to be made because one wants to--without making some sort of clarification. I.e., unless we add a rigorous explanation of the issue, of how "al-Masih" is devoid of content required to legitimately be equated with the Judaeo-Christian "Messiah," then the assertion that the Islamic texts refer to any recognizable Messiah should simply be avoided.Olorin3k (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Olorin3k, maybe it was an accident? . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it except what you're saying. At any rate, I'm glad you've got things worked out with your line now.

Olorin3k That is not what sources say and we have other articles with the same commentary like Messiah and Jesus in Islam. I doubt you can overcome the numerous and scholarly sources that says Jesus is the Islamic Messiah. The first sentence of the lead needs to be fixed to be inclusive of Islam. I am happy with the compromise edit of Jtrevor99. Lipsquid (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, this should be the subject of an RfC. Why does it need to be fixed "to be inclusive of Islam"? And even if we have sources saying that Jesus is the "Christian Messiah" and Jesus is the "Islamic Messiah", it doesn't follow we can say "Jesus is the Messiah in Christianity and Islam", if the word "Messiah" is not being used in the same way (which apparently it isn't). That would be an example of WP:SYNTH. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, St, we have to agree on some minimal content to justify use of a term. For example, on the page for "Napoleon" we don't have to put in the first line the opinion of some lunatic who thinks he is the person without checking to see if it is justified. Likewise, any religion like Islam that refuses the most basic content of the Judaeo-Christian Messiah as prophesied in the Scriptures to be the King of Israel and rule accordingly should not be allowed to muddy the water without making clarifying descriptions. The Islamic term "Masih" has no such royal content and is not the Messiah; avoidance of considering semantic content and equating similarly formed terms is committing some illogic like root fallacy, etc. Down in the section on Islamic views can be defined their acceptance that he was a prophet, teacher, giver of miraculous signs, etc. But it takes more than that to be the Judaeo-Christian "Messiah"--"King" (whether of Jews, of all Israel, and/or of all humanity) is the most essential meaning, denied by Islam. Sovereignty is inextricably tied up with the messianic office, and Islam's denial of that sovereignty to Jesus disqualifies any unqualified claim to accept Jesus as Messiah. (I apparently know more than many of the scholars in which some put their hope either can or are willing to admit in the face of PC bullying--LOL :-) Olorin3k (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand why this discussion is still continuing. The compromise edit I proposed above allows for clear delineation between the Judeochristian concept of "Messiah" and the Islamic "Masih". I was very deliberate in proposing two different sentences to handle the significantly different meanings those terms have. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Augmenting your proposal with perhaps the main difference might suffice: sovereignty. Christians believe Jesus to be the prophesied King of Israel who ascended Ascension of Jesus to the divine throne and currently reigns in the heavenly Session of Christ, as the royal Davidic Psalm 110:1 (cf. Heb 10:12f), Daniel 7:14, etc., prophesied for the Jewish Messiah. Conversely, over 600 years later the Qur'an denies Jesus is the King of the Jews and all the rest of that, co-opts Jesus as another in a long line of prophets (even though they do not accept what he taught/prophesied), and gives him the title "al-Masih," even though the function is very unlike the Messiah. Promoting Islam into the first paragraph to confuse readers, who would think "Messiah" and "Masih" are even close, without a more rigorous explanation would obscure meaning. But perhaps a more lengthy explanation as this would clutter up needlessly. So I suggest just keeping Islam at the late point where it comes historically and in the article, not in the intro where it functions to equate Christianity and Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorin3k (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://quran.com/3/45

"sects"

Why is this word POV for Christians but is used in a number of our articles on Islzm? It's not as though there are no Muslims editing their articles. I hack to assume it doesn't bother them. And was it removed anyway? I see several uses of it. Doug Weller talk 05:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(a) I imagine the words mean different things in the two religions - in Christianity the normal word is "denominations", but that isn't used in Islam AFAIK; (b) Jesus is the "central figure" in the whole of Christianity, not just certain sects. StAnselm (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I could see using either, but I suppose what we should go with is whichever term the academic literature uses more. 'Denominations' sounds more theologically or ecumenically accurate, but 'sects' more anthropologically neutral (though future anthropologists might look on that the same way we'd look at phrases like "the Sunni Church" or "a Buddhist pope"). For those reasons, WP:COMMONNAME seems appropriate (even if this isn't about article titles). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Sects" may be more anthropologically neutral, but it also carries the connotation of delegitimization. The term "sect" often is used both by other Christians, and by public media/sources, to imply that that group is apostate or otherwise does not adhere to all fundamental tenets of Christianity. (See, for example, articles published on Branch Davidians versus, for example, Seventh Day Adventists.) It also connotes discrimination, per the meaning of sectarianism. It thus is seen as denigrating, at least within Christianity. So far as I am aware, there is no similar connotation in Islam. It is for this reason "denominations" is preferred. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Amount of descriptions

Why limit the descriptions to only two? Jesus wasn't just a preacher or leader, he was also a teacher and had a reputation of being able to perform miracles. Since these, especially his being a reputed performer of miracles, also are what made Jesus known today (even more so than being a preacher), they should be included in the lead. The limit only hinders this article's ability to inform.ChaosDestroyer (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

First let's distinguish between the lead of the article and the remainder of the article. The lead and the infobox are not supposed to include every possible descriptor. There are hundreds if not thousands on nouns and adjectives that have been used to describe Jesus. The article is not weaker because one person cannot add a few more of his/her favorite terms to the lead; they are fully discussed in the remainder of the article and in companion articles that are linked in Jesus. Was Jesus a teacher? Of course, but it's a matter of opinion whether that term takes precedence over others. You personally may consider "teacher" to be most important, but that doesn't mean it should be included in the lead unless you have enough support here to make the change to the lead or infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course not every possible descriptor, but using only "preacher" causes the lead to poorly define Jesus' character, and all the descriptions I added were the necessary and very basic of Jesus' roles. And no one really had any problem with "teacher" or any of the ones I put in, only with the limits imposed by a possibly long-dead discussion.ChaosDestroyer (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, it is your opinion that descriptors beyond "preacher" should be used in the lead, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally think "preacher" is the single best term because it encompasses the religious as well as teaching aspects of his life. You did the right thing to bring this issue to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war, but now we are in the discussion phase of the consensus process; see WP:CON for details about how consensus works on Misplaced Pages. As for your comment "no one really had any problem with 'teacher'", it is far to early in this discussion to jump to that conclusion. Look at the edit history; three editors reverted you. So at this point it is quite inaccurate to say that "no one really had any problems". You and I have expressed differing opinions. Let's see what others have to say here. Sundayclose (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but one reverted in response to my question as opposed to having any actual problems, one (StAnselm) specified that his problem was with the transgression of the limits imposed by a possibly long-dead discussion, and you, the third reverter, have not yet specified your problems with the other descriptions. While you said that you find "preacher" best, you still did not elaborate on what you think is wrong with the other descriptions. So what is your problem? ChaosDestroyer (talk)

02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, just "preacher" ignores Jesus' ratherr egular attempts to perform miracles.ChaosDestroyer (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "long dead" - it was only three months ago. The consensus at Talk:Jesus/Archive 128#“A Jewish preacher" seemed to be to include only "preacher" and "religious leader". StAnselm (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, StAnselm, the consensus of the discussion you reference, it seems, was that "preacher" should be included, and no limits were imposed.ChaosDestroyer (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus: the NT gospels do have errors

This is Bible scholarship 101: for virtually anyone teaching Bible scholarship at a major university, the NT gospels do have errors. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree, but they are a minority among those scholars. I offered a WP:RS/AC quote in a footnote. I also offer one here:

"Lecture Four. IV. C. Let me be clear, though, that I’m not saying that every story in the Gospels is completely inaccurate. 1. The Gospels no doubt do contain historically reliable material that will be of considerable use to us as we try to establish what Jesus really said and did. 2. They also contain historically inaccurate material; part of our task will be deciding which is which. 3. Before pursuing that task, though, we must learn more about these books, for instance, who their authors were and where they got their stories." p. 14 of the same source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Only a few secular scholars claim errors. If there are errors, then they are all invalid, so no actual Christians say such a thing. No single error has ever been identified in scripture. Eodcarl (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if you can certify any error (not just misunderstanding of scripture) then you can keep the language. If not, I revert. Eodcarl (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your definition of an actual Christian is no true Scotsman.

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As for certifying errors in the Bible, Misplaced Pages editors are not allowed to perform original research, instead we trust scholars to do the homework for us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, Tgeorgescu, your quotes you offer are not a WP:RS/AC quotes at all - they makes no claim about what is the academic consensus. The one in the article talks about a "widely shared" position, but that's not the same thing. The one here doesn't have anything along those lines at all. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree: widely shared means widely shared, it does not mean that a consensus has been reached. So I do not have a problem with using a source stating widely shared for verifying widely shared. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Ngo, Robin (19 December 2013). "Bible Secrets Revealed". Biblical Archaeology Society. Retrieved 13 March 2016.

Removal of statement that the gospels are not considered completely reliable

@Eodcarl: has boldly removed the a sentence stating "although not everything in the New Testament gospels is considered to be historically reliable." despite the request at the beginning of the paragraph stating that any changes should be discussed in the Talk page. I've reverted twice and am now taking to the talk page. My view is that the statement accurately reflects the strong consensus of academic historians. --Erp (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about those requests. Secular revisionists with no basis in fact do not impress me. Eodcarl (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the statement raises the obvious question: considered... by whom? On a related point, I think we might as well remove the imbedded comment - its is so often ignored as to be useless. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Erp, see the topic above this one. If Eodcarl needs a source, he could get a rapid insight from . See also what I wrote at WP:ABIAS, it applies to everything we do inside Misplaced Pages: who does Misplaced Pages trust? Does it trust the Pope? No, the Pope is notable, but his views should be attributed. Does it trusts biblical literalism? No, although literalism is notable, it should be attributed to the religious groups who actually hold such views. So who does Misplaced Pages trust? It trusts scholars who have paid teaching positions at major universities. This is not really a new insight for those who know how Misplaced Pages works, but it has to be restated for newbies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You trust fringe lunatics as long as you can cite them. Not one scriptural error has ever been verified. Not one. You cite some academic who vaguely states inaccuracies, yet you can't note a single one. Misplaced Pages is a farce. Why are you even on a page about Jesus? Eodcarl (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read , , and . Basically, your view of the academia is distorted: Ehrman is not a radical, but a quite mainstream scholar (conservative mainstream, one might say). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is he a Christian? If not, he doesn't matter on this subject. Clearly, you are not a Christian, so why are you camping on this page? Eodcarl (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer. She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important. There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists. Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists. Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis. Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers. ... And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.

— ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Some people maintain that it is impossible to study Jesus without believing in him. Do you think this is true? Is it true for other areas of academic study? Is it possible, for example, to study Buddhism without being a Buddhist? Or the Dialogues of Socrates without being a Platonist? Or communism without being a Marxist?

Quoted from the same course handbook. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.

— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That is all nonsense. It is OK to have an article that says "Christians believe" but it is not OK to claim the Bible has errors, since there are none. Eodcarl (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me stress – I can’t stress this enough, although roughly 36% of my readers won’t believe me or possibly hear me – I am NOT saying there cannot be evangelical scholars of the New Testament. That is absolutely not the case, in the least. There are lots of evangelical scholars of the New Testament. Some of them superb scholars. BUT, if they approach the New Testament from the point of view that there can be no mistakes of any kind in the New Testament (that would be a very hard-core evangelical, and certainly a fundamentalist, position) then they have to restrict their scholarly conversation partners to one another, publishing in journals and with presses that support their theological views, not in the standard critical journals and presses.

— ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That guy must be a moron. If there are errors that means there is no God. Only non-Christians claim errors, and they have yet to find one. You have no met my challenge to point one out. Eodcarl (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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