Talk:Jesus/Archive 90

Archive 85

←

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Archive 95

Request for edit

This paragraph under genealogy and family needs to be removed:

"Jesus seems however to have promoted his followers to break with their families. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but ..."

Many religious scholars believe this verse is not a literal message about family, but a metaphor. But that's off point anyway, because it is not Wikipedia's place to make any kind of judgment about what this scripture means. Scripture in this article should be focused on Jesus' life, not spiritual meaning unless the most accepted, prevailing views on a certain scripture are outlined (which would be ridiculous and long in most cases). Long story short, remove this paragraph please, it's not appropriate to speculate on what Jesus meant, that's for religious scholars to debate, not us. Plus, it's really irrelevant to the subject of the section. Thanks! Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have requested unprotection. Vassyana (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Sophia 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua is His name

The name Jesus is not his real name Yeshua is. So we should change the article name to Yeshua. And before anybody says anything this is the english form of his real name because there is NO J in the Hebrew alphabet... only yod (letter in the Hebrew alphabet) which makes a Y sound. I know that Christ wants to be called by his real name not some name a guy misinterperated.The K.O. King (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See naming conventions. The name should be what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. bibliomaniac15 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear documentary evidence that Yeshua was his real name. It may well be a plausible reconstruction that this was his name, but we would need a verifiable, reliable secondary source to peg this view to. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been played many times in past; however, you are the first to have portrayed your first hand knowledge about Jesus desire to be known by a single name. Is the pope aware of the unique relationship you have? I jest of course, but levity makes these tedious comments more enjoyable. Language is the medium with which we communicate. Do you really think there is any confusion about the exact entity we are discussion when the name Jesus is used. Given that Jesus is the Son of God, do you really think that he does not realize when people are talking about him?

Personally I view these types of comments as personal issue; i.e. you are personally committed to a single form of name when speaking of Jesus the Christ. If it makes you happy, please continue; however, there is no rock solid evidence that what you say is true. It is your belief that it is true, but it is not something that Wikipedia can begin forcing all humanity to believe is true. Given the diverse number of languages in the world, we just have to accept that there will be different forms of the same name. Let's just assume that God will always know when he is being addressed. I would hate to think he did not! Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do I have to say to prove my point THERE IS NO J IN THE JEWISH ALPHABET!!!!! If there is no J in the JEWISH alphabet, and Jesus (whose real name IS Yeshua) is a JEW the how can he be called Jesus if ther IS NO J in the alphabet of his country.The K.O. King (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no Julius Caesar either, nor planet Jupiter because there was no J in the Latin alphabet either......... I guess also there's no such thing as a Jew.

There's no Y in the Hebrew alphabet either --JimWae (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is a pretty weak argument... many words (including names) have completely different spellings in their foreign counterparts. If you ever take a foreign language, the teacher rarely calls you by your given name, but rather the counterpart in that language. EG Mark may become Marcus. The fact that there is no J in Jewish language doesn't prove that the appropriate English counterpart isn't Jesus. Heck, when you start looking at Chinese language it becomes very convoluted---Kung Fu Tzu or Confucius? They are the same person, it just depends on if you are talking about Wade Giles or Pinyin spelling... Balloonman (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that there's no J in Hebrew (or no Y either) is irrelevant. This is a pointless argument. Wikipedia has naming conventions, and this article follows them. =Axlq (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to appoint myself moderator during this argument because I am arrogant and I think I am the best. As moderator, I hereby and henceforth decree that this is to remain titled "Jesus," after the English spelling. Ok, seriously, this article adequately informs readers of the "Yeshua" pronunciation in Hebrew, which is right on. In naming articles, however, Wikipedia English uses the most common English form of names, and that is "Jesus". Remember that Wikipedia adopts society’s norms and rules (English-speaking society in this case) and doesn’t seek to change or debate the value of those norms. :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who say there is no Y in te Hebrew alphabet...you are right but there is a Yod which stands for Y. You want to know why Yeshua is called Jesus? It was too Jewish!!! Just like the sabbath which is on Saturday it was too Jewish so people switched it to Sunday for the Christians. Did know that the Apostle Saul's name never changed to Paul? It was made Paul by those who thought the name Saul was too Jewish (and Jews arn't called Jews, they are called Yews). It you need more refrences look in the Bible the word candlestick really means Monorah but Monorah was too Jewish. Another point for those of you who say we need to use the English name Yeshua is English because your name no matter what country you go too your name DOESN'T CHANGE! So if you think Jesus is his real name it's not it's just that Yeshua was TOO JEWISH so Christians called him Jesus for the Christians. And that's why I think the article name should be changed to Yeshua. You can put Jesus in parenthesis if you want.The K.O. King (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is such a pointless discussion. Everyone has a name that will vary from one language to another. Jesus is the most common name heard in the English language, therefore used in Wikipedia as the title. Oh wait I see tht Okiefromokla has made that point. Tourskin (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)\

That's why I said to rename the page Yeshua (Jesus). And the whole, "Vary from one language to another", thing Yeshua is his name NO MATTER what language you speak or where you come from. When I went to Israel my name DIDN'T repeat DIDN'T change. Your name stays the same no matter where you go or what language you speak, so since there is no J in the Hebrew alphabet and Christ was born in Bethleham a Yewish (Jewish)state and names don't change his name is and always will be Yeshua. Even in the ENGLISH language.The K.O. King (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful bit of logic except thta the entire world, even those who do not speak English, know the name Jesus and know specifically who is being discussed. Very few in relative terms are going to know the name Yeshua or any other name Jesus was supposedly "really" called. Wikipedia policy directs us to use the title most recognized by the English speaking world. Move on; this has grown tiresome and fruitless. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that every language has a different variant of His name used most commonly in that culture, though even in Spanish, for example, it's spelled in the English spelling but pronounced with spanish rules, not english or jewish pronunciation rules. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to change the page's title at least put that Yeshua was and still is His real name. Look up the origins of His name you will find out His real name is Yeshua. http://lojministries.org Nuff' said. And please, listen to at least one of the messages.--The K.O. King (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not asking any of you to call him Yeshua and I'm no longer asking you to change the title of this page, but if the purpose of Wikipedia is to tell truthful facts at least put that His real name is Yeshua.The K.O. King (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It already does. 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiefromokla (talk • contribs)

According to what source was his name Yeshua? I know of no primary source that provides him with this name. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead: "The name "Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH rescues"." Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein is trying to prove a point to King; I'm fairly certain that he knows what the article says.--C.Logan (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you C. Logan, of course i know what the article says. Perhaps Okiefromokla needs to reread what I wrote: according to what source is the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous) a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua)? I suspect this violates WP:NOR. We need either a primary source that identifies the protagonist of the Gospels as יהושע or ישוע , or we need a secondary source that argues that the Greek Iēsous is a Hellenization of either of these names. Either source must be verifiable and we should provide a citation. If we have no source whatsoever, this is clearly original research and must be deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've read the article but it doesn't specifically say His REAL NAME is Yeshua!!The K.O. King (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Raelian view of Jesus

Could someone add this to the article?

"According to the Raelian Movement, Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, although through in-vitro fertilization, made possible by the advanced technologies available to 'Elohim'(those who came from the sky), an extra-terrestrial race of 'Creators'. He was their 'messenger' of that time, much like Rael in this time. In keeping with Raelian belief, Jesus is alive on a distant planet, as well as all 'prophets', such as Moses, Mohammed and others. "

It probably needs more, but s'all I'm writing for now... Thanks! MarioT (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) MGMario, Jan 03/08

I'm afraid that this is such a minority view that to include it in this top level article about Jesus would give it undue weight. Sophia 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sophia; this view is just so narrowly held that it would be best to be mentioned in the Raelian Movement's own article. There are over 32,000 different Christian denominations in the world today; it is only possible to cover the more significant beliefs in this article. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh... Ok, then. Thanks anyways! =) MarioT (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Feature?

Has there been any thought recently trying to get this article featured... again? I realize it has been tried over and over but I think it is closer now than it has been. We should set a goal here and compile a specific list of what is needed based on the comments of reviewers in the last FAC (more specific than the one in To-do). I think the editors most familiar with this article can probably contribute to such a list... Sophia, maybe? If there is interest, I may be able to put in some extra hours here. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Well if I get time I'll put some hours into it anyway :P Lack of sources appears to be the main issue. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1st paragraph of article

I take issue with the first sentence of this article:

"Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."

I take issue with the word 'was' in this sentence (Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader...).

The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth.

This article is deemed a Wikipedia "good article." The second stated attribute for a Wikipedia good article is factual accuracy. Since it is an actual fact that virgin birth is not physically possible, the use of the word 'was' in this sentence violates the standards for a Wikipedia good article.

Therefore, I would like to suggest the rewording of the first sentence to be:

Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is told to be a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions.

The edit suggested is to replace the word 'was' with "is told to be" in the fist sentence of this article.

Bubbabobb (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Tim 1/6/2008

The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth." This is a non-sequitor. The first sentence does not say that Jesus was born of a virgin. Perhaps you believe he was, but the sentence makes no such claim and you cannot infer from the first sentence that your belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is true. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence states that Jesus actually existed. Later in the article it states that he was born of a virgin. You can't have both in the same article, as it makes no sense. You can't say in the same article that Jesus was born of a virgin and even suggest that he ever actually existed, therefore, my original agument remains valid. 76.240.78.71 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Bubbabobb 1/6/2008

I'm sorry, but you make no sense. The article does not state virgin birth as a fact, but rather as a belief. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephan is right. Nowhere does the article state that Jesus was born of a virgin, I defy you to show us the sentence. The article only says that according to some, he was born of a virgin. The article identifies a point of view, not a fact Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The only instances are "Other Christian beliefs include Jesus' Virgin Birth..." and "According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea to Mary, a virgin..." and some further reaction of others to this claim. Bubbabbobb: it's part of having a NPOV in this sensitive article that we don't directly endorse as fact either the virgin birth or regular birth claims, we just report of them. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Official religion of Roman Empire

Christianity was not the official religion of the Empire under Constantine I. A large number of amatuerish articles and sources, including some video documentaries are stating this hilarious, incorrect suggestion. It was Theodosius I who made it the official religion. I changed this in the article. Tourskin (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought it to be Constantine that made Christianity Rome's official religion, and college text books that I have come across say this, at least for general courses over Western history (at least, as I recall). I did a little looking just now and found that Theodosius did accept christianity as his personal religion but did not find anything stating that he made it the official religion of the roman empire, though some sources I have looked at say he convined some meetings with christian leaders. There are, however, sources that say Constantine actually made christianity rome's official religion. Do you have any reliable sources that say otherwise? Does anybody? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Any decent textbook claims otherwise. I think you misremember. Constantine was the first emperor who personally was a Christian (or at least was claimed to be one ;-), he ended the persecution initiated by Diocletian, and he returned much confiscated properties to the churches and families. But he did not make Christianity the official state religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably do misremember :P Can we get a source for this nonetheless? I did some looking myself and didn't find a good one. But many people do believe it to be constantine who made it the official religion, so a source would be useful to set them right ;) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source I currently have available is Georg Ostrogorsky: Byzantinische Geschichte (324-1453), page 28 of the 1996 reprint. This is certainly a reliable source, but not very accessible to most users of the English Wikipedia. John Julius Norwich describes Constantine's baptism only on his deathbed in The Middle Sea (2006), and Theodosius submitting himself to the judgement of the church in A Short History of Byzantium (1997), but does not make an explicit statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At that time it was common for Christians to wait to be baptized, for some it was because they were not willing or able to completely follow the teachings of the churches and/or they did not want to sin after baptism. By this time in church history the right of baptism had become very formalized and required a renounation of all sin and many put off baptism until later. Hardyplants (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe apropos: Gibbon writes inDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Book 2) about the Edict of Milan: The two emperors (Constantine and Licinius) proclaim to the world, that they have granted a free and absolute power to the Christians, and to all others, of following the religion which each individual thinks proper to prefer, to which he has addicted his mind, and which he may deem the best adapted to his own use. In other words, it's the opposite of establishing a state religion.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, paganism was still the "state" religion, But its a remarkable turn around, in a very short time Christianity went from a prohibited religion, to one especially favored by the government. The populations of the empire were still overwhelmingly pagan and many regional governments were still getting request to persecute Christians right up to Constantine's official proclamations showing favor on Christians. Hardyplants (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well any source is better than none, even a book that isn't very accessable. There are books cited at Theodosius I too. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)