Talk:Jesus

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's 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 Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

• Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
• 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 Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 once used the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's, as decided in this discussion in 2014. Following changes to the MoS, it was decided in 2025 to fully move to Jesus's. The article had already been changed most of the way. This was discussed here. Do not change usage within quotes or the titles of works.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia 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

Word choice

Jesus often debated with his fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables, and gathered followers, among whom twelve were appointed as his chosen apostles. (my emphasis)

Chintu89, tell me why we need "chosen" as well as "appointed". See, to me, the two words mean pretty much the same thing, so why would we say it twice? It gives our time-poor reader more work to do for the same information. It looks clunky. More than that, it lends a sort of dreary churchy tone to the article. Articles like this always need to be very careful not to be too "in-universe"; we are not writing (exclusively) for Christians here, but for readers of all religions and none. I'm actually rather impressed at how good a job it does of that (though less so about how spelling and linking have been used but that's relatively easy to fix, and I have been doing). Word choice is important, and this is not a church newsletter but a general encyclopedia. What do you think? John (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and since there was no explanation given for the edit, which was also mistakenly marked as minor as it affects meaning, I've reverted it for now.

I would also consider changing the remaining appointed to merely chosen. Remsense ‥ 论 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I think appointed works since membership in the twelve apostles is generally considered to have been an official position or status. -- LWG ^talk 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. Remsense ‥ 论 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for raising an important point about word choice and the tone of the article. I understand the concern about avoiding overly "churchy" language in a general encyclopedia, but I’d like to offer some context on why terms like “chosen” might still be appropriate, even necessary, in this case. Jesus is, by nature, a religious figure. The Gospels are not neutral biographies in the modern sense; they are theological texts, preserved and transmitted by the early Church. They represent the only substantive sources we have about Jesus’ life, teachings, and actions. As such, any reference to events like the appointment of the twelve apostles carries inherently theological language, because that’s the language of the source material itself. To suggest we "neutralise" expressions like chosen may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative. Terms like appointed and chosen may seem redundant at a glance, but within the Gospel context, chosen conveys a spiritual selection or divine calling, not just an administrative appointment. This nuance matters to accurately reflect the original texts. Of course, I agree that this isn’t a church newsletter, and editorial neutrality is important. But in the case of religious figures, neutrality shouldn’t mean stripping away the essential nature of their religious identity. It should mean presenting what the source material says, faithfully and clearly, while making it accessible to all readers. While I understand the article isn’t written for Christians, we also can’t overlook the fact that Jesus is a religious figure known through Christian sources. The Gospels — the primary accounts of his life — are not secular or neutral texts. They were written, preserved, and interpreted within a religious framework. So terms like chosen aren’t just poetic or redundant — they carry theological weight. They reflect that these twelve were not just selected for a role, but were of deep personal and spiritual importance to Jesus. Appointed might cover the functional aspect, but chosen conveys intentionality and significance. Even for non-Christian readers, understanding Jesus accurately means acknowledging his identity as a religious figure. Appreciate the work you're doing on readability and clarity – just thought it was worth highlighting how, in this case, the "churchy" tone might actually be part of preserving historical and theological accuracy. Happy to hear your thoughts further. Chintu89 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC) may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative I appreciate the general concerns raised here, but it's worth explicating that the bulk of our reliable sources are secular in nature, and almost all of them are not only modern, but from the last fifty years of scholarship. Remsense ‥ 论 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC) However, I believe we need to distinguish between secondary modern scholarship and primary source material, especially in the case of religious figures like Jesus. While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature. They are explicitly religious texts, composed and preserved by the early Christian community. Nearly everything we know about Jesus, whether scholars interpret it as history, theology, or myth, ultimately traces back to Christian tradition. Here it is the context to explain the readers the summary of gospel. If you go with a scholarly framing we're left with nothing that wouldn't save anything for the article of Jesus. That means an encyclopedia entry about Jesus must take this into account: the language and terminology (such as “chosen”) reflect how the source texts present him, not how modern editors might reframe that narrative in secular terms. Even secular scholars cite the Gospels as their primary textual basis. To edit out or reword theological language simply because it sounds “churchy” runs the risk of imposing a modern secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative, and that may in fact obscure the historical and cultural reality of how Jesus was understood. Chintu89 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC) While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature. We are not citing the Gospels directly. We are a tertiary source that mainly synthesizes secondary sources—here, the aforementioned modern, critical, largely secular scholarship.Remsense ‥ 论 23:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Saying we shouldn't write "exclusively for Christians" misses the point: the article isn't for Christians — but it is about a person whose story is inherently and unavoidably Christian in origin. Presenting that honestly doesn't make the article biased; it preserves theological and historical accuracy. Recasting the narrative to suit readers of “all religions and none” risks distorting the very sources that make the subject notable in the first place. Chintu89 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Thank you Chintu89 for explaining the background to your views. I'm still not quite seeing just why we need to use both these near-synonyms or why omitting one threatens to "[recast] the narrative" or makes it somehow less "honest". To me it's a choice of language, and it seems very simple that as a secular encyclopedia we use the simplest, shortest form of words that adequately sums up the sources. I think you may be confusing the "narrative" (the story) with the "register" (the exact words chosen to tell the story). We don't need to adopt a churchy register to tell the story of Jesus honestly, sensitively, and in a way that will be appealing both to believers and non-believers, in my opinion. John (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC) I see chosen and appointed as closely related terms, both reflecting how Jesus selected individuals based on certain attributes or purposes. So I find the original wording appropriate, as it best conveys the nature of his relationship with the disciples—whether understood in a theological or secular context. Chintu89 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC) This is detailed in the Gospels, notably Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, and Matthew 10:1-4.Selection of Disciples: Jesus chooses a group of followers to be His disciples. For instance, in Mark 3:13-14, it is written that Jesus ascended a mountainside and summoned those He wished, and they came to Him. This group, including the Twelve, was chosen to accompany Him and learn His teachings.Appointment as Apostles: Following a period of instruction, Jesus designates these disciples as apostles, granting them specific authority and a mission. In Mark 3:14-15, it is noted that He appointed twelve to be with Him and to be sent out to preach, with authority to expel demons. The previous wording was correct and appropriate, without understanding you just went by your personal revision of secularism and churchy language interrogation instead of being faithful to gospel narratives. Please do not change the summary as it is correct and has been consistently verified by several authors. Chintu89 (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Whatever you do, you need to be aware that re-adding changes you know to be against editor consensus is unacceptable. You were told no, you were given concrete reasons why, and your counter-arguments weren't considered convincing. Deciding you're entitled to have things your way regardless is completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates, and becomes disruptive very quickly, and you need to stop acting that way immediately. Frankly, we're not going to be interested in going through many more posts that are way longer than they need to be because you generated them with an LLM. It shows additional lack of consideration for our time. Please write out your arguments yourself, or refrain from editing the English Wikipedia if you can't comfortably communicate in English. It's not fair to others to have to act as if they are replying to you directly, when they're not. Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I must clarify that the term "chosen" is not an overly “churchy” or biased word—it is a direct reflection of the language used in the biblical sources themselves. For example, John 15:16 explicitly states: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you…” Similarly, Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14 speak of Jesus calling and appointing the twelve. So, far from being a churchy euphemism, chosen and appointed both are accepted as secular, historically and theologically rooted terms. In fact, appointed might sound even more formal or institutional, yet no one claims that is biased or churchy language as it is also used by the church to preach the inclusion of disciples to aid in his ministry. Here are verses from the Bible where Jesus is described as appointing his disciples: 1. Mark 3:14 – "He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach." 2. Luke 6:13 – "When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles." 3. John 15:16 – "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last..." Secondly, the article subject is someone whose historical notability is preserved almost entirely through gospel tradition. Applying modern secular standards to retell that story in a way that intentionally downplays the narrative of the very texts that define the subject risks distorting the figure himself. This isn’t “writing in-universe”—it’s being faithful to primary source characterisation, especially when no contemporary secular records exist outside of Christian tradition. Rephrasing Jesus' actions to make them more digestible to "readers of all religions and none" seems to cross from neutrality into revisionism. We're not dealing with a public figure like a politician where neutrality means balancing conflicting press accounts; we're discussing a theological figure whose core identity is shaped by gospel claims. Neutrality should mean fairly representing how those sources depict him, not translating them into modern secular terms that end up muting or reshaping their intent. In summary, if the concern is language being too "churchy," then we should note that terms like chosen and appointed are scriptural—not ecclesiastical embellishments. Attempting to filter them out for neutrality misunderstands Wikipedia’s goal, which is verifiability, not reinterpretation. Thank you again for the exchange. Chintu89 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Verifiability does not mean echoing the language of a (translated) primary source, nor does it require imitating the primary source's register. If it did, our article on Beavis and Butt-Head would be written in 1990s teen argot, and our article on Kurt Vonnegut would end with "So it goes". We do have WP:ENGVAR, but this only applies to national dialects of English. It does not extend to making our article on Jesus sound like it was a sermon. Also, could you please not edit-war against consensus? John (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Too many references?

Reference 451 might be superfluous. The Michael Grant one. There's already so many references so doesn't feel like it adds much. It would benefit from having one less, I think. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If no one object, I take it as that it can be removed. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It's fine as is. You seem to have trouble articulating substantive reasons to change things. Remsense 🌈 论 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It is already established in many sources, so it is just repetition. There's no good reason to have so many either. It is nothing controversial. The majority of historians don't dispute Jesus existence, so there's no reason to have so many references. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not really about assuaging historians, it's about best serving our readership. This is one instance where it really does not hurt to fluff the pillow some. Remsense 🌈 论 17:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

But our mission is not to fluff the pillow. We should be straightforward. Simplicity and clearness is preferred. It is not contested, and I don't see how it serves the readership. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Because it's likely a key point of particular importance for many of our readers. Citations are ultimately about verifiability, and in cases like these there's a case to be made that a higher-than-average number of references provided for key points means readers are more likely to have access to at least one reference they can verify claims with. Failing that, there's no negative case I can see beyond the usual incremental increase in visual clutter or difficulty to maintain. I find it insubstantial here. Remsense 🌈 论 17:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I can understand your way of thinking. Let's keep it. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"Virtually all scholars"

I saw in the FAQ that it says it's frequently used, but when I search for it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22virtually+all+scholars%22

I can only find 22 instances, and most are on religious themes articles. So is it commonly used or not? Because I couldn't find it. Would be great if someone cleared it up. Maybe it would be better to write something like scholars, or historians etc? 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

What are you asking here? There's nothing confusing about the statement. In fact, you seem to be tripped up by scholars, while it's clear to me the FAQ is there to address questions readers may have about virtually all. Remsense 🌈 论 17:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Assertion

Jesus was reserecteded from the dead and still lives and the text shouldn't say died but assertion 2600:1004:B344:EEF2:50AA:E47B:6D4F:1C8B (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

That he was resurrected is a subjective belief (faith), not an objective historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

but it is fact 170.103.70.195 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

In the reality-based community it is not a fact at all. It is only a fact for fanatics. For usual Christians, it is a subjective religious belief.

It is utterly unknowable if Jesus was resurrected. That's why it is called faith, and not science. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

If he didn't die he couldn't be resurrected. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Jesus' sayings" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jesus' sayings has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17 § Sayings of Jesus until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 06:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christ Agony" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Christ Agony has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17 § Christ Agony until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"Savior (Christianity)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Savior (Christianity) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17 § Savior (Christianity) until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 08:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Add

Add Hebrew name Yehoshua which was original name Jacksonthe (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It already has this under the section Name. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

third sentence wording

currently, it states he is considered 'to be the incarnation of god the son and awaited messiah'; this previously read 'the messiah', which seems better to me, but was recently changed by a now-banned account. is the current form grammatically correct, and is there a reason for the lack of a 'the'? if not, i think it should be reinstated Adamd9NEW (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should restore the wording "to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah". The present wording is awkward and structurally ambiguous and grammatically awkward, almost inclining towards reading "Son and awaited Messiah" as being a single grammatical unit modifying "God" rather than the correct reading of "the incarnation of God the Son" and "the awaited Messiah" as being the two things Jesus is considered to be. -- LWG ^talk 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I edited the change in since it seems to be a fairly minor issue, if there is a problem with it I suppose it can be discussed here Adamd9NEW (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, can you explain why you disagree with this change? The wording using 'the messiah' is seen, for example, in faq #10, and appears to have been in the article for some years, looking at recent edits; though, I acknowledge that pointing to it being changed by a sockpuppet is mostly ad hominem. I believe that the sentence illustrates two qualities of Jesus: firstly, that he is the incarnation of God the Son, and secondly, that he is the awaited messiah, or Christ, which does not seem to be clearly communicated in the current form. Adamd9NEW (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

One problem with "the" messiah is that in Jewish tradition there may have been a concept of more than one messiahs Vegan416 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The sentence in question is describing the beliefs of "most Christians", though, and in that context there is only one Messiah in Christianity. -- LWG ^talk 20:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)