Talk:Religious perspectives on Jesus

Untitled

Notice: This is a daughter article of Jesus Christ - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:19, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Title of the article: whether it is POV

As discussed on the RFD page, there is some reason to believe that the title of this article is POV. The problem is that some religions discusssed in the article are not "non-Christian" as a matter of fact. Rather, their "non-Christianity" is a POV. Examples include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Gnosticism, and Arianism. Thus, we either need a new title, or we need to move these perspectives to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. My suggestion: Lets move them there. COGDEN 06:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This article is very bad. It isn't long enough to have been split out of Jesus. And it is, in my opinion, poor NPOV practice to sequester POVs you don't like in obscure articles like this. This stuff needs to be put back into a major article. Tom - Talk 16:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking this material could all be moved to the Jesus as Christ and Messiah article. COGDEN 17:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Should we start a Votes for deletion? Tom - Talk 18:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably. But I think the whole Jesus series needs to be revamped. There's too much overlapping material between the articles, and people keep putting the wrong material in the wrong article. I think the material in this article is most at home in Jesus as Christ and Messiah, because it's about religious beliefs in Jesus that dispute his status as a Christ or a messiah. But instead of Jesus as Christ and Messiah, what we really need is a more inclusive, NPOV article that discusses all the different theological interpretations of Jesus, including Jesus as Christ, Jesus as prophet, Jesus as avatar, Jesus as yogi, etc, and treats them all on the same footing. Maybe the name of that article could be something like Jesus in theology.

COGDEN 21:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I like that idea. I had thought "Non-messianic perspectives on Jesus." But your idea is better. Unfortunately this is not my forte. I should stop watching this page, I guess; you think? And moving what I said from below, if this article deserves to exist, it needs a vision and purpose (both of which escape me). It is titled Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus. But are all gnostics non-Christian? No. Are all New Agers non-Christian? No. This is problematic, as far as I am concerned. The issue and intent are muddled. Tom - Talk 20:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus as Christ and Messiah is probably too long to put everything into one article. However, Jewish view of Jesus and Isa are both reasonably brief. Since some of the views of Jesus are much more philosophical (atheist views), what about moving this to Perspectives on Jesus (as suggested below)? It would start with a summary section pointing off to Jesus as Christ and Messiah, followed by sections on non-mainline Christian beliefs (anything that considers itself Christian, but diverges too far from JaCaM) -- better term would be needed than "non-mainline". This would be followed by sections on the other views. We could leave Jewish view and Isa as separate articles with summary sections, or incorporate them into the main text... Mpolo 20:03, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Feb 20 to Feb 26 2004. Discussion:

• Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus -- this article is redundant of and identical with Other perspectives on Jesus, a more NPOV title. The article was apparently copied but not moved. COGDEN 07:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete Other perspectives on Jesus rather than Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus. The "Other" in the title is silly. Other than what? Non-Christian actually explains what the page is about much better. ShaneKing 07:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I merged Other Perspectives into it and redirected. Can be de-listed now. Tannin 07:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Non-Christian not so good, as it isn't just in contrast to the article on Christian views, but also the articles on Jewish and Islamic views. Morwen 07:54, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Other" is meaningless, and I agree that "Non-Christian" is far from ideal, as we also have articles on Islamic and Jewish views (and these are surely non-Christian faiths). But ... (the $64 question) ... can you propose a better title? I have eliminated the redundancy, but the poor title problem remains. The place to discuss this, however, is on the entry's talk page. I propose moving this discussion there. Tannin 07:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep merged article. As for renaming... I hate to poop on this party -- but, unless I am mistaken, Mormons (who are included in this article) consider themselves to be Christian. Maybe, Extra-Biblical perspectives on Jesus, or something like that. Davodd 09:17, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The merging is good, but the article should be renamed to make it NPOV. But the discussion should probably be moved to the talk page. COGDEN 03:01, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest moving it to Perspectives on Jesus, and adding links to articles covering the mainstream Christian, Jewish and Muslim perspectives. The only term I can think of that means "anything other than the 'gang of three' monotheisms" is "pagan", which isn't exactly acceptable either. Onebyone 11:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Second Perspectives on Jesus move - Texture 14:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support this as long as links in the series stay as "Other..." Still not a perfect solution, though. Anthony DiPierro 15:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Discuss the naming issue on the talk page. "Non-Christian" is problematic if it doesn't discuss jewish or islamic views, but "Other" is even worse. Keep other as a redirect. Anthony DiPierro 15:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great article, remarkably NPOV at present. Great series in fact. Title is IMO an accurate and inoffensive description of the topic. If particular views are under-represented, then add them. That's no reason for deletion. Similarly, if redundant then remove redundant material. Make a redirect if there's nothing left. No deletion notice at present, just BTW. Andrewa 16:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete the inappropriately named Other perspectives on Jesus and to keep Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus - irismeister 19:22, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • The trouble with Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus is that we already have Islamic view of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus. But this is better than 'Other...'. Keep. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Title Non-Christian perspectives on Jesus is fine, no need to change it. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep article -- Graham :) 18:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • How about Heathen perspectives on Jesus? Kpalion 20:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is covered in Jesus. Tom - Talk 15:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest Perspectives on Jesus by Non-Abrahamic religions? CheeseDreams 20:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV Dispute

This title is POV, because Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think themselves Christians, but this article insists that they are non-christians. I think this article is based on Catholics and Protestants views. Rantaro 13:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And Arianism was a major faction of 4th century Christianity. As for the question of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene , is it NPOV to state that this is strictly a non-Christian belief? User: Dimadick

In which case, merge the Arianism and JW etc. views into Christian views of JesusCheeseDreams 20:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now that the title of the article has been changed, can the 'NPOV dispute' tag be removed? If not, what issues still need to be resolved? Wesley 03:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Something about this article split and naming still doesn't seem quite right. Better ask COgden. Is it that tough to have a single umbrella article on Jesus in Religion or Religious Views on Jesus? Is this article the umbrella, or the child of the Jesus as Messiah (Christian perspectives) article? I guess NPOV would suggest the first case. Should we clarify the categories and projects and series to reflect that? Other ideas? Tom - Talk 07:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

What is a Christian ?

1. The word Christ means savior

Not so. It means "anointed"; it is a translation of "Messiah" Tom - Talk 15:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Christians accept that there is a Savior
2. Jesus has been identified as the Christ

Christians generally identify Jesus as .... Tom - Talk 15:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes onto the Father except by means of me"
2. The Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
3. Jesus says: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

If your faith honestly comports to this and does not add in things which contradict it, then "Christian" is a fair word.

This is a reasonable POV, but unfortunately we can't issue it as "fact" at Wikipedia since there are strong objecting POVs. You might want to take some time to read all the way through the NPOV doc and tutorial. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable at Wikipedia. Tom - Talk 15:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However, the issue of being "Born Again" is entirely another thing. Each person must make their own personal apprehension of faith. Those that make one in Jesus's name and by His blood are born again.

Therefore, persons attending or particpating in a Christian religion/denomination who have not made a personal apprehension of faith, are not Born Again Christians

Hopefully this clears things up.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I commented in Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#What is a Christian ? about this. Please read this. Rantaro

This is way too controversial a discussion for me to comment heavily on at this time and place. The Christianity article has addressed this topic abundantly. There are some factual problems with the statement above, which I point out, but I don't know that it matters much. This article belongs as a POV section (and already exists as such) of the Jesus article. Delete this article and move any good material to a real article. Tom - Talk 15:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just removed all the groups that I know to be Christian. I apologize for leaving Urantia if that is also Christian. I belive Bahai is a separate world religion and not Christian. If I have been wrong, some Bahai adherent please correct us and remove Bahai from this article. Please do not add Christian groups to this list. Tom - Talk 16:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I always thought the Bahai were a sect of Islam (though other Islamic sects sometimes disagree) CheeseDreams 20:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Arius thought that Jesus was a creation of God, i.e., he was not on the same level as the Father. His doctrine was condemned by the First Ecumenical Council in 325, but was very widespread during the 4th century until it was condemned again at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381.
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) believe that Jesus is the literal son of God and not a manifestation; this view of the trinity has led some critics to label the LDS faith as non-Christian (see Mormonism and Christianity). Mormons also believe Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. Church members believe that Jesus taught the ancestors of modern Native Americans, supposedly descended from the lost tribes of Israel.
• Some Gnostic sects believed that Jesus was an Aeon, an emanation of the One, original, unknowable God, who came to Earth to provide the gnosis (knowledge) necessary for humans to divest themselves of the physical world and return to the spiritual world. The Nag Hammadi Library of Gnostic texts discovered in 1945 is a deeply fascinating find for anyone interested in early Christianity and the spiritual teachings of Jesus.
• Jehovah's Witnesses and some other nontrinitarian churches affirm that Jesus is the first spiritual being created by Jehovah, and as such, are significantly Arian in their understanding of Christology. Jehovah's Witnesses also claim that he is the archangel Michael mentioned in the Bible.
• The Urantia Book describes Jesus, his life and teachings as constituting the 7th Bestowal Mission of Michael of Nebadon (Nebadon being the name of the sub-universe in which Earth subsists). Michael is in turn described as a Paradise Creator Son of God, an order of being which brings order and life to sub-universes, who, after seven bestowals as various orders of beings, becomes his universe's acknowledged chief executive. According to the Urantia Book, Jesus began life on earth through birth as any other human, but attained to mortal spiritual perfection by way of balanced growth and dedication to doing God's will. The book describes him teaching and living a religion of personal religious experience that includes for its followers salvation into an afterlife, followed by an ages-long growth-adventure culminating in Paradise attainment. The Urantia Book characterizes Jesus' gospel as the Parenthood ("Fatherhood") of God coupled with the siblinghood ("sonship") of all mankind.

Was Jesus married?

There has been controversial speculation over the years concerning whether Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Some Gnostic traditions hold that this was so, though the Biblical Gospels make no mention of such a marriage. Some have countered that the Gospels also make no direct reference to Jesus remaining single, which, it can be argued, would have been noteworthy in a society in which marriage would have been expected. Several epistles of the New Testament describe Jesus as a bridegroom whose bride is the Church. The Urantia Book holds that Jesus was not married.

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nontheism is a religious perspective?

"Religious perspective" can have two meanings. It can either mean "a perspective on religion", which it does not mean in the context of this article, though if it did you'd be OK with leaving "irreligious" people in the article, just not atheists or agnostics. The second meaning, the one used in this article, is "a perspective that is religious". Using that definition, we should remove the atheist, agnostic, and irreligious perspectives from this article:

Many atheists, agnostics, and deists believe that Jesus was an ordinary human, a traveling Jewish teacher who performed no miracles and made no claims of being God or of having supernatural abilities — and that such ideas about Jesus were invented and spread by others well after Jesus' death.

A small number of non-religious people and others of non-Christian faiths, on studying the origins of Christianity, conclude there is not enough evidence to clearly support that Jesus Christ was a real person.

The deist one can stay if there's something especially noteworthy about how deists feel about Jesus; it sounds more to me like someone just felt like mentioning deism for no reason because of their general lack of beliefs regarding what Jesus is or isn't. Why not just say "Everyone not mentioned above probably doesn't really have a strong opinion one way or another on Jesus, and likely just thinks he was a nice guy." It says about as much. There are numerous articles for secular and nonreligious views on jesus, such as historical Jesus and historicity of Jesus. There's no reason to have it in the article specifically focused on religious perspectives too, blurring the article's focus and casting a POV judgment on the nature of lack of belief in theism. So let's not. -Silence 04:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Scientology

Why has all Scientology material been removed? LamontCranston 10:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the Scientological understanding of Jesus - i'm sick of people treating scientology like a cult, it is the fastest growing religion in the United States *Faster than Islam AND Christianity* and should be treated like any of the other major religions.

• I agree with you 100%. Cults are religions too. -Silence 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your statement that Scientology is the fastest growing religion in the United States is highly debateable. Please provide credible statistical evidence that was not made by your church or a church funded research group.Johnor 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that its probably the fastest growing percentage-wise, but I would doubt that its the fastest growing in numbers with the fees involved in being a Scientologist. But perhaps that might shine some light, which can be built upon by the original poster.

I would be very surprised if there are more than 50,000 active members in the US and 100,000 in the world. Scientology has traditionally counted people as members who have read Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health or who have taken an introductory course. They have relatively few main locations and relatively few people at those locations. There is nothing like the attendance at Sunday service for thousands of Catholic and/or Protestant churches. In fact look at the U.S. Census data comparing 1990 with 2000 and you will see that people defining themselves as Scientologists is about what I've said and it is NOT growing faster than several other Christian groups. The data is at page 55 in the document at

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf
Johnor 08:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, cult is a rather relative term. Though one of the definitions is: "Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing." Definition 5A This would apply to many religions. For example, many Christians in general practice a cult under this definition for obsessive devotion and veneration of Jesus of Nazereth or the Bible, or as many Jewish people do with Israel, or Muslims do with the Koran. Cult doesn't mean crazy, per se.

KV 06:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wiktionary: "A group that exploits members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders." I'd say it applies magnificently to Scientology. LamontCranston 17:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How can Scientology be considered a religion when they have no God(s)? Anker99 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion. Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. Hence, Scientology. Chopper Dave 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because they made the claim so as not to pay taxes and protect themselves after the Feds starting getting wise about Dianetics [psychoanalysis with the all sorts of half-baked 'science-y' words thrown in plus past life regression and conducted with the aid of a galvanometer and 2 soup cans] and the many bogus claims made about what it could do for you, not to mention their unsavory practices. LamontCranston 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

I was asked to comment here about the inclusion of the above. I'd be inclined to leave it out myself, because it's not clear that their beliefs about Jesus differ from a mainstream Christian perspective, so they wouldn't represent anything new or interesting, and it's also a very small group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is at least more notable than "Urantia". Is that even a religion? Having briefly read the linked article it just seems to be a book, and in fact the article seems rather dodgy, to put it mildly. I think this issue may need attention. In the meantime, I would strongly recommend deleting it from this article. Palmiro | Talk 17:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Urantia is a small movement as well, see here: [1]. Personally I would say they are not worth mentioning here either, their addition to this page is more self-promotion than anything else. On the other hand, the Urantia book has a great deal about Jesus in it, and their view of Jesus is at least "unique", to say the least. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

On a side-issue, this is the first WP page I have seen formatted into two columns. Consistency would seem to suggest not doing so, would it not? Palmiro | Talk 18:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but it's kind of cool looking. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Three column layout

Is there a reason why there are three columns in part of this page? It's not normal Wikipedia style, and it's much harder to read, and doesn't scale well for smaller window sizes. If noone minds, I'll remove the columns. -- Jeff3000 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Merge

I think it would be well-placed in this article. The Jade Knight 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LDS saints identify as Christians. The discussion belongs under Christian views of Jesus, regardless of religious perspective (ie, the Nicene Creed or any POV doctrinal dispute). Arch O. La 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On the grounds that the LDS view needs treatment, but would be disproportionately large in the context of this article, I have recast the other article, which is linked from here. I propose removing the Merge banner in a day or so if there's no objection. Myopic Bookworm 15:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, but I think a brief summary of LDS and nontrinitatian perspectives would also be approproate here. Brief enough that it wouldn't be "disproportionately large." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The section is far too long for this extreme minority view. KittyHawker 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be SOME mention of the Church of Latter Day Saints. It is absurd that the section on Judaism's perspectives on Jesus is so lengthy without any mention of LDS and non-trinitarian Christians.--FeralOink (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Other perspectives?

I have a problem with the recent addition of "and other" to the title of this article. It's too broad— how is "Religious and other perspectives on Jesus" different from just "perspectives on Jesus?"? How does it differ from the Jesus article? "Other" prespectives also includes secular historical views re:Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. That said, I also think that Philosophical perspectives on Jesus deserves an article. Arch O. La 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Isnt Jesus considered a prophet(but not a messiah) by some iranian sexts of Zoroastrianism? See this:

http://www.avesta.org/dhalla/history2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.228.44 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a table?

To make the data easier to read, it could be a good idea to have a table, with beliefs across the tops, and different religions down the side. Eg "Believe Jesus Existed", "Believe Jesus is God", "Believe Jesus is the son of God", "Believe Jesus went to India". I'd do it myself but I don't have so much time (though I may try) Chopper Dave 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious perspectives on Jesus

	Believe Jesus Existed	Believe Jesus is God	Believe Jesus is the son of God	Believe Jesus went to India
Christianity	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Hinduism	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

etc? Chopper Dave 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Mercury543210 14:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but will it ever come to fruition?--C.Logan 11:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

dispassionate description or passionate persuasion?

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

One of the delights in surveying much of the rhetoric of apparent reason is finding that beneath the glib surface of cool confidence lurks so many unruly passions that remain unexamined in that state of mind oriented toward acquisition and material control over one at home in a state of progressive intellectual inquiry. Few things seem to elicit turbulence in this arena of mind more than the study of Jesus that becomes manifest in the comparative survey of the range of sustained observation, experience, and study of his life. Indeed, it would appear that anxiety operates proportionate to one's investment in 'authorized' i.e. existing cultural 'forms' defined by dogmatic defenses against what are seen as unruly intrusions of the dynamic of human experience. It is hoped that the editorial character of this online reference would value the investigation and accurate representation of textual sources commented upon more than unstudied opinions reacting to perceptions of sources, and especially those lacking approval in or from prevailing patterns of the culture at large.

Gratefully,

Daynal 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob Davis

Rob, it's worth noting that several recent studies have shown that individuals who use overly elaborate language to convey simple ideas are often viewed as more unintelligent than their peers who utilize a less "dynamic" vocabulary.

Basically, I'm telling you that there's no need to present your idea on the talk page as if you're addressing a philosopher-king. You'll get much less accomplished by forcing such complicated language into a comment that can be summed up into two or three sentences.

Assuming that this is all in reference to the removal of the Urantia business, I should notify you of the concept of undue weight. I think that a quick read-over will make the reasoning for the removal of text quite clear. The Urantia concept, as intriguing as it may be, has no discernible body of followers (I did see a source some time ago which claimed that it only had 7 or so adherents- from a "Urantian" source, interestingly enough), and is in every way an extreme "minority" viewpoint. To sum up what WP:UNDUE says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.". Therefore, I see no justification for the inclusion of this information at all.--C.Logan 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Thank you for clarifying the importance of unnamed sources to rationalize deletion without dialogue contributions giving priority to original sources in a written article. Appeals to popularity of unnamed references underscore the value of peer review as a viable means of maintaining trust required for expanded sharing. Alas, 'minority view' is but a frame of mind that in terminology of local acronyms translates to POV. Nevertheless, should an article on what 'a' religion is and how it comes to frame ensuing "religious perspectives" be undertaken, I will gladly contribute to the labor of any at home with a taste for philosophy more than the manufacture of mythology feigning as 'fact'.

Gratefully,

Daynal 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

In terms of religious groups and denominations, the direct number of adherents is used as a general guideline for coverage. It's not strictly proportional, but you should have a good idea that in an article such as this, where the beliefs of millions (and billions) of individuals are summarized in a mere three or five paragraphs, a tiny sect which contains an indeterminately small number of individuals should not have "equal representation". Doing so would be akin to providing a separate section for small organizations, or even for the individual opinions of scholars. The view presented in the Urantian belief system is simply far too insignificant (as it is) to warrant coverage, as the group is both historically disconnected and numerically disadvantaged. I'm not entirely opposed to inclusion, however, and it would seem that if any real body of followers can be shone, it would be a step in the right direction for assessing Urantia's standing.--C.Logan 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Certainly your rationale is understood even if it does represent a reductionist model for assessing relative strengths of various social 'groups', religious or otherwise. Religious groupings as defined by ecclesiastical hierarchies is inflated for political and enonomic reasons, and even then, only 'count' persons on the 'rolls' rather than actually supportive which is a bit like the US Government boasting wealth while ignoring the vacuous base of its currency.

Such a methodology is useful for 'groups' sponsored and or sanctioned by governments whose own census methodologies are but a means to maintain oversight and control. 'Groups' with little or 'no' infrastructure are 'invisible' only because their objectives are intangible, focused as they should be, upon the value of spiritual reality more than visible and material interests.

The citizens of this world have discarded these traditional methods for controlling their thought used throughout history to define what is authentic and/or acceptable spiritual experience. Anyone attuned to cultural trends, and if not, 'official' demographic patterns, recognize the true state of 'mainline' status in the most prominent organizations whose institutional decline make hollow any claims of majority status and pose interesting questions as to what it is that is represented by the term 'religion', that notwithstanding demise of traditional models, is alive, well, and growing throughout the world, albeit, in vastly more fluid 'forms'.

Gratefully,

Daynal 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

While you may be correct in general concerning the issue, it doesn't make much of a difference in the face of Wikipedia policy. As you're aware, this discussion concerns what goes into Wikipedia, and given the current information available, Urantia does not satisfy the framework of WP:UNDUE, which states:

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority."

[...]

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

As things stand, it would seem that Urantia has no verifiable body of followers, and no real significance beyond its own existence (and uniqueness of presentation). As is pointed out above, there appears to be no need to give article space to this extreme minority view, where religions like Buddhism receive only a paragraph's worth of material on the subject.--C.Logan 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Thank you for your willingness to engage in dialogue on this matter! This in itself reinforces the legitimacy of Wikipedia content.

However, the WP policy regarding a minority 'view' cannot be applied as it is not a quantitative measure, but one that must forever presume upon a quantitative methodology while relying upon purely qualitative considerations. The methodology you represent could be very well applied to an article on Jesus as represented in the major world 'religions', but is misleading when governing religious 'perspectives' on Jesus or anything else. The former can easily comply with WP criteria on this point, but the latter will never as it is entirely subjective.

Regardless of the ambiguity of WP terminology, the verifiable 'fact' towering above this subjective fog is that of all the 'religious perspectives' found in 'religious' literature throughout the world, including the New Testament, none feature a more prominent focus upon the life of Jesus, and none provide such extensive details which are being quietly examined by as many theologians, philosophers, scientists, and as well, the most influential performing artists that have ever have lived on this planet.

Gratefully,

Daynal 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

The policy is quite clear on the matter, as the judgment of a "minority view" can only be considered in the neutral sense; that is, quantitatively. We are extremely limited in making qualitative decisions in matters like these.

The case with this article is no different then it is in the Jesus article; it would just appear to be different as it is presented as a cafeteria of perspectives on the subject, with no apparent limitation on representation. However, WP:UNDUE still applies.

Without a sold quantitative basis upon which to base the general acceptance of views, there is very little separating the views of true world religions and a religion dreamt up by some old man out in the Ozarks which has received minimal media coverage. WP:UNDUE is a quantitative judgment.

We must adhere to the rules of WP:NPOV, and by that measure, WP:UNDUE, when assessing any text for incorporation. Per this policy, we cannot present minorities (especially those in the extreme minority) with as much (or even more) coverage as views which are held by the majority groups.--C.Logan 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

I respect the requirement of a 'solid' quantitative criteria to ascertain the general acceptance of views, but in the absence of any reference to 'solid' data from sources authenticated by an inclusive 'group' of editors, the appeal to mere perceptions of popularity only underscores the vacuity of these 'mainline' claims. Nevertheless, it may prove helpful to recall that almost without exception, the religions you recognize as 'major' were all "dreamed up" by persons living on the margins of their respective 'civilizations'.

Gratefully,

Daynal 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

Claims of divinity

"There needs to be some clarification as to what is meant by "did not claim to be God incarnate". As one might expect, there are a great number of Christians who would also argue that Jesus never claimed that "I am God" or something along those lines of clarity. Throughout the whole of the New Testament, only hints are given concerning the nature of Christ. Therefore, the phraseology of these passage may be misleading. It polarizes the issue by placing "Christians" on one end of the spectrum and "Scholars" on the other end. As I've pointed out, the problem here lies in the fact that in the current ambiguity of the statement, many Christians would affirm the view held by scholars (which is given here as an apparently opposing opinion), and therefore the perceived discrepancy between religious scholars and "Christians" would appear to be somewhat of a misleading picture."

I've moved the foregoing comment by User:C.Logan originally included in the main text, to this page in order to discuss it. I am going to have to come back to it though ...Rbreen (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for consideration of my concern. I'm not familiar with Hick's book, so therefore I'd just wanted some clarity on what was actually being said. The statement by Hick seems distressingly vague, but that's just my personal opinion, and I suppose it is all better for clarity. For example, this strikes my curiosity: do they outright deny the presentation given in the Gospels, or do they simply deny the interpretation given to Jesus' words? This may be an important distinction to note.--C.Logan (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you find Hick's statement vague; it seems completely unambiguous to me. He argues that modern scholars do not believe that Jesus claimed in any way to be God. He gives examples, including C. F. D. Moule, J. D. G. Dunn, Michael Ramsay and Wolfhart Pannenberg, all fairly traditional Christian theologians. All of them argue that Jesus did not in any way claim to be God (ie neither implicitly nor explicitly).

That is not the same as saying they do not believe in Jesus as God, just that modern theology tends to see Jesus as being unaware (or incompletely aware) of his divinity. Many of them do in fact believe in the incarnation; they just see it as an idea only gradually revealed or understood by Christians, not something taught by Jesus. Others of course, like Hick himself, see it only as a metaphor.

This is a view that has changed dramatically over the past century, and the main reason is probably an acceptance that the Christological claims in the Gospel of John reflects the high Christology of the time it was written, rather than an authentic reflection of the teachings of Jesus.

This does not seem to have filtered through to the majority of ordinary Christians, so the polarisation of views between scholars and the rest is probably accurate. On the other hand, I am not entirely comfortable with the suggestion that 'most Christians believe that Jesus claimed to be God", either. That Jesus was God is a central element of Christian faith, and therefore it's fair to state that Christians believe it (although there are many people who consider themselves Christians but do not consider Jesus as God, and are therefore excluded by this); but the idea that Jesus actually made this claim is something Christians would probably assume rather than having been explicitly taught, or explicitly believe. Rbreen (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints

Why is there a separate section on Latter Day Saint perspectives on Jesus when their views are already discussed under the Christianity section? It unbalences the article. Can't we refer to a more detailed article on LDS beliefs? Many of these 'views' are not about Jesus at all. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection I'm going to remove from that section anything that is not different from Christianity. Sometime after that I will merge the two sections - possibly to a subsection. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that. I also removed references to LDS in the "Christianity" section; you can't have a mention in the Christianity section and your own section - that's double dipping. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rouault head of christ.jpg

The image Image:Rouault head of christ.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Baha'i view of Jesus

The Baha'i view of Jesus has been edited with the aim of making it more concise and readable. Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is more readable. Instead it is written in note form, and many of the references have been removed. I'm going to revert the edit. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Worst article contest

I keep wondering what the worst article in WikiProject Christianity is. I think after the Salvation and Second Coming of Christ article group, the Christianity section here is in the running. For Heaven's sake, the same, the very same (and not exactly correct) Christological diagram appears within this page twice! And that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems. I tagged the Christian section for a rewrite, and I think 80% of that section should just be deleted for that material is "correctly" covered elsewhere and does not need to be here as part of this rummage sale. The only consolation here is that the page gets less than 2,000 views a month... sigh... History2007 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I cleaned it up now. But I did not modify the Bahai or Jewish sections since I do not know them that well - you guys should look into those anyway. History2007 (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits History2007. The Jewish section is far too long and far too prominent with a huge, 15 line blockquote. I will trim. Current religious perspectives on Jesus by Jews is very brief. He is the Messiah of Christianity, and part of the Trinity of Christianity (the Triune God, I think is the term). The lead is wrong about what it says, vis a vis Jewish belief.--FeralOink (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Atheist views

Considering that modern atheism is now by at least some governments recognized as a religion, it makes sense to me that maybe we have some material included regarding views of Jesus specifically relevant to the atheist community. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what views of Jesus would be more relevant to the Atheist community than to, say, the Shinto community, the Wiccan community, or any other community that does not think Jesus divine or divinely inspired nor has tried to co-opt him into their own religion. Can you provide an example? Huon (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember, for instance, Richard Dawkins and some others whose qualifications are apparently primarily their being leaders of the atheist/agnostic community expressing views on Jesus. Having said that, I would have to check about the other groups as well. I seem to remember at least one branch of Hinduism, maybe the Hare Krishnas or at least some of its members?, thinking that they were willing to consider Jesus an avatar of some incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna. And, although I don't know this for clear fact, there would be every possibility for at least some Buddhists to perhaps think that Jesus was some form of bodhisattva. Admittedly, all three of these groups, Hinduism, Buddhism, and atheism, have a lack of any sort of central authority, which would make it impossible for anyone to say they speak for the broader group as a whole. But I don't think the lack of central authority need necessarily be an inhibition to some substantive content of some kind, if the material is verifiable. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if I were to restructure this article, I might break it up into three major sections:

• 1) one for the Abrahamic faiths, which, more or less by historical tradition, are obliged to observe him as a historical figure and as some sort of positive figure
• 2) a second for the non-Abrahamic major historical world religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, and others. They would be included maybe as a separate group because they tend to predate Jesus and Christianity in some way and as a result cannot address his existence in their preexisting texts or traditions. This section would hopefully include either comments of practitioners of the religions in question speaking of him in general or in particular regarding the possible worship or veneration of him. It might be somewhat hard to source for what might be called "official positions" on the subject, but I do know that at least the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion includes two quotes from significant Hindu religious figures, and at least comments of that type would presumably be relevant.
• 3) for the broad area of new religious movements. Many of these will incorporate to some degree some form of Christianity or possibly anti-Christianity, and in some cases will specifically mention him in either a good or bad way. I know he is generally considered one of the incarnations of the Ascended Masters in those traditions, for instance. It might well be easier to find some sort of official or semi-official text or writing of a founder for many of these, given their antedating Jesus.

Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So, we often talk about Abrahamic vs. and non-Abrahamic religions, but in this case the split is a bit more complicated, specifically because Judaism does not need to recognize Jesus at all. All the other Abrahamic religions require that Jesus existed at least as a man, or else it fundamentally reshapes the religion. I would say the categories would be "belief systems that count Jesus among their significant religious figures" and "belief systems that do not count Jesus as a significant religious figure," where Judaism, non-Abrahamic religions, and nonbelievers all fall into the second category, not simply atheists. Mwenechanga (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The distinction you make is a reasonable one, that Judaism predates Jesus, but he is apparently quoted in the Talmud, which makes belief in him more or less implicitly supported within Judaism. And, so far as I know, there are few if any Jewish religious leaders or religiously Jewish academics who say much of an unusual nature about him in any event, other than more or less repeating the academic consensus and maybe adding a few speculative details. Also, as I said, at least some of the groups in the NRMs seem to actively disbelieve in his existence or religious significance of any real sort, while many others, possibly influenced to some degree by Christianity, possibly not (that gets hard to tell, particularly with those claiming direct inspiration of some sort), do say he existed as a religious figure, although not necessarily in a form recognizable by most Christians. But maybe a break up along the lines of "Religions which (effectively) pre-date Jesus" and "Antecedent faiths" might work better. Even there, there might be some problems with some religions which might be more recent than Christianity, but in areas where Christianity didn't necessarily arrive until later. One example here is the fact that the God of King Louis of France (I honestly don't know whether it is supposed to be Jesus or Jehovah or both or maybe the whole Trinity as one) is supposed to be counted one of the gods of the loa. I would still favor the "Abrahamic tradition" section as a whole, with maybe the "major world religions" section adding Yoruba religion, Zoroastrianism, and (maybe) some of the broadly ethnic religions still extant, and then adding a separate section for those which have developed since the people in that area were significantly exposed to Christianity in some form. That would include the various forms of Western atheism which have developed in the largely Christian west in the past few centuries. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support a split based on Abrahamic and non. Jesus or not, there is a fundamental commonality in the understandings of God shared among Abrahamic faiths that is not present in the non-Abrahamic faiths. And the central point of atheist views of Jesus is their perception of him as a non-divine Person. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Christianity syncretism among the malbars

On the island of Reunion, malbars hindus have never made any syncretism between Hinduism and Catholicism. At the time, it was mainly a question of practicing the two religions separately. the practice of Hinduism being frowned upon by the Christian majority. Nowadays, with the fact that Hinduism is no longer seen necessarily negatively, many people have decided to choose one religion or the other. Those who practice both remain in the minority, but they always practice it separately.

There are perhaps people who can make a syncretism between the two religions, but this remains an individual opinion and not a common practice among the Hindus of Reunion Island, and even in this case they never associated krishna birthday with hindu birthday.

Settes4664 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

BC BCE AD CE

This article currently uses both BCE and AD. MOS:ERA says "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article." MOS:VAR says "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Normally when I see an article that mixes eras it's easy — go back in the article's history and see which came 1st then make it consistant. In this case its not easy because the 1st time i could see that uses an era is this [2] in July 2011 and it uses "BC/BCE". That complicates things and it stays like that for years. So, fellow editors, should the BCE in this article be changed to BC to match the AD or visa versa? All I know for sure is status quo doesn't work. Masterhatch (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be, since the edit in question is adapting material directly from Jesus, that BC should be used as that's what Jesus itself uses. Or, we could flip a coin. Remsense ‥ 论 03:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Either way is fine. Both mean exactly the same thing. BC is a bit more in-your-face for non-Christians. And BCE is a whitewashed version that means the same thing but hides it behind a fancy name. Christian scholars use both (tending to BCE). The average person on the street tends to not know what BCE means and tends to BC (well, at least in western countries). The usage of either is fine along the same lines as colour vs color. Decide in the same fashion as we do at WP:ENGVAR. Using "BC/BCE" is just awkward. Link the first use if you think somebody will have trouble understanding.  Stepho  talk  04:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

From my experience in the reversion mines, both are in-your-face for equal numbers of people who can't appreciate regardless what is ultimately an identical—and yes, a fundamentally Christian, though it works just fine no matter who you are—epoch. Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There are currently two instances of BCE and two instances of AD in the article. Either change (BCE->BC or AD->CE) is such a small change that I don't think it's worth a lot of angst about it. I slightly lean toward changing BCE to BC because of the article's connection to Christianity, but I wouldn't be bothered by the opposite change. CodeTalker (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I too am leaning towards BC AD but I wanted to get thoughts from the community instead of just being bold. Masterhatch (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it isn't worth too much worry either way, but lean towards changing to CE because this isn't only about Christian perspectives on Jesus. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense’s comment about the Jesus article, but especially I think in cases where all else is equal, we may as well aim for consistency between articles in the same topic-sphere. — HTGS (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's been 12 days since the last comment to I changed BCE to BC to make the style consistent. Masterhatch (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)