Talk:Jesus/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Biography Section

This is not a biograhpy at all - it is the "christian" version and is not supported by many "chrsitians" incl;uding the "jesus" seminar. Str and Gator's reverts are unfounded. Until the section is a genbuine verifiable and factual biog it needs to be called something else more approproriate. Robsteadman 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone in the Seminar is Christian. It's an academic seminar, not a religious seminar. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As verifiable and factual as James Bond: The Authorised Biography of 007? It's still a biography, regardless of whether the guy existed or not. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Haldrik: he came up with the title "Biography of Jesus" and said that it needed more historical contextualization. I also disagree with Haldrik: I think the biography (data) needs to kept separate from the historicity (analysis) section. It's just that the data includes the historical and cultural setting as well as the extant documents (contemporaneous or not). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, if this was the "Christian" version, then why isn't in the "Christians views of Jesus" article? Besides, if it really was a "christian" version, it'd be a whole lot more fundamentalist than this :D. I could even help! I got my evidence bible right next to me here..... Homestarmy 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...evidence Bible...did a panel of scholars put the evidence together? Jim62sch 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Kirk Cameron and his whole The Way of the Master team. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ray Comfort did most of it. But this is besides the point as this article is not a purely Christian POV article, so why do you care? I don't think i'll be citing it any time soon. Homestarmy 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jim62sch keeps saying that this is more the Jesus Christ article than the Jesus article. I disagree, it's supposed to be more than that, that's why the title is "Jesus" and not "Jesus Christ" nor "Jesus of Nazareth." But why do keep going all sola scriptura on the Life and Teachings section? History and archaelogy also have a place in biography. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we tabled that merge proposal, remember? Also, SOPHIA and others convinced me that the NT is just as important to historicity as it is to Christianity. With the obvious difference that a historian never offered me salvation. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to give Robsteadman the same invitation I recently gave someone else: write Atheist view of Jesus. As for the Jesus Seminar, yes, we do need to incorporate them into the article. On that I pretty much agree with KHM03. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie - why not just let us all have a factual and verifiable article? There is no need for specific views of people - should there be a Nazi view of Hitler? Perhaps you'd like a Newcastle fan's view of Alan Shearer? No, this artiucle should be about the factual, verifiable things to do with "jesus" and ONLY that. Robsteadman 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Jesus was God, a man or merely an idea, his main legacy is Christianity. Hence all the religious stuff. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So please change the title, as I've requested, to Jesus Christ. Rob has a point that the article should equally represent all views, at least if it's merely called "Jesus". As for being fully factual, the article would be two short paragraphs. The only things we know for certain are that he lived and died -- pretty sparce for a bio. (No lectures on faith or religion here, please).

No one is going to like this, but most of those working on the article or talking on this page have very clear POV's that affect the outcome of the article in such a way that it really may never be true NPOV. NPOV is not merely reaching a compromise on content, but rather an accurate presentation of content, written in a very neutral manner, with the different viewpoints getting their proper amount of space and dignity. I realise that this is highly difficult, as humans are subjective by nature, but the article and this page bleed subjectivity. Jim62sch 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Haldrik and I have suggested that the Life and Teachings section should include more about history, but we keep going back to sola scriptura. As I Lutheran I think this good theology, but poor history. My point to Robsteadman both above and below is that we need to include the "religious perspectives" section because Jesus Christ is a religious figure. We should also include the historical Jesus because most scholars agree that Jesus was also a real historical figure. Many feel that Jesus of Nazareth was a very different person than Jesus Christ, as noted on Rick Norwood's talkpage. I've tried to include this perspective. We even include the idea that Jesus was all myth, over the objections of some editors.

Then it comes down to asking "what is truth" and "what is NPOV." Yes, this article has become politicized, which is why I think we need a peer review. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And that deserves no more than a link to the article about the religion - THIS article is meant to be about "jesus" - and should only be the verifiable and factual, not the fancifuil, hopeful, unproven and simply non-sensical as much of the current article is. Robsteadman 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the cultural impact of Christianity is certainly factual and verifiable. The religious views of Christians, Jews, Muslims et al are factual and verifiable: just ask them, or cite the official publications of the various church bodies. The thing is that it's not just Christians who accept the historical existence of Jesus. Most historians do as well, based on historical methodology and not on faith.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the Westar/JS POV, in fact we should, so long as we don't label it as the historical position, or make it look like it's the the consensus POV (the fact that there is so much debate between, e.g., Crossan/Wright, in major media outlets recently, should be enough to warn against that). No that I think Rob's para. did that, I'm just saying... --MonkeeSage 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ps. Rob: NPOV is not about making the article acceptable to a certain group, e.g., non-christians, it's about representing and documenting all relevant views, with due weight given to the most important/majority views. Since Christians hold the global majority in this case, their opinions are given the most exposure in this article, and where required their views are documented by the consensus of scholars of all pertenant fields. "Facts" or otherwise, the policy mandates showing all sides in their appropriate relations. --MonkeeSage 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what NPOV is - a shame that some of the editors on this page seem not to be able to work towars it! Robsteadman 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob, please stop insulting editors, especially ones you've never interacted with before. It would help in keeping with the calm spirit in which we've functioned these past few weeks. --CTSWyneken 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rob has bigger fish to fry at the moment. Check his talk page. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob: If you understand the NPOV policy, then you realize that the article about the founder of Christianity -- the largest belief system in the world -- is going to be mainly about Christian beliefs regarding Jesus. There is no assertion of opinion, unless it is attributed (and where necessary, sourced). There is no undue weight. We're working on getting every major view represented, and even some minor ones. Hence, there is no NPOV problem. Even the "healer" issue is one of semantics and perceptions, not of policy. Please don't call the page POV-biased just because it includes (properly attributed) opinions you don't like. --MonkeeSage 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Paul? Jim62sch 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, we include the Ebionites as well. Or was that started by John the Baptist? Hmmm... Then there are the Gnostics, but I have no idea who got that started.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob in criticizing the title of this section (as I have been saying for the past week). However, I do not want to replace this section with a historical recreation of Jesus' life. If editors change the content of that section, the title should reflect that. Until then, I am going to revert back to the previous title: "Life and teachings based on the Gospels".--Andrew c 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about the title. Lately I've been practicing WP:1RR and it's kept me out of trouble. I think the reason the second paragraph is so controversial is that creates an artificial binarity between the minority position and the majority position. The minority says either that all we know about Jesus is myth, or at the very least that there is no way to tell if any of it is historically valid. The majority accepts the most widely accepted details of the gospel accounts—that's almost a tautology because all it says is that the majority accepts those things that are accepted by the majority. There are many other details (the whole infancy narrative for one) that are much less widely accepted. In fact, we're still debating whether "healer" and "King of the Judeans" are as widely accepted as the other details, or whether the terms used for these concepts are accurate.

There is a range of opinion and you not have to accept the entire Gospel account to accept that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Quite frankly, there are some things that you have to accept on faith if you are to accept them at all. The historical reconstruction of Jesus of Nazareth is not one of those things. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I just noticed the recent edits under "Early life". I think it is a bad idea to give a plot outline of the NT Gospels, and then comment on every single alleged event with the historical POV. There is a section for the historical POV already (and a page about the historical Jesus). Anyway, maybe I was too bold in reverting the title. Is it still applicable? What word or phrase best described this section? Right now (with the recent changes) I feel that there are two different directions that section is heading, and maybe we should sit down and agree what exactly we want to communicate in this section before going further?--Andrew c 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel the Jesus Seminar stuff would fit in better under the historicity section. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I see a big difference between the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus. The goal of the discussions are different. In the historical Jesus, Jesus is the goal. The purpose is to carefully piece together the evidence to reconstruct what this ancient person is like. It's sort of like what detectives do when reconstructing a crime scene. In the historicity of Jesus, the goal is the evidence itself, not Jesus. The purpose of examining the historicity is to determine the nature of the evidence: its biases, its limitations, whether it is literal or figurative, whether the way the moderns interpret it is the same as the way the ancients interpreted it, the source of the evidence, and so on. In this discussion, the ancient person himself is almost irrelevant. Obviously historical and historicity refer to each other, but they are very different areas of investigation. With regard to the Jesus Seminar, their goal is not the "historical" Jesus. Their goal is the "historicity" of the Gospels. The Gospels attribute many sayings to an ancient person. The Seminar investigated the nature of this information. Do the Gospels transmit verbatim quotes? Do they transmit paraphrases of the kinds of things Jesus taught? Do the even transmit information that Jesus didn't say but were said "in the authority of" Jesus? Where does this information come from? Does it originate from a Greek context (thus less plausibly from Jesus), or from a Hebrew/Aramaic context (thus more plausibly)? And so on. Because the Jesus Seminar focuses on the evidence itself, and not on the person, it seems to belong to historicity. --Haldrik 21:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Haldrik also has good points, but I think the issue is that the biography section comes out of the Gospels mostly, so therefore people would like the Seminar to be mentioned, or so I think anyway. I just think the seminar ought to be mentioned if people want it because it was supposedly kinda famous, and I knew there were responses to it, so I just figure it would give the article more background on scholarly ideas or something. Homestarmy 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with Haldrik. Yes, the plot outline comes largely from the Gospels. However, a decent biography goes beyond plot. A good biography of Abraham Lincoln would have to mention the social, economic and political forces that led to the American Civil War (it's wasn't entirely about slavery, nor about states' rights. The historical situation is more complicated than that). Likewise, I think the biography of Jesus should include some mention of the social, economic, political and religous currents of first-century Roman-occupied Iudea, Perea and Galillee. Without the historical background, the biography is little more than a Sunday School lesson, as others have pointed out. This, of course, varies from historicity, which examines the reliability of the data we have on Jesus of Nazareth. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, whether or not the Gospels are historically true, the version of the life of Jesus which is to be found in the Gospels is by far the most important and significant thing about Jesus. The traditional view of Jesus's life may or may not be true, but it is important that it be presented without too much interruption in an article about Jesus. john k 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However, I'm in a rather odd position. I witnessed a debate on this page about whether or not Jesus and the Pharisee's were truly at odds, or were just debating as Pharisees were wont to do. The following Sunday I heard yet another sermon about how the evil Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with their questions. A little later I come back here and I find people discussing whether Jesus was an evil prophet who changed the Torah a la Deuternomy 13. As Pilate and Socrates asked, What is truth? Or, more to the point, What is NPOV? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Thou shalt includest all major views, and shalt, where thou art able, includest the minor also; and thou shalt attribute them to the groups whereunto they belong. When it is asked of thee, thou shalt provide source documentation. Thou shalt not give weight unduely to any view among them, but shalt proportion the weight as to importance and majority. If you hearken to my voice this day, and lay all these things up in thy heart; and do them: then shalt thou be NPOV, and thy children and thy childrens children after them. Selah." --MonkeeSage 02:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that the eleventh commandment, or the 614th? Also, I don't know if people realize my point that "biography" and "plot outline" are not the same thing. I'd like to see a biography, not the outline of a biography. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1 Hesitations 3:16-17, I believe. ;-) --CTSWyneken 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL that was very good, MonkeeSage, I enjoyed reading that :-) -- Drogo Underburrow 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, LOL - I especially liked the reference to our dear friend "Selah". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Taught Here

"...all other events in the Gospels are set in ancient Israel." I don't think any events in the Gospelsa are set in ancient Israel. They're set in Roman Judea. PiCo 07:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Iudea, Perea, and Galilee mostly, with stopovers in Samaria. Calling it Israel is an anachronism, but it's the same piece of real estate as ancient(er) Israel. Nowadays Israelis and Palestinians fight over some of the land. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate term would be "Judaea", but that has the set back of being ambigious: merely Judaea proper, or including other Jewish areas (Gallilee mainly), or even Samaria? So maybe "ancient Israel" is the best solution after all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Iudaea be more accurate? I don't think the letter J was invented yet. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, lower case letters weren't invented yet either. :D --Haldrik 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but I didn't want to be accused of SHOUTING. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we say that Muhammed was in "Arabia" (not the proper "Saudi Arabia"). Same basic idea as here. --MonkeeSage 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. "Saudi Arabia" would be a complete anachronism, since it refers specifically to the Saudi Dynasty, which didn't rule Mecca until the 1920s (and the state of "Saudi Arabia" didn't exist until 1932, I think). In terms of what term to use, "Judaea" is bad because it doesn't include Galilee, which was the main site of Jesus's preaching. I'm not sure what the best term to use is. john k 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Methinks we need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Map to Jesus' favorite preaching spots

Anyone know of a public domain map of the places Jesus is said to have preached to add to article - the ones I found were quite interesting, but not in public domain --JimWae 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would any of them qualify under fair use? :/ Homestarmy 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one: Palestine in the time of Jesus. The maps on this site are public domain because they were made in 1904. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good one - but likely not usable: http://www.bible-history.com/map_jesus/index.html --JimWae 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's © 2002 by the website. I suppose we could always email the webmaster to ask permission. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this along the lines of, "George Washinton Slept Here"? Jim62sch 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JimWae had a valid point earlier. We need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was a Galilean, but he went to Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, which was in Iudaea Province. Pilate was Prefect of Iudaea (26-36), Caiaphas was appointed High Priest of the Temple by Rome (18-36), Herod Antipas was Roman Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4bce-39). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 (talk • contribs)

All true, but I still think we need a map to clarify where all these places are. Geography has changed a lot in the intervening years ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the people too lazy to check links, Iudaea Province was created by Augustus in 6 by merging Judea, Samaria and Idumea, capital in Caesarea Palaestina, under direct administration from Rome, as opposed to the previous arrangement of the Roman client king Herod the Great. Iudaea was a critical land link between Rome and the Egyptian wheat fields and also an important border state between Rome and the Parthian Empire.

Yes, a map of the first century would be nice. Land of Israel has a map, but much older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 (talk • contribs)

I recall people requesting this, so I made this. Can people review it, make comments and suggestions and see if it is appropriate for this article? Image:First century palestine.gif --Andrew c 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any major cities and places that are not included? Are there too many historic cities included that should be removed because Jesus didn't go there? Should I add in lines for historic roads between major cities? Also, one of my sources made a distinction between towns and Hellenized cities, should I do the same? Finally, should there be a line tracing Jesus' movement (Ehrman had a map of Asia Minor/Medeteranian that traced Paul's ministry according to acts/epistles)? (If the answer is yes to the last question, I'd need help in compiling the list of places and order).--Andrew c 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but missing Idumea. Also, it would be nice if it could be shown that Pilate's jurisdiction was Judea-Samaria-Idumea with capital at Caesarea Palaestina, and Herod Antipas' jurisdiction was Galilee-Perea with capital at Tiberias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.2.65 (talk • contribs)

It shouldn't be too hard to add Idumea, the historic land of the Edomites. It was right to the south of Judea. Andrew, if you need a reference, check the links to the two maps we found at the top of this section. One's an old PD map that's a little hard to read, the other is clear and with lots of detail, but it's under copyright. BTW I added the map and fixed the anachronistic geography. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Andrew! --MonkeeSage 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling it Palestine is anachronistic and politically insensitive, the same can be said for calling it Israel, my suggestion for a neutral term would be Holy Land. By the way, Idumea is significant because Herod the Great was Idumean, his people were just recently forcibly converted by circumcision by John Hyrcanus in 125bce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.5.86 (talk • contribs)

I will add Idumea and update the file tomorrow. I'll see what I can do about jurisdictions as well. As for the name, I believe most of the maps I referenced used the term Palestine. If the editors here want and can agree on another title, I'd be glad to change it, but I feel 'Holy Land' isn't exactly neutral either.--Andrew c 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If we want to be historically accurate, we can just say "Iudaea Province and the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas." This would also match the revision I made to the article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It was and is "Israel" if any map is to be used. That said, there is a distinction between the modern state of Israel and the historic Land of Israel that Jesus lived in. —Aiden 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Galilee

I've been saying for a while now that we should incorporate some historical details into the Life and Teachings/Biography section. Here's an example, from the Galilee article:

The ... Judeans considered the region to be lower than [the residents of] Samaria and therefore, morally, spiritually and physically "unclean". Isaiah 9:1 mentions it as "Galilee of the Gentiles," and in the New Testament, Jesus and his disciples were repeatedly known as from "Galilee of the Gentiles" or as "Galileans" or "Nazarenes" to emphasize that they were ethnic foreigners preaching to native Judeans.

Actually, the Galilee article may be POV, but still I think we should include something about the relationship between Judeans and Gailileans. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the quote from Galilee is highly POV. The Isaiah quote is out of context, only one of a number of possible translations into English, and does not support the claim being asserted. Likewise, the clause about Jesus is not only POV but likely violates NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

SL, friends, does anyone have a source for the perceived conflict? The Galilean Jesus book, as I recall, reports archaeological evidence that the Jews of Galilee were the direct decendants of Judeans that began resettlement at the time of the Maccabees. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. Of course, I could be wrong... Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only suspect that the edit was made by someone who wanted to distance Jesus from Jewishness - whether motivated by anti-Semitism or a naive anti-Judaism I cannot say. But the quoted passage is just garbage. First, it is wrong to oppose the Hellenistic from the Jewish. Evidence does show that the galilee was Hellenized. But so was Judea. As Cohen makes very clear, based on excrutiatingly careful attention to documentary and archeological evidence, late Second Temple Judaism was permeated by Hellenism. Cohen distinguishes between Hellenist and Hellenic, because Hellenistic refers to culture which is by definition independent of race or ethnicity. Thus, one can draw a clear distinction between Greeks and Jews (as ethnic groups), but not between Hellenism and Judaism (not because they are the same, but because they intersect in a wide variety of ways). Second, although there were many gentile settlements in the Galilee, according to the gospels Jesus preached and healed in Jewish settlements, not in gentile ones. Third, there were significant differences between Judea and the Galilee, but not in any way that made Jews in the Galilee less Jewish. To suggest that because Jesus was identified as being from Nazareth or the Galilee signifies that he or his disciples were ethnic foreigners is just wrong, wrong, wrong. You know, just because we call it the Babylonian Talmud does not mean that we think it was written by "ethnic foreigners!" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody will need to rewrite (and dePOV) the Galilee article, especially since we link to this article. Whatever the facts are, I do think we should mention the "significant differences between Judea and the Galilee"— just more accurately and NPOVly than the Galilee article. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done, all.

Congratulations, everyone, on a job well done. Now we can all relax, and spend more time playing golf. Rick Norwood 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, in my case, sclicing it all to heck whilst trying to play golf. ;) --MonkeeSage 22:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Im waiting for a Pizza :D. Homestarmy 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

People for the ethical treatment of Wikipedia

This is off-topic, but I thought I should let people know about it.

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ redirect

For some reason, there seems to be some feeling in favor of having Jesus Christ redirect to Christian views of Jesus, rather than to this article. This seems deeply unhelpful to me. The purpose of redirects is not to make sure people's sensibilities aren't offended, but to get people to the article they want to go to. In the case of people typing in either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, by far the most likely article they're looking for is the main article on Jesus. There is absolutely no reason to make it more difficult for them, and having the redirect can only be interpreted by the most absurdly sensitive person as some kind of statement by wikipedia that we believe that Jesus was the Messiah. john k 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

While I would object to *this* article being named "Jesus Christ" rather than "Jesus", I think that most people who enter "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth" in the search field are trying to reach this article, so the redirect to this article (Jesus) seems reasonable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I was just following the lead of the German wikipedia, where "Jesus von Nazaret" is about historical takes on Jesus, and "Jesus Christus" is about theological takes on Jesus. Also, "Christ" is a title that only makes sense in the context of Christianity. Of course, this article is about both, ie, all relevant takes on Jesus. My redirects have been reverted, and I'm not going to press the matter. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it helps to know this, most of the encyclopedias I've consulted name the article "Jesus Christ." So the redirect, IMHO should point here. --CTSWyneken 11:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Christian views of Jesus article isn't even that great because alot of our energy is right here :/. Homestarmy 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

True, that article needs some work. I just get frustrated when people think that "Christ" is Jesus' last name or something. Nor does "Christ" exactly mean "Messiah"; I mean, it is the Greek translation of "Messiah," but it means everything Christians believe about Jesus: see Christology. For many of us, Jesus is the Messiah and more. I see no reason to fight over the "Jesus Christ" redirect; after all, no one seems to be fighting over the "Jesus of Nazareth" redirect. If the consensus is to leave it here, than leave it here.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)