Template talk:Jesus

Background edit

I'm removing "background: #edf3fe" because it is not visible. --Cantus 03:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Isa al-Misah

It is biased to refer to a figure in a religious system by a different religion's name for their god. Amgine 04:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Picture

I really don't like the picture on the template - I don't think it looks right, is distracting, and also could be interpreted as indicating "this is what Jesus looked like", rather than it just being one particular interpretation. Does any mind if I remove it, or is this just me? --G Rutter 11:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it IS the grumpiest-looking Jesus I've ever seen. I'm not sure I have a problem with there being a picture in principle, though - I'd have thought most people would realise that any drawing is merely an interpretation, and placed there as an example of art rather than a definitive depiction. TSP 14:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, IMHO, the picture looks a bit naff. ed g2s • talk 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone got a better picture we can replace it with? Or shall I just delete it? (Having previewed it after deleting the image I think it looks better). --G Rutter 15:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it should just be deleted. TheCoffee 00:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Right I've deleted the picture and we'll see what happens! --G Rutter 13:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added a simple piece of calligraphy instead of a picture based on the name "Jesus"/"Joshua" as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly the picture contributes nothing to the template. Very few people can read it, and even fewer will gain anything from it. Secondly, whether Jesus' true name was Yeshua is a matter of contention in some scholarly circles. How about avoiding unneeded controversy and unneeded clutty by removing the image? —Aiden 03:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Err... I see Steve has added the Greek and hypothetical Hebrew. I think the Greek should be on top (as it is the only historically confirmed name). Other than that, aside from it being unnecessary, I have no objects. It does look kind of nice but I just don't know that people will gain anything from it. I leave it up to you. —Aiden 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it, myself. I had to click on it to figure out what it was, and then I couldn't figure out why it was written in three languages but not English (considering this is the English Wikipedia). It seems odd to have "YESHUA" written in big letters in a language only a handful of people know while the English "Jesus" is in small letters, as part of a phrase, below it. Powers 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't like and think that it's quite likely to fall under No original research as well- the Hebrew is hypothetical and it is by no means certain that Jesus' name was "Yeshua". It also doesn't add anything to a template which, frankly, is too long anyway and is also confusing. I think therefore it needs to be either deleted or substantially altered. --G Rutter 11:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all reputable scholars agree upon "Yeshua" as the most likely personal name that Jesus would have carried (in fact the main logo of the Jesus Seminar is a stylized "Yeshua," see The Jesus Seminar Forum maintained by my former mentor Dr. Mahlon H. Smith, a Fellow of the Jesus seminar); this is verifiable. The Hebrew is merely the Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic, and many citeable scholars have said so; also verifiable. The Greek is obviously verifiable, but is by no means the majority view amongst scholars as Jesus' day-to-day personal name. As for changing it to make things smaller, I could super-impose "Jesus" over a gray "Yeshua" to save space and remove ambiguity. As this template goes, it is smaller than most other templates that involve Jesus. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've compressed the links on the template without removing any of them (I'm still going to do a bit more compression yet) and I've changed the image to something that makes it unmistakably about Jesus in English with a ghost image of "Yeshua" in the background. If we still want the Greek in there, I can sub-impose it in the same grayscale in a similar fashion alongside "Yeshua" but I think this image leaves no ambiguity. Comments? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We could quibble over the font choice, but overall it's a big improvement, IMO. Powers 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better, but I think the Greek should be on there as well. --G Rutter 10:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for suggestions on font and such and am more than willing to draft a few different copies. The next copy will have ιησους in there. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who put the penis picture on top of this but i am removing it. Someone else find a replacement picture cause ,from the look of this discussion, i wont find a fitting one. But if anyone cares i think him on the cross is probably the easiest to recognize picture of him.User:Blue 19:12, 20 July 2006 (EST)

Template getting a bit long

Where do we draw the line between which articles should be included or not? I've been considering that we may want to remove the following 3 links to trim down the length and make layout issues easier on the numerous pages the template appears on:

1. Language
2. Race
3. Sexuality

All three are very specific, focused (and highly speculative) analyses of aspects of Jesus' life, whereas the other links on the template are very general and broad links that give plenty of great articles within them. What do you think of removing those three and simply giving them prominent links and sections in Historical Jesus and/or Cultural and historical background of Jesus? Otherwise, I worry the template may continue to get larger and larger over time and become too unwieldy; more articles on similar subjects will surely surface, and we shouldn't link to any more of them than absolutely necessary. -Silence 08:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me; I think they would mostly fit better in Historical Jesus than in Cultural and historical background. User:Ben Standeven as 70.129.108.126 16:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK. Any other comments? "Race of Jesus" is a relatively recent addition, but "Language" isn't, so I'd be more comfortable removing them if I got more feedback on it. -Silence 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should combine "Historicity and Historical views" into one sentence and remove the other section. The race, language, etc. article all are linked from the Historical Jesus article. —Aiden 19:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

Many things under the "Jesus and Christianity" are should correctly be somewere else. For example, Islam takes interest in both the Parabels and Miracles, claiming them as Christian articles is pov.--Striver 17:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

POV? Islam also took/has taken an interest in Aristotle, but that doesn't make him Islamic; he's still a Western figure. Jesus originates from the early Hebrew Christian community and is most meaningful in that context - that's not POV. Besides, the actual text of the parables themselves are in the Gospels and were of exclusive Chrisitan interest for 600 years prior to Islam. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, has the first part of the entry been vandalized? It mentions that Jesus was Chocolate(BLACK) or something to that effect. As I recall, Israel or Palestine is in the middle east, so most likely Jesus would have had middle eastern features? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.28.74.148 (talk • contribs).

I have no idea what article you mean. This template seems OK. Powers ^T 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Every reference made to anyone questioning the historical validity of Jesus is downplayed by saying they are a minority. There are many scholars that point to the fact there are hardly any historical references to Jesus Christ, and many of those few examples are highly questionable. It is clearly biased to count every Christian that says Jesus existed as a scholar, so any independent, non-Christian review of the facts is declared to be a tiny minority. The bias is clear, and it should be addressed to provide a fair reading for non-Christians.

deletion of Exorcism#Jesus because of very few examples??????

Here they are from Demonic_possession#Demonic_possession_in_the_Bible

• Matthew 4:23–25: Demon-possessed persons are healed by Jesus (also Luke 6:17–19).
• Matthew 7:21–23: Many will drive out demons in Jesus' name (also Mark 16:17; Luke 10:17; Acts 5:16; 8:7).
• Matthew 8:14–17: Jesus healed many demon-possessed (also Mark 1:29–39; Luke 4:33–41).
• Matthew 8:28–34: Jesus sent a herd of demons from two men into a herd of pigs (also Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39, both referring to only one man).
• Matthew 9:32–34: Jesus made a demon-possessed and mute man speak, the Pharisees said it was by the power of Beelzebub (also Mark 3:20–22).
• Matthew 12:22–32: Jesus healed a demon-possessed blind and dumb man (also Luke 11:14–23; 12:10; Mark 3:20–30).
• Matthew 12:43–45: Jesus told an allegory of nasty spirits coming back home, that is to the human body where they have lived before (also Luke 11:24–26).
• Matthew 15:21–28: Jesus expelled a demon from the body of the daughter of a Canaanite woman (also Mark 7:24–30).
• Matthew 17:14–21: Jesus healed a lunatic by driving out a demon from him (also Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–49).
• Mark 1:21–28: Jesus expelled a nasty spirit from a man (also Luke 4:31–37).
• Mark 9:38–40: A non-Christian is seen driving out demons in Jesus' name (also Luke 9:49–50).
• Mark 16:9: Jesus had driven seven demons out of Mary Magdalene (also Luke 8:2).
• Luke 7:21: Many people are cleansed from evil spirits by Jesus.
• Luke 13:10–17: Jesus expelled a spirit of disease from the body of a woman on the Sabbath.
• Luke 13:31–32: Jesus continued to cast out demons even though Herod Antipas wanted to kill him.
• Acts 10:38: St. Peter said Jesus healed all who were under the power of the devil.
• Acts 19:13–20: Seven sons of Sceva drove out evil spirits by saying: "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out."

This is already covered in more depth in the Miracles of Jesus article under "Expelling demons". —Aiden 05:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeshua

While it is interesting to reconstruct old languages, Jesus (<Ιησους) is the recognized form in the East and West. It is used in the original texts and is the only one referred in the writings of the ancient Apostolic and Patristic Fathers. Aramaic enthusiasts, as much I respect them, attempt to put undue emphasis on Syriac texts, but it is nowhere the consensus that the Gospels were written in anything but Greek.

Further, history tells us that Greek had long ago replaced Aramaic in the Levant, leaving little more than rudimentary household phrases behind. The situation was something like the use of Pennsylvaania Deitsch by Lutherans in Pennsylvania today where there is very little Deitsch in use. Exactly how much survived more than 333 years of Greek rule is a matter of speculation.

If the age-old consensus from the earliest historically documented accounts unto the present tells us that Greek was the language of the Levant, there is no consensus on exactly which form (there are many) of Aramaic to reconstruct personal names into. One can speculate how much Aramaic was used by Jesus; it very seldom appears in the Gospels, and then for only the simplest of phrases which must be "interpreted." Speculating is fine and healthy, but it is impossible to contradict the voluminous primary and secondary material supporting the Greek in the New Testament and Christ's use of it in all recorded dialogues, monologues, sermons, and parables -- daily.  - Cestus ^Cd 05:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of Syriac texts, it is a matter of being true, historically, to what Jesus was referred to on a daily basis by his peers. There are a minority of scholars today who believe that Jesus spoke in Greek to his desciples. Even the prestigious Jesus Seminar's logo is a stylized Yeshua: The name that the majority of scholarship sees as most probable with few exceptions. To claim, in this modern day, that "Iesous" was Jesus' personal name with his peers, or that Jesus primarily spoke Greek is now a minority and outdated viewpoint among living scholars.

For example, we see through the testimony of Flavius Josephus that the Jews eschewed Greek. Josephus, himself wrote his early works in Aramaic (these were historical works for Greek-speaking people) and then later translated them into Greek, and even after decades of writing and using the language that he could not "pronounce it with sufficient exactness." (Antiquities)

Unrelated to this Iesous/Yeshua debate on the logo, many sources of the Gospels, if not simply by virtue of the original language of the discourse, lead back to the Aramaic language and there are many vestigial elements that point to this conclusion. Many parts of the Synoptic Gospels and the Dialogues source in John are riddled with Aramaicisms, although their final form was certainly compiled in Greek by a Greek-speaking or bi-lingual scribe with Greek redaction rather than an "original Aramaic Gospel of X" (usually referring to the Peshitta or Old Syriac manuscripts) as many internet Aramaicists claim.

If you -insist- that the logo -must- have Iesous in it, I propose a compromise. I can construct an image that has both Iesous and Yeshua in the background that is just as aesthetic and gets the same job done. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 12:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'Shua / Jesus

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § This article ought to refer to Jesus' perspective of himself. I realize there is a concern these days about various social forms of "correctness" and/or offending other beliefs etc. but at the price of censorship? In this case censoring the key person in the article, Jesus or Y'Shua. His own testimony is clear, he was not merely a prophet but God in human form. The disciples said, "show us the father" Jesus replied, "He who has seen me has seen the father." God as referred to in the person of father has no form as the scriptures indicate. That form exists in "unapproachable light" and the form of the son is the only direct human connection point for humankind. To gloss over this is not serving the information presented in Wikipedia well. Jesus clearly states, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but by me." Mankind is free to reject him but it should at least be made clear; to reject Jesus / Y'Shua (call it from his own perspective if you like) is to reject God (by any name we call God these days). The decision to accept or reject that he was who he claimed to be is of course something beyond the purpose of this web publication. The opportunity to really immerse the Wikipedia users into the subject's perspective, in the case of topics that lend themselves to such, may be what will allow Wikipedia to really shine above other sources of information. In any case it is not bias to report the perspective of the subject in the subject's own words and somewhat a presentation of error to assert that Jesus/ Y'shua's ministry was mostly about instructing people on morality and spirituality. He came to die as is indicated throughout scripture, to put an end to all the nonsense (call it from his perspective if you will) about mankind wanting a connection with God because, as he knew we would, we (mankind) executed him and returned to acting out a desire to be with God through our many religions, or outright rejecting any idea of God altogether. This is the literal purpose of Jesus/Y'Shua's mission and may be represented without apologies. It seems inappropriate or an inefficient use of article space to include other religion's perspectives on Jesus/ Y'Shua. The perspective of Islam, for example, should appear in the article about Islam. Is wikipedia to fill every article with redundant perspectives? 69.221.11.75 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Ezuru recently added a section on Jesus and Islam to the template. I moved the Virgin Birth up to the "and Christianity" section (not ideal but it is no Islamic specific) and had some discussion with Ezuru. This brought me to look closer at this template and lead to the following considerations:

• There are various articles in this series that are not in any way specifically about Jesus, e.g. Koine Greek (as opposed to Aramaic of Jesus) or the article linked to under Return to Earth.
• Before Ezuru's addition there already was a link to Islamic view of Jesus - Ezuru duplicated it.
• The other elements of the "Islamic section" are either sub articles to that Islamic view article or not specifically about Jesus or belong more in Quran series (and I don't know whether an article on a single verse is tenable - in any case it is still a stub, the actual information contained in Islamic view of Jesus' death. The one exception is the "Mahdi" article which however should be included in the eschatology and the Islamic views article.
• The section header "non-religious aspects" was nonsene - I moved the first element "Background" to form a new section header and retained the language and race links as elements of it.

I have therefore concluded that it is best to remove the Islamic section again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree till there is more information on the Islamic articles. Thanks for your work. --Enzuru 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Add link to Jesus in Scientology

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Positioning

Please fix the template so it can hold an image at the top. This would fix the positioning issues on the Christ page. Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Image with Yeshua

This image at the top uses a Hebrew spelling name which is not certain and is a matter of debate. It should be removed.

See Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament#Yeshua. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comments there. אמר Steve Caruso 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus myth

Re: [1], I see no reason not to include a relevant and informative article in the template. Powers ^T 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Read: Do not give undue weight

“ ...viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. ...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all ”

• Christ myth theory is a tiny minority view, read Christ myth theory#notes #8-23.

“ I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. ”

• And the Christ myth theory is covered under Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The content being excluded here is not a minority viewpoint, it is a link to an article about a minority viewpoint. We have an article about that view, and it is mentioned in several other places among the set of articles about Jesus. Thus, it seems to be a relevant link to include in the template. Powers ^T 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) You will have to explain how this is not a minority viewpoint. Do mean it is not minority viewpoint among your friends? or among editors here at Wikipedia? Read this from WP:undue weight.

“ Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. ”

BTW-- In what world do you live in, that you know more people who think Jesus-was-a-total-myth than people who do not think Jesus-was-a-total-myth? On Earth, just the total number of Christians and Muslims together top 3 billion, and I am pretty sure that many of the remaining 3 billion people on Earth think he was historical, or have no opinion, etc.

(2) There are many articles on Jesus. The Template:Jesus is not for every article "mentioned in several other places among the set of articles about Jesus." It is not even for every link found in the "main" Jesus article. Nor is it for every article that includes the word Jesus in its name. It is only for the most noteworthy links. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool your quote marks and go back and read what I wrote again. You misunderstood. Powers ^T 13:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This adds nothing; this not really even a response even to my comments. You are basiclly saying to me, "I disagree, but don't want to explain my point of view." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What should I add? I cannot argue the position you accuse me of taking because it is not my position at all. I never said more people think Jesus was a total myth than do not. Powers ^T 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry bud, but no response for 19 days means no new consensus.
  No new consensus means no change in the template.
  No change in the template means it stays the way it was before your contested edit. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• The link was originally included before you removed it, wasn't it? Or am I misremembering? Powers ^T 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• It has not been included in a long time. As to why it was at some point long ago, or if it ever was included for a noteworthy lenght of time-- I cannot say. What I can say is that for the currrent article(s), the current WP:RSs, and current policies-- it clearly would not belong. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So is any actual discussion going to occur here, or should I just put the link back in? Powers ^T 13:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want actual discussion to take place, you need to state ideas and arguments that people find relevant to the issue(s) here, not just threaten to revert what is clearly disputed. If no one in all of Wikipedia finds your writtings either convincing, nor even relevant, then you will get neither your consensus, nor even discussion. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had. The article Christ myth theory is very much relevant to the historicity of Jesus. In fact, it's the complementary article to Historical Jesus, which is mentioned in the template. The fact that one view is more widely accepted than the other is cause for being careful about undue weight in describing the historicity of Jesus within articles, but it is not cause for omitting a relevant and notable topic from a navigational template. Powers ^T 15:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring me doesn't make me more likely to change my mind. You can't just block me by not responding. If you're insistent on reverting the addition of this link, the least you can do is discuss your decision. Powers ^T 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not been ignoring you but letting a dead horse be. In fact, I went out of my way to tell you how you can fight this battle, but you are still charging at windmills. Your only argument is to state that it isn't undue weight and then you give a little information that has nothing to do with its status as a fringe theory. Please go find other Wikipedians to post their views here or just let it die. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid going canvassing for additional participants, at least until we had the framework of the debate sussed out. I made a response to your post but received nothing in reply. So what idea or argument would you find "relevant" to the issue? For me, the fact that the theory is (arguably) a "fringe theory" is irrelevant, but you haven't seemed interested in discussing that. Powers ^T 13:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Jesus and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: This is a tough call, strangely enough. A template is not an article so I don't think WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE or some of the other issues apply, except perhaps as general references. What it really comes down to is what's best for Wikipedia. Moreover, even more than usual, what one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once said about Third Opinions particularly applies in this case, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." My feeling is that this Christ myth theory link is simply too specific for the general topics now in this box, not because it creates undue emphasis on a fringe topic but simply because it's too specific. Having said that, however, I note from the discussion on this page that the contents of the box have been much more specific in the past and were intentionally winnowed down to make a more simple box. In doing so, I have to say that I fear that the "anti–Jesus" position may now be underrepresented in the box. If there is no article which reflects that position in a more general way than this one, perhaps Christ myth theory should be in the box as a substitute and entry point into that position. In any event, change must come by consensus.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with criticisms. There is not one quote that gives a factual prove of misleading statements like: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." It is completely false and an opinion. Every single siting supporting existence of Jesus as a historical person or dismissal of opinion that Jesus did not exist are opinion statements not backed by a single fact. The usual references to Josephus or Tacitus cannot be taken as evidence since they have been exposed as fakes, their texts edited in 3rd and 7th centuries CE respectively, if I remember correctly. The quality of scholarship of the author or rather lack of it, is most surprising if not troubling. The author of the article also fails to separate theological and historical sources creating even more confusion. In other words there is absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus existed and the article is highly bias and misinformed.

References

Music link

Please change the link in the template from Contemporary Christian music to Christian music. There is no need to ignore non-contemporary music now, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.54.89 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion Jesus myth theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus seems clear, so I'm closing this myself. If anyone wants an uninvolved admin to close it formally, we can request one on AN/I.

Arguments for inclusion focused on the appropriateness of including the article in the "Jesus and history" section; that it is a minority but not fringe theory; that one link out of around 37 is not UNDUE. Arguments against inclusion said that it was a fringe theory; that inclusion would be UNDUE and a violation of NPOV.

Seventeen people commented in all; 11 supported inclusion, and six opposed, so there's almost a two-thirds majority for inclusion.

---

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Should a link to Jesus myth theory be included in this template? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded replies in this section, please)

• Support inclusion. This template lists articles about Jesus, and in the interests of neutrality it ought to include a link to Jesus myth theory, which offers a minority but valid perspective. There's no reason within policy to exclude it, as Carlaude has been doing since November 2009. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Would seem to fit within the context of the "Jesus and History" section of the template. Also, the existing 'In myth' label therein might be better renamed to 'Comparative mythology' or similar to distinguish it from 'Jesus myth theory'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue weight for a tiny minority fringe theory. It is also already covered in the template in the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. Read Christ myth theory#notes #8-23. and this quote from the Christ myth theory: "|I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest."

And WP:Undue weight says: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The theory is certainly less outlandish than those positing virgin birth, resurrection, etc. ―cobaltcigs 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is not simply a fringe theory supported by a tiny minority, even if some would like to think so. It is a valid topic and it directly related to the topic at hand. --13² 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would also oppose a link for Jesus the rice farmer, which if true will invalidate the myth theory. However, although I oppose, I think the link will eventually get included, either now or next year. I am sorry Carl, but I think if you do an informal opinion survey on the streets, there are just too many people who believe in the myth theory, so it will eventually go in, now or later. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already outlined. When we have articles and templates pushing Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory, etc., I will be happy to reconsider. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think we're giving undue weight if it's the last link in the "jesus and history" section. Personally, I don't agree with the "Jesus myth theory", but I think it's a significant viewpoint and - although perhaps minority - not vanishingly so. This is a template with, what, 36 or 37 wikilinks concerning a religious figure - I'm sure we have room for one wikilink concerning the theory that the religious figure was fictional. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:FRINGE. The problem here is that if this succeeds, a lot of stuff will be added to templates with a lot less visibility that are even more fringe. The Myth of Abraham Lincoln or somesuch. Don't encourage them! Student7 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: Well, the myth theory is accepted by around 13% of Britain's population, 11% of Australians, and 1% of Americans, according to sourced statements in the article under discussion — so that doesn't sound like a fringe minority. Numerous scholars have written in support of the theory; the article gives sufficient examples to establish that. Whether the standard is "how many people believe it" or "how many 'reliable sources' believe it", the Jesus myth theory is obviously notable as a force within Christianity — and how could it not be? What sane person has not looked at all the conflicting info about Jesus' biography and at least once asked the question, "How do we even know he lived, given that historians disagree on so much else about him?" The article addresses those difficulties admirably, in a way that our other articles about Jesus neglect (because it's not within their intended scope). So it's hard to see how anyone could seriously equate this with the peculiar "Jesus was a rice farmer" theory or the non-existent "Abraham Lincoln never existed" theory in terms of general impact or notability. We don't have articles about Zoroaster myth theory yet simply because Wikipedia's coverage of non-Western prophets and the issues around their biographies significantly lags — not necessarily because those issues are irrelevant in places where Zoroaster is taken seriously. Anyway, I see no fair reason to suppress the inclusion of this theory in this template. AtticusX (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Its a minority theory to be sure but it is not fringe, but to pretend it doesnt exist would be WP:UNDUE. Its very feasible he was entirely mythical construction but not a likely one. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion A single link in a collapsible template is not wp:undue. This is not wp:fringe as it has been seriously considered by numerous scholars and others (including significant proportions of the population in many countries as pointed out above.) I think this stems from the unfortunate juxtaposition of "myth" and "theory", which make it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Speaking of theory, it not one in the strict word of the sense. I suggest Jesus myth hypothesis as a more correct (and less contentious) title. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, as there's no 100% proof the guy existed. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's fairly simple to prove this is a fringe theory: is it taught in any university classes on the New Testament? No, it's a theory sold by self-published, unaccredited individuals with Geocities websites and names like "Acharya S". People who study the subject in detail ignore it. Pull up a university curriculum to confirm this. Shii (tock) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - Although the viewpoint is one to which a minority adheres, it is hardly a fringe theory (per the statistics noted by AtticusX). Including it in a section which links to articles about the historicity of Jesus, historical Jesus, Jesus in comparative mythology and the quest for the historical Jesus seems entirely appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think it should exist simply as a link to the "myth" article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:FRINGE theory and not NPOV. As has been said we don't have Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory and we can't "100% prove" that any of them existed either. We don't have Plato Myth Theory, or Socrates Myth theory (do I need to go on?) - are you absolutely sure they existed? Most (if not all) people accept they existed (on the basis of what evidence there is), likewise most people including many historians accept at the very least that the historicity (ie historical evidence) of Jesus of Nazareth is at least as good as any other historical figure. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Threaded discussion

[Note: threaded replies have been moved into this section, and the initial comment they were responding to has been copied from above]

• Oppose as undue weight for a tiny minority fringe theory. It is also already covered in the template in the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. Read Christ myth theory#notes #8-23. and this quote from the Christ myth theory:
  

“ I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. ”

And WP:Undue weight says:

“ ...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all ”

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The theory includes the view that although a Jewish man named Jesus (Yeshua) as a basis may have existed, that the fanciful stories about him in the gospels are myth. It is indeed plausible that Jesus was just a man and not a magic sky god. That is an intrinsic aspect of the theory, and certainly not a fringe view. The notion has been around since the 1700s and is not merely a recent idea pushed by a single individual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The Wikipedia article "Jesus myth theory" is only about "the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community." That is the article lead. You may want to change your vote. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead also states: "Some proponents argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So the founder(s) and/or orginiator(s) of Christianity were not people named Jesus. Feel free to look for authors reaching this view among reliable sources and let us know if you find any prevalence who do. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly any of the supporters of the theory, including Dawkins, would support the view that Christianity could have been initiated by someone other than 'Jesus'. Asserting that it absolutely must have been Jesus in the absence of concrete evidence is like saying Star Wars must have been written by Anakin Skywalker.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The theory is certainly less outlandish than those positing virgin birth, resurrection, etc. ―cobaltcigs 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This theory and this CfD is not related to the Virgin birth, etc. If you want to remove such links from the template, please bring that up under a separate CfD.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Assuming you mean RFC, I’ll decline on the basis that doing so would be (how do you say, ah yes) needlessly pointy. You’re well aware any attempt to remove the other theories would be summarily reverted by editors who regard them as absolute truths (ones with which the page Jesus myth theory is manifestly incompatible). But that’s really irrelevant as I’m not interested in suppressing other views simply because I disagree with them. ―cobaltcigs 12:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is not simply a fringe theory supported by a tiny minority, even if some would like to think so. It is a valid topic and it directly related to the topic at hand. --13² 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have to explain how this is not a minority viewpoint. Do mean it is not minority viewpoint among your friends? or among editors here at Wikipedia? Read this from WP:undue weight. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

“ Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. ”

The fact that it's not supported by any of the Christian sources you've checked doesn't mean it's fringe. In any case, a single link in a template is hardly 'undue weight'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write any part of that article, or investigate if any of the historian sorces were "Christian" or not "Christian." If you think it is biased then I propose you take up the issue on that page. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to 'that article'. I was referring to the opinions of various Christian writers that you provided as footnotes earlier in this topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Authors such as Richard Dawkins are hardly fringe writers. Also, we're talking about a theory that has been around for at least 250 years. It is fairly clear that declaring this one link to a directly relevant article as 'undue weight' and 'fringe' is POV pushing. It's also unclear how gospel harmony is more relevant than the concept of Jesus as mythological.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, saying that "Jesus is mythological" is not the same as the theory that "Jesus is a myth". Do you know the difference? Only one of these two theories is a tiny minority viewpoint. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you don't think a theory is good just because it has been around for a long time.

I don't see anything in the biologist Richard Dawkins' article about the Jesus myth theory or vice versa. If he did write anything that can be considered a RS maybe you should indicate it in one article or the other. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory has citations specifically referring to Dawkins' The God Delusion in reference to Dawkins' comments about the plausibility that Jesus did not exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would also oppose a link for Jesus the rice farmer, which if true will invalidate the myth theory. However, although I oppose, I think the link will eventually get included, either now or next year. I am sorry Carl, but I think if you do an informal opinion survey on the streets, there are just too many people who believe in the myth theory, so it will eventually go in, now or later. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The rice farmer folklore is an amusing slippery slope argument for inclusion. However, the entirely plausible and more widely held view that Jesus was not a magic sky god is entirely dissimilar to folklore about Jesus in one small village.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know. I just keep getting amused by what I find in Wikipedia: His Japanese brother took his place, etc. I wonder if they had JAL frequent flier cards. That was funny. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, but at the time, it stood for 'Jesus AirLines'. How else would he ascend to heaven?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Now that we are having fun, let me say that I am surprised there is no link in the Jesus Myth Theory page for Nicolas Bourbaki. If you guys edit that page, you should add a link in the See also part. The next step would be to develop some type of analogy. The Wikipage for Bourbaki does not do the story justice - they (specially Cartan) played many clever tricks on the French Academy not mentioned there. The analogy would then be that the Gospels were like the books of the Bourbaki group. I wonder who Henry Cartan would be amoing the Apostles, Paul I guess. This will eventually give rise to some type of "Bourbaki Code" book series that relates Jesus to Bourbaki, by a cousin of Dan Brown and will sell many books. Time will tell. Anyway, enough now. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You had me at "Hello"... Sorry... wrong conversation. Though somehow it seemed just as relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the way I see it, this issues is already over, and we should cut back on heated debate. The situation as I see it is that regardless of calling it myth, mythology or whatever, there are people of all shapes and mindsets who think Jesus did not exist. I do not think the theory is valid (and hence voted oppose), but there are many of them out there, so the name of that article will not get suppressed in this template for long. And it will not make a big difference to Wikipedia or the world if that link is here or not, so no need to make a big deal in this debate. Let us just have a vote and move on, whatever the result may be. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be correct in your main point, but I oppose the inclusion not just because I personaly disagree, or that many others personaly disagree, but rather because it fits the Wikipedia policies as a tiny minority viewpoint among the prevalence of reliable sources. There are plenty of things that I (really each of us) personaly disagree with, and yet they are still not a tiny minority viewpoint among the prevalence of reliable sources. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't established that it is a "tiny minority".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons already outlined. When we have articles and templates pushing Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory, etc., I will be happy to reconsider. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit further: I'm not disagreeing that the "Jesus myth theory" is notable enough for its own article. It is, however, a patently minority, even fringe, viewpoint. Placing it in the template (and having articles using the template to display/link to) is giving it undue weight. This happens in other templates where fringy topics are correctly excluded (see Template:The Holocaust for example, where there have been repeated attempts to insert links to various Holocaust denial articles). I don't see this as being any different. • Astynax ^talk 00:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't quite the same as Holocaust denial. There are extant contemporary records as well as living witnesses to the events of the Holocaust. The addition of a single link in a section of a template that is collapsed by default isn't exactly pushing the theory down the throats of anyone who doesn't like it, and linking to the article isn't an endorsement of the theory anyway. There seems no good reason to censor a link to an article that is directly relevant and well sourced - perish the thought that 'believers' might consider an alternative opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

History does not require living witnesses or actual documents (copies do nicely), else there would be very little history beyond the past 2-3 centuries. It does not matter how long a theory has been in existence, that it has developed its own literature, or even how many subscribe to it, for it to be considered "fringe". Rather it is the quality of the propositions supporting the theory, the logical validity of the conclusions drawn, and the depth of support among the scholarly community, However much historians may disagree as to what extent the gospels and later writings reflect actual history, there is a consensus that, at its core, such a person did exist (see: Smith, Morton. 1978. Jesus the Magician. Harper & Row, p. 5. ISBN 0-060-67412-1 – "Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably started the process that became Christianity." Tuckett, Christopher. 2001. "Sources and Methods" in Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press, p. 124. ISBN 0-521-79678-4 – "All this [extra-Biblical source material] does at least render highly implausible any far-fetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score."). The "Jesus myth" is a rather recent phenomenon tracing from Robert Taylor (previous doubters doubted only the amount of truth behind accounts, rather than that there was a person). Since then, arguments have been entirely supposition (i.e., introducing no evidence), inconsistent (Wells), or outright conspiracy theory (Wheless, Acharya, etc.); see Bennett, Clinton. 2001. In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images. Continuum. pp. 190–217. ISBN 0-826-44916-6. This is no different than Kennedy assasination or "Elvis is alive" theories. They are notable on their own, and for inclusion in articles about the assasination, Elvis fanatics, or (in this case) the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. They are not notable enough (and it is Undue weight) to be plastered on every article dealing with the core subject. • Astynax ^talk 22:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:FRINGE. The problem here is that if this succeeds, a lot of stuff will be added to templates with a lot less visibility that are even more fringe. The Myth of Abraham Lincoln or somesuch. Don't encourage them! Student7 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The classification of 'fringe', which refers to novel scientific theories of a single person or small group, rather than a plausible theory that has been around for hundreds of years, is here being misused. Additionally, speculation about what 'will' happen if this single link is added is unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "misused" because this "theory" lacks even the "single person" to support it in print? Do you mean "misused" because even in the unrepeatable field of history, there are still not any RSs that will scrape together a version of the theory can admit support for? Rather than arguing sematics, just find support for the theory or change you vote. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop being tedious. We know you don't like the theory, but the target article is well sourced, and the single proposed link is not going to change the world.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion: Well, the myth theory is accepted by around 13% of Britain's population, 11% of Australians, and 1% of Americans, according to sourced statements in the article under discussion — so that doesn't sound like a fringe minority. Numerous scholars have written in support of the theory; the article gives sufficient examples to establish that. Whether the standard is "how many people believe it" or "how many 'reliable sources' believe it", the Jesus myth theory is obviously notable as a force within Christianity — and how could it not be? What sane person has not looked at all the conflicting info about Jesus' biography and at least once asked the question, "How do we even know he lived, given that historians disagree on so much else about him?" The article addresses those difficulties admirably, in a way that our other articles about Jesus neglect (because it's not within their intended scope). So it's hard to see how anyone could seriously equate this with the peculiar "Jesus was a rice farmer" theory or the non-existent "Abraham Lincoln never existed" theory in terms of general impact or notability. We don't have articles about Zoroaster myth theory yet simply because Wikipedia's coverage of non-Western prophets and the issues around their biographies significantly lags — not necessarily because those issues are irrelevant in places where Zoroaster is taken seriously. Anyway, I see no fair reason to suppress the inclusion of this theory in this template. AtticusX (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your views are bordering on the ridiculous. We don't get to ignore WP policy when we don't like it.

WP:undue weight says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," so the number of Britains that accept it -- if you had that information from a WP:RS -- would be irrelevant.

Even if numerous "scholars" have written in support of the theory in the past, or even in the present, that does not make them WP:RSs. I have posted many many RSs against this at the top. Neither you nor anyone else has posted any in support of it. Please stop claiming "scholars" support the theory. Please do not just claim RSs support the theory. If you can find even a single RS — then post it. Period. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. A single link is not undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in support of the theory in question. Basically, you've already decided that any source that supports the theory 'must' inherently be 'unreliable' because it isn't compatible with your belief system. If the theory did not have reliable sources, then the target article would be deleted. The Notes, References, and Further reading sections of the article in question make it abundantly clear that the theory is neither 'undue weight' nor 'fringe'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you seem confused about the distinction about the theory being notable as opposed to the question of whether the theory may be correct. Even the 17 links you provided in rebuttal to the theory are evidence that the theory itself is broadly discussed. Whether the theory is correct is quite irrelevant, and a link to the theory is not an endorsement of the theory.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to do any checking rather than being casually dismissive, you would have found that "the number of Britains that accept it" and other statistics as provided by AtticusX above are from a 2005 study at Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Hey, Carlaude (şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ), telling me my views border on the ridiculous is insulting and is not likely to change my opinion. Wanna tone down the hysterics? AtticusX (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are "plenty of sources in support of the theory in question" why can you not find any RSs to point out here? Do you just assume there are plenty of sources because you have not looked at any? Who knows. Maybe there are some RSs, but the fact that no one both wants to and is able to post any here makes me seriously doubt their are any.

An article on a theory needs RSs to avoid deletion, but an article on a theory does not need RSs in support of it to avoid deletion. Thus we have articles about Santa Claus, Flat Earth, and Inheritance of acquired characteristics — each without and RSs in support of them. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already made reference to the entire sections of sources from the target article indicating the theory to be notable, and the theory is directly relevant to the template (more so than gospel harmony). It's not my problem if you can't be bothered going to the article and looking at them. Whether the theory is correct is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that we delete Santa from the Christmas template, it's not clear what your point is. It is not necessary to prove the theory in order to include a link to it in the template. Most of the people who have responded to the RFC have indicated in support of the link. Those who oppose the link have done so based on arguments that it is:

• 'undue weight' - however, a single link in a collapsed section of a template is not undue weight.
• 'fringe' - however, the available sources indicate that the theory is widely discussed, with many proponents.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Carlaude has posted this RfC to the Christianity wikiproject. I asked him here to post it to the atheism project for balance, but he has declined, so I'll do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This page says at the top "This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity". Maybe you also want to mark this page/template as "within the scope of WikiProject Atheism"? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be needlessly pointy. Most atheists may not be interested in Jesus in general, but whether or not to link to a theory that jesus was fictional is surely of interest to some folk over at the atheism project. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory is in the scope of WikiProject Atheism, but this general template about Jesus is not. However, it's fairly clear that the suggestion was intended sarcastically, in protest to this debate being mentioned at the Atheism project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro, I see no problem with them voting here too. History2007 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No one minds them voting. I object to the assumtion that Atheism is somehow the same as "Ajesusism" or even "Achristianitism". ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No one said that the fictional terms you've indicated are "somehow the same", only that the theory is relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It's fairly simple to prove this is a fringe theory: is it taught in any university classes on the New Testament? No, it's a theory sold by self-published, unaccredited individuals with Geocities websites and names like "Acharya S". People who study the subject in detail ignore it. Pull up a university curriculum to confirm this. Shii (tock) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

While there is some merit in whether the theory is taught at universities, your argument relies on logical fallacies (both argument from ignorance and guilt by association). User:Victor_falk already provided a list of notable individuals who've supported the theory, and the target article is itself very well sourced. (I'm not aware that 'Acharya S from Geocities' is among those sources.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Accusation toward Jeffro77

In his edit summary for this edit, Carlaude has accused me of censoring his Talk page comments. For this reason, I am clearly stating the situation here.

Carlaude, apparently dissatisfied with the lack of support for his point of view, is now upset with my initial removal of unnecessary formatting around his quotes about undue weight.[8] After I removed only the unnecessary formatting, he decided to retributively add a whole swathe of over-formatted quotes, instead of what were previously cited refs.[9] He is now claiming that his retributive edits are being 'censored', though they are in fact right where they were in his original edit. Carlaude, your position doesn't have concensus. Deal with it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure; I am a terrible person. Rather than my edits being "retributive" for something, since Jeffro77 had moved copies of them to his "Comments" section anyhow-- presumably for actual discussion-- I just made these important statement visible. Hiding someone else's comments is a form of censorship, and even if it were not, you don't have a right to change other people's comments, per WP:Talk#Editing comments, even if this were your own talk page. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that you've arguably moved beyond persuasion, Carlaude, and might now be seen as trying to take over the entire discussion. You've made your points well, so now is the time to step back and let people make up their own minds. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please stop moving things to where you want them to.

Any closing editor can do his/her job fine without your help, and furthermore you (1) are making it more difficult to actual discuss this and (2) you are coming across as someone purposely trying to make it more difficult to actually discuss the issue(s), purposely trying obscure current discussion, and purposely trying obscure facts. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not move anything to any 'Comments' section, nor did I ever claim ownership of such a section. Carlaude, in his vitriol seems to be attributing to me an edit by User:SlimVirgin.[10].

The WP:Talk#Editing comments page Carlaude cites states, "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Refactoring for relevance; ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read." A long list of citations from people who do not support the theory (though who have obviously considered the theory) does not indicate that the theory is not notable, and acceptance of the theory is not the criterion for inclusion. Therefore, the long list is not especially relevant to the discussion, and the (excessive) citations, as originally provided by Carlaude as refs do not add anything to the discussion as quotes, much less as oversized quotes. My refactoring—restoring your original edit—is entirely within acceptable conduct.

The point indeed is that you, Carlaude, simply do not have consensus for your view, and the proper course of action is to accept consensus rather than complain about tangential minutia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

More threaded discussion

• Support inclusion (response to RfC) A single link in a collapsible template is not wp:undue. This is not wp:fringe as it has been seriously considered by numerous scholars and others (including significant proportions of the population in many countries as pointed out above.) I think this stems from the unfortunate juxtaposition of "myth" and "theory", which make it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Speaking of theory, it not one in the strict word of the sense. I suggest Jesus myth hypothesis as a more correct (and less contentious) title. ^walk victor falk ^talk 1:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Some conspiracy theories have also seriously considered by numerous scholars-- because many poeople think that they may be so-- not because these theories have merits. This is why how many scholars have "seriously considered" a theory is not part of Wikipedia policy on the issue-- nor should it be. You are right in that some terms here make it sound like a "wild conspiracy theory." What is the issue is here is that no facts nor RSs dispute its likeness to a wild conspiracy theory. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion A single link in a collapsible template is not wp:undue. The unfortunate juxtaposition of "myth" and "theory" make it sound like a wild conspiracy theory, but it is not. It is the view of a minority of historians and Bible scholars, but it has been given enough serious consideration not to qualify as wp:fringe. I propose addressing this problem by changing the title to Jesus myth hypothesis. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For it to be the view of a minority of historians and Bible scholars, there has to be at least one of each. Can you name any? (and not just claim that they are "there"-- but that you cannot be troubled to type in any name.) Do you have any RSs that state that it is a "minority" view?

By the way, WP:Undue weight says: " ...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles François Dupuis, Constantin-François Chassebœuf, David Strauss, Thomas L. Thompson, Bruno Bauer, Allard Pierson, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, Edwin Johnson (historian), Adolf von Harnack, Arthur Drews, André Dupont-Sommer, Graham Stanton, Robert M. Price, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Thompson, Alan Dundes, Bertrand Russell

Only a very tiny minority of scientists doubt global warming. Still, there are several links to global warming controversy articles in Template:Global warming. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should merge the sub-sections that have support/oppose in them. I was confused as to where my comment had to go. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of threaded discussion in the Comments section, so I moved it to the section for threaded discussion. But I had to copy the initial comments too, otherwise the replies would have made no sense. That's why there's repetition. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I getcha now. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No probs & thanks for the notification at WPAM. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you (victor falk) for this attempt at naming a historian or Bible scholar that holds this view.
• For people to have an opinion, they have to be alive. Nearly all (14) of these people are dead. In fact, six of them (Charles François Dupuis, Constantin-François Chassebœuf, David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Allard Pierson, Edwin Johnson (historian)) died more than 100 years ago. The remaining eight (Adolf von Harnack, Arthur Drews, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, Bertrand Russell, André Dupont-Sommer, Alan Dundes, Alvar Ellegård, Graham Stanton) have died since.
• Of the remaining two...

(1) Thomas L. Thompson (you put his name in twice) is not shown to be a holder of the Jesus myth hypothesis. The dust jacket of The Messiah myth: the Near Eastern roots of Jesus and David (jackets are written by those trying to sell the book, not necessarily by anyone who has read it) indicates that (while Jesus existed) no stories from the gospels is about him. The book itself is only quoted(?) to say "the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding" on page 8. This is not the Jesus myth hypothesis.

(2) Thompson is not a New Testament historian and thus not a RS on Jesus. He is an Old Testament historian, and book is mostly about David, and all about pre-Jesus events.

• Robert M. Price is scholar but is not called a historian in his article. He is a theologian. He also is not shown to be a holder of the Jesus myth hypothesis. Looking at his article called "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash", he tries to show that to a "wide extent to which the stories comprising the gospels" invented from "...the Old Testament". While Price says that "virtually the entirety of the gospel narratives" are such he does not claim therein that Jesus himself was invented. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Since they're dead, atleast we know they ain't gonna change their opinons. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether those people are alive is not at all relevant to the notability of the theory, but the list does establish that the theory is indeed notable. It's also unclear how some people who died recently would make the theory somehow less notable as a direct result of their individual deaths.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• People seem to want the Christ myth theory#notes #8-23 treated as "new comments".... and added at the end rather than were they were before. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

— Burridge

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

— Van Voorst, page 16

I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

— Wright, N. T., "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", There Is A God, Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Varghese, New York: HarperOne, 2007, 188. ISBN 978-0061335297

The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.

— Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster, 1985, 29

We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.

— Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, New York: Penguin Press, 1993, xiv

Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.

— Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972

Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.

— Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996, 121. ISBN 978-0060641665

It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus

— (emphasis added), Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) pgs. 76 & 164.

Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine (of Alexandria)'s fate as an unhistorical myth.

— Allison, Dale C., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 37. ISBN 978-082862624

I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

— Ehrman, Bart, Discussion on the Infidel Guy Radio Show

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

— Crossan, John Dominic, interview, available at http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus1.html

By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.

— Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", in Form Criticism, transled by Fredrick C. Grant (New York: Harper & Brother, 1962) p. 62.

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure there's any evidence that 'people seem to want' these listed at length here, as opposed to their original placement in refs. In any case, this list only indicates that many people have considered the theory, attesting to the notability of same.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:FRINGE theory and not NPOV. As has been said we don't have Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory and we can't "100% prove" that any of them existed either. We don't have Plato Myth Theory, or Socrates Myth theory (do I need to go on?) - are you absolutely sure they existed? Most (if not all) people accept they existed (on the basis of what evidence there is), likewise most people including many historians accept at the very least that the historicity (ie historical evidence) of Jesus of Nazareth is at least as good as any other historical figure. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• The reason we don't have articles on the hypothetical theories you suggest is because those theories don't exist. The target article demonstrates that the theory that Jesus didn't exist is notable and has been around for hundreds of years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• The theory that the earth is flat has been around for hundreds of years, who knows there might still be people around today who accept it. Undoubtedly it was plausible to some (even though still the minority) before Columbus circumnavigated the globe. Does the page for Flat Earth present it as a plausible theory? No. Has it been superceded? Yes. I can't do anything about the fact that a few people believe a Jesus myth theory also, but as we would not present Flat Earth as plausible nowadays, so the Jesus myth theory should be presented the same way - as an outdated theory.62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The flat earth theory is outdated, but the other theory is still current and has many proponents. If anything, it is growing in popularity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• And by the way, it is also a myth that most people thought the earth was flat before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, thats why I said a minority. With regard to JMT - it's already linked to from another article, so people can find it easy enough + we have a search box on wikipedia. Don't worry people will find it easily enough. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• So, you agree that your comparison to the flat earth theory is irrelevant. The single link to the theory is directly within the scope of the template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I am not going to be drawn into an argument. There are a minority who believe both theories, the relevance is that a flat earth is as inplausible to most geographers as the Jesus myth theory is impausible to most historians. We have a link to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology in the Jesus article, and that in turn links to the various mythological views, including the Christ myth view. That's the proper way to link these articles. Christ Myth Theory is not a main article, its one aspect of Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. Thats my preference for linkage. And the latter should not be described as further information, it is the main article on the mythological views about Jesus.62.254.133.139 (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comparison with the flat earth theory represents a false syllogism, because that theory has been completely disproved, rather than simply not accepted by the majority (but not an insignificant minority). Aside from that, the theory that Jesus is himself mythological is not the same thing as comparison of other mythologies to Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Yes it probably is a false syllogism, I'll strike that. My point was that the age of a theory tells us little about whether it is still fringe or not. JMT has been a fringe theory in the past. The proponents of a theory would be the last people I would ask if I wanted to find out how widely accepted it currently is though. I am tending to agree that this link lends undue weight to the "Christ myth theory". Why link directly to this one aspect of Jesus Christ in comparative mythology more than any other? There is also Lewis's "True Myth" view. If we link to one we have to link to all. But what would be the point of that when we already have a link to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. I also think Jesus myth theory would be better and more accurately entitled Jesus myth hypothesis.62.254.133.139 -DMSBel (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"The reason we don't have articles on the hypothetical theories you suggest is because those theories don't exist. " Actually the Buddha myth theory indeed exists, and you could even go back into the 19th century to find idiots talking about Buddha being a pureblood Aryan or an invention of the Indians, but I wouldn't bother violating WP:POINT to write an article on the "hundreds of years" of that grand fringe theory. Shii (tock) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the target article is not being contended here, and the article exists on its own merits, and is very well sourced. Comparison with any of the other hypothetical 'theory' articles is out of the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about a single link to that article, not whether the article is itself valid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is my point Jeffro.

Having many scholars affirm the lack of any scholars holding the theory attests it is a tiny minority view among scholars-- and if it also shows these scholars had to first "consider" the theory-- it would thus attest to the subject notability some-- but the WP:notability is irrelevant because the existence of the target article is not being contended! Notability is only a factor in the existence of the stand alone article.

WP:Undue weight: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is about the link. In leaving the other matters aside (from this discussion) I am not suggesting they are invalid. Jeffro77 is correct, there is an article:Jesus myth theory, and this is about a link to it, not about the article itself. I apologise for my earlier divergence from the main issue. Notability is relevant to discussion though. We currently have a link to it from the article: Jesus Christ in comparative mythology (I will refer to from now on as JCICM). As the use of the word "myth" varies between writers, with it having more negative connotations in some circles (higher criticism), and a more positive view from other writers (literary apologists such as JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis for instance hold a "true myth" view which as been widely discussed in secondary works but is rather inadequately covered here),so we need to be careful here that we are covering all views, and not assenting one out of a range of views. Therefore in my view JCICM should be designated the main article (for the mythological views) and the only link, so that reader can follow the link to there and see the different views, including un-historical myth. I have a range of research material (not available to read online) right at hand on this including, theological and historical sources and secondary sources so I know what some of the different views are. Linking to just one of them (JMT according to its lead is about the non-existence hypothesis or un-historical myth) is giving that one undue weight.62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good solution. Shii (tock) 11:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, regardless of all that there are so many arguments and so many support & oppose positions that there seems to be no clear consensus to do anything. So I guess by the time Tuesday arrives, it will all have been a discussion with no conclusion after all. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a two-thirds majority in support of the link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said before I do not see the addition or non-addition of the link as a big deal either way that will end the world or not. In the end it is one link. I am just amazed how much talking was done and I have not counted things (I guess you have) but the situation seemed murky. And again, let me get on my soap box to say that all the talk effort could have been used for improving content here and there. But anyway, I am glad it is over. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus Birthday

Although Christian feasts related to the Nativity have had specific dates (e.g. December 25 for Christmas) there is no historical evidence for the exact day or month of the birth of Jesus.[77][78][79]

I think this should be changed (so i'm suggesting it here, since i'm not an editor) to show two popular possible birthdays for Jesus:

December 25 (Christmas Day)

September 8 (9 months after December 8 the Feast of the Immaculate Conception)

September 8 is also the traditional birthday of Mary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.134.222 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus and Islam

I add the part wich explains Jesus' role in Islam.Runehelmet (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Please consider adding Jesus' circumcision to his biographical info -Luke 2:21-"When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb."

Thank you!

Yes, I think it does belong here, especially since it is not covered by Template:Gospel Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Lukeclapis (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Should "Jesus and History" be higher on the template?

Those would seem to be the most scholarly and interesting articles, but that just might be my bias as a history major. I think the order should be:

1. Jesus Christ and Christianity
2. Jesus and Islam
3. Jesus and history
4. Cultural-historical background
5. Perspectives on Jesus
6. Jesus in culture

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and the Torah

The Jesus and the Torah article is placed under Jesus and History part of the template. However, it doesn't really belong there. It would make more sense placing it in the Jesus and Christianity section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wide sidebar

This template was changed at short notice and is now way too wide, throwing text off in places where it is used. Please discuss it before making changes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a desired width? The problem with the previous width was that the lettering was smushed and that the table didn't use a standard template (which there is one, which is the one I modified this one to use). That said, if it's "throwing text off in places where it is used", then there's probably something going on on the pages it's used or how it's being used, due to the standardized nature of the new version. You also didn't need to revert the entire thing to fix the width... --Izno (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the changes you made survive in history, not vanished. I think if you add a line breaks to it may look like what there is. But at a more general level, these templates that are used in many, many pages should undergo dramatic changes only after consensus. If you want to put a sample here, we can discuss that along with everyone else. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamic links

There were some links added per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21#Template:Isa. I note, however, that there was no indication given on this page that a merge was being considered. In any case, it meant that there were links added, such as Prophets and messengers in Islam, when there was no corresponding Christian link, i.e. Prophets of Christianity. This strikes me as WP:UNDUE. I also note that we have two links on this template to Second Coming - that seems to me to be unnecessary, but the duplication was already there. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

please be bold and remove any links that you feel are inappropriate (e.g., as you have done here). having a separate template for the Islamic perspective is even more a violation of WP:UNDUE. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The argument that any link in the Islamic section must "correspond" with Christianity is not compelling. These are two different religions with different conceptions of Jesus. And there is no link to Prophets of Christianity because Jesus is not considered a prophet in Christianity. By contrast, Jesus being a prophet is a major claim in Islam. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus is certainly listed at Prophets of Christianity - what makes you say he isn't considered a prophet? StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected concerning that article. I meant "just" a prophet or not divine. But this doesn't detract from my point though. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is still the issue of undue weight - if we include Mary in Islam, but not (e.g.) Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), we are suggesting that the connection between Jesus and Mary in Islam is somehow more significant that it is in Catholicism, which is a ridiculous claim. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it is significant to Jesus in Islam. Mary figures more prominently in the Qur'an than any other woman, and the story of the virgin birth is told from her perspective. Throughout the Qur'an, Jesus is frequently referred to as "Son of Mary" or "Jesus, the Son of Mary". They are also grouped together in statements such as "And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign ... ", etc. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Divine Mercy and Sacred Heart

Both devotions/ideas are certainly crucial for the Christianity and the personage of Jesus, being necessary in this template. Propositum (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that either devotion is crucial enough to require to be linked to in so many templates and articles. What do others think? Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)