Template talk:Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Template This article has been rated as Template-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)

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

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] deletion of Exorcism#Jesus because of very few examples??????

Here they are from Demonic_possession#Demonic_possession_in_the_Bible

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Add link to Jesus in Scientology

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