Talk:Jesus Christ

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. 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. Conservlogo.png

Contents

God doesn't exist

Because God doesn't exist Jesus can't be claimed as the son of god. For this reason the article should approach the biblical character of Jesus in the same way it would approach the character of any other timeless work of literature.

You can't really prove that God doesn't exist, nor can you prove that he does. That's the entire faith problem, it requires an act of faith. Proof for God's existence is as likely to be found as is proof for the existence of French-speaking pebbles floating around in space. It's an amazing and expanding universe after all (Monty Python, The meaning of Life(the Galaxy song)). Jesus however did exist, but I think God would have better things to do with his time than killing of his child.

J Wilson, yours truly, et peuvent les cailloux nous protéger !

Are you trying to fling stones at us, Mr Wilson, by the forcing of your religious beliefs on us? Like it or not, that child you so readily condemn died so that we could gain eternal life, as recorded in the Gospels which you also condemn. You will meet Jesus Christ one day, and whether or not you meet Him as savior or judge depends on whether or not you ask Him to be your savior. It's your free choice. Karajou 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?

I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. Dpbsmith 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Go look at the section on wikipedia discussing the historicity of Jesus. This is the typical secular/humanist/evolutionist/atheist pap. FightPerniciousSwarm 21:47, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Atheists do not deny the historical person.... in fact, quite the opposite. Atheists tend to believe that, someone who is remembered by so much oral and textual history, must've been a real person. However, just like the characters of Homer's Illiad, simply because someone was real, does not make them progeny of any deity. In fact, evidence proving Jesus was a real, historical person only conflicts with ideas that he could magically heal the sick, walk on water, turn water to wine, etc. In other words, it is those who believe Jesus had supernatural powers that do the most disservice to his historical persona. Were everyone to claim that Jesus was an excellent preacher with some incredibly great ideas, no one would argue his existence! --Newsdan 14:39, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As an athiest, I do deny the existence of historical Jesus. But only because every shred of "proof" has been found to be either false, or so vague that it cannot be interpreted as actual proof. Most make references to "Christ" which is was common title, "the anoited one," not a name. --Niffed 23:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Niffed, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ exists, why do you spend time on the attempt to disprove something that you believe doesn't exist? Do you think that much about Hobbits, even though Hobbits don't exist? If you really want to know if God exists, ask Him with an honest heart. God promises, that He will make himself known to those who honestly seek Him.MartialArtist 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Niffed I would disagree with you but you don't exist and I see no proof that you do. When you can prove you exist then I'll listen to what you have to say - that is if you existed.--Rickswartzentrover 20:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT)


The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. Who, exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. Dpbsmith 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Want confirmation of this? Go to this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize small, minority. Scorpionman 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)
If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.
When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on Historicity of Jesus, thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying
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." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.
I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are reasonably widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. Dpbsmith 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. JoshuaZ 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)
OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."
If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. Dpbsmith 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --John 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --GarbageMan 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the existence of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

There are other conservative religious perspectives as well, could the article be expanded to include those? In particular Muslims accept the existance of Jesus as a Prophet but deny that he is the son of God. --AGivenVoice 20:04, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I am an Atheist. I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he was a deity. AnAtheist 20:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no independent (i.e., non-Christian) evidence of the existence of Jesus because he was not well known during his life. Roman and Jewish scholars who wrote about him long after his death relied on Christians sources for his existence. However, I cannot see why this should matter, since this is a matter of faith. --The Four Deuces 17:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


There is no evidence that jesus was anything other than a man other than one book, the bible which could very well have been a collection of childrens stories used to teach morals.


I don't believe that UFOs exist but I don't spend hours trying to convince others that UFO's don't exist - Why because I don't HATE UFOs, I simply don't believe they exist. See all the so-called Atheists know that God exists and they are scared to death, that is why they spend all their time trying to convince themselves that he doesn't exist. Show me a Atheist and I'll show you a God-hating Christaphobic bigot.--Rickswartzentrover 21:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

Actually, contrary to what some say, there is a non-christian source of Jesus, i can't recall his name, but he has been recorded by at least one historian whose records are for the most part uncontested. --DavidS 16:14, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

Locked

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. Scorpionman 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

You Legend
Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --Will N. 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Funny how this page is locked depsite conservapedia asking for people to edit it. previous unsigned comment added by User:Wikipediaisbetter

Funny how Wikipedia's article is also locked... They are better exactly how..? Fox 10:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus is a pretty popular object of vandalism, I say keep it locked and people can propose changes here. That is one of the reasons for talk pages. --Ben Talk 10:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

This website has no auspices of objectivity it's simply a propaganda tool, I'm ashamed at you Conservapedia. I'm a conservative AND an Atheist, but you would rather deny that I exist, while propagating these myths.

Josephus

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...[1]

When you say "serious scholars" you mean Liberal God-hating Scholars don't you. I know of 1000s of serious scholars that know it is genuine. That is just the typical ploy of the left whenever they don't like something. I can do it also watch - The myth that Alexander the great ever existed is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval Atheist of the Enlightenment cult. See how easy it is to just hide you head under your blanket & say the boogy man isn't real.

Worth mentioning?

Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

Jewish? Jewish? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been half-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with their scriptures!--Petrus 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Wouldn't that be racist? --Luke-Jr 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (Of course the man was Jewish!). --Petrus 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Having been born in that part of the world, the Roman province of Palestine, he more likely had semitic features was short (everyone was short at the time), olive skinned with dark hair. Plus, he observed Passover, and read in the synagogue. Vjay 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. Tsumetai 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --Petrus 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The two theories are:
1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
--Luke-Jr 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --Petrus 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Its rather redundant to state he was Jewish. As obvious as stating he was male.

References

  1. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

Christ

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

Boethius 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Or rather that christos is the Greek translation of Hebrew mashiach, meaning 'anointed' and thus 'Messiah' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --Petrus 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Christ the Redeemer??

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

A NOTE TO THE ADMINS: Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to v-andalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. Dallas 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Help for this article is on the way, so be patient!  :) Karajou 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The name Jesus

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

Britinme 3.51 24 March 2007

Very interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --Petrus 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Birth of Christ

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

The date would have been around Sept. 15 or 16 of 5 b.c., going by the signs in the heavens and the lunar cycle, and adjusting it to a Roman calendar date. The important thing to remember is that Yahshua was FULFILLING TORAH, thus, 'the day of his DEATH is better than the day of his birth', meaning we should continue in observing PASSOVER. 'Do this in remembrance of me...' --Witnessnbr1 14:20, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Case for Christ

I am reinserting the reference to Case for Christ. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. MountainDew 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Name of page

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. MountainDew 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a title not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. Sulgran 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is Jesus Christ to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:
Our Core Values
  1. 1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always.
  2. 2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
  3. 3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
  4. 4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
--~ TK MyTalk 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.
In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, mashiach) throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a Greek translation, of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --Petrus 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually YeshuaDaemon 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, we are not for everyone. --~ TK MyTalk 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on Jesus would be better served if they found it in Jesus Christ. --Ed Poor 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'Christ' simply means 'anointed', like in Daniel, 'an anointed one'. His name should be Yahshua of Nazareth, as He was never a GREEK. --Witnessnbr1 14:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. Conservative 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. MontyZuma 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Simple Logic?

I don't see how this phrase:

"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. MatteeNeutra 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --Trashbat 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. MatteeNeutra 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

If Jesus was the son of God, but also part of God himself, and God is all powerful, why did Jesus need to sacrifice himself to himself to amend a rule he made himself?--Xodion 00:30, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Jesus did not have to sacrifice himself. He could have snapped his fingers. The point is that by dying on the cross, Jesus gave us that powerful image of our redemption. AddisonDM 00:32, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

In this discussion, it is good to remember a number of things. "HImself to Himself" implies the Trinity. This cannot be well or fully understood, but that does not mean it cannot be believed in. I believe in "One God in three Persons" yet even what I believe is not with full understanding. Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself according to the rules He has made does point to an aspect which may have the solution that Xodion is searching for. The key is forgiveness. What we mean by forgiveness, what forgiveness really is. Whether forgivenss is of man or God, what it is is always a dying to oneself, a sacrifice of what is dear to you, part of you, of your innermost sense of what should be, must be. If that is not so, it is not forgiveness. It is forgetting, or not caring, or looking the other way, or indulgence, cavalier, meaning nothing. For God to truly forgive us, something in Himself, in a very real sense, had to experience a death. And so Jesus on the Cross - bearing our sins and for our sakesBert Schlossberg 06:25, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. Conservative 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind i fixed it. Conservative 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. Conservative 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? Sterile 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Unprotection

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. Ian St John 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Other people in the Bible name Jesus

While this is interesting, it's not appropriate for an article on Jesus Christ, which itself can get rather long. I did include a brief acknowledgement of Joshua and Messiah in the opening paragraph so your additions in regard to Jesus Christ are not lost. I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks Learn together 16:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Lead

I wrote a new lead. I hope its not to bold, but I wanted to get the point about just who Jesus is right upfront. Lostcaesar 20:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

While I am a Christian, I'm still thinking perhaps we should start with the words "In Christian theology", before your new lead. Learn together 02:34, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Learn together, please don't fall for the realitivists here. This is a Christian, Conservative encyclopedia. Ignore those wanting neutral statements, okay? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Can you objectively, empirically demonstrate the claim that Christ was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God and, through dying, absolved the sins of his believers past, present and future? Its perfectly fine to believe this, sure, but to claim it as outright fact is wrong, and not simply because the only source for these grand claims is the Bible (a book which contains within it numerous self-contradictory and inaccurate passages, but thats another discussion) but also that to attempt to pin him down as a concrete character defies the various interpretations which have lead to the factioning of the church based on different eschatologies. Different christian religions all see christ in different lights. Some believe he was a miracle worker, some a philosopher/teacher, some see him as a pure man of God and some as God himself.
Don't get me wrong, TK, I'm fully in favor of an un-neutral encyclopedia that promotes a specific "Christian, Conservative" narrative by selectively cherrypicking evidence and ignoring context to suggest as fact things that are not necessarily the case, and certainly the article can stay such as it is, offending the intellectual sensibilities of people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who saw truth in Christ's teachings but had "doubts as to his divinity," by committing the intellectual dishonesty of stating these things as outright fact which only cite one text as the source for these extraordinary claims.
I just think though that if beliefs are going to be stated as fact that CPedia needs to come out front and decide which particular kind of christianity its going to promote as singularly true. Which particular protestant reformations will CPedia then be in a position to declare as false? Which Catholic sects? Methodism? Lutheranism? Mormonism? Making an "un-neutral" statement does get that snowball rolling after all, and if you've decided, TK, that neutrality is a bad thing, then riddle me this: Which conservapedia contributors... no... which CPedia Sysops will have the fun to find that the CPedia says their particular belief in Christ is outright wrong? I would really like to know. You all going to vote on which religion is "true" are you? I mean clearly here "true" is decided by the ideaology of the sysops as a group, and its not very likely that you all go to the exact same church, so who is it, specifically, who gets to have their Christian faith called false here? Inquiring minds want to know.
--Rex Mundane 12:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I think you got off on a tangent there. The majority of practicing Christians would have no trouble with the portrayal of Jesus put forth by Lostcaesar; there's no need to identify every variant and condition to the point where gridlock trumps common sense. And saying only one text is cited for Jesus is like taking all of the works of ancient Greece and putting them in one volume, then saying there's only one source that discusses ancient Greece. Learn together 02:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I apologize if I was unclear. I realize that there is archeological evidence that Jesus existed, but the problem isn't whether he lived or not. Its his divinity. The only source for such a claim is a selection of specific accounts of his life (others who witnessed him do not mention miracles, as an example) of which there is no supporting evidence. The only you can say about his divinity, therefore, is that the bible claims it to be so and that people believe it. Stating it as manifest fact simply because the majority agrees would be like, if the majority were also Star Trek fans, saying that Capt. James T Kirk is a real person. Facts are not democratic and demand quantification.
My other problem with "majority" being used to argue the stament of beliefs as fact in this sense is that you admit there are a minority of Christians (myself among them) who do not necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. Say then that another section goes up in the article about how He should be worshipped then. Do you populate that section with the majority religion at the expense of the others? Say Catholicism over Protestantism? Then that majority further divides over reformations and yields another majority, which then divides over another issue and then another, and before long you have Russian Nesting dolls, each being a majority, until the "minorities" put together outnumber the "majorities" 10 to 1.
When you allow lapsed standards for statements of fact such as this merely on the basis of it being the opinion of the majority, you get exactly that situation in the long run. I notice, of course, that if a liberal were to make a similar unverifiable, intellectually dishonest claim on this site, he'd be hunted down with dogs. For consistancy's sake, for legitimacy's sake, and not least of all for Christ's sake, the only thing that should be said as fact about Christ's divinity is that the bible claims it to be so.--Rex Mundane 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." ...The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews." (John 19:18-19, 21)
What will we write? "Jesus is the Son of God", or "some claim he said that he was the Son of God." ? Lostcaesar 12:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the best and simplest thing to say is some variant of "According to the Bible, Jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, etc." since I agree the bible is the most pivotal reference for alot of the history attributed to him. The important thing to realize is that, and I dont mean this to be as condescenting as it might sound, but Jesus here is basically a character in a book, and as such since the only real source for the bulk of the extraordinary claims is that same book, the very simple quantifier "According to the bible..." used sparingly just to establish that context would, I think, be the best course of action. Fair?--Rex Mundane 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to follow you here, RexMundane, I'll cease with this observation. I generally agree with your modest tone here, and do not take offense. I would like to add one clarification, though. While the Bible is most often published in a single book, it is actually a collection of books (or scrolls), letters, etc. The phrasing "According to the Bible..." seems to ickypedian to me. This is a conservative encyclopedia. I am not sure we need to cite the source of the statement in line, but perhaps we do. I don't think conservapedia is about doubting the historocity of Jesus. Am I wrong? HeartOfGold 15:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Well the claim of Jesus's divinity though is entirely based on the aggregate statements made by the bible. I agree that there was a Jesus, that significant events in the story of his life, as recanted in the bible, have been verified by archeological record, and it is entirely honest to say as much. Claiming he was born of a virgin, is the son of God, etc., however rather demands a quantifier since it is, and I say this recognizing this as a "christian" cyclopedia, only a claim being made by one source (I am here refering to the selection of texts in the bible as a single group) and significant as that source is to discussing the nature of Jesus, I maintain that it is wrong to say these things as objective fact when, outside of the claims made by that one source, there is no other empirical proof to say that, for instance, the ressurection was a real event. If the event exists, basically, only as an event in the story the Bible tells, that should be made explicit.
As I say, I consider myself a christian in a sort of Thomas Jefferson sense, and don't require him to have been supernatural or even for the bible to have been accurate in order to be able to glean moral lessons from the story of his life. I realize that my opinion is not as important as the bible's in this regard, certainly as far as conveying the story of Christ, but the important thing is that the story is, basically, the bible's version. An important version to be sure, but it does a disservice to not make that clear, I rather think. Given too how I don't actually see how saying something like "The Bible says Jesus was X" instead of simply "Jesus was X" in any way changes a persons interpretation of Christ or his story in any significant way. I'm not saying to call it a lie, just to acknowledge that the primary basis for the claims is the bible itself.--Rex Mundane 17:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Jesus' divinity is known by revelation, making it a fact that we can be certain about. If you wish to talk about sources, a section would be appropriate, where we can talk about the witness of the Bible, the Church Fathers, and any of the many miracles wrought in his name in the two thousand years since his resurrection. But, just as we would not qualify every statement about Julius Caesar being emperor of Rome, we should not qualify what we say about the Son of God. Lostcaesar 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute. "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone. Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary. All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account. Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well. I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--Rex Mundane 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Rex. Stating that Jesus *is* the Son of God unequivocally leaves Conservapedia in the position of endorsing Christianity as objectively true, when in fact this isn't verifiable, and the majority of people on earth are not Christian. A statement saying "According to the Bible" or "According to the Christian faith" as a preface would make this more objective. JohnSmith 13:11, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
1) This is a Christian encyclopedia. 2) While you may not think it is 'verifiable', others are not obliged to agree with this conclusion or approach. 3) Truth is not determined by mere popular whimsy, ergo the number of Christians is not directly relevant, though the position of the faith as the plurality, or near plurality position amongst different religions ought to give cause to reevaluate your position, even if you continue with the assumption that sheer number is directly relevant. Lostcaesar 16:34, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
1) No, it isn't a Christian encyclopedia; it's a conservative encyclopedia QED. Not all conservatives are Christians, and even if they were it wouldn't make the question of Christ's divinity any more or less objectively verifiable. 2) It isn't just me that believes that the question of Christ's divinity is unverifiable. Such a question is one of faith, not of science, and as such is purely subjective. You may personally believe that Christ is your Lord and Savior, and noone is suggesting that you should believe otherwise, but you should recognize that this position can't be objectively proven. 3) I'm not making an argumentum ad populum, I'm simply pointing out that Conservapedia should not be in the business of claiming that one religion is true over all others, and it's sheer hubris to do otherwise. JohnSmith 11:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
You sound as if you consider your statement (2) to be "objectively verifiable", since you give no argument for it other than to repeat the assertion. Whatever the case, what is "objectively verifiable" is that the frontpage contains a Daily Bible Verse. Please example this useful text. Lostcaesar 13:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Regardless of the opinion of the Christian Post, the stated purpose of this website is to provide a counterpoint to perceived liberal bias in Wikipedia, not to advance Christianity as the only true religion. There are a great many non-Christian conservatives. If you haven't guessed by now, you're speaking to one. With regards to verifiability, the fact is that the entire basis upon which the divinity of Christ rests is the Bible itself, which is not an objective source, it's a work of faith. I appreciate that you have a strong faith, but just as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Conservapedia should not be one either. To claim that one religion is true over all others rather than to give a dispassionate overview of the facts surrounding those religions is to stop being an encyclopedia, and to start being a tract. To state "Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God" is a fact which can be proven. To state "Christ is the Son of God" may or may not be true, but cannot be proven independant of the Bible. This in and of itself violates Conservapedia commandment 1. JohnSmith 14:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
The Gospels and the testimonies and facts along centuries are "objectively verifiable". They are holly books and facts as well as scientifically truth as other history book are according to History science. What you have to remember is that men are undoubtedly flash and soul. Make your statements using both and you will see as John the Apostle teched, the love that is there and that is a reality objectively verifiable. Any man can be a witness of that simple truth. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
The Bible may be held by some to be holy, but that view isn't held by all (indeed, it's only held by a minority of the world's population). Other holy texts do not claim that Jesus was the son of God. Conservapedia should not be in the business of stating that one holy text is true and others are false, because this is a matter of faith, not fact. JohnSmith 16:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus was Jewish!

Jesus was Jewish... his personal religious beliefs are central to a belief in him, yet this article makes no mention of what Jesus believed. This glaring omission can only be seen as an effort to force history into alignment with current ideals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newsdan (talk)

That's a little harsh. Yes, Yeshua was Jewish. And as the site grows I'm sure the article will come to reflect this. This is a fairly new site, Newsdan - it didn't appear fully formed and perfect :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:34, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Like most of us did not know he was a Jew. There is nothing wrong with him being Jewish, nothing!--Will N. 14:36, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Will... the problem is that the article is locked, and yet was done so without adding this fact. --Newsdan 14:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

You can use this talk section to preview to the sysops anything you'd like to add. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
I'd suggest providing the wording you would like to see included and where this placement would occur. As Fox has stated, the sysops are more than happy to see that constructive edits are included. Learn together 14:49, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Jesus was ethnically Jewish, but he came to fulfill the Jewish faith, thereby founding the Christian Church. Lostcaesar 17:22, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I would have to counter the thought above about 'founding the christian church'. The christian church was formed to save its own butt from the persecution of the Jews. Then, it started to worship what it wanted to worship to separate themselves further(such as xmas and esthar), thus further STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH, and bringing man to what it is right now, a spiritual mess. That said, scripture PREDICTED that this would happen in Hosea 6:1-2. Man has been ripped apart for 2 days(2000 years), and the healing is about to begin.--Witnessnbr1 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Introductory Paragraph

This article has a real problem. Many people question the divinity of Jesus Christ. The opening section of this article should state "According to the Christian faith..."

To state as fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God has no place in the main article and has no business being in an encyclopedia. This article should be unlocked and appropiate changes made to make this article neutral.

The owners and administrators are doing great harm to this website and their positions by allowing their personal opinions to enter into the articles. Credibility, readership and contributions cannot be maintained by allowing non-neutral articles.

Personal, religious and political opinions should be expressed outside the main body of articles.

You're not an authority on all things encyclopedic, are you? Karajou 18:29, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
You're new here aren't you...--Elamdri 18:31, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes I am new, and I am learning. However, the first thing I did was read the rules, especially rule#5 which states that personal opinions are not allowed in articles. The beginning of this article breaks rule #5. Clearview 15:46 6/19/07

Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not? Karajou 18:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
Ok before a big fight breaks out, Clearview, just keep in mind that while the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned. If you have an idealogical issue with that, then I suggest that you either try to repress it when editing, or perhaps try another wiki, as making edits that refute the divinity of Jesus are only going to result in a ban.--Elamdri 18:58, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

First, I never stated my position on the divinity of Christ so please do not assume what I believe. Second, my suggestion that the article be introduced by stating that the Christan faith holds that Christ is divine does not refute any fact. Third, belief in Christ does not require fact, only faith "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see". Clearview 16:32PST 6/19/07.

Well, first, we had trolls and vandals come in who picked the CP commandments as the first thing they complained about in general, and articles about the Bible specifically. Second, you are not an authority as to what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Third, the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5, because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject. Therefore it will not be changed. Karajou 21:46, 19 June 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I would like to point out that the phrase "According to Christian faith...." does not state a personal opinion. Maybe you could make it something like "For all Christians..."? So it does not sound as questioning, but still pays respect to the fact that people of other/no faith don't view Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god and their savior. --lhb 02:53, 15 Sept 2007
First, I think Karajou owes an apology to all of us, and especially to Clearview, for acting obnoxiously. What gives you authority to say that anyone, including yourself and me, is or is not an expert in what constitutes the structure and layout of an encyclopedia. Then the argument was used that "the changes that you have insisted be made pertaining to Jesus and Judaism articles constitute a violation of commandment #5 because, like it or not, it is your personal opinion and beliefs as to the subject." I think we all agree that religion is a controversial topic. Therefore, it is important to consider all points of view on religion, including those who believe in Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader and those who believe in him as a historical figure with no spiritual background or even those who do not believe he existed at all. Karajou does not understand that saying that Jesus is believed by Christians is a completely neutral way of addressing the topic. Therefore, the article is as fair as possible because Christians who do believe in Christ have their arguments mentioned. Those who do not believe in Christ have their views acknowledged because the article states that Christ's divinity is believed by only some people. Karajou stated that "Are you sure that Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Savior is personal opinion? Is it your personal opinion that He's not?" It most certainly is a personal opinion, and that he is not is also a personal opinion. While the article may completely focus on one side of this opinion, it needs some form of disclaimer in the opening paragraph to explain that Jesus and his divinity is not a universally accepted truth. --Eb12 18:42, 12 January 2008 (EST)

""While the site says that no personal opinion is allowed, the site owner and most of the administrators here view the Bible as irrefutable fact and while you may disagree, refuting that is only going to get you banned."" So, no personal opinion is allowed UNLESS it's the personal opinion of the site owner and administrators? Ha! That's hilarious. Why are you even bothering to pretend that Conservapedia has the remotest commitment to impartiality if you're willing to make statements like that? At least Wikipedia has the decency to PRETEND they're not biased. Unless the site owner and administrators are actually willing to abide by their own commandments, Conservapedia will forever be viewed as a ridiculous propoganda site that maintains it's blinkered dogma by banning anybody who expresses a different point of view. Your editing policy has more in common with communist Russia than modern America (remember a wee thing called 'Freedom of Speech?') I imagine I'll get instantaniously banned for writing such heresy, but I think it's a VERY valid point to be raised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolandhulme (talk)

Wikipedia is biased in many of its articles; changing the evolution article, for example, to include facts that evolution is false will get instantly reverted. As to what constitutes a wiki, do you have the right to claim "freedom of speech" in a wiki dedicated to Star Wars when you post articles related to the U.S. Civil War? I don't think so. You're welcome to make positive contributions in this wiki, but you have to realize that editing in any wiki is a priviledge, and not a right. Karajou 14:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi Karajou - thanks for the response (which was more reasonable than mine, so I apologise. I was just frustrated.) I see your point about freedom of speech, although that's not applicable in this situation. A man posting about the Civil War in a post about Star Wars could be censored on the basis of relevance. The flaws in Conservapedia's page on Jesus are VERY relevant. To fulfil the intention of Conservapedia - to be a reference, rather than a propoganda site, it needs to outline Jesus' life as referenced by the Bible and Christian texts - not just as imperical fact. From what you're saying, it seems clear that the site owner and administrators play the 'It's my site and I'll censor/rewrite as I want to' instead of actually trying to be impartial or factual or follow their own clearly established commandments. That's their right, sure - but it means Conservapedia is entirely useless as an alternative knowledge resource to Wikipedia. Oh, and as for evolution... Wikipedia does explain creationist theory and intelligent design, but considering that evolution is only a theory in the same way gravity is (and I studied history and did some archeology at a theological university, so I'm pretty knowledgable about this stuff) I don't think it's possible to support creationism with any convincing 'facts' - hence deletion. Although that's a topic for another post! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolandhulme (talk)

The opening sentence claims that Jesus IS in fact the son of God. This is a belief, not a fact, and it should therefore be referred to as a belief. e.g. "Jesus Christ is believed by Christians to be the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerUebermensch (talk)

Only 'begotton' son. The bible is quite specific and some consider it to imply that there are other sons , just not born of woman. This gets quite difficult to explain since Jesus IS God and has always existed , also theres no Mrs God and 'son' has a pretty specific meaning in most languages , but I digresss. Markr 17:52, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Rolandhulme and DerUebermensch (even though he is banned) should read my essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia. As for evolution, it is not a theory "in the same way gravity is": gravity is observed, but goo-to-you evolution isn't. Philip J. Rayment 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Teachings of Jesus

Why does the article have no section about the teachings of Jesus? --The Four Deuces 17:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Good question! Why don't you work on it at The Gospels? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:57, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

We should add a section about how the teachings of Jesus are applied today, especially be liberals using his words to incorrectly support their agenda.

Ex. Welfare (compassion)

Gay Marriage (acceptance)

Capital punishment (thou shall not murder)

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! Lukecorlando 23:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who..."

Please consider changing to "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God who..." for Ge 6:2 talks about other "sons of God."


Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

I appreciate it. FightPerniciousSwarm 21:43, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Category removal

Please remove the categories: Christianity, Trinity, Christian History, Religion, Biblical persons, and Divine Beings. They are all supercategories of Category:Jesus. Also, it would be nice if you could sort the Jesus article at the top, by doing thus: [[Category:Jesus|]]. TheEvilSpartan 15:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Jesus in Islam

i will further expand the article by adding the Islamic view of Jesus as the Massaiah and a prophit, i will also start a new article about the issue

watch your spelling --[user:PhilipV|PhilipV]

Truth and verifiability

I don't think this article should be phrased the way it is. CP commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable". Is it really verifiably true that "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God", or that "Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him"?

It may well be true, I don't deny that, but it is not verifiably so, hence the need for faith. It is in the same category of statement as "The Koran is the perfect, unalterable word of God", or "Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse". It is not the same category of verifiable statements such as "water boils at 100 degrees celsius", or "China has the highest population of any country in the world".

It is verifiably true that Christians believe Jesus to be the only Son of God, and that According to the New Testament, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him, so why can't the article be written that way? There are precedents. Compare with Hell, which states "To Christians, hell is a place where the souls of the wicked are punished eternally for all the sins they perpetrated during their lifetime on Earth." Or the page on Islam, which mentions "The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified."

Why make an exception to the first CP commandment for this page?Eoinc 05:39, 14 February 2008 (EST)

The Theory of Jesus?

In the same way that evolution is stated to be a mere "theory" since it is not universally accepted, should we not give equal consideration to Jesus and his relation to god. A vast majority may accept he was the son however since a few do not can we not rephrase such statements in a manner like "currently most accept that Jesus was the son of god" or perhaps "the leading theory amongst religious people today is that Jesus was the son of god"

The statement

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

also seems unverifiable Qc 17:03, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Hebrew or Aramaic?

The article has the Aramaic form of His title but calls it Hebrew. Aramaic is Meshiha (Aleph) - the article at the end, while Hebrew is HaMashiah - article at the frontBertSchlossberg 06:25, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

minor bits

shouldnt The Twelve Apostles be in the see also part and not just Andrew

Commandments

Is it possible for anybody to actually edit the article in accordance with the Conservapedia guidelines?

It begins :'Jesus was the son of God...'

That's wrong. Rule No.1 in the guidelines is Attribution. It should read 'Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God.' If you don't bother following the rules of Conservapedia there's no point in even having the bloody thing in the first place.

It should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

Editing

Why are we not able to edit this page? As I said earlier, the entire first paragraph is inconsistent with established conservapedia guidelines and should read:

Christians believe that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ, featured in the New Testament of the Bible, was the Son of God, sent to Earth to die for our human sins and show people the path to heaven. Popular Christian lore suggests that Jesus was born in the first century A.D. and it is his birth upon which the modern calendar system is based.

According to the new Testament, when he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. According to the Bible, Jesus performed various miracles throughout his life, lending support to his claim that he was the son of God.

The Bible chronicles that many during Jesus' lifetime did not believe in his divinity and some sought to put him to death. Eventually, Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. Christian lore states that he died for mankind's sins on the cross, therefore offering a path to heaven to all those who accepted him as their savior.

According to the Bible, Jesus physically rose from the dead three days after being entombed and appeared to his disciples on various occasions. The Bible then states that Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he now acts as our mediator and path to heaven.

Evidence for Jesus flimsy at best.

This whole Christ-as-savior thing kinda irks me. Why is it that the Bible is full of all these miracles which were treated as the greatest spectacles of their day and yet it seems that as soon as media and culture popped up on the scene the whole "magic God" went kinda dormant. It's kinda like how Superman used to fight all kinds of crazy space aliens and stuff and then he just starts taking on topical issues like corporations and terrorism. Why the watering down so suddenly? Aren't we talking about a God with an infinite scope of the universe? Why does he care whether people are smart enough to acknowledge these things? Why doesn't Sodom and Gemorrah happen like, everyday in this day and age? LinusWilson 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Evidence for Jesus being black?

I have read over the article and I see no mention to the possibility of Jesus being black? craan


If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. Mark7 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)


Why can't you provide credible evidence that he is white? Technically, he's a Middle Easterner. LiberalJohn

Prayer to receive

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? Mark7 18:12, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

In one sense it is true that prayer to receive Jesus is not a teaching from or of Him, but rather a teaching about Him or approach to Him. In another sense, it is a teaching from or of Him, in that the prayer is a definite decision of incorporating Him into our life as He is - Lord and Savior. And that, Jesus did many ways when He was on earth - presenting or interjecting Himself in the "equation" of reaching God and His Kingdom. This shows that the two ways, that "of or from Jesus Himself" (Gospels) and the way "about Jesus" (Epistles) are really one way.Bert Schlossberg 12:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Unlock

Any chance of getting this unlocked so some edits can be made? It's pretty sloppy in formatting.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded Illuminatiscott

I would like to unlock to add Category:Catholic Church-- 50 star flag.png jp 00:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

New section needed - Popular depiction of Jesus

Jesus has been generally depicted over the years as "as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes" - however this depiction is heavily at odds with the racial characteristics of humans in the Judea and Galilee areas at the time of Jesus' life as a mortal man. "According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples." This would suggest Jesus is much shorter and darker skinned than traditionally believed.[1] [Image:http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg].

Can someone add this section and upload the linked image and display it alongside? Thankyou. DefenderofTrue 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Arnold Toynbee in his “Study of History” talks about “diversity in unity” and says that an identical religious belief can be given totally different cultural interpretations. Think of black Madonnas in Africa and Brazil and Orthodox images of Christ that look Greek. I lived near a “Sacred Heart” school and their statues were perfectly Anglo-Saxon. And did Charlton Heston look Semetic? (Though I do wonder why the bad guys tended to sound British). If God created man in His image, we should be able to reciprocate, whatever we look like. AlanE 23:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps it is best to leave the article as it is, which is to say not mentioning his physical appearance. After all, the Bible itself chooses that path. Anything else would just be speculation and detract from the portrayal of Jesus that the Bible does provide. Learn together 07:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
That image link is now dead; you can use its archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070216050838/http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_jesuslead-lg.jpg or its smaller replacement http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg. Keepscases 23:44, 27 December 2010 (EST)

transference of a section. Is it O.K.?

I took the Self Consciousness of Jesus section from the Christianity article. Is this O.K. to do? I thought so because I am the editor for the section. But still unsure if this is acceptable procedure for articles. I felt more sure of it for the KAL 007 Korean Airlines Flight 007 articles because I am the main editor. But not so for the articles on the FaithBert Schlossberg 04:35, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Christians believe...

I'm something of a newbie, but should we start the article with something like "Jesus Christ is, in Christian theology, the only Son of God..." in order to be more accessible to our non-Christian brethren? While I would never deny the divinity of our Lord, I think we could be more ecumenical with such an approach. Opinions? --DReynolds 19:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

It depends on what stance the site wants to take, and Conservapedia takes the stance that Jesus Christ is the only son of God. How would your wording make it "more accessible"? It doesn't alter their ability to access the page. Further, I doubt that it would make any difference to how much someone was prepared to believe it. That is, if they won't believe that Jesus is God because we say that He is, why would they believe it if we don't say that He is? Philip J. Rayment 04:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Technical difficulties

When I went to the Uncategorized pages tab, I noticed that this page was on there. I looked at it, and it has about six categories. Could someone fix this? JY23 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)

It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? Philip J. Rayment 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put [[Category:Featured articles]] on the page? Thanks, JY23 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I've unprotected it, so you can add that. Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The "scourging" section

I see that the article is protected. Could the following be added on to the scourging section?

"The scourging and physical affliction of Jesus, the not overtly alluded to, may have a significance for benefit to come. There was a prophecy of the Suffering Servant to come:

Yet He Himself bore our sicknesses, and He carried our pains; but we in turn regarded Him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

The Gospel of Mattew would see in this prophesy a foretelling of the various healings and deliverances that Jesus gave to the people, "so that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He Himself took our weaknesses and carried our diseases (Matt. 8:17) If not the scourging itself, then all of the sufferings of the Lord, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, was the source not only for forgiveness, but also for all the many types of healings and restorations for the people."Bert Schlossberg 07:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I've unprotected it, so you can edit it yourself. But if the vandalism resumes, it will need to be protected again. Before you add, though, please check your spelling (first sentence)! Philip J. Rayment 08:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Question

Should we really act like Jesus is real? He is a fairy tale after all. Mannerismxk909 16:17, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

How is this related to writing the article? (If you're just stating your opinion, you might want to start a debate, as in Debate:Should we act like Jesus is real? --Ed Poor Talk 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Done. Mannerismxk909 16:23, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Could this article be opened

Could this article be opened to put Essay: The Way of Salvation under "See Also"Bert Schlossberg 19:30, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Jewishness of God manifest in the flesh

Came across this quote which might be added, from a Rabbi

"Most portrayers of the life of Jesus neglect to point out that Jesus is in every characteristic a genuinely Jewish character, that a man like him could have grown only in the soil of Judaism, only there and nowhere else. Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism, but which then existed only in Judaism.

He was a Jew among Jews; from no other people could a man like him have come forth, and in no other people could a man like him work; in no other people could he have found the apostles who believed in him." - Rabbi Leo Baeck. http://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/index.asp

As for the Divinity of Christ, you might find http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html helpful. To God be the glory.

Minor Addition suggestion

An excellent article, but no mention is made of the family's flight to Egypt, then returning to Nazareth - thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth". I would suggest that this be mentioned in the section about Jesus' life. Userafw 22:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'd like a go at it - if the article is unlocked when I get back in a couple of weeksBert Schlossberg 00:44, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Can article be opened up again for edits?

I would like to put in "Appearances of Jesus to His followers" section inbetween the Resurrection and Ascension sectionsBert Schlossberg 17:05, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Okay, Bert! Go to it, and please leave me a message on my talk page when you are done. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

Again, is it possible to open up article for edits?Bert Schlossberg 12:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Done. Thank you!Bert Schlossberg 13:46, 9 December 2009 (EST)

This article needs work

The tone needs to be more objective, such as it is in the sister article Christianity. --TheTrustworthyEditor 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Can be unlocked?

Can this article be unlocked for an edit?Bert Schlossberg 17:15, 7 January 2010 (EST)

I would like to do a section on the Flight to Egypt. Could this article be opened for edits?BertSchlossberg 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you!BertSchlossberg 19:42, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Good for pictures

I think that the paintings are a great enhancement to this article. It would be good if there are other paintings found for the remaining sections that still lack themBertSchlossberg 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

References

  1. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1

Clarify first paragraph?

The end of the first paragraph says, "Jesus then personally set the ultimate example for mankind by triumphing over the greatest evil imaginable, the Roman scourging and crucifixion." It reads as if the greatest evils imaginable were scourging and crucifixion, which of course is untrue. I suggest, "Jesus triumped over the Devil, and personally set the ultimate example for mankind, by enduring the horrific process of scourging and death by crucifixion under the ancient Roman regime in obedience to God's will." NHope 23:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Done. --Joaquín Martínez 08:21, 3 February 2011 (EST)

According to the bible

I understand this is a very Christian place, however would it be possible to add a "according to the Bible" to the start of the page? RileyS 09:51, 15 November 2011 (EST)

You can ask an Administrator to unprotect it for you. You could ask Mr. Schlafly about it. Again, please sign your comments like I told you.--James Wilson 09:44, 15 November 2011 (EST)
The answer is NO. Karajou 09:53, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Interesting observation

According to the Bible, Jesus himself was a very liberal man. Were he alive today, he would most likely follow some form of socialism. He, as I'm sure most of you well know, was in support of tolerance of differences (something which most social conservatives today aren't), and complete peace (something which most political conservatives today aren't). Both of those are core pillars in most forms of socialism. He also demonstrated that he was in favour of free healthcare, which was shown by his healing of many people. I can't recall all the passages, but there were also several references in the Bible to wealth redistribution, most of them in the New Testament (if I recall correctly). There's the "camel through the eye of a needle" story, as well as "to whom much is given, much is required."

It is ironic that most conservatives biggest role model is the world's most famous liberal. Even more ironic that these people don't follow the man's inspiring words.

This should be mentioned in the article somewhere, for it is too great an issue to ignore. Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy 15:17, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Please note that this is not an objective fact. This is Your interpretation of the Bible.--PhilipN 17:15, 18 December 2011 (EST)
^. In addition, you should rely on the Conservapedia Translation project of the bible rather than a version that is possibly tainted by liberal bias. NickP 18:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)
The Conservapedia interpretation of the Bible is as valid as my own. Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy 21:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Can be opened for posting?

Would someone enter this posting with the title , "Jesus through the Fabric of our Lives", under External Links? - http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/jesus-through-fabric-of-our-lives.html ? Thanks you!BertSchlossberg 10:05, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Or, can someone make it possible for me to do the posting? either way.BertSchlossberg 09:45, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Thank you!BertSchlossberg 10:44, 22 November 2012 (EST)

If your blog has sufficient merit to be included in the external links, someone else will select it for inclusion. Please read, Conservapedia:Commandments number 5. Sorry, Wschact 10:52, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Personal tools