Changes

Talk:Jesus Christ

47,332 bytes added, 16:45, May 5, 2020

On the Birth of Our Lord Jesus

== 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. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:32, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

:I agree with [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]. The first post doesn't make sense. He begins his post with his opinion...yes, his opinion. No facts at all. If you were going to deny God's existence it would be a good idea to back up your claim. Second post - there are numerous Scientists that claim that there is evidence for Intelligent Designer. Douglas Axe, Stephen C Meyer, JP Moreland and many others. I would strongly urge you to check out their videos on YouTube (or read their books). [[User:Owlrook30|Owlrook30]]

==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. [[User:Dpbsmith|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. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|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! --[[User:Newsdan|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. --[[User:Niffed|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.[[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Niffed|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.--[[User:Rickswartzentrover|Rickswartzentrover]] 20:25, 4 November 2011 (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. --[[User:The Four Deuces|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.--[[User:Rickswartzentrover|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 ==

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. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|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...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

: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? ==

: 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!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 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. [[User:Vjay|Vjay]] 22:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|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!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 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!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

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

==References==

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

::Tom Martincic reckons that the Hebrew name of Jesus ought to be Yahushua. On his website [http://eliyah.com/yahushua.html], he explains the origin of the other spellings: Yehoshua, Yeshua, Yahusha and Yahshua. How are we going to find out the correct name that Jesus ought to be in Hebrew, or say, the name that his mother called him in Aramaic? [[User:Nicholastan|Nicholastan]] 21 Nov 2018.

== Birth of Christ ==

: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. [[User:MatteeNeutra|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?--[[User:Xodion|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. [[User:AddisonDM|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 sakes[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert 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 ==

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. [[User:Karajou|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. --[[User:Eb12|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. {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

: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. [[User:Karajou|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! {{unsigned|Rolandhulme}}

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..." {{unsigned|DerUebermensch}}

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. [[User:Markr|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Teachings of Jesus ==

This will make the article more practical and informative. Thanks for the consideration! [[User:Lukecorlando|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."

{{cquote|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. [[User:FightPerniciousSwarm|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: <nowiki>[[Category:Jesus|]]</nowiki>. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|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?[[User:Eoinc|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

[[User:Qc|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 front[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 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:

==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? [[User:LinusWilson|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|craan]]

If you can provide credible evidence, please post it. Thanks. [[User:Mark7|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|LiberalJohn]]

== Prayer to receive ==

Jesus never taught to "Pray to receive Him now", so why is that under the "Teachings of Jesus" section? [[User:Mark7|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.[[User:BertSchlossberg|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.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Seconded [[User:Illuminatiscott|Illuminatiscott]]

:::I would like to unlock to add [[:Category:Catholic Church]]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|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.<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html?page=1</ref> [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. [[User:DefenderofTrue|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. [[User:AlanE|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. [[User:Learn together|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 http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/nD/tb_jesuslead-lg-mdn.jpg]. [[User:Keepscases|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 Faith[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert 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? --[[User:DReynolds|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? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)

: It doesn't show up on the uncategorized pages list for me. Does it still for you? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Someone fixed it already, but thanks. By the way, could you put <nowiki>[[Category:Featured articles]]</nowiki> on the page? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)

::: I've unprotected it, so you can add that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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."[[User:BertSchlossberg|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)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Mannerismxk909|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?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

::Done. [[User:Mannerismxk909|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"[[User:BertSchlossberg|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. [[User:Userafw|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 weeks[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert 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 sections[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert 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. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:35, 27 November 2009 (EST)

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

Done. Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|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]].

--[[User:TheTrustworthyEditor|TheTrustworthyEditor]] 13:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Can be unlocked?==

Can this article be unlocked for an edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|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?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:05, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:31, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|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 them[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 19:46, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

== References ==

== 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." [[User:NHope|NHope]] 23:39, 2 February 2011 (EST)

: Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|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? [[User:RileyS|RileyS]] 09:51, 15 November 2011 (EST)

:You can ask an Administrator to unprotect it for you. You could ask [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]] about it. Again, please sign your comments like I told you.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:44, 15 November 2011 (EST)

::The answer is NO. [[User:Karajou|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. [[User:Factcheck47|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.--[[User:PhilipN|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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 18 December 2011 (EST)

::::: The Conservapedia interpretation of the Bible is as valid as my own. [[User:Factcheck47|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![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 10:05, 18 November 2012 (EST)

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

Thank you![[User:BertSchlossberg|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, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:52, 22 November 2012 (EST)

== attempted link to [[Words of Institution]] ==

After creating the article [[Words of Institution]] I intended simply to link every occurrence of the term, but discovered the lock here. Perhaps the owner of this article can do the link. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (EDT)

== Was Our Divine Lord and Savior really born in 4 B.C.? ==

Dear Friends, Congratulations on an Excellent Article on our divine Redeemer Jesus Christ through the years. This can really be Conservapedia's Model article, on the Most Important Person Who ever lived, that could also attract many millions more to this site. I have a question on Christ's Birth Year.

I know some liberal scholars claim it was 4 B.C. as if that year was an established fact, but take two simple statements from the Gospel of St. Luke,

Luk 3:1 "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene," The fifteenth year of Tiberius is 29 A.D. That fact is widely acknowledged even among secularists. There are other markers also that help pin point the date. For e.g. Pontius Pilate we know was governor of Judaea from 26 A.D. to 36 A.D.

Luk 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli". Now, if Our Lord was 30 years of age in A.D. 29, then calculating backward we clearly discern He was born in either the year 1 B.C. or 2 B.C. but not 4 B.C.

I believe 2 B.C. is a more reliable Birth Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He would then be around 30 years old in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, 29AD.

Thoughts on this, dear Brothers and Sisters?

In Our Lord Jesus Christ,

[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]] ([[User talk:NishantXavier|talk]]) 18:03, 3 May 2020 (EDT)NishantXavier.

:Honestly, I've never considered the exact date to be of much importance. I've just assumed that it was around the time of what is now the calendar change, and figured that was close enough. I am not aware of any new information available to us now, which they didn't have when they changed the calendar.

:Jesus was executed at about 33 years of age, so based on the time Pilate was governor, Jesus must have been born between 7 B.C. and 3 A.D. It also seems that that Pilate was somewhat established at the time of Jesus' execution, so he must have been in office for at least a few years by then. (Pilate's tradition of releasing one criminal each year was well established at this point.) That has always seemed close enough to me. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:39, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

::Both Matthew and Luke say Herod was king at the time Jesus was born. Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse, according to Josephus. This is usually identified with the partial eclipse of March 13, 4 BC. Herod Antipas, Herod's son, became king in 4 BC, according to his coinage. It's a safe bet Herod was dead by that time. See "[https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/herods-death-jesus-birth-and-a-lunar-eclipse/ Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse]." This is the basis for the claim that Jesus was born in 4 BC. The traditional 2 BC birth year is from Luke 3:1 and 3:23, as explained above. The Venus-Jupiter conjunction of June 17, 2 B.C is a popular explanation for the [[Star of Bethlehem]]. See "[https://www.space.com/33866-venus-jupiter-conjunction-star-of-bethlehem.html Saturday's Venus-Jupiter Encounter May Explain Bible's Star of Bethlehem]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:17, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi David and Peter. Right, David. As you note, Pontius Pilate must already have been in office a few years since the tradition of him releasing one person on Passover had likely been done for several years by then. Already in Luk 13:1, Pontius Pilate is in office and has killed some Galileans. So it is very unlikely all this is taking place in 26 or 27 AD imo but much more likely these events, after Tiberius 15th year, are 30 and 31 AD culminating with the crucifixion in 33 A.D. We have a further confirmation that Three Passovers (and so three years) passed during Christ's Ministry.

Please see the 7 "clues" or pointers in the Gospel: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/when-precisely-did-jesus-die-the-year-month-day-and-hour-revealed Briefly, we can narrow it down first to either April 7, 30 A.D. or April 3rd, 33 A.D. which is when Nisan 14th or Passover fell in those respective years. But recall that the Gospels demonstrate that 3 Passovers passed during Jesus' Ministry. So I think we can exclude 30 A.D completely.

The 33 A.D. is the remaining date. How does this tie in with the birth? Christ being born in 4 B.C. doesn't fit with being 30 years before Ministry and 3 years of ministry. It makes Jesus like 36 or 37 by the time of His death. So I would argue backward from the Death to a 2 B.C. Birth. Your thoughts, David?

I'll post an excerpt on the Death date in a separate question thread.

Hi Peter. Thanks for the link. I think the December 29 1 B.C. date is a good date for the lunar eclipse shortly after which Herod died. Thus, he would have died in 1 A.D. and Our Lord would have been born in 2 B.C. and the horrible slaughter of infants would have been in 1 B.C. Many of the early Christians saw Herod's death (and suffering before death) as divine chastisement for his wicked attempt to kill Our Lord Jesus and for killing babies. We should recall many liberals and secularists completely deny Herod killed the babies and try to fault the Gospel writers for recording it. I believe the Star of Bethlehem documentary also concluded based on astronomical evidence also that Our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed born in the year 2 B.C.

Your thoughts, Peter?

God Bless, All.

:IMO the coinage argument is a good reason to think that Herod died in 4 BC, especially when this date is supported by several other lines of reasoning. Here is a full scholarly discussion: "[http://www.redatedkings.com/postings/Bernegger.pdf Affirmation of Herod's Death in 4 BC]."

:I see a couple of reasons to question that Jesus was born either under Herod or in Bethlehem. The nativity story is not in Mark, which is considered the most historical of the gospels. Not only does John not mention the story, he rebuts it: 'They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee”' (John 7:52, ESV). This is a reference to Micah 5:2: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah...from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel." The people who knew Jesus assumed that he was born in Galilee. And why not? The common folk of that time were generally born in the place that they grew up in. John doesn't correct those who assume a Galilee birth. Instead, he seems to be saying that none of that should matter. God can make Jesus the Son the Man whether or not he was born in Bethlehem or fulfills a popular prophesy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

All the Gospels are historical, and also inspired by the Holy Ghost, and therefore free from error, unlike uninspired records of secular history. Your earlier link contains an argument from coinage to date Herod's death to 1 B.C.: "Additional support for Philip having been officially appointed tetrarch after the death of his father in 1 B.C. may be found in numismatics. A number of coins issued by Philip during his reign are known. The earliest bear the date “year 5,” which would correspond to A.D. 1. This fits well with Philip serving as administrator under his father from 4–1 B.C. He counted those as the first four years of his reign, but since he was not officially recognized by Rome as an independent client ruler, he had no authority to issue coins during those years. However, he was in position to issue coinage soon after being named tetrarch sometime in 1 B.C., and the first coins appear the next year, A.D. 1, antedating his reign to 4 B.C. While the numismatic evidence is not conclusive proof of Herod’s death in 1 B.C., it is highly suggestive." Can you tell me how Jesus could just have begun to be about 30 years of age in Tiberius 15th year if born in 4 B.C.?

Agreed that Mic 5:2 is a Messianic prophesy. I mentioned it here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ#XXI._Micah_5:2 but disagree with those claims of the Pharisees who wanted to insult Nicodemus in Jn 7. They asked him "are you from Galilee too?" as if only Galileans followed Christ. But Galilee had indeed been prophesied, and the Pharisees were ignorant of it, just like they were ignorant the Messiah was to be God (Mat 22:45; Psa 110:1). Here it is in Isaiah, Isa 9:1 "Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory. 2The people who walk in darkness will see a great light. For those who live in a land of deep darkness,a light will shine." St. Matthew the Apostle, writing for the Hebrews in the Hebrew dialect, had already explained and quoted this prophesy to clear their doubt (Mat 4:14-16), and so St. John, who knew St. Matthew had already cited the passage, didn't need to do it again. St. Matthew the Apostle would not have believed that Jesus was Christ unless he was firmly convinced for himself that He was born in Bethlehem. Afterward, he wrote it for us that we also may believe.

God Bless.

== Did Jesus Christ Our Redeemer die for us on April 7, 30 A.D. or April 3, 33 A.D.? ==

Please see the article and please comment on some excerpts on the "clues" or pointers in the Gospels below. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/when-precisely-did-jesus-die-the-year-month-day-and-hour-revealed

"'''Clue #1: The High Priesthood of Caiaphas''' The gospels indicate that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the first century high priest named Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3-4, John 11:49-53). We know from other sources that he served as high priest from A.D. 18 to 36, so that puts Jesus' death in that time frame... '''Clue #2: The Governorship of Pontius Pilate''' All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:24-26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:24, John 19:15-16). We know from other sources when he served as governor of Judea — A.D. 26 to 36 — so we can narrow down the range by several years.

'''Clue #3: After “the Fifteenth Year of Tiberius Caesar”''' The Gospel of Luke tells us when the ministry of John the Baptist began:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar . . . the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness [Luke 3:1-2].

This picks out a specific year: A.D. 29 ... '''Clue #4: Crucified on a Friday'''

All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday (Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42; Luke23:54; John 19:42), just before a Sabbath, which was just before the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1).

'''Clue #5: A Friday at Passover

'''The gospels also agree that Jesus was crucified in conjunction with the annual feast of Passover (Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:1, John 18:39).

That lets us narrow down the range of possible dates to just a few. Here is a complete list of the days between A.D. 29 and 36 on whose evenings Passover began:

Monday, April 18, A.D. 29

'''Friday, April 7, A.D. 30'''

Tuesday, March 27, A.D. 31

Monday, April 14, A.D. 32

'''Friday, April 3, A.D. 33'''

Wednesday, March 24, A.D. 34

Tuesday, April 12, A.D. 35

Saturday, March 31, A.D. 36

'''Clue #6: John's Three Passovers

'''The Gospel of John records three different Passovers during the ministry of Jesus:

Passover #1: This is recorded in John 2:13, near the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

Passover #2: This is recorded in John 6:4, in the middle of Jesus' ministry.

Passover #3: This is recorded in John 11:55 (and frequently mentioned afterwards), at the end of Jesus' ministry.

That means that the ministry of Jesus had to span something over two years ... That means the A.D. 30 date is out ...As a result, the traditional date of Jesus' death--Friday, April 3, A.D. 33--must be regarded as the correct one."

Please share your thoughts and comments, dear friends. God Bless.

NishantXavier

SkipCaptcha, Upload, edit

2,813

edits