# Talk:Jesus

This Christianity related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

##  Census

Is there any record for a census taking place outside of Rome (in the territories) at the time. I just read somewhere once that there isn't any. Also Wikipedia seems to come down on the side that the slaughter of th innocents was apocryphal, do we have a mention of this anywhere, as I am sure this is the current view amongst scholars. - User$\scriptstyle2\int_{-1}^{1}\sqrt{1-x^{2}}dx$Please set to always render PNG. I have wasted alot of time to make this work. 03:17, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

##  Crucifixion Survival

"Skeptics" should not beleive this if they're actual skeptical. Crucifixion Survival is a ridiculous conspiracy theory of the worst sort. Dan Brown even thought it was too outlandish to be in 'Da Vinci Code.' Dan Brown! Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this is supposed to NOT be the joke article right? The Crucifixion survival conspiracy is a completely unskeptical position on par with 9/11 conspiracies. -Morgan

I'm inclined to agree with you. If we start making up convoluted explanations for the resurrection, then why stop there? We'd also have to explain away the virgin birth, water into wine, walking on water, curing the sick, & all the other miracles. Better to just treat the whole thing with skepticism. I'm guessing that parts of this article were written by somebody who was enthusiastic about the crucifiction survival scenario. Anyway, I've reworded the offending section of it. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 13:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Are you sure that you're not talking about crucifiction? Either way, didn't Josephus write about crucifixion survivors? --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:27, 28 January 2009 (EST)
One, who was pardoned and taken down. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:38, 28 January 2009 (EST)

This is a wild conjecture and probably unworthy for a skeptic to hold, but not a conspiracy theory, since in no place does it make any claims about a conspiracy. ListenerXTalkerX 13:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

##  It's not Fun:Jesus anymore?

Or is someone working for that? ThiehInsomnia? Masturbate till you pass out 05:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. This article started in the main space, pretty much as it is now. Jesus Christ was the slightly more serious (ie, about the religious figure) article. Then one day PC got a bug up her ass about calling Jesus "Christ", which means "Messiah", and went around the innertubes imposing her attitude. She moved Jesus to fun, to make way for moving JC to Jesus. Jesus got moved back to JC some time ago, I just hadn't noticed that this one was still stuck in fun - where she put it without any discussion. Remember, "fun" isn't just where we put anything that is "funny" - it's where we put articles that are funny enough to save but don't belong in the mainspace, so they survive. ħuman 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So why do we need two mainspace articles on the same subject? Without one of them being defined as "fun", it really isn't clear what the distinction is. Merge? €₳\$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the original idea wayyyyy back was for a serious article and a snarky one, but's got lost somewhere. Merge into one ruddy gurt article if you like. Totnesmartin 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, this one is so different in tone that it wouldn't merge well. (IMO). Everything was fine until PC went on a "purge the internet of the word Christ" binge. Now things are just back where they were before that. The other article is about the "Christ", this one's about some middle eastern carpenter turned preacher. ħuman 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a firm believer in the idea that RW should be snarky on all articles where snarkiness is warranted. There is no point in making a "rational" article about someone who, if he even existed, isn't even historically notable. Snarkiness is RationalWiki! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fun talk:Jesus just in case. ħuman 05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the move? a fun article about Jesus should be funspace. Acei9 05:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It is SERIOUS. — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Then why two articles on the same subject? -- Nx / talk 06:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the subject deserves it. ħuman 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That seems pretty weak reasoning there Huw. Acei9 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You need to look at the history of our two articles. Jesus was the funny version, and Jesus Christ was more serious, and all was well in RationalWikiHell. Then some whore named Proxima Centauri decided, upon reading some shite on another site, that "Jesus Christ" was a bad word, making Jeshua our "Lord and Saviour". So the dumb bitch moved Jesus Christ to Jesus, and moved Jesus to fun:Jesus, mucking up our perfectly fine wiki to match her fucked up anti-world view. Hence my undoing of her stupidity. I hope that is clear. ħuman 07:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It is irrelevant why PC moved it to funspace. If this is mainspace-worthy (which I don't think it is), then it should be merged into Jesus Christ. Otherwise it should be in funspace. -- Nx / talk 07:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to merge, it's ok to have two articles. Please don't be angry. ħuman 07:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am so mad at you I went as far as wetting my pants. Acei9 07:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We need to consider the history of fun. (All this from memory.) It was originally "ACD" - at joke based in CP's "Article Creation Drive". Later when we were cleaning up the wiki a bit it as decided that ACD wasn't a very meaningful name so it was renamed "fun" - it is possible the name was not well-chosen. Later it as decided that all articles which were not mainspace worthy should be in "fun" because there was no other place to put them but it should be a sort of "holding area". Some articles were moved to fun becasue they were not funny enough.
With the passage of time and the appearance of new users the idea began to take hold that only "funny" things should be in fun and that all funny things should be in fun. this was not the original intention.--BobBring back the hat! 08:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that mainspace should be devoid of humor, but I do think that Jesus Christ is a better article and should be given precedence. As for Funspace, I don't think it should be a Storehouse of Crappyness. -- Nx / talk 09:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
So, do we create a namespace for articles which are neither mainworthy or funny? That's what this all come down to. What should it be called? Betaspace would be good - anything in it would be a priority for improvement. (this would be extra to funspace, which could be kept for geuinely funny articles). Totnesmartin (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

##  Stuff I removed...

" In the recorded words of the Bible, Jesus never personally claimed to be God: indeed, many times he spoke words incompatible with it ("The Father is greater than I" - if He was his own Father and was God Incarnate, he would be as great as himself - "Some knowledge not even the angels in heaven know, but is reserved for the Father alone"; "He was asked: 'What is the most important commandment?' Jesus answered: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord is God and your Lord is One... the are no more important commandments than these.'", he prayed to God; many more). Needless to say, it's debatable whether the New Testament contains any actual dictation of the speech of Jesus, but it seems likely, if the Church wrote it, it would put words in Jesus' mouth claiming he was God, and words about the Holy Spirit, to try to make it accord with their doctrine (the same reason "Catholic Versions" of the Bible always translate Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin", even though the Hebrew is clearly "young women" or "adolescent girl", "almah", which is how all modern "honest" translations translate it). The only records in the New Testament that claim Jesus was God were written by Saul of Tarsus (St Paul to Roman Catholics), a rabid antinomianist (antinomianism: the abrogation of all law, mortal and divine: incidentally, some of the surviving Common Era Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran Manuscripts speak of Paul as having been excommunicated from the early church), and John the Evangelist (a gnostic with some Judaeo-Christian influences), who wrote more than half of the New Testament canon of 27 books: this is why modern Christians practise Pauline "Christianity" and are not Messianic Jews. Among New Testament scholars, it's widely accepted that Jesus never claimed to be God, but this was attributed to him at first by Saul of Tarsus,[1] and then later by the Church after it had Roman support, and the first ecumenical councils, which denounced (and put to the sword) various interpretations of Jesus' teaching that did not hold him to be God, such as that of the Monophysites, Nestor, Marcion, Arius, and (many) more, of which the latter - Arianism - held great sway when it was denounced: the Roman Emperor at the time it was outlawed by the Second Ecumenical Council - and the Emperor who reigned for almost a decade after the first one was killed for his religious views - were both Arians: respectively, Constantius II and Valens.[2]"

This seems to add little to the article but a wall of text. But if I am wrong we can fix it easily. ħuman 03:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the points above have some validity, even if they could be stated more clearly. Just regarding the first point - the Bible says Jesus saying lots of different things about himself at different points. At some places, he seems to be suggesting he is divine (without straight out saying it); at other places, he seems to be suggesting he is not. Of course, most Christians, believing Jesus to be divine, have their interpretations of those places where he seems to suggests he's not so that he isn't actually doing that; and likewise, the minority of Christians who don't believe in Jesus' divinity, they have their interpretations of those places where he seems to suggest he is so that he isn't actually doing that either. And this is the big problem with biblical interpretation, if you try hard enough you can make it mean lots of different things; and who can say whose interpretation is actually the right one? --Zack Martin  03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."
2. "John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, page 27: "A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars ... is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate. ... such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate."

##  Sex Life

To me personally, this is badly conceived and currently very weasel. "arguments exist", but nothing to support the idea. "might have used prostitutes" - yeah, and i might have used drugs, but until you find *something* compelling somewhere, it's not really relevant. If our article is pure speculation - let's just say so, rather than the implication that this is something commonly discussed between scholars. And if it *is* discussed, let's find some articles and quote them.--En attendant Godot 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's any more relevant than "does Barack Obama have a sex life?" ADK...I'll pander your blasphemy! 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The gospels say Jesus associated with prostitutes, the rest is speculation. I'm not Jesus (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care that anyone speculates at all. just say so. "it's our best guess that" or, "if any rational person things about it, they'd conclude". what you have now, however, are weasle words "there are many arguements about..." and really, there aren't. It's not something greatly discussed in true academic circles, cause most people in academic circles accept that 1) people marry around 15 in Jewish culture of the day, 2) to have any authority at all in jewish life, you must have fulfilled god's commandments to marry and build a family. that is to say, in academic circles, most people who do NOT think jesus was born of a virgin and ressurected, but think he was a teacher or prophet or both, also think he was married. Like i said, my issue is not the idea of setting up logical reasons or even silly reasons he might have been sexually active, but dont' imply that there are "arguments' and then not talk about them.--En attendant Godot 14:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, "jesus", that worked perfectly. --En attendant Godot 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The prostitutes business is speculation but the rest I hope is verifiable if you follow the links. I'm not Jesus (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

##  Birth

OK, I am biased here, but the whole second paragraph is very lame (unless intended as a joke, in which case it's not funny). Why would anyone "assume" that what is explicitly described as a supernatural event (THE supernatural event to some) was "parthenogenesis", a natural phenomenon? Beyond the slightly similar name, that is. Also, not having human DNA hardly seems to be a problem for Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is Lord God Almighty and has, you know, like, the power to create arbitrarily complex matter from nothing, at will (God might have used evolution the first time, but He's not constrained by that choice). So the whole point kind of falls apart. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't quite follow your point. Did Jesus have a mixture of God's DNA and Mary's?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, the ABCs. Jesus is ontologically both God and Man. As a Man, he has full set of chromosomes. I think for theological reasons, half of these must come from The Most Holy Theotocos, Mary (so she's the true Mother of God, reinforcing Lord's human nature). The exact sequence of the other half is utterly unimportant for us. God could, for example, pull up the archived record of Adam's pre-Fall DNA undamaged by sin and just create a new set. Of course, this kind of stuff is just what Catholics would try to do, trying to explain the unexplainable. It just happened, OK?OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you have answered my question. Did god provide half his DNA? Furthermore, presumably Jesus had functioning testicles. What would an analysis of his sperm have shown?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know there's even any way to know this. Incarnation is a Great Mystery. Not even sure it's a valid question to ask - the only human DNA God is known to have for sure is Jesus's. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Or, in English "don't ask awkward questions". postate 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Or, in English, involvement of the omnipotent Agency makes any bitty-gritty explanation utterly unfalsifiable. The initial argument rests on the assumption Holy Ghost "needs" human chromosomes to conceive a Son. God Almighty doesn't "need" anything for anything, almost by definition. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if your belief is "it's all done magically by God" then there wouldn't seem to be much point in having a scientific debate. But I'm prepared to try it in tiny steps. So let's start with ..
Did Jesus' cells have DNA? This is a simple factual question. Is there some magic reason which makes this unanswerable?--BobSpring is sprung! 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You realoze we are discussing an event described as "miracle", right? "Science" may have some problems figuring this one out. To answer your question, yes, Jesus has cells, which have DNA in them. The reason for this is not scientific but theological: Christ's complete and perfect humanity is one of the central Christian beliefs. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus had cells, or that he came from an egg. In fact, mary awoke pregnant, and the child was "implanted" in her womb. sounds like god put the baby there fully formed. no egg or sperm required. Also, john says that Jesus is the Word, and is bounded energy, which has nothign to do with cells. So I'm suggesting he does not have cells. --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong here. Gospels have plenty of lines suggesting Jesus is human. John says "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" half a line after the verse you seem to be quoting. Two natures of Christ is the cornerstone of orthodox Christianity, as defined in Chalcedon. Bible don't talk about cells, but we do know people have cells from other sources. :) OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that Jesus was actually not the son of any god, and hence had a perfectly human father and mother. However, if one believes that Jesus was indeed the son of a god, he would not be bound by any biological rules, just as creationism is not bound by physical rules. "Did he have DNA?" is a theological question if you believe the latter, and a scientific question if you believe the former. 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, God's not bound by rules of nature. He's also not bound only to the overt "supernational" acts. I think Creationist pseodoscience is done by Christians who bought the atheist line that if something happened Naturally, therefor God didn't do it. That's sign of lack of faith, ironically. One very wise and very conservative Protestant minister characterised ID as "bad science and bad theology". That's even though he personally accepted literal 6-day Creation - based on his reading of the Bible, not phony science. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been harping for quite a while on the point that atheists and creationists both draw too sharp a line between divine acts and natural occurrences, but neither do I take the view that these theological questions should not be probed, even if this means only to conclude, based on (lack of) evidence, that no hypothesis is more plausible than another. ListenerXTalkerX 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason for my pushing the point is to show that there are two separate things. Magic and science. It's obviously impossible to find common ground between them whether it be Christian magic or any other. Any attempt is domed.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously impossible to find common ground between them... Oh, come now; that is a little rich, seeing as how the latter is derived from the former (chemistry, for example, came out of alchemy, while scientific medicine came out of herbalism and other religious practices).
Any attempt is domed. Such attempts would apparently fit nicely on the skyline of Istanbul. ListenerXTalkerX 04:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Atheists do not know any better, but what our creationist brothers show is lack of faith. "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign". OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

##  Adding a Bible quotes section?

Most people when pressed retreat behind the teachings of the New Testament, especially Jesus.

I would welcome a section where all the negative/silly things which Jesus said/did are listed.

I know of him senselessly destroying a fig tree and that he told his followers to abandon their families. I think I could write a short section with maybe a handful of these cases, but I'd like to get other people's opinions before doind so. --MeisterKleister (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say give it a try. The community will probably edit it to their liking afterward but it sounds like a good idea. Sam Tally-ho! 01:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
You could try a page of them, and not just a section. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a new section. I'd say a new page is only necessary if we could get enough stuff together. For those curious, my source for these Bible verses about Jesus is this great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo --MeisterKleister (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think these would be far more effective if you used direct quotes, rather than your own words. GodotGrow a vagina 17:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I looked a few up, you need to be careful about context too. theist 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Please use direct quotes from some version of the Bible. Deleting for now. ħuman 03:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Not that a quote from the gospel writers is necessarily a quote from JC himself, but it's more useful than just paraphrasing or hyperbolising them. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. If we replaced what is there now with direct quotes, it would be a quote-mine. ListenerXTalkerX 00:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This web site apparently contains some great material for this section: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm (just search for 'Jesus') But I'm too lazy right now to edit the article, will probably do so later, but if anyone else feels like it, please go ahead. MeisterKleister (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

##  Luke 19

This article says "Jesus orders that his enemies are to be brought to him and to have them slaughtered in front of him."

But I dont think that is is the case. The bible says "While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said:"

So jesus was telling a story about someone else.

Luke 19:11-28
And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.
Nah, that's clearly him explaining the moral of the story, having finished retelling it. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 07:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
If you read the one with the quote marks in the right place you can see the "kill all the things" bit is still part of the parable. Makes even less sense in context. What is the moral of it anyway? moral 11:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

##  Possible error?

I shan't edit until someone's clarified, but I think I see a grammatical error here, but I could be wrong.

"Since he ends up back in heaven anyway, modern freethinkers wonder where there was any sacrifice. "

Shouldn't it be why? That's the question I usually ask. --Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 14:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Where as in "where in the story". --Rutherford (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

##  As a Christian myself

This quite amused me. But the inability to portray Jesus as anything than what He was in the Bible belies a genuine understanding of why He came. The verses are all correct, in context and show that Jesus's claims - which I believe - were so outlandish that they parody themselves. — Unsigned, by: Daniel.bright / talk / contribs 15:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Genghis Khant / talk / contribs

##  Silver

Osaka seems to think so. Thoughts? Tytalk 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)