Talk:Jesus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Troll: 72.130.78.108

This person is adding lots of blatantly immature "qualifiers" to the article such as, after the sentence on Christmas: "though overwheling evidence shows that he wasn't born on that day or month, but is an adopted pagan holiday (see any history channel episode about Christmas)." He even attempted to end the article with this: "Then again most people endorse war even if it is one memeber of their religion killing another, or even brother against brother, i.e. World War I and II in which millions of christians murdered each other and claimed that God laughed with joy he was so happy about it."

---

I expanded the section on Jesus's divinity a bit, and added the verses that most Christians cite for proof of his divinity. But it just occured to me that the translation I used (though a highly accurate and respected one) isn't in simple english. I didn't want to use a paraphrased version like the Message though as it might have looked misleading. Still, I think showing the verses and the reasons why most Christians think Jesus is God is helpful, as someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity and the Bible might want to know WHY Christians believe that doctrine. Is there a friendlier, but still accurate translation anyone recommends instead?

---

Jesus is a common name in Latin American countries. Should the title of the page with the article about Jesus (Christ) be "Jesus Christ", or should the title of this page be "Jesus"? What do you think?

I agree, "Jesus" alone is not specific enough. TPK 00:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't "Jesus of Nazareth" the common notation? --Keitei 11:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see title

---

I've gone ahead and moved the page. TPK 04:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I moved this article back to Jesus. Christ is a title, therefore as per Wikistyle should not be included in the article name. Please see the manual of style for more information. Sarge Baldy 01:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

===Comment on an old discussion===

While there are indeed other people who use the name of Jesus, there is only one person whose name is worthy of an article who is called just plain Jesus. No of Nazareth is necessary. No Christ is necessary.

If we are going to insist he needs a two names in order to be identified, then we must do the same for other people who are commonly known by only one name. If you talk about Michelangelo and stick that B. name on the end, or all the other six names that are vaguely associated with him, Art Historians think you are a real poser. Same with Leonardo etc etc.

The question is, would anyone really be confused or misled by an article called Jesus? or Hitler or Einstein? --Amandajm 08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Buh, this article presents historical aspects of Jesus as factual, conflating them with what stories say. I understand simple wikipedia is not the place for complex presentation, but deliberately misleading articles aren't impressive either.

How is this "deliberately misleading?" The Bible is considered a valid historical souce document. Y0u 04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is a source document and will often be relevant to this page. But it is not Neutural Point of View. The Bible (or at least sections) has been written by people holding specific faith POV who wanted to instruct others in that faith (EG See John 20:31). See I just used the Bible as a source document - to show why it is not a NPOV historical source. A way around this is to use begining qualifies such as "In the gospel's Jesus is described ..." (Just nigel 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

At [1] one can find this:

User talk:216.244.216.3:

Look, I've said it enough. Explain why you think that link belongs there at Talk:Jesus or you will be blocked if you put it there again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This was about a link “*Who was the real Jesus? Seemingly unique compilation from a theosophical point of view.” I added to the page at [2]

Hello, people! Hello, Ricky81682!

Well, I'm not a native English speaker, and I think my English level is not enough to respond the way I'd like to do it. Now, I'm sorry if I made one or more mistakes, it wasn't my intention. I received this strong warning one time only, I think that would be enough, but I don't know how many times you said it.

I do not consider myself to be an impolite person, so I’m answering this warning because of respect mainly. Well, that link leads to very important information (I think) about the one called Jesus. I think that information is about Jesus from a theosophical perspective, as well as from the author’s perspective, of course. There seems to be historical information in it, too. Also, I think it is a compilation from various sources; the author provides information about those sources.

Thinking about why that link shouldn’t be in that page, now I realize the reason may be that ‘Who was the real Jesus?’ is not written in Simple English, so if that’s the case, I apologize and ask forgiveness. Otherwise, I think the link is valid, useful, and a valuable addition to the page ([3]). It happened to me that viewing Wikipedia pages written in different languages, I found in some or many pages —written in a determined language— external links to pages written in other languages. Since I consider my English poor, I thought I could contribute at least with a link to a good and poorly known perspective.

My intention is not to vandalize but to contribute, and given this situation it’s been difficult to do this, since I live in an impoverished ‘third world’ country (Argentina), I do not have a job, I’m trying to study, and the expenditure of some money is significant to me. It seems a little frustrating trying twice to add a simple link, then finding it is not there anymore, one also fantasizes about some kind of “censorship”. Again, if I’m wrong about something, please forgive me, I’ll try to improve myself. I didn’t think that link was inappropriate in there. I hope no harm is been done (at least, not a great one). Also I’m new on this, and I’m trying to learn.

Am I partially right/wrong?

Please, try writing more careful warnings. I apologize about my English, it took some effort to redact this answer.

Sincerely, I wish the best for all of you. Thank you!

G. Enrique M. R. B.

17 October 2005 (I’m not sure about what UTC is now), 01:12 (in Argentina)

I have returned the link referred to here, not as one of the external links but as an example of the controversies and differing claims over the nature of Jesus, of which it is a good example.

--Amandajm 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss this here, as opposed to making endless reversions? I mean you two, 72.130.78.108 and 71.243.14.236. I'm not specifically involved, but I want the revert-warring to stop. So here are the five major opinions of the world:

• Viewpoint of Monophysites: Jesus is God.
• Viewpoint of Dyophysites: Jesus is the Son of God.
• Viewpoint of Islam: Jesus was a prophet.
• Viewpoint of smaller religions: Depends.
• Viewpoint of atheism: Jesus was a normal human.

Can anyone think of how to work these all into the article, without more fighting? Picaroon9288 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the revert warring hasn't been that bad. One of the two is a borderline troll, as was pointed out. The breakdown is a little different than you have stated. It's true that Monophysites believe strongly that Jesus is God. But the fact is that the creeds of ALL Trinitarian Christians, not just Monophysites, state this, as they all agree Jesus is part of the Trinity of God: God the Son. (not just the "Son of God". So, your first bullet above should read "Viewpoint of Trinitarians". The Miaphysite / Diophysite controversy is actually over whether his God-part and his human part are United and Inseparable, or two distinct natures. Blockinblox 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "endless reversions" to show what it could become; I'm aware that it's not that bad now. Also, thanks for informing me of a better breakdown of the viewpoints.  :) Picaroon9288 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also some people beleive Jesus is God without beeing card-carrying creedal Trinitarians. The Christian Church - Churches of Christ - Disciples of Christ family of churches are sometimes ambivilent about the Trinity because they come from a restoration movement that uses only the Christian Scriptures as authority and not the doctirnes (such as the Trinity) that were developed later. (Just nigel 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I removed the statement "By many Jesus is cosidered the greatest moral teacher", which seems to be POV as it uses weasel words such as "many".--TBCΦtalk? 03:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twice someone has removed the reference to Jesus rejecting the temple. And this latexst time it was called 'innacurate'. I'm putting it back in again and here is why: I'm reading Mark 11 and he sure curses a fig tree for not being fruitful; uptruns the temple targeting those who exploit the foreigners (those who need money changers) and poor women (those who bought doves rather than more expensive sacrifices) and picketing the whole place "not allowing anyone to carry anything through it"; quotes the prophets previous condemations of the Jewish leaders and their trust in the temple saying they ahve "made it a den of robbers"; suggests that "this" mountian the temple mount should be cast into the sea; exposes that the chief priests are more concerned with what the crowd thinks of them than what God thinks of them. And in Chapter 12 tells a parable "against the cheif preists, scribes and elders" to proclaim the truth about the evil way absentee landlords try and usurp the role of God; exposes that the Pharisees are walking around the temple with idolitrious and blasphemous Roman coins and "belong to Caesar"; expose the Sadduccees trating women like objects; and teaches his disciples the theory that "they devour widow's houses" before taking them into the temple sitting opposite the treasury and demonstrating how it happens as a widown who should have been able to receive from the temple gives everything she had. OUTRAGOUS! And so on to chapter 13 where Jesus foretells that the temple and its large stones are not beautiful - they will be torn down and the temple destroyed.--Just nigel 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rejecting is the wrong word to use. Jesus didn't "reject" the temple. What he did was to take charge of an ungodly situation in the temple. It was not his job to take charge, in the eyes of the preists and pharisees. By doing this, he was showing even the best ones up as being slack for letting this stuff happen. The thing that upset them was that he acted with total authority, as if he was the ruler of the temple.

About the money changers, there were two temple courts, and two types of money. People took Roman money into the outer court but could not use it in inner court of the temple or give it to the temple. They could only buy sacrificial goods or give donations in temple money. This affected everyone, not just strangers. The money changers (and probbably money lenders) would have made big profits. They would have rented their space in the courtyard from the temple. The pharisees weren't involved in money lending, which was sinful, but there were technical loopholes which let them make a profit from the sinful activity.

--Amandajm 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow, so I guess like there's no chance of getting any real information here, e.g. current research on when the gospels were written, in what order, how reliable they are, Jesus' paternity, evidence for his existence as a historical figure, his role as the fourth prophet in Islam, etc?--202.53.85.74 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly interested in any influence of Jainism on the Jesus myth -- the stigmata, pacifism etc. seem quite related.

Regular Wikipedia deals with all. Complex concepts generally require more complex language. Let's start with the basic info here. If Jesus is primarirly the founder of Christianity, then what Christians say about him is probably of primary importance.

If you want the "order in which the Gospels were written" etc, then you need an article on the Gospels rather than an article on Jesus. It would be easy to make this article two million miles lone, if you try to say everything, after all, these questions have been occupying a lot of thought, discussion and writing for 2000 years. As for the paternity of Jesus, .... Why don't you go ask his mother?

And as for his role as the 4th prophet of Islam.... If Muslim people comprehend the teachings of the so-called 4th prophet, then his role to Islam will become of real significance. --Amandajm 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a remarkable consistency in the way that Jesus has been depicted. The Roman of the 4th century has not painted Jesus as a beardless Roman, as in earlier portrayals. Since that date, Jesus is consistently painted with similar features. In many of the mosaics of Constantinople/Istanbul, the artists portrayed him with light brown hair. --Amandajm 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) See below.[reply]

• 
  Jesus, by a 4th century Roman
• 
  Jesus by a 11th century Athenian
• 
  Jesus by a 13th century Turk
• 
  Jesus by a 13th century Italian
• 
  Jesus by a 15th century German
• 
  Jesus by a 16th century Greek
• 
  Jesus by a 17th century Dutchman. The colour is bad in this repro.

Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code" is given as a reference, but that book is a fiction book (a story for fun, not supposed to be true). Dan Brown's book talks about another book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", which is not fiction. It might be a better reference. I'm not convinced about the "hoax" part. I think the arguments are based on many things, not on a hoax or not only on a hoax. --Coppertwig 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm has said a lot of things below, but has not made me believe that there is a book (or something) that says that Dan Brown's book is based on a hoax. Please keep your messages shorter. Tell me if you find a book that says it's a hoax. If not, the "hoax" sentence has to be taken out of this page. That's how Wikipedia works. We don't decide it's a hoax by talking about it here. We find a book or something and use that. --Coppertwig 23:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that book, and Amandajm didn't tell me a quote, so I don't know whether there is a book that says that Dan Brown's book is based on a hoax. But I remembered that Dan Brown is alive. When someone is alive, we need to be very careful not to hurt that person. We need to be careful not to say things that might not be true. If Dan Brown says that something is true, and another person writes a book that says it is based on a hoax, then we don't know which of the two people is right. So we are not sure that it was based on a hoax. So we need to be careful and not say that. See en:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Coppertwig 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amandajm reverted my edits and had an edit summary, "removed redundant reference to the gospels. It makes iit clear in the introduction that this is the gospel account". No, I'm sorry, it does not make it clear in the introduction that this article is the gospel account. Also, it would not be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to have an article which is the gospel account. The introduction does not say "This article is the gospel account". It only says "The life of Jesus is written in the Gospels in the New Testament part of the Bible." Actually, that sentence may be a problem too: it could mean that the (true story of the) life of Jesus is what is written in the Gospels. But there are much more clear problems with the article. It says "Jesus performed miracles". That is not neutral point of view. It could say "Some people believe that Jesus performed miracles" or "the Bible says that Jesus performed miracles" but it must not just say "Jesus performed miracles". There are many other problems like this. I think it is not good enough to say at the beginning, "this article is what is in the Gospel, which not everyone believes." I think this has to be repeated at least at the beginning of every section, since some people might not read the whole article. But right now, it doesn't even say that at the beginning of the article. Please put my edits back or fix the article some other way so it has no information that is not from a neutral point of view. --Coppertwig 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does the article need to say "In the Bible", "In the Gospels" or in the Gospel of Matthew"? Isn't once in every sub-heading enough? Coppertwig, the average mind can hold something like that for a couple of paragraphs. --Amandajm 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once in every subheading can maybe be enough. But only if it says that it means everything under that subheading. Right now it does not say that. It says "the time he died and was raised from the dead," for example. I don't see anywhere in that section that it says that is not a fact everyone agrees on. Where do you think it says that? I don't see anything in the other paragraphs that says that the last paragraph is not talking about facts. Usually, when you say "In the Bible,..." it only means that one sentence. You have to put more words to make it work for the whole section; for example, maybe you can say "The Bible says these things happened, but not everyone believes them." at the beginning of the section.

Please tell me which words in the beginning section you think mean that "the time he died and was raised from the dead" is not a fact everyone agrees on. For the other edits I did that you changed, for each one please tell me where those words are.

Please notice that in the English Wikipedia article about Jesus, it has words like "in the Gospels" etc. in almost every sentence, to show that not everyone believes. It does not have them only at the beginning of each section. --Coppertwig 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea: In the beginning section, put in words like "when they believe he died" to show that not everyone believes that he was raised from the dead. In all other sections, at the beginning of the section write something like "This tells what the Bible says. Some people believe these things and some people don't believe some of them." --Coppertwig 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP PRESS The introduction has been altered, just to keep Coppertwig happy

• "Once in every subheading can maybe be enough. But only if it says that it means everything under that subheading. Right now it does not say that. It says "the time he died and was raised from the dead," for example. I don't see anywhere in that section that it says that is not a fact everyone agrees on. Where do you think it says that? "

The reason that it doesn't need to say that "that is not a fact everyone agrees on" is because it says specifically that CHRISTANS celebrate this! Christians are not "everyone".

• "Usually, when you say "In the Bible,..." it only means that one sentence. You have to put more words to make it work for the whole section; for example, maybe you can say "The Bible says these things happened, but not everyone believes them." at the beginning of the section."

No, it doesn't mean "that one sentence". Because the entire article is divided into neat sections and has a BIG HEADING say that this whole part including its subsections (which you will understand if you know ANYTHING about laying out an article) is take fom the Bible. Look at the layout in the table of contents. That will explain it to you.

• "Please notice that in the English Wikipedia article about Jesus, it has words like "in the Gospels" etc. in almost every sentence, to show that not everyone believes. It does not have them only at the beginning of each section."

What you need to understand is this, the editors didn't write "according to the synoptic Gospels" and so on, in order to let people know that "not everyone thought it is true". That is not the reason.

I wouldn't really expect you to understand this, Coppertwig, but what the Wikipedia article is doing is a detailed analysis of the content of the 4 books and comparing what they say. In other words they are hopping from one book to another and giving a detailed source for every bit of the story.

What the editors of that article are saying is:-

Matthew tells us this bit and Luke tells us that bit

Then Mark takes up the story.

All three of them say such and such

Then Matthew tell this bit about the teaching.

The Mark and Matthew say so and so.

But in Simple Wiki, that type of detailed analysis is not necessary. In Simple wiki, the part telling his life is not so detailed. It doesn't tell about his Baptism or the conversation that he ahd with John, and all those other things that are included in Wikipedia and have detailed references.

The wiki editors have already explained in the introduction that most modern scholars believe that Jesus existed and are using those four books to try to sort out the facts from those bits which they think might be legend.

• The wikipedia editors certainly do not go through material like that adding silly little sentences like "Not everybody believes this".

Of course not everybody believes it!

• Think about this, Coppertwig:-

does everybody believe the newspapers?

does everybody believe the TV reports?

Does everybody believe wikipedia?

Of course they don't!

• Should we go through every single article on wikipedia and write in every paragraph:-

"Not everyone believes this"?

I think that you will admit that would be stupid, and very insulting to the intelligence of people who can all think for themselves.

• If you go looking around wiki, you will find lots and lots of articles about people's beliefs. "Communism" for example. Should we write "some people don't agree with this" in every paragraph? The "Flat Earth Society"- should we write "Some people don't believe in this" in every paragraph. "Mormonism"- should we write "Some people don't believe in this" in every paragraph? The "Holocaust"- should we write "their are lots of people who don't believe in this" in every paragraph? It's perfectly true!
• Trust me, writing "Some people don't believe this" in every paragraph is silly and childish.

• Now please do as I suggest:- go back to the article and first look hard at the Table of Contents. I think that will help you understand how the sections are arranged, and why it would bbe quite clear to most people that the info that you are talking about, comes from the Bible.
• And please don't be quite so frightened that people might believe in Jesus fom reading this article. People like to make their own minds up.

--Amandajm 12:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the introduction. We needed that, not to make me happy, but because of the rule Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Before, it said Christians remember the day that he was born as the holiday of Christmas[1] and the time he died and was raised from the dead as the holiday of Easter. It didn't say that other people celebrate (remember the special days). But it did say "the time he ... was raised from the dead". That means that he was raised from the dead. The page should not mean that. Now that part is good enough.

You said, "Because the entire article is divided into neat sections and has a BIG HEADING say that this whole part including its subsections ... is take fom the Bible." I think you mean that one heading says "Jesus in the Bible," another heading says "Beliefs about the nature of Jesus", etc. There are thtree problems. One problem is that saying "Jesus in the Bible" is not the same as saying "this whole part including its subsections ... is take fom the Bible." Another problem is that saying "this is taken from the Bible" is not the same as saying "not everyone believes this". And a third problem is that it only says "Jesus in the Bible" at the top of the whole section, not at the top of every subsection.

These two things are different: "Jesus did miracles. We know this because the Bible says it". That is not neutral point of view. "The Bible says that Jesus did miracles." That is neutral point of view.

This is also different: "(heading)Jesus in the Bible ... Jesus did miracles." That is not neutral point of view. It doesn't only say "The Bible says that Jesus did miracles." It says "Jesus did miracles." The heading tells people that it comes from the Bible, but it doesn't tell people that this page doesn't mean "Jesus did miracles" when it says "Jesus did miracles."

I understand that you believe that the English Wikipedia editors wrote "In the Gospels" etc. only to tell people which book of the Bible, and not to tell people that the ideas are only from the Bible. I don't believe that. I believe they had two reasons, and that telling people the ideas are things not everyone believes was an important reason to them. English Wikipedia has a neutral point of view rule, like Simple Wikipedia.

It is not important what the English Wikipedia writers' reason was. We have a reason here: we need to respect the Simple English Wikipedia rule about neutral point of view.

We don't have to write "not everyone believes this". We can write different words that mean that. One way is to write "The Bible says that ...". Maybe that sounds nicer. There are many ways to make the page respect the rule about neutral point of view. Maybe you can think of some nice ways.

But on every article on Simple English Wikipedia (and on English Wikipedia too) we need to make every sentence respect the rule about neutral point of view. Many people on English Wikipedia are very careful about that. Jakew on English Wikipedia is very careful about that. He makes many sentences say things like "Association X said ...". He doesn't just do that so that people will know who said it. People can look at the footnote (little note at the bottom of the page) to find out who said it. He does that so that the English Wikipedia article is not saying things that not everyone believes. It is only saying that someone said it. Everyone believes that they said it. You can ask Jakew on English Wikipedia about that if you don't believe me.

It is better to write things that sound silly than to write things that don't respect the rule about neutral point of view. There is nothing wrong with being a child or being like a child. (The Bible says that Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me.")

Maybe you are right that with the table of contents it is clear to most people that the information comes from the Bible. Maybe most people already know that the information on this page is going to come from the Bible. But, that isn't good enough. It must be clear to all readers. And, it must not only tell them that the information comes from the Bible. It must also not tell them that the information is true.

Don't worry, I'm not frightened. Thanks. I agree: people need to be able to make their own minds up. So, this page must not tell people that things from the Bible are true. It must only tell people that the Bible said those things. --Coppertwig 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the problem of other perspectives quite simply by removing the "Christian perspective" from the first paragraph, leaving in only that Jesus was the founder of Christianty, annd the later reference to Feast Days. That they are celebrated is fact, not perspective.

The perspective of Muslims and Jews was already included, but is now included again under the sub-heading of Jesus as God where it is more relevant, as being the main difference in belief between the three faiths.

I don't find the previous edit that the Jews thought Jesus was a "liar" to be quite adequate. But I don't know what simple word to use that carries the right implication. The term used is "blasphemer". I'll have another try. --Amandajm 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in Simple English you need to use more than one word to translate one word of English. Maybe something like "someone who says things about God that they think he should not say" or "someone who says things about God that they think are not true." Maybe you can think of other words. --Coppertwig 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, about Dan Brown. Coppertwig questions the use of Dan Brown as a reference, because the book is a work of fiction. "The Da Vinci Code" is relevant to the section about beliefs, because it has promoted a great deal of discussion about Jesus, about the truth, and about whether or not the Vatican in particular was hiding the truth. Regardless of whether the book itself is supposed to be fact or fiction, it is a fact that it has raised questions, that it has challenged people's beliefs and caused much discussion in the church. That is why it is cited in the article and referenced in the references. It isn't cited as a factual reference.

However, I have heard Brown claim in a TV interview, that although the story is fiction, the Priory of Sion does exist, and the refernces to Mary Magdalene, her marriage to Jesus and her descendants as the Holy Grail is all true.

Concerning the veracity of Brown's claims-

Right at the beginning of the book Brown makes a statement which is not part of the story. He says that the descriptions of artworks, architecture and secret societies are accurate. This is not true, and Dan Brown knows it.

I am an art historian and I have done a lot of travel and seen many of the places he describes.(But I've never been to the fascinating Rosslyn Chapel!) I went through the book checking the inaccurate descriptions. Just take Westminster Abbey for example:-

• Brown describes walking in the side door of Westminster Abbey and going into the part which is called the nave. You can't do this. To get to the nave, you walk in the front door during service times. Otherwise, you have to wind your way right around the interior of the building.
• There is a description of the roof being like the branches of a tree. In the illustrated version of the book, there is a stunning photo of part of the church, but Dan Brown (who chose the pics) chose a view of Henry VII's Chapel, which is not the part he describes, is not near the part he describes and (to an art historian) looks nothing like the part he describes because it is built 300 years later. But it is a very nice photo! Dan Brown knew that most of his readers wouldn't know the difference, and even if they did, they probably wouldn't notice.
• The description of the entry to the Chapter House seems to have been muddled up in his mind with another passage off the cloister.
• You cannot look out the Chapter House windows and see an apple tree. The Chapter House windows are so high off the ground that you have to look right upwards to see out of them at all, and what you see is sky and the top of a tall tree which is just an ordinary hybrid Plane Tree of the sort that grow all over London. If you stood in the right place, you could probably see the top of the enormous tower on the Houses of Parliament as well. But definitely not an apple tree.

So although he claims that his descriptions are accurate, they are not, and some people at the different sites are really quite huffy about it, particularly at Saint-Sulpice where they have a noticeboard saying that the stuff is crap.

About the hoax. These are facts.

• In 1967 a man went to the Bibilotheque Nationale of France (the National Library) and deposited a collection of documents called "Les Dossiers secrets d'Henri Lobineau" (Henry Lobineau's secret records).

The man was supposed to be Henri Lobineau, so why on earth did he put his "secret" files in the public library?

Who was Henri Lobineau? No one knows, but there was a monk and historian called Guy Alexis Lobineau in the 1600-1700s who is not well-known to the general public, but is very well known to historians. So a Historian who looked at this file would think "Ah, Lobineau! This should be interesting!"

These two facts make it look as if the "secret" files were meant to be discovered and read.

• The files contained a collection of documents of different dates (or at least they were supposed to be of different dates and included some genuine things like old newspaper cuttings.

• Some of them were forged documents that were dated to the French Revolution in the 1700s, but were easily proved false because they contained Biblical quotes from a translation of the Bible which was made in the 1800s.

• The documents included genealogical lists which proved that a man called Pierre Plantard was actually the descendent of Dagobert II and was therefore the rightful king of France! If you looked at all the information together, it supported this. How exciting!

Who was Pierre Plantard? He was a guy who in about 1955 had started a right-wing group called ... You guessed it? The Priory of Sion.

Who could join? You had to be Roman Catholic and pay 500 francs to Pierre Plantard.

What did they do? They published a small magazine which was mainly critical of local government issues in their own prefecture.

After a while, Plantard resigned and he gave his reason as the fact that other "Brothers" had friendships with Brits and Americans, which he didn't approve of.

• In Jerusalem, there is a hill called Mount Sion, and yes, an ancient monastery was built on that hill, so it would have been called the Monastery (or Priory) of Mount Sion. But there doesn't seem to be any association whatsoever with this monastery and the group started by Plantard. No-one knows why he chose that name. Maybe he did it for the same sort of reason that Dan Brown chose the Rosslyn Chapel... he visited there and thought it was interesting!

• Plantard carefully invented a background for his Priory of Sion, which took the form of a document in the "Secret Dossier". There is a list which shows the Leaders of the Priority of Sion back to its foundation.

• So then, along come Baigent and Leigh doing some research in the National Library and there was a collection of documents, under the name Lobineau, and of course they thought "How interesting!" They used Plantard's plant in the Library to write the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

Plantard got very nervous and said that it was all nothing to do with him.

• So Dan Brown read the book,"Holy Blood, Holy Grail", used all the stuff to wrte a novel and called his villain Leigh Teabing. Not Leigh Baigent. But you will notice that Teabing (which is a most unlikely name) is an anagram of baigent.
• Then of course Baigent and Leigh got cross and accused Dan Brown of plagiarism. Dan Brown got a bit stroppy but has continued to say that even though the book is a novel, what is says about the Priory of Sion is true, and Jesus really did marry Mary Magdalene and the church really has been covering it up for 2000 years, and the Priory of Sion really did and does exist, that is that.

Jesus and marriage

With regards to whether Jesus got married:- in those days it was quite common for teachers (Rabbi) to be celibate. If a man like Jesus who was a wandering preacher chose to stay celibate, it would not have been particularly unusual or surprising.

So to suggest that the church covered up the fact of his marriage is quite unnecessary.

Another thing:- The gospels tell us about several different women called Mary. One of these women seems to have loved him very passionately because shortly before his death she came to him with a bottle of sweet-smelling and expensive oil and washed his feet. (It was the custom for someone to wash people's feet on arrival soo this was nnot odd, and in fact, Jesus washed the disciples feet himself, even though he was the Rabbi, to make them ashamed that no-one was humble enough to do it.) The thing that was odd about Mary's behaviour was that she wept and kissed his feet annd wiped them with her own hair, which was a very passionate thing to do. The disciples were really offended and told Jesus to make her go away, and said, reallly rudely, that she was wasting a bottle of really expensive stuff by putting it on his feet. If Mary had been Jesus' wife, then it would have been a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and none of the men would have dared to criticise her. My opinion is that Mary understood what they were all too stupid to see, that in a couple of days he was going to be dead.

People in the early church tried to sort out the stories of the different women. They decided that perhaps this Mary was the same woman that he had stopped from being stoned to death. The gospels say that she hhad committed adultery. but the tradition became that she was a prostitute who was reformed because of what happened.

Apart from the four Gosels in the Bible, there are some other writings, dating from just a little later. One of these is the Gospel of Philip. Philip says that Jesus loved Mary and "would kiss her on her ...." The word is missing! No-one knows whether it was on her mouth, on her forehead or on her birthday! Kissing is mentioned quite a few times in the Bible and it seems to have been common for men to kiss each other in greeting, the way many European menn do nowadays. When Judas in the Bible takes the soldiers to capture Jesus, he says, "He's the one that I will kiss as a sign." What a really awful way to betray someone.

Anyway, Philip, in his writings, does not say that Jesus and Mary got married. It seems obvious that if this had happened, he would have mentioned it.

And really, a story (the Gospel story) that is probably factual, but which includes unlikely elements like angels talking to shepherds and a woman getting pregnant without anyone actually putting it in, is just as believable as Dan Brown, even if you think to yourself, OK, so there are bits here that stretch my credulity. The truths contained in the teachings of Jesus stand for all time. There is no reason to doubt that these teachings really did all come from one itinerant Jewish teacher who was born in a stable and died by crucifixion. --Amandajm 15:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you heard Dan Brown say something on TV, that's not good enough for Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Coppertwig 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, I'm beginning to think that you must be quite a young kid because you don't seem to understand a lot of things that are very clear to most grownups.

Let me explain to you:-

• You said earlier that "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" should be cited instead of "The da Vinci Code" because the first was supposed to be fact and the second one was fiction.

The reason why Dan Brown's book is discussed is because the section is about what people believe. "Da Vinci Code" had a BIG influence on what people think. "Holy Bloood, Holy Grail" was quite popular, but it was not read and discussed by millions and millions of people all over the world, like "The Da Vinci Code". You know that fact, just the same as I do, so you can figure it out why I did it like that, if you think about it!

• You have just now said "When you say you heard Dan Brown say something on TV, that's not good enough for citing sources."

OK, Coppertwig, let's figure this one out! Where did I write that I heard Dan Brown say something on TV? I wrote that frst of all, on Your talk page. It's now on this talk page as well. I wrote it FYI. Not as part of the article. In other words, I didn't cite the interview as a source.

If I was going to cite it in the article, I would get on Google and see if I could track down which TV program it was. I know it was made in the UK, and I think I could find it. But since it was just a comment made to a person who said that they didn't know that the book was based upon a known fraud, I don't have to cite the source.

In fact, because you are the person I wrote it to, if you want to know more (and if you are at all smart), then you will be able to track down the details of the interview for yourself. You have enough information to do that.

--Amandajm 08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read your long post.

At the top of the page there is a message that says

Troll: 72.130.78.108 This person is adding lots of blatantly immature "qualifiers" to the article such as, after the sentence on Christmas...

I can only presume that you are the same troll who has now gotten yourself a name.

This article has seventy-five in-text references that say things like

"In the Gospels..."

"In the Bible..."

"In Mark's Gospel..." etc

"In the Jewish Scriptures..."

"Christians believe..."

"Muslims believe..."

"Jews believe..."

"Some people believe..."

"Muslims don't believe..."

"Jews don't believe... "

Some people don't believe..."

"Ghandi said..."

"Dan Brown wrote..."

"Some scholars think..."

"Archaeoloists found..."

Seventy-five qualifiers is enough for an article of this length.

Now why don't you just go and play in your sandpit?

--Amandajm 09:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy-five groups of words like that are enough for saying seventy-five things that not everyone believes. It is also possible to make one group of words work for more than one thing that not everyone believes. One way to do that is to say something like "The Bible says," then put a quotation mark like this: " then you can write many sentences and the words "The Bible says" will work for all those sentences until the closing quotation mark. But if you start new paragraphs, every paragraph must start with a quotation mark.

Another way to do it is to make a list, and at the top of the list say something like "The Bible says:". It may be best to begin every thing in the list with "that".

There may be other ways to do it. (This message was from me. --Coppertwig 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here are some parts of the page that do not have a neutral point of view. They need to be changed or deleted:

• "When they got to Bethlehem, every room was full. There was nowhere for them to stay except in a stable, an animal shed. The baby Jesus was born in the stable, was wrapped up, and put to sleep on the straw in the feed bin (the manger)."
• "The star was a sign that Jesus was born to be a king."
• "He taught that God alone was the true king, and that people should love God and love each other as the Hebrew Bible told them to do. Jesus performed miracles that were signs of God's power, such as giving hungry people food and wine, healing sick people, and making dead people alive again. He also set people free from evil spirits."
• "He had many other disciples, including many women, but because of Jewish customs, the women disciples could not travel to distant places on their own as teachers."
• "When they heard that he was coming, they greeted him as if he was a king. They thought perhaps he would free them from the Roman rule, but Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, as a sign that he came in peace."
• "He often showed disrespect for customs that the Jews kept for many centuries."
• "Jesus saw a man with crippled legs lying on a mattress. He healed the man and told him to pick up the mattress and go home."
• "He became angry at what he saw. There were people selling things there, and money lenders who were cheating poor people. Jesus chased away all the people who were selling things. He said the chief priests and scribes had turned the temple into a den of thieves because they were making money from the poor and taking away homes from poor women who had no other way to pay for the temple worship"
• "As told in the Gospels, the temple leaders were angry and wanted to kill him." (This does not only say that the Gospels say that. It also says it.)
• The whole part "Jesus' death", especially about the angel and resurrection, but all other things too.
• The italics in this part: "Christians believe that, by the teaching of the Bible, Jesus was not only truly God but also truly human..." I think for it to be neutral point of view there should be no italics. Same with "ultimate sacrifice".
• "There were two ways to get God's forgiveness, by prayer and by sacrifice."
• "Jesus is the "Saviour": the one who is here to save. "
• "But when he died on the cross, he took on himself all the sins of every person in the whole world, like the lamb sacrificed in the temple." (It is easy to fix this one. We can make it part of the sentence before it.)
• "Part of their anger was because he told them they were "hypocrites" which means that they were pretending to live good lives but were really using the laws of their own religion to cheat people. (Of course, not all the Jewish leaders acted in this way.)" I think Jewish people might not like the way this is written. It sounds as if some Jewish leaders were acting that way. Maybe not everyone believes that. Also, maybe not everyone believes that Jesus existed or that the Jewish leaders were angry at him.
• "It is unlikely to be the tomb of Jesus family because they did not come from Jerusalem ... so there is not much chance they would own a large family tomb in the crowded old city of Jerusalem."
• "It seems that Matthew had read Mark's Gospel and decided to fill in some things that Mark left out, because, while Mark wrote his Gospel for the Church of Rome, Matthew wanted to write for Jewish Christians all over the Roman Empire. ..." and other parts of that paragraph. I think some people believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't write the Gospels, but other people wrote them many years later.
• "It is believed that Luke was a doctor and was probably a Greek. " Who believes it?
• "He wrote the Life of Jesus by doing research". We don't know that he did research. We don't even know that he wrote it himself, or that one person wrote the whole thing. Maybe they told him things when he didn't ask. Why is it called the Life of Jesus here? I think it's usually called the Gospel according to Luke.

Not about neutral point of view, but maybe this sentence needs to be changed: "In Jesus' own time, many Jews became very angry at Jesus saying that he was the "Son of God" and that his followers said he was the "Messiah"." Does it mean that the Jews said he was the Son of God? Does it mean that they said that his followers said he was the Messiah?

At the end of the part "The Holy Saviour" there are three quotes. It only says where one of them is from. If they are all part of one quote, there should be a quotation mark at the beginning of every paragraph but no quotation mark at the ends of the first and second paragraph. --Coppertwig 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm: Thank you very much for making many parts of the page respect the neutral point of view rule.

I'm deleting this part: "It is unlikely to be the tomb of Jesus family because they did not come from Jerusalem. Before Jesus started teaching, he lived in Nazareth, far to the north. His father's family came from the village of Bethlehem, so there is not much chance they would own a large family tomb in the crowded old city of Jerusalem." If someone finds a source (book, newspaper etc.) that says that, then someone can put it back in.

I'm deleting this part: "It seems that Matthew had read Mark's Gospel and decided to fill in some things that Mark left out, because, while Mark wrote his Gospel for the Church of Rome, Matthew wanted to write for Jewish Christians all over the Roman Empire. Matthew was a well-educated Jew, so he knew the Jewish Scriptures, (which Christians also use and call the Old Testament of the Bible). Matthew knew the scripture teachings that the Messiah, or God's anointed one would come. In his Gospel, he often mentions these teachings. He also starts off by giving a list of Jesus' ancestors because this was important to Jewish readers." because it is not in respect of the rule about neutral point of view. The English Wikipedia page en:New Testament says not everyone agrees about who wrote the Gospels.

I'm deleting this part: "It is believed that Luke was a doctor and was probably a Greek." If it says who believes it, then maybe it can go back in.

I'm deleting this part: Unlike Mark who wrote Peter's story and Matthew who wrote his own story of Jesus, Luke was an historian. He wrote the Life of Jesus by doing research. In other words, it is clear that he went around asking people, including Jesus' mother Mary, what they remembered. See what I say higher up on this page about Luke doing research.

I made some other changes too, to make some parts of the page respect the neutral point of view rule. --Coppertwig 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A problem that is still there: In the part about the death of Jesus, it says "But the Gospels say that the body of Jesus was gone,..." and "But the Bible says that more than 500 people, including Thomas, saw Jesus alive again." I think the word "but" make the sentences not be from a neutral point of view. I'm thinking about deleting "but". --Coppertwig 22:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these issues could be alleviated by actually using an opening paragraph for the section "Jesus in the Bible". By clarifying that the entire section is how the life of Jesus is described the bible and that it is what most followers of Christianity believe (along with the basics that it is primarily based on the writings found in the 4 gospels and whatever other specific books), it is defined that everything in that section is from that POV. This is not a violation of NPOV as long as both sides of the issue are handled equally and that would fall under the heading of other views of Jesus. Denoting every occurrence of a belief system is not needed so long as it is clearly stated that specific sections dealing with what that system believes are entirely based on a specific source. Much like writing the plot to a book, it does not need to be constantly stated that "The book says <this>". It should state right off the bat something along the lines of:

“

"The New Testament of the Christian Bible is the main source of information about the life and teachings of Jesus. The Christian beliefs are based on the life and teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible. Most of what is said in the Bible about him is found in the first four sections of the Bible. These are known as The Gospels. They are the writings of four men who are said to have been followers of Jesus during his lifetime. Not all people believe that what is writen in the bible is true. The following is what is said in the Bible about the life and teachings of Jesus."

”

and go on to state what is said in the bible. Referencing certain sections of the book as needed may be required at times, but those sections do not need to be referenced constantly just for the sake of reminding people that this is how it is written in the book. Referencing a specific Gospel if it needs to be specific (Luke said this but Mark said this) is expected, but once the basic disclaimer is stated that this informtion comes from these source, constant reminders are not needed. -- Creol(talk) 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for helping. That paragraph sounds good. The last sentence is the most important. The one before the last one is also a small amount important. I think words like that at the beginning of every small part (every subsection) may be good enough. I think the last sentence is a very small amount better than "The Gospels tell about the ministry of Jesus in this way:-" There is a reason why long quotes need a quotation mark at the beginning of every paragraph. It's because some people start to read in the middle. They might think that if Wikipedia says something, then Wikipedia means it. --Coppertwig 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, What Creol is telling you here is not different to what I have told you already.

Understand this- (it's about proper quoting of data) You cannot put quotation marks around the parts that say things like "In the Gospels it says that Jesus went to Jerusalem". You can only put quotation marks around a direct quote ie. John's Gospel says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son." Do you understand the diffference?

Coppertwig, one of the things that you seem incapable of understanding is that Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes time to dig up all the right quotations. And put them in place. I could do it much more easily if I wasn't having to deal with someone who is positively paranoid that someone might "start reading the article in the middle" and get the wrong idea. That is childish nonsense.

My suggestion is that you do some research on the section about other beliefs about Jesus. It is at present very short on references. I found one good reference about the Mithraic origins of Jesus. Now someone needs to properly reference the Islamic beliefs about Jesus, the Jewish beliefs about jesus and the Messianic Jewish beliefs about Jesus. If you were to do this useful thing, you would get satisfaction from contributing something positive, instead of driving a retired lecturer up the wall when I have other things to work on.

--Amandajm 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christianity is a big movement. I nevertheless think that this page should be reworked as follows:

• Focus on Jesus as a figure of history. Only say about him what can be sourced, with reliable evidence.
• Leave out Jesus as a leader/founder of religion. Perhaps mention that he founded/contributed to at least 3 major religions.
• The teachings of those religions do not belong here.

Those are of course just my thoughts. --Eptalon 10:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your points one at a time

• "Focus on Jesus as a figure of history. Only say about him what can be sourced, with reliable evidence."

The Gospels, reliable or not, are the main source. There are few other mentions of Jesus. The mentions of Jesus in the writings of the historian Josephus are actually less relieble than the Gospels because they are believed by scholars to be later additions.

There are very very few writings of any sort dating fom the 1st century AD. Most of the writings have no call to mention a minor Jewish rabble-rouser who was executed. One would not expect to find mention of Jesus in someone's poetry, or an architectural teatise, for example.

The other point that I want to make here is that if you were writing about Gilgamesh, then the only source would be the "Chronicle of Gilgamesh" which is thousands of years old and almost pure myth, with perhaps some basis in fact. But that is the source, and the only source. Likewise, the source material on Jesus is the Gospels.

• "Leave out Jesus as a leader/founder of religion. Perhaps mention that he founded/contributed to at least 3 major religions."

What sort of silliness is this? The fame of Jesus is that his teaching ;ed to the foundation of Christianity. If he was just a teacher who lived 2,000 years ago and was put to death, then he would not be important enough to have an article in the encyclopedia.

As for him "contributing to three major religions", this isn't accurate. His contribution to Christianity is 'total. (it's founded on him). His contribution to Judaism was to cause annoyance. His contribution to Islam is very slight, because, although the Islamic faith honours as a prophet, they believe that all Jesus' teachings were replaced by the teachings of the "Final Prophet", Mohammed.

• "The teachings of those religions do not belong here."

I don't agree.

If you were writing an article about, let us say, George Bush, then you would talk about his policies. You would say that there was disagrement about his policies, and you would say that several countries (eg UK and Australia) supported his policies on Iraq. You would say that millions of people didn't support his policies. and you (if you were good at writing encyclopedic articles, you would get quotations from political articles and newspapers to use as evidence that different people support, or do not support Bush's policies. This would be an important part of describing this man. Why? Because as a politician he has had a "very big effect".

Jesus has had an even bigger affect. The effect was because:-

1. of his teaching.

2. of what Christians believed about him.

Any proper well-written thorough article about Jesus must say:-

1. His life from the earliest stories that were written about him (even if some of the things in the story are hard to believe).
2. His own teachings (because they changed the world)
3. What is followers believe about him (because this has affected the lives of countless millions of people)
4. What people who are not his followers think about his life story, his teachings and the beliefs of his followers. This is necessary to give a proper balance.

As the article stands now, it does all these things.

My general comment is this:- This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, even ones where everyone can contribute, are best written by experts. If you look at "Wikipedia" you will often find articles that have a banner at the top that says "This article needs the attention of an expert."

This doesn't happen very much on "Simple wiki". However, there are just a few people who write for "simple wiki" who are also scholars in different fields, who know a great deal about certain subjects and who know what is needed to cover a topic thoroughly.

I am one of the experts who regularly sort out articles about Art and Christian subjects on Wikipedia. One of the things that I do with the Christian articles is to make sure they are properly sourced and not POV. The things that I write for Wikipedia get defended by other people who keep them on their watch lists. I find it personally quite insulting when an immature silly person on "Simple Wikipedia" keeps insisting what I have written is POV.

My suggestion is:- unless you personally have read lots of scholarly articles and done a lot of research into the subject of Jesus, then leave the article alone.

--Amandajm 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My general observations about people on wikipedia, which you might like to think about are these:-

• There are a hundreds editors out there who say "work needed here", but their idea of work is to chop a thing to pieces.
• If you find "unsourced" information, it is much easier to delete it than it is search for a reference. A good editor will try to find out if the information is correct, and add a source.
• Saving after every comma that you add, typo that you fix and link that you mend quickly adds up to 2,000 edits. Then you can proudly write on your page that you have 2,000 edits. Wow! Other people write 2,000 words, check their changes and only save twice.
• Some people write on their page that they have created 20 articles. But if you look at the articles, they are all one-line stubs.
• Some people spend there lives cruising around Wikipedia writing "POV", "Original Research" and {{fact}} on articles but have never written an article in their life.
• Some people really enjoy nitpicking because being critical of someone-else's work makes them feel important and in a position of control. This is not a nice game to play.

--Amandajm 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the non-Christian sources:

• Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae , Testimonium Flavianum (flavius Josephus was a Jew)
• seems to be mentioned in the Talmud
• Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus; Publius Cornelius Tacitus; Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) seem to have written about him, amongst others

The problem when basing oneself on the Bible (or any other text that has a following) is that certain passages cannot be taken as they are written. The authors used images (which were commonly known to the public of the time). The text (or collections of texts) were also adapted to fit political purposes of the time. Books of the Coptic Church of Alexandria include authors/testimonies not found in western bibles.

Another problem is that of translation. In Latin, Virgo can both mean young woman and virgin. Suppose there is a text that classified Maria/Mary as virgo. Then it is possible to translate that both as the young woman Mary and Mary, the virgin. Toady the virginity of Mary is undisputed; it has been fixed by the Catholic Church. This makes it clear however, that translating always also is interpretation.

As an example, take (Mt 1,23): The Vulgata (for example here writes ecce virgo in utero habebit et pariet filium et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuhel quod est interpretatum Nobiscum Deus.. The first part can be translated as Look, (a/the) young woman, who shall have a son in her womb and shall give birth to him (...and who they shall name Emanuhel, which is translated as 'God with us').

The King James version translates this as: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

What you also mention is that the older a text is, the more difficult it gets to find sources. Sources (or alternate reports) also have a tendency to get lost. Some of them have been copied by scribes. The scribes made errors/interpreted the text. With old languages, some of the sources also are one of the few remaining texts that remain in that language (esp. an issue with some old testament material). Translating them is therefore very hard.

Your example with Gilgamesh is a good one;If I am informed correctly,the Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest known Epic. It is therefore very difficult to find sources, esp. independent ones.

I do not have a degree in history, or historical sciences. I am a Computer Scientist. However, I am amongst the top 5 contributors of this Wikipedia usually, (not counting bots, of course). At last check, I had somewhat over 11.000 edits to a bit over 5.000 articles. I have written a few and considerably extended many articles. If you want examples, of my work, look at Bastide, Berlin Wall.

Hope to have clarified things. --Eptalon 09:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, some of my comments were a broad and general gripe. I'm sorry if I have offended you.

Excerpt from the Britannica online "The only substantial sources for the life and message of Jesus are the Gospels of the New Testament, the earliest of which was Mark (written AD 60–80), followed by Matthew, Luke, and John (AD 75–90). Some additional evidence can be found in the letters of Paul, which were written beginning in AD 50 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts." It then goes on to list the other texts.

• Other texts

The references in Josephus (C.75 AD) are often used as evidence, but they are almost certainly later additions.

Pliny the Younger mentions Christians and says they regarded Christ as God.

Gaius Suetonius mentions around 120 AD that Claudius expelled some followers of "Chrestos" which probably means "Christos"

Cornelius Tacitus around 120, talks about Nero's suppression of followers of "Christus" and says that he had been sentenced to death by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius. He had presumably been told this information by the Chirsians themselves.

Reference to Yeshua in the Talmud dates only from about 200 AD. It referes to Yeshua(Jesus) as the child of Miriam(Mary) and probably the bastard child of a Roman soldier. It says that he was stoned to death by order of the Sanhedrin and then the body suuspended on a tree. (If this was the case, then the stoning was illegal, like a lynching, because the Sanhedrin no longer had the power to order a death sentence).

• I think that it is probably worth including the Talmud account in this article because it presents a very different account. Of course, the tradtion of the divinity of Jesus was well established by that time.

And include mention of the other accounts, which confirm the presence of Christians and their beliefs in the 1st and 2nd centuries, but do nothing to add to the history or actuallity of Jesus himself, regardless of the fact that Christians often cite them as "proof". The Josephus reference is the earliest, but is particularly shaky.

• Virgin birth

Recent translations from the Greek (rather than the Vulgate) continue to reitterate the actual "virginity", and in fact Luke's narrative is entirely written from that point of view, so a possible misinterpretation of the word doesn't explain away the belief in Mary's virginity.

The idea of Virgin Birth as a sign of divinity was around for some time before Jesus. I think that Mithras was also divinely conceived. (The birth of a child to a physically intact virgin is not an impossibility. I know of a case where a 12 year-old girl got into the bath after her teenage brother and became pregnant from semen floating in the water.)

I'll add a section about historical references to Jesus.

Thanks for your comments. --Amandajm 01:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know who wrote the Gospels. This page is not neutral point of view because it talks as if we know who wrote them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). --Coppertwig 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, you are acting like a troll. In other words, although you are very clever at thinking up even more new arguments, your understanding of the "big picture" is not very mature. You are getting up Grandma's nose!

In the section about the Gospel writers it refers to the names as those traditionally used. It then explains what Biblical scholars think about them.

And regardless of what their names really were, The Books are called by those names. It is the Books that are the references. "The Gospel of Matthew" is the name of a book, regardless of who wrote it. And the book is called "Matthew" for short. Just in the same way as "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is called "PoA".

One possible way that you could make this quite clear is to go through the article and wherever it is appropriate to do so, which won't be every time, you could add quotation marks around the titles like

"The Gospel of Matthew" tells us....... "Luke" says...... You could even add the words "The Gospel of..." in places where it might bbe helpful.

But don't do it around "the Gospels" because it's not a book name, and don't do it around "The Bible" because it's not customary in the case of things like the Bible, the Q'uran etc.

Now, if your name was Copperstick and not Coppertwig, I would think that you were just a stirrer.

--Amandajm 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought mentioning he is was a Jew might confuse readers, since he converted to Christianity and it isn't mentioned in the same line, I mean we should include both either in the same paragraph or later that is why I removed it but its ok if we mention he was a Jew. --Yegoyan 01:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that 'Jew' is also an ethnicity, besides a religion, that correctly describes Jesus. BTW, I know there are all kinds of views of different groups out there, but who exactly states that Jesus "converted to Christianity"? I've never heard it put that way before... Blockinblox - talk 11:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think Jesus could be said to have "converted to Christianity" - he was a Jew, ethnically and as a follower of that religion.--Matilda (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently added material that Amandajm later removed (because it was badly sourced); the discussion about it can be found on my talk page. It might be relevant to the article. --Eptalon (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ajm included material based on Eptalon's additons, under the appropriate heading, and removed the new section, because there was already a section that covered it, including brief mention of the particular topic. Amandajm (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has Currently all Christian Churches agree on how the date is calculated. Easter is celebrated the first Sunday, following the first full moon, at least 14 days afer the Spring Equinox. Not all Christian Churches agree.

From en:Easter#Date_of_Easter In Western Christianity, using the Gregorian calendar, Easter always falls on a Sunday between March 22 and April 25 inclusively. The following day, Easter Monday, is a legal holiday in many countries with predominantly Christian traditions. In Eastern Christianity, using the Julian calendar, Easter also always falls on a Sunday from March 22 to April 25 inclusive, which on the Gregorian calendar, due to the 13 day difference between the calendars between 1900 and 2099, are dates from April 4 to May 8 inclusive. --Matilda (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true: they agree on how to calculate the date; since they don't use the Gregorian Calendar, they are about 2 weeks off (like with the other feasts, btw). --Eptalon (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I understand what you mean. Perhaps we need to add in the bit about the Gregorian calendar and then it will be more understandable. --Matilda (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imo that should go into the Easter article, not here.--Eptalon (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was born in Nazareth, which is one of the centers of the arab population living in Israel today. As such, he will probably have looked similar to the other people around him; If there was no major migration there in the last 2k yeatrs, he will probably have looked like an Arab, or an Israeli who was born there (from parents also from there). In order to better spread Christianity, he has most often been shown like a local. The big question is: Do we want to mention this, or will this only give rise to some racist comments? - And if we mention it, how should we do it? --Eptalon (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think depiction of Jesus, ie often as a local for whatever artistic reason, is separate from what he actually looked like. I think we don't mention speculation about what he looked like. We could have a separate section on the depiction of Jesus. I note that the Caravaggio painting is probably not the most useful picture to have in the lead. Not a typical depiction at all. --Matilda (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Jesus is usually depicted incorrectly as "a white man" is a fallacy. I have seen this stupid comment attached to some very Jewish-looking Jesuses, obviously by people who wouldn't recognise a Jew if they bumped into one, even if he had ringlets and a prayer shawl.

Since neither of you have looked at what was already posted further up the page, I replace it here. I have added a second gallery of images of modern Jewish men. A comparison of the two galleries seems to indicate that the depiction of Jesus as a Jew, for the last 1,700 years, has been quite extraordinarily accurate.

The bland "meek and mild" Jesus image evolved from a printing process that diminished detail. Because the images were often hand-coloured (both in books and when issued for sale as "Holy Pictures") the colours tended to be pale, so as not to diminish the printed linework of the engraving. It also saved paint. So the 19th century Jesus was increasingly pale. I might add here that the majority of these engraved images were produced in Germany.

The fair Jesus was also shown in the movie King of Kings. However, when Zeferelli chose an English actor to play Jesus, he chose one with black hair in tight curls like many Jewish people.

Jesus was a Jew, not an Arab. The population at the time of Jesus was not Arabic. They were Jewish. My Jewish family members have creamy coloured skin, pale eyes and brown hair. Several of the male members of the family have very curly hair.

In answer to the query about the pic that heads the page- it was chosen for the following reasons:

• It shows as "Jesus narrative" from the gospels
• Even though painted 400 years ago, it has the dynamic quality of a movie clip and thus is a "modern" image
• It is not a "portrait" type image.

There is a remarkable consistency in the way that Jesus has been depicted. The Roman of the 4th century has not painted Jesus as a beardless Roman, as in earlier portrayals. Since that date, Jesus is consistently painted with similar features. In many of the mosaics of Constantinople/Istanbul, the artists portrayed him with light brown hair. --Amandajm 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just paired the pictures in these galleries. Note that many of these Jewish people have very fair skin, blue eyes and brown hair. Rabbi Weiss's blue eyes are clearly visible, even without enlarging the pic.

Another small note: these pictures of Jewish men are not selective. Reproduced here is almost every modern Jewish man I could find on Commons. The others were either not portrait pics or were of much older men.

• 
  Jesus, by a 4th century Roman
• 
  Russ Feingold
• 
  Jesus by a 11th century Athenian
• Yisroel Dovid Weiss
  Yisroel Dovid Weiss
• 
  Jesus by a 13th century Turk
• 
  Ira Glass
• 
  Jesus by a 13th century Italian
• 
  Boaz Pash..hard to find a profile pic!
• 
  Jesus by a 15th century German
• 
  Andy Borowitz
• 
  Jesus by a 16th century Greek
• 
  Unnamed Hassidic Jew
• 
  Jesus by a 17th century Dutchman. The colour is bad in this repro.
• 
  Gary Shteyngart
• 
  Jesus from an engraving, probably German
• 
  Jason Isaacs

Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit uncomfortable putting this here but for reference I have selected a picture of an arab man born and bred in America. Why uncomfortable? Well because it's straight off the fbi most wanted list but I knew this guys picture and it's a good reference for anyone who says, "We are white and that is definitly not Arabs" [4] and I would suggest you look for some pictures of little black babies and you will find that if their parents are not almost purple black looking... the babies will be as white as sin, and, you will find also (except where he has almost purple skin) any black man who doesnt get out in bright sunlight will steadily turn white and the best reference to that would be Michael Jackson... ? a joke? NO!! Micheal Jackson developed "white man diease" where he breaks out in white patches. In fairness, what black man wants to be white in this day and age? Reference from the New York Times [5]. ~ R.T.G 08:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The man whose face you have shown is presumably Islamic, but is he in fact Arabic? There are a great number of Islamic people who are not Arabic- Turks, Croatians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Indonesians, Africans and very blonde people from states of the former USSR etc etc. That man doesn't look Arabic. His features are European. He looks to me to be no more Arabic than Muhammed Ali.

Amandajm (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought. Adam Gadahn's parents were not Arabic. His father was Jewish America and his mother a Christian American. So he's not a good example. Amandajm (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Irish and have blue eyes but my Celtic ancestors are originally from India. They are even darker than Arabs and I am white as paper I guess. It is unlikely Jesus wandered all his days outdoors in the oven of the world and was as white as me, or you. (see the picture of Adam Gadahn in the middle, it's not very good quality but you can see he has been out in the sun and is turning brown, this was the example I was trying for). Maybe part of Jesus amazing attraction was having blue eyes, who knows, but it is hard to say what colour your ancestors were a thousand years ago. All famous pictures of Jesus show him snowy white but in most scripture he is outdoors... ~ R.T.G 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're basing the appearance of Jesus on sunburn? I personally think that he was brown, not due to sunburn but to birthplace (a tad more logical, no?). He was born (according to New Testament) in Bethlehem, which is in Palestine (or thereabouts, my geography is terrible).

If Jesus were born in the Middle-East, one would give him brown skin. To quote the BBC:

“	First - if the past 2,000 years of Western art were the judge, Jesus would be white, handsome, probably with long hair and an ethereal glow. Second - it can almost certainly be said that Jesus would not have been white. His hair was also probably cut short.	”
—[6]

--Gwib ^-(talk)- 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are talking nonsense. You are falling for a ridiculous conspiracy theory that white races have suppressed the truth about Jesus' appearance. You are not looking at the evidence that has been presented to you. The evidence is that Ancient Romans, Byzantine Greeks, Medieval Germans, medieval Italians, Baroque Dutchmen etc etc etc all depicted Jesus looking like a Jew! Jesus was a Jew. not a Modern-day Palestinian. The Arabic people now inhabiting Palestine arrived there in the 7th century AD.

Being a Jew can mean two things. It can be about ethnicity. And/or it can be about religion. Most Jews are ethnic Jews. Some People who are not ethnic Jews follow the Jewish faith and are called Jews for this reason. When I say that Jesus was Jewish, I'm referring to his ethnicity, as well as to his faith.

The stuff about Jesus being brown is nonsense. The only brown-skinned Jewish people that I know are Jewish African Americans, mixed-race Jewish people and Australian Jewish teenagers who spend their lives on Bondi Beach.

Stop speculating and read over what I have written. I have explained the process of hand-coloured illustrations and the effect that this had on modern depictions of Jesus. That effects some depictions of Jesus over the last 200 years. It has no bearing on the depictions since the 3rd century, when Jesus was first shown looking like a typical bearded Jewish man, at a time when Romans wore short hair and few (mainly soldiers) were bearded with short cropped beards. If you Google images of "Jesus", then almost all the images that you see are those that might be termed modern kitsch. You have to look a long way to find a painting by a great artist. You can't presume to judge 1700 years of depicting Jesus by looking at the worst, nastiest, most mawkish products of the 20th century. The images that I have reproduced above are extraordinarily consistent in their depiction of Jesus. And they are all considered great works of art.

Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, wonderfully laid out. However, I have to disagree.

After reading your quote "Being a Jew can mean two things. It can be about ethnicity. And/or it can be about religion", I have to disagree. Jews are a race more than they are a religion (one can find sources, but I think you'll agree) and the Middle-Eastern Jews were probably a tad different from the Jews you know. 2,000 years will produced extraordinary breeding patterns, leading to your mixed-racial Jewish friends. However, 2,000 years ago, someone who was Jewish born in the Middle-East was certainly brown-skinned, as would his ancestors. There is a clear ancestral line of Jews even today, giving all Jews characteristics unique to their own religion, thus qualifying them as a race. Agreed there is evidence to suggest otherwise, but logic coupled with evidence for his pigmentation both show that he was probably brown-skinned. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The sun wins hands down. Bondi beach is pretty cold compared to Israel and Palestine, but to be fair, Arabian style headgear is also common in bible pictures so it's possible Jesus got barely any sun. ~ R.T.G 05:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gwib, firstly, this statement Being a Jew can mean two things. It can be about ethnicity. And/or it can be about religion", which you say you disagree with, is not something that can be disagreed with. There are people of the Jewish faith who are not Jews by ethnicity. There are Black African Jews, African American Jews, Indian Jews and so on. Their faith makes them Jewish.

I can't comprehend your saying that you "disagree" with something so patently true. Are you just trying to be argumentative, or what?

And yes, of course there is an ancestral line, giving ethnic Jews clear charateristic. But they are the characteristic of ethnicity. They don't have characterists "unique to their own religion". Ethnic Jews have characterists unique to their ethnicity. A African American Jew doesn't look like an ethnic Jew, any more that Muhammed Ali looked like an Arabic Muslim. This is so obvious it seems silly to repeat it.

• Secondly, if Jews were brown skinned, 2,000 years ago, then why did that Roman artist only 300 years later (1,700 years ago) paint Jesus looking exactly like a modern Jew? Why did the Greek 800 years later paint him in the same way? Why did the 19th century traveller paint the Middle Eastern Jew with pale skin and the Muslim with much darker skin?

The pictures, right back to 300 AD are consistent. When one looks at the face on the man that the Roman Christian painted as Jesus, one sees a face similar to a modern Jew. It suggests that his ancestral line gave him certain characteristic.

Although you haven't stated it, I'm perfectly well aware that there has been a proposed model for Jesus' appearance put forward, showing him as brown skinned with African-type hair and a short broad face. All this contrasts not just with traditional depictions of Jesus, but also with the appearance of most modern Jewish people, regardless of where they are located. [7]

I don't know who came up with this model, but, as far as I'm concerned, it defies all logic. You say "logic coupled with evidence indicates that he was browned skinned". What logic? What evidence? It's all about as logical as Dan Brown.

And it all began with an erroneous statement that Jesus is wrongly depicted as a white man. In fact, until the revoltingly over-sentimentalised pictures of the twentieth century, Jesus was almost always shown accurately as looking Jewish.

I have to drop out of this discussion. It's wasting time in which I could be writing more art history articles. I have a professional background in this and have looked at thousands of religious images, so I'm beginning to find it tiresome to be told that all those artists "whitewashed" the truth, all the way from that 3rd century image that looks nothing like a 3rd century Roman, and just like a 21st century Hassidic Jew.Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided I'd do a bit more research into the sources used by the forensic artist who recreated to image that's being presented as a "true" likeness. The model that is being presented as "much closer to a true image" is based upon a series of decisions, made by the archaeologists and the artist and his theological advisor. I tracked down two U tube videos, one of which was more complete.

1. Even though there were many remains, the artist seemed to have very limited access to a wide range of skulls, for religious reasons. The three that were selected all had very similar characteristics. We were not told whether they came from the same village, the same burial site, the same grave. They could have been three related people. This would greatly narrow the range of possibilities.
2. A skull with very different characteristics was shown for comparison. The short round skulls were described as "Jewish". The origin of the other skull was never revealed so the viewer had no way of assessing whether that skull might or might not have been Jewish as well. Simply from a different region or different family. I paused the video, looked at the skulls and observed that it was the skull which was discarded as "not Jewish" which had the characteristic of all the Jewish males in my family. (I'd like to get my hands on that skull)
3. The archaeologist said from the start that his perception of Jesus was as a "typical peasant". The skulls selected were of "typical peasants". The question one must ask here is why on earth would the archaeologist presume that a man whose lineage traced to king was a "peasant". One ought to presume that in fact he was not a peasant. He was honoured as a Rabbi. He was hailed as a king.
4. So the fact that three "peasant" skulls were used for the model may have doomed the project from the outset. They might have come up with different findings if the skulls had come from the burials of those more closely associated with the temple, remembering that Jesus asume the right to read at, teach at and cleanse the temple.
5. The video shows a book with reproductions of two of the images that were used as an indication of colouring and hairstyle. The images are wall paintings from an ancient synagogue in Syria. They are a little earlier (20-50 years) than the image of Jesus reproduced above. The two images that the video focussed on were two standing men- Old Testament prophets or patriarchs. I since tracked down a couple more pics.
6. Remarkably, both men are dressed in Roman clothing even to the purple bands displaying their rank. In other words, the artist, who was very probably a Roman, since wall painting was a Roman tradition, has made no attempt whatsoever to make these characters of ancient Jewish history resemble anything except modern 3rd century Romans. This is not a very good basis to provide info on the appearance of Jesus. The men have short hair.
7. One of the man in the pictures has dark olive or brownish complexion and curly hair. The other man has white skin and what appeared to be straight hair parted in the middle. Both the theologian and the artist referred to curly hair and ignored the man wit hair parted in the middle.
8. The artist chose to depict Jesus as having brown flesh tones, like one of the men, but ignored the man who had obviously white skin.
9. In fact, the man with white skin also had a longer face, large eyes and a gentle expression. If it were not for the fact that he was wearing a Roman toga, he greatly resembled all the thousands upon thousands of Byzantine icons of Jesus.

Just to put the Syrian paintings in context- at exactly the time of Jesus, many people, including wealthy Greek families, migrated to Egypt. The Greeks had a tradition of portrait paiting (which later became a tradition of icon painting using the identical technique). Painted portraits by Greek artists were used at this time to put over the face of a body. Several hundred portraits have survived. They show people whose flesh ranges from rosy pink, to snow white, to creamy white, to pale olive, dark olive and brown. The figures nearly all have black or dark hair. They nearly all have brown eyes. Some of them have blue-hazel eyes, just as some Middle Eastern people do today.

The point that I want to make is that the archaelogists and artist had certain choices in this matter. It is my opinion that a few wrong choices has given us a very false image.

Even if we are to presume that the skull shape is correct, the artist had many other choices to make:

1. The line where the lips meet- very significant in giving expression. He made it quite straight
2. the outer edge of the lips- give character to the face. He made these straight too.
3. the chin that he created was a cleft chin of the sort that generally grows a divided beard. Images of Jesus usually have this sort of beard. the model doesn't even though its chin does!
4. The position of the eyebrows are very variable, and are important to the expression. The artist chose them.
5. Likewise the shape of the eyes.
6. The artist chose to make the man look older than his 33 years. He described Jesus as being in his "mid-thirties". He said that the man was aged by working outdoors, so he put deep grooves over his forehead.

If a different artist were to juggle some of these variables, and give Jesus the paler skin of Jewish Prophet No 2, (as painted in the synagogue) rather than the brownish skin of Prophet No 1, then we would have a very different image. I might say that neither of the two Jewish gentlemen painted in the synagoge bear more than a passing resemblance to the peasant face construced by the artist. I have no doubt that the image that is being toted around as "The Face of Jesus" does look like some guy who died along time ago, but to presume that it gives any sort of accurate impression of Jesus is very foolish. Amandajm (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda, I am Irish, these pictures of white American men you are displaying are not even a little bit unusual where I come from (not one), here we have blond and red haired persons with green eyes and jet black haired and have all those since 3000 years before Jesus was in Israel. I doubt anyone is going to change Jesus picture with a dark brown skinned one but this distinction with the Arabs... they are all Jews "Sons of Abraham". If you want to find other races you will have to go to Africa, Asia, America or Australia. Look up Abrahams tomb and you will find it is split right down the middle between Jewish and Muslim. Muslims do not see Jesus as a son of God but they see him as a holy man of their own. All the girls wore shawls not long ago. Dressing in black gowns was as good as wearing jeans a hundred years ago. The distinctions are mainly religious. I doubt the Jesus of the bible had a "furrowed brow from working outdoors" if he spent all his time travelling around getting his feet washed and making people walk. I would do my best not to make "skulls available" to artists! I assure you that I have seen black people with skinny little skulls, that is not a whites only thing. Look at Saddam Hussein when in power and when on trial. Sun and strength make a dramatic difference to a persons appearance including how big their eyes look. ~ R.T.G 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why Jesus could not have been albino and days such as they were, his life may have been in danger from suspicion, so they darkened his hair and created such a story that people could scarcely approach him and anywhere they (the Jesus bunch) went, people would feed them and wash their feet without even looking into their eyes. Imagine the awe of seeing a man with white skin when the desert was your neighbour. I am way off topic here. I suggest that seeing all depictions of Jesus are similar, anyone wanting to replace it completely hasn't got a very strong argument. ~ R.T.G 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

No i am not qualified to say that Jesus was white-skinned/albino; all I want to point out:

• Jesus might have been shown differently to what he actually looked; Artists probably CHOSE to show Jesus the way they did. This depiction is not necessarily true to reality (and might have been influenced by local customs as well).
• Arguing form his teachings, his looks were probably irrelevant. His teachings changed the world, his looks (probably) did not.
• Can we settle to use contemporary images where available?

These are of course just my thoughs. --Eptalon (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs such serious revisions that I recommend that it be completely scrapped and replaced with a reworked version of the wikipedia.org page about Jesus of Nazareth. This article violates many of Wikipedia’s guidelines and no effort has been made to keep the page impartial.
Most notably the existence of a historical Jesus is stated as fact despite a complete lack of contemporary evidence, historical mistakes and the supernatural events of the story. Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum is a proven forgery. the Jesus figure from religious beliefs comes from Nazareth, a town which did not exist in the time the story is set. This "preaching" continues through the entire article and no effort is made to compare Jesus to similar figures in other religions, such as Mithras or Hermes. --Drunkmerlin (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other candidates (besides the Da vinci) for the last supper picture:

• 
  Da Vinci, current image; end 15th century
• 
  Theophanes the Cretan, at Mount Athos, mid 16th century.
• 
  Jacopo Bassano, 1542
• 
  Juan de Juanes, 3rd quarter 16th century
• 
  Carl Cristoffer Stadig, 1847
• Salvador Dalí, 1955
  Salvador Dalí, 1955
• 
  Amédée Varint -Christ walking on the Sea, 19th century
• 
  Mikhail Nesterov - Saintly Rus, Early 20th century (artist lived 1862 -1942); unknown copyright status

Here are some questions for you:

• Do we want a painting at that place, or would an icon, mural or statue also do?
• If we want a painting, I am thinking mainly of the 17th/18th centuty Dutch painters; Rather than having something like the da Vinci, I'd prefer something modern (like the Dali), but as I said, it is up ofr discussion.
• Does it have to be last supper, or can the theme be different?

Looking forward to answers.--Eptalon (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have never got back to comment on this. The good thing about Leonardo's Last Supper, old and faded as it is, is that it is accepted by Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox alike. Some of these images, the Juan de Juanes for example, are full of symbolism which is not strictly biblical and not universally accepted by branches of the Christian church. It would be better to avoid that by using the old well-loved image. Amandajm (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the article as a possible candidate to VGA; I think in the interest of being able to award the flag, the community should work out the perceived issues here. --Eptalon (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]