Talk:Passion of Jesus

message: Just found this article and have worked on it.
Sorry guys! but I must say that the English expression here was clumsy. please remember that people with limited English also read these pages.
* highly abreviated language like "Thorn coronation" doesn't work because it is neither a common expression, a biblical expression or clear. It's merely short. "Crown of Thorns" is far more meaningful.I removed several of these, reversed things (with the addition of a little word here and there like "of". Another example is "metal studded whip" instead of "whip with metal studs" It's about clarity. 
* there is a lot of interesting information inserted in the wrong places. The paragraph that relates the Passion as it is written in the gospels is not the right place for lengthy dissertations on every aspect of the passion, including archeological details. These interesting asides all have a place under a different heading, and I have put them there, but unfortunately lost some of the references, which I will endeavour to fix.
* Unless you are writing a novel, its best to dispense with descriptive words like "stated" and "argued" when what is really called for is "said", even if it is boring and repetetive. I removed a few of these, including one "Jesus argued" when, in fact, Jesus wasn't making an argument in any sense of the word. He made a statement of fact, followed by another statement which may be considered prophetic.
Now, what I REALLY need to know is, why on earth is this page called Passion (Christianity) instead of the name that it is actually known by - The "Passion of Christ"? I would not let the fact that there has been a movie of that name put me off. It seems like a really strange and clumsy decision.
I suppose there is a reason. I won't change it, without feedback. 
My spelling is hopeless! So are my typos. Could someone please correct them?
--Amandajm 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Christ is a title applied to Jesus ONLY by Christians, and thus is hugely biased to include that in an article title. To call something ..... of The Christ presumes that the person in question actually is a Christ, and is the only Christ, both of which are biased pro-mainstream-Christianity positions. Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral point of view, and so such article titles are not permitted unless they are actual published names of documents etc. (e.g. the title of a book). Clinkophonist 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Passion of Christ 

message: The book in question is essentially the text of my MA thesis entitled, 'Pagan Ritual And Myth, In The Early Christian Church'. It does indeed cover many aspects of the Jesus Myth, Christian festival et al...As an example, the first eight chapters are headed: (1)Rebirth of a Myth, (2)Christianity And The Sun God, (3)The Dying And Resurrected Saviour God,(4)Stars And Their Portents, (5)The Virgin Mother Of The World, (6)The Cave And Stable Myth, (7)Slaughter Of The Innocents, (8)Miracles...................etc. There are 16 chapters, 230pp, inc' Bibliography, and Index.The work is therefore accademically sound, and relevant to many diverse aspects of Christianity. Larry Wright, 28/03/07
:As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. I have also left you a comment on your most recent IP address's talk page because this matter affects a number of pages you have been visiting.-Andrew c 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Christianity, Astrology And Myth', Wright, L.M. 'See also' 

message: The article here currently reads, "The narratives of the Passion are found in the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three of these, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, give very similar accounts. The Gospel of John includes additional details."  While in general this is somewhat true, it's not true for this topic. A word for word comparison between Matthew 26:30-57, Mark 14:26-53, Luke 22:39-54, and John 18:1-13 shows that only Matthew and Mark have wording in common. They are very similar, altho not identical (for instance, Matt. 26:34 v. Mark 14:30). Luke is only similar enough that one can recognize that this is an account of the same events. Same for John. After an appropriate time, say 3 months, for discussion here, I will modify the article's wording a little to indicate this.Friendly Person (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment under the Four Gospels 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Passion of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814055505/http://slate.msn.com/id/2096041/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2096041
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the "portent grievance of the Blessed Virgin Mary"? Is it in scripture or is there some other reference for it? And does it belong in this article about the Passion of Jesus? Can some explanation be provided, please? Thanks --- --Frans Fowler (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Special Catholic terminology I suppose, but obscure even as that. No, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead, & I've removed it. It's been there an amazingly long time, since these edits, the rest of which might be worth checking over. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Johnbod. I've done a little gardening in the lead section.---Frans Fowler (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portent grievance of the Blessed Virgin Mary 

message: This wording is POV. Jesus, according to the Christian faith, lives today. He rose from the tomb and appeared to disciples, so should the Ascension be counted as the final period in his life? What about his earthly life? I believe "Final period in the public ministry of Jesus" is more descriptive. Elizium23 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Final period in the life of Jesus" 

message: Propose this for the lead:
I think a narrow enumeration of events should be first and central, with the inclusive definition given as a minority opinion, which is what it seems to be.  Otherwise we risk misrepresenting the "mainstream opinion", and making a WP:CONTENTFORK from the Holy Week article.  But as this is merely a matter of defining liturgical terms, and not of remembering history, I don't really care that much.  and  may have an opinion about this. The only thing that offends me is having to edit two wikipedia articles instead of only one. :-)Jaredscribe (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for enquiring about my thoughts on this, Jaredscribe. My preference for the Passion of Jesus would be to lead on the narrower interpretation (last supper to death of Jesus), and add that "some others ...." or similar grant it a wider interpretation. John is slightly harder to deal with and I would be torn between John 13:30 (night had fallen) and 18:1 (crossing the Kidron Valley). I do think that the Passion of Jesus article should be about remembering what happened, veiled as this is via the Gospel accounts, whereas the Holy Week article is about how those events have been and are commemorated, and this can extend from Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem to his death, burial and resurrection. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

text: The whole narrative starting with the entry into Jerusalem should be included, as at present. We're short of references to solid RS here.....  I agree this page should cover the gospel accounts, and Holy Week the commemorations, which is also currently the case. I'm dubious about extending to after the burial - who actually does this?  Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrow or inclusive definition first?