Talk:Jesus in Christianity/Archive 1

message: Notice: This is a daughter article of Jesus Christ - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article.
WhisperToMe 07:19, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. We all need to appreciate this before we all get merge happy. Unfortunately, merge proposals are popping up all over Jesus-related articles. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not Wikidissertation. archola 05:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

message: This page looks as ugly as sin on my screen because the timeline of JC starts just to the left rather than just underneath the initial picture/portrait. This creates a 3 column effect... one column of main text, one column of timeline and one column of great empty white space... all roughly equal in size. Do others have the same problem? Could the fancy HTML code be altered to fill the screen like all other pages. (My screen resolution is 1280x1024) Pete 12:03, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Page layout

message: Most of the ones in "Others" have just a Christian connection to Jesus, not direct Jesus-related, e.g., A Plea for Captain John Brown, Midwest Christian Outreach, Revised Standard Version, Tomb, Torah, Veil, Thirteen, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Theology,  Seventh-day Adventist Church, The supernatural in monotheistic religions, and of course, there's Superman (it's actually listed there). --Menchi 12:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I broadly agree with Adrain Pingstone's sentiments. But along these lines, was it deliberate symbolism or a simple mistake to list sin twice? Pete 12:07, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the See Also material be hived off to another to another article, e.g. List of Christian topics or List of topics related to Jesus, depending on JDRs motives. Then See Also can be reduced to the important articles and the list of ??? : ChrisG 12:30, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of creating List of Christianity-related topics?  Someone already started a List of Hinduism-related articles.  To me, each of these links suggests at least a few more unlisted articles that are just as relevant, so the list could grow quite large.  It seems there may be Jesus/Christian scholars that want to be able to track changes to all of these articles. GUllman 02:00, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: This is way over the top. I'm guessing about 20 might be immediately relevant. Superman has got to go. DJ Clayworth 17:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: Personally, I think this article looks great. Not perfect, but in the top 5% of our articles. I hope we don't butcher it too badly (a camel is a horse designed by a committee), or waste too much time that would be far better spent in bringing the other 95% up to this standard. Andrewa 20:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:   article looks 

message: Hate to rain on a parade, especially on a subject that raises such strength of feeling with people, but is the title itself not flawed?  "Christ" is itself a Greek equivalent for Messiah and thus assumes the thesis under discussion, thereby failing NPOV.  Could use just "Jesus" perhaps, most people recognize whom the name refers to.  Chris Rodgers 11:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  title itself

message: This section should be shortened with the link to the main article at Christology. Any improvements or expansions needed could be made there. Comments? Wesley 20:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine the way it is to me. I don't think there is enough info, or enough seperateness, for a seperate article. CheeseDreams 23:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christology section 

message: What is this all about?
:In many sects of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism), it is believed that Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection and taught some early Americans, whom The Book of Mormon says were of Israelite descent.
In many sects of?  Why aren't we simply stating that the Book of Mormon says it?  Are we implying that some sects of Mormonism (the Latter Day Saint Movement) don't accept the Book of Mormon?  It sounds very double-speakish and confusing. Tom - Talk 07:14, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
:: Hi Tom, long time no see! Are there any LDS sects that don't take that part of the account literally? Maybe the Community of Christ (hope that's the right name... if not you'll figure out the one I mean.) Anyway, if there is a group like that, they may have wanted to leave room for themselves by phrasing it that way. But I'm just speculating wildly here. Wesley 16:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is true that while the Community of Christ accepts the Book of Mormon as an additional scriptural witness of Jesus Christ they make no claims as to its historicity.  Glenn4pr 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism

message: I happen to be a Christian, and accept the trinitarian view of God.........but whats with all this "three white persons" stuff?? I have no idea (nor do I care!) whether God is White Black Yellow or Sky Blue Pink with Yellow dots on! I think that section is bordering on a NPOV violation, unless you can provide some evidence for what you're saying.
80.177.152.156
:I think it was vandalism.  I'm removing it.  Friday (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats with all the "white person" "black person" stuff??!

message: Since the title "Christ" only makes sense in the context of Christianity, is there any reason not to rename this article to "Jesus Christ," rename Historical Jesus to "Jesus of Nazareth," and keep the main article at Jesus? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone knows that Jesus Christ is called Jesus Christ only in Christianity, though it is pretty widespread information. Homestarmy 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bolder proposal

message: What is the Christian views of Jesus article doing with a section discussing Jewish objections and a final sentence about the Muslim view? That whole section seems really off-topic, why is it in there? Homestarmy 14:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't know. It seems to me that really need only say something like: "Religious Jews disagree. (See Judaism's view of Jesus.)" As for the Muslim view, all we need is a link to Isa in the "See also" section at the end of the article. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is supposed to be the Christian view, im not sure why we need to say anything at all, and just put Isa and Judaisms view as a see:also at the bottom. Homestarmy 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might say something about Rabbinic Judaism's view, since after all Christianity was also Jewish until Paul got ahold of it. But notice how short my something is above. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it's a modern-day Rabbinic view, they are not representing the same type of Judaism that Christianty arose out of, im pretty sure there was no responsa or a bunch of summaries of books or whatever it is Judaism supposedly has now. Homestarmy 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It's usually said that Rabbinic Judaism emerged from the Pharisees. Other forms of Judaism, such as Saducees, Essenes and Zealots, are now extinct. I'm just one of the people who find it interesting to explore the question of why Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity—both of which emerged from first-century Judaism—wound up so different from each other. Of course, here is another "see also": Judaism and Christianity. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im starting to get the feeling a whole bunch of these articles almost do nothing but quote each other in different forms :/. But I get what your saying then I suppose.... Homestarmy 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we're getting external links about Islam, which takes up all of one sentence of this article, and perhaps has even less to do with the article topic than the sentence does. Islam as far as I know has nothing to do with Christian views of Jesus, why is that here? Homestarmy 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links don't belong. I'd move them to Isa. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences in interpretation?

message: Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref 

message: Try googling that phrase and see what the results say. I do not think it is mere unsources speculation that most Jews (then and now) have a different concept of messiah than the Christian concept. And its obvious that the Jews (then in now) (with a small acception for Ebionites and messianic Jews) rejected Jesus as the Jewish messiah. If the sentence in question is so controversial, could anyone please make a case here why it needs to be striken completely? --Andrew c 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like an unsources statement in an article, the normal procedure is to mark it with a  tag, and perhaps mention it on the talk page. Wait a couple weeks, and if the citation doesn't show up, THEN remove it. Also, you reverted my formatting of tables and fixing a redirected wikilink. Please be more careful when you revert so you don't erase neutral contributions. I am restoring the sentence, and adding a fact tag. Please do not delete it for at least another week (if not more, preferably). We'll see if anyone else has an opinion on this matter.--Andrew c 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry about the other deletion.  I will remember the etiquette you mentioned, although if a citation was the only difficulty, I would not have removed it.  The statement is a Jewish view of Jesus, and inappropiate for this topic.  There is a Jewish view of Jesus topic specifically created for that type of statement. Bbagot 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So wait, let me get this straight, the reason why you want to delete this sentence is because you feel that POV does not belong in this article? Hmm... I'm not sure how I feel about this. Obviously, in other articles, this would be unacceptable due to NPOV. However, this is already a POV-fork. I think with topics that you can't avoid creating POV-forks, the idea is to present the main POV, and then have a section briefly describing alternate POVs, with wikilinks to the main pages on this topic. I see nothing wrong with presenting the Jewish POV, even if this article is specifical about the Christian POV, in order to stay NPOV. Just as long as the main focus stays remains the topical POV, and the alternative POVs are minor (and wikilinked where applicable). Is anyone else watching this page? Are we giving undude weight to the Jewish POV?--Andrew c 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe this is the proper forum to force a viewpoint that does not match the topic.  I've looked to see if I'm applying a standard to the Christian view as far as keeping the article Christian that doesn't apply for the Jewish or Islamic views.  What I have found is that neither the Jewish or Isalmic views of Jesus have references from Christianity or links to any sites except those within their religious traditions.  I've also noticed that there are no thoughts from Messianic Jews allowed in the Jewish views of Jesus, so for others to be concerned about the disclaimer that I inserted in regard to wide latitude in Christian views would seem to be rather dubious when this is take into consideration, especially since the person who erased it is an extremely vocal contributor to that other topic. Bbagot 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Content forking should be kept in mind. Just because an other article does something does not automatically make it right. Policy trumps in this situation. Furthermore, having a disclaimer in the opening as you propose is also not covered by policy. What you should do is either expand the article to cover a more diverse range of christian views, or tag the article with a NPOV tag at the top. --Andrew c 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Opps, I have been reading your "disclaimer" wrong this whole time. I apologize. You seem to be using the No true Scotsman argument. You are upset that something that you don't consider "Christian" is being called Christian? Could you be more specific about your concerns regarding the content. There is no precedent to use a disclaimer for such a claim, and the claim in and of itself seems very biased to begin with. --Andrew c 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer not to get into great detail other than to say that not all groups that are tied to Christianity in this article are viewed that way by the majority of Christian denominations who do not include those groups.  It would be misleading for readers from the outside to believe there is a general acceptance of all groups discussed as being Christian.Bbagot 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get into greater detail? There is already this "disclaimer" in the actual article: Many of these doctrines were rejected as heresies by the Ecumenical councils of Christianity, and some modern variants (for example, Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses) are at times excluded from the umbrella of Christianity, particularly by Evangelicals, though they often call themselves Christian. See Christology, Mormonism and Christianity. There is no precendent supporting your added disclaimer. There is no policy supporting it either. Furthermore, the information I believe you are trying to convey is ALREADY covered in the article itself. SO there are 3 reasons not to have that at the top of the article. I hope you can agree to remove it. --Andrew c 13:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look at the disclaimer you have noted and attempt to make revisions with this in mind.  Bbagot 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the POV from the intro, and sourced the other stuff.  As to whether undue weight is given here, not sure, but I've linked to Judaism's view of Jesus as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bbagot, please stop adding lengthy un-Wiki disclaimers to the top of this page, and please stop inserting unsourced, factually incorrect, and POV material into the Jews/Jesus section. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am curious as to what you think is factually incorrect, or POV for that matter.  If you have information you would like to share, then I would like to hear it.  I thought I tightened it up quite a bit over the previous version, which was also unsourced.  In truth I'd have no problem with this section being removed as it doesn't really have anything to do with the Christian view of Jesus, merely a history lesson into verse differences between the Old and New Testament. Bbagot 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section was inaccurate: Early Christians, and some Christians today, relied on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was popular in Jewish Alexandrian communities at the time of Jesus. Much prophetic quoting from the New Testament matches this text. Since most modern Christian Bibles translate from the later Hebrew Masoretic Hebrew text, there can be some confusion as to why there are subtle wording differences unless this difference is understood.  It is not true prophetic quoting in the New Testament matches the Septuagint, nor that the Masoretic text "later" than the Septuagint. More importantly, if you have no problem with the section being removed, then why do you keep restoring it? Jayjg (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard for me to understand your knowledge base or where it comes from.  It's not exactly hidden knowledge that many NT quotes that don't much the OT are due to different translations.  Isaiah 7:14 is one of the best known, but it's one of many.  The history of the Masoretic text isn't exactly a secret either.  I restored the section that was removed  because you kept putting back the earlier form which was rambling and poorly written.  I've made no secret that my wish was that this article would match the title -- Christian views of Jesus.  That section is peripheral. Bbagot 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isaiah 7:14 is, in fact, the only arguable case where this happens, and even then its an incorrect claim, since the Greek word parthenos does not only mean virgin - in fact, even in the Septuagint it is used to refer to Dinah after she is raped. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did the Jews reject jesus? 

message: Omg, i give upp! This is a complete mess!
I vote for a total overhaul and reorganization of this whole mess, there is no organization here, just a bunch of loosly related articles that nobody cares to have a overview over. I am starting some suggestions: Talk:Christian views of Jesus/Jesus. --Striver 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments?--Striver 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Jesus/Related articles. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my proposal, before "somebody" took upon himself to delete my proposal. "Thanks"... --Striver 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess

message: First of all, first person (I, we, our, etc) is not to be used on wikipedia per the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid self-referential pronouns. Second of all, you do not capitlize pronouns refering to deities (He, Himself, etc) also per the MoS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents. Emoticons and personal commentary only belongs on talk pages, never in the main article space. Wikipedia follows what is called neutral point of view, which means that all relevent points of view are given with due weight, as long as the claims are cited per WP:V using reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot say who is or isn't a "True Christian", nor say which interpretation of scripture is correct. All we can say is that a number of interpretations exist and "X holds Y belief" while "A holds B belief". Saying things like Most people who call themselves "Christians" don't believe everything in the Bible and refuse to believe the main points above. sounds like original research, clearly needs a citations, and at best needs to be qualified with who holds that opinion. This article is not the place to push a personal POV of what makes up a True Christian. We must include that Catholic POV, Protestant, JW, Mormon, conservative, liberal, etc where applicable (and keep in mind this article is about Christian views of Jesus, not about Christianity which has its own article). Things like  showing us the authority here is genuine authority from above and previously authorized; revealing to us God's actual involvement in His leadership in spiritual authority exercised by His disciples should clearly be avoided for many of the above stated reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. If there are any questions about wikipedia policy, or concerns over the content of this article or my reverts, please feel free to talk things out here. --Andrew c 14:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading what you left on my talk page, I don't think anyone is going to feel sympathetic about how downtrodden you feel you are. Wjhonson 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of Wikipedia is to include all relevent POVs. While your POV may be relevent, it is only important if you can back it up with verifiable, reliable sources. Approaching this article by claiming it is "blasphemous deceit", and claiming you hold the one "genuine Christian view" is not in line with wikipedias NPOV policy. You need to accept that other people who are equally qualified to be called "Christian" may hold views that differ from you. It is not ok to remove or change veiws that you disagree with, if they are held by other Christians (even if you don't consider those people to be Christian). Also keep in mind that we cannot give undue weight to minority positions. Because 1 and 6 Christians are Catholic, most articles should have a Catholic slant to them, just because that is the majority Christian POV. Please try working on finding sources to back up your edits. And instead of inserting things like "True Christians believe X, while others are simply wrong in the interpretations". Add things like "Evangelical scholar B beleives Y" or "Southern Bapitists believe Z" and things like, if they are included with proper citations. If you have questions or need help with how to cite things, I'd be more than happy to help you out, but keep in mind wikipedia is not a soap box for personal views, and it isn't the place to decide what is and isn't the correct Christian doctrine. --Andrew c 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Gary Sellars]]'s edits 

message: Just to make sure nobody missed it, i proposed this--Striver 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal

message: This article and the main Jesus article give scant attention to Satan. Jesus came to undo the works of Satan. The first (or one of the first) prophecies in the Bible (about the serpent and the son of Eve) refers to Jesus and Satan fighting. The world's going to end with Jesus going toe-to-toe with Satan. Satan deserves at least a passing mention. I'm happy to put something in this article (and maybe the Jesus article as well). Jonathan Tweet 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan 

message: Recently, there was an attempt to upgrade the section in the article on Jesus called "Christian views of Jesus".  In that process, the woeful state of this article was recognized.  There were statements made that this article should receive attention, but none was given, and it limped on in its inadequate state.  I took it upon myself to revamp this article, working on it on my project page.  Since there was little activity here (which should be no surprise) this was done unilaterally.  I hope that others will be inspired to contribute more to views which I am not able to well describe, but I am sure this overhaul is an upgrade.  It concerns only the first part of the article, and does not take up the issued of Jesus's live, and views therein.  For this reason, it actually replaced little of what was in the article, and represents new, needed material, without undoing the content of before.  The second half of the overhaul, of course, is that on Jesus' life, which will come later.  This section focused more on Christology and the like.  PS, I archived the old talk, since it doesn't seem relevant to the new material, obviously.  Lostcaesar 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Upgrade 

message: This passage "In antiquity, and again following the Reformation until today, differing views existed concerning the Godhead from those of Trinitarians and the related traditional Christology" is not correct.  Throughout the history of the Church there have been groups who denied part of the "traditional Christology". This passage makes it sounds like these ideas miraculously reappeared during the Reformation. Wjhonson 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which groups in particular are you thinking of.  Lostcaesar 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as one example see Bogomil#Doctrine Wjhonson 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While after the first councils, Orthodoxy grew significantly, there has always been small, but significant splinter groups. I agree that saying only in antiquity and only following the Reformation are these differing views found seems like a bad generalization. --Andrew c 02:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the sentence is to reflect that the groups of antiquity with these teachings ended at a given point, and that the groups with these views which exist today have continuously existed from the reformation. Groups like the Bogomils and the Cathars are groups that appeared and disappeared in the Middle Ages. I'm not sure how notable they are since there are not, to my knowledge, any reconstructionists movements today concerning them, nor were they very large, but we can try and work them in. Perhaps we could say "sporadically in the Middle Ages", or something like that, in the sentence in question. Lostcaesar 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Lombards and Arians were groups of Late Antiquity, and their Arianism ended in during the period termed "transformation of the Roman world".  I guess one could be really picky about whether this is late antiquity or very early middle ages, but it seems like splitting hairs to me.  Lostcaesar 02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lombards and Vandals who were Arian, did not end in "late Antiquity".  Please define the exact time period that you are calling "late Antiquity", and when you'd say we're into the "Early Middle Ages" ? Wjhonson 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's another group for you to ponder Paulicianism.  Note the years they flourished and that they denied the Trinity. Wjhonson 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Heretic" is Catho-normative language.  They weren't Trinitarian.  Read the article. Wjhonson 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And "Catho-normative" is some kind of odd jargon, but I'll forgive it if you forgive a Catholic who talks like a Catholic.  Lostcaesar 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Trinitarians 

message: An anon editor blanked the info about the LDS views on the resurrection.  You can see the edit in question .  Without an explanation, and as the only edit from the IP 69.250.146.41, I assumed it was random.  If I was wrong, revert.  Pastordavid 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained Blanking 

message: * Traditional teaching. While it is possible to identify the now-predominant forms, it is harder to identify the traditional forms without introducing our various biases. Many early splits, e.g. the Arian and Christological controversies, involved alternative interpretations of one preexisting tradition. Both sides of the Arian controversy portray their works as the clarification of the original traditions, and their opponents' works as changes to, if not betrayals of, the original traditions. I suggest simply referring to the predominant teaching. Jacob Haller 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias concerns

message: This article is sadly, sadly lost in the woods. I do not even know where to start my complaints, there are so many. The entire article is a mish-mash of randomly picked items, not representative at all. I think the sections on Miracles and Legacy epitomize the sad state of this wannabe article. The Miracles section lists 9 randomly picked miracles, in a haphazard order (Cana comes towards the end!) and some are unclear, e.g. Curing a sick child who was near death without links, etc. The Legacy section has one terse paragraph without a single WP:Secondary source, then a much larger section on the Book of Mormon. How does that describe the "Legacy of Jesus" in Christianity, when just one paragraph sans secondary references is used, and then the views of just one denomination? Kyrie Eleison, Lord have mercy! This article really needs a rewrite. I do not have time to rewrite it now, but will flag it as such. Help from knowledgeable editors will be appreciated.... Kyrie Eleison... History2007 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Two months later, it is fixed now, flags removed. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality... Kýrie, eléison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jesus in Christianity. 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/20060906114843/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm
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) 02:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I still don't think this is a good image for the lead. Yes, it does represent the ascension of Jesus, but Blake's style is rather atypical. The painting by Vannini is far more recognizable as something typical, and its very well written caption recounts an important Christian belief about Jesus. The Blake image has been removed (at least) twice, and I support removing it once again. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. That's why I thanked you for your reversion.--Hazhk (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Blake's atypical style is better as it is not cliche, and recounts more Christian beliefs than the other picture. It recounts Jesus' incarnation, deah, resurrection, and transfiguration by showing God the Father receiving Jesus. By showing Satan at the bottom, it displays Jesus' triumph over the Devil after his sacrifice that saved the world from the Devil's temptations-thus it even includes the belief the other picture's caption says, and in a more subtle way.The New Classic (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A lead image doesn't have two pages of commentary, which, like many religious images by Blake, this would need. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't. The commentary I put here is only about as big as that of the current leas image.The New Classic (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it hardly explains the image. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is suficient. It is also hard evidence that the picture I chose delivers so much  more  info than the other one. Besides, Willam Blake seems to be much more notable an artist than the other painter (look at the size of their Wikipedia articles).The New Classic (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't think your primary motivation here is improving this article. You're only interested in pushing William Blake artworks into articles. But in this case, your image isn't actually informative. Wikipedia is not an image repository or art gallery; It's not a place for you to show off images you like. Every image in this article illustrates an event in Christ's life or an aspect of his ministry. --Hazhk (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:William Blake - Christ as the Redeemer of Man - WGA02225.jpg]] 

message: “Latter Day Saints teach that Jesus is the result of a physical union between God the Father and Mary.”  
Not quite, and in fact, this is very offensive and quite misleading.  There is no footnote to this paragraph, and I move it be struck out.  I would do it myself (as I have done elsewhere), but I don’t want to get into a edit fight with someone ignorant and persistent, because to some (or many) the Latter-day Movement itself is controversial. 
This was a birth through a virgin (no intercourse), though, as with many other Christian sects, Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, which means (in the LDS) that while God the Father is the father, the method of the seed transmission is not stated, and is extremely unlikely to be through what we call introitus, as this would leave Mary __NOT_ a virgin, and would not be a virgin birth.  There’s not more in the Bible than what Gabriel tells her.  
Bottom line: Mary remained a virgin until she had relations with her husband, Joseph. Bseegmiller (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter-day Saint view on Jesus 

message: I'm struck by the lack of discussion of Jesus' ongoing presence in both this article and Christology. Many Christians believe in and/or experience Jesus as present with them or as an active agent in the world at the current time. I imagine it would be appropriate to include Jesus' presence in the eucharist, his presence in the hungry, strangers, the naked, the sick, and prisoners, and especially his presence in prayer. Of course, we'll need to find some sources on this topic to guide our writing, but I wanted to point out what seemed to me as an obvious lack. Daask (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing presence 

message: There is currently an open requested move on Talk:Christ to move the page from its current name to Christ (title). Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv.  17:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of Requested move 

message: Added more detail wording and links. The Messiah is coming (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this recent edit might be problematic , because it adds an external link to a specific website, which can be seen as promotion, and does not adhere to neutral point of view. – Ase1estet@lkc0ntribs 13:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I will revert this specific edit for now so that we can discuss. – Ase1estet@lkc0ntribs 13:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Please note that your other edits are fine, at least in my opinion. ;) – Ase1estet@lkc0ntribs 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed your modification to add the rapture. It is not accepted by all Christians. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry, who were both fully human? You cannot start in the middle of a discussion and expect others to understand what you're talking about.; Your edits  are simply not well written, accurate and in this case, fraught with simple errors like splitting the word "virgin" in two and then removing the space after it to create a non-word and incorrect capitalization of "Old Testament". Then there's the poor theology in the statement. Pauline theology equated "the first Adam" with Jesus as "the second Adam". To insert Eve into that mix is probably politically correct, but theologically problematic. Finally there is the :WP:SPAMLINK which is not even added as a reference but as ain inline external link, which is not permitted. (See :WP:ELPOINTS No. 2). With that said, it was good to include a brief discussion of Jesus' miracles, but it should be done with respect to the rest of the article's contents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like my edits? (= 

message: Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents or periods ( and ; but , and ). Therefore, Jesus's Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension must be capitalized. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not in the way you applied them here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did apply them to everywhere the specific event is denoted, and I left unmolested the lowercase generic references. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I could be wrong because :MOS:ISMCAPS does state that . There were many crucifixions, but this is a specific one. And Jesus resurrected two people before his own, but this is a specific event. Let me self-revert and let others weigh-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS:GOD capitalization 

message: Jesus is not the son of God , he is the servent and messenger of Allah . 103.28.133.120 (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you have confused this article with Jesus in Islam.  Stepho  talk  10:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus is not the son of God , he is the servent and messenger of Allah .