Talk:Jesus in the Christian Bible

message: Capitalizing Jesus pronouns is nonstandard and POV (implies that he is God, which most people would disagree with), as is definitively stating that Jesus was prophesied or mentioned in the Old Testament. Also, the title of this page, accompanied by the New Testament pages on Jesus, implies that Jesus appears in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, when the belief that Jesus is prophesied or referenced in the Hebrew Bible is heavily disputed and contested. It's also redundant to Christian views of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, etc. -Silence 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is talk from the "Jesus in the Bible" talk page (now redirected to this page)

message: Since the Jews also have a Bible that does not include Jesus, it is a violation of NPOV to call this article "Biblical Jesus."  I hope that the name I gave it communicates the contents of the article as well as the intentions of the first contributor to this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming the article 

message: Do not redirect this to "Jesus in the Bible."  That violates our NPOV policy, a core policy at Wikipedia.  I Urge you to familiarize yourself with it at Wikipedia: Neutral point of view.  The person who redirected this article wrote "redundant" as an explanation.  This violates NPOV and is an insult to Jews, because Jesus does not, from the Jewish Point of View, appear at all in the Bible.  The only way to have a neutral point of view is to write "Chistian Bible."  I explained this, and the last editor deleted it.  Do not delete what other people write on talk pages.  If you disagree, write a response. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the headers without content, and the first section which was absurd. It think the rest should be speedied. Any objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it qualifies for any of the "speedy delete" requirements. I wouldn't object if you simply replaced all the text in the article with #REDIRECT New Testament view on Jesus' life, though. If you think some might object, however, perhaps making a genuine VfD for this page would help attract some broader community attention to resolve exactly how to best handle the article (though it could also easily have a negative effect and keep us embroiled in a redundant article for months)? Your call. -Silence 21:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is talk from after the change in name

message: 1) One the Bible/Christian Bible - Steve is right, although I think he's being dreadfully pedantic! We are talking about the Christian Bible here (including Christian interpretation of their 'Old Testament'). Since Judaism has its own Bible (as do other religions) it is more NPOV to specify Christian. I can't see any useful argument to the contrary - although the subject matter is so blindingly obvious that I can't see whay anyone cares either way. 
2) Having this article and  New Testament view on Jesus' life seems pointless, they should certainly be merged. I'd suggst that Jesus in the Christian Bible may actually be the better title as a) Does the NT have a 'view' - or various 'views' (that's a metter of debate). b) texts don't really have views anyway - authors do. c) It would allow some discussion of Christian readings of so called 'messianic passages' in their 'Old Testament' and how such passages shape the NT and later Christian understanding of Jesus. --Doc (?) 12:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC responses