Talk:Jesus/Archive 78

message: I can't help but notice that this sort of refers to Jesus as a fictional character.
I completely understand that we have to be fair to others that believe differently but since (most) of us know that God and Jesus are indeed quite real, couldn't we somehow lightly introject that somewhere in here? Maybe not use so much, "According to" and such?
Just a thought...—Preceding unsigned comment added by XXJesusFreakXx (talk • contribs) 
This article seems to be okay according to Wikipedia: NPOV. It would actually be unfairly written if it did not contain words such as "According to" because contrary to your statement most people do not believe that Jesus is God. According to recent polls, of the approximately seven billion people in the world, there are only about two billion who claim to be some-sort of Christian. Let us not forget that many people who claim to be of a certain religion actually are not extremists or completely devoted to that particular belief. There are also those whose beliefs greatly differ from yours and mine, but still call themselves "Christians."
After all, the article does say "A small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus." In my opinion, if you want to find a bias article, type "evolution" into the Wikipedia search bar. I'm not sure if Christians, or anyone who doubts the Theory of Evolution for that matter, will be able to do anything about it since so many people accept the belief that people evolved from single cell organisms as a fact.
- JNeal 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JesusFreak, the Holy Spirit ensures that the Word of God is true, but not Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors could state who Jesus Christ really is, then other editors who either don't know the truth or who know it but are in Satan's thrall would be able to state who Jesus Christ "really is" (from their false point of view). I think you and I both know that there are some so-called Christians out there who would love to use Wikipedia as propaganda for their mistakes and lies. The safer course is to make everyone refer to their sources. That's why we say "according to," and so on. Then readers will be directed to the Bible, where the real truth lies, rather than relying on another of man's inventions (Wikipedia) to tell them the Truth about Jesus Christ. Jonathan Tweet 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JNeal - you seem to say that all Christians doubt evolution. This is not the case. Thanks, JPotter 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit more fair would be nice

message: I wonder what the editors here are doing. Why this article doesn't mention anything about Jesus's great achievements of this loving person; how he changed the world; and about the new ideas he brought. Isn't there any devote editor here who is willing to do research and  gather pieces of information from here and there? --Aminz 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are encyclopedia articles, not Christian missionaries.  I am sure the WWW has plenty of cites that mention lots about what Christians think of Jesus and why. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's talking about the impact Jesus the man had on the world and on philosophy. How is that not appropriate for an encyclopedia? 2nd Piston Honda 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clearing that up.  We have a brief section and it ought to be linked to a larger article (only because this article is already too big).  As long as the article complies with our core policies especially NPOV and using verifiable sources, i am all for it and encourage anyone knowledgeable about the verifiable sources to work on that article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I wonder what the editors here are doing" - Aminz, you have such a way with words; I trust you will never be accused of overly charming others with flattery.  Lostcaesar 11:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, I think we can work together on this project. Our obstacle is that lots of Christians emphasize Jesus' death and its role in the cosmic history of the universe over Jesus' life, his teachings, his ideas, and the influence he has had on world culture. Just look at the Nicene Creed, which never even mentions that Jesus opened his mouth and said a single word. 
Jonathan Tweet 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are definitely right Jonathan. It is not only the case with Jesus but also with Paul the apostle. --Aminz 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No editor 

message: People, if anyone knows how many days after his death was jesus resurrected. Please write it down a a title with the answer. thank you
:Err, three? Homestarmy 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more information

message: Although this article might be very informative for people who are already familiar with Christian theology, it uses a lot of theological jargon without explaining it. Outsiders will be confused at many points becasue the article presupposes a lot of knowledge. Good effort though. The article is on its way to becoming better, and it has many positive qualities. HeBhagawan 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you have examples? Lostcaesar 15:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outsider perspective

message: Current text: "According to the synoptics, Judas Iscariot, one of his apostles, betrayed Jesus by identifying him to the guards with a kiss. Another apostle used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which, according to Luke, Jesus immediately healed.[20]"
This could be shorter and could mention the Devil's role in the whole affair. I propose: "The apostle Judas Iscariot, swayed by the Devil [verse], betrayed Jesus to the soldiers. He identified Jesus with a kiss. Simon Peter fought back with a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's slave, but Jesus healed it. [verse]"
Jonathan Tweet 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, on my screen, that only saves about three or four words...? Homestarmy 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, "This could add a mention of the Devil's role and still squeak in a few words shorter." That better? Jonathan Tweet 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judas, etc. 

message: I propose adding something like this (but am totally open to revision):
 
"Some proponents of ancient astronaut theory and other believers in alien visitation of Earth speculate that Jesus was an extraterrestrial or extraterrestrial agent. They cite the mysterious lights over the site of his birth (the Star of Bethlehem), performance of 'miracles' beyond human technology, alleged physical ascension into heaven, etc. as typical of alleged extraterrestrial phenomenon."
Yes, people who believe this are a minority (albeit a fairly large one), but that's why all I'm asking is a single paragraph to briefly mention the idea. To those who believe in UFOs the idea's a natural fit. 
Supporting references:
* The Bible and Flying Saucers by Barry Downing "or were superior beings from another world really an important force behind the Biblical religion? Was Jesus one of this group of superior beings, ...", "The Bible suggests Jesus "ascended" in some sort of UFO" (amongst many, many other references).
* Alien Intrusion by Gary Bates "many in the pro-UFO lobby regard Jesus as an extraterrestrial visitor".
* Extraterrestrials in Biblical Prophecy and the New Age Great Experiment by G. Cope Schellhorn
* The Encyclopaedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters (which has a whole article on Jesus as a potential alien).
* A lot of people making this claim on the internet (do I really need to cite them all?).
In short, this belief seems popular enough to warrant the very brief mention I'm trying to give it.
Thanks.
P.S.  The paragraph would be inserted in the "Other views of Jesus" section, beneath the New Age bit.
--Irrevenant 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "a fairly large one [minority]", large in proportion to who, people who believe in UFO's, or the general population? Homestarmy 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term "fairly large majority" is a bit too risky in terms of different interpretations of what it means to be included. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I could see mentioning the space-alien tie-in, but this way. "The New Age movement proposes an array of viewpoints on Jesus, at times associating him with Buddha, Eckankar, Atlantis, UFOs, Richard Bach's idealism, etc." Here the very rareness of this viewpoint is part of the reason to mention it, to show how far out some viewpoints can be. You should definitely edit "Religious perspectives on Jesus," too, because there would be even more room on that page to explore the topic. Jonathan Tweet 23:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Deskana, the text about minorities was part of my supporting argument for inclusion ; it was not intended to be incorporated into the article.  I agree with Jonathon Tweet's suggestion, but for clarification I've italicised the original suggested text.  Homestarmy, according to this poll 24% of Americans believe extraterrestrials have visited Earth.  It seems highly unlikely that many of those people wouldn't have speculated in that context re: the Bible and it's stories of ascension into the heavens, flying chariots, medical miracles etc.  And, of course, a number of individuals have explicitly suggested a connection between Jesus and extraterrestrials (see citations plus here's another one). --Irrevenant 08:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote not to add it, but if added, to be (like Tweet said) listed within the same sentence with other fringe beliefs. 2nd Piston Honda 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should not be added per WP:V and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. —Aiden 05:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be happy with Jonathan Tweet's suggestion; it successfully addresses the "undue weight" issue (one word hardly constitutes "undue weight"!).  Re: WP:V, I've already given you references to four different published books that discuss the idea ; what more do you want?  Verification is required for the fact that a significant number of people have argued the position (which I've given you) .  Verification of the position itself is not required.  --Irrevenant 08:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Noone's citing The Life of Brian as a source. --irrevenant [ talk ] 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Irrevenant, just because there are four books about something doesn't make it notable enough for an article like this, its supposed to be very general in nature. We can't possibly list every tiny theory about Jesus here. --User:Homestarmy 13:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are considerably more than four - surely I don't have to cite all of them!?!  Another example is (link removed) the Jesus is an Alien idea in a song of the same name (Yes, they were mocking the idea but they listed it alongside other hugely popular conspiracy favourites like Elvis sightings and JFK, which demonstrates its popularity).  I'm asking for one word to be added (as per Jonathan's comment) and I've demonstrated the belief's popularity to a much higher burden of proof than anyone else has been asked for.  I'm beginning to feel that some people are just opposing this incredibly small change because they don't like the idea itself. --irrevenant [ talk ] 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's another reference supporting the idea's popularity of the idea, from Strange Secrets: "one of the pamphlets contains an article by Van Tassel claiming that Jesus Christ was born of space men and the star of Bethlehem was a space craft that stood by while Jesus was born". Today such claims are part and parcel of UFO lore" [emphasis mine] --irrevenant [ talk ] 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, meaning that you'd have a case to add this to the UFO page. To add it to this page, you'd have to have a significant percentage of the general population, or at least the Christian community, profess this belief. 2nd Piston Honda 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a view about Jesus entertained by a significantly large number of people.  The Gallup poll indicates that 24% of Americans believe in alien visitation.  The publications I cited above make it clear that speculation as to a Jesus extraterrestrial connection is common in the UFO community.  Some people outside the UFO community are also familiar with the idea (eg. the Matchbox 20 song, which would also have propogated the idea).  Therefore, a large number of people are familiar with this view.  In addition there is a sizable number of explicit published references (5 cited) and a large number of internet sites on the topic.  It's obviously hard to obtain a precise figure, but it appears to be in the millions.  There is no requirement that the people in question fall within 'the Christian Community' especially since we're talking about adding it to a section titled "Other views of Jesus". --irrevenant [ talk ] 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: First you need legitimate sources that discuss this, then you need to show it is a significant view.  And you statement that, according to a poll, 24% of Americans believe in alien encounters in not entierly relevant.  Other than that it is one poll, and that it only applies to America, it does not actually say anything about people who think Jesus was an alien.  Some Americans think that JFK was killed by a government conspiracy, but it doesn't follow from this that they think the shooter was Richard Nixon.  Lostcaesar 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) 24% of Americans believe in Extraterrestrial visitation (ie. ~ 72m people), (2) numerous UFO publications agree that the idea of a Jesus Extraterrestrial connection is common amongst UFO believers.  In conjunction these two facts indicate a large number of people (in the millions, just within the US). (3) The number of books and websites covering the topic suggest a large number of people who entertain the idea.  (4)  For a person who believes in extraterrestrial visitation Jesus is an obvious figure to speculate about, given the number of Biblical beings descending from and ascending to the heavens, mysterious lights in the sky heralding his birth etc.  Unfortunately, there isn't a direct poll on the matter, but the supporting evidence is certainly strong enough to warrant one word in this article. -- irrevenant [ talk ] 08:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your extrapolations, but I would not use such logic to prove a hypothesis.  I would not support adding this tidbit of fantasy for not other reason than balance.  Making the leap from how many people believe in extraterrestials visitors to Jesus being one is too broad a leap and is not logical.  We can not possibly cover every fringe concept that exists in the world or in the minds of mankind about Jesus.  We necessarily cover only the most significant issues here.  I suggest a blog for this quality of idea and research.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might post this idea in a blog if I was a proponent of the idea, but I'm not.  I just wanted to help Wikipedia represent all significant perspectives on the issue, not just the standard ones.  I expected Wikipedia would want to include all significant alternative views in this article, as it does for others.  I'm disappointed to find that this is not the case and that a major alternative view will not be allowed one word in this article, but cede the issue as I am outvoted. --irrevenant [ talk ] 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Storm Rider's comments. —Aiden 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection 

message: 1. :Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities
2.:Category:Psychics
3. :Category:Purported telepaths
4. :Category:Supernatural healing(I particularly support adding this category)
Andries 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would no support such a thing. Jesus did not "claim" to have such abilities, was not a purported telepath, and was not a Psychics. As for the last one, "Supernatural healing", maybe, but I still would not do it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Jesus fits the definition of a psychic i.e. "A psychic is a person who has the abilities of extra-sensory perception, such as clairvoyance, psychometry, premonition and precognition, or other paranormal abilities such as psychokinesis." After all he changed water into wine. Andries 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that Jesus did not claim to have such abilities. Andries 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean? If yoiu have an argument to make, make it. Saying that you do not agree is irrelevant. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you're dealing with a category which is generally applied to semi-ordinary people, whereas here we have a person who ultimatly founded a world-wide religion on the premise that He was both man and God and died for the sins of all humanity. The supposed powers of "Psychic" don't really compare to this level of power. Homestarmy 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct statement would be "whose followers ultimately founded a world-wide religion." There is no indication that he formed a religion while he was alive. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Upon this rock I will build my Church", "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." The list goes on. 2nd Piston Honda 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think that the category is wrong for people like Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba? Andries 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would need to learn more about that person before deciding that. Homestarmy 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Adding Jesus to any of these categories would be very strange indeed, in particular given the historicity of Jesus. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why strange? If the historicity of Jesus is a reason not to put him in the categories then he should removed from the categories Disputed convictions | People executed by crucifixion | Jews | 0s BC births | 1st century deaths. Andries 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have another thing to add on the first one. That category is in two other categories itself, "Confidence tricksters | Pseudoscience". This isn't a scientific topic to begin with, and there certainly is not some consensus that Jesus was a "Confidence trickster". Homestarmy 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, Category:Psychics is also in Category:Entertainers, of which Jesus certainly is not. Homestarmy 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you convinced me that that the category pscychics is wrong based on your argument. Andries 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lastly, purported telepaths is also in the "confidence tricksters" category. Homestarmy 14:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the category confidence tricksters from the category purported telepaths. Andries 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we add the following categories?

message: Someone had added information to the second paragraph about what the vast majority of scholars agree upon. Every single part of that sentence is supported by all the cited sources. We cannot simply add information to that very heavily verifiable and sourced sentence, without going back to EVERY source and making sure they agree with it. Will all the scholars agree Jesus was a prophet? Will they all agree he attracted a following? and that it was large? Maybe, maybe not... but the fact of the matter is we are putting words in the mouths of these scholars every time we change this sentence without refering to the cited sources.--Andrew c 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. My mistake. However, I just think we should include more general information in the intro. I think getting into who baptised Jesus is much too specific for the introduction. —Aiden 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph 

message: It seems rather odd weight-wise in the article that the other views section jumps from a group with a population of around 6 million to one with around 60,000. When exactly did Mandaeanism get included here, was there a discussion about this? Because they seem like far too small of a group to me to warrent inclusion. Homestarmy 15:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mandaeanism?

message: The peer review bot just picked up something I think might be important, this image apparently isn't tagged, it supposedly is a cropped image of something else, is this even fair use? (It's the picture where Jesus is crucified) Homestarmy 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be fair use.  Not taggest just means we don't know where it came from, I believe, so we don't know if it is fair use or not.  The image is readily avaliable online and so I am sre a fair use version is avaliable somewhere.  It seems rather technical then, though we could upload one and tag it just to cross the t's and dot the i's.  PS, if it is cropped, its not cropped much, because the painting is just Jesus on a Cross with a black background - its very famous.  Lostcaesar 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The artist died in 1660, thus the painting itself is in the public domain. The photograph of the painting is in the PD under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. I updated the licensing info on the image. —Aiden 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Cristo Velázquez lou2.jpg

message: I just requested that this page be semi-protected; there have been 30 or so of the last 50 edits have either been vandals or vandal reverts. standonbible 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Semi Protection 

message: There is a debate going on over at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Because this debate deals with saying "Most scholars accept a historical Jesus", and cited information that was copied from the second paragraph of this article, I felt editors here, who put countless hours of research and debate into phrasing this section, should be involved. Please join us, especially if you were here half a year ago and helped with that research and debate. I feel like the debate could easily be solved if we could simply convince the editors that "most scholars accept a historical Jesus", but they are throwing out old arguments like the gospels are completely useless historically because they are "Christian", that scholars who are Christian cannot actually do secular scholarship, etc.--Andrew c 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, Slrubenstein I think was the best editor then and now for making the case, because he seems really familiar with scholarship in this field and knows how to defend Biblical scholars from the "Their ALL Christians, they must be liars!" accusations. Homestarmy 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Jesus, skeptics, and NPOV 

message: Wait, I thought the whole calendar system was based around his birth? How could he have been born before? PureLegend 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened was back when the AD system was created, there wern't really exact records as to how long ago precisely Jesus had been born. So the people who got together to create the system sort of made a guess as to Jesus' approximate birthday, which as most historian type people now agree, appears to of been a couple years too late. But the people who made the system probably deserve at least some credit, I mean they were pretty close, and they wern't exactly using 21st century standardized historical analysis techniques. Homestarmy 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also there is no 0 AD or 0 BC. Instead 1 AD follows 1 BC Jooler 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you even happen to need to discern the date of events using recordes that predede the AD system, you will be most thankful to the change.  Lostcaesar 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus WASN'T born in 0AD?

message: A book by someone named Fuller was just added into the references, but no content was actually given in the article, so as far as I can tell, it isn't actually a reference at all. This makes me start thinking, just how many of the references actually are references? Because if there's things in there that don't actually contribute to the article in any way, then we should move them to a further reading section I think. Homestarmy 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, ref's need almost constant maintence on a site like this.  The best thing perhaps is to wait until an article is basically stable, which this more or less is, and the do a cleanup. Lostcaesar 22:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References or Further Reading?

message: I'm not attempting in anyway to start trouble here, I am just asking you to state a fact within one correction: to place a label on the opening of the page that reads: "Caution: May contain fiction"
:I appreciate your kindly asked request.  Thank you.  However, it is a loaded statement for a topic that is both historical and faith-based.  Do you think that readers do not understand that Jesus is also a topic of faith?  Assuming that anyone capable of reading understands this, it is hard to imagine that a warning would need to be given.
:When my young children read about Budda, we did not need to caution them that this may be fiction.  When we talked about other figures of faith and distant history, we never began with, "boys and girls, this may be fiction".  I have always believed that the obvious should never be stated; in fact, doing so is the first sign of a feeble mind, IMHO.  
:In closing, I feel your concerns are understood, but please consider your request is overkill.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  one correction 

message: The little logo picture of the name "Jesus" has ancient Hebrew lettering in its background, but in my extensive research this name was not written in Hebrew in any of contemporary (or for the next several hundred years) source.  Perhaps a fish or something would be more appropriate.  216.189.146.156 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Aramaic, not Hebrew. —Aiden 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Jesus Logo? 

message: I am currently in a revert war with an editor who wants to add a transparently spurious (and seemingly anti-Semitic) document called the Acta Pilati to the article, because it "proves" that Jesus was a blonde white guy. This is one of those supposed letters sent by Pilate to Rome describing Jesus. If anyone has any inmformation about this document that may help convince the editor (User:CSArebel) that it is spurious, I would be grateful. User:CSArebel seems likely to be persistent about re-adding this. Paul B 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for starts, just relying on that document may violate NOR; the question is, what do historians say about the document?  The burden of proof is on CSArebel NOT to do original research and instead see how current historians and Bible scholars interpret the document.  That said, I think this is still a fundamentally silly issue.  Even if we had proof that Jesus was blond, it reveals nothing about his race since people back then used the word race, and categorized races, differently from today. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Acts of Pilate. It is apocrypha dated by Eusebius of Caesarea to the fourth century. —Aiden 03:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. CSArebel appears to have stopped. The version of the text he was using seems not to be the original, but a revised form that circulated in mid-19thC America, in which observations on "racial" differences between Jesus and Judeans are attributed to Pilate. Paul B 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Race of Jesus]] revert war

message: In the narrative, are we really supposed to change those to inline format to cite the NIV correctly, someone brought it up on the peer review and I don't think I was involved with creating all that. Homestarmy 18:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bible links

message: I do not mean to inult Jesus, so do not get me wrong when I say I'm thinkign about putting a small section at the end of jesus being an internet phenomenon. The most common being Jesus lol joeks and the Jesus-raptor, they are quite common on the net. Typcal Jesus joeks are comics made from original New testament paintings and illustrations. 
For example; Jesus on the cross: BRB, Mary: lol
Or raptor Jesus to roman soldiers: I r in the basement killing ur men, lol.
These may not have a liking to everyone, but I think it should be on the page, at least as a minor note, since it undiniably does exist just go to google. 
[Jesus, lol]
[Raptor Jesus]
--Mudel 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen any of those things in chat rooms or internet phenominon anywhere :/. Undue Weight is a concern in this article as well, not just whether something may be notable. Homestarmy 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, there are a lot of them, though maybe not common, But I think it's spreading, when it does enough, let's put it in the article? --Mudel 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first, when it becomes notable enough for Wikipedia at all, it should probably be in Cultural depictions of Jesus Christ before its in this article, since we're using summary style already for the section here. Homestarmy 19:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think that time is comming soon, you knwo how fast an internet fen can spread once it starts. Jesus action figure, oh lol.--Mudel 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus, lol