Talk:Depiction of Jesus

message: The edit to this section which I performed was removed entirely although the information is contained in other references already cited, and also contains inaccurate information.  Most scholars date it to the 1st century, not the 3rd.  Some propose dates as late as the 3rd, but that is not the predominant view rather the minority view.  Additionally, the image is intended to represent Alexamenos in his worship of the crucified figure which has an upsilon over its shoulder, generally interpreted as indicating that the crucified figure was a Jew.  These facts are self-evident and well referenced.  It is important to assume good intentions when others edit, but I do wonder about the motive considering the inaccurate information that was reverted.  There have been many from a certain religious denomination who seek to discredit the image because if it is from the first century it would manifest that Jesus was crucified on a cross and not an upright pole.  This frightens some people.  I'd appreciate a clarification from the individual who changed my edits because he doesn't accept direct contact through Wikipedia. Bbltype (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexamenos graffito 

message: In the earliest Christian art Jesus wields a wand. In the 4th century it is portrayed as a staff. Kazuba (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Later it became a staff

message: The image :Image:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg

message: I couldn't find an image here of this sculpture, which is supposed to be one of the oldest depctions of Christ. Is it not authentic, are there copyright issues or what is the reason? I mean the one from the Museo delle Terme:  Fulcher (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly can't cover every work, especially here. That one comes under traditio legis really, not that this work is mentioned there either. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 
I looked up  that museum and it also has this Good Shephered image from the 4th century. I don't know if it fits but if you guys want to include it, go head. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the GS was probably not intended as a portrait of Christ, more a symbol of him. We have an image already. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. And you may want to add that very text to the article because it clarified it for me, and it may do so for others too. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there, & in the pic caption (just changed). Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ Enthroned (Teaching)  

message: Is this worth a mention?  
No finds from the site later than 270AD, and the mosaic has been tentatively dated to 4th century. Stronach (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinton St Mary mosaic, England 

message: "Tertullian  (d.220) believed, following Isaiah:53:2, that Christ's appearance was unremarkable"
Tertullian was a very early Christian, less than two centuries from Christ; and he himself certainly doesn't refer to the Isaiah passage -- why the complete lack of mention of the possibility that this represents a genuine tradition from those who knew Jesus personally? 165.91.166.90 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tertullian on Jesus' appearance

message: As I look at the table of contents, this article looks tilted towards early depictions. But there are major other themes, there is little text about the Renaissance, etc. And various themes such as depictions during Crucifixion, Ministry etc. have not been addressed. Are the Transfiguration style depictions not worth mentioning? Comments? History2007 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Timescale tilt

message: An image used in this article, File:Race of Jesus.ogv, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Race of Jesus.ogv Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: My did keep say this is Michel Angelo's uncle.Is this true?184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there 184.44.129.253. The Divine Mercy image that you posted (and I unfortunately have since had to remove as a copyright violation) is unlikely to be depicting Michaelangelo's uncle as Jesus Christ. The reason is that the artist who painted the image (Adolf Hyla) did so in 1943, nearly 400 years after Michaelangelo died, so I don't believe that there was much way for him to know what Michaelangelo's uncle would have looked like. If you can find any reliable sources that state that Hyla did in fact use Michaelangelo's uncle as the basis for the depiction of Jesus, then go ahead and add them - they'd certainly be quite interesting to read. Merry Christmas! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncle 

message: An image used in this article, File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: The page ought to make some balancing mention of early church opposition to the making of images of the Image of God, and their perceived connexion with idolatry. Irenaeus for example, writes, 'They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.' Contr.Her.I.XXV.6. Philip Schaff comments on this, 'This censure of images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.' (Footnote 300 in loco). Lactantius wrote, 'But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion.' Inst. Bk.2.XIX. Justin, Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine  inter alia echo vehement sentiments against worshipped images centuries before iconoclasm, which would look hypocritical in the extreme if they too had venerated images of Christ. Then Hosius of Cordoba, Athanasius' companion 'in arms' initiated the  Elvira Synod, the 36th canon of which reads: 'Ne picturiae in ecclesia fiant. Placuit picturas in eccclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.'. 
Gnostics used images of Christ in the second, but how early can the confessionally Nicene churches date their use? Cpsoper (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I see you have gone and done so, but we are not (WP:PRIMARY) supposed to use primary sources, as you have done, and without the evidence pointing the other way, including catacomb images, pointing the other way - the earliest of these are usually dated late 2nd century.  Aniconism in Christianity and I think Early Christian art also cover this area. Condemnation of images by Church Fathers is (as above) itself usually evidence of their use, is it not? A balanced modern scholarly account should be followed; there are issues around the Elvira canon & other quotes referred to above, as you may know. At what date does it start to make sense to talk about "confessionally Nicene churches" I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Again, you may be aware of Calvin's allusion (Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1, Chapter V. Section 6.) to Augustine's opposition to the use of images, possibly referring to this quote from the exposition of Psalm 115.7, 'This is the chief cause of this insane profanity, that the figure resembling the living person, which induces men to worship it, has more influence in the minds of these miserable persons, than the evident fact that it is not living, so that it ought to be despised by the living.' Cpsoper (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early church rejection of images of Christ 

message: There are length discussions on the Jesus page and I am parking the depictions material from there here, reducing it there. Some of this is not present on this page and should be added if you guys want. I am not watching this page anymore. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have belatedly added most of this, en bloc from "By the 5th century depictions of the Passion began to appear ..." as a "Later periods" section. I haven't looked to see if more can be integrated. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Material from the Jesus page

message: Shouldn't this article include modern depictions of Jesus? Like the one in South Park, for example. --Epitectus (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we did I doubt it would need to feature that. Apart from the predominant continuation of the traditional depictions there are plenty of one-off modern depictions but they are really too diverse to cover in an article like this. Has South Park had much influence on other depictions? It seems unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the fact that Jesus is still being depicted is notable, even more so that it is being done in popular culture. Though I agree with you that this would not be in sync with the current tone and approach of the article. Either this article isn't really covering depictions of Jesus, and the title has to change, or a modern section for modern depictions has to be added, along with a slightly modified introduction on the subject. --Epitectus (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern depictions of Jesus 

message: This interwiki goes to Jesus in der Popmusik, “Jesus in Popmusic”. This is not the matching subject. Rather :de:Christusbild, but there seems to be no article :de: Bildliche Darstellung Jesu. --Schwab7000 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link (to de:wiki) 

message: Dramatic portrayals of Jesus redirects here. So then I look for the word "film"; there's nothing about it. Is there really no article or even a section of an article dealing with depictions of Jesus in film/TV? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In film? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Depiction of Jesus →  – This article doesn't discuss a single depiction of Jesus, but numerous ones (that, yes, can be discussed as a whole). . I'll note that relevant categories here are :Category:Jesus in art and (parent):Category:Cultural depictions of Jesus, the latter part of :Category:Cultural depictions of religious leaders. So plural is the norm. See also: Depictions of Muhammad. That said, this was a no consensus move proposal 10 years ago (see few sections above). I did read it and I don't find it compelling - the topic is IMHO still the same, and we should be consistent our naming of articles. Plural name should be better, as in, it's simpler to standardize this exception to the norm then rename dozens of other articles and categories to match this one. Alternatively Jesus in art, currently a redirect, would also be an option to conside ( Depictions of God in Western Christianity redirects to God the Father in Western art...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 May 2022 

message: Why is this article only about the depiction of Jesus in Christianity?
I asked myself this when seeing this image. Synotia (moan) 15:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity only