Template talk:Jesus

message: It is biased to refer to a figure in a religious system by a different religion's name for their god. Amgine 04:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isa al-Misah 

message: Where do we draw the line between which articles should be included or not? I've been considering that we may want to remove the following 3 links to trim down the length and make layout issues easier on the numerous pages the template appears on:
# Language
# Race
# Sexuality
All three are very specific, focused (and highly speculative) analyses of aspects of Jesus' life, whereas the other links on the template are very general and broad links that give plenty of great articles within them. What do you think of removing those three and simply giving them prominent links and sections in Historical Jesus and/or Cultural and historical background of Jesus? Otherwise, I worry the template may continue to get larger and larger over time and become too unwieldy; more articles on similar subjects will surely surface, and we shouldn't link to any more of them than absolutely necessary. -Silence 08:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK. Any other comments? "Race of Jesus" is a relatively recent addition, but "Language" isn't, so I'd be more comfortable removing them if I got more feedback on it. -Silence 21:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think we should combine "Historicity and Historical views" into one sentence and remove the other section. The race, language, etc. article all are linked from the Historical Jesus article. —Aiden 19:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template getting a bit long

message: Many things under the "Jesus and Christianity" are should correctly be somewere else. For example, Islam takes interest in both the Parabels and Miracles, claiming them as Christian articles is pov.--Striver 17:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what article you mean.  This template seems OK.  Powers T 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Here they are from Demonic_possession#Demonic_possession_in_the_Bible
* : Demon-possessed persons are healed by Jesus (also ).
*: Many will drive out demons in Jesus' name (also ; ; ; ).
*: Jesus healed many demon-possessed (also ; ).
*: Jesus sent a herd of demons from two men into a herd of pigs (also ; , both referring to only one man).
* : Jesus made a demon-possessed and mute man speak, the Pharisees said it was by the power of Beelzebub (also ).
* : Jesus healed a demon-possessed blind and dumb man (also ; ; ).
* : Jesus told an allegory of nasty spirits coming back home, that is to the human body where they have lived before (also ).
* : Jesus expelled a demon from the body of the daughter of a Canaanite woman (also ).
* : Jesus healed a lunatic by driving out a demon from him (also ; ).
* : Jesus expelled a nasty spirit from a man (also ).
*: A non-Christian is seen driving out demons in Jesus' name (also ).
*: Jesus had driven seven demons out of Mary Magdalene (also ).
* : Many people are cleansed from evil spirits by Jesus.
* : Jesus expelled a spirit of disease from the body of a woman on the Sabbath.
*: Jesus continued to cast out demons even though Herod Antipas wanted to kill him.
*: St. Peter said Jesus healed all who were under the power of the devil.
*: Seven sons of Sceva drove out evil spirits by saying: "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out."
:This is already covered in more depth in the Miracles of Jesus article under "Expelling demons". —Aiden 05:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion of [[Exorcism#Jesus]] because of very few examples??????

message: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
This article ought to refer to Jesus' perspective of himself. I realize there is a concern these days about various social forms of "correctness" and/or offending other beliefs etc. but at the price of censorship? In this case censoring the key person in the article, Jesus or Y'Shua. His own testimony is clear, he was not merely a prophet but God in human form. The disciples said, "show us the father" Jesus replied, "He who has seen me has seen the father." God as referred to in the person of father has no form as the scriptures indicate. That form exists in "unapproachable light" and the form of the son is the only direct human connection point for humankind. To gloss over this is not serving the information presented in Wikipedia well. Jesus clearly states, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but by me." Mankind is free to reject him but it should at least be made clear; to reject Jesus / Y'Shua  (call it from his own perspective if you like) is to reject God (by any name we call God these days).  The decision to accept or reject that he was who he claimed to be is of course something beyond the purpose of this web publication. The opportunity to really immerse the Wikipedia users into the subject's perspective, in the case of topics that lend themselves to such, may be what will allow Wikipedia to really shine above other sources of information. In any case it is not bias to report the perspective of the subject in the subject's own words and somewhat a presentation of error to assert that Jesus/ Y'shua's ministry was mostly about instructing people on morality and spirituality. He came to die as is indicated throughout scripture, to put an end to all the nonsense (call it from his perspective if you will) about mankind wanting a connection with God because, as he knew we would, we (mankind) executed him and returned to acting out a desire to be with God through our many religions, or outright rejecting any idea of God altogether. This is the literal purpose of Jesus/Y'Shua's mission and may be represented without apologies. It seems inappropriate or an inefficient use of article space to include other religion's perspectives on Jesus/ Y'Shua. The perspective of Islam, for example, should appear in the article about Islam. Is wikipedia to fill every article with redundant perspectives?
69.221.11.75 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y'Shua / Jesus 

message: Ezuru recently added a section on Jesus and Islam to the template. I moved the Virgin Birth up to the "and Christianity" section (not ideal but it is no Islamic specific) and had some discussion with Ezuru. This brought me to look closer at this template and lead to the following considerations:
*There are various articles in this series that are not in any way specifically about Jesus, e.g. Koine Greek (as opposed to Aramaic of Jesus) or the article linked to under Return to Earth.
*Before Ezuru's addition there already was a link to Islamic view of Jesus - Ezuru duplicated it.
*The other elements of the "Islamic section" are either sub articles to that Islamic view article or not specifically about Jesus or belong more in Quran series (and I don't know whether an article on a single verse is tenable - in any case it is still a stub, the actual information contained in Islamic view of Jesus' death. The one exception is the "Mahdi" article which however should be included in the eschatology and the Islamic views article. 
*The section header "non-religious aspects" was nonsene - I moved the first element "Background" to form a new section header and retained the language and race links as elements of it.
I have therefore concluded that it is best to remove the Islamic section again. Str1977 (smile back) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree till there is more information on the Islamic articles. Thanks for your work. --Enzuru 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Please fix the template so it can hold an image at the top.  This would fix the positioning issues on the Christ page.  Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)  22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning 

message: This image at the top uses a Hebrew spelling name which is not certain and is a matter of debate. It should be removed.
See Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament#Yeshua. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments there. אמר Steve Caruso 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image with Yeshua 

message: Please change the link in the template from Contemporary Christian music to Christian music. There is no need to ignore non-contemporary music now, is there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.54.89 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music link 

message: Although Christian feasts related to the Nativity have had specific dates (e.g. December 25 for Christmas) there is no historical evidence for the exact day or month of the birth of Jesus.[77][78][79]
I think this should be changed (so i'm suggesting it here, since i'm not an editor) to show two popular possible birthdays for Jesus:
December 25 (Christmas Day)
September 8 (9 months after December 8 the Feast of the Immaculate Conception)
September 8 is also the traditional birthday of Mary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.134.222 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Birthday 

message: I add the part wich explains Jesus' role in Islam.Runehelmet (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and Islam 

message: Please consider adding Jesus' circumcision to his biographical info  -Luke 2:21-"When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb."
Thank you!
:Yes, I think it does belong here, especially since it is not covered by Template:Gospel Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 8 October 2011 

message: Those would seem to be the most scholarly and interesting articles, but that just might be my bias as a history major. I think the order should be:
#Jesus Christ and Christianity
#Jesus and Islam
#Jesus and history
#Cultural-historical background
#Perspectives on Jesus
#Jesus in culture
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Jesus and History" be higher on the template? 

message: The Jesus and the Torah article is placed under Jesus and History part of the template. However, it doesn't really belong there. It would make more sense placing it in the Jesus and Christianity section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and the Torah 

message: This template was changed at short notice and is now way too wide, throwing text off in places where it is used. Please discuss it before making changes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a desired width? The problem with the previous width was that the lettering was smushed and that the table didn't use a standard template (which there is one, which is the one I modified this one to use). That said, if it's "throwing text off in places where it is used", then there's probably something going on on the pages it's used or how it's being used, due to the standardized nature of the new version. You also didn't need to revert the entire thing to fix the width... --Izno (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the changes you made survive in history, not vanished. I think if you add a line breaks to it may look like what there is. But at a more general level, these templates that are used in many, many pages should undergo dramatic changes only after consensus. If you want to put a sample here, we can discuss that along with everyone else. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide sidebar

message: There were some links added per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21#Template:Isa. I note, however, that there was no indication given on this page that a merge was being considered. In any case, it meant that there were links added, such as Prophets and messengers in Islam, when there was no corresponding Christian link, i.e. Prophets of Christianity. This strikes me as WP:UNDUE. I also note that we have two links on this template to Second Coming - that seems to me to be unnecessary, but the duplication was already there. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: please be bold and remove any links that you feel are inappropriate (e.g., as you have done here). having a separate template for the Islamic perspective is even more a violation of WP:UNDUE. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The argument that any link in the Islamic section must "correspond" with Christianity is not compelling. These are two different religions with different conceptions of Jesus. And there is no link to Prophets of Christianity because Jesus is not considered a prophet in Christianity. By contrast, Jesus being a prophet is a major claim in Islam. Wiqi(55) 12:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus is certainly listed at Prophets of Christianity - what makes you say he isn't considered a prophet? StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected concerning that article. I meant "just" a prophet or not divine. But this doesn't detract from my point though. Wiqi(55) 03:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still the issue of undue weight - if we include Mary in Islam, but not (e.g.) Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), we are suggesting that the connection between Jesus and Mary in Islam is somehow more significant that it is in Catholicism, which is a ridiculous claim. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say it is significant to Jesus in Islam. Mary figures more prominently in the Qur'an than any other woman, and the story of the virgin birth is told from her perspective. Throughout the Qur'an, Jesus is frequently referred to as "Son of Mary" or "Jesus, the Son of Mary". They are also grouped together in statements such as "And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign ... ", etc. Wiqi(55) 04:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic links 

message: Both devotions/ideas are certainly crucial for the Christianity and the personage of Jesus, being necessary in this template. Propositum (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that either devotion is crucial enough to require to be linked to in so many templates and articles.  What do others think?  Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine Mercy and Sacred Heart