Template talk:Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm removing "background: #edf3fe" because it is not visible. --Cantus 03:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Isa al-Misah 2 Picture 3 Template getting a bit long 4 POV 5 deletion of Exorcism#Jesus because of very few examples?????? 6 Yeshua

[edit] Isa al-Misah

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)

[edit] Picture

I really don't like the picture on the template - I don't think it looks right, is distracting, and also could be interpreted as indicating "this is what Jesus looked like", rather than it just being one particular interpretation. Does any mind if I remove it, or is this just me? --G Rutter 11:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it IS the grumpiest-looking Jesus I've ever seen. I'm not sure I have a problem with there being a picture in principle, though - I'd have thought most people would realise that any drawing is merely an interpretation, and placed there as an example of art rather than a definitive depiction. TSP 14:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, IMHO, the picture looks a bit naff. ed g2s • talk 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone got a better picture we can replace it with? Or shall I just delete it? (Having previewed it after deleting the image I think it looks better). --G Rutter 15:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it should just be deleted. TheCoffee 00:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Right I've deleted the picture and we'll see what happens! --G Rutter 13:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added a simple piece of calligraphy instead of a picture based on the name "Jesus"/"Joshua" as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly the picture contributes nothing to the template. Very few people can read it, and even fewer will gain anything from it. Secondly, whether Jesus' true name was Yeshua is a matter of contention in some scholarly circles. How about avoiding unneeded controversy and unneeded clutty by removing the image? —Aiden 03:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Err... I see Steve has added the Greek and hypothetical Hebrew. I think the Greek should be on top (as it is the only historically confirmed name). Other than that, aside from it being unnecessary, I have no objects. It does look kind of nice but I just don't know that people will gain anything from it. I leave it up to you. —Aiden 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it, myself. I had to click on it to figure out what it was, and then I couldn't figure out why it was written in three languages but not English (considering this is the English Wikipedia). It seems odd to have "YESHUA" written in big letters in a language only a handful of people know while the English "Jesus" is in small letters, as part of a phrase, below it. Powers 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't like and think that it's quite likely to fall under No original research as well- the Hebrew is hypothetical and it is by no means certain that Jesus' name was "Yeshua". It also doesn't add anything to a template which, frankly, is too long anyway and is also confusing. I think therefore it needs to be either deleted or substantially altered. --G Rutter 11:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all reputable scholars agree upon "Yeshua" as the most likely personal name that Jesus would have carried (in fact the main logo of the Jesus Seminar is a stylized "Yeshua," see The Jesus Seminar Forum maintained by my former mentor Dr. Mahlon H. Smith, a Fellow of the Jesus seminar); this is verifiable. The Hebrew is merely the Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic, and many citeable scholars have said so; also verifiable. The Greek is obviously verifiable, but is by no means the majority view amongst scholars as Jesus' day-to-day personal name. As for changing it to make things smaller, I could super-impose "Jesus" over a gray "Yeshua" to save space and remove ambiguity. As this template goes, it is smaller than most other templates that involve Jesus. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've compressed the links on the template without removing any of them (I'm still going to do a bit more compression yet) and I've changed the image to something that makes it unmistakably about Jesus in English with a ghost image of "Yeshua" in the background. If we still want the Greek in there, I can sub-impose it in the same grayscale in a similar fashion alongside "Yeshua" but I think this image leaves no ambiguity. Comments? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We could quibble over the font choice, but overall it's a big improvement, IMO. Powers 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better, but I think the Greek should be on there as well. --G Rutter 10:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for suggestions on font and such and am more than willing to draft a few different copies. The next copy will have ιησους in there. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who put the penis picture on top of this but i am removing it. Someone else find a replacement picture cause ,from the look of this discussion, i wont find a fitting one. But if anyone cares i think him on the cross is probably the easiest to recognize picture of him.User:Blue 19:12, 20 July 2006 (EST)

[edit] Template getting a bit long

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:

1. Language
2. Race
3. 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)

• Sounds like a good idea to me; I think they would mostly fit better in Historical Jesus than in Cultural and historical background. User:Ben Standeven as 70.129.108.126 16:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

[edit] POV

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)

POV? Islam also took/has taken an interest in Aristotle, but that doesn't make him Islamic; he's still a Western figure. Jesus originates from the early Hebrew Christian community and is most meaningful in that context - that's not POV. Besides, the actual text of the parables themselves are in the Gospels and were of exclusive Chrisitan interest for 600 years prior to Islam. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, has the first part of the entry been vandalized? It mentions that Jesus was Chocolate(BLACK) or something to that effect. As I recall, Israel or Palestine is in the middle east, so most likely Jesus would have had middle eastern features? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.28.74.148 (talk • contribs).

I have no idea what article you mean. This template seems OK. Powers ^T 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of Exorcism#Jesus because of very few examples??????

Here they are from Demonic_possession#Demonic_possession_in_the_Bible

• Matthew 4:23-25: Demon-possessed persons are healed by Jesus (also Luke 6:17-19).
• Matthew 7:21-23: Many will drive out demons in Jesus' name (also Mark 16:17; Luke 10:17; Acts 5:16; 8:7).
• Matthew 8:14-17: Jesus healed many demon-possessed (also Mark 1:29-39; Luke 4:33-41).
• Matthew 8:28-34: Jesus sent a herd of demons from two men into a herd of pigs (also Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39, both referring to only one man).
• Matthew 9:32-34: Jesus made a demon-possessed and mute man speak, the Pharisees said it was by the power of Beelzebub (also Mark 3:20-22).
• Matthew 12:22-32: Jesus healed a demon-possessed blind and dumb man (also Luke 11:14-23; 12:10; Mark 3:20-30).
• Matthew 12:43-45: Jesus told an allegory of nasty spirits coming back home, that is to the human body where they have lived before (also Luke 11:24-26).
• Matthew 15:21-28: Jesus expelled a demon from the body of the daughter of a Canaanite woman (also Mark 7:24-30).
• Matthew 17:14-21: Jesus healed a lunatic by driving out a demon from him (also Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-49).
• Mark 1:21-28: Jesus expelled a nasty spirit from a man (also Luke 4:31-37).
• Mark 9:38-40: A non-Christian is seen driving out demons in Jesus' name (also Luke 9:49-50).
• Mark 16:9: Jesus had driven seven demons out of Mary Magdalene (also Luke 8:2).
• Luke 7:21: Many people are cleansed from evil spirits by Jesus.
• Luke 13:10-17: Jesus expelled a spirit of disease from the body of a woman on the Sabbath.
• Luke 13:31-32: Jesus continued to cast out demons even though Herod Antipas wanted to kill him.
• Acts 10:38: St. Peter said Jesus healed all who were under the power of the devil.
• Acts 19:13-20: 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)

[edit] Yeshua

While it is interesting to reconstruct old languages, Jesus (<Ιησους) is the recognized form in the East and West. It is used in the original texts and is the only one referred in the writings of the ancient Apostolic and Patristic Fathers. Aramaic enthusiasts, as much I respect them, attempt to put undue emphasis on Syriac texts, but it is nowhere the consensus that the Gospels were written in anything but Greek.

Further, history tells us that Greek had long ago replaced Aramaic in the Levant, leaving little more than rudimentary household phrases behind. The situation was something like the use of Pennsylvaania Deitsch by Lutherans in Pennsylvania today where there is very little Deitsch in use. Exactly how much survived more than 333 years of Greek rule is a matter of speculation.

If the age-old consensus from the earliest historically documented accounts unto the present tells us that Greek was the language of the Levant, there is no consensus on exactly which form (there are many) of Aramaic to reconstruct personal names into. One can speculate how much Aramaic was used by Jesus; it very seldom appears in the Gospels, and then for only the simplest of phrases which must be "interpreted." Speculating is fine and healthy, but it is impossible to contradict the voluminous primary and secondary material supporting the Greek in the New Testament and Christ's use of it in all recorded dialogues, monologues, sermons, and parables -- daily.  - Cestus ^Cd 05:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of Syriac texts, it is a matter of being true, historically, to what Jesus was referred to on a daily basis by his peers. There are a minority of scholars today who believe that Jesus spoke in Greek to his desciples. Even the prestigious Jesus Seminar's logo is a stylized Yeshua: The name that the majority of scholarship sees as most probable with few exceptions. To claim, in this modern day, that "Iesous" was Jesus' personal name with his peers, or that Jesus primarily spoke Greek is now a minority and outdated viewpoint among living scholars.

For example, we see through the testimony of Flavius Josephus that the Jews eschewed Greek. Josephus, himself wrote his early works in Aramaic (these were historical works for Greek-speaking people) and then later translated them into Greek, and even after decades of writing and using the language that he could not "pronounce it with sufficient exactness." (Antiquities)

Unrelated to this Iesous/Yeshua debate on the logo, many sources of the Gospels, if not simply by virtue of the original language of the discourse, lead back to the Aramaic language and there are many vestigial elements that point to this conclusion. Many parts of the Synoptic Gospels and the Dialogues source in John are riddled with Aramaicisms, although their final form was certainly compiled in Greek by a Greek-speaking or bi-lingual scribe with Greek redaction rather than an "original Aramaic Gospel of X" (usually referring to the Peshitta or Old Syriac manuscripts) as many internet Aramaicists claim.

If you -insist- that the logo -must- have Iesous in it, I propose a compromise. I can construct an image that has both Iesous and Yeshua in the background that is just as aesthetic and gets the same job done. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 12:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)