Talk:Jesus (disambiguation)

Initial topics

Names resembling Jesus

I thought Jesus was just a translation into some other language of the name "Joshua." --Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is a translation of the hebrew name "Yeshua" into english via greek (the greek being "Iesu"). The direct translation into english is "Joshua" --81.156.181.83 00:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The claim that it is a translation of Yeshua although extremely popular in lay literature is highly misleading. Jesus is the Greek translation of Joshua which is Yehoshua in Hebrew. Jeshua/Yeshua is a shortened form of Joshua that is only attested in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah Since Jeshua in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles is variant of Joshua, the Septuagint also translates it as Jesus. There is no evidence of the usage of Yeshua in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, unless you count the phoney James bone box :P --Kuratowski's Ghost — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 7 November 2004

Yeshu is a "pet" name for "Yehosua" just like "Bob" is a "pet" name for "Robert" and "Lizzy" is a "Pet" name for "Elizabeth". --CheeseDreams 01:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Read the Yeshu article. --Kuratowski's Ghost 12:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pandera & ben Stada

I have removed the reference to a Jesus son of Pandera, the individual is actually called Jeshu/Yeshu son of Pandera, translating the name Yeshu as Jesus is POV bias, many scholars feel there is no connection to the name Jesus.

I have also removed Jesus ben Stada, the individual is never called Jesus, adding the name Jesus when it is unattested is POV bias, in fact downright dishonesty --Kuratowski's Ghost — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 7 November 2004

Ok we can keep these references as long as they are clarified. I have removed the wild POV speculation that ben Pandera might have been the founder of the Essenes, he was an idolator and the Essenes weren't so its really a bizarre speculation. Also ben Stada was stoned not crucified and the claim that this was in the second century is POV, another POV is that he was ben Pandera from the 1st century BC which combined with the POV that Yeshu = Jesus is the only reason to call him Jesus. The description of ben Pandera and ben Stadas activities as aggitation is also POV and has been removed. --Kuratowski's Ghost — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, (& touched up, see bolding, at :55), 7 November 2004

Actually the Yeshu of the Macabbee era is not called ben Pandera, the Yeshu called ben Pandera was the teacher of Jacob of Sichnin, its POV to assume they are the same and it contradicts the fact that they would have live 2 centuries apart, so I've split the entry for Yeshu. --Kuratowski's Ghost — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 7 November 2004

I put a proportion of the names in after reading an article somewhere. The Yeshu at the Macabbee era is ben Pandira, when I came to put in ben Pandera from the Yeshu article, I assumed it was a typo, which is obviously not the case - I was a bit confused how the article could justify Yeshu ben Pandera as being Yeshu ben Stada since there was the centuries gap. The article I was reading referred to their activities as aggitation, and I can't really think of an NPOV alternative, maybe "being a bit annoying" or something.

I have put Jesus ben Nun back in. Leaving this one out is ridiculous.

I removed the reference to idolatry. This is POV. What one person thinks is idolatry isnt the same as another, e.g. John Knox versus Oxford Movement.

--CheeseDreams 18:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following portion of a contrib was orginally inserted inside the signed 18:18 contrib that now precedes it.

Pandira is just an alternative spelling of Pandera. The Yeshu of the Macabbee era is not called ben Pandera or ben Pandira in the primary source the Babylonian Talmud, calling him that is a POV assumption that he is the same as the Yeshu ben Pandera who taught Jacob of Sichnin. I again removed Yeshu from the name ben Stada as he is never called Yeshu in the original sources, calling him Yeshu is a POV assumption that he is identical to Yeshu ben Pandera. --Kuratowski's Ghost — Preceding undated comment added 22:11 (& touched up at :16), 7 November 2004

The idolatry reference was still there. It isn't POV, the primary source about him describes him as "worshipping a brick" a euphemism for idolatry. --Kuratowski's Ghost — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 7 November 2004

It is indeed idolatry from the books POV. The disambiguation page, however, isn't supposed to be so biased. I have removed it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseDreams (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 November 2004

Please stop putting the Yeshu back in front of ben Stada, this creates the false impression that this individual is so named in the sources about him when this is not the case. Calling him Yeshu is an interpretation that he is Yeshu ben Pandera. --Kuratowski's Ghost 00:53 & :57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do the sources name him? That should be put in. Just having "ben Stada" makes it look completely bizarre that anyone should think him Jesus at all. I will put in "Yeshu" ben Stada unless you come up with an alternative. --CheeseDreams 01:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sources call him "ben Stada"; some people link ben Stada with Yeshu ben Pandera, but regardless he's called ben Stada. --Jayjg 02:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adding Yeshu to ben Stada is like calling Shakespeare, Francis Shakespeare, on the POV that he was really Francis Bacon. :) --Kuratowski's Ghost 12:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've also removed the claim that ben Stada's execution was 2nd century, this is also POV based on the assumption that he is Yeshu ben Pandera. I also changed Maccabees to Hasmoneans for the first Yeshu, Hasmoneans is more accurate, Maccabees are the ancestors of the Hasmoneans who were at war with the Seleucids, this happened decades after. --Kuratowski's Ghost 23:41 & :42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted 'Jesus ben Nun'

I deleted 'Jesus ben Nun, identical to Joshua ben Nun the hero of the Biblical book of Joshua', becasue, frankly, i think it's a mistransliteration. The term 'Jesus ben Nun' only gets 3 different English hits on Google. One of them claims that the story of Jesus is 'based partly on the Jewish exodus myth and Joshua/Jesus ben Nun' ('Why Jesus didn't exist', http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm). The second is a parody of the first ('Why Jesus did exist', http://www.tektonics.org/bandoli03.htm). The third claims that 'when Moses passes on his authority to Jesus ben Nun, Joshua-Jesus also receives "the Spirit of Sophia"' ('Christanity's lost goddess...the Sophia' http://firstnewtestament.netfirms.com/christianity_lost_goddess_sophia.htm).

Deuteronomy 34:9
Revised Standard Version: 'And Joshua the son of Nun'.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible: 'Joshua son of Nun'
The Jewish Publication Society's Old Testament: 'And Joshua the son of Nun'
New International Version: 'Now Joshua son of Nun'
Amplified Bible: 'And Joshua son of Nun'
American Standard Bible: 'And Joshua the son of Nun'
King James Version: 'And Joshua the son of Nun'

etc.

If 'Yehoshua ben Nun' is transliterated to 'Jesus ben Nun' in any respectable source, be it academic or religious, I'd be happy to see it put back. --Jill St. Crux 00:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its because Yehoshua translates as Jesus.

This could easily be the Yehosua (disambiguation) page, and would still contain the same list of people. CheeseDreams

No, no it couldn't. Nobody looks in the English Wikipedia under Jesus for the guy who felled the walls of Jericho; you'd have to already be aware of the possible (tenuous) transliteration—to English, from a certain Greek noun case, of an Aramaic contraction of a Hebrew name—to make the connection in the first place, in which case you'd never logically proceed to this disambiguation page.

Joshua ben Nun—Yehoshua, if you like—would never have been known as Yeshua (that name hadn't even been coined at the time in which the OT is set, or for that matter the language), much less the Greek Iesou, and certainly not the English Jesus. Stop trying to inject fallacious study group trivia into a serious, grown-up encyclopedia. A. D. Hair 16:28, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Please include the following links

Hello I recommend to include the following links

1. New Testament view on Jesus' life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_view_on_Jesus
2. Historical Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Oub 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC):

Those are links to Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian obviously a jew??

Third line down:

A Christian, evidently Jewish, and fellow worker of Paul. He was also called Justus.(Colossians 4:11).

Possibly he was "Christian, evidently Israli" or "Christian, formerly Jewish" or "Christian, renounced Jewish" - but I don't see how he can simultaneously be Christian AND Jewish esp. given the era. Garrie 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in popular songs/culture

The list of pop songs with "Jesus" in the title seems very selective - there are lots more, such as those listed at [1].

I actually came to this disambig page hoping to find an entry on the famous bloke who used to go to (British) rock gigs in the 70s whom everyone knew as "Jesus" - immortalised in the Strawbs song "The Man Who Called Himself Jesus" and a well-known rock anecdote about a Frank Zappa gig where Zappa singled him out of the audience and said "Jesus - dance!" Any ideas?

"Unexplained" rv

The undo of the otherwise unexplained "cleanup", which had several problems:

1. multiple blue links per line
2. headers as bullets and bullets as headers
3. things known as simply "Jesus" (and more likely targets) below things not primarily known as Jesus

and possibly others, but it was hard to tell exactly what "cleanup" was being done, since the previous version did not need any cleanup itself. -- JHunterJ 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

CHRISTUS

CHRISTUS redirects to Jesus and CHRISTUS is also a name of non-profit religious health care company. Ben (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Now I understand. The question is, why does Christus redirect to Jesus, and should it?

Christus probably wants to be its own disambiguation page, not a simple redirect. Certainly, if I saw "CHRISTUS", I'd think of the healthcare company first, and Jesus Christ second. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

important prophet of Islam?

To call Jesus an important prophet of Islam is rhetoric—— puffery—— designed to construe Islam as existing way before Muhammad. You have included this based of your bias.

Islam as a faith is not affected by Jesus or anything he taught. Islam’s view of Jesus is based on the documents written down (outside of heaven) more than 500 years after Jesus walked the Earth.

Save the POV for the article. It is in no way needed in the disambiguation page.--Carlaude (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All you say is based on lack of information. Being a Christian, seeing Jesus as an important prophet of Islam is surprising. However, if you make some research on Islam, prophets, and the perception of Jesus, you will see there is no doubt on that. I am not talking just about Islamic sources. This information is verified in many non-Islamic sources. There are a flood of verses on Jesus in Quran, and in hadith(words of Muhammad). Even a complete chapter (sura) named after Virgin Mary. So, the importance of Jesus in Islam is not lower than that of Christianity.

Five prophets are regarded as especially important in Islam with distinctive title were given to each of them: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. You can also check the wiki pages prophet, prophets of Islam, Jesus in Islam, Islamic view of Virgin Mary, etc.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Christianity and removing something only depending on Christian beliefs has no sense. We have to keep Neutral point of view. Otherwise, it will be vandalism.

The Islam part you want to remove is the the version which exists more than one year. It is also consistent with the main Jesus article which also states "In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets" in the introduction part. Here is the disambiguation page which should be a consice version of it. After all, not only Christians are reading it and it has to be comprehensive.

Your comments on Quran is beyond our discussion and I skip that part. Coyoa (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have information many non-Islamic sources post them. You have not even reference something in the Quran on Jesus. Just because it is in a an article (e.g. prophet, prophets of Islam, Jesus in Islam, Islamic view of Virgin Mary) doen't mean it is NPOV. Claims must be verifiable.

This does not depend on Christian beliefs. Yes, we have to keep Neutral point of view-- please do so-- or at least discuss your change and sources.--Carlaude (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have just noticed you have removed the Islam part, again ;) It is not customary to give references for the disambiguation page in wiki and I thougt I'd made myself clear enough. Once again, the main article states "In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets" in the introduction part. And your arguments should be in that article's discussion page.

OK, still I will try to help. It seems you accept that in related Islamic sources it is clearly stated Jesus is an important prophet of Islam. Anyway, here is a non-Islamic book:

James Leslie Houlden, "Jesus: The Complete Guide", Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005, ISBN 082648011X

The book verifies Jesus being a very important prophet in Islam. Also, at the page 403 of this book, the writer states that even some Muslims view Jesus as the second most important prophet in the Qur'an. That passage from the book:

"... perhaps most dramatically in -Quran- 4.171, in which Jesus is described as 'the Messenger of God, his word which he gave to Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him.' The first of these three titles is not unique to Jesus in the Qur'an, ..., but the last two are used of no one else and are the basis of the view held by some Muslims that as well as being the penultimate prophet, with only Muhammad coming after him, Jesus is also the second most important prophet in the Qur'an, again second only to Muhammad, who is described as the "seals of the prophets" (-Quran- 33.40), ..."

If you want to see an online resource, here is one which my reseach engine gave me: from The Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey (http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/english/weboku.asp?sayfa=20&yid=30 ) which explicitly states "Muslims believe that Jesus was a very important prophet of God, and that he was indeed the Messiah awaited by the Jews of ancient Palestine."

I hope this will be enough. If not, you may refer to Encyclopaedia of Islam as wiki says it is the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies. Do not be deluded by the title; it is an encyclopedia about the Islamic world, not a Muslim or an Islamic encyclopedia. Coyoa (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All this shows is Islam's view of Islam. It is POV and puffery.

You can cite from Islamic or non-Islamic sources, but what you need is something that shows Islam does A, B, & C because Jesus taught/ said/ did X, Y, & Z (and not, for example, because Muhammad also did X, Y, & Z).

It is notable to have somewhere but is in no way needed in the disambiguation page. Save the POV for the article. --Carlaude (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to Coyoa. Jesus being an important prophet of Islam is clearly verified as you asked. Carlaude, better talk with sources instead of your opinions or beliefs. It is notable to have this part in the disambiguation page as it is a simple version of the main Jesus article which has this info in the intoduction. Also, in the disambiguation page, it is important to assure people that they are referring to the same person. Wiki is based on references and do not force people new rules. Please keep the Neutral point of view. Erehe (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How dull do you think people are that "Jesus, also called Jesus of Nazareth... and an eminent character for many other religions and thoughts" might not be the same as "Jesus... one of the most prominent prophets in Islam"? The disambiguation should not be another vesion of the main Jesus article introduction-- it is just for disambiguation!--Carlaude (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

With that logic, all the other information is redundant, and "Jesus is an eminent character for many religions and thoughts" with a link to the Jesus article would be enough. Or anybody may claim that the part you refer is clearly the same as "Jesus... is the central figure of Christianity"; so, let's remove this Christianity part.

The disambiguation is to simplify the things for people without some assumptions for them. It must be clear and comprehensive enough considering users with the least knowledge about the related subject. Erehe (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Erehe says above. I've added the references that Coyoa found to the main article. Stand4truth (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

added link to Jesus and history page

I just added a link to the Jesus and history page. I think this is useful to the reader, as it lists the rather large number of Wikipedia articles on historical aspects of Jesus. This page is the only one in Wikipedia that attempts to list them all and explain the purpose of each. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong

Why does jesus.png show a pic of some random guy instead of the real Jesus?

Why is jesuschrist.png so big? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.28.219 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume these are real questions. 1) There is obviously no picture of Jesus since he was not alive when cameras were invented. 2) This is the Talk for the Jesus (disambiguation) page - not the Jesuschrist.png Talk. Goto the source for questions on the picture. Ckruschke (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Jesus and Mary Chain

 Under the sub-heading "Music", where there is a sub-heading "Performers" should  not this include Jesus and Mary Chain?
Vorbee (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jesus" as a title is confusing

"Jesus of Nazareth" and "Jesus the Christ" had been the rubric of the two magisteriae of this single individual. The change of this structure to "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" obviates the clarity of the previous taxonomy. In the reverted article titles "Jesus" is the subject of both rubrics, with the descriptor "of Nazareth" or "the Christ" denoting alternitive historical or religio-mythical subjects. The title "of Nazereth" signals validation by historical evidence, while "the Christ" defines a narrative devoid such evidence, but rather accepted by a concatenation of repetition by religious authorities.

"The existing title "Jesus" is confusing as those of both magisteria could anticipate that the article will be based on their world view, which of the opposite of each other. A reversion to the previous two primary categories will prime the reader to there being two non-overlaping magisteria, (the term quoted from Steven Jay Gould during the debate on "intelligence design") Arodb (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary Chain

In the section headed "music", should this disambiguation page have a reference to Jesus and Mary Chain? Rollo August (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel Jesus

Added this footballer because although his paternal family name is de Jesus, the article on him is simply titled Gabriel Jesus and when playing for Arsenal, the back of his shirt says "G. Jesus". Angusta (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)