Jump to content

Talk:Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2005Articles for deletionKept
October 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 21, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 12, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
Q1: What should this article be named?
A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.
Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?
A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.
Q3: Did Jesus exist?
A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus's historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.
Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?
The issue was discussed on the talk page:
Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?
Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.
Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?
The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:
  • Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
  • Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.
The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.
Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?
The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".
Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?
A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.
Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?
A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:
  • Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
  • Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
  • Finally, it is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally.[1] For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine,[2] Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."[3][4] Likewise, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.
Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?
A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:
  • Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
  • A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
  • More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.
As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.
Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?
A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.
Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?
Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.
Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?
The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.
Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?
A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.
Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?
A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.
Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?
A9: This article once used the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's, as decided in this discussion in 2014. Following changes to the MoS, it was decided in 2025 to fully move to Jesus's. The article had already been changed most of the way. This was discussed here. Do not change usage within quotes or the titles of works.
Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?
A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

  1. ^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
  2. ^ Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  3. ^ Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
  4. ^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Literal vs. notional

[edit]

Arbitrary header #1

[edit]

Is there a source for this? I recall polls and surveys reporting about half of people who identify as Christian are describing teachings and morals they believe, not doctrine: "Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament."


Mevsherd (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean besides the source listed in the article? See the Religious Perspectives section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see a description of different doctrines, by denomination, but I was asking about the "most Christians" part. That's different from "most doctrine." Mevsherd (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to contradict the article: "A majority of Americans who describe themselves as Christian (52 percent) also accept a “works-oriented” means to God’s acceptance—even those associated with churches whose official doctrine says eternal salvation comes only from embracing Jesus Christ as savior. "
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/survey-a-majority-of-american-christians-dont-believe-the-gospel/ Mevsherd (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That article tells us that a lot of American Christians don't share their leaders' beliefs about a particular doctrine, but tells us nothing about what Christians in general belief about the identity and nature of Jesus. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 17:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It tells us something about what 52 percent of Christians believe about the nature of Jesus, namely, that going to heaven doesn't depend on his being as savior, which seems to contradict the sentence I mentioned. Or at least, call it into question. I think the answer to my initial question is that there is no source for that statement.
Regarding your other comment below, that is simply not an accurate indicator of what people believe. The only source of popular belief is a poll or survey of some kind. People often disagree with their officials, and, actually, knowing when there is a lay disagreement with doctrine would be an important bit of info to provide readers. Mevsherd (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TGC is not considered a reliable resource. I don't believe AWVI is either. "American Christians" isn't the same as "Christians". 52% is still a majority. You need to read the entire Religious Perspectives - Christianity section, not just the first paragraph. The third paragraph is particularly key. See the topic ""Virtually all" in the lead" that's in the most recent archive. There's far more as well but I have to get back to work. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 52% is a majority. So, the majority don't think embracing Jesus as savior is necessary to enter heaven. We can get there with good works. I don't know what makes something a reliable source, but I wasn't actually proposing it as a source, I was asking for a source for what's already there. Mevsherd (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority don't think embracing Jesus as Savior is necessary to enter heaven" is an insane misunderstanding. They do think that, but they think that good works are necessary to achieve that as well. Lehrerist (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hedging with "most Christians" is already pretty cautious and is only in the article because of the existence of notable groups like Mormons. Even most Mormons would probably affirm Jesus to be "the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament", though they would understand the meaning of that differently from how it is understood in Nicene Christianity. It's likely for any group that large numbers of its lay members misunderstand/misbelieve the official doctrines of the group, but unless you have actual sources saying so, it's just speculation, and the general practice both here on Wikipedia and out there in the sources we cite is to assume that people who identify with a group affirm the teachines of that group. Compare other religion articles, which generally state "adherents of X believe" unreservedly unless there are actual notable groups within the religion who hold a different position. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 17:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, I looked at the sources down in "Religious Perspectives" and there is no source for what most Christians believe about Jesus. The closest is a Bart Ehrman quote, which is an off-hand comment, not referring to any surveys, and not specifically about the nature of Jesus. He's referring to a whole bunch of religious questions.
So, I propose changing the sentence to something like "Most Christian denominations view..." or "Christian doctrine states..." Mevsherd (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A survey contradicting the article: https://azcu.edu/blog/2020/08/04/1-in-3-us-adults-embrace-salvation-through-jesus-more-believe-it-can-be-earned/

In any case, the sentence you are complaining about doesn't say anything about faith or works-based salvation, it says most Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, so there's no contradiction that I can see. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 15:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's implicit, but in a pretty direct way. If most Christians think you can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus, they don't think Jesus is the awaited messiah, incarnation, or that the orthodox concept of forgiveness is necessary. But, again, I wasn't proposing we say "Most Christians believe Jesus is unnecessary...." or anything like that. I didn't suggest adding that source to the article, it's just evidence that the statement is disputable, and I can't find a source for the statement. Mevsherd (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody provide sources for the sentence in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic for this thread, but on your (Mevsherd's) edit here:[1]. I don't know if you've come across WP:LEADCITE yet. Jesus descent from David is mentioned at Jesus#Genealogy_and_nativity, and there's a related previous discussion at Talk:Jesus/Archive_138#Messiah_shall_bring_his_final_rule_on_Earth. It's often the case on WP that replies we want may be lacking, WP:APPNOTE is sometimes useful in those cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The request, made about 6 times now, is for sources on what most Christians believe. None have been provided, yet people are reverting the edits I made that I discussed first here, and claiming I didn't discuss them first here.
It seems to me, the only "reliable source" for what most people believe would be a poll, but I don't know the definition of "reliable source." In any event, I see an informal, offhand comment by Bart Ehrman (who I think is great) which doesn't mention genealogy.
I also provided evidence that the unsourced statement is disputable (that's also my experience: about 50% of Christians are "liberal" and think Christianity, Buddhism, etc. are culture-specific expressions of universal spiritual truths, and about 50% are "conservative" and think their religion is the only correct one). Mevsherd (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Acting as clerk and assistant to new user @Mevsherd and requesting a little patience with everyone.
As one editor pointed out, Wikipedia:LEADCITE and Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWS dictate that a sentence in the lead doesn’t need to follow sources, it needs to follow the body.
So we need to look at the body and decide if they are adequately sourced and consistent with them.
@Mevsherd, please review the sentence below and similar. Does the lead accurately reflect the body or is the discrepancy with body and the sources?

Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God.[1]

Dw31415 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are many issues here. I'll try to start with the specific and end with with the broad.
  1. The last revert of my edit was of the part about genealogy, which is not in the source at all.
  2. The claim is a statistical one. The source is an expert on theology. He's not a pollster nor does he reference any survey. The reference to "most Christians" is offhand, and the main topic of that part of the book is not what most Christians believe. He's referring to "these questions" which were being discussed in a previous paragraph of his book and were not about Jesus, and he's arguing for an interpretation. So, based on what I've now read about "reliable sources," I don't think this is one. The only reliable source for what most people believe is a poll.
  3. Any broad statement about Christians all over the world is bound to be problematic. The polls that do exist tend be nation-specific. People who identify as "Christian" do not agree on a definition of "Christian.". As I mentioned previously, many Christians think that to believe in Jesus is to believe in what Jesus stood for: atheists, Buddhists, etc. can do that. Others are more literal and conservative.
Here is another poll, finding that 58% of American Christians, and 71% of Catholics, think that non-Christians can go to Heaven, which implies they don't think Jesus Christ is a messiah in a literal sense. Note, American Christians tend be conservative, at least compared to European Christians.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/50-percent-of-american-evangelicals-say-jews-dont-go-to-heaven-686787 Mevsherd (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s focus on the “most” word. My personal read of the source is that “most” is a rhetorical device to avoid implying “all”. Have you tried changing that one line in the body, maybe to “many”? We tend to favor using the source’s words, but that one sentence does carry a lot of weight in wikivoice. Also, have you looked through the talk archives to understand the consensus in the lead!? Dw31415 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The archives contains a discussion which provides no sources. Talk:Jesus/Archive 135#"Most Christians" It also rejects a dictionary definition of "Christian" similar to what I noted: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". The core belief is the teachings, not the Incarnation, Messiah, etc. According to Merriam-Webster.
The Ehrman passage does not, actually, say what most Christians believe about Jesus. It is describing the prevailing doctrine in a debate from early Christianity (e.g. the Gnostics lost), probably around 2000 years ago.
The only reliable source for what most people believe is a poll. Mevsherd (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the archive discussion mentioned above Talk:Jesus/Archive 139#c-Alcaios-20260202180100-"Virtually all" in the lead. This discussion did not escalate to an RfC. That might be appropriate here, but a first step would be to recap your alternative to the body sentence or what additional context should be added to the paragraph. Dw31415 (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source, so it should be removed.There are probably no sources for what most Christians believe, a group of over 2 billion from cultures as diverse as the Philippines, Brazil, the US, and Poland. I've only seen nation-specific polls. I hadn't seen the policy on reliable sources when I made my first edit, but now I have, and the policy is clear: the claim needs to be removed. Mevsherd (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this trying to identify what the exact point is where Mevsherd differs from the majority of the people here. There seems to be two points that are driving Mevsherd's difference of perspective:
  1. Most editors here feel that the Ehrman source is enough unless another source contradicts him. Mevsherd feels that the claim that most adherents of a religion belive the main tenets of that religion is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and requires a higher standardard of proof (ie rigorous polling).
  2. Mevsherd seems to be packaging all the orthodox beliefs about Jesus together and suggesting that if polling shows people rejecting one of those beliefs then they must also reject others. For example, Mevsherd claims that anyone who believes it is possible for non-Christians to go to heaven cannot also believe that Jesus is the messiah. That's basically like saying the only possible thing to believe about Jesus is specifically the Westminster Larger Catechism and if you reject any part of that you must reject it all.
I can see the case for and against point 1, but point 2 is silly in my opinion. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 15:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My hypothesis is that there are plenty of good academic sources that speak of what most Christians believe, but I can't be arsed to try to find any atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for engaging. ChatGPT was helpful to me in generating some words to describe the conflict. I pasted them on my talk to avoid slop clutter: User talk:Dw31415#Most Christians. @Mevsherd, please take a look above and on my talk page. What edit would help clarify the claim in the Most Christians body sentence? Dw31415 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about the sentence I tried to edit, or the claims in the "Religious Perspectives section?" They are different. But, the only reliable source for what most Christians believe is a poll, and there are no polls. The "define Christian" issue is a quagmire. I found a reliable source that 60% of American Christians think non-Christians can go to Heaven, which means the majority of American Christians don't believe Christian doctrine..... a quagmire. Simple statements about what Christians believe are unlikely to have reliable sources, and none have been presented. I propose removal of such statements. Mevsherd (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Religious Perspectives section. The cited source says something. You have a point that the existing sentence makes it sound like it’s about the beliefs of individual Christian’s so it probably could be clarified. The editors here don’t seem to be saying it’s attempting to make empirical claims about individual Christians. So what does the source say that’s not an empirical claim about 50%+1 of Christians? Dw31415 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I discuss the Ehrman in my April 9 proposal for an initial edit, which was immediately reverted. I also discussed it on April 27 and May 1. The editors here did not respond. There's also a Metzger source, which poses similar problems. My proposal is to get rid of unsourced claims about what Christians or "most Christians" believe, so I don't understand your questions about other claims. Mevsherd (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to the lead were reverted because the content is supported by the body and doesn’t need its own citation per the policy above.
I think your next step would be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but let me review alternatives for a minute. Dw31415 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts at helping, but we've now gone in a circle. I looked at the "Requests for comment page" and it said using it for questions about sources was "procedurally improper". So, I asked what to do under the "Talk" tab, and you said you would facilitate dispute resolution, and so here we are.... Mevsherd (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really having an argument over whether believers believe the beliefs of their belief system? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At it’s best, this discussion is about how to clarify that Ehrman is not making a statistical claim about 50% of Christians. Dw31415 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ehrman 2014, "The reason most Christians today would have no trouble answering any of these questions is that one perspective from early Christianity emerged as triumphant in the debates over what to believe and how to live. This is the side that insisted that there was only one true God; he had created the world, called the Jews to be his people, and given them his scriptures. The world had been created good, but it had become corrupt because of sin. Eventually, though, God would redeem the world and all of his true followers in it. This redemption would come through his Son, Jesus Christ, who was both God and human at one and the same time, the one who died for the salvation of all who believe in him.".

Arbitrary header #2

[edit]

The line says "most" because it cannot be expected that all Christians believe these things. And obviously, among non-Christians there will be considerably less support for this. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism section

[edit]

After the first paragraph, it's a lot of dubious stuff from the Middle Ages, and I don't understand the relevance. It would make Mel Gibson proud, but it doesn't seem to contribute understanding. Thoughts? Mevsherd (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on what most Christians believe

[edit]

Does the article have reliable sources for its statements about what most Christians believe? Mevsherd (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. The lead says: "Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament. "
That is dubious, and mostly unsourced by anything in the body of the article. I have asked about 10 times for a source, and none has been provided. The only reliable source on what most people believe is a poll. It's a statistical question, not a theological one. I volunteered the Ehrman as the closest thing to a source, because none of the objecting editors would provide one. It is not a reliable source for the following reasons. a) Ehrman is not a pollster nor does he cite one, b) his reference to "most Christians" is casual, in-passing, and not the main subject of its paragraph, c) "incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah" is not the same as "both human and the Son of God" which is Ehrman's quote ("God the Son" is Trinitarian doctrine), d) Ehrman's comments about Jesus are describing the outcome of sectarian disputes from early Christianity about 2000 years ago; his reference to "most Christians" has to do with questions posed in omitted previous paragraphs, e) Ehrman says absolutely nothing about "the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament."
It is disputable because, actually, it's very plausible that most Christians don't believe Christian doctrine; I gave a reliable poll that most American Christians think non-Christians can go to Heaven, for instance.
The milder claim in the body of the article, sourced to Ehrman, is "Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God." That should also be removed, for reasons a, b, d above.
Mevsherd (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is demonstrable fact that at least some non-Christians can go to heaven according to all Christian doctrines. Otherwise, Jesus himself could not get in. The only matter up for discussion is which non-Christians can make the cut.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Several Christian systems teach that Jesus entered heaven because he was God, as well as the only sinless human to have ever existed. He did not need to "make the cut" as heaven belonged to him. Those systems frequently teach that salvation/heaven for everyone else is only possible through "a saving faith in Christ" (with varying nuances). It is true that Christian systems vary on the questions of what happened to people who died before the resurrection, on if a Jew who perfectly obeys Jewish law could enter heaven (though it's unlikely any person can perfectly follow it), on what happens to people who have never heard of Jesus, etc. Nevertheless, I suggest those questions are off-topic for this RfC - we need to focus only on what Christians believe. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and comments

[edit]
  • I suggest you add No at the beginning of the answer. Dw31415 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for rfcbefore, see literal vs notional above and “all Christians” in archive. Dw31415 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many Christians don't know a lot about church dogmas, but for them Jesus=God, Jesus=Messiah=Christ, I think "prophesied in the OT" is mostly for nerds, i.e. Christians who do more reading. Also, a lot of "nones" are technically Christians, do we count them, too? tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I think this needs to offer some pretty clear alternatives before this goes anywhere. Is the RFC suggesting the whole sentence be deleted? Replaced? With what? The article clearly needs some language that (broadly) says something along the lines of "Most Christians believe that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah/Son of God." Just10A (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are not sufficient sources, it should be very easy to find them (though Ehrman seems a bad place to start, compared to the Nicene Creed), although it might be better to restate the start along the lines of "Most Christian denominations assert that ....", avoiding the issue of what the people in the pews actually know or think about their "beliefs". Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Current statement is "Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament." This seems to be shorthand for "Most Christians belong to denominations that consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament." Note that in 2011 the Roman Catholic Church had about 50% of the world's Christians and another about 15% belonged to various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches add in those who belonged to Anglican communion churches plus other major Protestant denominations such as Methodists and Lutherans and most Baptist groups and you have well over 50% https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/ Erp (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like since I wrote the preceding the statement in the article has been modified to "...most Christian denominations consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ." Note "most Christian denominations" might be false since there are countless very small denominations with some unusual ideas. The phrases "most Christians" or "most major Christian denominations" seem better at conveying how widespread the ideas are. The next question is what ideas: (a) Jesus is Lord (which is probably the most widely accepted belief among Christians), (b) Jesus is the Son of God who incarnated as a human, (c) he is the messiah or christ foretold in the Hebrew Bible, (d) he died and was resurrected, (e) he ascended into heaven and will come again one day. The last is do we have the necessary supporting evidence referenced in the body of article. Erp (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out that the statement was altered while the RfC was underway. I have restored it to the pre-RfC version per standard procedure. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "statements" is too broad; you should be more precise right-away which statement(s) you are targeting. And the first line doesn't say "believe", but says "consider", so you're arguing about your own reading and understanding, not about the text. But note that about a year ago the lead stated "Most Christian denominations believe ", which might be better, in a variant like "Most Christian denominations consider". It was chenged here, at 21 april 2025. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is: "Does the article have reliable sources for its statements about what most Christians believe?" This is different from "Do you agree with its statements about what most Christians believe?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the Ehrman source, with more context:
    "There were other wide-ranging debates as well. Was the Hebrew Bible — the Jewish scriptures — part of the revelation of the true God? Or was it simply a sacred book of the Jews, of no relevance for Christians? Or even more extreme, was it authored by a lower, malevolent deity? What about the world we live in? Was it the creation of the one true God? Or was it the inferior creation of the God of the Jews (who was not the God of the Christians)? Or was it a cosmic disaster and inherentiy evil? The reason most Christians today would have no trouble answering any of these questions is that one perspective from early Christianity emerged as triumphant in the debates over what to believe and how to live. This is the side that insisted that there was only one true God; he had created the world, called the Jews to be his people, and given them his scriptures. The world had been created good, but it had become corrupt because of sin. Eventually, though, God would redeem the world and all of his true followers in it. This redemption would come through his Son, Jesus Christ, who was both God and human at one and the same time, the one who died for the salvation of all who believe in him.". Mevsherd (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
    • 1. McGrath, 2006 (#98): "Christians do not see Jesus simply as a teacher or role model. To describe Jesus as the Christian's rabbi or guru [...] is to misunderstand the very distinctive Christian belief that Jesus is God incarnate, the son of God who died on the cross and was raised again in order to deliver humanity [...]" That is direct support. The text makes no distinction between the actual beliefs of a Christian individual and the beliefs taught by Christianity; they are synonymous in this text. I'm sure I could find others, but frankly, did not bother before now because I didn't believe taking the time to do so - when I don't have much free time - would be necessary.
    • 2. We also have indirect RS support via the transitive property: this article both states the doctrines of different versions of Christianity (with reliable sources to back them up), with the challenged statement appearing in the doctrines of a large majority (again sourced), and also accepts - in the second sentence and many other locations - that a Christian is someone who believes a form of Christianity.
    • 3. Challenging this statement requires rejection of the WP:SKYISBLUE statement that a Christian, by definition, believes Christian doctrine.
    • 4. As "this is a statistical question", it should be pointed out that the "reliable source" Mevsherd puts forth, [2], does not statistically support changing this statement: it only claims to cover American Christians, which is a population too small to impact veracity. American Christians comprise a group of approximately 235 million individuals. The poll questions the beliefs of (depending on interpretation) either 52% or 65% of those, or ~ 122-153 million. That is, at most, 6.6% of the roughly 2.3 billion Christians globally.
    • 5. Mevsherd's "reliable source" also is a primary source, which should not be used per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. WP:THESIS cautions against using isolated studies. And this all assumes the source in question actually is reliable; more research would be needed to confirm this.
    • 6. The secondary source Mevsherd initially proposed for this change, [3], actually supports the statement that is being challenged, since it states that "This survey shows that too many Christians aren't Christians at all." Thus, the secondary source rejects the thesis that the poll actually surveyed Christians at all.
    • 7. If all of this is still somehow rejected, let's just borrow some of the many sources from Jesus in Christianity and elsewhere that do support the statement, and call it a day. I see no problem with adding more citations, but I do see a problem with deleting or altering a critical factual statement. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes/Bad RFC? Thanks Jtrevor99 for dignifying this with a detailed response. I agree entirely. Basically, the sources are sufficient to just flatly say "Christians believe..." except that we have a few dissenting groups like Mormons, so we add in "most" to weaken the claim. Further weakening or removing the statement is not justified. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 14:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes – Very much agree. Bravelake (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the challenged language seems like an acceptable, broad statement as to the general views to which most Christians subscribe, at least nominally as members of denominations for which these are the official dogma. I consider ascribing these beliefs to "Christians" a better description than it would be if it said that these were the positions of the denominations to which most Christians belong, which would be unnecessarily circumscribed and potentially confusing. That would imply that a significant number of Christians may not agree with the doctrines of their churches, which in technical sense may be true to varying and limited extents, but that would be misleading in a general description such as that belonging in the lead. These are the basic doctrinal positions of Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and most mainstream Protestant denominations, so they easily represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians, even though there are many individual groups that disagree with one or more of them. So I think that the existing language is a good, general statment. P Aculeius (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the word "most" to make the sentence just say "Christians" with no qualifier. The statement without a qualifier on "Christians" is indisputably true. It could mean "all" Christians, it could also mean "some" Christians. More importantly it takes no position on the statistical question of "how many" or "which" Christians, nor should it. Since THAT question is (apparently) controversial, replace it with a statement that is, on its face, noncontroversial to anyone. That it could be interpreted in such a way that some individuals would take issue with: so what? A facially true statement in an article possibly being interpreted to mean something it does not actually say isn't our concern, nor should it be (barring BLPs on specific individual persons (i.e., not "Christians" as a group)). ~2026-27599-16 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joshua Jonathan: I asked this editor to participate in the RfC as they were the one who edited the statement in question while the RfC was underway. Unfortunately, we got off on the wrong foot at User Talk:Joshua Jonathan when I raised my concern there about editing comments during an active RfC. Editors here are also welcome to weigh in there on the appropriateness of my comments there. My intention was to inform and caution, not lecture. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a RfC, not a noticeboard. I think we've already resolved that discussion, and can limit the discussion to this page. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out that the lead used to say “Most Christian denominations believe”. This RfC question is too broad in my opinion because it could be either about clarifying that Ehrman is making a doctrinal summary (with Most Christians believe) or about adding public opinion claims. As long as we’re all here, it would be great to wordsmith the sentence in the body so it’s more clear to readers that the claim isn’t a literal, empirical one. Dw31415 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "Christian denominations". We can easily make statements about what denominations teach. We can't about what the majority of individual Christians believe, unless someone has opinion polls they'd like to share.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply above. The statement, as currently written, is reliably sourced. Jtrevor99 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, your statement relies on an essay (not policy) that doesn't apply here, unreasonable readings of opposing sources, and the assumption that we are beholden to the precise phrasing of sources.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And in my opinion, you are requiring a level of sourcing that is unreasonable and is not required by WP policy. Requiring more than the current sourcing assumes that Christians do not believe Christianity - we have no reliable sources that state that, and plenty that contradict it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "we have no reliable sources that state that, and plenty that contradict it" - I would say you have none that contradict it when it comes to actually providing data about what people actually believe, and when it comes to sources that state it I think that's more a case of you not looking for it - see concepts like "Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" and "Nominal Christianity".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not going to agree on this. Multiple reliable sources used herein describe a Christian as someone who adheres to, believes in and/or follows, the doctrine of one of the denominations of Christianity. To replace reliably sourced definitions of “Christian” with your own personal definition - wherein a Christian might not believe the doctrines of Christianity - would need reliably sourced to overcome the current sources. Data to verify the existing reliable sources is not needed on this point; we are not required to do the research for reliable sources. Your trying to require this goes beyond Wikipedia’s RS guidelines. Instead, data would only be needed that disproves the statement, as the statement already has the support it needs. So far, no such reliably sourced data has been cited. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC) TL;DR: Data is not required to back up multiple reliable sources that already assert a statement to be true by definition. To challenge a statement backed by RSs, reliably sourced data is required. None has been provided to date. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, how many of those sources are actually taking a look at what people who would be listed as "Christian" in censuses etc. believe? See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - you cannot say passing references to the sky being blue trump studies actually measuring the sky's colour in different weather conditions and at different times of day just because those studies don't have measurements for everywhere in the world. As for wanting specific sources, see Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers for starters.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eldomtom2, @Jtrevor99, please respond to the proposal below. Would any of the changes there address/avoid the issues you're discussing? Dw31415 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

Presently:

He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament.

8 march 2024:

He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

Proposal:

He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion, which [(1)regards/considers/beliefs] Jesus to be [(2)the incarnation of God the Son and] [(3)the awaited messiah], or [(4)Christ],[(5) Explanatory note: liberal Christians may deviate here?] [(6)who is prophesied in the Old Testament].

  • ad 1. Pick your choice;
  • ad 2. Disputed, and also mentioned, with note, in alinea 3;
  • ad 3. Undisputed, right?
  • ad 4. Idem;
  • ad 5. Include; to explain that for some this may be disputed;
  • ad 6. Optional.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is being asked. My main interest, and the question for the RfC, was whether the article's sources support its statements about what most Christians believe. My view is that the only reliable source on what people believe is a poll. The only source in the article, at least at that time, was the Bart Ehrman (none of the opposing editors provided any sources at all, in the earlier discussion). The Ehrman is somewhat misrepresented (see full quote above), and a casual comment, and not a poll or based on a poll.
I definitely oppose equating what most Christians believe with the doctrine of the most common denominations. A Christian, in this context, is anyone who self-identifies as Christian (does Wikipedia have. policy on identity?). Many Christians don't even know all the doctrines. For example, I would wager most Christians do not know what "the awaited messiah...a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament" means, much less take a position on it. Many Christians believe non-Christians can go to Heaven, i.e., don't believe Christian doctrine. If you think someone can go to Heaven without accepting Jesus as savior, you don't believe he is the Messiah.
(While researching Bart Ehrman, I came across a recent interview in the NYT in which he identifies as a Christian atheist: "I sometimes call myself a Christian atheist because I don’t believe in God. I absolutely don’t believe in God or any supernatural powers. But I do think that the teachings of Jesus are something that I want to replicate in my life as much as I can." And: Christian atheism.)
So, to narrow down the question, I guess the first step is to decide whether the only reliable source of what most Christians believe is a poll of people who identify as Christian (either the poll itself, or a reliable expert summarizing a poll--right now, the article has none). Mevsherd (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TLDR. A poll is not WP:RS, asalready explained to you. You've spend a long time now complaining about what's wrong; why don't you just propose something that's in line with the article and/or reliable sources provided by yourself? As it is now, a lot of people are spending a lot time on your complaints, menwhile getting no further with improving the article. That's not how most Wikipedians prefer to spend their time. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble believing that you are sincere. The statement that most Christians don't know ir don't understand the idea of the messiah arising out of the house and lineage of David seems laughable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can totally believe that is true for a lot of Christians, but I wont try to research it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ad 1: I like “holds”, then considers, then regards. Dw31415 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep present — (At least compared to the alternative.) I would probably change “believe” to be “consider” but that’s about the only change I’d make. Also, there definitely needs to be something about “incarnation of god the son” stuff, so that shouldn’t be deleted. The “Christ” and “messiah” mentions are good, but the fact that Jesus literally is God, and not “just” a messiah or demigod-esque being is theologically central to mainstream Christianity. Just10A (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to be clear that these beliefs about Jesus (other than probably Jesus is central) are not held universally by Christians but the vast majority of current Christians do hold to them (or belong to denominations that officially consider them core as for instance agreeing with the Apostles creed even if they don't use it). And yes even 3 is disputed (see for instance Positive Christianity). I would say incarnation, death, resurrection, and future return and rule are the most widely accepted. Erp (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua, I suggest pinging previous responders to request they react to your proposal. Dw31415 (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support this change since it no longer makes unproven claims about what Christians believe, but definitely skip 5.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will probably take the original question to a noticeboard as soon as this RfC is concluded, so I think it would be a good idea to propose the sources for these proposals. Nearly the entirety of this discussion consists of people arguing for their own interpretations of "Christian", with virtually no discussion of sources. There is a common tension: those who self-identify as X may not subscribe to doctrine X. For example, many who self-identify as Christian believe in the teachings and values of Jesus, not the doctrine or theology. It woul improve the article a great deal if that divergence were discussed, but that is looking impossible due to editor ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(For example, 20% of American Christians don't believe in the biblical God: "Overall, eight-in-ten self-identified Christians say they believe in the God of the Bible, while one-in-five do not believe in the biblical description of God..." Clearly, there is a big gap between identifying as a Christian and believing doctrine. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/) Mevsherd (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another poll. Statements about what "most members believe" need to be sourced to polls (including secondary sources reporting the poll).
"nearly half (47%) of Americans who regularly attend religious services view Jesus as a great teacher but do not view him as God incarnate."
"Jesus seems to be viewed as distinct from God per se, and not necessarily co-eternal with God (instead, he was created by God).
"nearly two-thirds believe that the Holy Spirit provides a spiritual birth or new life before a person has faith in Jesus (rather than as a consequence of accepting the Lord into one’s heart)."
"Most U.S Christians do not seem to fully understand or embrace the Trinity."
"Even larger shares seem unsure about the extent to which people are intrinsically in need of Christ’s redemption, or whether Jesus truly provides the only path to salvation, or whether it is necessary to be part of a religious community or take part in religious gatherings and rituals at all."
https://www.interfaithamerica.org/article/church-going-americans/ Mevsherd (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Polls of just American (specifically US) Christians (who are minority of Christians in the world) are incomplete. In particular a poll by a group, Ligonier Ministries, with a very narrow view of Christianity is not useful when looking at Christianity as a whole. Given polling is tricky if not impossible and must be interpreted, we have to depend upon respected scholars who can interpret them as well as other data. Erp (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what is being said? The point was not that we should put those things in the article. Mevsherd (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just say Christians generally believe or Christian dogma states. We don't know what the average Christian is and I've seen years of people arguing here about the definition of Christian refusing to understand that you can be nontrinitarian or an atheist Christian -- one who believes in the teachings of Jesus but not the magic tricks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could also get behind Christians generally believe, which seems like a good way of avoiding the appearance of a quantitative statistical claim (which is the legitimate issue Mevsherd has raised). -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 15:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a difference between "most" and "generally." The problem is equating belief of self-identified Christians with doctrine. They are not the same. Mevsherd (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the issue is the difference between what individual Christians personally believe and what major Christian denominations officially teach. If that is the issue, "most major Christian denominations teach" might work. NicoR8 (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was attempted a month ago, and led to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=1348404729&oldid=1348343890 Mevsherd (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly prefer the "doctrine" version there! Why anyone would reject an objectively verifiable statement in favour of something that isn't verified and violates MOS:WEASEL is beyond me.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that @Mevsherd wanted was "In Christian doctrine, Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament" which assumes a universal Christian doctrine that does not exist. My proposal is "Most major Christian denominations hold that Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son and that he died and was resurrected, and will one day return." I note that though most also hold to Davidic line that is not something covered in the major creeds (Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed or for that matter the Southern Baptist Faith and Message https://bfm.sbc.net/comparison-chart/) Erp (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both are better than the current version to me, though from your statement I do prefer the "most major Christian denominations" version.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve requested closure since it’s been 5 days of inactivity. Dw31415 (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NicoR8 has hit the nail on the head. "What is the official dogma of most Christian denominations?" and "To what extent do individual Christians believe this?" are two different questions.
"Most Christian denominations consider Jesus the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament."
I replaced "Christians believe" with "Christian denominations consider." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Most branches of Christianity"? This avoids the issue of whether all these groups are "denominations" and whether all these groups are "Christian", both of which are likely disputed in various cases. The piped link allows a reader who wants more nuance to read more at the linked article. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 17:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Most major branches"|"Most major denominations" both seem fine. Note I consider 'major' as a necessary adjective because there are huge numbers of minor branches many with a handful of members and some non-mainstream ideas. However I think the second half of the statement "consider Jesus the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament" as raising to unwarranted prominence something, descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament, that though widely held is relatively minor in the list of widely held beliefs about Jesus (it is not in any of the major creeds). Most prominent would be "incarnation of God the Son" as in the current statement, his death on the cross, his resurrection, his ascension, and his promised return. The Old Testament is of great importance to most major Christian branches; however, that is more a belief about what the scriptures are than a belief about Jesus. Erp (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe:
"Most [major?] branches of Christianity consider Jesus the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ.
I agree that "Descendent of the Davidic line", while near universal, seems of less prominence than the other parts of that sentence. I'm not sure about "most major". It seems to me to imply that a significant number of major branches don't believe this, when List of Christian denominations by number of members lists a huge number of groups minor and major but only 2-3 that would reject the sentence in question. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 03:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources, this all original research. Mevsherd (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Most branches of Christianity consider..." is the best one we have so far. No need for "major." We're covered by most.
Mevsherd, I think this is "Paris is in France" territory, but you've challenged the material, so the rules say we must provide at least one source. Here's an overview page from the University of Cambridge: [4]. Do you think this is enough or do you think we need more? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC) And a Catholic encyclopedia entry... [5] Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this discussion? That page seems to be equating "Christians believe" with "Christian doctrine is". There are atheist Christians, Christians who think non-Christians can go to Heaven, and dictionary definitions of "Christian" in terms of the teachings of Jesus rather than religious doctrine.
The second source says it is doctrine of "the Catholic Church alone." Mevsherd (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is solved by a single word such as “most” or “generally.” Fringe groups such as self-identified Atheist Christians (which 99% of people would consider significantly oxymoronic) do not refute a “most” statement. Half of this discussion is moot on that point alone.
Lastly, framing that next to “Christians that think non-Christians can go to heaven” as a fringe/unique group is so ill-informed that I think it honestly gives us warrant to just close this thread as mistaken and move on. The Catholic Church (the most common, mainstream, doctrine-setting denomination by far), explicitly promulgates this view [6]. That’s not a doctrine-splitting position at all. It’s explicitly in-line with the mainstream doctrine. Just10A (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think your response dismissive and offensive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without any substantive explanation, there’s not much I can do to respond. Everything stated is true, and if it’s curt it’s only because this conversation is trying to be closed and is being kept open reaching ad-nauseum levels. Just10A (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what the Catholic Church says is doctrine. The question is what most Christians believe. Have you read any of this discussion? Mevsherd (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that isn't the question. The real question is how in the intro to be best summarize Jesus's importance/role in Christianity and/or what distinctive but widely held central beliefs about him are held within Christianity (either by almost all self identified Christians or by denominations/branches of Christianity that represent almost all Christians). The current two sentences in the opening paragraph are: "He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament". And the discussion is about the wording of the second sentence. See above for my views. Erp (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this discussion is getting kinda silly. Please indulge a brief off-topic aside in the interests of demonstrating good faith (skip if you want to stick to procedure):
Ok, aside over. Here's the situation as I see it:
  • We now have a reliable source [7] that just flatly states "Christians believe..." That supports simply stating it like that in the article, unless we have a similarly-reliable source saying otherwise. We could also go through the sources on Christian denomination and probably find lots of flat statements like "Roman Catholics believe..." "Methodists believe..." etc. But there are a few groups like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses (whose identification as Christian or not Christian is controversial) who might disagree with the identification of Jesus as God the Son (while still agreeing that he is the awaited messiah), and Christian atheists, who deny Jesus's divinity and messiahship entirely. So the questions we have to answer are:
  • Should the lead say anything about what Christians believe at all?
  • Yes, it's the main reason Jesus is notable in wiki-terms, and it's discussed at length in the article body.
  • What aspects of belief about Jesus should be mentioned?
  • The Cambridge source supports Jesus's incarnate Godhood and messiahship as key points, while supporting omitting the Davidic ancestry as less central.
  • To whom should these beliefs be attributed?
  • The Cambridge source just says "Christians believe", but dissenting groups do exist that are identified in RS as Christian while rejecting one or both of those beliefs, so we should caveat the claim to avoid implying universal acceptance.
  • How strongly should we caveat the claim?
  • As I have be able to discover so far, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few related spin-off sects are the only notable groups that are identified as Christians and that would reject identifying Jesus as the incarnate God the Son (other non-trinitarian groups like Oneness Pentecostalism or Nestorianism would still describe Jesus as God the Son while differing in their understanding of what that means). As I have been able to discover so far, Christian atheism and perhaps some elements within groups like Quakers or Liberal Christianity the only notable Christian groups extant today that would deny Jesus's messiahship (there are also some extinct groups like Positive Christianity or Catharism). Taken collectively, I think these groups merit a caveat but not a strong one.
  • Should we say "major" branches?
  • Of the groups above, only Mormonism and perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses can reasonably be described as "major" branches. So if we say "major" we should also say something like "nearly all" instead of "most". Also I don't see any indication that these beliefs are more or less widespread among minor branches. With that said, "most major" would be acceptable to me.
I think the wording Most branches of Christianity consider Jesus the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah or Christ. satisfies all of these concerns. By saying "branches of Christianity" instead of "Christians" we avoid speculating on the beliefs of the general populace, and avoid taking a position on the definition of "Christians". By saying "most" we avoid implying all, while still expressing that this is the most widely-held view. By eliminating "descendent of David" we align it with the weight given to beliefs in the sources. By including the core beliefs and omitting "major" we avoid undue caveating. I prefer this wording to Nearly all major branches of Christianity... as the latter is too wordy IMO. Does anyone object to this wording or have improvements to suggest? -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 19:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not have a reliable source on what Christians believe, for the same reasons that were stated two months ago. This is endless. Mevsherd (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So we rephrase the text to say something like "these are common tenets in most branches of Christianity," which is far more readily verifiable than what millions of individual people believe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make more sense to me. Mevsherd (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, LWG. I support it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good though I think the comma before "or Christ" can be omitted and that incarnation should point to Incarnation (Christianity). I still think Resurrection of Jesus is of similar importance and might be more widely held (though differences in what it means) but will respect the consensus. I note that though Jehovah's Witnesses claim 9 million active members, they have high standards for active so the number might be considered an undercount. LDS claim 17.9 million but are known to over count. The two denominations might be about the same size. Oneness Pentecostalism denominations may account for more with United Pentecostal Church International claiming 6 million, Pentecostal Assemblies of the World claiming 2 million, True Jesus Church 1.5 to 3 million plus many others (possible total 30 million, high count). However all together they still are a small percentage of World Christianity. Erp (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the link target and removed the comma per your recommendation. Regarding the resurrection, we do already say Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead in the second paragraph. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 00:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The specifics of how many adherents each sect has and which sects believe exactly which things would be better placed further down in the article. The opening paragraphs should have broad strokes. Again, I approve leaving out the word "major." Keeping it would make it sound like the size of the branch affects the likelihood of maintaining/believing these things, and I have never heard that there is. It should be just "most branches." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was just me replying to @LWG commenting on which Christian groups would not be in complete agreement on the statement. I note that Oneness Pentecostals have large numbers of twig branches, possibly enough that if each twig was counted as a branch that it could be argued 'most branches' might not be true. Erp (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bit fuzzy on what's being proposed. I support changing all statements about what people who are Christian believe, and replacing them with descriptions of what official branches declare. And, I see that being discussed. But, LWG keeps citing the "Cambridge source" (which is just an anonymous page at the university site having to do with student life), making me think there's a proposal to keep statements about what all Christians, from Germany to Brazil, believe.
For example, this needs to be changed (or sourced): "The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of the three persons of the Trinity." Mevsherd (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal above is specifically about the one sentence in the first paragraph. It sounds like we are mostly in agreement there, so I will go ahead and make the bold edit since that will be easier than continuing to explain it. Feel free to revert if you think the old wording is better than my proposal.
The broader issue here seems to be whether we need to go out of our way to say "Christian branches" instead of "Christians" everywhere due to our doubt about whether members share the core beliefs of the groups they are members of. I refer to the Cambridge cite as an example of how writers outside Wikipedia generally handle that: they generally talk about what "Christians believe" without qualifying it or requiring precise polls. For another example, see Britannica [8] which says He is regarded by most Christians as the Incarnation of God. Even though I personally agree with you that it is likely that many supposed Christians worldwide don't actually believe the core tenets of Christianity, that's a personal epistemological stance, not based on Wikipedia-style sources. So while I'm open to modifying language in the rest of the article to avoid implying statistical claims, I don't think we have to do that, since similar "most Christians believe" language seems to be used in reliable sources without caveat. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 17:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't the reason to change the first paragraph apply throughout? I'm not sure how to respond other than by repeating myself: what you are calling reliable sources are not reliable sources (for what most Christians believe).
The working definition of the group "Christians" is those who self-identify as such, and the core beliefs of that group are not necessarily official church doctrine. Those are simply different things. I'm not sure how to proceed without repeating myself. Mevsherd (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections to making this change consistent throughout the article? For example changing "The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of the three persons of the Trinity." to "Most branches of Christianity consider..." Mevsherd (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have RS for "great majority"? The term itself is an idiom. We haven't the faintest idea what the majority "worship". Worship itself is an extremely strong term. Does it mean, as per Webster, "It involves dedicating your time, devotion, and submission to what you value most" Does RS say the majority do such? A vast number go to church for social reasons, to fit in, for business reasons, or think they are supposed to, or make the claim for acceptance. Where does it say: "The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of the three persons of the Trinity."? What does adding such a dramatic claim add to this bio about a great philosopher? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source for any of the statements on what people believe, let alone "the vast majority." Mevsherd (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2026

[edit]

There is a typo in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The word but is misspelled. ~2026-27400-87 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. Annh07 (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say died?

[edit]

Jesus never died, instead he rose and was SEEN by over 500 witnesses out of the grave just THREE days later! Read the Bible and base Him off what it says in there before you write about it? Wanna write about Him, say the truth!

Btw, you may think I'm some older person, but I'm 13 and passionate about my savior. ~2026-30987-10 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers this. Almost all Christians think he died and than rose from the dead. Most Muslims don't think he died. Most others think he died and stayed dead (or didn't exist though that it is very much a minority view). Also the Bible isn't a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia though it might be used by reliable sources. In this case even the Bible in several places states Jesus died including 3 verses before the verse you are presumably using (1 Corinthians 15: 3 & 6) unless you are using a very dubious translation. Erp (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Read the Bible and base Him off what it says in there before you write about it? ..., say the truth" And what does the Bible have to do with the truth? It is a collection of religious folktales, depicting people of questionable historicity. Don't take what it says a face value. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Other views exist: "who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried". If Jesus never died, he was never resurrected, and that would be theologically problematic in some circles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the reference list, you'll see the Bible is one of the sources used in this article: The New Oxford Standard Bible with Apocrypha, specifically. Feel free to use that passion for your savior here on Wikipedia. You could edit the article about your specific sect or look up information in sources available to you. If your church has a library of religious books that aren't easily available online, you could read and cite them. Feel free to comment in the RfC on this very talk page. Most of the time, the more people who work on a specific article, the more accurate that article becomes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rose from what? Deep sleep? Paulus is quite clear, isn't he, and his letters are core texts of the NT. So, which alternative Bible did this kid read? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus In Wikipeaia

[edit]

Hello wikipedia of eneglish i see you have mistake of jesus when someone write that jesus was a palestinitan but he was a jewish in the kingdom of israel in the bible and New Testament and i want to change that wrong becaouse that do mistakes in a lot of placeses in the world and became to argeument to israeli palestinian, if i wrong give me Proof that i wrong Garrymendelboum1233 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this article do you see that written? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&oldid=1356551839"