Talk:Jesus#rfc FB56668

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1985873230}}

{{Talk:Jesus/FAQ}}

{{tq|Jesus often debated with his fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables, and gathered followers, among whom twelve were appointed as his chosen apostles. (my emphasis)}}

{{u|Chintu89}}, tell me why we need "chosen" as well as "appointed". See, to me, the two words mean pretty much the same thing, so why would we say it twice? It gives our time-poor reader more work to do for the same information. It looks clunky. More than that, it lends a sort of dreary churchy tone to the article. Articles like this always need to be very careful not to be too "in-universe"; we are not writing (exclusively) for Christians here, but for readers of all religions and none. I'm actually rather impressed at how good a job it does of that (though less so about how spelling and linking have been used but that's relatively easy to fix, and I have been doing). Word choice is important, and this is not a church newsletter but a general encyclopedia. What do you think? John (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, and since there was no explanation given for the edit, which was also mistakenly marked as minor as it affects meaning, I've reverted it for now.

:I would also consider changing the remaining {{xt|appointed}} to merely {{xt|chosen}}. Remsense ‥ 论 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think {{xt|appointed}} works since membership in the twelve apostles is generally considered to have been an official position or status. -- LWG ^talk 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Fine by me. Remsense ‥ 论 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cait}}

:Thanks for raising an important point about word choice and the tone of the article. I understand the concern about avoiding overly "churchy" language in a general encyclopedia, but I’d like to offer some context on why terms like “chosen” might still be appropriate, even necessary, in this case.

:Jesus is, by nature, a religious figure. The Gospels are not neutral biographies in the modern sense; they are theological texts, preserved and transmitted by the early Church. They represent the only substantive sources we have about Jesus’ life, teachings, and actions. As such, any reference to events like the appointment of the twelve apostles carries inherently theological language, because that’s the language of the source material itself.

:To suggest we "neutralise" expressions like chosen may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative. Terms like appointed and chosen may seem redundant at a glance, but within the Gospel context, chosen conveys a spiritual selection or divine calling, not just an administrative appointment. This nuance matters to accurately reflect the original texts.

:Of course, I agree that this isn’t a church newsletter, and editorial neutrality is important. But in the case of religious figures, neutrality shouldn’t mean stripping away the essential nature of their religious identity. It should mean presenting what the source material says, faithfully and clearly, while making it accessible to all readers. While I understand the article isn’t written for Christians, we also can’t overlook the fact that Jesus is a religious figure known through Christian sources. The Gospels — the primary accounts of his life — are not secular or neutral texts. They were written, preserved, and interpreted within a religious framework. So terms like chosen aren’t just poetic or redundant — they carry theological weight. They reflect that these twelve were not just selected for a role, but were of deep personal and spiritual importance to Jesus. Appointed might cover the functional aspect, but chosen conveys intentionality and significance.

:Even for non-Christian readers, understanding Jesus accurately means acknowledging his identity as a religious figure.

:Appreciate the work you're doing on readability and clarity – just thought it was worth highlighting how, in this case, the "churchy" tone might actually be part of preserving historical and theological accuracy.

:Happy to hear your thoughts further. Chintu89 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{xt|may unintentionally impose a modern, secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative}}

::I appreciate the general concerns raised here, but it's worth explicating that the bulk of our reliable sources are secular in nature, and almost all of them are not only modern, but from the last fifty years of scholarship. Remsense ‥ 论 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::However, I believe we need to distinguish between secondary modern scholarship and primary source material, especially in the case of religious figures like Jesus.

:::While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature. They are explicitly religious texts, composed and preserved by the early Christian community. Nearly everything we know about Jesus, whether scholars interpret it as history, theology, or myth, ultimately traces back to Christian tradition. Here it is the context to explain the readers the summary of gospel. If you go with a scholarly framing we're left with nothing that wouldn't save anything for the article of Jesus.

:::That means an encyclopedia entry about Jesus must take this into account: the language and terminology (such as “chosen”) reflect how the source texts present him, not how modern editors might reframe that narrative in secular terms. Even secular scholars cite the Gospels as their primary textual basis. To edit out or reword theological language simply because it sounds “churchy” runs the risk of imposing a modern secular editorial lens on a deeply religious narrative, and that may in fact obscure the historical and cultural reality of how Jesus was understood. Chintu89 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{xt|While it’s true that many modern scholars approach these topics with secular methodologies, the core sources for Jesus’s life — the Gospels — are not secular in nature.}}

::::We are not citing the Gospels directly. We are a tertiary source that mainly synthesizes secondary sources—here, the aforementioned modern, critical, largely secular scholarship.Remsense ‥ 论 23:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Saying we shouldn't write "exclusively for Christians" misses the point: the article isn't for Christians — but it is about a person whose story is inherently and unavoidably Christian in origin. Presenting that honestly doesn't make the article biased; it preserves theological and historical accuracy.

:Recasting the narrative to suit readers of “all religions and none” risks distorting the very sources that make the subject notable in the first place. Chintu89 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you {{u|Chintu89}} for explaining the background to your views. I'm still not quite seeing just why we need to use both these near-synonyms or why omitting one threatens to "[recast] the narrative" or makes it somehow less "honest". To me it's a choice of language, and it seems very simple that as a secular encyclopedia we use the simplest, shortest form of words that adequately sums up the sources. I think you may be confusing the "narrative" (the story) with the "register" (the exact words chosen to tell the story). We don't need to adopt a churchy register to tell the story of Jesus honestly, sensitively, and in a way that will be appealing both to believers and non-believers, in my opinion. John (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I see chosen and appointed as closely related terms, both reflecting how Jesus selected individuals based on certain attributes or purposes. So I find the original wording appropriate, as it best conveys the nature of his relationship with the disciples—whether understood in a theological or secular context. Chintu89 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is detailed in the Gospels, notably Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, and Matthew 10:1-4.Selection of Disciples: Jesus chooses a group of followers to be His disciples. For instance, in Mark 3:13-14, it is written that Jesus ascended a mountainside and summoned those He wished, and they came to Him. This group, including the Twelve, was chosen to accompany Him and learn His teachings.Appointment as Apostles: Following a period of instruction, Jesus designates these disciples as apostles, granting them specific authority and a mission. In Mark 3:14-15, it is noted that He appointed twelve to be with Him and to be sent out to preach, with authority to expel demons. The previous wording was correct and appropriate, without understanding you just went by your personal revision of secularism and churchy language interrogation instead of being faithful to gospel narratives. Please do not change the summary as it is correct and has been consistently verified by several authors. Chintu89 (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Whatever you do, you need to be aware that re-adding changes you know to be against editor consensus is unacceptable. You were told no, you were given concrete reasons why, and your counter-arguments weren't considered convincing. Deciding you're entitled to have things your way regardless is completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates, and becomes disruptive very quickly, and you need to stop acting that way immediately.

::::Frankly, we're not going to be interested in going through many more posts that are way longer than they need to be because you generated them with an LLM. It shows additional lack of consideration for our time. Please write out your arguments yourself, or refrain from editing the English Wikipedia if you can't comfortably communicate in English. It's not fair to others to have to act as if they are replying to you directly, when they're not. Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I must clarify that the term "chosen" is not an overly “churchy” or biased word—it is a direct reflection of the language used in the biblical sources themselves. For example, John 15:16 explicitly states: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you…” Similarly, Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14 speak of Jesus calling and appointing the twelve. So, far from being a churchy euphemism, chosen and appointed both are accepted as secular, historically and theologically rooted terms. In fact, appointed might sound even more formal or institutional, yet no one claims that is biased or churchy language as it is also used by the church to preach the inclusion of disciples to aid in his ministry.

Here are verses from the Bible where Jesus is described as appointing his disciples:

1. Mark 3:14 – "He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach."

2. Luke 6:13 – "When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles."

3. John 15:16 – "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last..."

Secondly, the article subject is someone whose historical notability is preserved almost entirely through gospel tradition. Applying modern secular standards to retell that story in a way that intentionally downplays the narrative of the very texts that define the subject risks distorting the figure himself. This isn’t “writing in-universe”—it’s being faithful to primary source characterisation, especially when no contemporary secular records exist outside of Christian tradition.

Rephrasing Jesus' actions to make them more digestible to "readers of all religions and none" seems to cross from neutrality into revisionism. We're not dealing with a public figure like a politician where neutrality means balancing conflicting press accounts; we're discussing a theological figure whose core identity is shaped by gospel claims. Neutrality should mean fairly representing how those sources depict him, not translating them into modern secular terms that end up muting or reshaping their intent.

In summary, if the concern is language being too "churchy," then we should note that terms like chosen and appointed are scriptural—not ecclesiastical embellishments. Attempting to filter them out for neutrality misunderstands Wikipedia’s goal, which is verifiability, not reinterpretation. Thank you again for the exchange. Chintu89 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Verifiability does not mean echoing the language of a (translated) primary source, nor does it require imitating the primary source's register. If it did, our article on Beavis and Butt-Head would be written in 1990s teen argot, and our article on Kurt Vonnegut would end with "So it goes". We do have WP:ENGVAR, but this only applies to national dialects of English. It does not extend to making our article on Jesus sound like it was a sermon. Also, could you please not edit-war against consensus? John (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{caib}}

I understand BC/AD may be used due to regarding a Christian subject, or that the article is talking about a person (though my Christian beliefs are adverse to calling him simply that, this is a point of dispute historically) who lived prior to a modern time (similar to Alexander the Great, whose article also uses BC), but this seems...odd given the article places his birth as 6-4 BC and BC means before Christ. So we're saying Jesus was born before he was born. 199.101.33.173 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:It has been known for centuries that Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the date given some of the info given in the gospels, but, we are stuck with it. Whether BC/AD or BCE/CE are used depends on the article and what consensus the editors come to (note CE and BCE are just as Christian centric and are read as "Christian Era" as well as 'Common Era"). Erp (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking over MOS:CAP and I think there are some tweaks to make. I'm busy IRL but plan to look at this in the next day or so. Any preliminary thoughts? John (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Reference 451 might be superfluous. The Michael Grant one. There's already so many references so doesn't feel like it adds much. It would benefit from having one less, I think. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:If no one object, I take it as that it can be removed. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's fine as is. You seem to have trouble articulating substantive reasons to change things. Remsense 🌈 论 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It is already established in many sources, so it is just repetition. There's no good reason to have so many either. It is nothing controversial. The majority of historians don't dispute Jesus existence, so there's no reason to have so many references. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not really about assuaging historians, it's about best serving our readership. This is one instance where it really does not hurt to fluff the pillow some. Remsense 🌈 论 17:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::But our mission is not to fluff the pillow. We should be straightforward. Simplicity and clearness is preferred. It is not contested, and I don't see how it serves the readership. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Because it's likely a key point of particular importance for many of our readers. Citations are ultimately about verifiability, and in cases like these there's a case to be made that a higher-than-average number of references provided for key points means readers are more likely to have access to at least one reference they can verify claims with. Failing that, there's no negative case I can see beyond the usual incremental increase in visual clutter or difficulty to maintain. I find it insubstantial here. Remsense 🌈 论 17:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Alright, I can understand your way of thinking. Let's keep it. 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw in the FAQ that it says it's frequently used, but when I search for it

I can only find 22 instances, and most are on religious themes articles. So is it commonly used or not? Because I couldn't find it. Would be great if someone cleared it up. Maybe it would be better to write something like scholars, or historians etc? 61.101.80.201 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Block-evasion by 58.99.101.165 etc. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:What are you asking here? There's nothing confusing about the statement. In fact, you seem to be tripped up by {{xt|scholars}}, while it's clear to me the FAQ is there to address questions readers may have about {{xt|virtually all}}. Remsense 🌈 论 17:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Jesus was reserecteded from the dead and still lives and the text shouldn't say died but assertion 2600:1004:B344:EEF2:50AA:E47B:6D4F:1C8B (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:That he was resurrected is a subjective belief (faith), not an objective historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::but it is fact 170.103.70.195 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In the reality-based community it is not a fact at all. It is only a fact for fanatics. For usual Christians, it is a subjective religious belief.

:::It is utterly unknowable if Jesus was resurrected. That's why it is called faith, and not science. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If he didn't die he couldn't be resurrected. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus'_sayings&redirect=no Jesus' sayings] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#Sayings of Jesus}} until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 06:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_Agony&redirect=no Christ Agony] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#Christ Agony}} until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 07:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savior_(Christianity)&redirect=no Savior (Christianity)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#Savior (Christianity)}} until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 08:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Hebrew name Yehoshua which was original name Jacksonthe (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:It already has this under the section Name. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

currently, it states he is considered 'to be the incarnation of god the son and awaited messiah'; this previously read 'the messiah', which seems better to me, but was recently changed by a now-banned account. is the current form grammatically correct, and is there a reason for the lack of a 'the'? if not, i think it should be reinstated Adamd9NEW (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that we should restore the wording "to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah". The present wording is awkward and structurally ambiguous and grammatically awkward, almost inclining towards reading "Son and awaited Messiah" as being a single grammatical unit modifying "God" rather than the correct reading of "the incarnation of God the Son" and "the awaited Messiah" as being the two things Jesus is considered to be. -- LWG ^talk 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)