Capitalizing Jesus pronouns is nonstandard and POV (implies that he is God, which most people would disagree with), as is definitively stating that Jesus was prophesied or mentioned in the Old Testament. Also, the title of this page, accompanied by the New Testament pages on Jesus, implies that Jesus appears in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, when the belief that Jesus is prophesied or referenced in the Hebrew Bible is heavily disputed and contested. It's also redundant to Christian views of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, etc. -Silence 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should merge it because it's goal is to display information about Jesus book by book. The prophecies are definate according to the New Testament, which describe how Jesus fulfills the old testament prophecies. I'll change the capitals. Scifiintel 02:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

renaming the article[edit]

Since the Jews also have a Bible that does not include Jesus, it is a violation of NPOV to call this article "Biblical Jesus." I hope that the name I gave it communicates the contents of the article as well as the intentions of the first contributor to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect this to "Jesus in the Bible." That violates our NPOV policy, a core policy at Wikipedia. I Urge you to familiarize yourself with it at Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. The person who redirected this article wrote "redundant" as an explanation. This violates NPOV and is an insult to Jews, because Jesus does not, from the Jewish Point of View, appear at all in the Bible. The only way to have a neutral point of view is to write "Chistian Bible." I explained this, and the last editor deleted it. Do not delete what other people write on talk pages. If you disagree, write a response. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 100% redundant to Christian views of Jesus and New Testament view on Jesus' life. And I'm not sure there's even any material here that's worth salvaging by merging into those articles, though if there is, feel free to move it to there; there's absolutely no need to add even more redundant pages to an already heavily-subdivided series of articles. See Talk:Jesus in the Bible as well. -Silence 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the headers without content, and the first section which was absurd. It think the rest should be speedied. Any objections? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it qualifies for any of the "speedy delete" requirements. I wouldn't object if you simply replaced all the text in the article with #REDIRECT [[New Testament view on Jesus' life]], though. If you think some might object, however, perhaps making a genuine VfD for this page would help attract some broader community attention to resolve exactly how to best handle the article (though it could also easily have a negative effect and keep us embroiled in a redundant article for months)? Your call. -Silence 21:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. First, should this article be redirected, merged, or deleted, and second, if it says, is in violating NPOV. On the first issue I agree with Silence. Perhaps a consensus will quickly emerge concerning this.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, as long as the article does exist, I want to make sure it is NPOV. Scifiintel just left a message on my talk page, arguing that the name of the article should be "Jesus in the Bible. This was his reason: it "makes more sense because it encompasses all Bibles, as opposed to just the Christian one." From the Jewish point of view, this is a falsehood. Jews believe that Jesus never appears in the Jewish Bible, nor does the Jewish Bible ever refer to Jesus. Christians may believe this — which only means that this is a Christian POV; therefore it violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) One the Bible/Christian Bible - Steve is right, although I think he's being dreadfully pedantic! We are talking about the Christian Bible here (including Christian interpretation of their 'Old Testament'). Since Judaism has its own Bible (as do other religions) it is more NPOV to specify Christian. I can't see any useful argument to the contrary - although the subject matter is so blindingly obvious that I can't see whay anyone cares either way. 2) Having this article and New Testament view on Jesus' life seems pointless, they should certainly be merged. I'd suggst that Jesus in the Christian Bible may actually be the better title as a) Does the NT have a 'view' - or various 'views' (that's a metter of debate). b) texts don't really have views anyway - authors do. c) It would allow some discussion of Christian readings of so called 'messianic passages' in their 'Old Testament' and how such passages shape the NT and later Christian understanding of Jesus. --Doc (?) 12:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just now read this article - please delete it and move New Testament view on Jesus' life here. I was going to NPOV this - but I'd be accused of being a blanking vandal! --Doc (?) 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. There's nothing in this article that's worth salvaging. It can't be merged, because the content is already in the articles with which it's suggested that this be merged...and written there in a far more NPOV manner. This is dreadful. It needn't be merged, it needs to be blanked, like Doc says, and redirected to one or the other of the abovementioned articles. Tomer ^TALK 01:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I walked in here being sure that I was going to say "scrap it," it is redundant. However, as I read through, I began to feel this warmth inside of me, like a lost love, like... something that I had always been looking for... and before I knew it, I was on my hands and knees, tears streaming down my eyes, asking Jesus into my-

just kidding. Seriously though, the Article is currently titled New Testament view on Jesus' life. I think it should be changed to "The Gospels view of Jesus' Life." The first sentence reads: This article presents a description of Jesus' life, as based on the four gospels.

Why not just make it that? It pretty much is that. New title, take out the final section "legacy" and you have an interesting article: What do the 4 Gospels have to say about what Jesus' life was like?

I majored in Comparitive Religions, and took some history of Christianity classes. This is exactly the kind of thing scholars would do: "Let's pretend ALL we have is the gospels. What picture of Jesus would that create?"

Although I did not convert to accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, I did convert to keeping this article, with a few changes.

peace,

Seth Sethie 08:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly, the question hinges on NPOV terminology that distinguishes differing definitions of Bible. I can't say the present solution is satisfactory. While it resolves one debate it creates another: the Roman Catholic Bible contains the Book of Wisdom, which is not found in Protestant Bibles. Add to that the tendency in some circles to refer to only conservative Protestants as Christian, and the title may be construed as excluding Roman Catholic readers. That does not appear to be the article's intent.

Would it be acceptable to call this Jesus in the New Testament? Both Protestants and Catholics use this term. Durova 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]