Talk:Criticism of Jesus

Untitled
Very interesting to compare the criticism of Jesus page to the criticism of Muhammad page. Wiki is managed and was created by Western Society but lets try and look at the majority of the western population's savior with the same critical eye as our Western society seems to peer self-righteously at Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.116.218 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirby... dont use wiki to perpetuate your own obsessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakaka36 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, whether Kirby be obsessed or not, I came to this page immediately after viewing the Critisism of Muhammad (is that the right spelling) page to see if wikipedia is as fair in its treatment of the two. --Timtak (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Some Jews believed that Mary had sex with a Roman soldier and when she became pregnant Mary said that she was carrying the son of God in order to hide the relationship." - I remember this being mentioned on program on the History Channel last summer. I don't remember which one it was, though. Documentary, IIRC.

-- Mik 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a topic mentioned in Celsus and the program you watched was probably based on the work of the biblical scholar Professor James D. Tabor. You can buy the book now, "The Jesus Dynasty". Mike0001 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words
"Instead, "righteous" Joe wants to divorce her secretly, despite the fact that the cat's already out of the bag and showing three months pregnant[15], until an angel comes to him in a dream. Of course, other translations like the KJV, employ the euphemism "put her away privily". In any event, Joseph is dissuaded from his righteous plan to ditch his old lady by being told that his wife has had her spiritual booty rocked by the cherry-poppin “Holy Ghost”. It’s not clear that Joseph would have any idea what the Holy Spirit was, doctrinally speaking, but we’re told that he accepts it."

Do I actually need to say anything else about this passage? 82.33.166.72 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. And for that matter, several other paragraphs within that section are extremely poor: written as if this is someone's personal essay on the matter, using unencyclopedic language, and theorizing independently (OR). I've removed all such paragraphs, which weren't really informative on the subject in general, but only on the views of the editor who added them.--C.Logan (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?
Honestly, the page has like 5 sentences, and a paragraph quote. I'm open to criticism of religious figures, but this page is just pathethic, people. The rape part on the page even said into could've just been an Anti-Christian legend. Way to back up claims. Keero 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on your userpage you have a userbox stating This user is polite and expects others to act accordingly. I would like to ask you if you think that what you just stated is polite ("This page is just pathethic [sic] )". And as to the substance of your argument itself, I don't see much of a point. What are you trying to propose? This article does need improvement. But that has nothing to do with the subject of the article itself, I hope you realize that. Thanks. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You must admit, it is a pretty poor article.Its as if some angst ridden kid started it.By all means add objective and valid criticisms but try to improve the quality at least.P.S. is it really necessary to use "sic" on a talk page?

The story of Mary's pregnancy by a Roman soldier also appeared in the Qur'an. It stated that 'a full-grown man' forced his attentions on Mary, and in her fear of the disgrace that would follow she left the area and bore Jesus in secret.

This isn't in the Qur'an

Celsus ref is incorrect
Someone find me a version of Contra Celsum which says this. Celsus believed the resurrection was a farce, I think; he didn't comment on the virgin birth. -- Kendrick7talk 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These statements seem to have been brought over by User:Jonathan Tweet from Historical Jesus from where it was subsequently removed. I'll ping him. -- Kendrick7talk 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly due to some bad scholarship floating around generally, per this site.
 * ''A lot of atheists are quoting portions of R.J.Hoffmann's Celsus: On The True Doctrine, (Oxford University Press, 1987) as if it were an accurate representation of what Celsus wrote. In fact the work is lost, and can only be reconstructed speculatively from Origen Contra Celsum.  Even so, Hoffmann's versions seem to owe more to  imagination than to the text given by Origen.::
 * -- Kendrick7talk 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't originate the Celsus ref and have no evidence for it. It was on another page where it had no place, so I moved it here (IIRC). Jonathan Tweet 13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, just dotting my t's and crossing my eyes. One of the Talmud quotes was ref'd to Origin which I replace with a fact tag in light of all this. I think that's another anachronism; I know he was a contemporary with Simlai, but I don't think the Talmud was complete at the point. -- Kendrick7talk 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew, p. 223: "Jesus fabricated the account of his birth from a virgin. In reality, Jesus' mother was driven out by the carpenter husband to whom she was betrothed because she had committed adultery with a soldier named Panthera (cf. the Ben Pantere of Jewish sources). Left poor and homeless, she gave birth to Jesus in secret. Jesus later spent time in Egypt, where he hired himself out as a laborer, learned magic, and so came to claim the title of god." which is from Contra Celsus 1.32: "But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost" and Contra Celsus 1.28: "he accuses Him of having “invented his birth from a virgin,” and upbraids Him with being “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.”" 68.123.64.11 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, well I see it now. I'll put this in. -- Kendrick7talk 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tertullian ref is wrong too
I can't find any reference to the Pantera story in The Shows either. -- Kendrick7talk 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is in Meier also, but I don't have a ref. I think he just mentions the rumor that Jesus was born of a prostitute, possibly here: Tertullian De Spectaculis 30: "“this is that carpenter’s or hireling’s son", hireling being a nice way to say working woman? 68.123.64.11 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see Meier's reasoning, but on it's face it's a stretch for him to interpret one word that particular way without further context. Everything else in that sentence is from the Gospel narratives. Tertullian could even be using one word here which could be translated as (either) "carpenter or hireling." While the English word carpenter implies a woodworker, I believe the Greek of the New Testament is more precisely "skilled craftsman" which isn't too far from hireling -- see Saint Joseph, while the popular notion of Joseph being a carpenter was influenced by later works, such as the 5th century History of Joseph the Carpenter.


 * I can't find Meier on Google books. We should try to get this for a secondary ref. (Origen actually is a secondary ref for Celsus, so that isn't a problem). -- Kendrick7talk 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Latin is here: : "hic est ille, dicam, fabri aut quaestuariae filius, sabbati destructor, Samarites et daemonium habens; hic est quem a Iuda redemistis, hic est ille harundine et colaphis diverberatus, sputamentis dedecoratus, felle et aceto potatus; hic est, quem clam discentes subripuerunt, ut surrexisse dicatur, vel hortulanus detraxit, ne lactucae suae frequentia commeantium adlaederentur." My Latin is rusty, but "fabri aut quaestuariae filius": fabricator or female-money-maker son of.

Also, the standard modern reference for these issues is Raymond E. Brown's Birth of the Messiah, if it's not in there it's probably not legit. 68.123.64.11 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (note: Appendix V: The Charge of Illegitimacy)

Meier is:    * A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday, v. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, 1991, ISBN 0-385-26425-9 68.123.64.11 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit more speculative but also worth a mention is Jane Schaberg's The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives ISBN-10: 190504884X. 68.123.64.11 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... the first google hit for "quaestuaria" is a Roman law against prostitution. I'll look up Brown, but I might this Latin by User:Lima or User:HarvardOxon There guys take their Latin very seriously. Oh... well, so seriously in fact that Mr. Oxon has retired, apparently due a edit war over the Latin phrase Juris Doctor. -- Kendrick7talk 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you're interested: Morphological Analysis indicates feminine form of quaestŭārĭus: "     I. of or belonging to gain, money-making, mercenary (post-Aug.): quaestuaria mancipia, Dig. 3, 2, 4, § 2 : mulier, a prostitute for hire, ib. 23, 2, 43, § 7 : majestas, Tert. Apol. 13 .-- II. Subst.: quaestuaria, ae, f., a prostitute: ex adulterā in quaestuariam versa, Sen. Ben. 6, 32, 1" 68.123.64.11 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See also . 75.14.211.146 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't find the best secondary ref for this onine, but at least Google Books had something handy. Lima pointed me to the same Perseus site. I was poking around CMU's online dictionary, which wasn't as helpful. All set now. -- Kendrick7talk 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Acts of Pilate
''And the elders of the Jews answered, and said to Jesus: What shall we see? First, that thou wast born of fornication; secondly, that thy birth in Bethlehem was the cause of the murder of the infants; thirdly, that thy father Joseph and thy mother Mary fled into Egypt because they had no confidence in the people. Some of the bystanders, pious men of the Jews, say: we deny that he was born of fornication; for we know that Joseph espoused Mary, and he was not born of fornication. Pilate says to the Jews who said that he was of fornication: This story of yours is not true, because they were betrothed, as also these fellow countrymen of yours say. Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he was born of fornication, and are not believed; these are proselytes, and his disciples.''
 * This is the reason for my reversion. Some time ago, I'd taken the initiative to trim down the original text and removed some errors, and attempted to rephrase things to be less POV, but I didn't catch all the errors (mostly just the blatant ones, as this text is copied from Religious perspectives on Jesus, or vice versa). However, I believe the original statement is accurate. Not all Jews believed this, as the above text testifies.--C.Logan 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But what you'd put in the article is that a "majority" believed he was Joseph's offspring. That's plainly not what the text says. The "elders" say he was, the "pious" ones say he wasn't. I don't see anything resembling a general poll of Jews going on here; for all we know everyone one else was undecided. -- Kendrick7talk 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What? What the article said was that a majority believed he was born of fornication, i.e. outside of marriage:


 * "The text Acts of Pilate it is asserted that a majority of the Jews believed that Jesus was born of fornication."


 * Although I see what you're saying about the ambiguity of the text. Although 'some' by itself indicates that it was a minority amount, I've added the last sentence which follows to give a full understanding of the text, and makes it clear that the elders and the multitude claimed he was born of fornication. Hopefully you see what I'm saying. --C.Logan 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The text is here:. I note: "Pilate says to Annas and Caiaphas: Have you nothing to answer to this? Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: These twelve are believed when they say that he was not born of fornication; all the multitude of us cry out that he was born of fornication, and that he is a sorcerer, and he says that he is the Son of God and a king, and we are not believed." Seems like it was a "mulitude" who said Jesus was born of fornication whereas "12" said he was not. But I haven't studied the text in any depth. 68.123.64.11 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you've convinced me. There's a more general problem with using Acts of Pilate under a "historical" heading, though. Historical takes on a much more precise meaning, and our article suggest this was written for entertainment purposes. -- Kendrick7talk 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current changes work best, although I'm unsure if it's necessary to specify that the high priests said it rather than simply explaining that the text expresses it. Also, I get frustrated at edit conflicts, because I'd run into one with the anon user and had forgotten to add the above sentence to the quoted text (thus making part of my paragraph nonsensical).--C.Logan 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell?
Why no mention of Russell? In "Why I Am Not a Christian" he writes (forgive the giant quote): "I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise."
 * Good idea. I added it to the best of my limited ability. I am sure that there is a Christian response, which I hope someone more knowledgeable will add.--Timtak (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely somebody could write a blurb about Russell's position and rescue Nietzsche and Paine from their present loneliness. Brianrein (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of Nietzsche on the page now. Paine is looking every lonlier. What did Nietzche say? I can only think of cricisms of Christianity (which he calls a religion of the weak, life denying), and one place where he praised Jesus over Paul at least. --Timtak (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche
I remember.
 * "Twilight of the Idols, Morality as Anti-Nature, 1,....il faut tuer les passions. The most famous formula for this is to be found in the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where, incidentally, things are by no means looked at from a height. There it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: "If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out." Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept. Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity�today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who "pluck out" teeth so that they will not hurt any more. To be fair, it should be admitted, however, that on the ground out of which Christianity grew, the concept of the "spiritualization of passion" could never have been formed. After all the first church, as is well known, fought against the "intelligent" in favor of the "poor in spirit." How could one expect from it an intelligent war against passion? The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its "cure," is castration. It never asks: "How can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?" It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life."--Timtak (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC) and
 * "83 Saviour and Physician. The founder of Christianity was, as goes without saying, not without the gravest shortcomings and prejudices in his knowledges of the human soul, and as a physician of the soul devoted to that infamous and untutored faith in a universal medicine. At times his methods seem like those of a dentist whose sole cure for pain is to pull out the teet; as for example when he combats sensuality with the advice: "if thy offend thee, pluck it out'- But there is this difference, that the dentist at least attains his object, the cessation of pain in his patient; in so clumsy a way, to be sure, as to be ludicrous: while the Christian who follows that advice and believes he has killed his sensuality is deceiving himself: it lives on in an uncanny vampire form and torments in repulsive disguises."--Timtak (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do with virgin birth
One direction we can take this article in is to really focus on the anti-virgin birth stuff. Virgin birth was a big issue from the 1870s to 1940s. It played a central role in things like the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. AFAIK none of the other historical Jesus articles take a good look at the anti-virgin birth focus since this is less of a hang up for modern readers possibly a result of the massive use of assisted procreation?

The Paine section could be expanded to deist critiques which also are so dated they don't get discussed. And this material would seem to fit well with the virgin birth issues, i.e. deist ideas became incorporated into liberal Christianity in the later part of the 19th century.

As far as Russel and Nietzsche I think that content belongs under atheism. The focus of their critique is entirely different. jbolden1517Talk 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else reading this? If no, then what about AFDing this and addressing the virgin birth and deism in an article about the virgin birth. jbolden1517Talk 14:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As requested, I have deleted this section. It is really not about Jesus anyway. Grantmidnight (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Virgin birth is a common theory in Hinduism but problem here comes with the point that   jesus had a twin who is the real person who was crucified accordingly to many sources of that time,this is the reason people were able to see jesus after  death and twins makes virgin birth theory a joke DNS raja (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Should add a section for Christopher Hitchens
I think there should be a section which mentions some of Christopher Hitchens' criticism of Jesus. For example he criticises Jesus for asking people to do the impossible just as a means of making them feel guilty when they inevitably fail. One example is Jesus' request for people to love your enemy as yourself.

Bearing in mind Hitchens' criticism of Jesus, his own christian name is a tad ironic. 218.191.238.151 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, glad we've got some Hitchens in here. He actually criticizes. The stuff by Aquinas and CS Lewis was taken out of context, and you'd have to be balmy to think it was real criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.149.164 (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All quotes are out of context. To give the Lewis quote the full context, we'd need to quote his whole book (Mere Christianity).
 * It would be a bit simplistic to divide commentators on Jesus into two camps, those that praise him and those that lambast him. If someone has some words of criticism, that doesn't mean he only has derogatory things to say on the topic, he can still be a fan. Just as a child can make withering remarks about a parent and still love the parent dearly.
 * As it stands right now, the article is fair to the authors of the quotes. For example it mentions explicitly that Lewis was a Christian apologist. Pma jones (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Context of Lewis quote
The quote is not in context - Lewis (believing that Jesus is God) is saying one cannot say he was merely a good teacher but not God. You either say he is God or say he is a lunatic or liar. Lewis quite clearly saw Jesus as God, he is merely stating that if you do not share this view there is no middle ground. He is not critisizing his teachings but rather critisizing how people choose to view Jesus. comment made by user  165.145.148.220, the comment was initially placed on the main page.


 * The quote isn't being interpeted, it is just been presented. Although Lewis hadn't lost his faith, he said:
 * A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
 * Clearly the implication is that Jesus can get away with saying what he does because of he's the son of God. Never the less, Lewis really isn't being complimentary. The equivalent compliment would be something like: his teachings are so wise, that no matter who said them they would be great. So Lewis is remaining a Christian, but at the same time is finding a way to criticise Jesus, even if slightly indirectly.
 * Pma jones (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the last paragraph of this section because it had no sources at all and was not written in an encyclopedic fashion. If someone wishes to include the information it needs to have scholarly references from a reliable source and be completely rewritten for tone. Except for that, the article looks good and I compliment the regular editors here :) Doc   Tropics  16:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first entry. Lewis isn't criticizing Jesus. He's criticizing the person who would believe that Jesus was a man who was merely a good teacher. He's arguing that the man who believes that is being irrational. As far as the second entry, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus can get away with saying what he does...", I don't know how you come up with that conclusion. The subject in view here is a (non-divine) man who said the things Jesus said. In Lewis' mind, that non-divine man is not Jesus. There's no way you can imply that Lewis is critical of Jesus in that sentence because, in Lewis' mind, the subject in view is the non-divine man, and not Jesus.
 * There are a few other entries in this article that are taken out of context. Specifically, the quotes of the people who are identified as Christians seem to be isolated sound-bites that don't capture their entire perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can like or even love someone and still criticise some aspect of them, just ask my wife.
 * Clearly it would be silly to suggest that every Christian that has ever been likes every feature of Jesus and his teachings. For example someone might object to his use of threats of eternal torture, but they could still remain a Christian. As it stands now, the article represents the facts well. CS Lewis was a Christian, but he still criticised some of Christ's teachings. Thus if we are collecting notable criticisms, then CS Lewis has given us a useful addition. The preamble before the quote gives the context. Though in a sense every quote is taken out of context in that to give the full context the entire original book would need to be quoted.
 * Pma jones (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not asserting that Lewis did not criticize any of Christ's teachings. Maybe he did in other writings, who knows. What I am saying is that he is not criticizing Christ in the particular quote that is in the article. It's sloppy logic. If you can find a quote from Lewis where he argues against Jesus' teachings or methods (such as Hitchens), that would make sense.
 * And if you want to appeal to the preamble: "[Lewis] was critical of considering Jesus simply as a moral teacher." I take that to mean that he was critical of considering Jesus as a moral teacher, not critical of Jesus or his teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.213.30 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we both a agree that Lewis is being clear in that he is not saying that he believes Jesus is a luntic. However if we consider the line a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would ... be a lunatic. Well it is certainly not a compliment for Jesus' moral teaching. To me it is clearly not a even neutral, it comes across as quite a strong criticism of Jesus' moral teaching. The equivalent compliment would be if Jesus were a man, then we would regard him as a truly great moral teacher, but that is not what Lewis is saying at all. Lewis is basically saying Jesus is either a lunatic or the son of god.


 * To justify removing the quote, you would need to show that the quote is either complimentary or neutral toward Jesus moral teaching.
 * Pma jones (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote is in fact complementary of Jesus. He used the quote to support the apologetical argument of Lord, liar, or lunatic. He is stating that those who consider Jesus a great moral teacher (which he never refutes) have to reflect upon whether as a man of great morality, he would lie about his divine state, knowingly or unknowingly (liar or lunatic). The quote should not be used in this article as it never critizes Jesus or as whoever included it believed his morality, but rather defends the Chistian believe of him not being a mere man but rather in unity with God. Also, pardon my spelling, I'm from Mexico.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.247.154.58 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mother Teresa
It is a rather strong criticism of Jesus to say 'you also are not true' as Mother Teresa did. She is well known, so indeed is the quote. The quote absolutely is relevant to this article. Pma jones (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not criticism of Jesus. It is like saying "Oh, if God isn't real then I'm not going to Heaven and when I die I will do just that." That wasn't criticism of God. And your particular quote refers more to God than Jesus the man (she merely worries at the thought that God might not exist and thus Jesus would not be really Him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.247.154.58 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criticism of Jesus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of Jesus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB": From Historical Jesus: "Herod family." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005 From Historicity of Jesus: Bruce M. Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: is missing in some important early witnesses,  varies between the Alexandrian and Western versions. From Religious perspectives on Jesus: Catechism of the Catholic Church §541–546 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Some stuff should go
Historicity Section '''Doesn't this belong in the Christ myth theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory) since it is not actually criticism Jesus the person but arguing whether he existed or not? ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.215.226 (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also the eating with other people, and Thomas Jefferson section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.215.226 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and removed the historicity and Jefferson sections as they don't seem to be actually criticising Jesus. Tameamseo (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The positioning of Aquinas as a critique is just surreal, just unbelievable. Aquinas would be the last to criticize Jesus and the quote is totally out of context. Nietzsche was a critic as was Russell, etc. Those are well known critics. Aquinas promoted the "Perfection of Christ", and argued he exemplified perfection in every possible sense. Aquinas was no critic. I wonder how this material gets into these articles and stays there, just with WP:Primary sources, and totally incorrect.... History2007 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens
I was somewhat surprised that in Hitchens' section, there are no mentions of his criticism of the Crucifixion (he referred to it "vicarious redemption") and that Jesus of Nazareth thought it moral to do so, or is that something more befitting 'Criticisms of Christianity'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengen Toppa (talk • contribs) 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this article gratuitous?
It seems to me than none of these points is a criticism of Jesus himself. In fact, Jesus comes off as being perfect and blameless. Compare the article of criticisms of Mohammed. There are some very damning facts on Mohammed. On this page, however, the authors come off as petty slanderers. Jesus was the son of an adulterous country girl? Are you kidding me??? I wonder if this page was simply added because someone thought it was necessary to "balance" the page on Mohammed. It only makes wikipedia look amateurish and silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.232.209 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel no need to get emotional about it. These quotes are evidently confirmed to have been said by the authors/researcher/scholars who had big name in the world after all. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have suggestions for this page to make it more "balanced" and less "amateurish and silly"? There is nothing really constructive to work with from "this page sucks" comments... Ckruschke (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Best would be, to just add more criticism if you find, Ironically, the Criticism of Christianity is bigger than Criticism of Islam, but this page is few times smaller than Criticism of Muhammad. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the relative page sizes, though interesting in passing, are irrelvant. As you are the editor bringing up issues you see in this page, please post your suggested edits here. Ckruschke (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Strange paragraph
In counterargument, the Christian anarchist Simone Weil argue that Jesus see slaves as people voluntarily dedicated to God: "In Christ's mouth, this word (slavery) is a astuteness of love. Slaves are men that wanted from the bottom of their heart give themselves to God as slaves. These slaves didn't stop for a second to beg to God to agree in keep them in slavery".[10]

This is not criticism of Jesus, it has nothing to do with the article. Also this comes from a 1940s book from a well known Christian convert and apologist. Poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagist (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leszek Nowak
Pole Leszek Nowak (born 1962) from Poznań claims that Jesus had a mental disorder. In the years 1998-2000 he wrote a study in which, based on his own history of religious delusions of mission and overvalued ideas, and information communicated in the Gospels, made an attempt at reconstructing Jesus’ psyche with the view of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet. He does so in chapters containing, in sequence, an analysis of character traits of the ″savior of mankind″, a description of the possible course of events from the period of Jesus' public activity, a naturalistic explanation of miracles.

-- Wikipek (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I cannot determine if this is a notable author, particularly since the works you cite aren't available except from archive.org and don't appear to have been reviewed anywhere. Anyone can study anything and write about it, but we cannot include everything written on the subject by just anyone. Unless these works have received recognition by a community of scholars or the mainstream press, we probably can't reference them in this article. What other information can you provide? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I understand. These requirements are not met. I do not have more information on this subject. Of course, this was just a suggestion and now I understand why this text does not meet the conditions required to be included in the article. Wikipek (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion, though. If there are any scholarly works that have been published and cited elsewhere that discuss the possibility of a mental disorder, we can include it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for interest. Scholarly works on Jesus' mental disorders are presented in this article – "Mental health of Jesus" (pl.wiki) (see References to this article). But I will not help here. I am weak from English and mainly use a Translator. Wikipek (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope everyone who contributed to this page burn in the flame of hell, honestly. You can reverse this but it is just my opnion. 2804:7F2:C180:C8B9:1CC2:4040:4B19:E140 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability issue
While many authors criticized Jesus, it is worth noting that none of the sources, as I can tell, examines the "Criticism of Jesus". It is no surprise that the result is a huge synthesis of criticism made by various authors. I 've tried to find out modern literature on Criticism of Jesus, but found none. I 've done this mini search as I am interested in translating the article in another lang. but without being definitely notable, I am hesitant.Cinadon36 12:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criticism of Jesus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criticism of Jesus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SN": From Charles Binet-Sanglé: </li> <li>From Mental health of Jesus: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Was presenting the view that the account in the Gospels are undisputed a mistake?
A couple of years ago, here, you changed the lead of this article, by changing a general introduction to an immediate start of a description of the criticism of Jesus reported in the Cristian gospels. Thus, you changed a relative start of the article: * Jesus of Nazareth is a central figure of Christianity. Christians believe that he was (and still is) divine, while Islam considers him to have been a prophet, messenger and the Messiah. Since the time in which he is said to have lived, a number of noted individuals have criticised Jesus. ... to an absolute one: * Criticism of Jesus has existed since the first century. Jesus was criticised by the Pharisees and scribes for disobeying Mosaic Law. ... Now, you introduced the subject in boldface already in the first sentence, and this I think was an improvement. You also added more of the detailed criticism to the lead; which may or may not have been an improvement. In general, in my opinion, article leads should be more of content summaries, rather than immediately starting detailed exposition; whether or not your additions was too detailed for the lead and should be shifted down could be open to discussion.

However, you also made another change which I think was not so good. The older version started by stating what "Jesus" in this context is, and noted that it is the central figure in Cristian faith, and an important one in Islam, and a bit about the different ways these two world religions in general see him. Thus, much of the criticism concerns the way he is presented in the Christian New testament (and, to a much lesser extent, by the Moslem Quran), whether or not these descriptions are true ones. Now, you completely removed this. Instead, you start by mention the criticism which according to the New testament (and in this case mainly the Gospel) Jesus was subjected to already in his lifetime; and you formulate it as if these Biblical descriptions are undisuted truths. In my opinion, this impression is completely wrong. There exist rather divided opinions about to what extent the descriptions of these events in the Bible are exactly true testimonies from eye witnesses, or partly reconstructed afterwards from now lost sources, or partly extended in manners accepted and expected by its contemporary audience, or 'borrowed' from stories about other important figures, or completely invented. Partly, such division of opinion follows religious convictions; and partly not. Actually, the truth or falsity of the Bible's description of the life of Jesus is not very important for this article. Anyhow, it is rather widespread, and provides some description, which does include criticism from contemporaries; and that should be reported in this article, exactly as a description.

So, what I'm saying is that it is wrong to write
 * "In the first century, Jesus was criticised by the Pharisees and scribes for disobeying Mosaic Law";

(if there has been no preceding relativising explanation), but right to write, e. g.,
 * According tho the description of the life of Jesus in the Gospel, he was criticised already in his life time by the Pharisees and scribes for disobeying Mosaic Law".

(I hope you see the difference.)

My question to you is: Was this effect of your changes by intent, or simply a mistake? If it just was an unintended consequence of your other changes, it shold be easy to fix it. On the other hand, if it was intended, then I would like to see an explanation of why you think this "absolutisation" was a good effect of change.

I'm sorry for not having reacted to this earlier (I simply did not see it before), and I do understand that you may feel it a bit hard to remember exactly what you thought then. If so, it is quite OK if you just answer whether you think it is OK that I "relativise" the text a bit, although this partly may revert your edit.

Regards, JoergenB (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)