Talk:Jesus

Frequently asked questions

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' 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:

• Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
• The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
• The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

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.
• 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. 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, 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."
• Finally, 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 uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

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

Jesus's Death

On this wiki page it said that Jesus died of crucifixion. Jesus was crucified on the cross and he came back to life . He never died of crucifixion.Malaquia100 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In order to "come back to life," wouldn't one have to die first? With apologies to Salman Rushdie. Dumuzid (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. How could Jesus 'come back to life' if he didn't die? Sheanobeano (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

He did not die at all. He lived as much as his teachings live on.JohnEC Jr (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

So you deny the resurrection then? Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Other views exist: "who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Every tenet of Christianity (and secular history) understands that he died on the cross. Find one reputable source that denies the crucifixion outright. (Because that appears to be what you are trying to do?) 73.82.6.199 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You are responding to a blocked editor. In any case, this article is about Jesus. There is another article about Jesus in Christianity. Scholars agree that Jesus lived; but they do not agree that the Bible is historically accurate. The majority of people in the World do not believe in his crucifixion. For example, The Quran says he was the Messiah, created miracles, and was virgin born. But, says he was saved by god and went to heaven, not crucified. Even within Christianity, most Unitarians do not believe in any aspects of the trinity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

He did die physically according to Christian teachings. And also, Christians believe his spirit continued to live after his death in Hades, and returned to his body on the Resurrection. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If he never died how did he come back to life. He was dead for three days. 159.117.172.138 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

According to official Catholic, Eastern Orthodox etc. dogma, he wasn't dead as to not exist, but, instead, went to Sheol to free the souls of the 'righteous' so that they could then go to Heaven. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit unduly christological here, but death as to at least part of his nature is pretty fundamental in Western Christianity. See, e.g., the Apostles' Creed (...who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried....) Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid That's just basic Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and basic christianity 101 tbh. It's called the Harrowing of Hell. Jesus can't die in the literal, atheist, human sense, as he's god and god can't die per definition, else he wouldn't be god. According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, he only appeared as to be dead but, as I said, went to another dimension (Sheol/Hades, both terms are used in the Bible as synonyms) and 'freed' the souls of the 'righeous' who were trapped there together with the 'unrighteous'. He didn't die, as to die literally means to stop existing, only his physical body died. There's no soul sleep in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. And his 'sacrifice' wasn't a sacrifice, as, according to christianity, his body was resurrected three days later and he became a king in 'Heaven'. The definition of sacrifice means giving something away for whatever reason, knowing that you will never again have it or, atleast, not soon. Not after three days. And getting a huge reward after that as a bonus. Everything is messed up in christianity, all the basic definitions of things, but that's another topic. Anyway, this isn't Reddit so, I won't further participite in this talk. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

how did Jesus become alive in April 6, AD 33? <lævateinn> 77.40.61.140 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a matter for religious adherents to answer, not Wikipedia. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a matter for us to answer what Christians believe about it, though. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in this article. Perhaps in Jesus_in_Christianity or Jesus in Islam O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Christians believe it was a supernatural resurrection. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And Muslims believe it was supernatural, but not a resurrection. Belongs in the religious articles if anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Where are those? ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe one of these?: Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Islam, Jesus in the Talmud, Jesus in comparative mythology. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Draft:The Jesus Man" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:The J Man 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § Draft:The J Man until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It is core doctrine that Jesus is God incarnate

So saying that “most Christians” believe that He’s the incarnation of God the Son implies that there’s a minority group that don’t, which simply isn’t true. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other denominations that deny the doctrine of the Trinity are, by definition, not Christian. MartianDeadman (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not make the WP:RULES. Scholars of religion consider them Christians, this is final for Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A Christian is simply someone who professes to be one, by accepted definition. ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

So were the Nazis socialists simply because they claimed to be socialist? MartianDeadman (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You know by saying things like that you're going to make it much less likely you attract support for your proposed change to the article, right? AntiDionysius (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What? If Christians are those that simply claim to be Christian, then why would socialists not be those that claim to be socialists, regardless of what they actually believe in? MartianDeadman (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate you (which also isn't to say it's a good argument; it isn't), I'm just telling you that Wikipedia works by consensus. Your object here is not to "win", it's to convince people to support your preferred course of action. When you make Nazi comparisons, you make that harder for yourself. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But if consensus is inconsistent, why should we use it? MartianDeadman (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it is, so far, the best way we have figured out on this project to make an encyclopedia by anonymous people who involve themselves when and if they please. You will probably not be able to convince other Wikipedians that "because MartianDeadman said this is the definition" is a better way. There are other views, and perhaps even non-Christians have views on this? More at WP:CONSENSUS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Because there isn't a better way. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no test. You can be an atheist and still be a Christian. Christian atheism O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Do they have to actually demonstrably follow those teachings, or just say they believe in them? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if they actually have to follow them, there are a hell of a lot fewer than indicated by the stats. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To use badf grammar, "politics ain't religion." ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Texas briefly denied the tax exempt status of a Unitarian church based on similar thinking -- until someone read the First Amendment. There are many flavors of Christianity and other religions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

the Nicene Creed which by consensus is the document that all real Christians must abide by, with the exception of a few small denominations that use other creeds, but contain the same information, says that Jesus is god and thus any that don’t believe that are not Christians, so the word “most” should indeed be replaced with “all” or just entirely removed. But if you need a verse from the Bible just look to Romans 10:9-10 “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.", that very clearly states that to be saved, and thus be Christian, you must confess that Jesus is lord, which means saying he’s God, along with believing that he was raised from the dead by God the Father. Thus groups that do not believe the Jesus is God aren’t Christian and the change stehst have been suggested should be implemented. And even if the rules say you can’t change it, the existence of that line in the paragraph is an insult to real Christians and is spreading false information. 2600:100C:B037:FA39:3485:91C8:B039:B895 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To say that "the Nicene Creed which by consensus is the document that all real Christians must abide by" is very obviously factually untrue. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There is, indeed, an explicit and well-sourced section about this on the Nicene Creed article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"Lord" in modern parlance means "boss", not "God". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

real Christians. Please do not use such intolerant wording here again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mmm... ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious what you intend to gain by this. Check this out: Wikipedia:Task Center. :) ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy

Since Jesus Christ was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and executed, can we include that he was a convicted criminal? I saw, for example, the entry on Jeffrey Archer says he was a convicted criminal. Same for others, in the interest of accuracy of what happens on this planet. So we should say the same for Jesus too, just to let people know the reality of what they speak of. Confuzd420 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

He was probably executed for sedition, so, yes, he counted as a criminal, whether such judgment was just or unjust. Claiming that he is the Messiah was a declaration of war against the Roman Empire. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt he was executed as a criminal, but we should avoid using modern terminology, especially if it is just to make a point. We also can only go where the sources go. Any discussion beyond that strays into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No, we can't conclude it, but if you have some really good WP:RS that says so, it may be worth noting it somewhere on WP. It's possible it's a view scholars have found interesting and discussed for decades. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Pilate's court may have something you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Burial of Jesus: "Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death, a view which is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature."" Pilate cycle: "The Anaphora Pilati is largely an anti-Jewish work. The miracles of Jesus are plain and obvious to Pilate as more powerful than any the Roman gods provide, yet the Jews blindly reject Jesus and demand his punishment, despite being unable to convict him of a single crime. Pilate only allows the execution to proceed to prevent a rebellion." See also Pilate_cycle#Acts_of_Pilate_(pagan). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

One more accuracy

Can we include that Jesus was a suicide person (indirect suicide)? The idea is to possibly add a category: Category:Ancient suicides. This is a serious post. Justification:

Matthew 23:29–32, Matthew 26:1–2, Matthew 26:52–54, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:48–49, Luke 9:41, Luke 9:43–45, Luke 12:50, Luke 18:31, Luke 22:37, John 10,17–18, John 12,24–25, John 13:33, John 15:18, John 16:28, John 18:11

See also:

"The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered", Mental health of Jesus and Gospel of Judas#Works with similar themes. --Wikipek (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like Mental health of Jesus is the place for any WP:RS musings on that, and it seems to have some. In this article it probably fails WP:PROPORTION, and without any content in article, no category. See also WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.

Per your source (which seems quite decent), "There is a potential parallel of Jesus’ beliefs and behavior leading up to his death to that of one who premeditates a form of suicide-by-proxy.", that's not the same as "Jesus was a suicide person", is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion it's the same thing though. Anyway, it is enough to read the fragments of the Gospel that I have indicated. But I understand - WP:RSPSCRIPTURE - "Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research." I don't know of any other scientific sources that discuss this topic (I'm not saying they don't exist), and this source, as you can see, is debatable. Maybe in the future the topic of Jesus' possible pursuit of death will be clarified. And then we will add this category. Wikipek (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You can try looking at archive.org and in the WP:LIBRARY. Obviously the notion exists and can be written about on WP, perhaps you can even make a keepable "Speculations on Jesus and suicide" or some such, but IMO getting consensus to include a mention on it in this article will be hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Christlike" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Christlike 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 27 § Christlike until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, arrested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You have an error and it's so bland. We KNOW he was the Son of God, and the error is that he was arrested first by Jewish Soldiers, then turned over to Roman Authorities after the Last Supper. He was put before Herod, and then back to the Roman to Pontius Pilot, where he was scurged, his robe was hangled over, and then a crown of thorns was placed on his head. Pontius Pilot then gave the Jews a choice after "washing his hands", two were put before the people. The Jews insisted upon Jesus Christ to be cruxcified. Pontis Pilot didn't put Jesus Christ to death at the main venue, It's the Jews who more than once insited in Cruxifiction. Jesus Christ forgave them dying on the cross. 2600:6C5D:B7F:278D:B93B:7157:E988:52ED (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we don’t “know” anything about details from 2,000 years ago, and certainly about the existence of gods. Much of it is apocryphal. What has been included is cited to a former professor of religion. You are welcome to discuss additional reliable sources WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You know because Rome took accurate records. You know there is a continuity and it is always will be anno domini. B.C. and A.D.(Before Christ, and after Christ.) You know because if you are human you are breathing in and out, you exist because the Holy Bible tells you God made human beings. Someone didn't just pull you out of a hat. People can't make birds, bees,flowers, and trees. They can mess around, but they can't make them. God did that. BELIEVE... 2600:6C5D:B7F:278D:2DDA:5D6D:1E39:CEA1 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.