Talk:Jesus in Christianity/GA1

Learn more about this page

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.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 19:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Removal of sections edit

It is noted that two sections of the article were removed during the review as OR. If nominators or editors (TSventon) could refrain from updating this particular article that I am reviewing until it is complete, I would appreciate it that there are no edit conflicts. Please address any concerns in below the GA Review. Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Whiteguru, apologies if my edit was unhelpful to you. I am not aware of any guidance about not editing articles during GAR. TSventon (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

TSventon While it was a big deletion, you were right; it was OR (and from one source only). I could not locate the original entry by Oct13 neither here nor in the Jesus article.

Observations edit

Lede edit

Is it reasonably well written?

OK

Core Teachings edit

Is it reasonably well written?

Reference 12 has 4 links embedded; Links to Sproul and Bahnsen are broken. Consider archive.org
Those Christian groups or denominations which are committed to what are considered biblically orthodox Christianity (is poor grammar and) might be better expressed as,

   Those Christian groups or denominations which are committed to what is considered as biblically orthodox Christian belief nearly all agree that Jesus:

Reference 15 , 16 and 17 offer very good summations of the milestones in the life of Jesus.
This section is about the core teachings of Jesus (as held in common and in belief by many Christian denominations). Devotion to the name of Jesus is a matter of faith, not core teaching, and as such, does not belong in this section.

Christ, Logos and Son of God edit

Is it reasonably well written?

on two separate occasions by God the Father as a voice from Heaven is eisegesis. It is reading doctrine directly into the text, which the text will not bear. Recommend dropping God the Father and leaving it as a voice from heaven.

excellent summation of Chalcedon and the hypostatic union.

Incarnation, Nativity and Second Adam edit

Commencing with Colossians is the correct Christological opening for introducing the Incarnation.

Reference 49 does not address the damage of Adam; it addresses Mary as the New Eve. Consider.

One argument against this would be a contradiction in Jesus' genealogies ... How is this argument about genealogy relevant to Jesus in Christianity?

Reference 54 is an excellent source.

page numbers occur outside citation: generally indifferent to people's racial appearance or features.[61][62][63]:48–51

Ministry edit

The thief comes only in order to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have and enjoy life, and have it in abundance (to the full, till it overflows).—John 10:10 (Ampl) Kindly explain meaning of (Ampl).

Jesus seemed to have two basic concerns with reference to people and the material: (1) that they be freed from the tyranny of things and (2) that they be actively concerned for the needs of others.[25] This is a bit specious, and verification is not available. A page is not cited from this text to subtantiate. What material are we referring to here? I would consider that the ministry of Jesus is about the proclamation of the Kingdom of God (and its presence in the here and now) rather than the tyranny of things. Suggest this be substantiated or replaced with something more appropriate.

Reference 68 does not seem to validate anything. The online version has no page numbers and searching back and forth for the citation it is supposed to support does not give a date for the end of Jesus' life between AD 30-36 (if it is supposed to refer to that).

Last sentence in this section:

The final ministry in Jerusalem is sometimes called the Passion Week and begins with the Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem.[82] The gospels provide more details about the final ministry than the other periods, devoting about one third of their text to the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem.[83].

Use of the term Passion Week is uncommon with respect to the last week in Jesus' life; sentence commences with one term and ends with another and links to it. Consistency would indicate Holy Week is the preferred term.

Teachings, parables and miracles edit

Why does the opening citation of John . — John 14:10 also need a reference to Osborn (Reference 84)? Why is that particular reference here?

(the gospel of John includes no parables) suggest rewrite to say has no parables.

the reference to John 3:34 goes nowhere. Suggest https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:34 ... or an acceptable translation. Linking to scripture that goes nowhere is not acceptable. Ditto John 7:16. Kindly correct these linkages.

The Discourses section is neat and concise and well referenced. In one aspect, the Beatitudes are eschatalogical and also belong to the future of humankind and the Church.

Please examine Reference 101 ... the isbn is not found.

Can we sort out the correct title for Reference 103? The free-to-read (public domain version) on Google Books says the title is 'The Biblical Cabinet or, Hermeneutical, Exegetical and Philogical Library Vol 29. It is not Lisco, Friedrich Gustav, and Patrick Fairbairn. (Fairbairn is the translator.) The parables of Jesus Explained and Illustrated Volume 29 ... the citations are entirely correct; the title may be incorrect. Consider.

Reference 106: Why is that there?

Walking on water. [Mt 14:34-36] is cited in NRSV. It seems the correct citation is [Mt 14: 28-33].

Link to Mt 10:8 goes nowhere. Consider.

the miracles were evidences of his deity (you are referring to a specific 'god' when you use the term deity) --> should be the miracles were evidences of his divinity.

... each miracle involves specific teachings ... is a brilliant statement to include.

The question of why aren't all of Jesus' miracles included is an interesting question to conclude this section with. I am not altogether enamoured of citing the Catholic Encyclopaedia (with no direct reference) serves the cause of winding up this section. The Catholic Church, whatever it says about Scripture and Tradition, does not own Jesus nor his miracles. Consider.

Crucifixion and Atonement edit

according to MOS the first instance of canonical gospels will be linked; the remainder will not be linked. Link the first reference in Core Teachings section, and remove duplicate links.

Opening with agency Christology in the section on Crucifixion and atonement dismisses classical Christian theology of the atonement and the redemption won by Jesus. It also neglects the prophecies of Jesus on the Journey to Jerusalem. Christian history is based on salvation history, the crucifixion and salvation attained thereby, and the transcendental effects of the atonement in the past, present and future. This should be referenced before the statements on agency Christology. We need to be careful not to be restating material already addressed, viz., the Incarnation and Colossians.

Reference 124 (Matera) is a citation from another work.

Reference 127 makes no statement about Jesus arguing his innocence before Pilate. It speaks of the Sacerdotal Office in the Gospel Commentaries. Reference 128 makes the correct argument from Calvin. Kindly consider Reference 127.

Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming edit

the link for new era to the World to come article is a bit weak and soppy. It might be more appropriate to link directly to Christian eschatology. Consider.

for Jesus was designated the Son of God by his Resurrection. This is open to argument. There are many who would say that the designation of Sonship occurred at the baptism of Jesus. Consider replacing designated with confirmed as the Resurrection engages divine revelation and both reveals and confirms the Sonship.

Reference 135 is a very interesting inclusion and reflection.

Reference 144 should reference § 21 and not page 15 (this reference is all one page).

This section does not address the Ascension.

This section does not address the Second Coming / Parousia.

Observation edit

It is noted there is no reference to Jesus in Apocrypha, in particular the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, nor other apocrypha.

Final edit

May we attend to matters discussed above? On hold --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Situation edit

The nominator made a drive-by nomination and has only edited the article twice, five years ago.
The highest count editor - VanishedUserABC departed Wikipedia in 2013.
The next editor with the maximum contributions was sought to take on the nomination.
This editor has not responded to the review.
The article contains a considerable amount of Biblical theology, hermeneutics and Christology.
Should the article be nominated again, the abovementioned matters will need to be attended to, else the new nomination will fail. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic