From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus page.

Thoughts on this new article[edit]

There have been and perhaps will always be extreme disputes as to the authenticity of statements attributed to ancient figures, and even to the existence of these figures by some, with greater or lesser reasons for contrary and conflicting assessments. These sayings are generally accepted to be those that many early Christians DID believe to be authentic… and will be presented as notable and worthy of consideration in these times where dogma and bigotry has often ruled far more than clear conscience. The format of this article will provide for a great deal of diversity, and this page can provide a great deal of discussion as to merit of various sources and ideas. —There may be contentions over the prefered translations, but let there be respect for all who sincerely respect the SEARCH for truth, and who do not presume that they and they alone have it, and that all others should automatically defer to them without argument and dispute.

Of the words of Yeshua, as preserved in the Gospels, and especially those preserved by the Evangelion Thomas(The Gospel of Thomas): I personally have little doubt that these are words of a singularly unique moral, spiritual, and mystical genius, and I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that they are worthy to be studied and cherished, whatever one's opinions of their origins might be, or of subsequent doctrines and interpretations of their meanings and their relative merit with the teachings of others that have been imposed upon the minds of millions in the millennia since. The same is certainly true of many great teachers like Moses, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Muhammad and others whose lessons are often neglected and shunned by those who have little interest in learning things that in some way do not flatter their own presumptions and personal aims in life, and the immense regard they have for their own particular egos and established cultural affinities.

There are very few words that anyone could ever speak that reveal a more profound awareness of Eternity and it's ultimate patterns and time and it's ultimate workings, than those said long ago by a then-obscure teacher — A Rabbi who taught in the towns, on the waters, and on the hillsides around the Lake of Galilee: "The Heavens and the Earth may pass away, but my words shall never pass away."

His words and those of all who have wisely followed his examples were ever those of Truth and Love, and I am one who holds that there shall never be an end or limit to the appreciation of his words, his wisdom, his honesty, and his Love.

May ever greater wisdom bless everyone who seeks Wisdom wherever the seeking leads them. — Kalki 2003·11·11

Suggestions and Ideas:[edit]

Quotations added from any canonical document ideally should have precise identification of where in the document it is found.

I confess that I am one of those who is inclined to believe that the Thomas document is an earlier record than that of the other Gospels, and that is one reason I have begun with it as a base, but it is also convenient for providing a wide variety of statements in a simple order.

I propose that as comments are added, this Talk page be sectioned for commentaries and discussions upon any of the particular sayings, and not just the article in general.


==Comments on Sayings from Thomas==

--- saying 11 --- saying 44 ---

==Comments on Sayings from Mark==

Gospel of Thomas as a base[edit]

I am confused by the use of the Gospel of Thomas as a base for this selection of quotes.

The reason I object is that this gospel has been largely rejected by mainstream Christianity and quite a number of Theologians and Historians, and those who give it significant credence make up a relatively small fringe-group. While I believe that quotations from the Gospel of Thomas have their place on this page, I submit that the emphasis given to them should better reflect their fringe status.

I do not think my opinion as to what is an "authentic quote" and what is not should play a part on this page, only that the controversy be in some way reflected. Does this seem reasonable? ---Shotbolt 2005-04-01

 ==Comments on Sayings from Luke==

Sorry, I'm relatively inexperienced at both Wikipedia and biblical studies (being an atheist) but I'd have thought the modernised version of 12:57 given on the page is incorrect. The KJV has, immediately after discussing hypocrisy "Yea and why not even of yourself judge ye not what is right." Like I say I'm no expert, but I'd have thought this would be better understood as "Why not apply moral judgement to yourself [as well as to others]" rather than, as given on the page "Decide for yourself what is right". Could someone a little more authorative give an opinion (please take into account the context of the passage). --- Faboba 2005-08-20


I'm in agreement with those that point out the Gospel of Thomas being fringe. The Wikiquotes shouldn't be used as a soapbox for fringe groups to make themselves appear less-fringe.


Seconded. Thomas is fringe; let's reflect that.

Also, the over-emphasis on his name in Aramaic is a little silly. This material is in English, and whereas he probably was originally called Yeshua, the overwhelmingly preferred form of his name in English texts is Jesus, the anglicised version of Greek Ιησους from the Canonical Gospels. I see for example that Wikiquote currently refers e.g. to Joan of Arc, not Jeanne d'Arc, even though she was French.


Thank you for your opinion, folks. I heartfully recommend you something which is estimated on this project:
  1. Please sign at the end of your opinion with four tilda (~~~~); it is the first wisdom for discussion here; for accountability [who said what] and documentation [when]. Opinion without signature tends to be taken usually not serious or sometimes, on a bad faith. But I assume you didn't know plainly how to sign.
  2. Consider to register yourself with your favorite name. It will make things much easier and your accountability to your opinion will grow.
As for Thomas I object to reject them at all, because here it is not a problem if it is canonical from a view of Church. I oppose strongly to treat it as "Biblical Canon" but here this book should be acceptable because our policy is not religious but Neutral View of Point.
On the other hand it is fair to make remarks briefly on Thomas .
As for naming convention, I prefer Jeanne d'Arc to Joan of Arc ;-) but we don't make a biography nor encyclopedia, those inforamtion is worthy to consider moving to other place, like Wikipedia.

--Aphaia 20:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

On issue of Thomas[edit]

I myself, new to Wikiquote, find it interesting that upon searching Jesus, I find a rare, and I do agree with most, fringe, opinion of Him/him.

Let me say this, first and foremost: THE QUOTES OF JESUS SHOULD COME FROM THE BIBLE. Why? The Bible is overwhelmingly accepted by Christians. Were I to read about Buddha, I would expect a Buddhist view of him, not what a Christian or Muslim would say about Buddha (more on this later). The Bible must be the source of the majority of quotations. While this is not a theological debate, Jesus' words are theological in discussion, and as such must have common, unifying evidence and historical proof, such kind that only the Bible provides.

Before I comment on the Gospel of Thomas, I would like to elaborate on what the Bible, the BASE source of quotes from Jesus, is exactly. It consists of the Old Testament and New Testament. The New Testament consists of a collection of books that Christians themselves claim as their defining book of faith, which consists, in large part, of the sayings of Jesus. Theologically speaking, Christians tend to (and in no way definitively) believe that the Bible is from God's direct intervention, such that the books in the New Testament are there for a reason, divine or otherwise. Alternatively, some Christians, and most all non-Christians, would say that the Bible is selected by the early church and therefore their BEST interpretation of Jesus.

As to the Gospel of Thomas... It is considered by some as a 'lost book' of the Bible. Is this accurate? Well, yes, but mostly no. If by definition the Bible is what God intended to place within, then no, for God, who by definition is infallible, would not 'lose' a book. If it is what early church leaders viewed as their BEST interpretation, then no again, for they didn't lose Thomas, they discarded it, and ultimately named their valued books the New Testament. It should be noted that Thomas is valuable and important. But it is not part of the Bible, and therefore should not be the base of any such topic on which the Bible would convey a much fuller picture in regards to words attributed to Jesus.

In respect to the main page, I would use the Bible as the base. Such changes brought about would be, in concordance with the majority of versions of the Bible, referral to Jesus as Jesus, and a much greater focus on the accepted Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. With respect to the original author, of course, Thomas would still be included, yet not given over half of the entire entries and highlighted often. Not by any personal preference, but so that it all comes from the same clear and unified source that the quotes are attributed to.

Sorry if this lengthy opinion of mine (and that's what it is, my opinion) seems too concerned with doctrine. Forgive me then, but I would hope that if there is to be a web page that lays down the sayings of any fundamental figure in any religion, mainstream or not, that it would honor the primary source as the definitive source, which I believe Wikiquote is in error in regards to Jesus. And if you are intrigued by this argument, feel free to visit [1] for more information 07:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)Matt K. 5/24/05

Thank you anon, or Matt (I recommend you to register, for your opinion. I don't report my argument on the above. As for the origin and status of "Bible" I have a different opinion. I don't prefer to call Thomas as "the lost part of Bible" because there was no "Bible" what we know as is nowaday. To hold it as is, we must wait for Carthago Synod in the 4th century. And for authoritiy and authencity of "the Bible" I admit it is or would be so for Christianity, but for Wikiquote based on NPOV it should be stripped its absolute status. I admit the four Gospel are primary source - so please quote from them. I admit Thomas is not accepted as an authentic source from the majority - so please note as it at the section of Thomas. It is not good Thomas is the main part of this article - yes, honestly I think so, therefore support your idea to expand the Gospel; please add quotes you prefer from the Bible in Public Domain. I won't because I myself have no English Bible in PD regretfully. Please to think about expanding before pruning. And then if we prefer, we are better to prune less notable quotes. But I don't think the current article which remains still a skelton reached its pruning stage. It'll be florish, and it is totally up to your input ;) --Aphaia 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. The argument regarding 'lost books' of the Bible is really unneccessary as long as all books of the traditional Bible are included, to which I will try to make some headway. 22:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC) Matt

Quotes About section[edit]

I am relatively new here, but I just noticed the new "Quotes About Jesus" section and it seems to be mostly quotes specifically denying the diety of Christ or other anti-orthadox quotes. I think these are fine to have, but they should be balanced with orthadox quotations as well. Also is there even supposed to be a "Quotes About" section? I don't really know what the standards are here, so just let me know. KyleT 05:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The quotes about Jesus portion is politicization of whatever ideological bent contributors want to present. The whole section needs to be done away with. No major encyclopedia would include quotes about Jesus from completely meaningless sources - Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, etc. - I'm looking at you. Contributors should earnestly strive for impartiality and currently, this entire section - quotes about Jesus - drags the credibility of this article down. Also concerning is the use of BOLD types in the quotes section. Why is emphasis being added? Is this actually an editorial section in which contributors discuss their own thoughts about Jesus? All the more reason to ditch this section or drastically rework it. --- 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Isn't it generally considered an endorsement of Christianity to call Jesus 'Jesus Christ'? He's technically known as Jesus of Nazareth, the 'Christ' bit being purely mythological. Also, do we really want to call this person, who we only know from religious texts, a philosopher?!?

I agree we should not call him "Christ". There is a convention to avoid honorifics in page titles, and "Christ" (from "Christus", "the annointed" (in English) or "Mashiah" (corrupted to "messaiah")) is definitely an honorific (akin to "king") ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with this motion and I think that the term "Christ" should remain. While I think the term 'Jesus' should be preferred over 'Jesus Christ', it would be hightly confusing to a user to remove 'Christ' from the page on Jesus. 'Jesus' and 'Jesus Christ' are both widely used as part of the culture of over one-sixth of all living humans. For example, anyone using Wikiquote search funtionality is highly likely to type in 'Jesus Christ' in the box. While titles should not be overly emphasised, they must also be recognised for practical reasons. Here are some reasons why:
  • Consistency:
eg Buddha is actually a title, not a name (follow the link). Searchers will not type in "Siddhartha Gautama" and readers would become confused if the Buddha was referred to during the article or quotes section as "Siddhartha Gautama".
  • Practicality:
Queen Elizabeth II could not be listed as just 'Elizabeth' as searchers are largely unaware of her surname, the single term 'Elizabeth' fails to distingush her from any other 'Elizabeth', of which there are many.
Practicality and readability must be considered. I find it ridiculous that we remove all titles: Imagine 'Vader' without the 'Darth'... 11:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Shotbolt
Did you check? Jesus Christ is a redirect page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Christ title should stay. After reading the argument aginst using Christ i remembered how the name Buddha was not his real name. The i saw someone had already said that so i am just agreeing now. Keep Christ in there.
I think we should switch the page back to Jesus Christ. If only because Jesus also happens to be the name of my gardner.

I apologize.[edit]

I'm sorry, in a sober state I realize this is an important article... and I shouldn't have attempted to add a thing because this is obviously under someone's care... and I was misplacing my anger. But I'm getting over it, resolution, realization that that is how I react, on an article such as this. Hrm, I might just be calling out, subconsciously, for Him.

I've had a LOT of stress, recently. I'm in the process of moving to Pennsylvania under EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, amongst them are that my parents are getting a divorce after 33 years of marriage.

... I didn't really know how drunk I was.

By the way, did you know that the Amish really do call the Catholic Church the "Abomination"?


I don't think Jesus of Nazareth was a philosopher. He was more like David Koresh than Aristotle. He was a teacher, but a dogmatic religious teacher. Everything goes back to Yahweh. He didn't encourage critical thinking. Here's what a real philosopher says of the gospels, "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." Come on, what kind of philosopher would someone be if in four books written about you there wasn't a word in praise of intelligence? As I see it, calling him a philosopher is just POV aggrandizing him. 00:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"what kind of philosopher would someone be if in four books written about you there wasn't a word in praise of intelligence?"
That is because intelligence is morally neutral, it can be used for good or for evil. Anyway, the idea that salvation is only for the intelligent and is excluded from the simple minded is absurd. Bwooster1 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That Jesus was a philosopher: a "lover of Wisdom" a ponderer upon it, and an assertor of it, I think to the unprejudiced mind, is obvious, no matter how much time might have obscured or corrupted much of his testimony, and testimony about his wisdom.
What kind of philosopher would someone be if the took the word of even a very wise and revered philosopher that in four books written about someone there wasn't a word in praise of intelligence? In Matthew 10:16 Jesus advises his followers "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." which certainly seems to be at least one incident of praise of intelligence, as manifested in prudence and wisdom.
Beyond that, what kind of philosopher would someone be if they took only four books out of thousands written about someone, or worse, a bit of hyperbole, or the snipes of the uninformed and misinformed, as the ultimate testimony in assessing a person as a philosopher? The wise endeavor to make clear assessments of Reality, not to make claims of ultimate knowledge about it. "Know Thy Self" is wise counsel, to presume that you know others, or even yourself, so much as is possible, is folly. ~ Kalki 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress[edit]

I have done quite a bit of work on this article today, and intend to do more in the coming days, but I will probably pause a bit to do other things, and consider what formatting options might be best... there is still quite a hodge-podge of formatting styles present in it, and in seeking new quotes to separate the images in each section better, I will be considering which formats seem best for this particular article, and which should be abandoned. The small print that was used extensively looks horrible in the FireFox browser that I've been using. ~ Achilles 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Aramaic or Hebrew statements discussion[edit]

  • It should be noted that "sabachthani" is not actually an Hebrew word. It was most likely originally "azavtani", which means "forsaken me".
  • While "sabachthani" is not Hebrew, it is Aramaic. And while in the past it has been supposed that Jesus spoke Aramaic there are many scholars who believe that his actual language was Hebrew. But that like other Rabbis he used Aramaic "loan words" in addition to Hebrew . This verse is a prime example because in Aramaic you don't get the same play on words that you would get in Hebrew. i.e. When Jesus uttered the words " Eli, Eli" those standing around him said he was calling to Elijah (Mark 15.35). Eli meaning either "my God" (el - i) or Eli a shortened form of Elijah (e-li) Where as Eloi is only used of God.

I moved the above comments here, from the "Aramaic or Hebrew statements" section as they form more of a discussion of POVs than they do brief NPOV comments. ~ Achilles 07:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem with the line: Aramaic: "אלהי אלהי למא שבקתני" (Êlî êlî lâmâ `azabtânî). The letters in Hebrew says "SHABAKTANI" (I'm a native speaker of the language and never hread that word...), while the phonetic transliteration mean "forsaken me" (עזבתני). 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible Version[edit]

In my humble opinion, the quotes in this section should be from KJV not NIV. Otherwise, why not any other brand-X modern translation? Bwooster1 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Your opinion doesn't sound the least bit humble to me. You sound like someone who's hawking the KJV over one that people can understand for your own sense of tradition. No one apeaks Jacobean English anymore, so why insist? This is precisely what the Church of Rome did with the Vulgate, which was written so that all could understand and later came to be the "only God-inspired" translation -- the same argument that a lot of KJ-only folk use. The Bible is meant to be understood by even the least educated of people. There is no reason to use a translation that is incomprehensible to the vast majority of English speakers. Danwaggoner 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe what my friend is trying to say is that we would all rather a version of the Bible that everyone can understand. It is wrong to assume that everyone is comfortable with an old english translation of the Bible; which is in fact beautiful but perhaps not the best version to relate to everyone in the twenty-first century.

Transwiki of "not with me" quotes[edit]

I have completed a transwiki started by ^demon from a Wikipedia article called "You're either with us, or against us" that contained the passage "He who is not with me is against me...". The WP editors who worked on this particular quote are:

  • (cur) (last) 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Dbachmann (→Historical use of the phrase)
  • (cur) (last) 20:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Mwazzap m (→Historical use of the phrase)
  • (cur) (last) 23:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC) JJLatWiki (→Historical use of the phrase - reverted removal biblical reference)
  • (cur) (last) 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Ck4829
  • (cur) (last) 16:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC) JJLatWiki (→Historical use of the phrase)
  • (cur) (last) 22:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) CDThieme (→Historical use of the phrase)
  • (cur) (last) 20:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

However, since 2 citations (Matthew and Luke) were given, I immediately pulled up their King James versions, corrected and expanded them, and cited the passages in a format more appropriate for the "different sources compared" section. Regular editors of this article are welcome to do what they will with this information; my sole interest was to get the transwiki completed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Messiah" status in Islamic traditions[edit]

I removed a line in the heading which mischaracterizes the role of Jesus in Islam. Though most Christians would declare him as "the" Messiah of "ultimate salvation" for all people, actually, in Islamic traditions, though Jesus is a great prophet and "the" prophesied messiah to the Jews, the role of "ultimate" and "universal" salvation has become more or less implicitly assigned to Muhammad as deliverer of the Quran, and his consideration (by most Muslims) to be not only a great prophet, but the "final" prophet. ~ Shadow 06:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny how many "final prophets" there have been. Joseph Smith and Bahá'u'lláh are two recent examples. Danwaggoner 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about Joseph Smith, as I haven't studied Mormonism much; but, Bahá'u'lláh specifically said that there would be more after him. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Following section has been moved from the article area.

A note on possible additions[edit]

Further refinements of this article might include providing statements from all ancient sources in all the original languages of the earliest existing copies, —which in most cases would be Greek, Coptic, or sometimes transliterations of Aramaic. It would be useful if within this article the various renditions of statements in the various gospels could be brought together for comparison. It is expected that this work will be taken up by some who are zealous to see it progress, until it is completed to the satisfaction of most. It is to be hoped that sectarian and secular hostilities, and disputes about relative merit of the sources, translations and statements that are used can be kept to a minimum, and remain within the bounds of proper civility and charity. Until civility and charity rule the hearts, minds, and actions of all who would be considered wise, there is certainly a great deal left to be done in the clarification of virtue.

Easter Sunday 2007 - Massive cleanup[edit]

There had been very many diverse expansions to this article in recent months, and some of them were barely relevant, or not at all so, for a page of quotations by or about Jesus, and some that were relevant but were in wrong sections. This is a summary of most of the work I did on this article today:

  1. Removed notice that stated : "All Biblical quotes in this article are taken from the King James Version (KJV) unless otherwise specified." Though the KJV is the version that I began with in creating this article, and one of those I most like to use for quotation there are many other versions in use now, and there will probably increasingly be others. I replaced it with: "All Biblical quotes in this article should specify the translation or version which is being used."
  2. Added a couple variants of the Lord's Prayer and move it into the "Varants of major statements" compared section.
  3. Restored <hr width="50%"/> breaks removed from that section by previous editor. Though there are other formatting options that might be used instead of these, they currently serve to separate the variants being compared.
  4. Removed several very large passages that were added of Martin Luther where he says much about his opinions on Jews but very little or nothing at all actually about Jesus, retained one that actually did directly comment upon Jesus.
  5. Moved quotes about Jesus in Gospel of Mary to proper section : Quotes about Jesus.
  6. Moved large tracts from the Qur'an which are about Jesus but do not contain a single quotation of Jesus to their own subsection in Quotes about Jesus...
  7. Moved passages from The Book of Revelation that some interpret as being about Jesus to the section about Jesus, and added some quotations actually attributed to Jesus by John in his vision of the Apocalypse to the section they were removed from.
  8. Replaced caption for an image that was quoting Isaiah and John about God, and doesn't clearly refer to the person of Jesus at all.
  9. Retained quotes by Gibbon on Christian faith that tangentially refers to Jesus, but debated removing one that doesn't so clearly do so.
  10. Removed one by Christopher Hitchens that doesn't clearly refer to Jesus, trim one that tangentially does, but extensively addresses more general notions of faith and doctrines.
  11. Removed quote by an Abu Ghraib torture victim that is not actually about Jesus, but about the attitudes of a torturer.
  12. Removed quote by Adolf Hitler that only very tangentially mentions Jesus, retain two that are more direct statement of Hitler's opinion about the attitude of Jesus towards other Jews.
  13. Trimmed an extensive passage of Thomas Jefferson to reduce it to those parts where he specifically is referring to Jesus, and extend other sections which were edited down to make it seem he was being extremely critical of him in that passage, when he was actually praising him.
  14. Revised or added a few comments on various quotations or sections.

I also debated removing the extensive section which merely is quoting sections of the King James Version of the Bible in the compilation known as "Jefferson's Bible, but retained it as being about Jesus, though it is not actually a quotation of Jefferson about him.

There is much more work that can be done on this article, and there were some sections I have not yet examined thoroughly, but I barely had the time to do what I have done today, and will probably let it rest as it is for a while, with perhaps some minor formatting work within the next week, and monitor further changes to it to the extent I can. ~ Kalki 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on a recent reversion[edit]

The people known today as Gnostics did not call themselves Gnostics, and many called themselves simply Chrisitans, and when I created a section for "non-canonical scriptures" I considered that there could be more included in that heading than those which are normally called "Gnostic". After recent objections to that name for that section, I altered it to "Gnostic scriptures" which does limit the section a bit more, but allows for potential quotes from the many Gnostic writings that were never called "Gospels".

I personally am not stifled by any doctrinal constraints as to what should be considered "canonical" and worthy or unworthy of study about any religious tradition and personally I believe the preponderance of evidence indicates that chronologically the documents were written in the order: Thomas, followed by Mark, with Mathew and Luke written at around the same time, and finally John, which also certainly could be called a "Gnostic Gospel" as it was clearly a favorite of those groups called Gnostic as well as those who declared themselves "orthodox". I originally created the page with that chronological order, but later I accepted edits where the "canonical" arrangement of "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" were preferred, because that is the order most familiar to most people, and accepted Thomas coming afterwards because it remains relatively obscure and controversial. I can accept some of the arguments for its later composition as sometimes interesting, and even clever, but they have never been particularly convincing to me, and I do tend to view the degree of support that they have received as motivated largely by doctrinal concerns, rather than their own merits.

One could argue that the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas might represent very early traditions, but no major scholarship proposes a very early date for their composition, and I believe that neither should be given a position prior to that of Thomas on the page.

The Qur'an rightfully has its own page, as do various Christian, Jewish, and other religious scriptures, though as yet, activity on these pages have been relatively minor; but the fact that it is held as holy scripture by millions of people does not alter the fact the quotes provided in that section are quotes about Jesus, and though these are extensive enough to merit their own sub-section within the section of "Quotes about Jesus" it's level of popularity, or its presumed authority among various religious factions, does not mean it any way "deserves" to have its own particular section seperated and removed from that section, even if the quotations about Jesus are held to be "quotes of God", rather than of a man.

The quotation of dialog between an Abu Ghraib torture victim and his tormentor which includes a comment where he is incidentally told to "Pray to Jesus" as a means of insult and humiliation, is in no way a quote about Jesus, and only very tangentially and inferentially might it even be considered a quote about Christianity. The tormentor might have been someone who considered himself a Christian, but could also easily have been an agnostic or atheist simply intent on causing distress where he had the power to do so, as is all too common a trait among many people whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they might profess. ~ Kalki 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly. Everyone calls them the Gnostic Gospels. Including Wikipedia. Because they're called Gnostic Gospels. So let's not invent a new name for them here. Écrasez l'infâme 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have retained the name the Gnostic Gospels for now, but there is far more material available of Gnostic literature than that which was composed in works called "Evangelions" (or "Gospels") and it is hardly "inventing" a term to refer to these works a scripture. Its been a number of years since I intensely studied much the material, but I have many volumes of it, and there might be material I will add in the future. All of the Gospel of Mary and Qur'an material thus far posted merely provide quotes about Jesus, not of him, and, in accordance with the standard organization of pages this material should be in a section of its own, and there is no reason that the Qur'an quotes should have any special status that removes them from such a section. ~ Kalki 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kalki, this is truly absurd: the entire New Testament is nothing but a bunch of quotations about Jesus, even the quotes attributed to him, simply because it was written long after Jesus died. No one knows if Jesus actually spoke any of the Biblical quotes actually attributed to him. The Bible even contradicts itself about where Jesus delivered his most important sermon -- was it on a mount (Mt 5:1-7:29)? or on a plain (Lk 6:17-49)? Therefore, for this and many other reasons, the Gnostic Gospels and the Qur'an necessarily and logically speak with equal authority as the Bible and deserve equal footing. I have given them their own sections. Écrasez l'infâme 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have merely insisted that the standard organization for all pages on people should be followed here as it is elsewhere, and that quotations depicting the direct statements of Jesus, whatever their presumed accuracy or lack of it should have their own sections, and quotes about him should have theirs. This is hardly absurd. It is simply following the long standing guidelines for creating pages about people.

The whole New Testament, though primarily about Jesus and his testimony is not primarily composed of statements attributed to him, as many of the Gospel statements are. Much of it is also the testimony by Paul of Tarsus, as well as the other writers, of their beliefs and ideas concerning virtuous and vile attitudes and behavior based on what they believed the teachings of Jesus implied or impelled.

Anyone's personal opinions, points of view, and presumptions about the accuracy or lack of it in the books of the New Testament or the Gnostic testaments, or other works, should not be the governing criterion by which the page is organized. Many of the statements of the very early works are depicted as statements of Jesus, and for the most part have historically been accepted as for the most part accurate, even by most non-religious historians, though sectarian and secular interpretations of them and their value can vary greatly. The Gospel of Thomas is unique in being nearly entirely a collection of statements attributed to him.

You seem to keep insisting that the page should be divided up entirely from what works they are from, and that works written centuries later should be treated as if they were entirely equal in value in any statements they make about the ideas of Jesus, as those which include statements depicted as directly stated by him. Any of these specific works either do or can have their own separate pages, but the organization of a page for a person should retain the standard division of quotations of a person and quotations about a person.

Whatever creedal doctrines one accepts, rejects, despises, condones, or embraces, documents that were written by contemporaries of Jesus, within a few decades of his death do have some credible claim to accuracy in depicting at least some of his statements and it is only a small minority of people with their own extreme biases and presumptions, who presume to reject all the statements attributed to Jesus as if they must be treated as entirely fictional, and this is at least as extreme and unwarranted a position as those who working from traditional doctrinal loyalties would insist upon their absolute accuracy. To insist that they absolutely have no more claim to accurately depicting many of his expressions and ideas than works most likely written at least a century later, or known to have been composed six centuries later is a position that is absurd.

I repeat, the organization I have been maintaining is simply the standard format for pages on people, the improvisations you have been insisting on are exceptional violations of it. If there is any doubt of this it should probably be taken to the Village Pump. ~ Kalki 05:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why King James?[edit]

Why are all the quotes on Wikipedia "English" provided in an outdated version of the English language?

It could be that it is the most well-known and respected version (but not the most accurate) of the Bible in English. Steve Dufour 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is also the most quoted version in English. Steve Dufour 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless it is still the least relevant.

Where are the quotes?[edit]

I know that some of the quotes are being disputed, and that many are being tampered with (ergo the current situation of adding or modifying them being unavailable presently) but I was wondering on where all the quotes are? Even if they are disputed, should they still be up but with disclaimers on them? Just curious.

Jehovah's Witness quote[edit]

This is a quote from You-tube video cartoon. I don't think it is notable, or fair as the only representative of Jehovah's Witness's opinion of Jesus. Steve Dufour 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote about Jesus is from Jehovah's Witness's material explaining the nature of Jesus. It is not a "quote from You-tube video cartoon", but rather JW material available for verification that happens to be entered on youtube. JW's are a well-known American religion with many members, and their views on Jesus are relevant, significant, and approriate. Écrasez l'infâme 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't even think it's about Jesus. The JW's idea of what he will do sometime in the future is not a quote about Jesus -- it does not tell us anything about his nature, or the JW's opinion of him. To use an analogy: "Al Gore is a fine person and a great American" is a quote about Gore. "Al Gore will run for president again in 2012" is a prediction. It doesn't shed any light on Gore per se, just my own ideas about him. --Ubiquity 18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's book[edit]

I think it is very cool that Thomas Jefferson wrote a book about Jesus taking out the miracles and other supernatural stuff. However there seems to be a bit too much long passages from it here in this article. How about a couple of short quotes by Jefferson and a link to the book? Steve Dufour 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Homer Simpson quote[edit]

I removed this quote and then it was put right back:

[about Jesus wearing sandals] Well, maybe if he had had better arch support, they wouldn't have caught him!
Homer Simpson

My problem with it is that Mr. Simpson did not really say it. It was written by a screenwriter and said by an actor while an animated picture of Mr. Simpson was being shown. Besides that, there are many, many jokes about Jesus. Are we going to include all of them? Steve Dufour 13:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree this quote is rather minor and irrelevant, and probably should be removed, but I rolled backed your edits earlier because there was material that I believe does belong here, and didn't have time to sort through all of it. I also agree that the amount of the Jefferson, Paine and Islamic material that has been added here sems somewhat excessive, but most of it has sufficient relevance that I wouldn't actually remove it.
I didn't have much time to comment earlier, and don't have much right now, because I've been in the middle of a very busy several days, and simply have not had sufficient time at my computer to address some of the concerns that are arising here. I will remove the rather irrelevant Homer Simpson remark now. ~ Kalki 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed you removed the quote after I, somehow, had not. I had thought I did, and was surprised to find I hadn't. All I can think of is that I either previewed without saving changes, or became totally distracted by something else and forgot to make the removal. I have been juggling many activities lately and either thing might have occurred. ~ Kalki 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I figured something like that happened. Happens with me all the time. :-) Steve Dufour 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by fictional character[edit]

I also removed this one:

  • Tomorrow we goes into battle, so Lordy, let me fight with the rifle in one hand, and the Good Book in the other. So that if I may die at the muzzle of the rifle... die on water, or on land, I may know that you blessed Jesus almighty are with me... and I have no fear.
    • Jupiter Sharts (in the movie Glory; from: [2])

Not only is this by a fictional character, it also does not seem, to me anyway, to be saying anything about Jesus. Steve Dufour 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic section?[edit]

Fathers of the Early Church[edit]

  • [T]he Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer." … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing.

I have several problems with this section being included on this page. (On the other hand, if there is a page for anti-Semitic quotes it should be included there.) For one thing it is not about the "fathers of the early church", only one person is quoted. For another, the quotes are not about Jesus himself, but are tirades against the Jews. Besides that, they do not express the opinions of Jesus himself. I am fairly confident that he did not think that Jewish sacrifices were abominations or that Jews had no chance of attonement. Steve Dufour 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

These quotes clearly illustrate historically consistent Christian views of Jews and Judaism back to the first centuries of Christianity. They are specifically about Jesus because of the charge that the Jews killed Jesus and because they say that the Jews suffer because of Christ. Whether or not you have problems with them is irrelevant. Other quotes from the Early Church fathers about Jesus can and should be added to this section. Écrasez l'infâme 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree with Steve Dufour on this one, for most of these quotes have little or nothing to say about Jesus directly and seem to be merely "rubbing the nose" of some of the more moderate Christians into some of the fouler pronouncements of some of the early and influential Christians. I am not saying they should not be quoted, merely that they don't belong here. ~ Kalki 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The slur of "Christ killer" against the Jews is highly relevent in a list of quotations about Jesus. These quotes from the early Church leaders involve Christ directly, saying that He is the cause of the troubles of the Jews, and that the Jews killed Christ. Your charge that this is "rubbing the nose" of moderate Christians is irrelevant and incorrect. "Rubbing those nose" would include similar quotes from Hitler and other Nazis, though these too would be highly appropriate in such a list of quotations about Jesus, even if they are separated by two millenia. Écrasez l'infâme 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
These quotes plainly are the opinions of one influential early Christian about Jews, and the incidental mention of Christ does not make them about Jesus. They are quotes that voice certain assumptions and doctrines about his mission, and certainly can be properly posted on the page for John Chrysostom, and on a theme page for quotes about Jews or perhaps on a new one for historical "Anti-Semitism" but they are not actually themselves quotes about Jesus, and I cannot accept the idea that they belong here, and the insistence that they do strikes me as more than a bit over-zealous. ~ Kalki 18:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's overzealous to remove quotes from one of the very first sainted Christians about Christ killers from a list of quotations about Christ. These are in fact highly relevant and belong here. Écrasez l'infâme 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The quotes are about Jews, whom Chrysostom calls "Christ-killers" — and such incidental comments do not make them relevant to a page on Jesus. If someone prominent and notable says of someone "Jesus Fucking Christ! What an asshole!" that may arguably be quoted, perhaps as part of a significant remark, and dispassionately looked upon as an indication of a person's inclination to use a generally revered person's name as part of an epithet, but it is no way a significant remark about Jesus himself, and wouldn't belong here. Nor do these. They incidentally mention Christ and indicate a belief in doctrinal justifications for personal or societal antipathies and hostilities to Jews.
I believe that there are also other rather strained associations on the page, but I haven't had time to make much of an effort to clean this up lately, and I know that this is one of the pages where interminable arguments are likely to arise.
I will make brief indication of my personal perspectives on a few matters here. No matter how wise and simple or complicated and extensive a creed or doctrine may be, I personally have great antipathy to most efforts to proclaim any particular doctrine that can be enunciated by anyone as a supreme or infallible expression of wisdom, but I also have a great antipathy to attempts to denigrate or deride anyone of any creed by false or strained associations with some of the worst nominal adherents of various creeds, or some of the worst of the particular opinions of other people.
Almost every person on earth, no matter what their belief or disbelief on any matter, is capable of respecting truth and I am vigorously opposed to all efforts to spread such distortions, lies, hatreds, and hostilities as foster false assumptions and lead people to treat anyone as if they deserved little more than contempt, insults, and persecution. Such behavior does not come solely from those zealots, fanatics and bigots who would call themselves "religious" in their motivations, but also from those who are most anti-religious" in their aims (which often actually includes the very same people of course, as innumerable "religious" affiliations have opposed one another vehemently, and the most fiercely "anti-religious" are sometimes quite "religious" in their zeal and even in their cohesion with others).
As you seem insistent that I am the one being overzealous here, in agreeing with another editor that they don't belong here, I will mention the matter at the Village Pump and we can get some indication of community consensus on the matter. Even should it plainly come out on the side of their removal, my own aversion to making rules or relying on them would lead me to oppose any absolute codification that might be attempted, beyond the level of a guideline, as I am familiar with attempts to make very "strained disassociations" as well, where comments on people's remarks and disputes about their opinions have been argued as not "about them" and I doubt one could easily make an absolute and infallible rule the matter. On such matters, on a case-by-case basis, I am content to rely on community consensus. ~ Kalki 18:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kalki has asked elsewhere for additional opinions here, so I will add mine. The statements at the head of this section are BY Saint John Chrysostom and are ABOUT Jews. I do not think they belong on a page about Jesus. If someone tried to put "Lee Harvey Oswald was an evil man for killing Kennedy", attributed to some sixties politician, on the JFK page, I would say it doesn't belong there. Now, if someone has some quotes BY Jesus about the Jews, or ABOUT Jesus's attitude to the Jews (rather than their attitude toward him), I would agree those belong on the Jesus page. But the quotes listed above are clearly not that. --Ubiquity 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's please leave out the inflammatory accusations of anti-Semitism. The fact is that Wikiquote theme articles, in order to avoid these kinds of argumentative inclusion guidelines, typically require each quote to be specifically about the subject, not about tangential subjects, however influential. In fact, any quotes that don't specifically mention or include as their primary subject the article title should be considered for removal. By this standard, any discussion of the attitudes of early Christians about Jews and Judaism simply does not merit inclusion here. Wikiquote is not a place to compose essays-by-quotation. It is simply a place to collect original, pithy, well-sourced quotes specifically about the subjects named. If we want quotes on anti-Semitism, they should be located at Anti-Semitism. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Kalki said, "They incidentally mention Christ and indicate a belief in doctrinal justifications for personal or societal antipathies and hostilities to Jews."
A simple reading of just one of quotes show that this is not true: "the Jews are enduring their present troubles because of Christ." This quote saying that Jesus is the cause of the problems of the Jews in the centuries since the Crucifixion mentions Jesus directly as the cause of the Jews' problems, and coming as it does from a Sainted Archbishop, one of the only Three Holy Hierarchs, and a Doctor of the Church, it speaks with much more authority than we do on this important matter. This is not simply about anti-Semitism, it's about the highly influential early Christian direct (not "tangential") link between Jesus and anti-Semitism. As such, these quotes do belong here, controversial or not.Écrasez l'infâme 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the quotes a very valuable to show how far and how fast Christianity fell away from the teachings of Jesus, however they are not about Jesus. How about starting a new page? Steve Dufour 03:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. "The Jews are enduring their present troubles..." Jews is the subject of the sentence. The quote is primarily about Jews, not about Jesus. It's not a question of antisemitism, it's a question of appropriateness. In fact, after taking a look at the "Quotes about Jesus" section, I notice that many of them are not about Jesus. Rather, they are quotes that mention Jesus (at least one of them doesn't even do that). When I read a section that is called "About X", I expect the quotes there to show how other people regarded X -- not how X regarded others, and certainly not hearsay about how people other than the author of the quote felt about X (that is, the sentence "I think that Y does not like X" is not about X, it's about Y). I would like to see the entire "About" section trimmed back to include only appropriate quotes. --Ubiquity 20:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A very obtuse and simplistic reading of that quote could lead to its interpretation as being about Jesus, and is one that might very tenuously be retained if consensus dictates it should be, but anyone with any knowledge of the history of Christian doctrines and churches would realize the statement refers to the supposed guilt of the Jews, as a people for the death of Jesus; which is again an issue of the doctrines and dogmas of particular churches on sin, redemption and the role of Jews, not a statement specifically about the person known as Jesus. ~ Kalki 21:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The "Jews are enduring" quote is not about Jesus, who was long gone in any physical form by then. It's about unprovable blame between religious sects. It's about the early Christians use of Christ as a means to blame members of another faith for their problems, much as some modern Christian extremists try to blame AIDS and hurricanes on supposed faithlessness and immorality. (And this is by no means exclusive to Christians and Jews.) These are interpretations of the faith surrounding the subject, not about the subject itself. Rather than argue the merits of such a thesis (impossible to resolve, given the total lack of physical, cause-and-effect evidence, only contradictory written and spoken testimony), we avoid the whole problem by requiring that quotes be specifically and primarily about the subject.
Frankly, I can't help but think of Monty Python's Life of Brian, and all the words Brian's unwelcome followers put into his mouth. We should keep the distinction between the person and the opposing creeds and their wildly contradicting interpretations of that person's recorded words.
We're even on shaky (but unavoidable) ground quoting the Bible itself for Jesus's own words. What we have is probably what some unidentified authors writing in the names of the Disciples, well after their time, wrote as their claims of what Jesus said — or at least those books which survived multiple screenings from several generations of changing thought within the nascent Christian Church. There was no independent press core to record speeches, no Gutenberg press to meticulously copy and distribute them for posterity, and as we still suffer from telephone-game mangling of information even in this instant, worldwide-distribution age, it's beyond credulity to assume no transcription errors occurred. Folk singer Nick Annis once made this point about the Bible: "From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Greek, from Greek to Russian, from Russian to German, from German to an old form of English that you could not read. Through 400 years of evolution of the English language to the book we have today, which is: a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an oral history passed down through 40 generations." The path for the New Testament maybe only half that, but the point is still valid — virtually nothing we use can be guaranteed to be "accurate", except for its own period and culture.
Sorry for the digression. Returning to my main point: let's keep this article focused very tightly on the subject, not the future social implications and inferences of organizations created around that subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% in favor of removing quotes not about Jesus himself from the page. I think this page is the most important one on WQ, considering Jesus' importance to the culture of the English speaking world -- whatever you think or believe about him. Steve Dufour 03:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is Saint John Chrysostom's quote in full:
    • [T]he Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer." … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them." (Luke 19:27)
It invokes Jesus twice: the first time to say that the Jews refuse the "yoke of Christ", then a second time to explain that slaughtering the Jews as a consequence is precisely what Jesus meant in Luke 19:27. This quote, made by a highly influential leader of the early Church, a Sainted Archbishop of Constantinople, one of the only Three Holy Hierarchs, and a Doctor of the Church, is directly about Jesus and belongs on the page of quotes about Jesus, no matter how controversial or how uncomfortable it may make some editors. Écrasez l'infâme 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A quote that merely mentions X is not necessarily about X. You claim that the quote listed above "invokes" Jesus twice, but I think you mean it "mentions" Jesus (I do not see this quote as actually "calling on" or "appealing to" Jesus). Let us boil this quote down to its essentials: "The Jewish people refused to accept the yoke of Christ." Here is a sentence with an almost identical structure: "The Jewish people refused to accept pork in their diet." Do you believe that this sentence is about pork? Obviously, the most correct place for these quotes would be on a page about Saint John Chrysostom, or the sayings of the early church. Possibly, they could be placed on a page about Jews (if suitably balanced by other quotes to insure NPOV). But they do not belong on a page about Jesus, as it is neither his opinion, or someone else's opinion about him. --Ubiquity 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These are among the most historically significant and influential words ever written about Jesus. Saint John Chrysostom's quote, obviously about Jesus, quotes Him directly, i.e., does not merely "mention" Him, to provide a theological justification for the treatment of the Jews that has been used thoughout Christianity's entire history, running through the 4th Lateran Council, to Luther and beyond. Even Hitler stressed this long history in his defense of the final solution. As this quote about Jesus illustrates, the person of Jesus Christ and His own words were used repeatedly by Christians to justify a policy of slaughtering Jews. This is historically significant and cannot be ignored or whitewashed by laughable claims that Chrysostom's quote about Jesus merely "mentions" or "invokes" (meaning cite as an appeal to authority) Jesus. Chrysostom's highly influential quote about Jesus was used on numerous occasions to slaughter Jews for the theological reasons Chrysostom gave: the Jews rejected and killed Christ, and Jesus implies to kill anyone who does not want Him to be king over them. These are Chrysostom words about Jesus, not mine. This is an important and significant quote about Jesus and belongs in a list of quotations about Jesus, regardless of their controversial nature. Écrasez l'infâme 11:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In support of my statement that Chrysostom's quote about Jesus condoning the killing of the Jews is "among the most historically significant and influential words ever written about Jesus":

  • [A]lthough the tradition of Chrysostom continued to cause unbridled vituperation for Jews and Judaism, climaxing in the violence of 1096 and beyond, the modulating Augustinian position became, more or less, the "official" policy of the papacy … [G]overnmental coercion became the instrument though which the Church made its scornful commentary on Judaism. Here is the decisive turn in the history of Christian anti-Judaism, a turn whose ultimate disfiguring consequence was enacted in the political antisemitism of Adolf Hitler.

Here's another:

The direct intellectual lineage from Chrysostom to Hitler is standard, well-documented history in Christian antisemitism. The poorly justified and poorly argued attempts to purge a page of quotations about Jesus of this history are whitewashing, pure and simple. Écrasez l'infâme 21:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes not about Jesus[edit]

I removed all these, just a few of the many on the page not about Jesus himself, only to see them put right back:

I'm hoping that [the defrauded faithful will] see that it's not necessary to look to some person to jerk you off to get off and put your belief in.
MarJoe Gortner, one-time child evangelist who exposed the fraudulence of fundamentalist Christian sermons in America in the 1972 academy-award winning documentary MarJoe. He estimates that he raised $3 million (1960s) dollars in donations.
Would you get out your checkbook tonight? … Bring what you would for JESUS tonight.
MarJoe Gortner, one-time child evangelist who exposed the fraudulence of fundamentalist Christian sermons in America in the 1972 academy-award winning documentary MarJoe. He estimates that he raised $3 million (1960s) dollars in donations.
[To an elderly women requesting a blessing.] Do you believe that the Lord's going to do it tonight? Do you believe that he's going to touch this condition? Say Yes Lord. Say THANK YOU JESUS! In the name of Jesus! In the name of JESUS! [Woman collapses in euphoria.] Thank you Jesus. Hallelujah!
MarJoe Gortner, one-time child evangelist who exposed the fraudulence of fundamentalist Christian sermons in America in the 1972 academy-award winning documentary MarJoe. He estimates that he raised $3 million (1960s) dollars in donations.
These are not about Jesus. He is only mentioned in passing. I agree that there is a lot of dishonesty in religion, however this page is not about that. It would be better to do something else with these quotes.
When [Jesus] executes judgment over the world at Armageddon, he will destroy all but the faithful Jehovah's witnesses. [Jesus is then shown hurling fireballs that destroy New York City, breaking dams, causing fires, and murdering many people, including children]. Jesus, alias Michael, will always remain invisible to those on earth, and can be seen only by the 144,000 select Jehovah's witnesses who rule with Him from heaven.
From a Jehovah's Witness's cartoon explaining Jesus.
This one is mainly about Christ at his second coming, so not really about Jesus the historical person. Besides that it is of so low quality being one person's impression of something he or she saw on You-Tube. I also think it is unfair to the JW's to use it as the only quote explaining their view of Jesus. Why not find something else that expresses the same idea?
Every person is Christ for me, and since there is only one Jesus, that person is the one person in the world at that moment.
Mother Teresa (1910-97)
This is a nice quote. However it is about Mother Teresa herself and her feelings, not about Jesus.
If I thought that the Jews killed God, I'd worship the Jews.
Bill Hicks
This seems to be saying that Mr. Hicks doesn't like God. He has a perfect right to that opinion, however Jesus is not mentioned in the quote directly, just indirectly by referencing traditional Christian beliefs that he is God and the Jews killed him. So the quote is about God, or it is about Christian beliefs -- not about Jesus himself.Steve Dufour 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
A lotta Christians wear crosses 'round their necks; do you think if Jesus comes back he ever wants to see another cross?
Bill Hicks
This is about the practice of wearing crosses. I happen to agree with Mr. Hicks here. However, it is not about Jesus since he said nothing about this and I don't think ever imagined that anyone would do such a thing, which in general would be against Jesus' own Jewish religion which prohibits idols.
Thanks for your consideration on these. Steve Dufour 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that these quotes have been put back. By that standard anything said about Christians or Christianity could be included as a quote about Jesus. Why not a quote about the chicken dinner served at church last Sunday after the service? Would that be a quote about Jesus? Steve Dufour 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Edit[edit]

The first paragraph is as follows: Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ, Yeshua, and Isa (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE), is the central figure of Christianity, a philosopher, teacher, and martyr, believed to be the Messiah of ultimate salvation by followers of Christian traditions.

I would like to propose that it be rewritten as follows: Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ, Yeshua, and Isa (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE), is the central figure of Christianity, a philosopher, teacher, and martyr, believed to be the Messiah of ultimate salvation and the Son of God by the followers of traditional Christianity.

I suggest this on the basis that Jesus' traditional role as the Son of God isn't mentioned, suggesting a highly liberal stance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for bringing up. I support this addition, agreeing that the Son of God is also one of his traditional role in traditional Christianity, which is mentioned in the universal creed (w:Nicene Creed) as well as the role as Redeemer/Savior. --Aphaia 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've no objection to the term "Son of God" being added to the intro description, and just added it, but I would retain the wording "by followers of Christian traditions" rather than the more absolutely exclusionist implications of "by the followers of traditional Christianity" — as their are other Christian traditions than those of the most prominent branches which don't use such terms as a unique designation for Jesus alone, any more than Jesus did. As is indicated many times in the New Testament, he referred to others as sons of God, and children of God, as in "Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God", "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" and "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The term "son of God" was also used even prior to the time of Jesus in referring to especially favored Jewish leaders, without any extraordinary lineage of direct descent implied, and he himself never referred to himself as "the only begotten son of God" though the term was later applied quite prominently to his personal self by others, and such assertions did become part of the doctrines of the vast majority of Churches. ~ Kalki 10:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Move Jesus from people to literary works[edit]

There is no proof that there ever was such person as Jesus of Nazareth, so these quotes are from various versions of bible. Thus they belong to the section of literary works.

—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
The overwhelming majority of experts agree that there is no doubt that Jesus was an historical person. Wikipedia has articles about Jesus and Jesus myth hypothesis. Those who feel unsure (or want to introduce eccentric theories) are encouraged to turn to these articles. --Jonund 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And even if Jesus is a fictional character, the sayings attributed to him have had, and have, a monumental cultural importance in the Western world. Steve Dufour 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Why why[edit]

Is Jesus here as philosopher. All those things are asumed to be writen by Luke and folks. And of that it doesn't seem to be sure if there was actualy just 2 sources for those too. Allready that should give the "philosopher" title to them if worth it. Which they aren't. How about to quotes about jesus all this stuff that are in "Jesus the Philosopher". Just ridiculous. Lets make Raskolnikov a philosopher shall we. Well now im insulting truely good stuff dragging it to this level.

Quotes about Jesus vs. Quotes about Christianity[edit]

There are a lot of quotes which are really about the beliefs of Christianity or about the actions and character of Christian people hundreds of years after the life of Jesus himself. It would be better if these were put on a page for quotes about Christianity. Would you put a quote about the Iraq War on the page for George Washington? Steve Dufour 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do all the quotes about Jesus have to be against Jesus[edit]

I noticed how biased all the quotes about Jesus are – most coming from self-described anti-theists. Quotes from anti-religion atheists outnumber quotes from theists by a large ratio. Moreover, quotes from neutral figures are purposely selected, with a great majority have negative saying about Jesus. I mean, whoever deed this went over the top. Neutrality is one of our key objectives. -- 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia…
Azuizo 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Why are there 7 (Count them, SEVEN) quotes from, of all people, Bertrand Russell, about Jesus, when there is only one from C.S. Lewis?! It makes no sense at all! I know this isn't meant to be a fan page, but I think it is a bit excessive and very biased.

Seems to me there's also a substantial number of quotes on this page literally deifying the man. In any case, if you know other quotable quotes by C. S. Lewis that belong here, please provide them. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes of Jesus in Hadith[edit]

I'm no Muslim, but I came across these quotes from various Hadiths(?) and was curious if someone thinks enough of them to add them into the article. (Particularly the one marked A.61, M. 62)The Ascetic Sayings of Jesus 01:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Some more Haidths which should be added in the article are:

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 644: Narrated 'Ubada:

The Prophet said, "If anyone testifies that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His Slave and His Apostle, and that Jesus is Allah's Slave and His Apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit created by Him, and that Paradise is true, and Hell is true, Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he had done even if those deeds were few." (Junada, the sub-narrator said, " 'Ubada added, 'Such a person can enter Paradise through any of its eight gates he likes.")

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651: Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus)."

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 658: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said "How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7)

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 653: Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Jesus, seeing a man stealing, asked him, 'Did you steal?, He said, 'No, by Allah, except Whom there is None who has the right to be worshipped' Jesus said, 'I believe in Allah and suspect my eyes."

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654: Narrated 'Umar:

I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."

The Jehovah's Witnesses cartoon[edit]

I was going to delete this but the page is locked.

There's a particular section describing a cartoon allegedly produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses that shows Jesus blowing up a lot of stuff.

The link given to the cartoon is to YouTube. The YouTube video does not purport to be a cartoon produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather by someone who is claiming that this is what the JWs believe. Either way, there's no proof that this is a real JW cartoon and there is no legitimate sourcing here. For these reasons it should be deleted. 19:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed out some comments inserted into the quote, and the erroneous comments about it. That many people don't seem to clearly discern this to be a rather bitter satirization of the theology of Jehovah's Witness rather than a promotion of them is itself rather alarming, but I have not removed the quote or link, though better sourcing of the actual title of this cartoon and its publication date and authors is certainly desirable. ~ Kalki 20:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens quote[edit]

That Christopher Hitchens quote seems overlong and only tangentially related to the topic.


As per the general rules about fictional characters, this article should be deleted, and select quotes should be taken from it and merged into an article about "Holy Bible". I have done numerous searches on other fictional characters, and the only one I could find was for Jean-Luc Picard, which has a "proposal to be merged into star Trek: The Next Generation" template at the header. All quotes from fictional characters should be listed under the works they came from, and should not have an article titled after the character.RayvnEQ 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if one took the characterization seriously, this subject would fall within the Fictional characters guideline's exceptions. ~ Ningauble 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you prove that Jesus was fictional? RayvnEQ: No, I can't. I thought so. So before you go about sprouting nonsense from your backside, you should really learn to research about things before you dismiss them. I think you'll find that more and more atheists are beginning to believe that a man named Jesus did indeed exist who preached about God. This is because of the overwhelming evidence for His existence. Even other religions teach about Jesus - specifically Him performing miracles. That's all that needs to be said really. Have fun raging. Christianity is the biggest religion in the world for a reason and there's nothing you can do to stop that. :) God bless you. But before I go, I shall leave you with this quote: Of course, only a lunatic fringe has ever thought that Jesus did not exist at all. - Bernard McGinn --RichardDarkinsMadMan 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what you may have been told, we do not actually have “overwhelming evidence for [Jesus's] existence”, nor has a man behind the myths ever been proven to exist. That the Abrahamic religions have shared myths does not establish their historicity. (They also share myths about imaginary characters like Adam and Eve.) Jesus’s existence is moot.
Regardless of whether or not Jesus existed, if we are careful to not attribute words attributed to Jesus to Jesus directly, having an article for Jesus accords with Wikiquote’s fictional characters policy. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Notes re John W Wenham, (1984, 1992, 2005), "Easter Enigma - are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?" Chapters 7 to 11.[edit]

1) Where God has only given us some pieces of the jigsaw, we currently have no unique solution to the remainder. That is, multiple theories are possible, provided they are all consistent with all four gospels.

2) "As the two appearances [of the Saviour] are distinct, that to Mary Magdalene must be put first (as Mark 16:9 says) and the second must be put at a sufficient interval after the women's flight from the tomb to allow for all the comings and goings recorded by John.... One must picture this [second] meeting [Matthew 28:9,10 "Jesus met them"] somewhere on the track between Jerusalem and Bethany...." (Wenham 2005 p95f.)

This important conclusion of Wenham that the meeting of Matthew 28:9,10 occurred on a track between Jerusalem and surrounding villages depends only on two assumptions. First, that sufficient disciples were staying in villages outside the city for women to go there - it is almost certainly false to claim that all were lodging in the city, especially since Jerusalem city may have been packed for Passover, and Martha and her family were at Bethany. Second, that Peter and John were in the city on the first Easter Sunday morning - John was known to the High Priest, that is, he had connections with the city, or Peter and John might have accompanied women who left a village while it was still dark. Patrick Hamilton 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


don't want to register but "beautitudes" ought to be "beatitudes." although they are quite beautific...


There's something strange on the history of the article, especially edits marked with "Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations". It slightly disrupt the page history reading. Is it because of some page history merge? Benny Lin (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind that question. I think the history got merged. Benny Lin (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it was a history merge. The result is confusing because overlapping histories were merged in a single operation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Two quotes at issue.[edit]

I disagree with the inclusion of the following two quotes on this page:

The Russell quote is not about "Jesus", and is therefore inappropriately placed. The Obama quote is mundane, and unoriginal - see, e.g., George Angus Fulton Knight, Jews and Christians: Preparation for Dialogue (1965), p. 103: "It is precisely such an event that we have in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ", which is a much earlier use of almost exactly the same phrasing. Putting "I believe" in front of it does not make it an original sentiment, nor does it make it particularly quotable. It might belong on the Barack Obama page, but we don't need to gather here every instance of a world leader saying "I am a believer in X religion/Y doctrine". BD2412 T 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that these have now been removed. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Would have moved the Russell quote, but it already had a more appropriate listing under The Bible, so I simply deleted it here. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Why Is Jesus talking in Shakespearean in so many of the quotes?

Need source that meets Wikiquote source guidelines[edit]

  • Christ is not God, not the saviour of the world, but a mere man, a sinful man, and an abominable idol. All who worship him are abominable idolaters. And Christ did not rise again from death to life nor did he ascend into heaven.


  • I am absolutely convinced that no amount of wealth in the world can help humanity move forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker. The example of great and pure individuals is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistably invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Ghandi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?
  • When Jesus was nailed to the cross, how was it that he could, in spite of so much pain and suffering, pray that those who nailed him should be forgiven? When an ordinary coconut is pierced through the shell, the nail enters the kernel of the nut. But in the case of the dry nut the kernel becomes separate from the shell; and when the shell is pierced, the kernel is not touched. Jesus was like the dry nut; his inner soul was separate from his physical shell. Consequently the sufferings of the body did not affect him. Though the nails were driven through and through, he could pray with calm tranquility for the good of his enemies.
  • Every person is Christ for me, and since there is only one Jesus, that person is the one person in the world at that moment.
  • The honorable Elijah Muhammed teaches us that Jesus did not have blond hair and blue eyes. The honorable Elijah Muhammed teaches us that the images of Jesus that are on prison walls and churches throughout the world are not historically correct because history teaches us that Jesus was born in a region where the people had color.
Note: Malcolm X is not the author of the film, Malcolm X; this quote must be identified in his speeches or writings to be considered sourced. BD2412 T 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)