Talk:Jesus Christ

There is no evidence Jesus ever lived, or is it? If not, the template stating this is wrong.Flying sheep 17:31, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus is a fact, either you agree with it or not. Some people believes it existed, some people believe it don't, but the character sure is real. Please refrain from those high-religious discussions since it causes unnecessary turmoil in peaceful waters. -- D. Cello 17:14, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * you stumbled here: either something is fact, or “you agree with it or not”. so if some believe in it and some not and there is no evidence for both “this page is about a real/historical person” is a wrong statement and should be changed to “this page is about a person whose existence is believed in, but not proved” or something. that’s not religious. it’s religious to think something’s a fact, no matter it’s proved or not. ‒ Flying sheep 17:31, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy exists, either in our world or in people's minds. Except for atheists and other religions extremists, Christ is mostly regarded to have been a real person. But to keep it in the AC universe, Al Mualim says he existed, so he's real. -- D. Cello 03:53, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * if he is, i want a source: i heard about documents proving his existence, but i don’t know if they exist. and stuff existing in people’s minds and nowhere else is mostly regarded to be delusion. ‒ Flying sheep 16:22, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Join a archeological expedition, then. Use your lifetime to search the Middle-East for proof of his existence. To this wiki (and me, per therefore, since my personal oppinions won't interfere with my wikiduties) only two things matter: Our timetable counts year as AC and BC, Anno Dommini and what not, with the 0 year being Jesus' birth. And Al Mualim says he was just a carpenter who used a PoE, so he was real. -- D. Cello 19:48, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * i am sure many people more interested in jesus than me wasted their lifes searching for his remains/stuff. and this is neither about the in-game world nor about some ancient tradition, i’m talking only about the sentence “This page describes a person, place, thing or event that exists (or existed) in real life.”. ‒ Flying sheep 22:07, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Umm.. if were being that specific and direct, we have no absolute evidence that machiavelli was real, or that da Vinci was real, (anyone could have painted those paintings), or that Pope Alexander VI was real, or King Richard either since they arent alive now, and cameras werent invented to document their existince. no has any photos or video of their lives or even their corpses. the only proof we have of the life of any historical figure before thomas edison and the camera is WRITTEN DOCUMENTS passed down by historians. one such document was the BIBLE, (i assume you arent denying that the bible is a historic document) and if we are to put that into question than whats to stop me from saying that poeple only BELIEVE that De Medici exists because of works such as The Prince and historical ledgers. Now who's to say if the accuracy of these records can be trusted? maybe The Prince was a forgery? the point is the bible is just as much historic record as any other document that ever existed. CarloGrimaldi 23:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * well, i know fantasy books containing more facts than the bible. it’s a historical novel at best. ‒ Flying sheep 23:19, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

This is a public wiki, and comments like that are offensive. but nonetheless, no matter how factual you determine the records to be, they are still records. and your religious opinion has no influence on our templates. sorry, but if you would like to debate religion, youll have to go elsewhere CarloGrimaldi 23:25, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we have members of all religions in this wiki. If just the fact that a tempalte says that Jesus existed bothers you, imagine what your comments about the bible being a fantasy means to religious people. As I said before, "refrain from those high-religious discussions since it causes unnecessary turmoil in peaceful waters." Religion and/or political discussions are not tolerated here, and I'll have to take a measure if this continues for more than a day. Warning One, and it won't have a second. -- D. Cello 03:12, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd put in my two cents. The article is based around Jesus as a person in Assassin's Creed. Whether he existed in real life is irrelevant. I, being a Christian, personally believe he exists, but in the Assassin's Creed universe he existed for sure. (Since Al Mualim says so). If you wanna be a religious bigot, take it somewhere else. -- 03:16, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * you don’t understand the meaning of the word “bigot”, since i’m everything but that. and calling the bible a fantasy novel (with a few historic aspects) is simply the truth. most stories in there are undoubted just stories: not even the silliest christians i know call for example the genesis “a fact”. they all say it’s a metaphor.
 * so let’s summarize: the bible contains enough metaphores not to call it “historic”. taht means you can’t take it as historic source because everything in it was either historic or a metaphor and there’s no waay to tell the difference. conclusion: there is as much prove of jesus’ existence than of the existence of adam, eve and their inbreed grandchildren.
 * “inbreed” is btw. not offensive but fact: adam and eve are the first people, so their sons have to impregnate their mother or sisters to get children. q.e.d.
 * are there other sources which said that jesus lived? if not, i will change the template, if yes, i want to have a link to them/seethem/… ‒ Flying sheep 12:14, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Now I'm not saying that you're regarding us with hatred and intolerance, but you do seem to be pretty stubborn on this subject. Also, if you actually took the time to read the bible you'd see all of the evidence there is for the existence of a Creator. The Bible is more historically accurate than any other historical document we have right now. All religious documents are filled with things that sound crazy, that's because when it comes to religion things are going to get a little weird. It's religion: that's just the way it is. I don't really wanna argue about this much more, since D. Cello is getting a little PO'd, so just try and be an honorable debater and think about what I've said. -- 16:28, June 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm not gonna lock this article since you, sheep, are not being directly offensive or agressive toward a member, and because I really like your nickname. But that aside, Jesus, be a character or a person, is real in our world. It wasn't invented for the AC Games. It wasn't something that came out of a creative producer dream. It was something created or documented two thousand years ago, and most of Earth's populace believes he was real. Wikipedia lists some proofs of his veracity, so you go there if you want and assimilate the entire article. About the template, it states "This page describes a person, place, thing or event that exists (or existed) in real life.” You don't believe he is a real person? Great. But you can't deny he is a real thing. Discussion over, or I'll lock the page and maybe temporary block the arguers, if need arises. -- D. Cello 18:27, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * you just made my day :): “The Bible is more historically accurate than any other historical document we have right now” ‒ Flying sheep 16:38, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * My patience is running out and *somebody*'s going to get blocked...
 * fair enough. maybe the template text is a bit misleading, then, but if you turn it like this, it does fullfill it’s purpose of linking to “real-world-stuff” in general. i won’t nitpick anymore. one more thing, though: why are you, JFHavoc, being a very religious person, on this wiki and like a game which criticises your belief as much as assassins creed does? this game has a strong atheistic undertone! (or better: anti-religious) ‒ Flying sheep 20:18, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

This topic (the relgious undertone of AC) seems less offensive than before, and its actually related to assassins creed in a major way, so i think its okay to discuss. if not, let me know, Cello. i think that the assassins creed series isnt about atheism but simply freedom of religion, all the character that say god is a falacy are antagonists, such as the templars, al mualim, and vidic. Altair, though he is an atheist, fights in defence of theism in his last conversation with al mualim (Just before they fight), this even seems to be one of his main reasons for fighting Al mualim (other than the mass mind control thing ;P) the hero of AC2, Ezio, is catholic, and he often gives italian-catholic prayers to those he kills, always saying raquiescat en pace (or however you spell that). yes, many of his targets are preists/cardinals/the pope. but, these men are all corrupted, and it could be said that he is cleasing the faith of those that would try to use it for evil, rather than attacking it. i think that even our current pope, (benedict the 16th i think) would aggree that rodrigio borgia, or pope alexander the 6th was a bad dude. he even raped catrina sforza, he was not nice. Altair also killed jubair when he tried to burn religious texts, (among other texts, but honestly, in the middle ages, how many people, in the middle disrict no less, could afford any secular text? especially when considering that almost all scribes were preists and our buddy Gutenburg hadnt came along yet) CarloGrimaldi 21:12, June 7, 2010 (UTC) oh, P.S. im not christian or catholic or anything, i just dont think AC is atheistic. oh, and sorry to d. cello if you dont like this either, d. cello can erase it if he wants.
 * i think the opposition against religious fanatics is stronger than the pledge for freedom of religion. note that all the ugly sides of the medieval (plagues, thievery, quacks, poverty, …) are not 'really' featured in the game, but the crusades, the hate preachers, the religious leaders and all are.
 * furthermore i’m not quite sure about ezio. everytime somebody wishes him the help of god or something (for example lorenzo on the bridge) he remains quiet. and he sure is of talky sort. “requiescat in pace” may be of religious origin, but the saying is not really religious itself. the christians think you have an afterlife while “rest in peace” implies no movement after the death. “rest in peace” like “stay lying peacefully in your grave”.
 * “atheistic”, however, means “without a god”. and the game is just that. the superior goals of both organisations (of which neither is good or bad, another hint http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb21710/common/skins/monobook/bullet.gif) are completely godless, the leaders too. by the way: i am convinced there is no such thing as an “agnostic”: the argumentation is basically that you can’t answer “do you 'believe' in god?” with “i don’t 'know'”. either you believe or you don’t there’s nothing between.
 * but you are right insofar that neither of them fights against religion-that would be “anti-theistic”-but for their own conviction (or creed :)), which is godless/atheistic. ‒ Flying sheep 21:51, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * the reason why for example japanese game mostly don’t have ultimately evil antagonists is because most japanese people are buddhists. and buddhists don’t have a good god vs evil satan. everyone is human and truly thinks he does the best there is. that’s one of the main reasons i like the assassin’s creed series: because there is no unlikely evil-because-i-can enemy but humans who want peace-utilizing methods the main character and his team/clan/friends don’t agree with.

Okay, so i get that the literal meaning of "rest in peace" doesn't relate to religion, but i seriously doubt that Ezio is actually telling his vcitims to “stay lying peacefully in their grave”.... this isnt exactly a zombie-survival game. as mario says, he is showing respect for the dead, and "dont move" is hardly repectful. i hope you would agree that Ezio, at least, is religious. though religious in a way like sister teodora (not the whole sex thing, just that he practices christianity in his own way, by killing evil guys). I also think that it showed so many religious figures in AC1 not to show the negitive side of religion, but simply because religious figures were the only ones with power in the holy land at that time. the game showed beggars and theives and crappy decaying buildings, though they werent important, true, but Al Mualim couldnt exactly be like "Altair, you must end the life of Bob the homeless man, he is betraying the people by pretending to have a broken leg to get more change" then you have to go and sneak past the defenses of a midieval soup kitchen, this would be much less exciting than killing a powerful leader in his fortress, and powerful leaders of the time where inevitably religious leaders.

also, the story does acually include "gods" as characters. Those who came before dont call themselves gods, but they created mankind, and the peices of eden which were "the power of god" is orby form. that completes my definition of god. when it said moses used the power of god to part the red sea, he did so in the series as well, using an apple? i think, or maybe the staff, but regardless, both are "powers" of the "gods", mankind's creators, even if that is a bit less monotheistic than the common judeo-christian belief. i would say, if anything, the series promotes a revival of greek/roman religion rather than atheism. CarloGrimaldi 22:31, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, i’m no native english speaker so the phrase about r.i.p. was not exactly good :). instead it is a phrase, like you said, about respect after the death.
 * about those who came before: i interpret it exactly opposite: in the in-game reality the people invented their religions based on those who came before, the escape of adam and eve and the actions of completely powerless beings (such as jesus) who used the pieces of eden to create godlike illusion. rational explanations of the religions. atheistic message again. those who came before are just another humanoid species with highly advanced technology, them being seen as gods is because of clarke’s third law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
 * and again ezio: maybe he has his own belief, but i think his silence in religios things means he lost his believe somewhere along the way. he says what he thinks about almost anything but he never reveals anything about his belief. if people are talking about this subject. (i. e. he talks to theodora about her belief but careful not to say anything which would provoke a question abous his view on religion)
 * ‒ Flying sheep 22:49, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * D. Cello has yet to aprove that this is even okay to talk about on his site, (or the wikia site in which he runs and maintains) and im getting a little worried, but I always saw ezio as very sarcastic and witty, always making jokes and the like. when he became quiet upon th mention of religion, i saw that as him becoming more serious and reverant, but maybe thats just me.also, most of the times where "god aid you" is mentioned, it is said as a goodbye, but the first sentence i wrote goes for the teodora part, i think if he was atheistic he would have made a sexual joke then, but maybe he was just trying not to offend the sister, who knows. i also dont think you need to be intangible or off among the heavens to be a "god". jesus is widely considered to be both divine and human. god also "made people in his image" so once can assume that if god has any kind of physical form, it would likely be generally humanoid. but im getting off the subject of AC, so i think that a technilogical device created by gods (though we havent decided on a clear definition of "god" yet) would have "holy power" and still be the same in my eyes. Moses never claimed he himself parted the red sea, he called god to do it. the difference between calling on god to open a sea and using a orb made by god to open a sea is negligible to me, at least when it comes to proving or disproving god's existance. so i would say that while AC alters the real life events stated in the bible, it is not in an attempt to disprove god. and i would also note that AC alters real life secular events as often as religious ones so i woud not consider the changing of biblical stories in AC to be anti-religious in nature CarloGrimaldi 23:13, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

This has continued much longer than I would have liked, but as far as this' a discussion and everyone keeps it civilized; don't attacking each other beliefs, criticizing and stuff; you can go on forever. Just remember: we're here cause we love the game. Period. -- D. Cello 23:24, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * i’m sorry, but you got the story wrong: nobody never did anything godlike: they only made the people think they did. illusions.
 * why should an atheist make a sexual joke? i would have reacted similar: “well, quite a special way to worship *grin*”
 * again: minerva herself said that those who came before are not gods. if you slow down the “the truth” video, you see some guys forging a peace of eden. it’s technology, and the game is very clear in telling that nothing supernatural is involved (the eagle view is another thing, but i believe, it’s just some kind of visualized instinct: dogs can literally smell who’s their friend, maybe a similar sense is preserved in desmond’s bloodline. the genetics in the game are a bit screwed up: thousands of ancient’s memories saved in a few gigabyte dna. yeah…)
 * i’m really sorry, but you got this part of your theory wrong. there is really no chance that there is any godly magic involved in those who came before and their stuff. that’s what the whole story is about. an ancient high-tech culture with powerful technology. of course it does not disprove god: it is fiction. but in this fictional world, all incomprehensible happenings in history and mythology boil down to technologically induced hallucinations/illusions. that means that although some of the main characters could or could not believe in god, the ones who used the pieces thought they were godsent: we know better, those who came before compiled the thingies: the world the game plays in is godless. ‒ Flying sheep 23:42, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * to me, the creation of such an illusion is godlike. the humans in the video seemed to be working on something, and the chica on the right was holding an apple and usuing mind control, but im not sure what the people were making, but regardless, just because minerva claims she is not a god, but to me it seems she is, whatever she says, she created man, was responsible for religious miracles, and was worshiped for it. maybe Minerva only ment that she was not the god ezio worshiped, not God, or Allah, or Yaweh. Technology created by gods is the power of the gods, just as machines we create are considered "the power of man". i dont believe any of it, in real life or in the game, is magic. god is not magic, he is not a wizard or anything, he is simply divine, superior. i would also say that those who came before are superior, possessing knowledge that humans of the current day cannot even comprehend. Minerva also syas desmonds name... in a hologram during the 1400s.... this hints at an opnipotence comparable to godly power. also, god made the world (biblicaly) using technology as well, if biological technology, the complex organ systems and innerworkings of living things as a system is a technology that far surpasses our own. I know that Minerva says she isnt a god, but if she isnt, than what more do you need to obtain divinity? CarloGrimaldi 00:16, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, and i agree that the whole Eagle vision isnt magic, just a doglike sense of people intentions that seemed to be part of those who came before. it says somewhere that the whole color system thing (bad people being red, good blue) is just the animus's way of recreating that sense when desmond is put into once of the 3D holograms of his memories. CarloGrimaldi 00:22, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * those who came before didn’t create the humans, they enslaved them. and everything which can’t be explained rationally is (in fiction) either not yet fully investigated or magic. wonders are magic (or, like here, mere illusions). and yes, they are very advanced, but that’s what we are, too–compared to stone age people. maybe in 3000 years a boy will find a dvd with assassins creed 2 frozen in some ice, develops in a few seconds with his wrist-comuter a way to read the old device, circumvents the copy-protection with an amused grin and laughs at what we thought to be futuristic after playing through the game in a few seconds with his neuro-pc-interface. what i want to say: just because you think the robots in “terminator” are godlike: they just have advanced technology. as said above: clarke’s third law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Flying sheep 10:10, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

If the Templars killed Jesus...
From what I understand, the AC fiction uses the real-world organization known as the Knight's Templar as a basis for an antagonistic force to the Assassins. It portrays them less and less like their real-world counterparts and more like some kind of Illuminati- manipulating governments and influential figures to achieve their own goals: the Pieces of Eden.

Why though do these people crucify Jesus of Nazareth in 33 A.D. to obtain his Shroud, when during the Crusades Era (About the time of AC1) they actually fight for Christianity? And in Renaissance Europe, they control the Catholic church? In the fiction of AC, they kill Jesus, yet they are based on a military organization in a religious war fighting for Christianity? 24.239.50.56 06:31, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Video game magic. Nah, I imagine that their fight for Christianity was just a cover for their true goal, as you said.&#39;R BlaiddDdraig 09:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

3 BC?
how can jesus be born in 3 bc when bc means before christ.2.97.0.167 17:17, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

He's Jesus. Nuff said. 78.105.39.132 11:07, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

BC and AD are outdated terms used only in older texts. We now use the acronyms CE (Current Era) and BCE (Before Current Era). And to answer your question, when the original BC/AD terms were used, people obviously believed Jesus was born during the transition between the two. Later findings have proven otherwise it seems. Regardless, BCE and CE are the terms used professionally. -- Vaxis Dec 13 12:47 AM

S1monab0m (talk) 23:08, January 12, 2013 (UTC)Did jesus aquire an apple to turn water into wine? Al Mualim stated that an apple was used for that and The shrouds powers dind´t involve illusions.

Image caption
Could someone with authority please remove the full stop in Jesus' caption? I know this is trivial, and I'd do it myself, but it's (unsurprisingly) locked. 18:52, April 17, 2013 (UTC)