![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
It looks like our latest peer review is over. We got one comment, in response to which I separated the "Pauline Christian views" section between trinitarian and nontrinitarian views. Are there any further comments? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Previous discussion in Talk:Jesus/Archive 49.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the discussion on the name section. If not, I feel that 95% of the information can be cut (and moved to the main articles if it isn't already there). I mean, what do we really have to say here?
Case closed, right? Why is there so much detail going into one small section?-- Andrew c 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Have Steve's changes been made to the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament article? If so, than I believe we can replace our long name section with Andrew c's proposal. Anyone disagree? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty good, but slightly inaccurate. I would write it this way:
Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
??? [1] cum ergo natus esset Iesus in Bethleem Iudaeae in diebus Herodis regis ecce magi ab oriente venerunt Hierosolymam
I've had a revised version of the shortened version posted over at Requests For Page Protection for a while now, and nothing has been altered. -- Steve Caruso 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Galileans commonly did not pronounce ע , hence Y'shu. "But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b)." [2] Technically, the Ayin doesn't exist in English, so an "a" is generally used in it's place but this is still not the correct pronounciation.
If you want to get technical, originally only Capital letters were used, hence Greek: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ and Latin: IESVS (u was invented in the middle ages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.98 ( talk • contribs)
Steve: The Latin had an "o" but not an "ou" diphthong (which in Greek was similar to the French and English "ou" [like in you]), so they transliterated Ἰησοῦς as Iesv[=u]s. The standard English transliteration is Iēsous or Iêsous. » MonkeeSage « 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
ΟΥ in Koine Greek was not pronounced as a dipthong, rather it was the Close back rounded vowel. The Latin symbol for the same sound was V, later changed to U,u. In French, the sound is spelled ou, presumably English borrowed this spelling from French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.98 ( talk • contribs)
Name section updated. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm a good Cathloic boy of 14 years, but I have always wondered. Jesus was Jewish. Their Messiah has not yet come. But Jesus called himself the Messiah. Can someone please explain this? TommyBoy76 16:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76
Child Jesus is lacking sources. I thought I'd post this at the main Jesus nexus to bring this to everyone's attention. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of mythology, Jesus-Myth has recently been caught up in an edit war. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something but why is this page linked from the New Testament Jesus bit of Jesus#See also. It's a good page and obviously has Christianity links but I don't think it sits well here. Any objections if I remove it? Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey - I would have just added this myself but the page is frozen. But I think we should add a section on the Fathers' view of Jesus' genealogy (specifically the view in Augustine's Retractions 2:7; St. Jerome's Commentary on Matthew 1:16; Eusebius of Caesarea's view in the Ecclesiastical History 1:7; and John Damascene's view in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14. That tradition says:
Heli son of Matthat was descended from David's son Solomon; Jacob son of Matthan from David's son Nathan. The Fathers claim that Heli and Jacob were in fact half-brothers. According to tradition, their mother Estha first married Matthat and had Heli; then after Matthat died, she married Matthan and had Jacob.
Now, when Heli grows up, he marries a woman (tradition doesn't assign her a name as far as I can tell) but dies before they have any children. Then, in accordance with the levirate law in Deuteronomy 25:5, Jacob married Heli's widow, and "raised up seed for his brother." Thus, Jacob was physically Joseph's father, but Heli was accounted his father in accordance with the Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam sk ( talk • contribs)
Hi, can anyone tell me why the family tree of Jesus I added on 19 April was excised? I cited my sources, and did'nt think it was either long or contraversial. Fergananim 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Matthat bar Levi | Eleazar | | Heli/Eliakim | | Matthan ________|_________ | | | | | | Pantera? + Mary =(1st) Joseph = (2nd) Clophas | no issue? | | _________|________________________ Jesus | | | | | | 5 B.C.- A.D. 28. | | | | | | James Jose Judas Simon Mary Salome d.A.D. 62 | d.A.D. 101 ____|____ | | | | Zechariah James alive in the reign of Dominitan
BTW, The Jesus Dynasty is somewhat controversial. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Desposyni "From Jesus to Christ: Jesus' Family Tree" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.24.167 ( talk • contribs)
This family tree is certainly not generally accepted. If it's a significant part of The Jesus Dynasty then probably it would be best to create an article for that and add the tree to it. DJ Clayworth 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean. Anyway it serves me right for putting in the main Jesus article instead of historical Jesus, where I doubt it would cause half as much trouble! Thanks! Fergananim 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This subject can immediately cause apolexy in some religious persons who feel without thinking that it is blaspemy. What is meant is not that Jesus didnt ascend to heaven but that before he was crucified he was married and had children. And his wife was Mary Magdalene and there is considerable evidence for that.
(Mary Magdalene was trashed by the early church to have been a prostitute but careful review of the facts shows that whole story was made up.)
The question of whether or not Jesus had a family and so also had children and esp then descendants down to today has been around for 1000 or more years but was highlighted in 1982-84 TV programs in Britain and then the best seller Holy Blood Holy Grail. And most recently again that same idea, that Jesus had descendants is found to be the final solution to the puzzle being chased about Europe to solve in the mega best seller, Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
In addition, the Bible PREDICTS in its Isaiah prophecies that Jesus will have children, a clear prophecy that is ignored by those yelling blasphemy.
He shall see his Seed - Isaiah 53: 10
He shall sprinkle his Seed across many nations - Isaiah 52:15
Twisted about in the middle of this descendants discussion is the weakly understood idea of Holy Grail, ... that when understood better means simply a person, including Jesus descendants, who are filled with the Holy Spirit (as Jesus and as his disciples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.10 ( talk • contribs)
It was unbelievable to see the unfactual and unneutral quality of the Muslim POV in such an important article. -- Aminz 07:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The doctorine of Tahrif was unfactually stated. Some sentences were pov. Please see my current edits to the article. Moreover, that was not a good representation of Muslim POV. I tried to make it better. -- Aminz 07:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, the following link shows your changes to the article.
Can you please explain what your meant by your above comment. Simply stating that it's "unfactual" and "unneutral" is a waste of talk page space, meaning you might as well not have commented at all. Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, how were you able to show all my edits together!! I'll explain in a bit why I think the article as it stood was both "unfactual" and "unneutral" but please let me know how you were you able to show all my edits together. Thanks -- Aminz 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Aminz, when you go to the history page, you will see 2 links in front of every edit, (cur) and (last) - if you click on the (clur) link in the line preceding your first edit, it will give you the diff between that version and the current version. As long as there has been no edits after yours, it serves as a compliation of your edits. I don't know whether the link above will change when new edits are added or whether it will stay the same, but at least right now it works. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Why I think it was not a good representation of Muslim POV:
1. It didn’t say Muslim believe Jesus was the Messiah (though the intro says that but this should be here as well).
2. Allah (God) was fine but if you could have a look at the Allah article, you’ll see that Allah is just the Arabic name for God. Arab Christians and Jews use Allah to refer to God. Arabic Bibles use the word “Allah”.
3. but with help from God --> by the leave of God. Since the latter is the exact quote from Qur’an, it is more proper.
4. “Islam greatly separates the status of creatures from the status of the creator and warns against believing that Jesus was divine. (Qu'ran, 3:59; 4:171; 5:116-117). See Isa for futher information.” Was a proper addition to the article since in Islam the most possible imaginable distance is the distance between creator and creature.
5. Added Muslims belief on sacrificial rule of Jesus + view on salvation.
6. Specified which part of belief comes from Qur’an and which from quotes attributed to Muhammad. Qur’an alone Muslims, a small sect, reject all quotes attributed to Muhammad.
Alleged Factual problems:
1. Doctrine of Tahrif was misrepresented. If you look at the relevant Qur’anic verses ([ Quran 3:78, [ Quran 4:46, [ Quran 5:13, [ Quran 2:75, [ Quran 2:58 ) one can see the doctrine of Tahrif is much about misinterpreting, misrepresenting and passing over the text rather than textual distortion.
2. Doctrine of Tahrif talks only about some parts of the scripture.
3. “He also abstained from alcohol and from animal flesh, according to these traditions.”- unreferenced and it was also in the Isa article but was later removed.
4. “They, too, believe he was the only man ever to abstain completely from sin.”- “They, too, believe” not very encyclopedic. Moreover, this is not true in all views. Shia Muslims have the doctrine of fourteen infallibles. See Islamic views of Muhammad.
Alleged Neutral problems:
1. “God would not subject his beloved prophet to any form of persecution at the Cross.” Is unreferenced. This is not true in logic. There were many prophets who were tortured and killed according to Qur’an. Another theory for example is that God was testing Jesus to see if he is really obedient or not (like Abraham who was tested by God). But when Jesus showed his obedient and passed the test, God really didn’t want for Jesus to be killed on the cross, so he saved him in a similar way that God provided a lamb for Abraham.
2. Old Testament --> Hebrew Bible. (removed Christian POV).
Hope they make sense. Thanks -- Aminz 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz's edits were poorly written and caused several redundancies in the section. They also threw the section out of chronological order. I kept his edits but reorganized the section, correcting numerous grammatical errors. Aminz, please read over it and let us know if you are satisfied. — Aiden 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice. I especially like the links to the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. I've been looking for a Qur'anGateway (Muslim equivalent of BibleGateway) for a while now. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 22:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert, Aiden. Fergananim, it's poor etiquite to archive current discussions (and now I have to sort /Archive 54)! I have been archiving old discussions that are a week old, I can move that up if people wish. At one point, I was archiving discussions that were only three days old. I was also still filling out /Archive 52 and /Archive 53 with the article dispute and life and teachings discussions, respectively. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver
Okay, the page was getting a bit long, so I stepped it up to a five-day archiving schedule. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The progress that has been since I was here is incredible. I looked for a group effort barn start, but couldn’t find one. Congrats editors! I do have one suggestion. A section on how “early Christians” , Jews, and Romans during that time would be useful. I noticed a lot of the minority groups during that period are talked about but the Romans, Greeks, Jews, and other thinkers were far more influential than those fringe groups on our image of Christ. Perhaps a small section could be written about what people thought of Christ early on. Anyways, I think this article is pretty good, and if it was possible to get it stable it may have potential as a featured article. Newbie222 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC).