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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
This paragraph under genealogy and family needs to be removed:
"Jesus seems however to have promoted his followers to break with their families. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but ..."
Many religious scholars believe this verse is not a literal message about family, but a metaphor. But that's off point anyway, because it is not Wikipedia's place to make any kind of judgment about what this scripture means. Scripture in this article should be focused on Jesus' life, not spiritual meaning unless the most accepted, prevailing views on a certain scripture are outlined (which would be ridiculous and long in most cases). Long story short, remove this paragraph please, it's not appropriate to speculate on what Jesus meant, that's for religious scholars to debate, not us. Plus, it's really irrelevant to the subject of the section. Thanks! Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The name Jesus is not his real name Yeshua is. So we should change the article name to Yeshua. And before anybody says anything this is the english form of his real name because there is NO J in the Hebrew alphabet... only yod (letter in the Hebrew alphabet) which makes a Y sound. I know that Christ wants to be called by his real name not some name a guy misinterperated. The K.O. King ( talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What do I have to say to prove my point THERE IS NO J IN THE JEWISH ALPHABET!!!!! If there is no J in the JEWISH alphabet, and Jesus (whose real name IS Yeshua) is a JEW the how can he be called Jesus if ther IS NO J in the alphabet of his country. The K.O. King ( talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am going to appoint myself moderator during this argument because I am arrogant and I think I am the best. As moderator, I hereby and henceforth decree that this is to remain titled "Jesus," after the English spelling. Ok, seriously, this article adequately informs readers of the "Yeshua" pronunciation in Hebrew, which is right on. In naming articles, however, Wikipedia English uses the most common English form of names, and that is "Jesus". Remember that Wikipedia adopts society’s norms and rules (English-speaking society in this case) and doesn’t seek to change or debate the value of those norms. :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who say there is no Y in te Hebrew alphabet...you are right but there is a Yod which stands for Y. You want to know why Yeshua is called Jesus? It was too Jewish!!! Just like the sabbath which is on Saturday it was too Jewish so people switched it to Sunday for the Christians. Did know that the Apostle Saul's name never changed to Paul? It was made Paul by those who thought the name Saul was too Jewish (and Jews arn't called Jews, they are called Yews). It you need more refrences look in the Bible the word candlestick really means Monorah but Monorah was too Jewish. Another point for those of you who say we need to use the English name Yeshua is English because your name no matter what country you go too your name DOESN'T CHANGE! So if you think Jesus is his real name it's not it's just that Yeshua was TOO JEWISH so Christians called him Jesus for the Christians. And that's why I think the article name should be changed to Yeshua. You can put Jesus in parenthesis if you want. The K.O. King ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why I said to rename the page Yeshua (Jesus). And the whole, "Vary from one language to another", thing Yeshua is his name NO MATTER what language you speak or where you come from. When I went to Israel my name DIDN'T repeat DIDN'T change. Your name stays the same no matter where you go or what language you speak, so since there is no J in the Hebrew alphabet and Christ was born in Bethleham a Yewish (Jewish)state and names don't change his name is and always will be Yeshua. Even in the ENGLISH language. The K.O. King ( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to change the page's title at least put that Yeshua was and still is His real name. Look up the origins of His name you will find out His real name is Yeshua. http://lojministries.org Nuff' said. And please, listen to at least one of the messages.-- The K.O. King ( talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not asking any of you to call him Yeshua and I'm no longer asking you to change the title of this page, but if the purpose of Wikipedia is to tell truthful facts at least put that His real name is Yeshua. The K.O. King ( talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I've read the article but it doesn't specifically say His REAL NAME is Yeshua!! The K.O. King ( talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add this to the article?
"According to the Raelian Movement, Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, although through in-vitro fertilization, made possible by the advanced technologies available to 'Elohim'(those who came from the sky), an extra-terrestrial race of 'Creators'. He was their 'messenger' of that time, much like Rael in this time. In keeping with Raelian belief, Jesus is alive on a distant planet, as well as all 'prophets', such as Moses, Mohammed and others. "
It probably needs more, but s'all I'm writing for now... Thanks! MarioT ( talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) MGMario, Jan 03/08
Has there been any thought recently trying to get this article featured... again? I realize it has been tried over and over but I think it is closer now than it has been. We should set a goal here and compile a specific list of what is needed based on the comments of reviewers in the last FAC (more specific than the one in To-do). I think the editors most familiar with this article can probably contribute to such a list... Sophia, maybe? If there is interest, I may be able to put in some extra hours here. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I take issue with the first sentence of this article:
"Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."
I take issue with the word 'was' in this sentence (Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader...).
The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth.
This article is deemed a Wikipedia "good article." The second stated attribute for a Wikipedia good article is factual accuracy. Since it is an actual fact that virgin birth is not physically possible, the use of the word 'was' in this sentence violates the standards for a Wikipedia good article.
Therefore, I would like to suggest the rewording of the first sentence to be:
Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is told to be a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions.
The edit suggested is to replace the word 'was' with "is told to be" in the fist sentence of this article.
Bubbabobb ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Tim 1/6/2008
The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth." This is a non-sequitor. The first sentence does not say that Jesus was born of a virgin. Perhaps you believe he was, but the sentence makes no such claim and you cannot infer from the first sentence that your belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is true. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence states that Jesus actually existed. Later in the article it states that he was born of a virgin. You can't have both in the same article, as it makes no sense. You can't say in the same article that Jesus was born of a virgin and even suggest that he ever actually existed, therefore, my original agument remains valid. 76.240.78.71 ( talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Bubbabobb 1/6/2008
Christianity was not the official religion of the Empire under Constantine I. A large number of amatuerish articles and sources, including some video documentaries are stating this hilarious, incorrect suggestion. It was Theodosius I who made it the official religion. I changed this in the article. Tourskin ( talk) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
This paragraph under genealogy and family needs to be removed:
"Jesus seems however to have promoted his followers to break with their families. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but ..."
Many religious scholars believe this verse is not a literal message about family, but a metaphor. But that's off point anyway, because it is not Wikipedia's place to make any kind of judgment about what this scripture means. Scripture in this article should be focused on Jesus' life, not spiritual meaning unless the most accepted, prevailing views on a certain scripture are outlined (which would be ridiculous and long in most cases). Long story short, remove this paragraph please, it's not appropriate to speculate on what Jesus meant, that's for religious scholars to debate, not us. Plus, it's really irrelevant to the subject of the section. Thanks! Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The name Jesus is not his real name Yeshua is. So we should change the article name to Yeshua. And before anybody says anything this is the english form of his real name because there is NO J in the Hebrew alphabet... only yod (letter in the Hebrew alphabet) which makes a Y sound. I know that Christ wants to be called by his real name not some name a guy misinterperated. The K.O. King ( talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What do I have to say to prove my point THERE IS NO J IN THE JEWISH ALPHABET!!!!! If there is no J in the JEWISH alphabet, and Jesus (whose real name IS Yeshua) is a JEW the how can he be called Jesus if ther IS NO J in the alphabet of his country. The K.O. King ( talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am going to appoint myself moderator during this argument because I am arrogant and I think I am the best. As moderator, I hereby and henceforth decree that this is to remain titled "Jesus," after the English spelling. Ok, seriously, this article adequately informs readers of the "Yeshua" pronunciation in Hebrew, which is right on. In naming articles, however, Wikipedia English uses the most common English form of names, and that is "Jesus". Remember that Wikipedia adopts society’s norms and rules (English-speaking society in this case) and doesn’t seek to change or debate the value of those norms. :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who say there is no Y in te Hebrew alphabet...you are right but there is a Yod which stands for Y. You want to know why Yeshua is called Jesus? It was too Jewish!!! Just like the sabbath which is on Saturday it was too Jewish so people switched it to Sunday for the Christians. Did know that the Apostle Saul's name never changed to Paul? It was made Paul by those who thought the name Saul was too Jewish (and Jews arn't called Jews, they are called Yews). It you need more refrences look in the Bible the word candlestick really means Monorah but Monorah was too Jewish. Another point for those of you who say we need to use the English name Yeshua is English because your name no matter what country you go too your name DOESN'T CHANGE! So if you think Jesus is his real name it's not it's just that Yeshua was TOO JEWISH so Christians called him Jesus for the Christians. And that's why I think the article name should be changed to Yeshua. You can put Jesus in parenthesis if you want. The K.O. King ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why I said to rename the page Yeshua (Jesus). And the whole, "Vary from one language to another", thing Yeshua is his name NO MATTER what language you speak or where you come from. When I went to Israel my name DIDN'T repeat DIDN'T change. Your name stays the same no matter where you go or what language you speak, so since there is no J in the Hebrew alphabet and Christ was born in Bethleham a Yewish (Jewish)state and names don't change his name is and always will be Yeshua. Even in the ENGLISH language. The K.O. King ( talk) 23:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to change the page's title at least put that Yeshua was and still is His real name. Look up the origins of His name you will find out His real name is Yeshua. http://lojministries.org Nuff' said. And please, listen to at least one of the messages.-- The K.O. King ( talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not asking any of you to call him Yeshua and I'm no longer asking you to change the title of this page, but if the purpose of Wikipedia is to tell truthful facts at least put that His real name is Yeshua. The K.O. King ( talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I've read the article but it doesn't specifically say His REAL NAME is Yeshua!! The K.O. King ( talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add this to the article?
"According to the Raelian Movement, Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, although through in-vitro fertilization, made possible by the advanced technologies available to 'Elohim'(those who came from the sky), an extra-terrestrial race of 'Creators'. He was their 'messenger' of that time, much like Rael in this time. In keeping with Raelian belief, Jesus is alive on a distant planet, as well as all 'prophets', such as Moses, Mohammed and others. "
It probably needs more, but s'all I'm writing for now... Thanks! MarioT ( talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) MGMario, Jan 03/08
Has there been any thought recently trying to get this article featured... again? I realize it has been tried over and over but I think it is closer now than it has been. We should set a goal here and compile a specific list of what is needed based on the comments of reviewers in the last FAC (more specific than the one in To-do). I think the editors most familiar with this article can probably contribute to such a list... Sophia, maybe? If there is interest, I may be able to put in some extra hours here. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I take issue with the first sentence of this article:
"Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."
I take issue with the word 'was' in this sentence (Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader...).
The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth.
This article is deemed a Wikipedia "good article." The second stated attribute for a Wikipedia good article is factual accuracy. Since it is an actual fact that virgin birth is not physically possible, the use of the word 'was' in this sentence violates the standards for a Wikipedia good article.
Therefore, I would like to suggest the rewording of the first sentence to be:
Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE),[2] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is told to be a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions.
The edit suggested is to replace the word 'was' with "is told to be" in the fist sentence of this article.
Bubbabobb ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Tim 1/6/2008
The use of the word 'was' is an unambiguous statement of actual fact. Since there has never been a verified occurrence of a virgin birth, the word 'was' in this context suggests that Jesus actually was the result of a virgin birth." This is a non-sequitor. The first sentence does not say that Jesus was born of a virgin. Perhaps you believe he was, but the sentence makes no such claim and you cannot infer from the first sentence that your belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is true. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence states that Jesus actually existed. Later in the article it states that he was born of a virgin. You can't have both in the same article, as it makes no sense. You can't say in the same article that Jesus was born of a virgin and even suggest that he ever actually existed, therefore, my original agument remains valid. 76.240.78.71 ( talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Bubbabobb 1/6/2008
Christianity was not the official religion of the Empire under Constantine I. A large number of amatuerish articles and sources, including some video documentaries are stating this hilarious, incorrect suggestion. It was Theodosius I who made it the official religion. I changed this in the article. Tourskin ( talk) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)