Talk:Jesus/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

Jesus Christ in Proto-Indo-European

In Adamic [1] Proto-Indo-European language, Jesus Christ has form Bhwi-swento-s Ghrei-s, because this original Pre-Babel form of His name both means properly Being-Healer Anointed, and is a unconfused mother PIE form of both daughter confused parts of His Name such as Hebrew part HWY-WT'="Hawya-wata'a"="Hawa-hawti"="Yahweh-hoshea"="Yehoshua"="Iesous" and Greek part Christos. As you see, Bhwi-swento-s nearly perfectly contains HWY-WT' part, being cognate to it, and Ghrei-s is PIE cognate of Christos. In this way God's Name that was divided into confused Hebrew and confused Greek part, again is unified in single original unconfused Adamic language. This is a result of comparing Proto-Semitic with Proto-Indo-European. 83.5.3.96 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't quite understand what is being said here. Slow down a bit. Also, I'm curious as to what the relevance of this information is...--C.Logan (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be another etymology theory. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's certain. The question is... how should we, as fellow editors, use this information (if at all) to improve the article? It does seem to be a bit of original research, in any case.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Logan, I think the page could use a good assortment of crazy things that people believe about Jesus (e.g., that his name in Adamic is such-and-so). But I'd have to identify the scholar who made the claim, and I've never heard it before. Leadwind (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP belongs to User:Wikinger, a devotee of Anne Catherine Emmerich who has been adding this stuff to numerous pages on ancient Indo-European cultures. He believes that the blessed Anne was told by God that PIE was the Adamic language, which later split into the 'corrupted' forms of both Hebrew and Greek. Paul B (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hebrew and Greek are confused languages, while Proto-Indo-European was original unconfused human tongue, because it is according to Anne Catherine Emmerich common ancestor of its first pure Indo-European daughters - namely Bactrian, Zend and Indian (most similar to PIE original), and too rest of human confused languages. I provided original Proto-Indo-European cognate forms (meaning and sounding must be nearly the same at once) of both Holy Names of Yahweh and Jesus Christ, to show how Their Names looked before confusion of tongues, and to show, that is possible to revert any confused word to its original unconfused state. My procedure of making from all ecclessiastical confused words Proto-Indo-European unconfused words is deeper and better than Joseph Ezekiel Yahuda's attempt to make from Jewish words only Greek words, because while he only switched between two confused languages, I make thankfully to God with His help provided to me by blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich's book entitled "The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations" return to unconfused and undivided original human language, that will be in this way best language for Catholic Church, instead of confused Hebrew, Latin and Greek, which divides Catholic Church liturgy linguistically. Wikinger (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Catholic, but I've never seen a problem concerning languages in the first place. Additionally, I'm unsure how this is a "solution" to anything... If this is just information for our digestion, then thanks-it's interesting.

However, I doubt this sort of information would be useful (for the purpose of converting names to the PIE versions?). What you espouse is a minor theory with little support in the academic community. As such, WP:UNDUE comes to mind as a policy which thwarts any sort of effort to spread this information, and I doubt the manual of style is going to adopt this magic method.

This information deserves mention somewhere, but its status as a minor theory which makes rather strong claims raises some doubt as to whether it warrants a mention here, or really in any other article besides that of its originator or of the theory itself.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you.--C.Logan (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is either original research or a fringe theory, either, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This theory is not original research, because it is derived from Anne Catherine Emmerich's Catholic private revelations, and too similar work was done already by Joseph Ezekiel Yahuda. I only adjusted his theory to Anne Catherine Emmerich's private revelations. Wikinger (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So you say it is not original research. Then you admit it is a fringe theory. Sorry, no room for quacks in Wikipedia. Peddle your snake-oil elsewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

SR, be nice. It's Christmas. Wikinger, please start by adding this material to Adamic. There's no point putting it on this page until it's on that page. Emmerich's revelations need to be documented there, first. Once they're in good order on Adamic, then we can link them from here. Leadwind (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let´s forget about the last two sentences, since one should be nice ´´every´´ day. It is nevertheless a fringe theory. Look, religious Jews believe that Hebrew is God´s language, and that it existed before creation and is the language in which the world was created. Such Jews would find Wikinger´s assertain that "Hebrew is confused" offensive and insulting, and certainly any Jew would find it hurtful. That said, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that for Wikipedia purposes - I am concerned with policy - the claim that Hebrew is the eternal language, God´s language is a fringe view. So let´s drop it. The same goes for Wikinger´s claims, which remain fringe. Let´s move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Hebrew is derived from Greek is, to be frank, rather silly. Dismiss as fringe theory. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I already added mention that PIE=Adamic on Adamic language page. Religious Jews are in error, because God already revealed us by Anne Catherine Emmerich, that "Hebrew is confused". As you see, Jews denies both Jesus Christ and His private revelations about our prehistory. I cited "Hebrew is Greek" theory only to show that relating Semitic to Indo-European is possible, but while Joseph Ezekiel Yahuda related confused Hebrew daughter language to confused Greek IE daughter language, I related confused Hebrew daughter language to unconfused Proto-Indo-European mother language of whole mankind. Wikinger (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth year

If Herod the Great died in 4 BC, how could Jesus have been born in 3 or 2 BC, as the lead states? Badagnani (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence... again

Hi, I'm sorry to bring this subject up again, but I just have a problem with the way the following sentence reads:

Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.

I know the sentence in the lead has to be concise, but it just misses the point completely. I'm not trying to force the Jesus Myth hypothesis, but if the reference made in [6] lead to it it should be clearer on the text.

I propose that the sentence be changed to something along the lines of:

While very few scholars believe all ancient texts on Jesus' life to be completely accurate [5] some others have gone as far as to question his historical existence [6].

Does anybody else thinks the original sentence does not make any sense? Schicchi (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See, as I understand it, the original sentence is only saying that most people have a mixed view on the accuracy of the ancient texts- as it says, few people see them as being entirely accurate, and few people see them as being entirely accurate.

In short, it is saying that most scholars are of the belief that these scriptures are partly based in historical reality, and partly filled with embellishments and/or minute-to-major inaccuracies.

In a sense, it is saying something rather obvious- most people are not on the fringes. As that is the case (unless someone could clarify the meaning which is apparent to me), I'm open to a rephrasing that provides more information.

However, your phrasing doesn't seem to help (there is something wrong with the phrasing, regardless of what you're attempting to portray- I think that "While" makes the whole thing slightly nonsensical). It is important to note that very few scholars stand on either end of the spectrum- your phrasing seems to lean toward the negative viewpoint.--C.Logan (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response C.Logan, how about: Few scholars believe all ancient texts on Jesus' life to be completely accurate [5] and few others have gone as far as to question his historical existence [6] Schicchi (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems to work much better.--C.Logan (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if anybody else has anything to say and proceed to make the change, say tomorrow? Schicchi (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You can wait if you'd like, but I don't see this edit to be very controversial- it doesn't change the meaning of the statement; it only clarifies a confusingly-phrased sentence. I'd support a bold move.--C.Logan (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "question his historical existence" is missing the point a little. There may very well be tons of scholars who have at some points questioned his historical existence. What we are really getting at is something along the lines of "and few others have gone as far as to conclude he never historically existed".-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

)ec= I am opposed to the change because it is inelegantly phrased and unnecessary. The current phrasing itself is accurate. It is also internally consistent as it focuses on the views of the source material. The proposed rewrite mixes appeles and oranges by providing first a view about the sources, and then a view about Jesus´ existence. Not only is this inelegant, it is unnecessary since the current phrasing implies that there is room to question whether Jesus existed at all (and after all it is all speculation - it may be possible to prove that someone did exist, but it is never possible to prove that someone did not exist since you cannot argue from absense of evidence ... at best, one can argue that the Hamlet who really existed is not the Hamlet described by Shakespeare - which is really an argument not about whether Hamlet existed but rather whether Shakespeare´s account is historically reliable, analogous to the situation here). Moreover, the article has links to articles that go into real detail on this issue. In short, it ain´t broke, so why try to fix it? PS do we need all the gfratuitous bolding? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

SLRubenstein, if you read the reference made in [6], it points to authors who question Jesus' historicity. Why is it so hard to recognize that there have been scholars who have made that premise? To me the ambiguous sentence as it stands is just a workaround to avoid including that phrase in the lead of the article. I see that both me and C.Logan find it ambiguous, could we get your proposal for a new phrase? Schicchi (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph needs help. We should point out that some scholars argue that Jesus didn't even exist. We should summarize contemporary scholarship on Jesus' life.

Was The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.[3][4] Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]

I propose The primary accounts of Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Generally, scholars accept much of the gospel accounts, that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, was baptized by John the Baptist, was regarded as a teacher and healer, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. Christian scholars also credit some or all of the Gospels' miracles, such as Jesus' Resurrection. A few scholars, on the other hand, doubt Jesus' very existence.

State the Gospel connection. Segue to contemporary scholarship. Provide both less and more skeptical interpretations. Leadwind (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That one flows a lot better, doesn't seem to tiptoe around issues and gives adequate weight to all positions. Gets my vote! Schicchi (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Naahh. I think the current version is much better. Plus, it was worked on by many people over a length of time and reflects a lot of hard work by a good number of people. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? That sentence with the some do & some don't is really bad, specially for the lead o an important article as this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFeito (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I say we change it to Leadwind's proposed sentence and then discuss whether it should be changed back to the old one. Schicchi (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work went into that sentence. I say it takes more than one or two or three people to change it. Build a consensus for a new version, and then we will change it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SL, I understand the sentence as it stands as a huge compromise. Is there any way to call upon attention other than modifying it? Schicchi (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The revisions I am seeing along the lines of "Christian scholars (... accept Resurrection)" is ambiguous about the distribution of Xn, overlooking (by vagueness) those Xn scholars who do NOT accept the Resurrection as factual--JimWae (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus' Siblings

The Gospels of Mark and Matthew and the Letters of the Galatians (Matthew 13:55–56, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19) are very clear: Jesus had 4 brothers called James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas and several unnamed sisters. The Greek word used to describe Jesus' siblings is adelphos meaning brother and adelphe meaning sister. The meaning of this world is very clear, look at Strongs or any other Greek dictionary. Why do people not want the names of teh siblings known in the Wikipedia article? This article is not theology, it must have the facts. And the facts as written in Mark, Matthew and Galatians is crystal clear. Juanholanda (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is fact that the Greek version of the Bible is unclear about many things and often quite vague. This is why there are so many differing translations in existence within many languages. Thus when you insert such allegations as fact you are making an extremely controversial edit. Wikipedia does not take sides. Read WP:NPOV. Such controversial material will require multiple credible reliable sources. WP:VERIFY states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Strothra (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is from strongs: 80. adephos ad-el-fos' from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):--brother. note it says "literally or figuratively, near or remote". Therefore, it is possible to use that word in reference to a cousin, or even someone who wasn't related to Jesus. If we cite notable sources that makes these interpretations, then all is well. That's the beauty of NPOV. We aren't here to tell The Truth, or figure out what the bible actually means. We simply report on what our sources say. And if the sources disagree, we can present both sides.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew is correct; focus on what experts state the Bible says. Wikipedia does not interpret the Bible regardless how facile you might think it is. Find a reputable source and quote it and move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a biblical scholar, and quite an expert in my field! In any case, look at the modern available transaltions of the Matthew passage in http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Mat&chapter=13&verse=55&version=KJV#55 or in Thayer's Lexicon. It is always translated as brothers or brethren, even if then it is explained that some theologians have over time interpreted these terms to mean more than just blood relations. Cerainly in the New Bible translation of the Dutch laguage used by all Churches in Holland the only term used is 'broers' meaning brothers. http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bijbel=Bijbel&m=Mat+13&id18=1&pos=0&set=10&l=nl How this term 'brothers' or 'Brethren" is explained by theologians of differnet persuasions is another matter (look at the apporpriate section of James the Just. In any case, however you interpret the word "brothers" or "Brethren" their first names are given in Matthew, so they should not be taken out of the article! Keeping the names out of the article IS taking sides! 190.83.31.27 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound suspiciously like the same Juanholanda above, especially with the blueletterbible links. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that the near 1.5 billion Christians who adhere to traditionalist Churches such as Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy and the like continuously affirm the mere kinsmenship (specifically step-sibling-ship) of these "brothers". The Church Fathers affirmed the traditional understanding of these "brothers" being children by the previous marriage of Joseph. As it should be apparent to anyone with even a modicum of familiarity with the Greek language, "adelphos" and its related forms holds several meanings- something which should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the English word "brother", which is very commonly used outside of the "biologically-related" manner.--C.Logan (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We name the brothers and call them brothers. We point out that they might have been half-brothers (Joseph's sons by a first wife), as affirmed by practically all Christian churches (if not denominations). Protestants abandoned this understanding when they rejected the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Easy. Aside from the perpetual virginity, there's no reason to expect that they're half-brothers, so we need to include a reference to that divinely affirmed doctrine. Leadwind (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's important to avoid quoting the views of 1.5 billion people in support of a particular view unless you have heard from them personally. Many Catholics and others do not in fact adhere rigorously to the views of their church. Besides, the Churches themselves often have a much more subtle view of these things. Raymond Brown, an excellent scholar as well as a Catholic priest in good standing, remained open-minded on the topic, although he observed: "The term adelphos, which is used in Mark 6:3, would normally denote a blood brother, son of the same mother, frater germanus. It is well known that in the NT adelphos at times denotes other relationships [he gives examples indicating 'co-religionist' and 'neighbour'] - but these do not help with the problem at hand, for here Jesus' mothers and sisters are mentioned also." Rbreen (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Removal of Alternate Dating Notation

The use of BCE/CE in addition to the standard BC/AD is obnoxious.

• It utilizes more storage space on the Wikpedia servers.
• It is aethetically annoying
• It is more difficult to read
• BCE is an alternate form, and everyone knows what BC/AD is
• This is an article about CHRIST. Why would you not use Before CHRIST and Anno DOMINI?
• There are no reason to keep the text "/BCE" and "/CE", other than propagation of Atheistic/anti-Christian ignorance.

Does Jesus (7–2 BC to 26–36 AD) not read better than Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE)?

Does anyone agree with the removal of the extra text by changing "AD/CE" to "AD" and "BC/BCE" to "BC"? ron2^(talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be - it's been stable for nearly 2 years. Sophia 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Real encyclopedias that I've read don't look like this...ron2^(talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, most of them have moved completely over to the CE standard (which is the principal academic standard currently in use). Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe that. Source one encyclopedia that uses CE/BCE for an article about Jesus. Usually, CE/BCE are used academically and in articles concerning Judaism or non-Christian modern-day religions, as noted in the article on Common Era.—Steven Evens (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it should just be AD and BC because CE and BCE are only different in that different letters are used - so they use "common era" etc. Well its not a coincidence that BCE = BC and AD = CE. Its an article central to Christians more than any other group of people (i mean in terms of importance) Tourskin (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)