Knight1000

NIV

Knight -- I can do my best :-) Tim 15:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article for the NIV, and I agree that it needs some work. There's actually a textual criticism error in there, and rather than hammer someone for citations I'll get my sources together and document the corrections.

My schedule is horrifically tight right now, so it may take a few days. Thanks for bringing the article to my attention! I'm looking forward to any corrections you have to offer. Tim 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Theology

Knight, thanks for the links. Two things I noticed right away:

http://messianicbureau.org/statement.htm 3. The nature of YHVH is a compound unity expressed in the aspects of Abba [the Father], Yeshua [Salvation, the Son, Messiah] and Ruach HaKodesh [the Holy Spirit/Breath] in this age. Matthew 28:19.

http://www.simchayeshua.org/FaithStatement.php We believe that He is Echad, (one) a composite unity expressed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.( Isaiah 63:10, John 1:1-3, John 10:30, John 14:9-11, Acts 1:2, Acts 5:3-4)

Both of these are by Christian definition Tri-Theism, and by Jewish definition Shittuf. In other words, heretical for both Jews and Christians. As I wrote on the Trinity page, it's a question of infinity. If God has components, they are either finite or infinite components. If finite, then God is finite. If infinite, then there are multiple infinities. I had hoped that this was more tangental to the movement, but the fact that it came up on the first two links you showed me is frightening in the extreme. We are not watching the fusion of two religions, but the emergence of a third, entirely different, religion.

Best, Tim (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Knight, I apologize if I worded that strongly, but let me clarify. I do not think that Messianism is an attempt to eliminate Christianity or Judaism. What I meant by fusing two religions together is an attempt to be both Christian and Jewish theologically. Having been both, I can appreciate the enormity of such a task. Christianity is focused on doctrinal statements and Judaism on actions. As for Tri-Theism, I do not believe that Messianics are intending to be polytheistic any more than Jehovah's Witnesses are. Both groups are faced with the problem of approaching Trinitarianism from an external paradigm. Now, as difficult as the Trinity is for a lot of Christians, it is one of the very few things that Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestants, and (until recently) Evangelicals agree on. The crack that you've perceived in the monolith is primarily an Evangelical phenomenon, but even so it is being vigorously contested from orthodox Evangelicals.

Will Messianics become a separate religion from Christianity? I don't think so. I think it's growing pains, and an attempt to phrase the Trinity in Jewish terms. As a theologian, I think they are going about it the wrong way. But I also think they'll eventually figure it out.

The only thing that disturbs me is that the "compound unity" idea seems to be becoming more acceptable among Messianics (and some Evagelicals!). It's like the Jewish problem with the Lubavitch movement. Will Chabad become a separate religion? No. Are they right now? In a number of respects, yes. But, again, I think they'll eventually figure it out. Tim (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

Knight, well, I suppose that any historic creed or manual of theology would do. The Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confession, etc. Here's a link to a Baptist version of the Westminster Confession: 1689 Confession.

For theological books, Berkhof's Systematic Theology is pretty standard, but I suppose that any Protestant or Catholic one will do as well.

The concept is more dimensional than compositional. I'm a single person who is composed of water and a number of other things. PART of me is water, but not ALL of me. However, ALL of me is in all three spatial dimensions simultaneously. All of me is high (unless you're talking about smoking something...), all of me is wide (too wide, I'm afraid -- I need to lose fifteen pounds), and all of me is deep (unless, again, you're talking about smoking something and put the word "Dude" after "Deep").

The trick is a formula in which each person is fully God (Trinitarianism), and not merely part of God (Compound Unity). Is God echad? Sure. But does Echad mean that he can be broken apart? No, I don't believe so -- and I think Christian and Jewish theologians would be comfortable with that last statement. Tim (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

Knight, just wanted to pop in a hello and let you know we've been working on a glossary of terms page. I remember you had an interest in these kinds of subjects, so I'd let you know. Right now we're cleaning up a rough draft and sourcing the cells. We have a Muslim, Christian, and some Jews working on it, but I don't think we have any Messianics yet. Do you know anyone really good with objective sources? Most of my stuff is from Stern.Tim (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Knight. I remembered you as having a level head and background in the subject matter. My own library isn't broad enough to do all the sourcing (Messianic) I've been asked to do.Tim (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Semantics

Knight, thanks for your note, and I enjoyed the exchange as well. I liked your analogy of Creeds to reading a paraphrased Bible -- people think they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Creeds ultimately don't tell us about God; they tell us about the group that made the Creed. But I've also found they are a convenient safety valve. The only real arguments I get into are in the realm of ultimate truth. Instead of "this is the ultimate truth" they help us say, "this is what such and such a group held to be ultimate truth..." I think that's what I like about Wikipedia. Things get heated and then are quickly diffused as long as everyone is trying to follow the rules.

I also agree that most Messianics are not intending to be anything other than Trinitarian (although some are Unitarian). But here's where it gets a little odd: in a Jewish paradigm even the most Orthodox-Christian formulation looks tri-theistic. In a similarly weird way, in a Christian paradigm Judaism looks almost as if it doesn't have a God at all. So how do we communicate one to the other, or even understand one from the other? I think that's what's going on with the Messianic movement. Like you, I can't speak for them, but this is what I think is happening. They have a spectrum of people ranging from Christians reaching for Judaism and Jews reaching for Christianity, and as long as it is primarily growing from outside religious groups it will probably be a bit blurry. If I'm right, that will slow down as the group changes to growth from the inside (i.e. more child producing than evangelistic). But it will lose something at the same time as it is gaining something else, and although theologians might breathe easier when that happens, missionaries will be sighing for a lost vitality.

So here's my own ultimate truth: religions would be perfect if they didn't have people in them. ;-) Tim (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Complete Jewish Bible

Knight -- thanks for catching those other edits. It was something of a non-sequitor regardless of a person's POV! Tim (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New International Version

Looks good!Tim (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NRSV

Hi, I'm well aware that the NRSV is inclusive language. Aside from that, it follows the more literal style of the NASB and RSV. So it is more literal in one sense but not another. I think it can be argued that it is more literal than the NIV, though I agree it can be seen as contentious. But please don't accuse another editor of not doing their research (unless it is obvious). Personally I use the NRSV and like how it tends to be more literal than the NIV. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the perceived accusation but I wasn't sure of you knew the NRSV was an inclusive language translation. I personally would never say the NRSV or any translation that uses inclusive language is a literal translation. Those who adhere to a strict literal translation would definitely be contentious with anything other than the NASB. Thanks for helping on the Criticism and controversy section of the NIV. I think it's now short and to the point! Knight1000 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. p.s. I'm finished editing NIV for now. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Just an FYI, I'm restoring the textual_basis to the infobox from a past entry that was deleted. Knight1000 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki

Hello, nice to meet someone willing to be bold. You're a lucky chap, because others would consider it impolite to have tags questioning their motives dumped on inoffensive articles. I, however, am something of a softy.

The Wiki process requires both "assuming good faith" and "talk before tagging". You need to apply both principles. Additionally, if you keep returning the tag, that is edit considered edit-warring, 3 strikes and you're out.

At the moment, you look to me like someone on a religious crusade to silence any opinion but your own. I'm absolutely sure I'm wrong, as your reasoned explanation for where you see inappropriate text will surely convince me.

Although it may seem a bit confronting, please note I'll need to issue a formal warning for three reverts should you add the tag again.

Stick to text of articles, sources, reason, patience and perhaps a sense of humour and I doubt we'll have any problems getting on at all.

Alastair Haines (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PS just noticed you're a friend of Tim's. Any friend of Tim is a friend of mine. Heck, I might not even warn you even if you do edit war. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag (which you understand said things about me, not the article).

I do think you should reconsider nomination for deletion, though.

"Wiki editor nominates Christianity Today Book of the Year for deletion"

The question will be, will a consensus agree that RBMW is inappropriate at Wiki, because it expresses a POV those editors think should be censored from an encyclopedic forum.

If I were you, I'd just work on writing up the considerable documented criticism.

I promise, I'll be completely unquestioning of your motives if you do so, and certainly welcome the contribution. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)