Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive 4

message: He claimed he was God and he is perhaps the most infamous person to do so. Shouldn't the head of the hashashins be on this list? He did claim to bring people into paradise and to reanimate heads? Also his followers followed his orders into death.
63.226.180.162 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hassan-i-Sabah,

message: Didn't President Mugabe claim he was god recently?
Qwasty 18:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Mugabe 

message: According to Graves, he was deified in Britain and a small temple built, hence the title of the second volume of I, Claudius: Claudius the God. I assume Graves didn't make that up. Can someone provide the historical reference?
-- Hugh7 09:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vespasian mentioned it in his autobiography. (He was in Britain with the military at the time.) The story goes that Claudius built the temple himself in 43 AD and had it dedicated to himself as God. I don't know if Vespasian's autobiography survived, but there are mentions of it in Dio Cassius and in (IIRC) Bede. --70.72.19.133 05:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the Emperor Claudius

message: May I remind those editors, who are not aware of this fact, that:
*Wikipedia is not in the business of doing bible exegesis
*Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding whether any particular quote attributed to Jesus in the canon has been said by the historical Jesus (assuming his existence)
Venturing into these areas is original research. So we can all put aside the holy scripture and close the The Sword Project window while making our valueable one revert.
We essentially can trust the theologicans and quote their percentage assuming Jesus said he is god, are drop the row, due to insufficent sourcing. Same with Krsna.
Pjacobi 22:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus! 

message: I am going to explain all my edits, and I think you should too. I have put back all the entries that were removed without discussion. A lot of work has gone into discussing and validating each entry and no one should be added or removed without a topic heading on the talk page where quotes and other facts are discussed. Please reference the following past discussions:
*Archives by date
:#November 8, 2004 - June 3, 2005</li>
:#June 3, 2005 - August 15, 2005</li>
:#August 15, 2005 - September 17, 2005</li>
*Archives by persons:
:*Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, Anton LaVey, Aradia de Toscano, Avatars (1), Caligula, Chunk Anderson (1), Dalai Lama, David Icke, David Koresh, Hans Ji Maharaj, Indian Spiritual Teachers, James I of England, Japanese Emperors, Jesus Christ (1)(2) (3) (4) (5)(6) (7), L. Ron Hubbard, Marshall Applewhite, Persian Emperors, Prem Rawat, Rajneesh, Marcus Garvey & Haile Selassie, Paul Schaefer, Rama, Balarama, Lakshman, Hanuman, Roman Emperors, Sollog, Sun Myung Moon (1), The Pope (1), Vespasian
Let me repeat: everyone who is in the list right now is there due to past discussions, and needs to have their own topic heading before being removed (or added). Thanks for your help on this, it's how we got this far. --Alterego 22:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, our todo list has a ton of work on it that needs to be done, if you're looking for something to do! --Alterego 23:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my edits - there shouldn't be "reverts" here. 

message: As early as late last year there was a conversation regarding the pope. An anonymous user provided several quotations such as the following:
----
I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Pope Nicholas (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)
----
Another anonymous user was even more adament about the pope being listed here. These quotes are rather easily available on the Internet, and usually by anti-Christian groups with a vendetta. I therefore set out to find discussion of the specific topic before the Internet age. I came across the following holding, a copy of which was sent to me via Interlibrary loan. It is my intention to put this text here so that it is documented in our conversation and so that, if I never get around to typing the last 20 pages, at least this first part is here. It is ~20 pages so I have not typed the whole thing yet to go on Wikisource. However, I think the first few pages are rather indicative of the tone. I find this to be a very serious correspondence that is extremely well cited by those taking part in it, and the discussion as a whole is very enlightening. --Alterego 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More information on the text and where it can be located is available at User:Alterego/Lord_God_our_Pope --Alterego 16:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord God our Pope (Dominus Deus Noster Papa) Another God on Earth (Alter Deus in Terris): And a reply to a Pamphlet by the Rev. Sydney F. Smith, S.J., entitled Does the Pope claim to the God? 

message: :I believe he stated he was God and their religion's websites seem to agree so I added him.--T. Anthony 10:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kysosoma?

message: Several editors have contributed to this discussion, with a somewhat agreed consensus on re-structuring the article in specific sections.  Is this happening? ≈ jossi ≈ 03:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any progress? 

message: Jesus did not claim himself to be an incarnation of God! Most christians believe this way because he was born out of Virgin Marry without a father. This does not mean that he should be included in this list. It must be removed because this list is based on facts rather than some religious beliefs.PassionInfinity 04:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to go "purely on facts" then we aren't quite sure what Jesus claimed on any subject. I think it's widely accepted that there was a Jesus who had followers and then died, but I think most of what we know of him comes from religious sources. I imagine he fits in a historical sense though, other things be uncertain.--T. Anthony 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Belief of Majority has nothing to do with facts. See Argumentum ad populum. Secondly, this article contains list of people who have said that they are gods. Jesus did not claim that he was god. That is what I wanted to say. PassionInfinity 06:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about belief of majority. In fact I would presume a billion Muslims specifically state he did not claim to be God and many of other faiths would agree. I'm saying I don't think we have any facts to solidly state, by encyclopedia standards, whether Jesus claimed to be a god or not. You can object because it's unclear, but your statement "he did not claim he was god" is merely your opinion. You really can't prove it. Considering the historical effect in least the concept he claimed to be god I think may make it relevant here, but I could see taking it off as disputed. Although if you want to get into it in many books I've read indicate Hong Xiuquan did not claim to be God either. He believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but not God. He had an Arian view of Jesus and of his own role as "Son of God." Although I added her it sounds possible that this MITA woman only believed she contained the Holy Spirit rather then "was the Holy Spirit." Yet you don't object on those or ones that may even be more debatable. In least in the case of Jesus the idea he claimed to be God is the mainstream belief of his followers and the existent writing on him.--T. Anthony 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This debate is quite long but in short let me clarify a litlle more. First of all, all the foloowers of Jesus do not believe that he was the son of God nor was he himself God. All muslims believe in Jesus Christ but they neither believe he was the son of God nor they believe that he was crucified. There is a lot of material available, you can read that. The three revealed religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam in chronological order are clearly monotheistic. All are from one God and with Islam comes a stop to these revealed religions. Trinity and crucifixion has no reality and nor was Jesus son of God. Even the word christianity was invented after the perios of Jesus. He never heard of this word ever in his lifetime. His religion as well as religion of Moses was in one sentence was Total submission to the will of God. One word in Arabic language for this sentence is Islam. In totality, therefore, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all muslims with same religion. We are not left with original christian beliefs nor judaism beliefs. What we are left with is the holy scripture of muslims which is in its original form right now and the most authentic one. PassionInfinity 09:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "In totality, therefore, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all muslims" I'm aware many, maybe even most, Muslims believe that. Hence I added a mention that Muslims don't believe Jesus claimed to be God. I might add that they believe Jesus was a Muslim if I can get confirmation that's true for all Muslims. However the Muslim view can not be cited as the correct view either, no matter how strongly you believe it to be the truth. I hope you understand that.--T. Anthony 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to move some who claimed to be Jesus, but did not necessarily claim to be God, over to the "Those who claimed to be Jesus, but were not Jesus" thread. The problem is Hong claimed to be the Son of God without claiming to be God or Jesus. Hence when I added him to that it was removed, but I've reverted the removal for now. I'm not sure where to place avatar or Buddha claimants.--T. Anthony 03:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I put Mita and Price back as they seem to have claimed to be an incarnation of the Holy Spirit rather than just "containing the holy spirit." I kept some avatar claimants even though that causes some redundancy. In the case of Meher Baba his background was not Hindu though so I think there's a logic in him being here. I also added a list of Buddha claimants to pull off a few. Possibly Suma should be moved there, but I'm not sure. I know the changes I made were pretty radical so I can understand if there's annoyance at them. Especially as I maintained Jesus on the list, but I made sure to add Islamic objections as their's is arguably the largest objection in numerical terms.--T. Anthony 03:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine but facts are what I am talking about. I mean this article is not based on Christianity and Islam. But Jesus never claimed to be God then why include him?. PassionInfinity 09:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware how offensive that belief was to Muslims. So I made the colors actually mean something to deal with it. Jesus, the Pharaohs, Caligula, and Alexander the Great are now in white to essentially represent that "historicity of the claim is disputed or the claim was politically created." (However, and even though my post on this was removed, my statement still stands. Your insistence your interpretation of Jesus is inarguably "the facts" is arrogant and insulting. This can also be removed, but the statement will stand)--T. Anthony 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is offensive to the core beliefs of muslims. Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were exactly same in their teachings. I still have to study a lot to know how they invented concepts like Trinity, Incarnation and Reincarnation. I didn't get the statement you are talking about which was removed and still stands. Have you removed Jesus from the list? I could not figure out by looking at the history of the page. PassionInfinity 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was that your idea that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed were exactly of the same religion(or that Jesus didn't claim to be god) is not a fact. It is a theory. On him not claiming to be God it's a rather popular theory among Muslims and non-Muslims, but it's not so accepted as to be established as fact. Your theory that Muhammed, Jesus, and Muhammed had the exact same theory is not well accepted outside Islam. It's a cornerstone for many Muslims, but it's not much more than that. Unless you can give facts there's no reason for the removal. Although I will consider it on the grounds it is disputed. I will NOT consider on the grounds that "it's a fact he never claimed it." Because it is no such thing and to accept it is is an insult to my tradition or faith.--T. Anthony 05:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am christian, but I imagine that's not what you're asking. If you mean why do I think the idea he claimed it is valid enough to stay on the list there are many reasons. In a historical sense the information we have on him is inconclusive. That could justify taking him off, but I feel inconclusiveness isn't enough in this case. The majority of those who lived in a time period nearer to his existence agreed he claimed to be God. This is mentioned even in writers of the late first century like Ignatius of Antioch and was part of the Nicene Creed. I can add more on the Ebionites and Arians, but the Jesus article is already long as is. Added to that the idea he claimed it is historically significant as it was the majority view from the Council of Nicea to the hijra and is the view of 2 billion people. That does not make it a fact, but in the absence of conclusive evidence either way it does make it important. Lastly that it's disputed is already well dealt with. As mentioned it's the longest article.--T. Anthony 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a Muslimm but I can also imagine that's not what you are thinking. 2 billion people is not an authority. You did not answer my question. I said no bible version is in its original form. Why to trust the Acts of Apotles and Bible from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? PassionInfinity 07:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced you want an answer at this point. I did not mention the Gospels there and added to that I said two billion people doesn't make it a fact. What it does make it is important and that was one part of why I have, and will contine to, keep him on the list. However I also mentioned the historical significance, the opinions of those like Ignatius who lived within the possible lifetimes of some of his followers, etc. I think you need to reread what I wrote a bit more carefully and maybe you'll understand better. What I've consistently said is that the historical evidence is unclear. There is NO strong historical evidence he did not make such a claim, and if you think there is show it to me. The Arians came about two centuries after his death, but if you have Ebionite documents older than Ignatius or the Gospels I'll put that in mind. However in the absence of solid historical evidence either way there is what's mentioned. The opinion of those who met his followers, the historical significance, and yes even the numbers of believers is enough to have him listed. This does not prove it's a fact and I have never argued it does. What it does is prove that the claim matters and is historically important enough, I feel, to keep him on. Now, despite the discussion here, I have tried as much as I can to deal with your objections in my edits. I have gone as far as I can go on that and then further. There is nothing more to say about objections that hasn't been said. I may provide links to the Ebionites if I haven't done so. At this point I suggest you actually do some editing yourself if you are still unsatisfied. An exception to that is I will not accept you taking him off without getting opinions of those here. If the majority support taking him off he can be taken off. If you take him off unilaterally I will unilaterally place him back so the issue can be discussed.--T. Anthony 09:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well well well, nothing to fight here. I agree there is no strong historical evidence that can deny this claim. Well Muslims are in quite a good majority to deny this claim. How about that? I don't know what made you think so definitely that a messenger of God can himself claim to be a son of God. Even if you believe that he was the only begotten son of God, he himself never claimed to be God. Quran specifically defy this that he was neither crucified nor was he son of God. To your surprise may be, this book is 1 million times more authentic. What do you say? You can say it is believed that he claimed, but you cannot say he claimed. Now, I think you got the point? PassionInfinity 09:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said you give no answer nor are you interested in a response from me. The Qur'an however can not be given "a million times more authenticity" at this cite. As that's clearly what you are about you will lose this argument every time because that's what must happen. Your religion can not be placed as the default mindset of this or any article. I have now mentioned the views of Ebionites, Muslims, and others. Put the issue of removing Jesus to a vote or stand down. Because now I'm simply done with you. You appear to be uninterested in anything but bludgeoning people with the superiority of Islam--T. Anthony 10:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really get what you are trying to say. You never addressed any of the issues I have raised! PassionInfinity 09:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel a bit more relaxed now, but I'm not sure what you want me to address. If the Qur'an is from God then its view of Jesus will be more accurate. I'm not a Muslim though so at best I think it's maybe "inspired" in some indirect way. As a historian we can dispense with the issue of divine or not or how much altogether. Therefore it has to be seen as a work written almost 600 years after Christ in a land hundreds of miles away. In its defense the Quranic view of Jesus is, arguably, more in sync with the view of the Ebionites and mentioned in the works of Celsus than the Gospels. However Celsus was hostile to Christianity and lived in the late second century as I recall. The Ebionites are more credible, but for the most part we only know their views second hand. The Gospels and the works of the Apostolic Fathers were by people nearer in time and space to Jesus who could've known his actual followers. Their view of events is certainly disputed, but as a source on the life of Jesus I think they have to be given a great deal of weight. The oldest extent literature on Jesus outside that is Gnostic texts and Josephus. The Gnostics have many contradictory claims, but generally state that Jesus, or everyone who believes in him, is God or part God. Or they claim Christ is God who entered Jesus the man at his Baptism. (Somewhat like the view Tenrikyo has of its founder) Josephus mentions Jesus on the cross and "if it be proper to call him a man", but this might be a later interpolation. Sources like Pliny and others simply discuss Christians more than Christ and don't say much either way on what he claimed. In any event yes I think the Gospels and the view of the Apostolic Fathers is valid. Or at the very least I think the view in the first two centuries AD has to be given the most validity and the majority of that view is that Jesus was or claimed to be God.--T. Anthony 12:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking you up I see you're an intermediate English speaker so I think maybe I was being unfair. It's possible a language barrier is part of why talking to you was so frustrating.--T. Anthony 12:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something about Jesus! 

message: :This article is in shambles. It will either need to be restructured as per some of the proposals made a few weeks ago, or this article is going in the direction of a AfD. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 17:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done as much as I could, and now I am accused of "POV pushing" by User:Hipocrite because of my intervention (note that I am not certain what POV Hipocrite thinks I espouse...). Let it be clear that I do care about an article being useful, encyclopedic and NPOV. But if there is no collaboration and constructuve dialogue to move the articler in that direction, the possibility of an AfD is very much a reality. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably did a fine job, there's just disagreements in everything. However I'm confused on one thing, wasn't the most recent edit of yours weeks ago?--T. Anthony 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was. I was under the impression that several proposals were discussed and none of them implemented. In the meantime the NPOV tag is still on the article. I was expecting that the editors that made these proposals that , btw seemed to have quite wide support,  would attempt to implement them. In any case, this is causing me too much stress (being accused of POV pushing is not fun), so I leave this article in your capable hands. There are other articles that can benefit from my contributions in which there is less contention and more fun. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: However I have kept three, I think, avatar claimants on this list. No one has said much on that, but if they do I'm willing to remove them  I have seen you have removed M. Meera as she is already on the Avatar list. You may consider doing the same with Sai Baba, as he definitely falls into the category of Avatar claimants. Still I think that the article is possibly unfair to others who have adopted a Hindu philosophical background like Ching Hai, who is basically an off-shot of Surat Shabd Yoga. -- mizar ॐ Talk 11:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done. Although I think there was a former SaiBabaist who used to frequent here that likely would want him in, but it's not like he'll just vanish. Possibly anyone interested can just expand statements on him at avatar claimants.--T. Anthony 11:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I worked on improving the List of avatar claimants and making it distinct from the article avatar. I guess I could've done that kind of work on Buddha claimants, but there aren't that many so far.--T. Anthony 12:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better :-) What about throwing Beltway Snipers out? He is not known AFAIK for his claim, but instead for some criminal acts. Does he have a following, who believe he is God? -- mizar ॐ Talk 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Gotcha. I'll take that Fard Muhammed guy off too as it was apparently others who claimed it. Others can edit too though, don't anyone feel I've taken over.--T. Anthony 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should still move this article ot List of people who have been considered deities, though. Otherwise we can't include the people who had followings in the past, but not now. Plus it looks a lot more professional than "List of people considered to be deities". Also, I'm confused about what the asterisk denotes, exactly. Does it refer to someone who has a large following now, or someone who ever had a large following? Because it makes little sense to me that Manco Capac has an asterisk, but not Jesus. -Silence 22:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the asterix off Manco Capac. If you want another move feel free to do so, but try to fix as many linkings as you can if you do.--T. Anthony 00:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article status

message: Kept or taken off? Here's what the segment on Jesus says at the moment.
:Among Christians the most popular view is that in the Canonical Gospels he said he was God Incarnate, who took on human nature and human flesh and is the second person of the Holy Trinity. One commonly cited statement attributed to Jesus on his godhood is John 14:10 -"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.(KJB)" Other similar religious perspectives on Jesus include the Bahá'í Faith, which considers Jesus to be a manifestation of God, and some Hindus, who equate Jesus with an avatar - an incarnation of God on earth - along with Rama and Krishna. However the idea is highly disputed. Islam maintains that Jesus never asserted he was a God or actively denied it. They consider the belief he is God to be a blasphemy, see Isa for more details on their position. Several historians, and some Christians, agree he did not claim to be God. They cite early Christian groups like Arianism and the Ebionites as support for this position. Finally, some maintain that the historicity of Jesus is doubtful or that he never existed.
I'll let that be discussed as that seems to be the main problem left.--T. Anthony 11:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Jesus to a new list. I regret doing that in most respects, but I got tired of the "totally disputed" nonsense. Plus the new list is slightly goofy, but it's better than a complete capitulation on the issue. It is still a shameful capitulation though, but in least on the new list I could more comfortably write the article. Sigh, Wiki can be frustrating at times.--T. Anthony 09:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus issue

message: It is somewhat obvious that Wikipedians have encountered the results of a call-demand strategy which elicits words and phrases from subject/respondents.  The accusatory question, "Do you think you're God?" has its place within the folklore of male-female relationships, and networks of pollsters have seized upon this accusatory use in its diminuitive form so as to compile an 'original' list of claimed modern-day 'gods'.  Because the focus here is upon beliefs about the male 
'superhero' gender, it can be assumed that concerns about the amount of damage such a person might cause are being demonstrated.  Beadtot  10/19/2005 20:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this means, but two women are listed. In principle Hatshepsut, who was a woman pharaoh who claimed divine ancestry in least, is implied to be on the list with the inclusion of pharaohs.--T. Anthony 08:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  polls and call-demand strategies 

message: Should Alexander be moved to the newly created, by me, List of people declared to be God?--T. Anthony 11:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to do so. So what still bothers people? What needs improvement, clarification, etc?--T. Anthony 08:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander issue 

message: I decided to go back to the system of alternating colors. Three whites in a row looked wrong. Also I'm not entirely sure on Filipovich, but I did have a source. Lastly don't let me hog everything, others are free to add names provided you have credible sources.--T. Anthony 03:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating colors 

message: *1. Combine "List of people who have said that they are gods" with "List of people declared a deity". The distinction between the two lists is utterly meaningless, and most of the people on both lists are both claimed to have been deities and claimed to have said that they were deities. If there is a dispute over such claims, mention it in the description of that person, don't segregate the articles. If it's necessary to clearly distinguish those who definitely claimed godhood from those who may not have, or those who had a following from those who didn't, then do so with sections or asterisks, etc., not by making whole distinct pages. There are too many pages in this series already, the point of lists is to make it easy for one to scroll down through a lot of information or links on a certain subject, part of that is defeated when you have tons of lists on more or less the same topic. -Silence 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most avatar claimants can be listed here too, certainly Sathya Sai Baba.  An avatar is by definition a descent of the divine into the human form. Note that traditional avatars like Krishna and Rama are generally considered deities. Andries 22:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better. I was looking for more ways to combine the other articles. "Avatar claimants" could easily be a subsection of the "List of people who have been considered deities" page. -Silence 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May be that would be possible, but Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an avatar and to be God in the Judeo Christian tradition. Andries 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended reorganization

message: It's a good deal larger now and I think some were upset it was too short. I noticed though that from 200-1600 AD there's only two names.(Manco Capac and the Natchez, both of whom may easily get removed) Was there no claimants in that period? I was tempted to put Tang Taizong's chancellor instead of Guan Yu, but I don't think Wiki has a page on him. He is classed as a minor deity in charge of doorways. If it does have a page on him I might add him. I made it where there's two Romans so two Chinese shouldn't be that out of line.--T. Anthony 05:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 200-1600 AD

message: I am aware that SSB is mentioned on the list of avatar claimants but he should be listed here too. Read the following where he clearly breaks the Hindu-Christian/Eastern-Western barrier with his claims of divinity.
Brian Steel about Sathya Sai Baba (SSB's words in italics)
:"Another major self-promotional statement which must have drawn gasps of delighted astonishment from devotees was SSB's revelation on Christmas Eve, 1972 that Jesus Christ had predicted his Advent (as God the Father, not as the Son of God) by pointing to a sheep and uttering the word "Ba-Ba". Part of the context is offered here for purposes of clarification:
:"There is one point that I cannot but bring to your special notice today. At the moment when Jesus was merging in the Supreme Principle of Divinity, He communicated some news to his followers, which was interpreted in a variety of ways by commentators and those who relish the piling of writings on writings and meanings upon meanings, until it all swells up into a huge mess." (Sathya Sai Speaks, XI, 54:346)"
:This is where Baba makes his striking claim (patently exaggerated, like so many other statements by or about SSB, but accepted and repeated by so many devotees):
:"The statement itself has been manipulated and tangled into a conundrum. The statement of Christ is simple: 'he who sent me among you will come again!' and he pointed to a Lamb. The Lamb is merely a symbol, a sign. It stands for the Voice: Ba-Ba; the announcement was the Advent of Baba. 'His Name will be Truth,' Christ declared. Sathya means Truth. 'He will wear a robe of red, a blood-red robe.' (Here Baba pointed to the robe He was wearing.) 'He will be short, with a crown (of hair). The Lamb is the sign and symbol of Love.'
:"Christ did not declare that he will come again. He said, 'He who made me will come again.' [Bold type added for a particularly bold and unequivocal claim.] That Ba-ba is this Baba and Sai, the short, curly-hair-crowned red-robed Baba, is come. He is not only in this Form, but he is in every one of you, as the dweller in the Heart. He is there, short, with a robe of the colour of the blood that fills it." (Sathya Sai Speaks, XI, 54:346)
:"The power of Sai is limitless; It manifests for ever. All forms of 'power' are resident in the Sai palm." (Sathya Sai Speaks, XII, 38:227 - June 1974)
(quoted from Brian Steel's homepage) Andries 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sathya Sai Baba]] must be re-added

message: The wording in the 'what' column for this guy is incomprehensible (to me).  If you understand what this is supposed to mean, can you please re-word? ike9898 09:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manco Capac- re-wording needed 

message: If there is no objection, I'll add myself soon. Hell, I'm a God. Why should I ask for permission? __earth (Talk) 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether you consider yourself god, its whether a sufficient number of other people consider you to be god to establish notability. I see your a deletionist, so I guess you won't mind if others delete your entry in the list. --Salix alba (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'm a deletionist and I'm eager to delete this page =p __earth (Talk) 04:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding myself into it 

message: I don't mean the nation of islam guy, I mean the Muhammad. As in the founder of Islam. Since most people agree he existed, but only muslims think that he's divine, shouldn't he be on this list? Joffeloff 22:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they only consider him a prophet, and while I think their most important one, im pretty sure they don't consider him to be allah. Homestarmy 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muhammad]] 

message: I think this is the best place to put this up.  Why isn't there a page for humans-turned-gods, or visa versa?  For example, many believe that Iphigenia, Agamemmnon's daughter in Greek mythology, became Hecate.  Also, some say Dido was once a goddess.  Helen of Troy was also worshipped as a goddess, too.  I don't know much else about this subject, but I'd really like to start this page, so help is appreciated.  Thanks.  Mayukhers112 23:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a separate page..... 

message: Would it be appropriate to include those people who others describe as deities, but who denied it themselves? Haile Selassie would fit into this category. So would Paul of Tarsus and Barnabas, who were briefly worshipped as Mercury and jupiter, respectively in Acts. Likewise, Wilfred Smith (for whom no entry exists yet) was described as a god by Aleister Crowley. although it was in order to stop him from heading a lodge of the Ordo Templi Orientalis. 65.12.115.249 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Selassie was more indiferent to his supposed god-status than actually opposed to it.  And a notorious con man and liar such as Crowley is not a reference at all; were we to accept his word, we would have to include Elvis and Pelé as well (people more qualified and more trustworthy than Crowley named those two "gods").  Luis Dantas 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People described by others as Gods, but who denied it themselves

message: I see that Roman Emperors such as Caesar and Augustus who were deified by the People and Senate of Rome are not mentioned, although there is a link to Apotheosis in the See Also section. However, I feel Caesar's case is unique as he claimed to be a direct descendant of Venus and at times flaunted his demigod status ("The omens will be good when I wish them so" etc.). Worthy of mention here? —Aiden 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesar 

message: The table is kind of poorly arranged. When I first came to it, it appeared to be in no order. When I clicked the button to arrange by date, it arranged it by the absolute value of the date (i.e. 4AD, then 400BC, then 1950AD, then 4000BC), and when I clicked the button to arrange by notability, it merely alphabetized the "notability" column, which is absolutely useless. I'm not sure how, but this should be fixed. Perhaps just keep the list set as organized by date or name. Monsday 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table arrangement

message: I have removed this entry for now. I noticed that the cited book "A History of Secret Societies ( Google Books)" was written by Arkon Daraul. On a tip from an Amazon book review, this is a pen name for the author Idries Shah. He is perhaps not unbiased and the book makes odd claims such as Tibetan Buddhists being a secret society that bring the authors authority into question.  --Alterego 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hassan-i-Sabah 

message: His article does not cite its sources and does not make any case for his historicity. Improving the authority and scope of that article is the ticket into this one. --Alterego 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermes Trismegistus