Talk:Messianic prophecies

message: Removed "Date" section for these reasons:
* Violates NPOV.
* Judaism considers Daniel a historian, not a prophet. He is included in the Kituvim (Writings), not the Nevi'im (Prophets). Most Jewish biblical scholars believe Daniel was written within a few hundred years before the birth of Jesus.
* The Hebrew text uses the term mashiach, not haMashiach. The "ha" makes it the Messiah. Without "ha", it means an anointed one. The High Priest was referred to a mashiach. So was Cyrus in the book of Isaiah. So were many others. Jewish translations such as the JPS-85 Tanakh do not translate the passage "Messiah will come" they translated it "an anointed one will come".
* The addition contains known errors of fact. It is well documented that the current "Christian" calendar is off four years from Jesus' birth. King Herod died in 4 B.C. Jesus was actually born in 4 B.C. If Jesus was born in 4 B.C. and executed at the age of 33, he could not possibly have died in 34 A.D.
* Even if the passage is talking about the Messiah, not an anointed one, the passage does not say it is talking about Jesus. That is just a Christian assumption. Non-christians interpret the passage in various ways. Assuming it means Jesus violates NPOV.
* "A.D" means "Anno Domini", i.e., "in the Year of Our Lord". Because Moslems, Jews and others do not consider Jesus to be their "Lord", in this context the accepted abbreviations are B.C.E. and C.E., which mean either "Before the Common Era" or "Before the Christian Era", etc. Again, NPOV violation. In articles not related to religion it wouldn't be a big deal but in this context it violates NPOV.
* There are also disputes that Christian translations are biased, that Christians often take passages out of context--they have made up their mind what results they will find, then they go looking for things to support their predetermined result.
:(Yeah, I know it sucks. Get used to it. Wikipedia is not a place to be trying to do evangelism or promoting a particular religion's views, no matter how valid you think they are. In an article on "Messiah" I put a little thing about "messianic pretenders" such as Theudas and an administrator said I couldn't use the word "pretender" because it is considered a POV violation and someone might get offended. Every time you present one religion's interpretation, you have to give equal time to all the other views.)
:RickReinckens 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Date 

message: * Violates NPOV.
* The Micah passage does not say it is talking about the Messiah.
* Even if the passage is talking about the Messiah it does not say it is talking about Jesus. That is just a Christian assumption. Non-christians interpret the passage in various ways. Assuming it means Jesus violates NPOV.
* This assumes that the New Testament is valid, historically accurate and properly interprets the passage. Again, NPOV violation.
:RickReinckens 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Address 

message: * Violates NPOV.
* The Isaiah passage does not say it is talking about the Messiah. Assuming it does violates NPOV.
* Even if the passage is talking about the Messiah it does not say it is talking about Jesus. That is just a Christian assumption. Non-christians interpret the passage in various ways. Assuming it means Jesus violates NPOV.
* This assumes that the New Testament is valid, historically accurate and properly interprets the passage. Again, NPOV violation.
* The name Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua) means "Salvation" or "Savior". "Emmanuel" means "God with us". There simply is no correlation, regardless of what Matthew says. It is like someone saying, "I named my kid Harry to fulfill the prophecy, 'and he shall be named Fred'." Matthew was trying to prove Jesus was the Messiah by showing fulfilled prophecies, but he went too far on that one.
* Judaism says that the prophecy is not about a "virgin" but about a "young woman" and says that using the term "virgin" is revisionist history and Christians reading in what they want to see. Again, NPOV.
* "is believed to show". Again, NPOV violation, since only some people believe that. Also, by using passive it doesn't identify who believes.
* "Matthew shows this being fulfilled." Again, NPOV violation that assumes Matthew is correct.
:RickReinckens 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Name