Talk:Brother Yun

message: In regards to fasting 74 days, being more than Jesus' 40 days of fasting in the wilderness, one needs only to read of Moses fasting for 80 days, having obtained the Ten Commandments from God upon Mt. Sinai, then after 40 days going down to see backsliding Israel dancing before a golden calf, smashing the tablets, then going back up the mountain for a second period of 40 days.  Samuel Lamb should have been familiar with this Old Testament account.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.125.126 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: his name is Liu Zhenying.
it says it in the book
The article says he's been accused of heterodox. Someone probably should cite a reference there.
The claim of going without food and water for 74 days cannot possibly be factual - human being need water much sooner than that!
:Having read his book, he did not say that he went 74 days without water, only without food. And of course humans need food much sooner than that as well, he clearly admits this. He claims it was a miracle. Obviously whether one believes that or not depends on if one comes from a modernist or supernaturalist point of view. It would be, of course, perfectly fair to say that people don't accept this statement as being true – that is, if you can find notable instances of people openly disputing it. There have been notable complaints against Yun from a Chineese man working under the pseudonym of Titus Pan... you could probably look there. Thanatosimii 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I realized today part was wrong. The rest stands though. Titus Pan is the most notable road road to go down. Thanatosimii 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is what the book about Yun claims. Still, a citation showing this as the only source for this dramatic claim needs to be added per WP:V for the burden of evidence of verifiability.Brian0324 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the Controversy section:
"Yun comes from the so-called ‘Born Again’ movement which is widely regarded by many house-church leaders in China as extreme, if not a heretical departure from Christian orthodoxy."
Is the Chinese Born Again movement different from the mainstream thinking on the words 'born again' which is accepted as orthodoxy in most churches? Churches define it differently, some as a lifelong process, others as a single definitive moment in life and some others as a defined period in which th person crosses the line from unbeliever to believer.
Isn't the above sentence in the article POV? Moreover it does nto cite any references. I suggest removing this. 
Wayfaringstranger1976 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Born Again Movement (China) for a clearer presentation of the difference between this Chinese movement and the common Evangelical understanding of "born-again". I have also provided a source for this assertion by many Chinese house church leaders.Brian0324 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV on Christian Orthodoxy 

message: From my reading, the word "claim" is used 5 times in this very short article.  While I have read some of Brother Yun's accounts, and some of the accounts do seem unbelievable, the burden of proof that these accounts are false lies with any detractors.  Using his autobiography as a reference source is not an acceptable substantiation of these accounts.  However, presenting the accounts as facts is acceptable.  We don't use the word "claims" in articles that are pure myth, but present the mythic material as fact.
While I agree with the comments about his 74 day fast in the comment below being impossible, I also would refuse to deny that "impossible" things can occur. We certainly have not seen all things that can occur, and have not listed things that can not occur.
Furthermore, Brother Yun has substantiated his accounts with testimony of several of his prison mates, so miraculous or myth, I believe we owe it to the subject to present his material as fact until the detractors compile their case. 71.208.92.201 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Claims" is a problematic word