Talk:Beatitudes

message: *Context within the passage
**Before
**Afterwards
*Context of the assertions
**Interpretations.
***Yancey's aggregation of interpretations in films.
***Historical
***Contemporary
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJones (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: I don't want to know who is Henri Nouwen, and what he is doing in the first phrase. Some politically correct crap? --MvR 22:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henri Nouwen 

message: It might bear noting, as an example of a critical cultural reference, that Nietzsche considered the beatitudes the paradigmatic example of what he derided as a "slave morality" or "herd morality" - a perverse inversion of the Will to Power. Matt2h 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche 

message: Who is Marc L. Garcia? Why is he assuming authorship? The content from First Beatitude to The Ninth Beatitude? is written by me. I haven't edited the previous text out of respect for those who made the effort of writing it, but I dislike the idea of someone else assuming my work. Radu Comanescu 14:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Judging from the history of this article, it appears that significant portions of it were copied from this source. The author of that source is identified as Michelle Ostby in the document properties. If Michelle is not the one who also wrote this document (or does not give permission for it to be here), then it needs to be fixed ASAP or added to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. An obvious approach is to revert this article to a version prior to when this copyright violation occurred. I'd like to get some consensus (or hear from Michelle) before taking any action. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I might have over-reacted a bit. The phrase I searched on was "Each of the blessed individuals is generally not considered blessed". That and portions after it have definitely been copied from that document (and not sourced or quoted). Other parts sound like they've been taken from religious sources, but I have no evidence of that. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Another possible hit is on the phrase "We can understand now that this purification through vengeance and punishment is", although it's entirely possible that other sources copied from this article and not vice-versa. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement problems 

message: "Kodjak" is simply referred to without introduction. Are we to know how he is? I think his name shouldn't be in the opening paragraph unless there is some link involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmoor (talk • contribs).
:Agreed. A little wikisearch lead me to the belief (which could be wrong, mind you) that it refers to Andrej/Andrei Kodjak who, evidently, is a biblical scholar. This might be relevant later on, but not in the lede, and should probably say "biblical scholar Andrei Kodjak", where "scholar" could be alternatively "researcher" or "commentator". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, I could have just checked the references:Kodjak, Andrej. A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount. New York: M. de Gruyter, 1986.Perhaps "author Andrej Kodjak" should replace "Kodjak", and the whole sentence moved somewhere else. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kodjak 

message: Just to clarify my latest quasi-reversion, see WP:WEASEL. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I in-lined the references that I could, but there are still 7 references that need to be attached to what they support. Any help would be appreciated. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a 'references' tag to the page. Revolutionaryluddite 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The analyses of specific beatitudes should be supported with sources. As things stand, we don't know if they aren't just the opinions of the editor who added them. Besides, as usual in such cases, specific parts of these analyses seem to reflect just one of the existing views. For example, the text of the article itself acknowledges that there are differences in opinion as to whether there are real differences between Matthew and Luke concerning the "poor" and "hungry" parts. Nevertheless, in the sections devoted to these specific beatitudes, only the "no contradictions" opinion is represented as correct.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The analysis needs to be sourced.  As it stands now it is just one editor's opinion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to go ahead and be bold and remove the interpretations sections.  After going over them more carefully, I can't find anything that I can salvage. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must certainly agree  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.29.56 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for analyses 

message: I have tagged the contributions by  as original research, essay-like, and written from the first-person. I was tempted to completely remove them as this editor has a history of adding OR/essay content, but I think there is some content here worth salvaging. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel as though we should roll the whole page back to April 23rd before it was overhauled. Leadwind (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Which I did. Thanks for trying to keep this page under control, K. Leadwind (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I have mentioned the reliable sources I've used for the text I've posted, including my own researches, published in reviews of theology. Among the main reliable sources quoted there are such as New Bible Dictionary and The Catholic Encyclopedia. Yet, my contribution is deleted again and again. I've asked for an explanation, and my request was deleted, too. I'm going to ask again for an explanation. Radu Comanescu (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I find your claim that your request for an explanation was deleted to be unsubstantiated. You last posted to this talk page in August 2007, despite several requests in the article edit summaries for you to view the talk page, which date back to April 2009. To answer your question, I suggest you read my post above, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The entire content is synthesis of sourced material, which is considered original research. Another relevant excerpt from WP:OR: "Only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" [emphasis added]. In the interest of fairness, as this appears to be a two-on-one conflict, we can solicit opinions from uninvolved editors. A good starting point would be WT:Christianity. Other options are WP:No original research/Noticeboard and WP:Requests for comment. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I have gone ahead and requested input from uninvolved editors at WT:Christianity. I figured this would be a good starting point, as the members of that WikiProject have likely dealt with issues of this nature before. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on a review of the material Radu added, it looks to me like the removal of the content was called for. There are clearly serious issues regarding OR and SYNTHESIS, and, actually, we prefer to use sources with are not themselves encyclopedia or dictionaries for our own articles. And we can only add material which is explicitly in the published sources themselves. Any sort of synthesis is explicitly not allowed. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I removed the associated text of the external link *"Christian Faith and its "fulfillment" of the Natural Moral Law".  If one looks at the version before my NPOV edit, one can clearly see the use of external linking as 'advertisement' in the very least, if not more so POV.  Talonx84.152.255.121 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Can you explain why you have deleted my text now? You put instead the same insufficient, dull explanation of the Beatitudes, truly low-rating. That's what you want? Radu Comanescu (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What now? 

message: "The last of these eight is followed by what appears to be commentaries on it, with Matthew's, according to author R.T. France, integrating elements from Isaiah 51:7.[6] Amongst textual critics, this is seen as an attempt by Matthew and Luke to re-interpret quotations from Q that do not quite fit with their theology if read literally. That the commentary discusses the persecution of Christians, who clearly would not be able to consider Jesus' crucifixion until after it had actually happened, is regarded by most scholars as indicating the timeframe for when Matthew and Luke were written, although more fundamentalist Christians believe that this commentary is an example of prophecy. Matthew refers to only verbal attacks, while Luke also refers to excommunication, which scholars feel indicates[citation needed] the differences in situation between the writers."
This whole paragraph contains the most controversial statements about interpretation and analysis, using the ambiguous language of "scholars agree that..." and yet, it is largely uncited. I would ask for clarification about who is being referred to in the terms "scholars" and "fundamentalist Christians". 66.112.240.208 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited Paragraph

message: Two lists of beatitudes are presented (those in both gospels, then those only in one).  This seems quite reasonable, but there's an oddball paragraph that separates them:
:The Beatitudes a way of being. They help us to see the characteristic if the Kingdom of God and the types of people that will enter the Kingdom of God first. They tell us how we should act to get Gods blessings.
Two sentence fragments and a sentence.  They appear to have been here quite a while, otherwise I'd have removed them as appearing to be a well-meaning half-baked thought.  It seems to me that the author of these statements is pushing a particular viewpoint which is not substantiated by reference and comes nowhere near a neutral POV.  I'm inclined to delete the paragraph entirely. 96.54.165.114 (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no discussion - no dissent.  I'm removing it. - 96.54.165.114 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oddball non-grammatical biased unrefereced assertion floating in midst of beatitudes

message: Why does the article mention eight blessings in Matthew but list nine blessings?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.43.84.140 (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Blessings

message: This article has been marked as unreferenced since 2007! And there is a great deal of junk floating in it. I think needs a serious trim of the unsourced junk and some decent references. I will try to get to it soon. History2007 (talk)
:As a note, I have now fixed those and added WP:RS references, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References? 

message: "Together, the Beatitudes present a new set of Christian ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction. They echo the highest ideals of the teachings of Jesus on mercy, spirituality, and compassion.[5][6]"
The above is from the end of the lede. I found myself thinking "citation needed" until I got to the two cites at the end, so I looked up the relevant parts of the cited works. I used Google Books for 5 "The Synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke" and sadly page 68 was cut off so it's possible that that one page has all of what's in the above quote but I doubt it. Otherwise neither that book nor the Dictionary of the Bible make claims anywhere close to the end of the lede. I get where the writer is trying to go with what they wrote but it should either be rewritten to be more in keeping with the citations or be removed.
198.204.141.208 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last part of lede 

message: "... focus on a spirit love and humility ..."
If this is correct, I don't understand what is meant by "spirit love". Perhaps it should read: "... focus on a spirit of love and humility ..." That I can appreciate. Dawright12 (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd wording

message: Mathew 5:42. And luke 6:30. Give to those who ask.  If a man asks formyour coat give him your shirt too.
Also james 1:5
I had to look these up. They should not be mssing.  The whole poimt was to show that god acts upon us from the outside. The human request is a serious one because humans contain a soul.  Requests come from that which is outsode a person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.241.13 (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing beatitude.  There are a couple things which should be here. 

message: In an attempt to sanitize the article to Wikipedia standards, it looks as if a whole whack of content has been deleted over time.
I also wonder that no one refers to The Daily Study Bible by William Barclay.  He spends quite considerable time expounding on the very first of the beatitudes, describing someone who is "poor in Spirit" as someone who recognizes his own spiritually destitute condition.
The often used definition of "meek" is strength under control, signifying that when a person yields control to the Holy Spirit, it is like a strongman who listens to an inner voice that is even stronger than he is.
Ricgal (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Quality: No Wonder 

message: "Cryptic" doesn't fit for me. The meanings are not perfectly 
clear . . . the words, some of them have more than one meaning 
but I would never use "cryptic", that has an import of intentional 
ambiguity. I think these words are as clear as possible and that 
studying them can bring great insight. I'm not knowledgeable 
enough to say any more.
Benvhoff (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic 

message: There are nine Beatitudes, not eight. 
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye when [men] shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.
:The ninth beatitude is directed at the disciples. 
SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine beatitudes 

message: At the head of this talk section, we are told that this article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity. Should this not also be within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bible? Vorbee (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of Wikiprojects

message: Should not #3 read "Him" and not "him"?
"Blessed are those who see God in every person and strive to make others also discover him."
vs.
"Blessed are those who see God in every person and strive to make others also discover _Him_."
67.241.75.93 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited reference has lower case "him" both in this sentence and later in the summary line, All these are messengers of God's mercy and tenderness", Pope Francis said. "Surely they will receive from him their merited reward". - BobKilcoyne (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal modern Beatitudes

message: Let "poverty of spirit" to mean exactly what it says.
Elaborate explanations by this person or that do little to embellish and much to confuse language and sentiments already clear.
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.127.36.182 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let "poverty of spirit" to mean exactly what it says. 

message: The Spanish icon Joan Manuel Serrat offers his own set of Beatitudes in the song 'Bienaventurados', tongue firmly in cheek :
Blessed are the fools who risk giving advice because they appear wise at the cost of others.
Blessed are the poor because they know with certainty that no one loves them for their riches.
Blessed are those addicted to strong emotions because these are good times for party people. 
Blessed are the owners of power and glory because they inform us of what's going on. 
Blessed are those who reach the top because it is downhill the rest of the way. 
Blessed are those who taste failure because they will know who their friends are. 
Blessed are the chaste because they have divine grace when opportunities abound to sin. 
Blessed are those who love because they have better than 50% chance of a great romance. 
Blessed are those who are have hit bottom because things can only get better. 
Blessed are those who show off their guts because they will have a chance to prove it. 
Blessed are those who got into debt because someone once did them a favor. 
Blessed are those who have clarity about things because theirs is the kingdom of the blind.
Tofindya (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelve Modern Beatitudes