Talk:Messianic prophecy

message: This article was proposed for deletion on October 12, 2006 without going through the proper deletion listing procedures.  It was nominated for deletion by Bob A on grounds that are clearly not valid ("only Abrahamic" and "mainly listcroft"), basically in retalliation for reverts. At one point he redirected this to an article he basically copied from someone else's sub-article and his article was nominated for deletion.
* The earlier versions of the article (now restored) are not "basically listcroft". They discuss the concept (the original purpose of the article), the varying views, etc. Someone totally unfamilar with "What does the term "Messianic prophecy" mean?" could read those versions of the article and have a good understanding.
* As the earlier versions indicate, Messianic prophecy is definitely not limited to Abrahamic religions. Someone added the Zoroastrian view. Nor is the Hebrew Bible considered the only source of Messianic prophecy.
* Even if the concept were limited to Abrahamic religions, that is not a valid ground for deletion.
* Again, as indicated, the purpose of the article was to explain the concept of Messianic prophecy. That even applies to things like Nero in The Matrix trilogy.
RickReinckens 17:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Matrix trilogy? I don't think that an encyclopedic wiki artcile is the place to have a discussion on the Messianic implication of the Matrix trilogy. Wikipedia just isn't a discussion forum like that. It's an encyclopedia. Peace. --Home Computer 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion (Discuss) 

message: Note: According to the guy who wrote this article, it is intended only to discuss the concept of messianic prophecy and when it was written the intention per an agreement with the main contributors on "messianic prophecies" was that there would be other articles on Messianic prophecies of various religions, etc. I had made a suggestion on how to get such articles written and was going to start one. For reasons I won't go into an overzealous administrator of a particular religion deleted the disambiguation page without checking for what linked there, so a number of articles now link to that deleted page.
If you want to write about specific messianic prophecies, particular religions' views, etc., please create a new article, don't put it here!
Charles Ulysses Farley 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry mate I'm going to disagree with you here. Messiah is a distictive Hebrew word used in the Jewish Scriptures to speak of a coming King. Seeing as how most world religions have no Hebrew prophecy concerning a King that is to come that doesn't apply. Christianity applies because it claims Jesus was the fulfillment. Therefore I propose this article be redesigned to better fit this description and demonstrate what the notable citable experts say on the topic. --Home Computer 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with Home Computer on this; as Messiah is Hebrew in origin, therefore making it a Jewish topic.  Christianity would also fit this topic, for the reasons stated above.  --Dulcimerist 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional comment 

message: This entry seems to fail under the NPOV Undue weight policy. This group consistutes a few hundred scattered across the western U.S. MARussellPESE 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BUPC view

message: Judah, thanks for adding the Dead Sea Scrolls link about pesher. I haven't researched it in detail but that is the first time I have seen it mentioned by people not affiliated with Messianic Judaism. It looks like it might be worth adding in the Reference section.
:RickReinckens 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Pesher'' link 

message: Rick, I noticed you left a comment in the source code in the Video section asking if it is possible to have several references to one footnote. Of course it is.  See here: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, you can have numbered footnotes plus Harvard references, with Notes in one section and References in another. Judah haNasi 06:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple references 

message: I don’t understand the purpose or plan of this article.  Some examples:
Do we need an entire section called “Messianic Prophecy” just to have the section read: “A messianic prophecy is considered to be a prophecy about the Messiah(s).”  I mean – that’s a bit obvious and unnecessary, no?   
Why is there a paragraph about the use of the word God in the article?  Same thing about “skeptic” – does an article about messaniac prophecy need to define the word skeptic?  
The section on Zoroastrianism has one senetence: “Zoroastrianism believes in the imminent coming of a World Savior (Saoshant), who would be born of a virgin, and who would lead humanity in the final battle against Evil.”  Anyone care to refrence that?  What is the source for this information.
On and on it goes.  This whole article needs a complete reorganization and exclusion of much of its material.  Otherwise, it ought to just be let go. Lostcaesar 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and think that this article needa an entire rewrite based specifically on the scholarly discussion behind the Hebrew prophecies of a Messiah. --Home Computer 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What happened to the intro? I think the previous intro was pretty strong. Did it accidentally get deleted in an edit? Because as it stands, the first sentence isn't even a completely thought. I propose restoring the previous intro, and fixing, reworking that where necessary.--Andrew c 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was significantly slimmed. Feel free to edit in what you considered to be pertinent. Don't revert though. Let's focus on specificaly Messianic prophesy.. ie, Judaic. Compare the old intro to the new. It's poorly written now but a more sound foundation if you will. --Home Computer 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree completely. There is no excuse to replace existing content with admittedly poor writing. I understand wanting this article to focus more on Judaic Messianic prophecy, but it may not be the best idea to start omitting relevent POVs per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. That said, even if we can all agree that the focus of this article is on the Judeo-Christian concept, we can easily modify the old text, instead of re-inventing the wheel by adding new (poorly written) content.--Andrew c 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, i reviewed the newest versions and I like it. Not sure why you got all hot in the pants about the changes, but I like the concensus you and other editors have come to as of right now. Also.. you've been using some pretty strong wording in responses to me and I'd like to suggest maybe that we both take a break from this page and come back to it with a little less offense being taken and given. Peace. --Home Computer 04:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize again. I have a problem with tone, and sounding too stern over the internet. Please accept my apologies. It's just that the first sentence of your revision really bothered me. When I first read it, it sounded like an incomplete thought, as if you hadn't finnished writing what was there. But now I realize, the issue was that the sentence ended in a preposition. And the use of passive voice and the parenthetical comment also confused me. Sorry again. I'm fine with the current version.--Andrew c 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. I appreciate your wikiskill. I am not as good of an editor. :)--Home Computer 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Work Needed 

message: I restored the cited materials that did not need to be removed. --Home Computer 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored cited materials

message: Is he a Full Preterist or a Partial Preterist? Since he claims all prophecy has been fullfilled, sounds like he's a Full Preterist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.3.172 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 October 2006.
He doesn't claim that all prophecy has been fulfilled. He believes that the whole Bible is completely true, and thus that Jesus is the Messiah and is the fulfillment of all Messianic prophecy. According to that position the Bible indicates a second coming where unfulfilled prophecy concerning Jesus will come to pass and by the same person. To say that all messianic prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus includes future prophecy, as Jesus is not dead. --Homecomputer∴Peace 16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If future prophecy is included, then, as of today, all prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Anyone who claims that all prophecy has already been fulfilled is a Full Preterist. See , , , , , etc.75.15.207.17 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that all Messianic Prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus can include, prophesies of the future are fulfilled in Jesus. --Homecomputer∴Peace 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, including prophecy that will be fulfilled in the future means that all prophecy will be fulfilled by Jesus, not that it has already been fulfilled. See Grammatical tense. Anyone who claims that all prophecy has already been fulfilled is a Full Preterist. 75.15.196.18 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Saying Jesus IS the fulfillment does not assign a time other than the current state of things. If I said Jesus was, that's past, will be is future which are both also true. But when I say Jesus is the fulfillment of all biblical messianic prophecy, that's saying that all biblical messianic prophecy past and present finds it's fulfillment in Christ and will continue to proove to be. The fact that Jesus fulfills a promise doesn't conflict with the fact that historically it hasn't happened yet. English is a clumsy language with tenses. Koine Greek was much more descpritive concerning these. :) --Home Computer∴Peace 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Josh McDowell's POV?