Talk:New Testament/2005

message: What other context is there for "Greek Scriptures"? Is the phrase "Greek Scriptures" used in any other way or context? Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, in this case I misunderstood the word 'scripture', in Dutch 'scripture' is translated with the same word as 'script'. However, your way of reverting is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. Jcbos 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for explaining.  In English they are quite different.  However, your way of inserting text without prior Talk: discussion is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "(in Christian context)" 

message: Around March 7, 2005 User:Jcbos tried to remove "Christian" in the first line of this article on the grounds of it being a pleonasm. This has been reverted immediately. On the Dutch Wikipedia a huge debate started after I inserted (a translation of) "Christian" immediately before (a translation of) "Bible" in the first sentence of the artikle about the New Testament. Quite a lot of people do state their on that discussion page that "Bible" in religious context always refers to the Holy Scriptures of the Christians. Really, that was stated in these absolute terms, notwithstanding any reference I made to "Hebrew Bible". Even some people raised the question: "Is there another Bible than the Christian Bible?" Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been debated at length.  Most editors on English Wikipedia appear to think that "Christian" serves as a disambiguation for Bible.  You'll find the discussion at Talk:Bible. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It simply depends on the context, both in dutch and english, even though the connotations of the word in dutch are different from those in english. The informal vote/poll on NL wikipedia was quite unanimous, in that in the context of the article from which it was removed, it was almost certainly a pleonasm. Intuitions of native speakers of english will tend to be quite different from those of native speakers of dutch on this matter, so any decision here will not apply there and vice versa. This applies more generally to most words in either language. Flyingbird 02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Christian Bible" a pleonasm, or not? 

message: I think there needs to be a section the evaluates the historical merit of the New Testament MSS, from both sides of the debate. If the Historicity section I added was a POV, you should of seen it before I edited all the real POV out of it. I added examples of scholors who do not find the New Testament reliable, the point is that this is the test for historical reliability, Bibliographical Evidence, Internal Evidence, and External Evidence. Puting the debate of the Historicity of the New Testament into this kind of a structure puts it all into a context where true dissention can occur. Jayig, if you thought it was POV, it could have been edited to include more examples on the other side of the debate. It was not submited as a completed work, but only a work in progress toward becoming complete. My final goal is a comprehensive and detailed report of all the facts from all points of view. Rclose 22:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historicity

message: Under the section on language, it says:
"...and there is another contention that Paul wrote the Hebrews in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke."
Last time I checked the exact author of Hebrews was unknown. Some feel it is Paul, some Apollos, some someone else entirely. Not only that but the phrase "Paul wrote the Hebrews in Hebrew" is grammatically incorrect, assuming that it is referring to the book and not the people. It should either be "Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew" or "Paul wrote the letter/epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew." I'd make the correction(s) but I'd like input from other people who've looked at the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C0bra (talk • contribs) 2005-11-14 19:34:02.
:That sentence doesn't say that Paul wrote Hebrews.  It says some people contend he did.  The word "the" does need to go, though. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are back at these mysterious 'some people' - cite exactly whom or remove it. Traditionally Hebrews has been attributed to Paul - most notably by the Authorised Version headings - but the tradition goes back to Partistic times. However, it was also disputed from the earliest times, and no credible scholar argues for that position today (even most conservative-evangelicals reject it). --Doc ask? 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is not a disputation of authorship, it is a disputation of language. To rephrase: "there is a contention that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, which was then tranlsated into the Greek language by Luke." It's even in the language section. If someone wants to go into the authorship debate then it should be in a separate section and not packed into another. --c0bra 15:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Wrote Hebrews? 

message: I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love."  It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion.  But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete.  Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago.  I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented.  So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  favor 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org