Talk:INRI

message: The text claims an alleged actual inscription was found but then fails to mention what happened to it...Jarwulf (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1492

message: This is incorrect Latin -- properly should be "Iustum necarE reges impiOs"... AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iustum Necar Reges Impius error

message: I have added two additional paragraphs of information, based on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumranian Scrolls respectively, the Qumran Scroll's being the writings of the actual Nasorean sect themselves documenting their (previously) verbal history that was then lost for so many years.
It's a highly debated and inflammable topic mainly between the schools of thought that, "There is truth in the bible." and "The bible is the truth." .. so take it as you will, whether you believe in 800 year old humans, or 80 year olds and a typo, the choice is yours.  :)
Jachin 03:52, 23 May 2005 (AEST)
:Sources please? Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, hello.  Could you please quote the sources you are referring to, including the ones which suggest that the Qumran community were Nasoerans? Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks he was thinking of the Essenes, who were though to be the inhabitants of the Qumran settlement. There was no "Nasorean sect"; the Nazirites (to use the more common spelling) were those who had taken certain vows under the Mosaic law. I don't know of any evidence for the idea that the Essenes were all Nazirites. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not really -- The single word Y'hudi (Hebrew) / Ioudaios (Greek) / Judaeus (Latin) was used in ancient times to cover all three of the concepts Judahite (member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent), Judaean (resident of the land of Judea), and Jew (follower of the monotheistic religion). AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extrapolation on Nazerene / Nasorean

message: Until INRI & Titulus get seperated out, there's a need to define that a titulus is.  If I recall correctly, it was Roman tradition to post the crime above the person they executed.  The reading of the charge above Jesus is signifigant, in that it is both Pilot mocking the Jewish leaders, and is the only change Pilot was asked to rule on.
(I don't have a ready source for this, otherwise I'd make a proper edit)
-15:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be Pilate mocking Jewish leaders? AnonMoos 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At a guess, because they annoyed him by putting him in the position he found himself in.  The Jewish leadership, at any rate, wanted the inscription changed, so presumably they found it objectionable or embarrassing.  But that, of course, is just one reasonable interpretation among several, and I see no reason to favor any of them by a mentioning in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus - Need definition

message: Perhaps some Orthodox crucifixes do say this, but even more say "The King of Glory".  Unfortunately I don't know how to put this in Greek so I can't fix it myself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The King of the World" 

message: I found this on a messageboard. Can anyone corroborate?
Christian Interpretation
INRI is a Latin acronym for Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (English: "Jesus of Nazareth [literally 'Jesus the Nazarene'], King of the Jews [or 'Judaeans']".)
Masonic Interpretation
Igne Natura Renovatur Integra meaning "Through fire, Nature is reborn whole" or "By fire Nature is renewed whole", symbolizing Humankind's spiritual regeneration by the sacred fire of truth and love.
Yes, I think it is "Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra". Maybe somebody should find some source to support this? Xytor500 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That information was once in this article, but the only source for it was the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is unreliable for Freemasonry. I forget when it was removed, but it was a while ago. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other interpretations? 

message: Would a website of followers of Aleister Crowley be a "reliable source" for that occult interpretation of I.N.R.I.?
http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/INRI  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.60.10 (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017

message: Why הנצרת instead of נצרת or הנוצרי ?
Is there any solid evidence for הנצרת ? AnonMoos 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew

message: I, in no way, want to start a debate on the reasons for jesus' crucifixion, I'm just wondering why it needs to be in this article.  This article should define INRI and say why it's written on crosses with maybe a little history.  Going into the details of the crucifixion that have nothing to do with the writing of INRI should be left elsewhere. Djibouti 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason For Crucifixion

message: :I have removed the "trivia" section. It has no relevance to the meaning of the crucifix and is at best irrelevant information. At worst it constitutes vandalism worthy of being reported, but for now the section will just go away. If there are any bits of crucifix related trivia worthy of putting here, I invite anyone to recreate the section, but as long as ignorant jokes are the only content, it makes no sense to even have it here. Please remember to keep this page as information-centered as possible and keep inane bits of trivia where they belong- Urban dictionary or other similar sites, not Wikipedia--Wingsfan6047 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned to the article page to find my editing undone with no explanation or discussion on this page. I reverted the page to my original edit, and explained why. I am not prepared to enter a revert war with a joker who has made 3 contributions. I will report this as vandalism if I find it changed again without 'at least' proper explanation.--Wingsfan6047 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia deletion

message: Each Gospel gives the text only in Greek, not in any other language.  The table incorrectly implies that the Gospels specify the precise wording of the text in Latin and/or Hebrew/Aramaic.  In addition, it doesn't give any source for the Latin and Hebrew texts.  This seems a clear breach of Original Research and WP:V, especially as we don't know whether "Hebrew" refers to Classical Hebrew or (more likely) Aramaic.  I suggest removing the Latin and Hebrew text, and replacing it with a simple list of the languages specified by the Gospels.  Grover cleveland (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the problematic text.  Grover cleveland (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew/Latin text in table is Original Research

message: I noticed that the original document stated that Luke and John wrote that the inscription is written in three languages however, I only find it in John.  I have revised the content to reflect that information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerang (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Luke 23:38 "And there was also a superscription written over him, in letters of Greek, and Roman, and Hebrew, `This is the King of the Jews.'".  link.  Grover cleveland (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gospels

message: The article fails to mention that about 75% of the actual INRI wooden plate from the crucifiction still exists and is on display at Mounth Athos in Greece. 82.131.133.206 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been said that if all the alleged fragments of the cross in Europe were brought together, you could build a barn. What's your citation for the INRI plate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. And in fact Erasmus complained about those claims of wood usage in church buildings as well. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual INRI plate