Talk:Gamaliel

message: :Hey! Who let you in here? Gamaliel 01:05, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled]

message: Gamaliel as the Anti-Sephirah of Yesod on the Tree of Death/Qliphoth in Hebrew Qabalah.
:Any such reference should go in Gamaliel (disambiguation). Paul B 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected template because it is not required here. The reflist can be amended - just find the place in the wikicode where the reference is first defined and alter that. Let me know if you need any further help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already added the ref. Paul B (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Martin/Paul.--Suburbium (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  forgot reference to 

message: It seems some editors are confusing the Gamaliels. Especially ones who are adding the christian pov (e.g. stuff being added to the wrong Gamaliel). Gamaliel haZaken should not be confused with Rabban Gamaliel 1 or 2. 124.170.85.23 07:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "POV", since it is not the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. It's a historical fact that Christian tradition claimed this. That doesn't make it true, or likely to be true, but it does make it notable. By all means add material on his views concerning resurrection if you have reliable sources. However I've no idea why anyone would think the 'minim' might be Christians if they are opposed to the concept of Resurrection, though I guess it could be a gnostic sect. What do Herford and Pranaitis claim? Paul B (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I've had a quick look at Google books. You seem to be confusing Gamaliel I with Gamaliel II, who was the one who debated with Minim over the resurrection. Paul B (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing the Gamaliel 

message: There can be no suspicion that R. Gamliel became a Christian.  That is POV.  What is missing here is a discussion of the issues on Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin daf 90b where R. Gamliel is in an argument with _minim_ who are rejecting the resurrection of the dead.  The discussion on this page would also have to answer the question whether the minim are Christians as some writers like Herford and Pranaitis claim.  The answer to that question would have to draw in reliable third-party sources that explain why Christians would claim that the Bible does NOT support resurrection of the dead, a cornerstone of Christianity.
4.249.63.100 (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "POV", since it is not the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. It's a historical fact that Christian tradition claimed this. That doesn't make it true, or likely to be true, but it does make it notable. By all means add material on his views concerning resurrection if you have reliable sources. However I've no idea why anyone would think the 'minim' might be Christians if they are opposed to the concept of Resurrection, though I guess it could be a gnostic sect. What do Herford and Pranaitis claim? Paul B (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I've had a quick look at Google books. You seem to be confusing Gamaliel I with Gamaliel II, who was the one who debated with Minim over the resurrection. Paul B (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: I'm not really sure why one would refer to texts from the Jewish tradition within a section on Gamaliel in the Christian section. It seems to me that these references are motivated by a desire to refute whatever is held to be true in the Christian tradition. Just as I see no need to intertwine the Christian and Jewish tradition within the Jewish tradition section (nor indeed to refute what is held therein), nor do I see a need to intertwine the two traditions within the Christian tradition section. Also, can I suggest that, if it is necessary to include Prof. Koester's views, they be included in another section as they do not seem to be Christian nor of that tradition? Finally, I presume that it does not need to be said that Talmud is a (collection of) source(s) which post-dates the Acts of the Apostles: I am not sure of its relevance therefore to the Christian tradition; except from a Jewish tradition perspective (which is very much a minority point of view, in any event).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.90.89 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference to Jewish tradition texts within the Christian tradition section 

message: Is there a way to change the URL to Gamliel instead of Gamaliel? The latter might be the "Greek derivative of the Hebrew name...." as had been stated in the article, but since he was Jewish - and a very important Jew at that - who spoke Hebrew and whose name was given in Hebrew, I believe very strongly that his name ought to be transliterated into English directly from the Hebrew rather than taken from the Greek.
I cannot tell you just how offensive this sort of thing is to those who are followers of Jewihs tradition to see other religious persuasions try to claim our sages as their own and dismiss their connection to Judaism. See, for example: http://rupeenews.com/2009/01/was-musa-ibm-maymun-the-great-arab-scholar-a-muslim-or-was-moses-maimonides-a-jew/
ShagMeElmo 18:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can move the page by clicking Move at the top of the page.  Though moving this page might require some discussion first.  Until the page is moved, however, I'm going to revert your changing of the spelling until we come to a consensus on the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

text: WP:NAME means that the most common form of the name in English should be used. It is irrelevant whether or not it is "correct" ("Jesus" is an obvious example). Paul B (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gamaliel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519083636/http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/sanhedrin.htm to http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/sanhedrin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Saint Abibas, according to the Catholic church is the second son of Gamaliel. Does anyone have an interest in expanding the information from Nicodemus#Veneration_and_liturgical_commemoration to the Gamaliel page? Twillisjr (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Son of Gamaliel ("Saint" Abibas) 

message: Citation 4 - Abodah Zarah 3:10 - is incorrect. Nothing related to the subject at hand appears there. I have no experience editing Wikipedia, so I prefer to leave the changes to someone who knows what they're doing.165.73.33.168 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation