Talk:Jesus/Archive 89

message: If Herod the Great died in 4 BC, how could Jesus have been born in 3 or 2 BC, as the lead states? Badagnani (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year 

message: The Gospels of Mark and Matthew and the Letters of the Galatians (Matthew 13:55–56, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19) are very clear: Jesus had 4 brothers called James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas and several unnamed sisters. The Greek word used to describe Jesus' siblings is adelphos meaning brother and adelphe meaning sister. The meaning of this world is very clear, look at Strongs or any other Greek dictionary. Why do people not want the names of teh siblings known in the Wikipedia article? This article is not theology, it must have the facts. And the facts as written in Mark, Matthew and Galatians is crystal clear. Juanholanda (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fact that the Greek version of the Bible is unclear about many things and often quite vague. This is why there are so many differing translations in existence within many languages. Thus when you insert such allegations as fact you are making an extremely controversial edit. Wikipedia does not take sides. Read WP:NPOV. Such controversial material will require multiple credible reliable sources. WP:VERIFY states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Strothra (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is from strongs: 80. adephos ad-el-fos'  from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):--brother. note it says "literally or figuratively, near or remote". Therefore, it is possible to use that word in reference to a cousin, or even someone who wasn't related to Jesus. If we cite notable sources that makes these interpretations, then all is well. That's the beauty of NPOV. We aren't here to tell The Truth, or figure out what the bible actually means. We simply report on what our sources say. And if the sources disagree, we can present both sides.-Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew is correct; focus on what experts state the Bible says. Wikipedia does not interpret the Bible regardless how facile you might think it is. Find a reputable source and quote it and move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a biblical scholar, and quite an expert in my field! In any case, look at the modern available transaltions of the Matthew passage in http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=Mat&chapter=13&verse=55&version=KJV#55 or in Thayer's Lexicon. It is always translated as brothers or brethren, even if then it is explained that some theologians have over time interpreted these terms to mean more than just blood relations. Cerainly in the New Bible translation of the Dutch laguage used by all Churches in Holland the only term used is 'broers' meaning brothers. http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bijbel=Bijbel&m=Mat+13&id18=1&pos=0&set=10&l=nl How this term 'brothers' or 'Brethren" is explained by theologians of differnet persuasions is another matter (look at the apporpriate section of James the Just. In any case, however you interpret the word "brothers" or "Brethren" their first names are given in Matthew, so they should not be taken out of the article! Keeping the names out of the article IS taking sides! 190.83.31.27 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound suspiciously like the same Juanholanda above, especially with the blueletterbible links. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to keep in mind that the near 1.5 billion Christians who adhere to traditionalist Churches such as Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy and the like continuously affirm the mere kinsmenship (specifically step-sibling-ship) of these "brothers". The Church Fathers affirmed the traditional understanding of these "brothers" being children by the previous marriage of Joseph. As it should be apparent to anyone with even a modicum of familiarity with the Greek language, "adelphos" and its related forms holds several meanings- something which should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the English word "brother", which is very commonly used outside of the "biologically-related" manner.--C.Logan (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We name the brothers and call them brothers. We point out that they might have been half-brothers (Joseph's sons by a first wife), as affirmed by practically all Christian churches (if not denominations). Protestants abandoned this understanding when they rejected the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Easy. Aside from the perpetual virginity, there's no reason to expect that they're half-brothers, so we need to include a reference to that divinely affirmed doctrine. Leadwind (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's important to avoid quoting the views of 1.5 billion people in support of a particular view unless you have heard from them personally. Many Catholics and others do not in fact adhere rigorously to the views of their church. Besides, the Churches themselves often have a much more subtle view of these things. Raymond Brown, an excellent scholar as well as a Catholic priest in good standing, remained open-minded on the topic, although he observed: "The term adelphos, which is used in Mark 6:3, would normally denote a blood brother, son of the same mother, frater germanus. It is well known that in the NT adelphos at times denotes other relationships [he gives examples indicating 'co-religionist' and 'neighbour'] - but these do not help with the problem at hand, for here Jesus' mothers and sisters are mentioned also." Rbreen (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' Siblings 

message: The use of BCE/CE in addition to the standard BC/AD is obnoxious.
* It utilizes more storage space on the Wikpedia servers.
* It is aethetically annoying
* It is more difficult to read
* BCE is an alternate form, and everyone knows what BC/AD is
* This is an article about CHRIST. Why would you not use Before CHRIST and Anno DOMINI?
* There are no reason to keep the text "/BCE" and "/CE", other than propagation of Atheistic/anti-Christian ignorance.
Does  Jesus (7–2 BC to 26–36 AD) not read better than  Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE)?
Does anyone agree with the removal of the extra text by changing "AD/CE" to "AD" and "BC/BCE" to "BC"?
ron2(talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it be - it's been stable for nearly 2 years.  Sophia 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Real encyclopedias that I've read don't look like this...ron2(talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, most of them have moved completely over to the CE standard (which is the principal academic standard currently in use). Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly don't believe that. Source one encyclopedia that uses CE/BCE for an article about Jesus. Usually, CE/BCE are used academically and in articles concerning Judaism or non-Christian modern-day religions, as noted in the article on Common Era.—Steven Evens (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that it should just be AD and BC because CE and BCE are only different in that different letters are used - so they use "common era" etc. Well its not a coincidence that BCE = BC and AD = CE. Its an article central to Christians more than any other group of people (i mean in terms of importance) Tourskin (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for Removal of Alternate Dating Notation