Talk:Jesus/Archive 54

message: It looks like our latest peer review is over. We got one comment, in response to which I separated the "Pauline Christian views" section between trinitarian and nontrinitarian views. Are there any further comments? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Previous discussion in Talk:Jesus/Archive 49.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the discussion on the name section. If not, I feel that 95% of the information can be cut (and moved to the main articles if it isn't already there). I mean, what do we really have to say here?
:The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since Jesus was an Aramaic Jew living in Galilee around 30CE, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a Greek name. Further examination of the septuagint finds that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of a couple of possible Hebrew names: Yehoshua (יהושוע) or the shortened Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these. 
Case closed, right? Why is there so much detail going into one small section?--Andrew c 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but there was a long argument between Haldrik and Jayjg over the derivation of the name. That's why I think a qualified liguist should look it over. Definitely most of the details could be moved to subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I've been so busy I almost missed this :-) Yes the changes have been made and we're all set to replace. --Steve Caruso 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since most Jews living in the Galilee at the time spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a primary Greek name. The Septuagint transliterates two names as (Ἰησοῦς); the Hebrew Yehoshua (יהושוע), and the shortened (or possibly Aramaic) Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.
Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your changes are an improvement (mine was just a rough cut anyway :P). One thing I would change, the pronoun "he" in the second sentence doesn't have an antecedent. And do we have sources for the final statement about what scholars believe? Otherwise, I think we should update the article after unprotection.--Andrew c 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good. But don't forget the "o" (Iēsus → Iēsous). » MonkeeSage « 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the Latin didn't have an "o" in the middle of it. --Steve Caruso 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has a diagram suggesting the greek had the o, not the latin. I tried going to the vulgate for a source, but the only images I could find online had the nomina sacra IHS.--Andrew c 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Jim said he'd ask the admins to move the page to semi-protect if we had 5 votes that agreed. We now have eight. Maybe I should let him know? Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that's a go :-) אמר Steve Caruso 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm very aware that Latin had the letter "o." :-) What I've never seen was the Latin iesvs/iesus translitterated as "iêsous," where I've seen the Greek  translitterated as "iêsous" all the time. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, omicron-epsilon was technically a digraph by the time of Koine, having become monophthongised some time before then. Some call it a "false" diphthong. I usually use "diphthong" somewhat less technically to mean two vowels included in a single syllable. Thank you for clarifying. » MonkeeSage « 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And I made the edits to the Ministry section that I've been wanting to make. Now it's Aiden's turn ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, the linguistics are, like, wrong -- not that it matters or anything. •Jim62sch• 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it. I'd ask what is wrong, but I fear you may talk over my head. ;) You and Steve Thadman are the linguists, so I'll let you two hash it out between you. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The article itself is fine; I meant on the talk page. ου was a long u like we know it (oo), hence ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Ιηςους) and IESVS are phonetic equivalents.  The upsilon by itself (which was borrowed into Latin as a Y) had a sound roughly equivalent to the u in the French "sur" or an umlauted u in German.  There's more, but I'm too lazy to type it all out.  •Jim62sch• 12:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name section (continued)

message: Child Jesus is lacking sources. I thought I'd post this at the main Jesus nexus to bring this to everyone's attention. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, we've got a lot of work to do. Perhaps we should do one article every 2 weeks or something to try and bring all the sub-articles up to the quality of the main article. —Aiden 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be that this article be brought up to the quality of what you perceive for the "main article" -- in other words, get this done first.  The Child Jesus is no more than mythology, so are you sure you want to go near that one?  •Jim62sch• 12:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, suggestbot thought I might. A lot of weird stuff there that I'd never met outside of Anne Rice's recent novel. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related article needing sources. 

message: Maybe I'm missing something but why is this page linked from the New Testament Jesus bit of Jesus#See also. It's a good page and obviously has Christianity links but I don't think it sits well here. Any objections if I remove it? Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An odd link. Jesus and the Kings of France again? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrgh - the Da Vinci Code strikes again! I'm taking it out and if anyone objects I'll putit back. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fleur de lys]]

message: Hey - I would have just added this myself but the page is frozen.  But I think we should add a section on the Fathers' view of Jesus' genealogy (specifically the view in Augustine's Retractions 2:7; St. Jerome's Commentary on Matthew 1:16; Eusebius of Caesarea's view in the Ecclesiastical History 1:7; and John Damascene's view in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14.  That tradition says:
Heli son of Matthat was descended from David's son Solomon; Jacob son of Matthan from David's son Nathan. The Fathers claim that Heli and Jacob were in fact half-brothers. According to tradition, their mother Estha first married Matthat and had Heli; then after Matthat died, she married Matthan and had Jacob.
Now, when Heli grows up, he marries a woman (tradition doesn't assign her a name as far as I can tell) but dies before they have any children. Then, in accordance with the levirate law in Deuteronomy 25:5, Jacob married Heli's widow, and "raised up seed for his brother." Thus, Jacob was physically Joseph's father, but Heli was accounted his father in accordance with the Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam sk (talk • contribs) 
:I've moved this to the bottom of the page so that people will actually see it. It also helps to sign your posts. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the geneology section is pretty big as is. Perhaps there is a subpage better suited for this particular historic apology? There is a page on Genealogy of Jesus that I believe even mentions this position already.--Andrew c 14:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might fit better into the Christian Views section, although that section is also getting a bit long. Perhaps a short mention in Christian views of Jesus might be appropriate. There is also the Brethren of Jesus redirect (I can never remember the article name--despy-sometyhing) to consider. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church Father's view

message: This subject can immediately cause apolexy in some religious persons
who feel without thinking that it is blaspemy. What is meant is not
that Jesus didnt ascend to heaven but that before he was crucified
he was married and had children. And his wife was Mary Magdalene
and there is considerable evidence for that.
(Mary Magdalene was trashed by the early church to have been a prostitute 
but careful review of the facts shows that whole story was made up.)
The question of whether or not Jesus had a family and so also had children and esp then descendants down to today has been around for 1000 or more years but was highlighted in 1982-84 TV programs in Britain and then the best seller
Holy Blood Holy Grail. And most recently again that same idea, that Jesus had 
descendants is found to be the final solution to the puzzle being chased
about Europe to solve in the mega best seller, Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
In addition, the Bible PREDICTS in its Isaiah prophecies that Jesus 
will have children, a clear prophecy that is ignored by those yelling 
blasphemy. 
He shall see his Seed - Isaiah 53: 10 
 
He shall sprinkle his Seed across many nations - Isaiah 52:15
Twisted about in the middle of this descendants discussion is the weakly understood idea of Holy Grail, ... that when understood better means simply 
a person, including Jesus descendants, who are filled with 
the Holy Spirit (as Jesus and as his disciples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.10 (talk • contribs) 
:But the Da Vinci Code is fiction. Besides, you know that whole "children of God" concept that gets repeated through the Bible? I mean, Jesus is God, and we are God's children, there's no need for nonsense about Jesus being married to Mary Magdoline. Homestarmy 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "And his wife was Mary Magdalene and there is considerable evidence for that" — since no early writing (of whatever flavor; Gnostic, orthodox, or anything else) claims that Jesus was married, or was married to Mary Magdalene (the closest thing being inferences based on the Gospel of Philip), and since almost no serious scholarship accepts the idea, I have to wonder what the "considerable evidence" is beyond mere claims of secret societies and conspiracy theories and spurious documents from the 16th century and later. Who are Jesus' "seed"? Rom. 9:8 ". . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." Gal. 3:26, 29 ". . .in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. . . . And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (ESV). » MonkeeSage « 06:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Descendants

message: Thanks for the revert, Aiden. Fergananim, it's poor etiquite to archive current discussions (and now I have to sort /Archive 54)! I have been archiving old discussions that are a week old, I can move that up if people wish. At one point, I was archiving discussions that were only three days old. I was also still filling out /Archive 52 and /Archive 53 with the article dispute and life and teachings discussions, respectively. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver
:Yeah I recommend everyone just letting Arch take care of the archiving. He's one of the few ones who can be trusted not to mess something up. —Aiden
::Well, Deskana has been known to do a good job as well. Although things are complicated somewhat by the various subject subpage/archives. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awwww.... how nice of you! :-D I'm happy to leave it to you if you wish... but am also happy to archive it if I feel I need to sometime. Your choice, really. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Arch; truely sorry about that. No malice intended. Was in a rush and *$!*%£ it up. Is mise, Fergananim 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'm trying to find the family tree edit for you as well, but that was several hundred revs ago. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page blanking vs. archiving. 

message: The progress that has been since I was here is incredible.  I looked for a group effort barn start, but couldn’t find one. Congrats editors!  I do have one suggestion. A section on how “early Christians” , Jews, and Romans during that time would be useful.  I noticed a lot of the minority groups during that period are talked about but the Romans, Greeks, Jews, and other thinkers were far more influential than those fringe groups on our image of Christ.  Perhaps a small section could be written about what people thought of Christ early on.  Anyways, I think this article is pretty good, and if it was possible to get it stable it may have potential as a featured article. Newbie222 22:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you have a point about the Jewish and Roman thing, they are a whole lot more important than all those other POVs in the context of developing various concepts of Jesus.....Should we make a roman section, or since it was actually in Jesus' time period, could it go right into the biography? Homestarmy 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impressive