Wikipedia

Talk:Jesus/Archive 47

< Talk:Jesus
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Archola
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

New Jesus related article

I just found Divinity of Jesus. Since it is related to Jesus and only has one editor, I thought some of the editors here could look it over. It seems like a POV-fork (that should be deleted?). Perhaps it also redundent with some of the other existing Jesus articles?--Andrew c

My vote (if someone nominated it) would be Speedy Delete. It's rather hard to follow, highly POV, and not written very well (no offence to the author). Jim62sch 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

""Perhaps, if the points in the article are properly attributed to Christian Theology and redundnacies eliminated, it can be merged with Christian views of Jesus? Some of this stuff is a little, well, odd even for many Christians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of scholarly discussion among Christian theologians arguing that the Bible and Early Christianity saw Jesus as God. The argument could go quite long and be well-documented. This article, as is, is a kind of an outline. Much would have to be done to:

1 -- Make it clear that it is the view of orthodox Christianity that is being presented in the article 2 -- Cite classical Christian Theologians

and other things.--CTSWyneken 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There ya go -- a new task for someone. (The bit about light duality has to go, though). Jim62sch 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It actually sounds familar, although not really Christian. I'm not too far from the Maharishi University in Fairfield, Iowa. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
What in Hades is that doing in Iowa? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe because we're in the middle of nowhere? But Maharishi University of Management is a stub, so it doesn't tell me anything. All I know is that it is there. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
But there's a whole internet out there! [1]. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
And John Hagelin has a podcast. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, Divinity of Jesus now redirs to Christology. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I Would Love Anyone's Help!

Slrubenstein is right, this is off-topic. As a CKB admin, though, I don't mind discussing this in my user space. Please leave comments, concerns et al at User:Archola/CKB. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology (again!)

Sorry people, I know the horse has long ago been beaten to death, but the issue of etymology seems to be on the plate again. Someone inserted the Hebrew etymology into the intro again, and I reverted it twice, and called it "defacing" (the consensus seemed to be to leave it out of the intro when I last checked that discussion). I personally like it in the intro and have no qualms about it being there, but to prevent edit wars, episode four, the prequil, where the Siths go around chopping everyone's limbs off...I'm bringing the issue to attention here (again!). I'm happy with it in or out. --MonkeeSage 03:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to have the Hebrew in the intro even more than Greek, since surely nobody ever addressed him by his name in Greek. But since the Greek is culturally significant in later times, being the language of the NT, having both looks to me like a good compromise... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I like it because I'm interested in linguistics. The Greek is derived from the Hebrew, regardless of any other issues, so I favor inclusion in the intro, but like I said, I am oksy with it being excluded too, since it is already in the Names and titles of Jesus article which is linked from this one. For reference, here are the discussions on languages spoken by Jesus and etymology. --MonkeeSage 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just, please, keep the Hebrew and the Greek together wherever you decide to put them. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it in the intro....I mean, it is accurate from what I know. Usage of it is a whole other debate.... Homestarmy 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was against it in the intro, especially in the form it's in now without any qualifications. I don't want to repeat all the arguments again. Just read Talk:Jesus/Archive_41 --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the anon ip 66.176.209.190 who made the change may be Haldrik since Haldrik has edited under 66.176.195.123. If so, he should know that editing the same article under multiple identities (including anon ips) is very frowned upon. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Not mine! --Haldrik 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I do not think there was a consensus at all on this. It just got buried in another discussion.
Here's the issue as I see it. Am I being fair?
Halrik and other argue for inclusion because the scholarly consensus is that Jesus' Aramaic name was a form of Y'shua. He has amply demonstrated that. We're supposed to reflect scholarly opion, so it should be in.
Jayg and others argue there is no absolute proof that Jesus went by that name. Because we can't prove it, it should not go in. Simply because it is scholarly opinion neither makes it right nor requires it to be in the article's introduction.
I and others agree with Halrik et Al. concerning the etomology but dislike etomologies in opening paragraphs.
An added note: there is good reason to believe that Jesus was called both Jesous and Y'Shua -- the former away from home and the latter at home. There is very convincing evidence that most Palestinian Jews of the time were bilingual Koine and Aramaic at least. We've begun to document scholarly opinion of this in the languages Jesus spoke subpage. --CTSWyneken 11:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Since it is such a complex issue can we not just leave the Greek in the intro with a note that this is the earliest known form of his name and a link to the section on other language variations that were probably more relevant at the time. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 12:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed Haldrik tried to slip that this is his real name nonsense back into the intro, and in such a duplicitous way, when he's well aware there is no consensus for that (and, in fact, considerable opposition to it). Most historians/scholars believe that "Yeshua" was Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name - that's a far cry from "this was his real name!!!". Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be a very important issue to some, because he is reported to have said "In my name only" can you do these things... In many cultures, there is a belief that when you change someones name to someone else, it is no longer their name, but someone else's name... No one in his life time ever called him Geee-zus or even "Iesous", that's for sure... I have even seen claims that these forms are impurely pagan... When he said "in my name only", he meant something similar to the Hebrew / Aramaic form (Which might be spelled slightly differently, but are scarcely different in pronunciation)... Yeshua or Yehoshua... There's no earthly reason to exclude valid data like this from an encyclopedia... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of any good reason to leave the Hebrew out. I can think of good reasons to add Aramaic. Rick Norwood 20:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. To begin with, religious notions about what Jesus meant when he allegedly said "in my name only" are not relevant for an encyclopedia. Nor, for that matter, are cultural views about the meaning of "name changes". And again, we only have record of his Greek name. All the stuff about his Hebrew or Aramaic names is a scholarly reconstruction. We're not even sure what language he used day to day, much less what he was regularly called. No-one is advocating removing information about various scholarly speculations from the article, but the introduction should stick as much as possible to known facts, rather than speculation. We've been through all this before at great length. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes we have, and the one linguist involved (me, okay) supported the inclusion of at least the Hebrew for a variety of linguistic and cultural reasons. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To recapitulate the previous discussion on this issue:

  • No one (or hardly anyone) denies that the Greek is derived from the Hebrew.
  • There is some dispute over exactly what path this etymology took (i.e., if it came through an Aramaic cognate, &c).
  • There is dispute about where the etymology should be placed in the article.
  • There is no dispute that we don't have any Hebrew/Aramaic documents that directly use the Hebrew/Aramaic form of the name.
  • There is all kinds of dispute on what language(s) Jesus spoke/what version(s) of his name he went by (which, I must say, is an unrelated issue to etymology, but people seem to want the given etymology to reflect their views on this issue, apparently not understanding what an etymology is/means).

--MonkeeSage 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by a specious argument. Your using the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic are ever so slightly different as an excuse to keep both completely out of the article, which makes so little sense that the issue is bound to keep returning again and again until it is not suppressed or censored. I already see vast support for some mention somewhere in the article, but at present there is none. Maybe the best compromise is the one already suggested whereby a section is devoted to explaining exactly what the nature of the difference between the Hebrew and Aramaic variants is, and all the surrounding issues, while the intro merely notes that Greek is the earliest attested one. This doesn't sound unreasonable to me at all; I for one would like to see a lucid discussion somewhere in this article of what the actual name is thought to have been, instead of pretending or misleading that it was originally Greek when it wasn't. Most biographical entries will do this somewhere, if not in the intro. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Err...me? As I said above "I personally like it in the intro and have no qualms about it being there." The last time this issue was discussed I argued for having the Hebrew in the intro, and failing that suggested a separate etymology section (like the Isa article). I compromised on having a mention of the etymology in the "Historical Reconstructions" section with a link to the Names and titles of Jesus article, which gives a fuller etymology and makes reference to Aramaic cognates and so forth. --MonkeeSage 05:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This issue is getting really tiring. I concurr with Monkey and recall that the agreement was to put every name for Jesus that every editor thinks is important in the third paragraph under the section entitled, "Forensic reconstructions of Jesus's life". It is not censureship, it is simply keeping the introductory paragraphs to a concise, understandable statement of the value of the topic of the article. Unless the readership is conversant in numerous ancient languages its value in the introductory paragraphs is nil and serves only to make the contributing editor gratified in their expertise. I dare say, that 99.99% of the readership could not recognize, read, understand, or value ces noms de guerre; therefore put all the names you like for Jesus in the third paragraph and move on. BTW, I am glad to be back after a two week haitus. Storm Rider (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back, Storm Rider. :) --MonkeeSage 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty sensible to me to limit the introduction to what known texts actually call him, and then in the article on the names and titles of Jesus provide an ample review of the literature that seeks to reconstruct the name Jesus actually went by - and have something brief in the body of this article saying what most scholars believe and providing a link to the other article that goes into all the debates and reviews all the evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one don't see why we should have Greek in the intro if we don't have the Hebrew. It seems misleading to me. I'd prefer to keep the Greek and Hebrew names together, in the body of the article if that's the consensus, but still together. BTW, why are we still debating this? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the earliest text that uses Jesu's name is in Greek. Everyone today who uses the word "Jesus" knows about him because of a text written in Greek. I think this is the same principle that is employed in all other articles that provide non-English spelling (which is not the same as etimology). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

True, which is why Haldrik and Mperel came up with "reconstructed from the Hebrew." I just don't like the implication that Jesus was Greek! Remember our discussion on Galilee? Besides, didn't the Septugint also translate "Joshua" as "Jesus," or am I off-base here? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the implication that Jesus was Greek either. But, for what it is worth, I do not think that we really need to worry about this. It is clear from the current introduction that Jesus was Jewish. There is another reason to stick with the Greek in the introduction: it is something everyone can agree on because whether Jesus was a real person, or a literary character, the earliest texts we have (which could be read either way) give him a Greek name. I have to admit that I do not know how the LXX translated Joshua, but I think even if it did that in and of itself does not mean Jesus was Joshua. You are making a synthetic argument. It may be a logical and strong argument, but it is still an argument. Because of our NOR rule, you can't edit the article based on your own argument - neither can I. The real question is, have any scholars made this argument. I think Haldrik's point is that there is in fact a good deal of scholarship on this topic, making all the arguments. I agree that this should be signaled in the article. I think that it is not appropriate for the first paragraph. If you want, you can add to paragraph two that he spoke Aramaic. I say this not because I know that he spoke Aramaic, but because most scholars say so and the second paragraph is about what most shcolars think. Would adding this resolve any qualms you have about providing the Greek in the first paragraph? Then in the body of the article, it would be easy to say, If he spoke Aramaic, it is highly unlikely that he used the Greek form of Jesus (but not impossible; several Pharisees had Greek names) and here is what scholars think his Aramaic or even Hebrew name was ... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite OR, I do remember reading it somewhere but of course my memory may be faulty. I don't exactly carry around a list of citations in my head. ;) Your solution sounds good to me. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
To me, it's simply asthetics. I wish neither Greek nor Hebrew were in the intro. I've mever liked etomology in an encyclopdia article intro. It's a cluttering effect.
On the other hand, the argument that, simply because a person's name is not extant in a particular form doesn't mean we cannot know he was called by that name. After all, we have precious few texts for any ancient figure. Prior to the Caesarea dig, we did not have the form of Pilate's name in Latin. If we didn't have the plaque, would there be any doubt that he had a Latin name?
So, I'll remain neutral here. Let's just please settle? I'm getting tired of ground hog day (the movie) --CTSWyneken 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Especially since that was two months ago ! Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
But... but... the TV says that Phil comes out today to see if he can see his shadow! But.. that was yesterday... and the day before... eeee-AHHHH! ;-) --CTSWyneken 11:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I must be missing something, but I didn't notice any discussion or mention of reconstruction of his Hebrew or Aramaic name in the third paragraph, or anywhere else in the article, and that seems wrong. The only form mentioned by the article is the Greek one. Someone needs to correct this, if not in the intro, then somewhere, maybe a special section where all the various scholarship can be addressed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It has been discussed but, unfortunately, not implemented. See Archive 41, it's all about the name/language controversy. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a section to discuss his Name, which is at least as important as to discuss his Chronology. I removed the Greek etymology from the intro because it is unacceptable to mention the Greek without mentioning the Hebrew. --Haldrik 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in the correct spot, historical reconstruction of Jesus' life, removed the most obvious POV pushing, and asked for citations for the rest, as it looks pretty much like unvarnished original research at this point. Citations would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding some citations to the Name section. Feel free to add more. --Haldrik 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any citations yet. Meanwhile, I've added some cited fact; unfortunately, it contradicts the uncited information you have inserted. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Haldrik, this is a serious question; have you ever read the WP:NPOV policy? I'm going to assume good faith for now, and believe that you've simply missed reading it; otherwise it would be almost impossible to explain how you keep inserting various POV statements without any sources, or assuming that the sources you prefer are "truth". This may also be the source of your continued assertions that you know Jesus' "real" name (POV), as opposed to knowing what various scholars believe his real name to have been (NPOV). Can you shed any light on this? Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
O.K., Haldrik, it's sentences like this latest POV you inserted that I'm referring to: The English name "Jesus" stands for the Late Biblical Hebrew name Yēshûa‘. This name derives from Hebrew and cannot derive from Aramaic. If you won't take Wikipedia policy seriously, I'm just going to start rolling back your edits. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Haldrik persists in complex reverts of his POV. Enough. Any further change not discussed here first will simply be reverted. Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, everything you have done in this article seems motivated by your hatred for Christianity. Your POV seems extremist. Please be more flexible and take into account what NPOV means. --Haldrik 21:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Jayjg, you seem to lack a knowledge of linguistics and etymology, and seem unqualified to delete any information. Please resort to citing scholars, instead of reactively deleting anything that doesn't agree with your POV. --Haldrik 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to remind Haldrick to "Assume good faith." The subject is a scholarly one, and everyone can present their case on its merits, without trying to analyze the motives of the other. Rick Norwood 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget about WP:NPA... some people might benefit from a reminder. --DLand 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
May I ask everyone to calm down. Certainly we can work on the language of new text on the name without assuming agendas, etc. Unless it's deliberate, and I don't think Halrik is doing so deliberately, then we can't assume NPOV text right from the keyboard, every time from any one of us. It is very difficult to write clean, balanced text from the get go. If we don't like what each other is doing, that's OK. We can modify it. If that seems to get juices going, we can take the step, which Jayg is suggesting, of hashing out changes here. No need to throw around accusations that is likely to let loose a flood of passions here.
So, can we just copy the new text here, ask Halrik nicely to document any proposition we think needs it and give him time to do so. Please? --CTSWyneken 22:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Here is what Wikipedia's No Original Research policy says:
Here is what Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy says:
The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
These are Wikipedia's 3 inviolable content policies. Is that clear? Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And if people delete citations from reputable sources, they are sabotaging Wikipedia's inviolable policy of NPOV. Where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to delete conflicting views. --Haldrik 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Once again, I want to remind editors:

Etymology is the study of the origins of words. Some words have been derived from other languages, possibly in a changed form (the source words are called etymons). Through old texts and comparisons with other languages, etymologists try to reconstruct the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning changed. (s.v., etymology).

The Greek without dispute comes from the Hebrew (by some path or other). All etymological sources claim that the Greek is from the Hebrew. That is a settled issue of scholarly consensus.

It is a completely different issue whether Jesus was ever called by a Hebrew name, an Aramaic name, a Coptic name, a Chinese name, &c. It is a completely different issue whether Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic, Chinese, &c.

So please keep these issues distinct. Please don't try to use the etymology to push for a certain view on any of the other issues -- it has nothing to do with them. Discuss the other issues all you like, but please keep them separate from the etymology. --MonkeeSage 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus'

I think that Strunk and White's Elements of Style recommends "Jesus'" over "Jesus's". I foolishly lent my copy, would someone please check theirs. Rick Norwood 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to get into a revert war over this, but I will make my case on the talk page and hope the proper use is reinstated.
  • First, look at the Apostrophe article: "As a special case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's, even by people who would otherwise add 's e.g. James's, Chris's."
  • "Some words sound awkward when an apostrophe 's' is added: Jesus's disciples. The accepted form here is to just use the 's' apostrophe: Jesus' disciples. N.B. This only applies to names of Biblical or historical significance e.g. Jesus, Moses, Zeus, Demosthenes, Ramses ... the rest of us whack in the apostrophe and add an 's.'" [2]
  • " The following names traditionally do not use the s after the apostrophe to show possession: Examples Jesus' followers were first called Christians at Antioch. Moses' leadership was not always respected by the wandering Israelites." [3]
  • "The Continuous S The rule of grammar states that if a name has more than one syllable and ends in an s, and the last syllable makes an /ez/ sound (like in Texas), then only an apostrophe is needed. Ex.: Jesus' glass " [4]
etc--Andrew c 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that view. This is Ross's (one of Jesus' servants) understanding. rossnixon 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
_ _ I erred in supposing it's an open-and-closed question, and i'm more surprised to find that it isn't, than i would have been to just find (as my preferred expert professional-writer maintains) i was on the wrong side of an open-and-closed question! I'm confident i was never taught that any S other than a pluralizing one makes a difference; as is usual with grammar, YMMV depending on your teachers' favorite grammar oracles.
_ _ There's a substantial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (punctuation). (That's a page in the namespace WP talk:, that apparently never had a corresponding Wikipedia:Manual of Style archive (punctuation), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (punctuation), or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (punctuation) page, but rather was cut & pasted from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.) My impression is that it's as close as we come to having a policy. (Note that article content is does not convert to policy!) While i haven't read that thru, based on this page, here's my revised justification for the approach i took:
  1. The appearance of consistency of style is pretty important, bcz otherwise we convince people we're flipping coins. That calls for as straightforward as possible a criterion: something that can be remembered easily by editors, and inferrred readily by readers who see several examples. IMO, "Biblical or historical significance" is about as far from that as you can imagine: there's no logical justification for "people of the past should be talked about one way and others in another". If whoever said it meant "ancient people" that's a little more specific, but still not logical. And can we tolerate both "James' brother John" and "Henry James's novels"? "Moses' tablets" and "Robert Moses's public works projects"?
  2. How it sounds is irrelevant, bcz WP is not a set of lectures or sermons. How it looks is key, irrespective of common oral usage or of rules tailored to deal with sound.
  3. The rule given in the 'graph above that begins "The Continuous S..." reads like a clearcut one, but how can it possibly be, since it gets explained in terms of "Jesus" and "Texas" being described as having "-ez" sounds, when they both clearly have S consonants and no Z ones?
  4. There's mention on the talk page i cite of catch phrases like "Achilles' heel", which i'd probably never have written before today even tho i'd never say "Achilles's heel". Likewise, i am used to hearing "in Jesus' name", tho my reaction when i consider writing it is that it's what i think of as a KJV-ism (because the translation committee for the KJV were working preachers, and the style of the work reflects their well-trained ear for wordings that sound good as part of a service): it looks to me like a grammatical error, justified perhaps by poetic license, but wrong except as an account of what the celebrant uttered.
  5. IMO (and it's no more than that, bcz to me it's now become silly to suggest there's an uncontestable right answer):
    In the long term, no approach can be defended without a better justifying summary than
    improper use of "Jesus's"
    -- and for that matter, better than my
    proper English grammar "Jesus's" - Jesus is not a plural, and the possessive of that, like those of horse or Ross, has -EHZ as final syllable, spelled 's
    -- which means an MoS guideline is needed, in contrast to the presumably inconclusive archive i cited, or something arrived at on this talk page, which risks both the reality and the perception of being disproportionately influenced by (far from encyclopedic) liturgical poetic usage.
    On the short term(until that can be accomplished), a viable long-term candidate, probably the one needing the least intuiting of subjective arguments, and the one embodying the most quickly grasped principle, is this:
    With the exception of catch phases as indisputable as "Achilles' heel" ("in Jesus' name" may (or not) be that widespread; check your favorite concordance for KJV-derived candidates), treat the issue as one of grammar (syntactic roles), not as anything that makes pronunciation relevant.
--Jerzy•t 18:03, 30 March 2006
I would also like to ask the anon not to change the spellings that will break wikilinks. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

agape

i think it is odd phrasing to say that Jesus introduced and preached "agape" because agape was a Greek word. Jesus would have never said it, since he didn't speak Greek. Authors and translators of the Bible used the word agape. The word was in existence before Jesus, but after being used in the Bible, the word was slightly redefined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs)

Please register and sign your comments! --CTSWyneken 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else, who says Jesus didn't know any Greek? That's a very hard thing to say so definitively...Whether he used the actual word or not, the Bible writers saw fit to use that word to describe his teachings, so there should be no problem here. --Oscillate 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Greek has many more words to describe love than the English language. To simply put Jesus taught "love" would not be accurate. "Agape" represents a 'God-like love' through which man and God reconciled. While he may not have used the actual word, there's nothing wrong with using this context to describe it. —Aiden 01:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

well you can add god-like to the sentence, but i think self-sacrificing is a good description of the type of love he was talking about. osc.- it is a pretty sure thing that Jesus spoke Aramaic when teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.140.254 (talk • contribs)

Please register and sign your comments! --CTSWyneken 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not too hard to check the page history for signing. I can't help with registering, though. 24.x will have to take care of that for the sake of 24.x. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How was the word supposedly "slightly redefined"? Homestarmy 04:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
See agape. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
We have begun to gather scholarly opinion on the subject of Jesus' Greek knowledge at talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus There are many convinced that it would be odder for Jesus not to have known Greek than to have known it.
On ἡ ἀγάπη (agape), I don't think this belongs in the Jesus article. The plan that most of us see for this article is that it be a summary, perhaps and abstract, of the dozens of sub-articles on Jesus. I suggest we leave it out here and pick it up in a subarticle on Jesus' teachings.
Here we can qualify what love means by using adjectives -- self-sacrificing, servant, etc. or love that seeks no return or some such thing. --CTSWyneken 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_47&oldid=1140236743"