This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 26 January 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 7) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:27, 26 January 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 7) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Matthew article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
Just another liberal rag attempt to discredit the Bible
So do you Bible hating liberals ever get tired of writing only your own views and pretending they are facts? Odd that not one view other then the Liberal "The Bible was written later then the Apostles because it is all made up" crap is ever seen on Anti-Christpedia. FACT - Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and it was written before 70 AD. but since you liberals can't muster the faith to believe that Jesus could actually predict the Destruction of the temple then you make up lies and justify it by adding the world "Most Biblical Scholars believe" Well only the lame liberal morons that reject the Bible think that, but you are to bigoted to allow any other view point such as the writings of Walvoord, Moody, Bruce etc. You know actual BIBLE SCHOLARS THAT TEACH THE BIBLE AT CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITIES. Typical liberal Free speech means MY SPEECH NOT YOURS. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by going to the Koran site and attack the Muslim Book with the same liberal hate that you use on the Bible. You won't because 1) you are a coward and 2) you don't hate Allah as much as you hate JESUS and Christianity. OK quick, delete this because it disagrees with you and the Christaphobic bigot rules of Anti-Christapedia. I added some things to the Article but I'm sure you will remove it all because it doesn't attack the Bible like the rest of the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
..............Like I said, my addition was up for 3 mins before one of the Christian-haters took it down. No wonder Misplaced Pages is now a joke and not accepted as a legitimate source by any professional teacher. To bad, it started out to be a good thing u but like everything that liberals control, they destroyed it and made it a joke. So let me ask a real question. If a white person tried to rewrite all of Black history and refused to post anything by black authors because they were considered just POV wouldn't that be called RACISM? so what is it called when Anti-Christs and liberals who don't believe the Bible rewrite Bible history?????? I call it Christaphobic Bigotry. Whatever you call it, it is just as evil a Racism!--69.14.97.53 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article on the Quran says in the lede: "However, major textual variations and deficiencies in scripts mean the relationship between the text of today's Quran and an original text is unclear." That is a reflection of the scholarship on the issue, and certainly does not accord with a certain Muslim belief. No one is attacking the Bible, we are just trying to the best of our ability to represent the scholarship on the issues. We are just volunteers who enjoy this topic. Our criteria for inclusion and representation of points of view are not based on what or who is "liberal" and what or who is "conservative". If you wish to see a relevant policy, please go to WP:V. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit misrepresents what the reliable sources say (e.g., they do not say merely that Liberal scholars believe that it is anonymous; they say that it is anonymous). Your only source for the other material you included was a .gif of unknown provenance which does not support most of the claims you included. You have to supply a reliable source for a challenged claim. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Misplaced Pages. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Misplaced Pages would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Misplaced Pages treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:
- R.T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 2007)
- William L. Lane, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 2, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1974)
- Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 3, The Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1983)
- Everett F. Herrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub., 1964)
- Robert G Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House., 1979)
- Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981)
- Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967)
- Let me guess, since these are Christian Bible Believing Scholars that can't be trusted. well before you look foolish I looked up just one of the authors GELDENHUYS and he served at both Princeton & Cambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:
The author of the Gospel does not identify himself within the narrative. ... In this commentary the anonymous author of the Gospel will be referred to interchangeably as "the author of Matthew," "the author of the Gospel," of "Matthew".
— Saldarini, "Matthew" in Dunn & Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 1000. - In your latest edit you've supplied a bunch of sources, but no page numbers. Would you mind telling me where the claims you have included occur in these works? These works are from over five hundred pages long to over one thousand pages long (as in the case of the France); it is a bit hard to find the support for your claims without knowing where to look. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is the report from a book published by Eerdmans:
- BTW since Liberals are to lazy to look up facts, here are a few (just a few) references for you:
- You want sources then try anything written by Bible Believing Scholars at any of the 1000s of Biblical Universities. Try any book published by Moody Press, Eerdmans Press, Zondervan Press - you know all the publishers that you Liberal Bible haters are afraid to reference. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is run and controlled by Anti-theists and will use any excuse to keep their articles as Christaphobic as possible. I wonder if Richard Dawkins isn't the Commander & Chief of Misplaced Pages. For instance, what is you view of God - I would bet my life that if you told the truth, you are a Anti-Theist or you wouldn't be a editor here. No matter what a REAL BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN wrote, Misplaced Pages would delete it as just a POV because you view belief in God as just a POV. The Koran post above proves nothing. Try saying that the Koran was written 300 years after Mohamed was dead and that he copied it all from someone else and see how long you live. Fact is Misplaced Pages treats the Bible with pure HATE unlike it's treatment of other so-called Holy Text. OK you can ban me now and delete all this for speaking out against the GREAT LIBERAL RAG of Anti-Christapedia - like always happen. I guess another library IP address will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK I give up. Like I said, you anti-theists will do anything or say anything to get your way. What happens after I SUPPLY YOU WITH THE PAGE #. WHAT EXCUSE WILL YOU USE THEN?? FORGET IT, JUST DELETE EVERYTHING LIKE WE BOTH KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY. YOU CAN'T WIN WITH ANTI-THEISTS FASCISTS and let me be clear, you are Fascists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- With full sincerity I can assure you that I am not a fascist. It is just hard for me to verify your claims when I have to go through around five thousand pages of material in order to find it; I am liable to miss something. Since you know where the claims are, it would be helpful to me and others if you just gave the page number for the different claims. For example, on which page in which work is there the claim that disputes that the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous? I haven't seen anything in the France 2007 yet (he didn't dispute this in the introduction where he talks about authorship, where I imagine he would say it, since the rest is just commentary on the text), but there are over one thousand pages, and I haven't started with the other works. If you just tell me where you read it, then I won't have to go through so many pages. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- didn't even bother to read your bull story. Like I said. I knew when I started this post that Anti-Christapedia would never allow any Conservative Bible Believing stuff on the site that is run by Fascist christaphobic bigots. but you do help to prove one thing, Jesus was right when he said Christians will be treated like this. Don't worry one day soon all you Christaphoblcs will be allowed to murder us Christians at will just like the Nazi's killed the Jews. Seems that is always where fascism & Socialism end up. Like I said having Anti-theist rewrite Christian History is like having the KKK write Black History - it is the same evil.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, well I'm sorry if you feel that way. You and everyone else are always welcome to contribute positively. There are inevitably many biases in this encyclopedia as in perhaps any, and it's always nice to have people to offer verifiable information to help correct any. This can only be done with collaboration however, and we would actually have to read one another's questions and comments in order to have collaboration. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- didn't even bother to read your bull story. Like I said. I knew when I started this post that Anti-Christapedia would never allow any Conservative Bible Believing stuff on the site that is run by Fascist christaphobic bigots. but you do help to prove one thing, Jesus was right when he said Christians will be treated like this. Don't worry one day soon all you Christaphoblcs will be allowed to murder us Christians at will just like the Nazi's killed the Jews. Seems that is always where fascism & Socialism end up. Like I said having Anti-theist rewrite Christian History is like having the KKK write Black History - it is the same evil.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- In a way, the IP is right: the bulk of the theological and historical research has become increasingly liberal (by theological standards) and Misplaced Pages is forced by its policies to reflect and give due weight to the mainstream view, which happens to be liberal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- For why is it so see 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship by Peter Enns. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well before the Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis lie was birthed in hell, even the most moronic person knew that one couldn't be a Christian and reject the Bible. After the lie was pimped by all the fake Christians and pseudo-intellectuals in Germany, it closed the door on God and opened the door for the demonic invasion that gave Germany Hitler, Nazism and the Jewish Holocaust. In the 1950 the JEDP Liberal theology cam to America and began to infect Mainline cults like the Methodist church. Once again, God and His Word was rejected and that allowed for the Demonic cloud to descend over her and gave us the Holocaust on the Unborn. Soon usher in the judgment of God just as every nation that choose to love self and Gnosticism over the True Word of God. Well just like in Germany of the 1930s there were 100's of true Christians that have never bowed a knee to Baal so in America there are 1000's that know that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that these Anti-theist Fascists will one day bow their knee to Jesus as His word says. Well I actually sopke the truth so I'm sure this post will soon disappear just like any post that speaks the truth about the Misplaced Pages god Obama.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is bound by its policies to side with the academia, meaning mainstream, secular universities, mostly from the Western world since most of the significant research happens there. As you perhaps know, secular does not mean atheist. I do not wish to repeat the same arguments over and over in talk pages, so I wrote WP:ABIAS instead of telling again the same story, you might want to read it in order to understand that the mainstream views of the academia get the lion's share inside Misplaced Pages. As Enns said, historical-critical scholarship still rules in theological and historical departments of mainstream universities, so it is futile to argue that it does not belong in Misplaced Pages because most fundamentalist Christians do not like it. Just for the record, Misplaced Pages is written and read by people with diverse religious persuasions, e.g. Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Shintoists, Confucianists, Taoists, Wiccans, agnostics, atheists and so on, so it is an extremely subjective argument that every knee will bow down to Jesus instead of, say, Zeus or Krishna. What I mean is that Misplaced Pages renders objective facts and objective facts about opinions, it does not pretend that subjective views would be objectively true. Unless you understand the difference between a subjective view and an objective fact, you will have a hard time editing Misplaced Pages. So, you would have to begin with showing proof that you understand this difference, otherwise you are doomed as an editor according to Misplaced Pages:Competence is required#Bias-based. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why you say that Misplaced Pages is bound to side with secular universities. If there is valid scholarship coming out of religious universities then it is perfectly within the bounds of reason to use it in religious articles, if not more so because the competence of religious Biblical scholars exceeds that of secular ones who might have an agenda of deconstructing the Christian faith. That being said, we still need to stand on reliable secondary sources from reputable publishers, which excludes blogs, self-published websites, self-published vanity press, and other Mickey-Mouse operations likely to be run by one independent pastor out of his garage chapel. But our IP interlocutor has a valid point that Misplaced Pages is dominated by secularists who would rather write religious articles from an atheistic viewpoint. Misplaced Pages policies are firmly against this kind of skew, and requires all valid viewpoints to be represented with due weight. In my opinion, that is going to mean that religious articles must adequately represent the preponderance of religious scholarship working within their own faith. I am not much of a Bible scholar and I don't have access to a vast library, so I can't comment on the particulars of the IP's additions, but his talk page presence is nothing but blatant POV-pushing and his behavior in the article has verged on edit-warring, so this needs to stop and quickly. Elizium23 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is absolutely NOT true that Misplaced Pages is "bound by its policies to side with the academia, meaning mainstream, secular universities". Throwing this out is simply a red herring and is counter-productive to the thread discussion. Statements like this only CREATE the same silly arguments that litter Talk pages of Biblical topics all over Misplaced Pages. Ckruschke (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- It is true, according to WP:RNPOV, in matters of theology, all notable views have to be rendered. In matters of history, the mainstream view receives the lion's share. History is not the same as theology, and what is vanilla in theology could be fringe in history and therefore may fall under WP:UNDUE (as history, not as theology). Theology decides what should be believed by a given church, while historical facts should not depend on the religious persuasion of the audience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- In history there could be a consensus view or a mainstream view, in theology there is no mainstream or consensus view, since most of theology depends upon the church membership of the theologian. Historical scholarship aims at universality and objectivity, while theology makes no such claims. It is true that there are millions who believe that JEDP was birthed in hell (or would believe it if they knew what JEDP means), so in principle their view is notable, but as Enns said, it is a fringe view in the academe, even among scholars who actually disagree with JEDP. The sources used to build Misplaced Pages are academic sources, therefore JEDP and its 20-21st century offspring are given by default the weight they have inside the academia, while the view of the fundamentalists is treated according to WP:UNDUE. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages could say that the fundamentalists are theologically wrong (Misplaced Pages has no theology of its own), but it is entitled to say that inside historical scholarship they are a fringe view. Of course, this does not exclude serious scholarship done at religious faculties, since as Ehrman said in one of his bestsellers, US mainline Protestant and Catholic theological seminaries and divinity schools do teach mandatory historical criticism classes. So, in a sense, scholars from such faculties are thoroughly acquainted with historical criticism and built their careers upon its assumptions. Only fundamentalist seminaries and divinity schools choose to default against historical criticism. They are free to do this, but this cuts against their claims of being mainstream historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Ckruschke: I explained below your answer what I meant by it and I add this: historical scholarship does not depend upon the religious persuasion of the audience, it aims to present facts which hold for all religious persuasions, meaning that they are independent of religious persuasions. Theology does not work that way, so I did not claim that the claim about "mainstream, secular universities" would hold for theology. But we, as Misplaced Pages editors may say that history which would be seen as ludicrous in most mainstream, secular universities should be considered fringe and handled according to WP:UNDUE. Most theological claims are only acceptable to persons which are members of a given church and are invalid for those who do not belong to this or that church, that's why theology isn't written in order to persuade mainstream, secular universities and should be taught to institutions affiliated to a certain church. I mean one does not graduate with a MDiv in Adventist theology at a Catholic faculty, nor in Baptist theology at a Mormon faculty. Each church teaches its own theology to members of its own. But history is taught regardless of church membership and we get a good picture of mainstream history from what is being taught at mainstream, secular universities, and especially from what is principally unfit to be taught in such universities. So, theology relies on preaching to the choir, but this does not hold for history. Theology is subjective, since it changes according to one's church membership, but history aims at objectivity, meaning that it should not depend upon one's church membership, and this is what makes it fit for being taught at mainstream, secular universities, appreciated and cultivated there. I mean one can attend courses in the history of Christianity without demanding that he/she is a Christian and facts about the history of Christianity should hold regardless of one's religious persuasion. A Misplaced Pages article about Christian history should be informative for agnostics, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. We cannot give special treatment to the theology of one church, since all other churches and religions would feel discriminated. And I pointed to Enns's blog because he is very close to the evangelical position (which the IP seemingly shares), but he can be trusted that the claim that historical criticism would be a thing of the past simply does not reflect what is happening in the academia (fundamentalist faculties excepted). In matters of history, Misplaced Pages has to go with the mainstream view, I think this is already settled by Misplaced Pages policies and we are not going to change it. So, if mainstream history has gone theologically liberal, Misplaced Pages is forced to go with this view, of course, without implying that one theology is better than another theology, but simply in as far as it describes facts pertaining to the history of Christianity. I think this is the honest answer, at least we should not delude our readers that Misplaced Pages panders to fundamentalist theology. Since they are intelligent enough to notice that Misplaced Pages does not reflect their theology and their fundamentalist views of history. I mean Misplaced Pages cannot claim that theologically fundamentalism would be wrong, but in matters of historical facts it should uncompromisingly render the mainstream view, even when this offends fundamentalist sensibilities. The way pictures are kept in the article Muhammad is more than telling that Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of religious sensibilities, be them Christian or Muslim or whatever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I respect your long, polite, and well-thought answer. I know I've hijacked the conversation so I'm going to simply agree to disagree and stop. Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
"Saint Matthew" etc.
Potential changes to MOS:SAINTS at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (clergy) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:ERA
An IP editor has changed "CE" to "AD" here, but I don't want to revert it, because the edit history indicates that "AD" has been the preferred usage in this article over the years. (This particular use of CE had been added in 2012, when the rest of the article had had "AD", thus making the article inconsistent. Other occurrences of "AD" were removed in favour of a plain date, but this had remained.) StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the era entirely to be consistent with the rest of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer on "He drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, all of which probably derived ultimately from earlier oral gospel traditions."
Shouldn't we preface that with "Most modern textual scholarship have concluded that..."? As good as the Q source theory may be at solving things, it is still a theory and not Gospel truth. 23haveblue (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories: