Talk:Master Jesus

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Occult C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ascended master#Cosmic beings said to be patrolling near Earth|Ashtar Galactic Command flying saucer fleet]]
[[Ascended master#Cosmic beings said to be patrolling near Earth|Ascended Masters]]
[[Ascended master#Cosmic beings on Venus|Beneficent Members from other planets]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

merge proposal

There has been a proposal to merge this article with "Ascended Master Teachings". I disagree with this. It would be the same as suggesting merging "Jesus" or "Mary the Mother of Jesus" with the article on the "Roman Catholic Church". Arion (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion centralized at Talk:Ascended Master Teachings. Fireplace (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification of report at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

This is to inform editors on this page that this topic, along with a list of related topics, have been mentioned in a report at this link on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It has been mentioned in the noticeboard report that some of the articles listed in the report may be nominated for deletion.

The report at the noticeboard was not posted by me. I'm placing this comment here as a courtesy for the editors working on this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not be merged or deleted

The idea that Jesus had previous incarnations is believed by many adherents of New Age teachings and should be kept separate from the regular article on Jesus or the article on Christ. Keraunos (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority religious beliefs should not be treated as "fringe theories"

All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs taken from the literature of the believers of their religious belief system. In doing so, we are not assesing truth claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet), one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible - with reliable sources and references.

There is no need at all to assess the truth claims of the 20th century new religions. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities (regardless of what a Wikipedia editor's own views are). Questioning the validity of religious beliefs isn't the role of an encyclopedia entry. Arion (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using serversofall.com as a source

The article suffers from an overload of self published rubbish sources rather than reliable sources. As an example, the site http://www.serversofall.com is a personal site registered to "Altieri, L" with an aol.com email address as a contact. Consequently it is a self published source and is not suitable for a reference. If nobody has a proper rationale for inclusion I shall remove it.—Ash (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using godumentary.com as a source

This site fails WP:SPS and WP:RS. It makes no claims as to validity and the site registration is under a false identity and a doubtful anonymous PO box address in Arizona. It may exist to promote "Rainbow Products" or be part of a con. It is not a valid source and should not be used.—Ash (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using anandgholap.net as a source or link

This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using innerlightworkers.co.uk as a source or link

This site is copyright of Hilary Hargreaves & Mark Brittain and is registered to Hilary Hargreaves of Bournemouth, UK with a full address on the registration record. The site appears to be an enthusiast amateur site but also exists to sell a range of "spiritualist" courses (tariff list here: http://www.schoolofinnerlight.co.uk/workshops/workshopsoffered.htm). The site makes no claim of expertise or official affiliation. The site fails to meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:ELNO and should not be used as a source or link unless on an article about their group (if it were notable).—Ash (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in sources - this article is promotional

A glance at the sources in this article shows a complete bias to publications by organizations devoted to promoting Theosophy. To ignore all the articles which debunk the claims and quotes from people who have been in "telepathic" contact with "Masters" (such as Blavatsky and Creme) appears deliberate bias and makes this Wikipedia article completely non-encyclopaedic.—Ash (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a science article with claims to be debunked, it's an article about religious beliefs. Religion articles often use sources from believers in the religion. For example, it's likely that there are no non-Catholic sources supporting descriptions of Catholic beliefs. Some of those beliefs, if viewed from the viewpoint of science, are quite unsupportable. Are you suggesting there should be scientific sources used in Christianity articles to debeunk the resurrection? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ignored publications I am referring to are those which debunk the claims of particular suspected hoaxers such as Blavatsky and Creme, not any particular religious belief itself. I refer to the same explanation at Talk:Sanat_Kumara#Bias_in_sources_-_this_article_is_promotional.—Ash (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shame to you guys

I read the Master Jesus and Sanat Kumara articles and am amazed to see falsities (ie. information that is false) promoted in those articles as being truth plus, even more damaging, it seems that those who write them do relish in using expressions that are offensive to the believers of the organizations mentioned (for example, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the "prophet" of that organization... she could have been named a messenger, a title she assumed, instead of saying "Let's call the prophet a prophet while she's not, right?". Obviously Sanak Kumara is NOT the founder of the Great White Brotherhood, as appears in the teachings from HPB to ECP, and the people who write these articles seem furious about something that transcends my understanding. This Ash guy as well as the others should be hung and WHY? because of their inability to write straight about the subject. If there are decent people managing this Wikipedia thing you should demonstrate. And Ash and the rest: go get some therapy!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.27.221 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Master Jesus. 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/20100801075522/http://nerdcityonline.com/2010/07/25/nerd-city-proudly-presents-len-kodys-master-jesus/ to http://nerdcityonline.com/2010/07/25/nerd-city-proudly-presents-len-kodys-master-jesus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References to MJ before 1913

The article states: "He [Master Jesus] was added as a "Master" by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater in their 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither."

Yet there are references to "Master Jesus" in Theosophical lectures dating from 1904 and 1909 by Rudolf Steiner: https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA092/English/UNK2003/19041021p01.html https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA114/English/RSP1964/19090921p01.html

"Part of WikiProject Christianity"

This article should not be considered "Part of WikiProject Christianity", in that it and the doctrines of Theosophy are wholly unrelated to the concept of Christianity as defined even by Wikipedia's own article on the subject. That is, the "Master Jesus" view of Jesus represents a New Age figure that is contrary to the figure presented in the Christian Bible and faith. The very notion of a hierarchy of ascended masters as gods is itself literally at odds with the definition of monotheism. The term "Christianity" does not mean "anything related to any belief about Jesus". 174.20.99.48 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sananda

I have been editing the article When Prophecy Fails, and have noted that the concept of Sananda as a manifestation of Jesus may pre-date the example give in this article. It was in use in the 1950s. I am not sure if this is relevant to this article, and do not have time to do further research, but I mention here in case others may wish to explore. Crinoline (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]