Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Yahshua-Yahshuah

See Talk:Yahshua#Merge regarding a proposal to merge the articles Yahshuah and Yahshua. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was Yeshua also deleted as a heading? Why is there a different "talk page"? The "talk page" you describe is NOT directly linked to the main page, and so it is "hidden." It is easy to delete information when you create another talk page that we know nothing about. I propose that we NOT create any more "hidden talk pages"; but discuss all proposed deletions on this page.

The heading you keep deleting is Yeshua | Yahshua. Some newer Bible translations use YESHUA, NOT Jesus. It is foolish to delete YESHUA as a name when it commonly used as Jesus' original Aramaic name. The name "Jesus" does not appear in these Bibles, but YESHUA (or a similar spelling) does. YESHUA deserves its own heading.

See Yeshua | Yahshua on this talk page. No one proposed deleting Yeshua. So why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support deleting "Yahshua", which is not a correct Hebrew or Aramaic language form of the name of Jesus. I would support keeping Yeshua, but presumably the reason why some other people oppose keeping Yeshua is that it is not found in the original text of the New Testament as it is available to us.,, AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Original attested languages given in as true to form, please?

As in, would 'Word of Life', if Greek, be (and I am only transliterating in Latin characters) Logozoa? or less intuitive than such? Instances of all would be a boon to the interested. 67.171.248.22 (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Logos tês zôês Λογος της ζωης (Logozoa would be "word animals"...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation and TOC

The number of terms/sections is large. I plan to:

• Consolidate terms to reduce the number of section names (see very next paragraph).
• Put a visible anchor in each section for each term discussed therein.
• Replace standard TOC with non-standard TOC similar to that used at Bible translations by language.

Consolidating terms: Some consolidation is needed, and some consolidations seem obvious. For example, a single section could discuss all titles involving "Lamb". We'll keep section names SIMPLE. Immediately below each section name, we'll put a visible anchor for each title in that section (the anchor allows linking directly to section). So, a typical section will look like this (except not in green):

Lamb
Lamb of God • Lamb that was Slain • Lamb Slain from the Foundation • Lamb without Blemish
"Lamb" discussion. "Lamb of God" discussion. "Lamb that was Slain" discussion. "Lamb Slain from the Foundation" discussion. "Lamb without Blemish" discussion.

My hope is that the number of sections will be reduced enough for a standard table of contents (TOC) to be used. Otherwise, or in addition to a standard TOC, we'll use a bullet-list TOC (table of contents) that looks like this:(except not in green):

• Lamb of God • Lamb that was Slain • Lamb Slain from the Foundation • Lamb without Blemish •

(Previously, I misunderstood "consolidate terms to reduce sections")...(1) Format. The non-standard TOC is great for single words, but harder to read for multiple words (phrases). A more obvious separator besides the dot might work. (To me, a single line format is best because it is easiest to read.) (2) Suggested Sections: True God; Nature of Jesus; Purpose of Jesus' Life; Jesus as Your Helper... (3) Separate discussion pages. You will need to click over 100 titles to read each discussion. If this is done, a notice should be put beside the title for about a month to warn that the title is going to be deleted. Without such warnings, any title can be easily deleted. (4) Try your new idea on a practice page, and link it here, so we will better understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor may feel moved to begin a related project on WikiBooks. Here at Wikipedia, an article should not have over a hundred sections. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose two new subheadings: (1) Messianic Lineage for Jesus, Son of Man; and (2) Messianic Lineage for Jesus, Son of God.

I'll suggest that intermediate work happen at these two draft pages: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/2010old and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/2010new (per old and new). Any thoughts? I'll probably wait until next week to tackle consolidating work, and I'll intentionally do as little copy editing as I can during this step.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The present format is successful. It appears on page 1 of many search engines. To redo something that is popular with the people is not a wise decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rewrite proves unsuccessful, a revert is always possible. I, for one, still plan to be bold. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: any editing should occur via consensus at this article and through this talk page. Copy-paste versions of this article and subsequent edits would not preserve the original edit histories of the article, which is required by Wikipedia's licensing (see WP:CC-BY-SA and WP:GFDL). The "draft" articles that were created have been removed as they violate this requirement. (No editing had yet occurred, and thus no changes have been lost.) --Kinu ^t/_c 03:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If editing should occur via consensus, this rule has not been followed. There was opposition on changing the original web links, and warnings about possible ensuing problems, which have since happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.51.191 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I did not well-explain that the subpages were to be used for sandboxing prior to edits, encouraging others to attempt some of the work discussed above. Since I personally don't need sandboxing, I'll not mention the subpages again.
I was going to start soon on the consolidating work for the more obviously valid titles, but I realized that controversy and rancor might ensue about which terms actually are valid "names and titles". I greatly prefer for that determination to be made by verifiable reference, so I'll ask again that editors cite some reference for each term they hope to keep in the article. Along with the citation please include a pithy quote similar to '[Such and such term] is a title of Jesus' or perhaps '—name of Jesus'; the reference may elaborate or not and we don't need quotes for every point it makes. My hope is that enforcing refs will winnow us down from the currently-over-a-hundred terms. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is the ultimate authority for the names, titles, and nature of Jesus (Christology). Why is the Bible not used as the verifiable reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.37.24 (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the interpretation of the Bible, specifically what constitutes a "title" within its pages, does not occur in a vacuum. It, for the sake of this article, is a primary source. As such, we need to be utilizing reliable secondary sources. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism: Talk Page Info Deleted!

Vandalsim. Most of the Talk Page was deleted, which I reverted. Please do not vadalize the pages of Jesus.

Those wasn't deleted, they were archived. Now archiving is re-implemented with 180 days. That should leave more threads on page and should not give the impression that things where deleted. --Kslotte (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And, please sign your posts to identify yourself. --Kslotte (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It was implemented properly at 60 days. I've extended that to 100 days. Please don't arbitrarily reset it to unhelpfully long periods. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no hurry in putting the threads into archive and closing discussions. The page isn't that awful long and we aren't running out of space. With a frequent archiving some users may get the impression of discussion censorship. Allowing a longer time to elapse before archiving threads and keeping more threads on the talk page allow occasional visitors to the talk page the opportunity to respond. Having this value too low as minthreadstoarchive = 1 will fill-up the history with bot messages about archiving. Filling up the talk page history with many archive messages isn't informative for users following the talk page history. Default value minthreadstoarchive = 2 should not be altered without good reasons. --Kslotte (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason to archive old threads is that the discussion becomes irrelevant, or the people involved leave Wikipedia. For example, the last time most of the people in the discussion that were on this page edited was August. They've left, so there's no pointing engaging them in further discussion. Also, any editor who complains that the archiving of discussion that has had no action in 100 days is "censorship" is misinformed at best, or quite frankly, not thinking clearly; we don't make decisions about when to archive based on misinformation or disordered thought processes. And I don't understand this concern about "filling up the talk page history with many archive messages" - what exactly is the issue? What exactly would people be looking for that they cannot find? Are these people looking at page histories the same people who know so little about Wikipedia processes that they complain that the archiving of a two-year-old discussion is "censorship"? It seems unlikely. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Over 100 names/titles of Jesus deleted!

The following person has deleted over 100 names/titles of Jesus, without first discussing it here. The names contained reliable references. Please reinstate the names.

cur | prev) 04:15, 2 November 2010 Jayjg (talk | contribs) (33,569 bytes) (restore last sane version) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:11, 2 November 2010 Jayjg (talk | contribs) (87,855 bytes) (wow, much worse than I thought. Going back to April 1, will start from there) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk)

You can't go through every single description of Jesus in the Christian Bible and claim each adjective or descriptor as a "name/title". That's classic original research, based on primary sources. I've restored the last sane version, which listed the main names/titles he was known by; please use reliable secondary sources to develop this list. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

2nd Vandalism Warning. This is a second warning of vandalism by Jayjg, who again deleted over 100 Names/Titles. Many of the Names/Titles deleted are from classical books in Christian literature. Please do your research and read several books on the Names/Titles of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, you need to discuss the issues in more details, before doing such a massive revert. (independent opinion) --Kslotte (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

69.170.44.194, do not classify this as vandalism, as per WP:GOODFAITH. No official vandalism warning has been given and isn't even appropiate. --Kslotte (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Kslotte, I've already explained the issues in sufficient detail, but here's an example of the problematic material in the text:

True Bread From Heaven
Jesus said "it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven." [John 6:32] "This is that bread which came down from heaven: ...he that eats of this bread shall live for ever." [John 6:58]
True Light
Jesus is the True Light which lights (enlightens) every man: "That was the true Light, which lights everyone that comes into the world."[Jn 1:9]

To begin with, these aren't even "Names" or "Titles"; for example, "the true bread from heaven" is neither a "name", nor a "title", it's an allegory or descriptor. In addition, the material is written with a distinct lack of NPOV: "Jesus is the True Light", rather than "one of the names given Jesus in John 1 is "True Light". But most importantly, it's all based on primary sources, the text of the New Testament itself. WP:PRIMARY is quite clear, we need reliable secondary sources that these are "names" and "titles" of Jesus, not just one IP editor's original research based on his/her reading of the New Testament. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, also, the exact same issues raised with the IP editor by several other editors, in the section #Consolidation and TOC above, and apparently ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As this is specifically a list of names found in the Bible, I don't think we need 3rd party sources where a name or title is plainly obvious (just as we wouldn't need a 3rd party source to say the sky is blue - looking at the primary source, the sky itself, is sufficient, unless a significant number of people claimed otherwise). However, where a claimed name or title is not unambiguously a name or a title, I think we would need either a reliable 3rd party source to reinforce the claim that it is a name or a title, or we would need a consensus in discussion that it is indeed a name or a title. I agree that the examples given above are not names or titles, they are descriptions, allegories, etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and a note to the other people discussing this - do not label other people's good faith edits as "vandalism", as this is clearly a content dispute and not vandalism, and bad faith allegations can lead to blocks. Also, be careful not to edit war while this is under discussion - I haven't checked the current state, but if I see edit warring I'll request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why only New Testament?

Why not include titles which are not used specifically in the New Testament but which are often used, by tradition, in dedicating churches, schools, hospitals, and even towns and cities. For example Redeemer or Holy Redeemer, Holy Saviour (aka Saint Saviour, San Salvador), Holy Name, Good Shepherd, etc. If they can't be accommodated here, we should at least list them somewhere. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is "about" the NT. There are so many, many other titles that once you open teh door there there will be a flood. Those could go into another article and alas it may be like Titles of Mary, an absolute free-for-all with no references to speak of. Welcome to Wikipedia. Anyone can type here and add a title. And Patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary is even more free wheeling. So it would be best to maintain some form of sanity within this article that deals with the NT. And this article itself already needs much help. I will start cleaning up soon. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How many names?

The article starts with: "A large variety of names and titles are used in the New Testament to describe Jesus." So how many names are there beside Jesus and Emmanuel? Even Christ is a title and not a name. Yahweh etc. (discussed at length here) is not itself the name for Jesus but relates to the etymology of the name. And although Jesus is stated to be the Logos, the Logos is not a name for Jesus. Unless there are other "names" that can be referenced, the emphasis of the article needs to be on the "Titles of Jesus in the New Testament". An article move/rename may not be that easy, given that there are at least 2 names, but the titles need to be grouped and emphasized. And some key titles such as Kyrios are missing. However, somehow the NT titles should be emphasized, somehow, more than the two names.History2007 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of Jesus

The article Jesus (name) has a shorter etymology section but also a nice table. It seems to me that the etymology of the "name Jesus" should be mostly there, because it is about the name Jesus itself and not its use in the NT. I think it will be better if there is a longer (and central) etymology there and a shorter etymology here, referring to that. The etymology material here is mostly correct, but has some errors and some gaps, but as part of the move there can be fixed - no major errors here, or there. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more what you think those "gaps and errors" are before engaging in large-scale deletions on this article, please? Also, I see very little benefit to mixing up the discussion of Jesus with the discussion of Emmanuel. Surely they should be treated distinctly... AnonMoos (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Three separate issues:

• Treating Jesus and Emmanuel together: This is a minor item, no big difference if they are treated together or separately. However, given that they appear together in Matt so closely and both have salvific significance it may make sense to treat them together. Many sources do that. But I do not even think it is worth debating it. But somehow it should be made clear that these are the only names as such, as I said above and different from Christ which is a title.

• Long Etymology: I see the different and separate etymologies of Jesus as unnecessary fragmentation between here and Jesus (name). So the question is: which is a better place to have a "long etymology" here or there. I actually did not delete the long etymology. If you look at Jesus (name), you will see it is there now too. It should not be in both places. So the question is: which gets the longer etymology, here or there? I think there, because it is about "the name Jesus" from a linguistic perspective. This article has a Biblical perspective, and not linguistic one, so the long etymology will fit better with the table there, as a central location for discussing "The name Jesus". And the long open list of YHWH (is) a saving-cry is just a question of style not content and I would prefer it as a closed list rather than an open list on separate lines, but no big deal really, just a minor issue of space and style. But the question of "who gets the longer etymology" needs to be addressed.

• Gaps and errors: As I said above I do not see any huge errors here, but I do see gaps, e.g. the Emmanuel Christology was not discussed, Philippians 2:10 was not mentioned, etc. And there are many other minor items to fix, e.g. Christ is not really a "surname" and the reference for it as "Blue Letter Bible" just does not do. It just does not do. The right way to say it is tjhe way Pannenberg says it, with a good reference: "Christ has now become a name, one part of the name Jesus Christ, but originally it was a title (the Messiah) and not a name". ref= Jesus God and Man by Wolfhart Pannenberg 1968 ISBN 0664244688 pages 30-31.

So that type of thing (Blue letter Bible etc.) needs to be cleaned up and better references inserted, etc. In general there are far too many primary source references used here, e.g. the section Christ has the two references 27&28 one of which is just a lexicon and it can be much better. I think the distinction between the declarative use of Christ at the beginning of the Gospels, versus its "narrative use" as in Luke 9:20 and John 11:20 etc. deserves a mention. That is an example of what I would call "a gap", while I would call the use of Christ as a "surname" a minor error. But these are easy to fix. Yet more material is needed.

Then the section on Prophet has only primary source refs... that needs to change. And if one is going to say "prophet" or "king" one must mention the threefold office, else I would call that a gap.

The section on "Lord" seems to be discussing things in the notes and briefly mentions Kyrios and Mari is well hidden there in the footnotes. The Kyrios title (which happens over 700 times in the NT) is a key issue in the NT and deserves a better treatment here.

The sections on Logos and Paraclete have no references (except primaries) and really, really miss the point on these two key issues. Again, I would have treated them together but not a big issue if they are separate, yet they deserve a MUCH better treatment here rather than a telegram each. Given that they are primarily 4th Gospel items, and relate Jesus to the trinity etc. they need more discussion here.

And of course the sections on Rabboni, Apostle and Mediator "look like they have references" but in fact they just point to primaries. They have no references. Neither does Head of the Church. These are just floating there, and need to be improved.

Christ, the new Adam is the section that bothers me a lot. It has a huge quote from Romans (not necessary really) and just telegraphic references to Pannenberg and Green. Pannenberg is a pretty good source, but he is neither the first word nor the last word on this and was not the only one to suggest the 2nd Adam issue. If there is a claim there, Pannenberg should get in line behind many other people in a long line that starts with Irenaeus. In fact the patristic issues of 2nd Adam are a key gap here and the huge Romans quote will be taking away from those. This section needs to be fixed.

Now Son of God and Son of man. Should they be treated together given that in early Christology they were seen as the two sides of the Hypostatic union issues. Should their relationship to the Person of Christ be mentioned? Of course. I am specially, specially unhappy the "selective discussion" on Son of man and Son of God. There are so many issues here and the only references in that whole section are Vermes and d'Arcais in Micromega. That can not be the right way to do that topic. In fact given that there are Main articles, I think Son of God and Son of man should be shorter here and the main discussions should be in the Mains.

As is, I think Lord, Christ, Son of God and Son of man and 2nd Adam have by and large presented very fragmented items, selectively mentioning some pieces of information and missing major other items. That is not the way to communicate information. And of course the scarcity of references is another issue, but the selective nature of the sentences and ignoring key other issues is another.

In fact that is probably part of my problem with this article:

• a long discussion on etymology of Jesus
• too little on other key issues such as Kyrios, Logos, etc., etc. as above
• a long and less than organized section on "other titles".
• several floating unreferenced sections such as Rabboni, Apostle and Mediator, etc.

So there is need for clean up here. History2007 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)