User talk:YeshuaDaily

Welcome!

Hello, YeshuaDaily, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Paul the Apostle does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable Sources[edit]

I have updated the page to state what the New Testament itself testifies about its teaching. This is a reputable source. Read it for yourself. If Wikipedia is truly neutral, it should have no problem with letting the text of the New Testament speak for itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YeshuaDaily (talk • contribs)

The Bible is a primary source. It obviously is the best source to identifying what the Bible or a specific translation says, but since we do not do interpretation of the content, we need secondary sources to form the core content of the articles. Compare, for example, the content of the article on The Communist Manifesto - it uses quotes, but most of the content if from other sources writing about the topic (secondary sources). VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the secondary sources are the ones who notoriously twist and distort what the primary sources say. Wikipedia is party to this far too often. So what if I write a book. The real question is what does the text say for itself. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Also, don't you then need tertiary sources to interpret the secondary sources? And who will interpret them? (YeshuaDaily (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As discussed briefly here and here, if the preponderance of the academic sources take a viewpoint, then that will be what is shown in the article. There is a good reason for this - you are probably aware that not all people share your viewpoint on the authenticity of the Bible. If secondary sources are not used, then we do not have an external standard to evaluate what viewpoints should be presented in articles.

If you write a book, promoting it here would violate WP:COI. VQuakr (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the New Testament is already a compilation of secondary sources speaking about the Hebrew Scriptures. And you are absolutely right about that, even as Jesus says, "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few... “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" (Matthew 7:14,21-23, ESV) Most people reject his words for their own traditions. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Your Reversion[edit]

Your refusal to allow the writings of the New Testament to testify concerning the teaching of Paul make it abundantly clear that you are not at all interested in neutrality. If you were, you would not be so keen to present OPINIONS that are very much inconsistent with what the material in question states for itself.

(I guess you're talking to me.) I have a feeling you know that most scholars (even Christians) do not take the words of the NT, particularly Acts, as prima facie evidence of anything the Apostles taught. The claims of the text have to be, and have been, evaluated through scholarly methods before they can be presented as fact or anything close to it. If you have specific concerns about specific parts of the article, you are welcome to specifically enumerate them on the article's talk page. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Evan, I am talking to you. It is not neutrality to remove references to the New Testament on a page about a man who is said to be its foremost writer; a page that discusses his teaching. It would be one thing if you added other references to challenge what the texts of the New Testament say without deleting the references to the New Testament itself. That might be appropriately called "neutral". It's another thing entirely to simply delete what the New Testament says about Paul, the oldest body of writings on the subject, in favour of the opinions of modern day writers. It is even worse still to simply delete the references to what the New Testament says about the Apostle Paul simply because you don't like what they have to say. That is not neutrality, at all. Don't kid yourself. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You were the first to delete sourced material, actually. If you want to improve the article's summary about how Paul describes himself and how Acts describes him, you are welcome to do so, but you won't be doing that at the expense of mainstream scholarship. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What source material did I delete? I deleted an unsubstantiated assertion that contradicts multiple New Testament witnesses and replaced it with what some of these witnesses actually state, with references. "His leadership, influence, and legacy led to the formation of communities dominated by Gentile groups that worshiped Jesus, adhered to the "Judaic moral code", but relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses." This was changed to "While false witnesses in the first century accused Jesus and his disciples of relaxing the Law of Moses,[13] the testimony of the disciples of Jesus make it clear that this was not the case.[14][15][16][17]" Why, then, was this removed? The only reason to remove this is your own unneutral bias. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Furthermore, the statement "dominated by Gentiles" is vague, at best, and possibly misleading. They were Jew and Gentile believers. There were tens of thousands of Jewish believers as of Acts 21: "And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands [μυριάδες] there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law..." μυριάδες is tens of thousands. In time, eventually, there were greater numbers of believing Gentiles, but "Gentile dominance" is not something that the New Testament teaches. What does this even mean? (YeshuaDaily (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I don't have a lot of time, but if you're going to continue to insist that I'm pushing a POV, I will respond. The "dominated by Gentiles" statement is not contentious among religious historians. Not that it's even relevant to the article's content, but the entire point of the second half of Acts is to show how many Jews rejected the teachings of the Apostles and (especially) Paul. This is information that is sourced in the body of the article, and you have changed it to reflect your personal point-of-view. Wikipedia cannot make a judgement as to whether or not they were "false witnesses." That is language fitting to religious polemics, not an encyclopedia. The New Testament is a reliable source for what the New Testament says; it is not a reliable source for historical events. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so commenting now on your last change, which I'm not going to revert for the next 23 hours at least:

"served Jesus as their King" -- I'm not sure that's a good way of putting it. Jesus is called/mocked as King of the Jews in the Gospels at his crucifixion, but there's little indication that this was a title used of him by Christians in the first few decades afterward. Acts 17:7 comes close, but even that is vague. This should be reworded.

Forgive me for saying it, but how did you become the editor of a page such as this? Little indication? I think maybe you don't have a proper historical/cultural/idiomatic understanding of the material that is being presented in the NT. Consider, then, what the NT says on the matter. Whether you believe it reliable or not, it is highly relevant to this discussion. In the first place, the title of Messiah (which means, 'Anointed') is a title of the King of Israel. It is the King of Israel who was anointed by the prophet, as well as the High Priest (the Messiah is called both King and High Priest). This happens sparingly in the Hebrew Scriptures. βασιλεύς (basileus) is the Greek word for King. It appears 115 times in the NT, often with reference to Jesus. Not only was Jesus mocked as King of the Jews at his crucifixion, he was heralded as King of the Jews at his birth (Cf. Matthew 2:1-2). John 1:49 has it that he was called the King of Israel when he called the disciple Nathanael to follow him ("Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."). Matthew, in 21:1-11, demonstrates how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 when he, the King, came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Matthew quotes Zechariah, which says, "“Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey..." (v.5, ESV) And the people were saying "Hosanna to the Son of David!" (v.9) 'Save us now, Son of David!' Son of David is a Messianic title, of the coming King, the rightful heir to throne of King David. Luke has it that, "As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”" (Luke 19:37-38, ESV) See also John 12:13, which says the same. Yet Jesus taught that there was an appointed time for his physical reign, at his return. When he perceived the people were ready to make him king by force, he withdrew from them (Cf. John 6:15). In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus speaks of his return ("When the Son of Man comes..."), saying, "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." (v.34, ESV) This is both the biblical and apostolic (if perhaps you think they differ) teaching of the Messiah. He is the King of Israel, and of the whole world (Cf. Daniel 7:13-14, for example). Even to this day, Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus are waiting for "King Messiah". It is this King Messiah who the disciples of Jesus believe him to be. They mocked him at his crucifixion because they believed he obviously wasn't this King Messiah, because he was being condemned to death, not realizing this is precisely what the prophets said was going to occur. As Peter says, "But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled." (Acts 3:18, ESV) Acts 17:6-7 says that "And when they could not find [Paul and company], they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”" As vv.3-4 says, "And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”" That is, the King that God has given all authority to. "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..." (Matthew 28:18-19a). He is saying that he is the KING of everything, in Heaven and on earth. Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews, in what became chapter 7, elucidates on psalm 110:04, which says, "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”" (v.17, ESV) The point from the beginning of this passage, as it is with psalm 110, is that this priest is also a King. As the writer says in v.1a, "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God..." In v.2, the writer of Hebrews translates and interprets the name Melchizedek, saying, "He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace." (ESV) As the psalm begins, "The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies!" (Psalms 110:1-2, ESV) Revelation 1:5 calls him "the ruler of kings on earth" (ESV). Revelation 6:15 says the kings of the earth will hide themselves from him at his return. Revelation 17:12-14 discusses how ten kings will give their power to the beast, and "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings..." (v.14a, ESV) Revelation 19 also describes him with the words, "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." (Revelation 19:16, ESV) It is with this in mind that the writers of the epistles in the NT refer to themselves as servants (Cf. Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:1, James 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1, Revelation 1:1). They are servants of King Messiah. I'll leave it to the editor to choose which of the many references to refer to in the article, or perhaps to create an appropriate page with the above. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

On second thought, I have created the page. This should solve the dilemma created by the over-abundance of references on this subject. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

And another editor has deleted it, redirecting to the Christology page which scarcely addresses this subject at all, which is perhaps why you (Evan) thought there was "little indication that this was a title used of him by Christians". I have requested the page be restored. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"the book of Acts makes it clear" -- Well, Acts may make the claim, but as I said, that doesn't "make it clear" or establish this as historical fact.

I will change the wording to say "the book of Acts states". (YeshuaDaily (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have done so. Are the edits satisfactory? (YeshuaDaily (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"the testimony of the disciples of Jesus as recorded in the writings of the New Testament make it abundantly clear that this was not the case" -- That's a matter of personal interpretation. Keep in mind, as well, that there's a difference between Paul (or anyone else) requiring all Christians to keep the Jewish law, and simply allowing gentiles to follow a basic code of morality (see Acts 15), while maintaining traditional practices among the Jews. This is one common interpretation of Paul's sometimes difficult-to-reconcile statements on the ongoing validity of the Law. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Evan, it is not a matter of personal interpretation. I have cited numerous witnesses from the NT writings. It is well-established there, in context, that Paul is not in any way doing away with the Law of Moses, just as Paul's King did not do away with the Law of Moses. Yet I have only cited a small sample of the references that exist. If you need more, there are plenty more. As for Acts 15, you raise an important issue, but it is one that I do not have time to elucidate on tonight. It is a very interesting discussion, 'what is biblical repentance'. Suffice it for now to say the question in Acts 15 (See also Galatians) is about whether or not Gentiles must "become Jewish" to be saved. "Circumcision according to the custom of Moses" (Cf. Acts 15:1) is above and beyond the commandment in the written Law of Moses (see Oral Torah). It is a reference to "conversion to Judaism" as it is referred to today. Circumcision is shorthand for this. Paul talks about this at length in his writings. One must be careful with his writings, which are highly nuanced and, as Peter says, 'Difficult to understand' (Cf. 2 Peters 3:13-18). 'Those who are ignorant twist his words to their own destruction, so be careful not to be lead astray by the error of lawless people.' Goodnight. (YeshuaDaily (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

YeshuaDaily, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi YeshuaDaily! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]