Talk:Messianic prophecies

Per an agreement among the main contributors to the "Messianic prophecies" article the article was divided into several articles with a disambiguation page. Details are below in "Can we agree".

Verifiability re yeshiva courses

If anyone has any complaints about verifiability of "I heard it in a yeshiva course" feel free to order the DVD sets from www.BaruchHaShemSynagogue.org they cost $100 per course.

RickReinckens 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on citing sources, and verifiability are clear on self-published, and or secondary sources; the "yeshiva courses" appear to be both. This isn't a complaint, but a standard that Wikipedia demands. If information cannot be referenced with verifiable published sources, they don't belong in the article. "I heard it" don't cut it. It has to be published; demanding that one "order the DVD" isn't the way this works when it comes to citing sources. The yashiva courses may have published literature that's verifiable, but the link provided (not allowed as reference, BTW) only goes to the mainpage of a website, not even a page verifying the statements. The burden to provide sources is on the provider of a contribution, not the editor concerned about it's verifiability. See the policy pages provided for more on the subject. Jeffmichaud Feb, 16, 2006

The courses and DVD's are not "self-published". My boss' sister, Jayne Manziel, wrote a book and set up "Manziel Publishing". Manziel Publishing only sells her book. That is "self-published". DVD's recorded and sold by a course sponsor who brings in an expert to teach a course are not "self-published" or not verifiable. I'm an attorney and numerous state bars and law schools do the same thing for "continuing legal education". No one claims that those are "self-published" or "not verifiable".

RickReinckens 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The courses are both verifiable and published. "Published" isn't limited to "paper". Feel free to call Baruch HaShem and order them, just like you would call a book store and order AND PAY FOR a book.

Would you consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church self-published? What is the difference between the Catholic Church and a syngogue? Nowhere does Wikipedia say that if you list a book as a reference the book must be available on-line and free. In fact, the book doesn't even have to be available any more. It can be long out of print. All that is required is the name of the book and the author. I have given the source of the material and the publisher and a way to contact the publisher to obtain the material if the person wants to do so--just like a book.

Regarding links not being allowed in references, that is done all the time--especially to publishers, to make it easier for the person to order the materials. If you don't believe that, this is Wikipedia's template for a book reference:

{{Book reference | First = | Last = | Authorlink = | Coauthors = | Year = | Month = | Title = | Chapter = | Editor = | Others = | Edition = | Pages = | Publisher = | Location = | ID = | URL = }}

Try it--if you include an URL or an Authorlink there will be a link.

Judging from some of the material you added to the Messianic Prophecies page, it is obvious you are fairly new at this, because you had tons of NPOV violations. You need to get a LOT more familiar with the standards before you start deleting references, etc.

Here are the templates for citations

Cite video says specifically that the cite can be a VIDEOTAPE. There is no effective difference between a videotape and a DVD.

I am putting back the references because they ARE the source, they ARE available as a publication and they DO qualify as video cites. Do NOT violate the 3-revert rule and remove them again.

RickReinckens 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(subdiv 1)

~Hi there, "new guy" again. I know you think you've put me in my place with this lecture and grandstanding of yours, but after around 1000 edits, one arbitration, various mediations, and the creation of 7 articles, I've had the opportunity to learn a couple of things along the way. Here are all the ways you have effectively missed the point:

Your "videos" are not cited correctly, if they exist at all. If "they ARE available as a publication and they DO qualify as video cites", then cite them correctly. The external link goes to a mainpage of a website; an unacceptable violation of policy. Please look at the template page you linked to. If the template had been used, then it would be possible to examine the verifiability of these alleged videos. You can also find the proper way to refence them here. It is not the job of any other to rummage through a website to find these sources. I didn't say links aren't allowed in references, but that only providing a link to webpage is not how to cite a source. It's probable that one can cite these references correctly if one would educate themself on how to do it correctly. As of now they are not in order; and restoring them again in the manner and style they were created will also be out of order.
The main problem any editor can easily take issue with is that they are not cited properly, and the list of so-and-so's below the "Videos" is extraneous, and doesn't provide anything useful to the verifiabiliy. The whole thing looks like and ad for the videos. Are you getting royalties?

Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

The "so-and-so's" are the professors of the various courses. For instance, you can order "Dan Juster's course", "Russ Resnick's course", etc. I have no connection with the courses other than that is where the material was presented--just like a speaker at a seminar on real estate, or whatever.

Saying that it looks like an ad for the videos is like saying that a list of reference books is an ad for the books. Those courses are where I obtained the information just like a newscast. Wikipedia requires listing references. Those are the references.

Your point about how books are referenced isn't relevent, for we're not talking about books, are we? A video has a specific way it's to be referenced, right? Since it is the contributor's obligation to cite sources, the unrefenced section tag is in fact appropriate, since there are no verifiable sources.

Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

You missed the point about books. The point is that both the book and the video do not have to be available for free, of for that matter, even available at all. The citation section even says that you can use a reference to a website and leave it even if the page is no longer available.

The information on book REFERENCES says that even just the TITLE is allowed, although the more information that is available the better.

As far as my contributions to this article are concerned, it's very simple. This is not a message board to debate your version of the truth against others. This policy clearly states that: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As these beliefs of the Baha'is are published and verifiable, it matters little how un-NPOV you might regard them. They are on point, on topic, and relevent; this is not subject to your approval.

Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Limiting the article topic

NOTE: I stopped in the middle of adding info here. See the "Can we all agree" section. I have to go, so I'll be back and finish my comments later.

RickReinckens 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are out of order for attempting to declare what can and cannot be contained in an article, and this is nowhere to try and play out a misguided Narcisis complex.

Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

To be frank about limiting the subject of the article, I'm just trying to be realistic. I take it you have not visited many of the pages that deal with Messianic/Jewish and related topics. They wind up as endless edit wars between Christians/Messianics and Jews. That's just reality. There are several practial considerations here:

1) If we start listing specific prophecies, for each individual prophecy to maintain NPOV we have to list a crapload of "However . . ." (like I did in the Talk regarding the various Removals). For EACH thing that Christians claim is a messianic prophecy, e.g., Isaiah 52-53, we will have to individually add a "Response" section. If we don't, some non-Christian will remove it as POV.

2) Even if we do include a Response for each prophecy it still will get removed. Look through the history of the Messianic Judaism page or the Intelligent Design page and you'll see the same thing. These "hot-button" topics.

Actually, when I put that I came to realize that there should be a separate article titled Messianic Prophecy that contains pretty much the contents of this article, i.e., the concept of prophecies about the messiah.. Then people could carry on their edit wars in the Messianic prophecies article and it wouldn't matter.

(continued)As this article is linked to from many other "Messiah" articles, it is in fact inappropriate for it to contain the "clause" of what can and can't be contained in this article. This is not "RickReincken's Messianic prophecies" page, and to assert this following statement is inappropriate :"This article only deals with messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. It deals with the concept of messianic prophecies, not with specific prophecies." The title of the article dictates what's to be contained in it, not Rick. The second sentence actually contradicts what's contained here, for there is a section titled "Fullfilled prophecies". So this article is in fact about specific prophecies. Whether you feel you can debate the legitimacy of the Baha'i veiw on Hebrew prophecies about the Messiah is your perogative, and the proper place for you to do that is on one of the hundreds of message boards dedicated to this. Here, the Baha'i, Christian, Islam, and Jewish veiws all get to coexist in peace, and are NOT subject to your approval. The fact that Baha'i views are verifiable and sourceable is all that's required. See the policy on this for more.

Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Seems to me that the video-taped courses exist and would validate the opinions presented so they pass the verifiability, not truth hurdle. They're no weaker as "published" than an online file that may, or may not, have seen print. They're just more obscure. Rick, you'd do well to add books on-topic.

Regarding book citation, unfortunately, you have to understand some things about Messianic leaders:

There aren't a heck of a lot of them--maybe 20 worldwide.

They are "all over the place". For instanc,e half the year Juster is based out of Florida and half the year out of Israel.

Most of them also travel extensively.

There is limited demand for books by Messianics.

When you combine small numbers, trying to be "all things to all people", extensive travel and limited demand for books, it means that most of the information is not put out in books. Their main way of getting it out is by teaching these courses. These guys present them around the world, both at various Messianic schools and at conferences such as the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations.

The citations are awkward, but can be improved. They should look something like:

Rabbi Dan Juster (Instructor) (2005). Messianic Jewish Theology (Class Presentation). Dallas, Texas, USA: Baruch HaShem Synagogue. {{cite AV media}}: External link in |title= (help)

Refer to: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations

Can you update these Rick?

MARussellPESE 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll even do it, if it's correct. I would have, but it was impossible for me to figure out where to begin; it looked to me like an add for the video series. Of course it's a valid source, just poorly cited, if you could call it a citing at all. Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Removal of Date

Removed "Date" section for these reasons:

Violates NPOV.
Judaism considers Daniel a historian, not a prophet. He is included in the Kituvim (Writings), not the Nevi'im (Prophets). Most Jewish biblical scholars believe Daniel was written within a few hundred years before the birth of Jesus.
The Hebrew text uses the term mashiach, not haMashiach. The "ha" makes it the Messiah. Without "ha", it means an anointed one. The High Priest was referred to a mashiach. So was Cyrus in the book of Isaiah. So were many others. Jewish translations such as the JPS-85 Tanakh do not translate the passage "Messiah will come" they translated it "an anointed one will come".
The addition contains known errors of fact. It is well documented that the current "Christian" calendar is off four years from Jesus' birth. King Herod died in 4 B.C. Jesus was actually born in 4 B.C. If Jesus was born in 4 B.C. and executed at the age of 33, he could not possibly have died in 34 A.D.
Even if the passage is talking about the Messiah, not an anointed one, the passage does not say it is talking about Jesus. That is just a Christian assumption. Non-christians interpret the passage in various ways. Assuming it means Jesus violates NPOV.
"A.D" means "Anno Domini", i.e., "in the Year of Our Lord". Because Moslems, Jews and others do not consider Jesus to be their "Lord", in this context the accepted abbreviations are B.C.E. and C.E., which mean either "Before the Common Era" or "Before the Christian Era", etc. Again, NPOV violation. In articles not related to religion it wouldn't be a big deal but in this context it violates NPOV.
There are also disputes that Christian translations are biased, that Christians often take passages out of context--they have made up their mind what results they will find, then they go looking for things to support their predetermined result.

(Yeah, I know it sucks. Get used to it. Wikipedia is not a place to be trying to do evangelism or promoting a particular religion's views, no matter how valid you think they are. In an article on "Messiah" I put a little thing about "messianic pretenders" such as Theudas and an administrator said I couldn't use the word "pretender" because it is considered a POV violation and someone might get offended. Every time you present one religion's interpretation, you have to give equal time to all the other views.)

RickReinckens 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer above for full explanation of the irrelevency of Rick's POV here. Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Removal of Address

Violates NPOV.
The Micah passage does not say it is talking about the Messiah.
Even if the passage is talking about the Messiah it does not say it is talking about Jesus. That is just a Christian assumption. Non-christians interpret the passage in various ways. Assuming it means Jesus violates NPOV.
This assumes that the New Testament is valid, historically accurate and properly interprets the passage. Again, NPOV violation.

RickReinckens 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer above for full explanation of the irrelevency of Rick's POV here. Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Removal of Name

Violates NPOV.
The Isaiah passage does not say it is talking about the Messiah. Assuming it does violates NPOV.
Even if the passage is talking about the Messiah it does not say it is talking about Jesus. That is just a Christian assumption. Non-christians interpret the passage in various ways. Assuming it means Jesus violates NPOV.
This assumes that the New Testament is valid, historically accurate and properly interprets the passage. Again, NPOV violation.
The name Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua) means "Salvation" or "Savior". "Emmanuel" means "God with us". There simply is no correlation, regardless of what Matthew says. It is like someone saying, "I named my kid Harry to fulfill the prophecy, 'and he shall be named Fred'." Matthew was trying to prove Jesus was the Messiah by showing fulfilled prophecies, but he went too far on that one.
Judaism says that the prophecy is not about a "virgin" but about a "young woman" and says that using the term "virgin" is revisionist history and Christians reading in what they want to see. Again, NPOV.
"is believed to show". Again, NPOV violation, since only some people believe that. Also, by using passive it doesn't identify who believes.
"Matthew shows this being fulfilled." Again, NPOV violation that assumes Matthew is correct.

RickReinckens 04:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer above for full explanation of the irrelevency of Rick's POV here. Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Removal of Baha'i material

The topic of the article is Messianic prophecies, not general Baha'i theology. The material either should go into an existing Baha'i article or be put in a new one.

Also, material this detailed doesn't belong in the introduction. The Christian introduction is one short sentence and the Jewish introduction is two sentences. An appropriate introduction would probably be something like: The Baha'i faith believes two Messiahs come separately, first Jesus, then Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í faith.

Part of the removed material should be put in the Messiah article. That article suffers from "over-judaization" and needs contributors regarding other religions. Awhile back I moved an extensive list of "Jewish Messianic claimants" from there to a new article, since it took up more than half the article and few people are interested in that specific information.

There probably should also be an article, "Messiah in the Baha'i Religion" with links to the Christian, Jewish, and verious Messiah articles.

RickReinckens 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer above for full explanation of the irrelevency of Rick's POV here. Jeff Michaud Feb. 17, 2006

Jeffmichaud is presenting the BUPC point of view and not the mainstream Bahá'í view. As the Bahá'í writings treat each founder of the worlds great religions as a Manifestation of God, we see all of them as Messiah's in a sense. A distinguishing characteristic of the BUPC is that they set Jesus and Bahá'u'lláh apart as these "Twin Messiahs".

I'd note that the only reference to the "Throne of David" is on p. 71 of Some Answered Questions. This Chapter, Chap. 13, [1] is `Abdu'l-Bahá's assertion that the Báb, not Bahá'u'lláh, fulfills prophecies found in John's "Revelation", and does not discuss Jewish prophecies. Reference to this book doesn't belong in the BUPC section as nothing there refers to it, nor anything in it refers to the points in this section; but is a valid reference for the Bahá'í view. MARussellPESE 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Seriously? I'd have to challenge every sentence you just wrote, MARussell, but who's got the time? I'd love to sit down one day and hash out how "all of them are Messiah's in a sense", but that's a matter of interpretation, I suppose, as I've never seen this in the Writings, only in modern doctrine. Did you know that we adhere to the same Writings as you; we just refrain from adding to them is all. We see the Text as Explicit, whereas what I see you all doing repeatedly is adding to what's Explicit to come to such conclusions; you do know that "to none is given the right to interpret", right?

Anyhoo, regarding SAQ, I have to completely disagree with you on this MARussell. SAQ was mentioned in the article specifically pertaining to it's references explaining the phophecies that were to follow; not in conection with it referencing the Throne of David. I'm surprised to see these statements above; namely how it "does not discuss Jewish prophecies", "nor anything in it refers to the points in this section". You're kidding right? For starters, in chapter 10 he explains in detail how Jesus fulfills the prophecy for the date of 70 weeks in Daniel 9, and how the Bab and Baha'u'llah fulfill the prophecies for the 1280 & 1290 dates in Daniel 12. The explanation found here mirrors point for point what's in chapter 10. How much more Explicit could this be: "Now that the manifestation of Christ has been proved by the prophecies of Daniel, let us prove the manifestation of Baha'u'llah and the Bab" (p. 49). He even goes so far as to mention that the two promised ones from chapter 12 of Daniel are the Mahdi and the Messiah, and the Lord of Hosts and the Messiah (i.e. messianic prophecies). The whole discussion of the dates in Daniel is lifted directly out of SAQ. Did you skip that chapter?

In light of this, could you please explain why SAQ was removed from mention in the article, and how I'm possibly misinterpreting you stating it "does not discuss Jewish prophecies", and how it "doesn't belong in the BUPC section as nothing there refers to [SAQ]"? Or, how this is "not the mainstream Bahá'í view" for that matter, since it comes from the Master himself? Now you're adding and deleting what's Explicit from my POV. Jeff Michaud Feb. 18, 2006

I removed "Baha'i faith" from intro because 1) they're claiming to adhere to none specifically, but the concern appears to be distinguishing themselves from the BUPC. I believe the rewrite should ease this concern. 2)Some Answered Questions doesn't appear to support that "messianic prophecies point to various of them, including Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í faith", as the only M.P.'s discussed in the book concern Jesus and Baha'u'llah, not all Manifestations as the statement implies. In fact, I can't find any writing to support this notion that all Manifestations were considered Messiah's by the Central Figures. Would invite the insight, though. Jeff Feb. 18, 2006

You would have to challenge every sentence I wrote as this fixation upon Christ and Bahá'u'llah, frankly ignoring virtually every other prophet, is a distinguishing characteristic of the BUPC. If you would read the chapter of Some Answered Questions you lift the quote from you'd see that 'Abdu'l-Bahá is referring to the Báb, not Bahá'u'llah. And if you'd read the Part One as referenced, you'll see that Bahá'ís place each of these on equal footing with respect to their station. Reading Messiah as "Promised One" means that any Manifestation of God is equally fit to be called one. Unilaterally removing the Bahá'í view here misrepresents our position. I've never removed your material. I'd ask that that courtesy be returned. MARussellPESE 00:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EEEk. I've offended yet again. And even after I went to great lengths to explain what I did. Truly not intended. I believed the contribution was to distinguish, as in set apart, the two groups. And, as you can't quote or infer what in SAQ justifies the statement without adding to it's Explicitness (for Messiah has a clear distinct definition which no Writings redefine), I don't feel you have a right to make such a claim. Furthermore, why should this be in the intro if you're not contributing and expanding upon the statement in the article itself? This is why I have to assume you're only interested in distinguishing the two groups. What can you point to that implies all Promised Ones are Messiahs; i.e. Promised One = Messiah. You have to add the inference, don't you? For that's not what the book says, is it? You just wrote "By reading Messiah as Promised One means...", and admitted that you're interpreting promised one to mean Messiah, and it's not in fact what the Explicit Texts EXPICITLY say. Muhamad was promised by Jesus, making him a promised one. Yes, Messiah is a promised one, but being a promised one doesn't translate back to making them a Messiah. Messiah has a specific meaning to both Christians and Jews, and it should for you too, for you can't show a writing that says otherwise without violating the covenant by falsely and unauthoratatively interpreting insight into otherwise Explicit Texts.

I'm not sure what "quote" you are refering to above. The only thing I quoted from SAQ was about the Bab and Baha'u'lah: "Now that the manifestation of Christ has been proved by the prophecies of Daniel, let us prove the manifestation of Baha'u'llah and the Bab". This shows that the book does in fact concern itself with Hebrew prophecy. Earlier he explains: "All the peoples of the world are awaiting two Manifestations". He then explains that there's Islamic prophecy for the Mahdi and the Messiah, Jewish prophecy for the Lord of Hosts and the Messiah, etc. Then, as you point out, he explains the 2300 days for the Bab, and goes on to explain the dates in Daniel 12 for the Bab and Baha'u'llah - the Messiah. The Mahdi/Lord of Hosts/Elijah are the Bab, and the Messiah/Christ is Baha'u'llah. There is no contradiction here. Are you saying that all those titles are for the Bab, when he clearly states he talking about "two Manifestations"? You're loosing me with these circles. Let's get back to the subject.

So now you see that you were just plain wrong by trying to state it doesn't discuss Jewish prophecy. He fully explains the 70 weeks for Jesus, like I said in the first place; which I guess you now concede to. Then he fully explains the 2300 days for the Bab, both being found in Daniel 9. Then, he fully explains chapter 12 by fully explaining the 1280 days for the Bab, and the last paragraph of the chapter he fully explains how Baha'u'llah is the one who comes at the 1290 days. What part of this fact contradicts me saying that the explanation for Jesus' and Baha'u'llah's date found in this article is gleened from chapter 10 of SAQ? Do you still contend that it "does not discuss Jewish prophecies", and how it "doesn't belong in the BUPC section as nothing there refers to [SAQ]"?

You are capable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you? In this case you are. SAQ explains the dates from Daniel for Jesus and Baha'u'llah. Show me how I'm wrong, and I'll eat the crow. I feel misunderstood about something you said. Jesus and Baha'u'llah are the only promised ones discussed here because they are the only two promised ones who are Messiahs. We actually teach the proofs and evidences for all the Manifestations. Those two are singled out here for obvious reasons. Your statements seem to imply that you believe something different from me. We don't actually disagree with regards to what you're saying about all the promised ones. Just wanted to point that out. Jeff Feb. 18, 2006

Actually the BUPC discussion here, and in their sources, completely ignores the Báb. The one passage referring to the "Throne of David" in Some Answered Questions refers to him exclusively:

"Nothing could be clearer than this agreement of the prophecies with one another. The Báb appeared in the year 1260 of the Hejira of Muhammad, which is the beginning of the universal era-reckoning of all Islam. There are no clearer proofs than this in the Holy Books for any Manifestation."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 71)

Likewise Chapters 10-12 of this book discuss prophecies, including Daniel's, that apply to The Báb as well. It's the BUPC who set Jesus and Bahá'u'lláh apart as extra-special "Messiahs".

This BUPC insistance that "Yes, they're all equal, but Jesus and Bahá'u'lláh are more equal" is almost Orwellian: "Some animals are more equal than others." To assert that the BUPC agree with Bahá'í teachings on this subject misrepresents those teachings. To wit:

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers."

(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 59-60)

MARussellPESE 05:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a very well thought arguement, and begs the question if you've read a word I've written.

They aren't "extra-special" Messiah's". They are the ONLY Messiahs. That is why they are the only Messiahs we talk about. Yes, the Bab is discussed in chapter 10 also, but as this is a page about "Messiah prophecies", and the BUPC don't beleive the Bab was a "Messiah" (which is slang for Messiah ben David, BTW) then the proofs taught about the Bab don't belong here, as he's not a Messiah. If you can show how he somehow is, and want to include his proofs here, then have at it. The BUPC don't believe this, I can't reference that we do (cuz we don't), so therefore he's not part of this or any discussions about the Messiah's. Promised One = Manifestation (spiritual station). Messiah = Lineage / lit. translation: annointed son of David (physical title befitting two specific Promised Ones i.e. not a spiritual station). What part of this is malfunctioning for you. You are the one who has interpreted Promised Ones as Messiahs. Show me the Writing that justifies this and redefines the 3,000 year old traditional universal understanding about what the word Messiah means, please. I'm begging you. Please reveal it for us would you. Until you have an Explicit text that redefines the word to apply to all Manifestations you really have nothing but your own interpretation to go by.
Moreover, if you can't explain this, then the statement in the intro doesn't connect to the footnote, and the whole thing should be removed. You can't state that without asserting Promised One = Messiah. That is you adding to Explicit Texts that are in no need of you as an interpreter. If your sect has nothing to contribute to the article, then why are you even in the intro in the first place? And why not cite a source that corroborates what you're saying? You haven't as of yet, and it should not be allowed to stay as is. SAQ Part I is about the Promised Ones, the Manifestations, the Prophets; It not about nor ever mentions your 9 imaginary Messiahs.
You brought up the Bab, pg. 71, and the throne of David. None of this has anything to do with this discussion or article, as I never made a point about any of this in the article or here. What the heck are you going on about with all that, and what exactly is your point, specifically? You're dilluted if you think chapter 13 says that all of Revelations is about the Bab. Please elaborate, would you? He's explaining chpt 12 of Rev, not all 22 chapters. Furthermore, why are you quoting something about the Bab to support this throne of David fantasy you created when the quote makes no mention of the throne (and niether did I for that matter). I can't even imagine what your point is as this whole Bab/chpt 13/throne thing is so convulted and out of nowhere. The only mention of the throne is in the last paragraph when he states the conditions they wouldn't accept Christ for, saying the Pharisees claimed that the attributes he gave himself refered not to him (Jesus), "thus they prevented the people from knowing Christ". So this whole reference is in fact about Christ, not the Bab, see? Half the chapter is about the Bab's proofs and how they connect to those in Daniel, yet I never said it didn't. I do say, though, that you are obviously confused and adding your own twist on the Master's words if you think he's saying the Bab was the Promised One the Pharisees were expecting (who'd be on the throne, etc.) by connecting the explanation of the dates for the Bab as the Promised One of chapter 12 Rev., and then criticizing the "Pharisees who...denied Christ" for not accepting Jesus as the Promised One because he didn't fill those conditions. This is reaching for a connection that clearly doesn't exist in Reality. Maybe in your's, but if that's the case, we'll have to agree to disagree there. He's listing conditions they were measuring up for Jesus. BTW, it was the Pharisees, not the Master who said that their Promised One would have these conditions, and "thus they prevented the people from knowing Christ". Are you now saying the Bab is the one on the throne because he's a Promised One, too? Never mind. I don't even want to go there.
You are now admitting that: "Likewise Chapters 10-12 of this book discuss prophecies" which is a 180 degree turn around from your attack on these contributions refering to SAQ in the first place. I never said that Bab didn't fulfill prophecy, so stop implying I did.
He's not included in this article, for like I already said, he's not a "Messiah" by definition. Check our webpage and see for yourself that there is a "Fireside" Class that you can read yourself that explains the proofs for the Bab, and another for Baha'u'llah and another for Jesus. The dates for the proofs in those classes come right out of chapter 10 amd 13's explanations. And, as I've already noted, those explanations distinguish the Mahdi from the Messiah, the Lord of Hosts from the Messiah; for he states: "All the world is awaiting two Manifestations", and then reckons who they are: the Bab and Baha'u'llah, i.e. the Madhi (which the Bab claimed to be), and the Messiah.
Jesus is always called the Christ, isnt' he? What does Christ mean? It's Greek for Messiah. Who else besides Baha'u'llah is ever refered to as a Christ or Messiah besides Jesus. NOONE; EVER! You have nothing here, and are now randomly attacking the BUPC's beliefs. And, I'm showing you're lack of understanding in this, that, everything else relating to these matters. Why don't you just drop it, and stick to what you do know.
This is silly, really. The way it looks to me is that you were shown wrong on your original objections, and instead of admiting it and moving on with our lives/editing, you're jumping all over the place and attacking various unrelated topics; red-herrings, if you will. How does this relate to the article, it's contents, or it's references, or anything I've ever written? You can't even extend me the courtesy of acknowledging anything I've attentively and meticulously responded to, but rather trod on in your pursuits to find new things to criticize. Not once here have you even acknowledged anything I've presented. You were wrong about me using SAQ as a reference. I've been forced to go so far as to fully explain minute details that one can read for themselves [2]; once again defending the BUPC's beliefs from the attacks of the ill-informed. I've quoted the Master explicitly stating "Christ has been proved by the prophecies of Daniel...", and yet you cannot bring yourself to drop it. Rather you trudge forward into ever new and spectacular rantings (which have now ceased even making sense). You were wrong when you wrote: "Reference to this book doesn't belong in the BUPC section as nothing there refers to it, nor anything in it refers to the points in this section..", and SAQ does fully explain these dates and is a valid source for Jesus' and Baha'u'llah's Messianic prophecies, right? No harm, no foul. Let's march onward and upward. Jeff Feb. 19, 2006

On the contrary, I've read your, and the BUPC's, analysis and find it wanting a basic understanding of the source material. First, at no time does Bahá’u’lláh refer to himself as "Messiah". In fact, each-and-every reference to the "Messiah" of both Bahá’u’lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá is in connection to Jesus.

Second, the analysis fails to recognize the basic, and rather blunt, premise of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's apologia in Some Answered Questions:

"Let us now return to our subject. All the peoples of the world are awaiting two Manifestations, Who must be contemporaneous; all wait for the fulfillment of this promise. In the Bible the Jews have the promise of the Lord of Hosts and the Messiah; in the Gospel the return of Christ and Elijah is promised.

In the religion of Muhammad there is the promise of the Mihdi and the Messiah, and it is the same with the Zoroastrian and the other religions, but if we relate these matters in detail, it would take too long. The essential fact is that all are promised two Manifestations, Who will come, one following on the other.

...

Now we must prove from the Holy Books that these two Manifestations have come, and we must divine the meaning of the words of the Prophets, for we wish for proofs drawn from the Holy Books.

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp. 39-43) (Emphasis added.)

He then goes on to discuss specific passages that apply to either the Báb or Bahá’u’lláh:

"Consider how clearly the manifestation of the Báb is spoken of in the Old Testament and in the Gospel.

To conclude, let us now explain the date of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh from the Bible."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, pp. 42-43)

Third, is the inexplicable position that some prophecies apply to the Báb, while others apply to Bahá’u’lláh — but only Bahá’u’lláh is the "Messiah"; despite the fact that He never applies this term to Himself. While Bahá’u’lláh is the founder of the Bahá’í Faith, ignoring the Báb represents a fundamental flaw in the understanding of the teachings of this religions as both collectively are referred to in several places as the "Twin Founders" of the religion:

"I would be failing to do justice to my theme were I to ignore, or even to dismiss briefly, those audacious, fate-laden apostrophes to individual monarchs who, whether as kings or emperors, have either viewed with cold indifference the tribulations, or rejected with contempt the warnings, of the twin Founders of our Faith."

(Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p. 28) (Emphasis added.)

The Bahá'í calendar even begins with the Báb's declaration.

MARussellPESE 20:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. I'm the one with the fundamental flaw of understanding. Alrighty then! You started off this discussion stating clearly that the book doesn't discus Jesus prophecies, and shouldn't be referenced for these prophecies I provided. And I'm the one lacking in understanding. We are once again picking apart the BUPC's teaching, and off topic. How could the Muslim prophecies about the two Manifestions (Mahdi and Messiah) that would follow each other apply to Jesus and the Bab? The reference you just provided has proved my point. The world is awaiting the Lord of Hosts/Mahdi/Elijah and the Messiah/Christ. So you're wrong. By explaining these dates of 1280 and 1290 he's applying these prophecies to these "two Manifestations", the Bab and Baha'u'llah; the Mahdi and Messiah respectively.

We teach the proofs for Baha'u'llah and the Bab, but as the Bab wasn't a Messiah, he's not a part of these matters. Where is that reference that redefines the word Messiah to apply all Promised Ones? Still looking? Jeff Feb. 20 2006

I started this off by saying that Chapter 13 of Some Answered Questions doesn't discuss Jewish prophecies. It's titled "Commentary on the Twelfth Chapter of the Revelation of St. John" in case you didn't look. No Jewish prophecies to be found there.

You want references that messiah means more that just the Jewish Promised One, how 'bout this: "messiah - One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator." [3]

This: "In Judaism, the Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ "anointed one", Standard Hebrew Mašíaḥ, Tiberian Hebrew Māšîªḥ Arabic المسيح;) initially meant any person who was anointed by a prophet of God."

Or this: "Messiah - An extremely powerful divine figure." [4]

These definitions are even more broad that Messiah = Promised One.

By the by, where's Bahá'u'lláh say there's two Jewish Messiahs, or claims to be one? How can that be reconciled against every last reference to the Messiah in the entire body of the Bahá'í texts is to Jesus and neither the Báb nor Bahá'u'lláh? MARussellPESE 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should look again: I never referenced chapter 13, you did. You jumped up and objected to me stating SAQ was a ref. for the prophecies the article was to cover. It does; the explanation for the dates for Jesus and Baha'u'llah are lifted right out of chapter 10 regarding the (Hebrew) prophecies from Daniel. You were wrong, no biggy. I thought we were going to move on?
Nothing from the Baha'i writings, huh? Pity. So you must go outside what's infallible and Explicit? Okay. Why didn't you include the whole reference from Messiah? Cuz it doesn't suit your purpose, does it. You conveniently left out what it's universally accepted as. What about the other part you conveniently ignore: "Within Judaism, the Mashiach is a human being who will be a descendant of King David continuing the Davidic line"? Besides, the issue is you stating that Baha'is accepted all Manifestations as Messiah's, which you can't back up with Baha'i writings, can you? If you'd like to contend that your statement for "Baha'i faith" in the intro should remain in it's current state with a footnote for SAQ, I'm afraid I have to object on the ground that it's your unauthorized unauthoratative interpretation of the text that's grounds for the statement, as it's not implicit to the book. And, as you're not an authorized spokesmen for the other 6 million Baha'is, nor have provided a reference from an Institution that is, creating broad statements like this is beyond your scope. Besides, SAQ in no way implies what your saying, and you're not expanding on the statement and contributing to the article, so I'll thank you to voluntarily remove it.
Are you trying to convince me of something here? You're right and I should give this all up? Where's this going? If that's your goal, you're failing miserably. I thought you all fully acknowledged that Baha'u'llah was the second coming of Christ (Messiah). Wouldn't He be the 4th coming by your reckoning? If all Manifestations are Messiah/Christs, why aren't Muhamed and the Bab the 2nd and 3rd. What Writing implies that anyone other than Baha'u'llah and Jesus own that Title?
To answer your question about what writing is He called Messiah? The one I've been quoting, for starters. Let me break this down as simple as I can. The Master outlines expectations that the three major world religions had: Jews are waiting for the Lord of Hosts and Messiah. Christians, the return of Elijah and Christ. Muslims the Mahdi and return of Christ (Messiah). And says, "Now we must prove from the Holy Books that these two Manifestations have come". Then shows with a Hebrew prophecy (which I assume you now concede does exist in the book) how the Bab (Mahdi) and Baha'u'llah (Messiah) are these "two Manifestations".
My willingness to defend the beliefs of the BUPC is reaching it's end. We are way off topic, and you're argument is running circles. The writings Explicitly say that Baha'u'llah is the Second Coming of Christ (which is Greek for Messiah); yet you deny it at every turn, and create new concepts like "all Manifestations are Messiahs in a sense." Is He the 2nd or the 4th? By your math Muhamed is the 2nd, yet Muhamed pointed to one in the future, is never accepted being a Messiah, and no writings say he was. How can you so glibly ask: "where's Bahá'u'lláh say there's two Jewish Messiahs, or claims to be one?' How about this writing where He's Explicitly refering to Himself: "to Christendom Christ returned "in the glory of the Father";" (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 234). Or this: "The Jews await the Messiah, the Christians the return of Christ,...Baha'o'llah represents all these,(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v3). I know you're more educated than this. Why are you asking me such questions with such hostility? We didn't make this stuff up. All our teaching are from the writings. You act as if we're making this stuff up. Well, there's three of about a dozen Writings that confirm He said he was the Messiah, and that His son confirmed it. What have you got to show otherwise; to back up that all the others are Messiahs too? Nothing; you've got bubkiss. So please wipe that condesending tone off your keyboard.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "70 and 1 explanations" for every concept? I believe it's "hadith & zahir" in Farsi. It means that for every concept there are 70 spiritual translations for the one literal. It's often confused to mean there are endless explanations for these. But that's not what it means at all. It means that there's one literal translation; like: He's literally the Messiah as he was an "offshoot of the rod of Jesse", and qualifies by being from the tribe of Judah (it's a physical title, remember?). And, there are 70 spiritual explanations; like: "Christ is an Expression of the Divine Reality, the Single Essence and Heavenly Entity, which hath no beginning or ending". Both apply as the Writings confirm that there are 70 and 1 explanations: 1 literal and 70 spiritual. Class is dismissed, and this discussion is ended.

Jeff Feb. 20, 2006

I always waited for the bell and the instructor's dismissal before leaping up.

I'm not inventing the idea that all the Manifestations of God are equal, and that each is the return of all the others. This is basic to the Bahá'í Faith.

That each religion is waiting for a "return" or "promised One" is clear here:

"In the Bible the Jews have the promise of the Lord of Hosts and the Messiah; in the Gospel the return of Christ and Elijah is promised.

In the religion of Muhammad there is the promise of the Mihdi and the Messiah, and it is the same with the Zoroastrian and the other religions,..."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 39)

"The followers of all religions have been expecting the coming of a promised one and have longingly prayed for the dawn of the sun of truth."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 169) (Emphasis added.)

That the Baha'i teachings are explicit that each Manifestation of God is, in fact, the return of all the others, and hence the promised One, is likewise:

"It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendour. Wherefore, should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: "I am the return of all the Prophets," He verily speaketh the truth. In like manner, in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact, the truth of which is firmly established."

(Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 153-154. and Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 52) (Emphasis added.)

Note: "Same" is repeated five times.

"This is the unity of those Essences of Existence and illimitable and inseparable Suns. Consequently if one of these Holy Manifestations says, "I am the return of all the Prophets," it is true. Likewise in every subsequent Manifestation, the return of the former Manifestation is realized."

(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 42) (Emphasis added.)

"We believe in that which Jesus Christ and all the Prophets have believed. For example, the Báb states, "I am the return of all the Prophets." This is significant of the oneness of the prophetic virtues, the oneness of power, the oneness of bestowal, the oneness of radiation, the oneness of expression, the oneness of revelation."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 168) (Emphasis added.)

Note: "Oneness" is repeated six times.

"Each is the return of the others" seems rather explicit to me. And if Bahá'u'lláh is the "Messiah", then so are both Muhammad and the Báb. Saying that one of these is, and the others aren't, misses Bahá'u'lláh's own explicit statements. Bahá'u'lláh's being the latest, does not make him the best, or more equal. And yeah, y'all do seem to be making this up.

And where is your source that one of the "meanings" of any of the scriptures must be literal? Bahá'u'lláh has this to say on literal interpretation:

"It is evident unto thee that the Birds of Heaven and Doves of Eternity [the Manifestations of God] speak a twofold language. One language, the outward language, is devoid of allusions, is unconcealed and unveiled; ... The other language is veiled and concealed, ... In such utterances, the literal meaning, as generally understood by the people, is not what hath been intended. Thus it is recorded: "Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá'im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth." He also saith: "We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain."

These things We mention only that the people may not be dismayed because of certain traditions and utterances, which have not yet been literally fulfilled, that they may rather attribute their perplexity to their own lack of understanding, and not to the non-fulfilment of the promises in the traditions, inasmuch as the meaning intended by the Imams of the Faith [Islam] is not known by this people, as evidenced by the traditions themselves. The people, therefore, must not allow such utterances to deprive them of the divine bounties, but should rather seek enlightenment from them who are the recognized Expounders thereof, so that the hidden mysteries may be unravelled, and be made manifest unto them."

(Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 254-256) (Emphasis added.)

The pre-supposition, that there must be a literal interpretation for every scripture, will lead one down many blind and dark alleys.

You want to put up the BUPC position that some Prophets are more equal than others? Fine, but please don't take down or misrepresent what the Baha'i Faith actually teaches: "in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact"

MARussellPESE 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Thanks for your input, MARussell. You've shared a lot to consider here. I've always found it challenging to convey obtruse concepts into snippets, for something always gets lost along the way. There appears to be an abyss between our doctrines, and yet when I meditate on what you present, it's probably not as wide a gap as one would think. You see, the BUPC are in no way at variance with "Each is the return of the others". This is a concept which we in fact do agree on, and does not conflict with the BUPC maintaining that Jesus and Baha'u'llah were "Messiah"; for the Messiah is a material title applying to two specific Manifestations, whereas Promised Ones are spriritual titles and stations. The two are separate issues, and I for one have never denied anything you're accussing me of; nor have the BUPC maintained that any Manifestation is "extra-special". That is a creation you have attempted to project onto our beliefs, and quite undeserving when I've gone to great lengths to address the fact that we do teach in our Firesides that very concept that all the Revelations are of the same Origin and that all the Manifestations are equal. Nonetheless, I cannot understand why you cannot differentiate between thes two ideas, when they seem plain as day to me. We are not talking about the "returning" of Messiahs (for these are prophecies of ones to come in the future), but rather that two specific Manifestations were Messiahs from the House of David. The writings don't attempt to use this title synonomous with Promised One; but you have been the originator of that idea, and haven't shown any Writing to resolve my objection to your insistance that this is a commonly held Bah'ai belief. It certainly is not a concept Explicit to the Writings. Messiah is a specific title with specific meaning and is only ever used in reference to Jesus and Baha'u'llah in the Writings. The Bab refered to himself with specific titles as well; He did call himself the Mihdi, but never the Messiah. Curious. Maybe that's because he knew he wasn't a Messiah ben David (annointed descendant of David).

But, I digress; I prefer avoiding talking around and around the same subject as we have already done here. Anyone who looks at the BUPC's teaching can see that we teach the proofs for all the Manifestation, and give them all equal honor. There isn't a word in the sacred Writings that we turn away from, God forbid! We obviously have different understandings on some of Their content. But even if we never can agree on these details, I know that we all go to sleep at night and thank the same Creator; that we each are serving His Cause the way we see fit. In that I hope we can agree. I also hope we can agree that nothing that ever comes up in discussion is ever meant to hurt the other, but that "through the contrast of differing opinions the spark of truth may arise". Jeff March 7,2006

BUPC section

Whoa Nellie! This section takes up more that two-thirds of the entire article. Can this section be edited down to succinctly identify these beliefs and then point to an external link for detail? This is a disertation, and disproportionately overshadows the long-standing Jewish-Christian dialogue on the subject. This section really pushes the Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies envelopes. MARussellPESE 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually meditating on this after I recreated the section last night, and I came to a similiar conclusion about linking to full explanations. I did it with Baha'u'llah's date. It's a challenge to try and widdle the subject down without citing verses and doing the math. I will scale down appropriately, as it's a great suggestion.

FTR, I was suprised at this article's lack of content before I added to it. It contained two teenie sections concerned with 3 or 4 prophecies, in contrast with the several dozen in the scriptures. They are barely interesting at that, when contrasted with the myriad of facinating prophecies about the Messiah. It's hardly my fault if there aren't any other concerned parties expanding upon this theme, for it's not due to lack of subject matter. I didn't set out to dominate it, or "soapbox" it. Since the BUPC teaches these things as tenets and core introductory beliefs, I wanted them reflected here. The summary is actually a 3 hour class in a mustard seed shell. This is not my original research, BTW. I extracted the info from Entry by Troops, and the date explanation comes right from SAQ's chapter 10. But, I would put the challenge out to Christians and Jews to expand upon this wonderful page to have a well rounded article instead of asking the BUPC to significantly reduce the content to equal the mediocracy of the other parties concerned. They should rise to the occassion, not complain because I have. Please call me out on this if I'm wrong. Jeff Michaud Feb. 7, 2006

CAN WE ALL AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING?

There needs to be a separate article titled Messianic Prophecy that talks about the concept of messianic prophecy a la the original (much shorter) article?
"Messianic prophecies" should be a disambiguation page with links to various articles:

Messianic Prophecies (Protestant)
Messianic Prophecies (Roman Catholic)
Messianic Prophecies (Messianic Judaism)
Messianic Prophecies (Islam) (and perhaps even pages for the various sects)
Messianic Prophecies (BUPC)
Messianic Prophecies (Jewish)
etc.

(By the way, from a theological perspective, I agree with a lot of the material Jeff posted about those particular prophecies being fulfilled even though I think the original post violated NPOV.) I agree that Jeff's revised post does not violate NPOV because it (I assume) accurately states a particular group's views.

The multiple-article approach will also have some practical aspects:

Someone who wants to learn about the concept of messianic prophecy really doesn't want a religious diatribe from any particular religion. If they want to know what a particular religion thinks they can check the "See also" section of the Messianic Prophecy article.

This will minimize having people with no knowledge of a particular religions' views edit that religion's section. (Happens all the time in the Messianic Judaism article.)

As pointed out in other comments above, there is the certainty of edit wars if people from various religions start posting in the same article. In practice, if there are separate articles, Protestants will post mainly in the Protestant article, Catholics in the Catholic article, etc. (By the way, Eastern Orthodox consider themselves "Catholic", which is why the other article would be Messianic Prophecies (Roman Catholic).)

Estimates are that there are several hundred messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. If we start listing actual prophecies in a single article we could wind up taking ALL of WP's disk space! "Roman Caholics interperet Hezikiah 1:2 as . . ." "Orthodox Judaism interprets it as . . . " "Evangelicals interpret it as . . .", etc.

If this is okay, I'll subdivide into the various articles.

In the immortal words of Arnold Schwartzeneger, "I'll be back."

RickReinckens 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insightful considerations. Agree on all points. Excellent approach. I particularly think your proposed robust "See also" section and disambiguation page in the root article indicates an even-handed approach. MARussellPESE 04:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTIONS:

1) How do we handle:

Messianic Prophecies (Christian)
Messianic Prophecies (New Testament)
Messianic Prophecies (Old Testament)
Extra-biblical messianic prophecies (of various religions)

Obviously, anything in Messianic Prophecies (New Testament), etc., will wind up being some particular POV and have the same POV & edit war problems. I'm thinking we could set up re-directs to the disambiguation page with a note in the various pages' Discussion or maybe an HTML comment not to change the redirect page to a new article.

RickReinckens 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off - Great Idea! Strong agree on all points, and ditto the rest of what MARussell wrote. I say leave them blank. No sense in trying to control anticipated behaviour.

Can I just give an observation without offending you, Rick? You seem to be preoccupied with POV. It seems to me that the very foundation of the 22,000 different Christian sects, 22,000,000 Hindu sects, etc., is that they each have their own POV. Obviously, right? That's why they have separated and created the schism in the first place. It can't be avoided, in my POV, without pasteurizing the pool. On many religious pages the views of different groups have their say, side-by-each. Religious pages are sprinkled with POV throughout. The reason they can be is they are verifiable and referenced. We have to distinguish the difference between a particular group's published POV, and an editor's personal unpublished POV. In that there's balance. The "Verifiable, not true" policy protects all religious group's 1st amendment right to practice and believe what they beleive. We all believe we have a franchise on the truth. If it weren't for this policy, each editor's version of the truth could negate the previous contributor's.

Besides, who cares? Edit wars are so much fun. Kidding. I say we leave them blank and let the policies prevail on article content as they begin to expand. It's gotten Wikipedia this far, hasn't it? Jeff Feb. 18, 2006

Jeff, look through the history of the Messianic Judaism and Intelligent Design pages. Also check Talk:Good_ol'_boy_network. My personal opinion about some of the Wiki NPOV stuff is that is is absurd. Are we supposed to give equal time to Holocaust deniers and cite the guy in Iran as a verifiable source? There are many things, e.g., religion, politics where it is impossible to really maintain NPOV. I think I mentioned somewhere here that I mentioned "messianic pretender" on a disambiguation page and gave the example of Theudas mentioned in the Bible and some administrator deleted it because "it violates NPOV and SOMEONE might get offended." He also said I can't use the term "pretender" because it is "emotionally loaded". My reaction was, "That is the term and I didn't create it."

The main problem is with pages where both Jews and Christians will regularly be contributing. As soon as you get that you will get into constant edit wars. The worst part is that literally half the people editing don't know what they are talking about. You get Jews who have never studied anything about Jesus or Christianity deleting or changing things that they interpret as antisemitic although their interpretation would never even occur to a gentile and you get Christians who are taught that the Church replaced Israel and that all Jewish leaders in Jesus' time were a bunch of legalistic hypocrites who understood absolutely nothing about the Bible, God, etc. (And, by the way, since people assume I fit into one of those two groups--like most people--on a weekly basis I attend a pentecostal Protestant church and a Messianic synagogue and a Reform Jewish synagogue. (And I was raised Roman Catholic.) So I see first-hand what each group thinks of the other groups.

Unfortunately, WP does not say, "Verifiability overrides NPOV." Both policies apply. If verifiablity could override NPOV, then anyone could load up an article with NPOV violations and just say, "Hey, I provided totally verifiable sources." Using the Holocaust example again, someone could create an article titled Holocaust and have nothing but material that they could verify was obtained from Holocaust deniers. True, someone would eventually find the article and change it. But in other cases it's not so simple. Again, the Messianic Judaism and Intelligent Design articles are examples. They are so one-sided that people with other points of view eventually stop trying to make the article NPOV. I don't know if it was ever accepted (because I gave up contributing to the MJ and ID articles) but I suggested creating a template to the effect "This article deals with a topic that generates strong POV violations despite

By the way, because of its policies, Wikipedia doesn't come under the First Amendment. In order to do so it would have to give favoritism to the U.S. For instance, I recently put "foreign country" in an article and someone responded, "The term 'foreign country' is meaningless in Wiki," because that takes the U.S. as "center". Again, it's stupid, but that's the reality of what happens if you try to make everything really "neutral". You know the old argument: "We can't call the suicide bombers who kill innocent babies on buses 'terrorists' because one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'."

As the other commentor on this pointed out, especially with religion there is the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" rule. Frankly, I would love to put a bunch of religious material on Wikipedia. I have thousands of pages of Christian religious materials but to put it up I would have to put responses to everything to avoid violating NPOV. That's why in the Messianic prophecies article it says, "Examples cited by Christians and Christians view these. I am the one who put that. I also wrote most of the Skeptics' response section—specifically to avoid POV complaints.

The real problem with listing specific prophecies (rather than examples of types) is that just quoting the Bible alone will take huge amounts of space. The Did God Lie? and Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus sites cited go on for pages basically just using Bible quotes. (There is also the practical matter that all modern translations with any reputation are copyrighted and many people can't understand KJV-era English.)

I'll start splitting things up tomorrow.

RickReinckens 09:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Great work, Rick! Hats off to this great contribution you've accomplished. Thanks for your time and energy in creating the disambiguation pages. Jeff March 7, 2006

The above named disambiguation page was deleted according to this 'Articles for deletion' discussion. --Ezeu 12:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]