User talk:Kayemevans

Welcome!

Hello, Kayemevans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Cursing of the fig tree did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cursing of the fig tree, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The sources which you have posited are not WP:RS. See WP:GOTQUESTIONS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cursing of the fig tree have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TGeorgescu. I would ask that you review the original article, which attempts to give definitive meaning to the symbolism contained within this story. You'll see that the article states that the story represents Jesus cursing Jews because they don't believe in Him - that is a far cry from scholarly or educational, and it's certainly not correct. Further, there is no one definitive explanation for the this story. Symbolism, by nature, is speculative, and a multitude of explanations can be found. In light of this, I used appropriate language and cited the Scriptures themselves (Biblegateway), as well as a widely-respected theologian (the late RC Sprouls). 68.57.111.202 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sproul was a biblical inerrantist, thus WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia isn't antisemitic, but it describes the New Testament, which is antisemitic. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament was, in fact, written by Jews. Jesus' followers were Jews. The Gospel was spread across the world by Jewish believers, and the Christian church was founded and built by Jews. These are all historic facts that can corroberated through biblical and extrabiblical sources. Jesus Himself - whom the New Testament professes to be the Messiah - is a Jew. Therefore, the New Testament cannot be anti-Semitic in nature, but there are people who come to anti-Semitic conclusions (like the person who wrote the previous version of this article). The apostle Paul's teachings in Romans 11 directly contradict what you've asserted in the above reply, as well as the conclusion of the previous author of the article, who did not even list the correct tree in their attempt to bring meaning to the symbolism presented the story.

I would ask that you review the original article and, at the very least, remove any wrongly definitive (and clearly anti-Semitic) statements. 68.57.111.202 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament was, in fact, written by Jews. Evidence, please.

Therefore, the New Testament cannot be anti-Semitic in nature That's an a priori deduction. Mainstream Bible scholars (MBS) work inductively (i.e. a posteriori).

The apostle Paul's teachings in Romans 11 directly contradict what you've asserted MBS don't assume that the New Testament is a coherent book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irenaeus (circa AD 180) said this: "Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living in Ephesus of Asia."

You can also find writings by Tacitus (Roman historian, early 2nd Century AD), Pliny the Younger (circa AD 112), and Papias (circa AD 125).

The New Testament itself is a collection of historic documents as well. The Gospel of Mark is widely thought (by secular and religious scholars alike) to have been written in 70 AD, with the earliest fragment found (a piece found all the way in Egypt) dates to about 90 AD. Reference: "The consensus of scholarly opinion is that Mark's gospel was composed either in the mid-60s or shortly after 70 CE, in Rome or in Syria. The recognition that Mark's was the first gospel arose from the quests for the historical Jesus." (explanation of the Gospel of Mark by Oxford Bibliographies).

This timeframe is about 40 years after the crucifixion of Yeshua (Jesus), which happened circa AD 30 or AD 33, and the Gospel of Mark is a biography of Yeshua's life as written by John Mark. The earliest of the Pauline epistles (Saul of Tarsus) date back to the early 50s AD - about 20 years after Yeshua's crucifixion - but there's evidence that his conversion was just 2 years after the crucifixion and that his ministry of letter-writing began soon thereafter (it's just the canonized epistles that are dated for the AD 50s and 60s).

Now compare all of this to the biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch - both of which are regarded as scholarly and reliable, and both of which are discussed on Wikipedia, but which were written 400 YEARS after Alexander's death. Biblical writings were happening much sooner after Yeshua's death, and there's far more corroboration from extrabiblical sources for many (if not MOST) of the stories and information found in the Bible.

But, in case that isn't sufficient for you, let's look at archeology. Within the last one hundred years, many archeological digs have corroborated these writings and the stories found in the New Testament. One such example is a reference to someone named Erastus. The apostle Paul referred to him twice (Romans 16:23; 2 Timothy 4:20) and the gentile doctor Luke referred to him once (Acts 19:21-22). Erastus is noted as being a Greek city official (Paul calls him "the city’s director of public works"). Scholars laughed at this passage for many decades because the name Erastus, in essence, means "sexy" in Greek. They asserted that no public official would ever be called Erastus ("Sexy") - and yet, an archeological dig in the 20th Century discovered a placard in the ancient city of Corinth, and it was dedicated to a city official who went by the name Erastus.

Quotes by notable scholars:

"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." - F.F. Bruce (University of Manchester and author of THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE?)

"In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament." - Sir Frederic Kenyon (the British Museum and author of THE PALAEOGRAPHY OF GREEK PAPYRI)

Here some modern extrabiblical sources by notable authors and scholars you can look into. This is just a sampling of the scholarship available on this topic, and there are countless more:

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY? by Paul Barnette (Vine - 1986)

THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS by Craig Blomberg (InterVarsity Press - 1987)

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE? by F.F. Bruce (Eerdmans - 1960)

THE EVIDENCE FOR JESUS by R.T. France (InterVarsity Press - 1986)

THE BIBLICAL WORLD (University of Chicago Press - 1895)

Several books by biblical and historical scholar Bruce M. Metzger (Princeton, St. Andrews University, University of Munster, Potchefstroom University in South Africa, Cambridge, and Wolfson College):

THE NEW TESTAMENT: ITS BACKGROUND, GROWTH, AND CONTENT

THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK BIBLE

TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

INTRODUCTION TO THE APOCRYPHA

THE OXFORD COMPANION TO THE BIBLE (he coedited the THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE WITH THE APOCRYPHA, and he was general editor of more than 25 volumes in the series NEW TESTAMENT TOOLS AND STUDIES.

Achtemeier, Paul J. “Mark, Gospel of.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Edited by David Noel Freedman, 541–557. London and New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Barton, John, and John Muddiman, eds. The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Burkett, Delbert. An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. A good, solid introduction not just to the different books in the New Testament but also to the wider context in which these and other early Christian writings emerged.

Early Christian Writings - A collection of documents from the first two centuries with translations and commentary.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

I could literally provided hundreds, if not thousands, more scholarly references/books/resources/research that contradict what you're saying, and they're authored by both secular and religious scholars (not just religious). I won't hold my breath that you'll read through any of them, and that's fine, but it's notable that you have yet to provide any actual evidence for the anti-Semitic statement made in the original article. The fact that you insist on leaving it up is disturbing. There is no credible reference for such a statement (there was no reference at all added to that particular part of the sentiment - the author admitted the story contained symbolism but then proffered an explanation of the symbolism as so-called "fact").

Again, I'll ask, that you adjust the way the explanation is worded so definitively (when such definitiveness is impossible) and remove the anti-Semitic canard completely. Kayemevans (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To draw the line: Paul was surely Jewish, and John of Patmos and the anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew and the anonymous author of Hebrews were probably Jewish. For the rest, all bets are off.

MBS don't assume that Irenaeus wrote about our Gospel of Matthew.

Wikipedia already has this article: Antisemitism and the New Testament. I advise you to read it. And I advise you to read https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/the-new-testament-some-call-it-jewish

I have probably some Jewish ancestors, but myself do not identify as Jew. So I have no dog in the Judaism vs. Christianity polemics.

To tell it as it is:

Analysis and synthesis of the works of ancient historians is prohibited by website policy WP:OR.
Schwartz has a named chair at an Ivy League university. He is surely competent for the claim made.
If there are any doubts, Wikipedia sides with modern mainstream historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Quoting myself. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]