Talk:Beatitudes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beatitudes article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

"Central proclamation"? Sounds like an oppinion, and it's not backed up with anything. Jesus taught a lot of things. I'm going to reword it. - kpearce

Contents

[edit] To Do

  • Context within the passage
    • Before
    • Afterwards
  • Context of the assertions
    • Interpretations.
      • Yancey's aggregation of interpretations in films.
      • Historical
      • Contemporary

Do you think that the Beatitudes have anything to do with international business?

[edit] Henri Nouwen

I don't want to know who is Henri Nouwen, and what he is doing in the first phrase. Some politically correct crap? --MvR 22:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meek literally means reserved, i.e. keeping oneself to oneself, but this totally contradicts evangelical theology

No authority cited. How does he come to this conclusion. Will edit opinion out.

I still see no citation, either. I'm going to edit it out. I have never read this in any commentary, Christian, linguistic or otherwise. (I realize this does not mean it cannot exist anywhere in any published and authoritative work)
This is what was removed:
The literal meaning of many of the beatitudes is not always regarded as acceptable by various groups, who instead prefer to reinterpret the passages to conform with their own theology. Meek literally means reserved, i.e. keeping oneself to oneself, and so a large number of groups instead feel that the beatitude regarding the meek should be understood as a rephrasing of the one concerning the poor, with both poor and meek being understood to mean humble or powerless. With the same two beatitudes, in order to make them rephrasings of each other, it is necessary to interpret earth not as referring to the physical planet, but instead an allusion to some esoteric holy land. Particularly in early Christianity, some have sought to view the reference to mourners as referring to mourning one's sinfulness, but this does not fit with the theology that was around at the time in which Matthew was written, whereby sin was regarded as something that should be hated not mourned.
There are just so many claims in there about the meaning of words, the understandings of various groups throughout time and space, pulled together to give a single view without citation. Does not seem appropriate. Chrismon 22:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche

It might bear noting, as an example of a critical cultural reference, that Nietzsche considered the beatitudes the paradigmatic example of what he derided as a "slave morality" or "herd morality" - a perverse inversion of the Will to Power. Matt2h 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Who is Marc L. Garcia? Why is he assuming authorship? The content from First Beatitude to The Ninth Beatitude? is written by me. I haven't edited the previous text out of respect for those who made the effort of writing it, but I dislike the idea of someone else assuming my work. Radu Comanescu 14:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I've just dropped in to reference the article - so I'm not going to presume to edit on a flying visit.

Why are the verses comprising The Beatitudes not quoted before discussion at such length? It seems a touch perverse not to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.168.25 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement problems

Judging from the history of this article, it appears that significant portions of it were copied from this source. The author of that source is identified as Michelle Ostby in the document properties. If Michelle is not the one who also wrote this document (or does not give permission for it to be here), then it needs to be fixed ASAP or added to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. An obvious approach is to revert this article to a version prior to when this copyright violation occurred. I'd like to get some consensus (or hear from Michelle) before taking any action. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I might have over-reacted a bit. The phrase I searched on was "Each of the blessed individuals is generally not considered blessed". That and portions after it have definitely been copied from that document (and not sourced or quoted). Other parts sound like they've been taken from religious sources, but I have no evidence of that. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Another possible hit is on the phrase "We can understand now that this purification through vengeance and punishment is", although it's entirely possible that other sources copied from this article and not vice-versa. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kodjak

"Kodjak" is simply referred to without introduction. Are we to know how he is? I think his name shouldn't be in the opening paragraph unless there is some link involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmoor (talk • contribs).

Agreed. A little wikisearch lead me to the belief (which could be wrong, mind you) that it refers to Andrej/Andrei Kodjak who, evidently, is a biblical scholar. This might be relevant later on, but not in the lede, and should probably say "biblical scholar Andrei Kodjak", where "scholar" could be alternatively "researcher" or "commentator". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Or, I could have just checked the references:

Kodjak, Andrej. A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount. New York: M. de Gruyter, 1986.

Perhaps "author Andrej Kodjak" should replace "Kodjak", and the whole sentence moved somewhere else. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Just to clarify my latest quasi-reversion, see WP:WEASEL. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I in-lined the references that I could, but there are still 7 references that need to be attached to what they support. Any help would be appreciated. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a 'references' tag to the page. Revolutionaryluddite 00:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for analyses

The analyses of specific beatitudes should be supported with sources. As things stand, we don't know if they aren't just the opinions of the editor who added them. Besides, as usual in such cases, specific parts of these analyses seem to reflect just one of the existing views. For example, the text of the article itself acknowledges that there are differences in opinion as to whether there are real differences between Matthew and Luke concerning the "poor" and "hungry" parts. Nevertheless, in the sections devoted to these specific beatitudes, only the "no contradictions" opinion is represented as correct.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

super fuck