Talk:Abomination of desolation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Distinction Between Scholars and Commentators

This distinction must be maintained, particularly in the Interpretation section of the article. Otherwise it loses all sense of a reference and instead becomes Christian propaganda. This is not to say that that was the intention of the author, only that editors of the page should be careful. 75.57.110.36 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

abomination of desolation = nuclear war?

Could the abomination of desolation be a reference to nuclear war? Google gets plenty of hits so I'm not the first to think of this. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abomination+of+desolation%22+nuclear+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&sourceid=Mozilla-search Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the bomb was the first thing that came to mind when I read "abomination that maketh desolate". However, it seems little more than speculation, and does't seem to gibe with the idea of "setting it up" in Jerusalem. 24.250.141.170 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" ?

His own sacrifice to cease?

InfinitelyWhipped (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Non-admin closure •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

requested move

Support - or just move this doesn't require a RM, clear case of WP:CAPS. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

In order to maintain Wiki standards, per the second of the Five Pillars, this article must be neutral, in order to avoid presenting one point of view as "the truth" over all other points of view. The statement that the book of 2 Thessalonians in the Bible is "...now believed by all critical scholars to be a pseudepigrapha" (which also cited no reference) does not meet these standards of neutrality. Use of the words "all", "most", or "some", when used in this manner, indicate a false consensus, when no such consensus can be proven. How does the author know that "all" scholars are in agreement? This statement then becomes anti-Christian propaganda. --MichaelAWilson (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As for truth, that recalls one i forgot to add to the discourse. "man does not love by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of god". So we shoild also be respectfull that Truth is everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.241.13 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2015‎

Wikipedia is about wp:Verifiability, not truth; specifically it's not about wp:Truth, wp:The Truth, Truthiness, the wp:The Most Important Thing Possible, wp:common knowledge, or what anyone is completely sure is right. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Saul of Tarsus (the THING) Abomination standing in the holy place

Saul of Tarsus, a perverted, murderous, Benjamite Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, may have faked a conversion experience on the road to Damascus to infiltrate the followers of the WAY to spy on their freedom in Christ, and to make them slaves.

It was Jesus who warned in both Matthew and Mark's Gospels to Beware the yeast (false teaching) of the Benjamtie Pharisee Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. Saul/Paul of Tarsus was both a Benjamite and a Pharisee who first acted as a Wolf to devour and divide the Sheep (Jesus' Sheep), persecuting them, then as a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (Paul) coming into the FLOCK as one of the Sheep, pretending to be an Apostle.

Saul (aka Paul), the abominable THING, stood in the midst of the Holy (Consecrated) 12 Apostles of the Lamb (the ELEVEN + Matthias). Saul did not belong there. Erichansen1836 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Not a forum, WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Unclear etymology section

The etymology section is unclear because it only uses the English translation of Hebrew words, so it is uncertain exactly what word is being discussed. It seems obvious that an etymology section for a word should mention the word in the original language. On a related note, after reading the section, I have no idea how Jupiter is related to this topic. Please clarify. OtterAM (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The abomination of desolation can be a building

Thsi site which does not state that the Dome on the Rock is the Abomination of desolation, states that a BUILDING can be the fulfillment of the prophecy

https://escapeallthesethings.com/abomination-desolation/

This clue could fit the abomination being a person, a statue or perhaps even a building

and that

The abomination of desolation is not some isolated event but is preceded and followed by key events. Luke's Gospel and a parallel prophecy we will connect in Revelation make this plain. Luke has a slightly different take on the abomination from the other Gospels. While it tells us that the desolation is followed by people having to flee (like Matthew and Mark did above), it also tells us what precedes the abomination:

   Luke 21:20-21, 24 (HCSB) — 20 "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that its desolation has come near. 21 Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains!...

Not surprisingly armies surround and take control of Jerusalem right before her desolation . Also not surprisingly, they do not move on but continue their desolation by "trampling" Jerusalem for a certain period of time called the "times of the Gentiles:"71.174.133.249 (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Islam

Most of the material I added on this section comes from Scolfield's book Daniel out of Order, and I also added references to some Bible passages, both Old and New Testament, which seemed relevant.

There is no way to determine when the daily ceremonies "were taken away" but 606-605 BC would be the earliest and 583 BC the latest. Daniel, along with royalty, priests and other influential men went into captivity in 605-606 along with loot from the Temple. Taking away the priests and the implements of ceremony will surely disrupt "daily" services, never mind having a bunch of armed men guarding and looting the Temple. 583 BC would be the latest as there were no Jews left to do any ceremonies as they all fled to Egypt that year.

On the Dome on the Rock, the various prophecies refer to the Abomination of Desolation as an "IT", so it is a something "set up" on "holy ground" in Jerusalem. The most likely spot would be the Temple Mount, and "set up" is a synonym for "erect" or "build". If someone has knowledge of Hebrew and can check whether that passage can also be translated as "erected" or "build" it would be helpful.

The prophesy by Daniel is "sealed" until it is appropriate for it to be revealed, so the most recent interpretation is the most likely to be correct, as all prior interpretations would be wrong due to the "sealed" status. 71.174.129.238 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Its sealed status isn't objective knowledge, nor mainstream historical scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Just stating that the prophecy ITSELF states it is sealed. That means that the true meaning will not be widely accepted till it is time for it to be accepted. That is a PART of the prophecy. I don't understand your objection.

from 605 BC to 685 AD is 1290 years as is required by the straightforward "a day is as a year" method. I did not make up the "day is as a year" method and I did not make up the answer that the Dome on the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation. Wikipedia has an article on the method, Scolfield uses the method and states that the Dome on the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation. David was taken into captivity in 605 BC and the Temple was sacked that year.

Scolfield uses a variation where the duration (in solar years) is slightly less then the number of years in the prophecy because the prophesy uses the± 360 day year from the old Jewish calendar, while the solar year is 365.25 days. In the slightly longer solar years the duration is slightly smaller. If the measuring stick is longer, the number of units measured is less for the same length measure. Think measuring in feet versus meters. The length is different depending on the units it is measured in.

Scolfield uses this variation of the "a day is as a year" method, believes that the starting point is 583 BC, with an end point is 688 AD, and states that the Abomination of Desolation is the dome on the Rock.

My citation includes a link to a website where you can download a copy of the book to confirm.

Where is the original research?71.174.133.249 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE view, not WP:RS. Therefore not done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your response is a bit lacking in detail. Can you expand on it?71.174.133.249 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, read carefully WP:FRINGE, then read carefully WP:RS, then read carefully WP:SOAP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fringe means not commonly accepted. Can YOU provide proof that it is a fringe position? I've provided two authors as sources. Skolfield has written 11 books (that I know of) on Bible prophecy. The other guy at least one (Amazon shows 3 books of his on sale). Provide some sources that say that these two authors are full of it. https://www.amazon.com/Ellis-Skolfield/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AEllis%20Skolfield

Read the material I posted on this talk page and then explain to me what is "SOAP" about my addition to the article. If there is something I added that is not backed up I have no problem if it gets deleted till I find a source for that particular point.71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo answers listed this as the second best answer to the question "Is the "Dome of the Rock" the "Abomination of desolation"?" https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130730111234AA47awa

Second most likely to be right is not fringe, neither is it fanciful. 71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers fails WP:BLOGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? I shows the COMMONLY accepted answers.71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The powers of WP:PAGs are against you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you stating that commonly accepted answers have to be proven to be commonly accepted answers? and how do you go about that?71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:RS for a start, then read WP:VER. That will do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo answers is verifiable as anyone can go check it. Yahoo probably has dozens of experts on hand to move answers up and down the most likely list so it is more reliable then random people like you or me.71.174.133.249 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, Web 2.0 websites cannot be considered reliable sources. That's part of WP:PAGs which you have to obey since you have legally agreed to the Terms of Use in the first place. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you believe Yahoo answers has been hacked by someone who wishes to push the POV that the Dome on The Rock is the Abomination of Desolation (a laughable position), I can wait a week or two to see if the answers to that question are changed.71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling I am about to get the wikipedia gang bang?

that's when you repeatedly ask to have a discussion, nobody is willing, and then you get banned as disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting for the discuss part of the cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle 71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup! Just as expected. Blocked for being disruptive while the guy who started it and refused to engage in discussion never even got a warning.

So two faced.

Anyway! The reason for most of the reversals are listed as original research. Seeing the material posted on this talk page originating with Irish author Emmett O'Regan (more then likely a Catholic) posted in current section 9, who continues to believe that this material is "original research".

Additional verification can be made http://www.ellisskolfield.net/books by downloading and reviewing the Books "Daniel out of Order" and/or "Islam in the End Times". The author is dead and per the web site he wanted his books to be free to the public after his death, so there are no copyright issues.71.174.127.2 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My response to Jeffro

Daniels prediction on the death of an "Anointed One" being 69 weeks after the restoration of the Temple is also accurate and starts before the second century BC and ends after the second century BC. A decree allowing the rebuilding of the Temple was issue in 445 BC (or so - almost all BC dates are off by a year or two) while Christ died in 33 AC (again or so - there is some question as to the exact year of death by those that don't believe Christ was a fictional character). That gives a span of 478 years (give or take two to four). 69 weeks in "a year is a day" becomes 69 weeks of years or 483 years. Pretty darn close. These years are considered to be 360 day years "prophetic years" and not 365.25 day solar years. Converting the measuring stick from "prophetic years" to "solar years" gives 476 years. Spot on when you consider the impreciseness of the start and end date.

You can now try to convince me that a FICTIONAL character made this FRIGHTENINGLY accurate prediction.

The fact that much of Daniel is a mystery, is no surprise. The Book itself states that the prophecies are SEALED till the end times when "KNOWLEDGE INCREASES". The "end times" is the short form of the the time AFTER the end of "The TIME OF THE GENTILES", which ended when the Jews went home to Israel, restored their nation and took back Jerusalem.71.174.133.249 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear why an editor is 'responding' to me on the Talk page of an article I've never edited. Appears to mostly be a copy-and-paste of material added by the same editor at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure). Anyway, the Adventist interpretation provided above is erroneous. Firstly, there is no evidence Daniel ever existed, and strong evidence that the character was invented as a narrative device to parallel the Babylonian captivity with the later attack on Jerusalem by Antiochus IV. There was no 'decree to allow rebuilding of the Temple in 445 BC', which was instead when Nehemiah was given permission to repair Jerusalem's walls. (The book of Nehemiah elaborates in detail about repairs to Jerusalem's walls but says absolutely nothing about any repairs to the temple.) There is also no evidence for supernatural claims about Jesus, including that he was 'Christ'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Scolfied is an Adventist, and Emett O'Reagen seems to be Catholic.

There is indeed a decree "allowing the rebuilding of Jerusalem" to Nehemiah. By mistake I stated allowing that this refered to the rebuilding of the Temple (I did point out that I would have to review the prophecy of the 70 weeks - so don't expect perfection)

I'll reference an article showing why Daniel was a real person on the Daniel website. The point that strikes me the most is that the whole of Daniel has only 3 Greek words and those were for musical instruments. Kinda hard to believe it was written at a time when (and where) Greek was the lingua fanca.

Daniel predicted many desolations (desolations are decreed) but he includes a time line to only one, and that one is the "abomination of desolation" which will show up 1,290 days after the taking away of the daily sacrifices. Per the "day is as a year" method that would make it 1,290 years (or 1,271 solar years as the Jewish Year was only 360 days at that time)in his future. Whatever likely starting point you go with, either Daniels captivity, the tearing down of the Temple, and the date when the last of the Jews fled to Egypt, the end date is somewhere around 680-700 AD.

Adding in New Testament material, the abomination of desolation is a "something" that will be "set up" at a "place where it should not be".

Abomination in Biblical context refers to idolatry and the worship of foreign Gods. There is only One True God (Jews, Christians and Muslims Agree), but Jews consider the Christian God and the Muslim God to be different from the Jewish God. A Temple (mosque) to a foreign God sitting on the Temple Mounts fits.71.174.127.2 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between far-fetched and outright crazy. No scholar of religion, having a sane mind, would state that Muslims are idol worshipers. That settles it for us. E.g. we don't say that Trump is a idol worshiper because he prayed touching the Wailing Wall. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

see the current bottom of the page.71.174.127.2 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians

Some secular historians consider Daniel to be a fictional character, and the timing of the cutting off of the "daily ceremonies" to a more recent BC period when a foreign king (I think Greek) decided to use the Temple to sacrifice a pig, sparking off a Jewish revolt.

My opinion of secular historians in general is that they are stupid gits. They have thousands of years of recorded history in the Old Testament, meticulously kept by Jews as a religious duty, and decide to ignore it all as fiction. Instead they go around digging all over the place and from what they find try to recreate a timeline of history. The fact that what they come up with is different from what the recorded history of the Old Testament states is not a little bit surprising.

Some secular historians also consider Nebuchadnezer a fictional character, the Jews going into 70 years of captivity a fictional event, and even Jesus as a fictional character.

This is a rant but the article DOES need to reference that some of the interpretations are based on this FICTIONAL DANIEL that historians have come up with and not the PROPHET DANIEL71.174.133.249 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article would also need to have a good reliable source which itself makes that distinction. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP is about WP:FRINGE WP:SOAPboxing, if not about WP:SPAM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Again please provide some proof of YOUR position. As far as I can see everything I used can be backed up by these two sources, and the Bible passages which THESE TWO SOURCES themselves use, some of which I have included and some referenced.71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You're soapboxing for a fanciful interpretation of the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Show me a book or article that states that this position is fanciful. Otherwise that is your opinion.71.174.133.249 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong! The WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it's not fanciful. You still have no reliable source, so you have no allowable edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge daily sacrifices were cut cut off during 3 period of Jewish history, during Davids time, during the PROPHETS Daniels time and during the time when a Greek (I think Greek anyway) sacrificed a pig on the Jewish altar sparking a jewish revolt (this last is the time of the FICTIONAL DANIEL of historians). Why is it fanciful to think that the PROPHET DANIEL used the cutting off of daily sacrifices RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, as compared to the other two, and then following his instructions to add 1,290 years to that time?

Please advise!71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't WP:SCHOLARSHIP for a start. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't understand this objection. My guess is that you can't get your head around the fact that Bible prophecy can be 100% accurate. Daniel specified a starting point to his prophecy, which is either a 25 year span during his lifetime (I included the most likely points in the material I added), hundreds of years before his time or hundreds of years after his time. Which is more of a fanciful position, that he used a starting point hundreds of years before his time, hundreds of years after his time, or DURING HIS LIFETIME. Waiting for your response.71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Daniel wasn't a real person, so he did not have a lifetime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I see! A believer in the FICTIONAL DANIEL. The only problem is that the article is about reference from the PROPHET DANIEL and not the fictional Daniel.71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

From Ivy Plus to US state universities professors teach that Prophet Daniel never existed. So, that's Wikipedia's view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

See rant on historians for my opinion on this. Are you also going to delete every other section of the article that references Daniel because you believe he was fictional or do you just object to my material because it blows your mind and you can't accept it?71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As I told you, the powers of WP:PAGs are against you. Admins will soon enforce them, in case if you doubt this. This isn't Citizendium or Conservapedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia heavily biased for the academic mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to debate this issue as long as allowed to. 71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

to repeat - Are you also going to delete every other section of the article that references Daniel because you believe he was fictional? or is this another question you refuse to answer?71.174.133.249 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for shits and giggles, pretend that there are people out there that believe the PROPHET DANIEL was a real live person, like those BILLIONS of Christians and 10's of millions of Jews, and likely a bunch of Muslims, atheist, agnostics and whatnot.

Again pretend that if this person existed, would he have used an event DURING his lifetime and right in front of his face, an event hundreds of years before he was born or an event hundreds of years after, as a starting point for a timeline. Please do not avoid the question as previously. Be a man and choose what is the most likely starting point he would have used if he existed.71.174.133.249 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

He didn't exist, that's the whole point of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You have to play by our rules or be blocked, I don't have to play by your rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That is just your opinion and could arguably be considered FRINGE. More people believe he existed that don't. Now be a man! Answer the question. Avoiding the question just means that you are finding your position getting weaker and weaker. Again! Be a man! Answer the question! (Apologies if you are female).71.174.133.249 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia game does not get played by your rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you treating this is a GAME and not an attempt to improve the article? Be a man! Answer the question!71.174.133.249 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You have to play by our rules, I don't have to play by your rules. As simple as that, check the Terms of Use, a legally binding agreement for all editors of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of the article is Daniel considered a Prophet or a fictional character?71.174.133.249 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the bulk of mainstream Bible scholarship considers that Daniel was a fictional character, so does Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Another question you refuse to answer. Let's try again. For the purpose of this article is Daniel a prophet or a fictional character?71.174.133.249 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Which part of "he never existed" you don't understand? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

So basically you refuse to discuss Bible prophecy because you believe the prophet never existed? 71.174.133.249 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Copy/paste from Talk:Daniel (biblical figure):

I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing really 'in fact' about it, as there's no evidence that Daniel actually existed (and Ezekiel's reference to Danel actually refers to someone else). But within the narrative, yes Daniel had a 'job' as a 'government official', which he purportedly got from interpreting dreams. The book of Daniel is included among the Writings and he isn't generally regarded as a prophet by Jews. Later claims about Daniel being a 'prophet' for anything beyond the setting of the stories depicted in the book of Daniel are a Christian invention (especially expanded upon by Adventist denominations).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not so! If you accept that the Dome of the Rock is the Abomination of Desolation, then the prediction is FRIGHTENINGLY accurate. Either spot on or at most off by a few dozen years over a 1,300 timeline. Daniel also has a prophecy on the death of Christ (the Anointed One) that is also supposed to be similarly accurate. I need to go research the timing before posting the methodology. His prediction an the conquests of Alexander are indisputably accurate.71.174.133.249 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, that isn't WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it's WP:FRINGE/PS, fringe as in academically fringe, not as in the eye of popular opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Academia does not do Bible prophecy unless it is seminary or Bible school. Per your position you should go and wipe out all wiki articles on Bible prophecies. If you are not up for that then this is a straw man.71.174.133.249 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong for two reasons: we do render notable theology, we just don't render it as objective truth stated in the voice of Wikipedia, and Bible scholars do discuss notable claims of prophecies, they just don't discuss bunk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to put into the article that Daniel was fictional and that these people referencing him and his prophecies are dunces, I certainly won't stop you.

Just be advised that every Christian and Jewish sect believes that Daniel was a living breathing person who lived between 630 BC and 540 BC (give or take a decade on each end)71.174.133.249 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Christianity ain't a sect, got it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what Liberal Christianity believes, but it is Basic that a Christian believes that the Bible (both Old and New) is a work inspired by God, with slight imperfections due to the hand of man. If liberal Christianity does not believe this, then they are not Christians. They just call themselves that.

According to the wikipedia a sect is "A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group. Although the term was originally a classification for religious separated groups, it can now refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles." Here is a question for you? Did Christianity splinter off from Judaism? and Did Jesus consider himself a Jew (assuming he was not a fictional character as some claim)?71.174.133.249 (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to answer your questions, see why at WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that revert/discuss included asking questions to clarify positions? Are you stating you refuse to engage in discussion?71.174.133.249 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@71.174.133.249: I thought I would chime in here that I am a Christian and I do not believe that the Book of Daniel is a historical narrative. My belief is that, just because something is fictional does not mean it cannot be divinely inspired. Fiction can have just as much meaning as history and something does not need to have actually happened in order for us to find meaning in it. Jesus (who was definitely a real person, by the way, as every respectable historian agrees; the only people claiming that he did not exist are crazy conspiracy theorists) taught using parables, which are fictional stories that convey timeless meaning. I see no reason why other parts of the Bible cannot contain parables of a similar nature. You can say that I am "not a Christian" if you like and that I "just call [myself] that", but you would be committing a fallacy in doing so. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Can fiction predict the timing of the death of the Anointed One (Jesus) to the year or at most a few off, as a future event hundreds of years off? The only way it can is if the author was prophetic. I think this means that now we have the variant - Prophetic author of the fictional Book of the Prophet Daniel. Easier to believe that the Books of Daniel was written by the Prophet Daniel. Occam's Razor states that the simplest of the various options has the most likelihood of being true. see the current bottom of the page "Response to Jeffro" on Daniels prediction on the death of the "Anointed One".

One source I am aware of states that if one is aware that much of prophecy deals with Islam, one has a much easier time understanding Bible prophecy. The False Prophet, the Antichrist, The Abomination of Desolation, even the red horseman that will take peace from the world. Islam is such a major force that it simply HAS TO BE INCLUDED in some of the prophesies. Prophecies like the Abomination of Desolation (see my addition to the article).

I can find you sources that state that Nebuchadnezer never existed, and that the 70 year long Jewish exile never happened. Doesn't mean that they are right.71.174.133.249 (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth I also consider myself a Christian, but a non-denominational one, mostly due to the Commandment to keep the Sabath. The vast vast VAST majority of Christians use the first day of the week as the Sabath, but God rested on the seventh day, not the first.71.174.133.249 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course God rested on the seventh day... but which day of our week is that? According to international standard ISO 8601, Monday is the first day of week, which makes Sunday the seventh day. The thing that Seventh Day Adventists keep forgetting is that the week is a cycle, which means that any day of the week could be the "seventh day" as long as it is seven days after the last one.

Regarding the Book of Daniel, you are operating under several false assumptions. First, you are assuming that, if the book contains a true prediction, it could only have been written by Daniel himself in the sixth century BC and not a later prophet. Secondly, you are assuming that any references to a messiah in the Hebrew Bible must be referring to Jesus as the Messiah. The problem is that the word "messiah" (מָשִׁיחַ meshiach) is just a generic noun meaning "anointed one" and could refer to any number of "anointed" individuals. In fact, Cyrus the Great is directly referred to as "a messiah" in Isaiah 45:1 and Ezra 1:1–2.

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks found in Daniel 9:25 has been interpreted all kinds of different ways, with people adding, subtracting, multiplying, and altogether messing around with the numbers trying to make them align with whatever date they want them to. You can make numbers say anything if you play with them enough. The most likely solution is that the prophecy is talking about someone in the 160s BC when the book was written, not Jesus who lived around 160 years later. The "prince who is to come" mentioned in Daniel 9:26 is almost universally regarded by scholars as a reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who reigned from 175–164 BC, which places the prophecy solidly in the 160s BC. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As a Christian it is a serious matter when you take the word of a normal (or mortal) man over the words of Jesus. Jesus refers to Daniel as "the prophet"

see the article in the link for reasons why Daniel was real and the Book of Daniel is nonfiction. http://tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php

On the Sabbath, I invite you to look at any calendar and see which day is the first day of the week and which is last. I also invite you to go to google translate, and see what Saturday converts to in Greek, Italian, Spanish and Russian. Use the speaker option to see how the words sound. Does it sound a whole lot like Sabbath?71.174.127.2 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit war

What do you think of the Islam part? First, it has a notability problem, it has not been shown to be a notable theological claim (WP:SPS sources?). Second, Muslims hate idol worshipers, so being described as such would appall them. The reason for reverts wasn't "Daniel never existed", it was rather "given sources are crappy". If the claim is notable, there should be better sources for it. Otherwise, as it has been said about the Bible: if you torture it enough, it will confess to anything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is an abomination. Based on the content of Daniel and given the context of its authorship, it's no great stretch to conclude that the 'abomination' was Antiochus IV. But that is barely mentioned in the article, and even where it is mentioned, that conclusion is 'brushed aside' in 'favour' of alternative Christian interpretations. The lead should more clearly indicate that the term is not only found in Daniel, and that the period intended by Daniel is not the same period as the later period for which the gospels re-use the same term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(My response above might seem tangential to the question at the beginning of the thread, but the fact is that the Islam section suffers from the same Christian bias as the rest of the article. The use of poor quality Adventist sourcing for that section is particularly inappropriate, and those specific sources don't seen to meet the criteria for reliable sources at all, let alone as an authority on Islamic belief.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:RNPOV, if Ellen G. White stated that A.o.d. is prophesized about Islam, that would be a notable claim. Not historical scholarship, just notable Adventist theology. The RNPOV deal is that theology does not trump history and history does not trump theology, both may be rendered. We have to distinguish between notable WP:FRINGE and non-notable fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The publisher of Skolfield's books is Fish House, which, according to [1], is also casino. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The article only presents Christian views, but the lead misrepresents the source of the phrase as only being in Daniel—a source of which Jews certainly have a perspective, and Muslims probably have some view of that too. The article should provide views other than those of Christians, and the lead should properly represent the actual content. If the views of SDAs about Islam were to be presented, it must be very clearly stated that those are the views of SDAs, not just a subsection that goes straight into the interpretation. (Also, 'prophesized' isn't a word.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

marriam-webster disagrees with you - prophecized is the past tense. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophesize 71.174.127.2 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice how that site provides no separate definition for 'prophesize' apart from linking to the correct word prophesy; the past tense of the correct word is prophesied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles in reference works related to this topic. If someone wanted to go to WP:RX and ask for any of those in Biblical reference sources, and, maybe, in Islam reference sources if such exist, that might be useful. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My two cents are that there are no WP:RS claiming that Muslims are idol worshipers. It's like catch 22: if a source claims that, it isn't WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been in previous discussions where good generally reliable sources get a point or two seriously screwed up, and, for all I know, historically some people might have thrown this around unreasonably. I agree with you on the general point though. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said, if Ellen White stated it, it would not make it true, but it would make it notable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abomination of desolation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227161050/http://www.radikalkritik.de/Mk13%20JHC.pdf to http://www.radikalkritik.de/Mk13%20JHC.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/caligula.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bible Quotations

I'm wondering if there's a reason why the RSV-CE was chosen over other translations. I did a bit of perusal, and I couldn't find any guidance in the Manual of Style. I feel there might be a better choice of translation for the purpose of this article. Also, I'd question the external linking to Bible Gateway. Ehler (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ehler: The Bible Gateway was years ago the preferred way of linking to Bible verses. Meanwhile it has been somewhat deprecated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Caligula and an event in 40 AD

One thing missing from this article is the events in 40 AD, when Caligula threatened to put a statue (of Zeus? I forget) in the temple. He was assassinated before he got around to it, but it caused great concern in Judea at the time and may have produced an early version of the gospel pericope. It's mentioned in several sources and might be worth adding. Achar Sva (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good observation. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Matthew as an eyewitness to the life of Jesus

Consensus was reached to remove unnecessary content. Further contributions are unlikely to be helpful. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have tried a number of times to update the article and display another point of view to the comment, "It is almost certain that none of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus"^[1], referring to Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Regarding Matthew, the historical account in the Bible says Jesus spoke to Matthew and said, "Follow me" in Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and Matthew followed Jesus. Additionally, Matthew is listed as one of the twelve apostles in Matthew 10:2–4, Mark 3:14–19 and Luke 6:13–16. The twelve apostles followed and learned from Jesus while Jesus was on earth.

Given that Jesus spoke personally to Matthew and that Matthew was one of the twelve apostles who followed Jesus around while Jesus was on earth, it seems likely that Matthew actually was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.

How can I display this additional viewpoint on the "Abomination of desolation" page without it being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:4381:1580:AD76:8F97:E7B0:5A0 (talk • contribs)

We "discriminate" against WP:FRINGE views. This is by design. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We must find reliable sources for all major statements. AT the moment we have the statement that the gospels were not by eyewitnesses, and it's from a reliable source. What you wish to add is your own deduction from certain statements in the gospels, so what you need is a reliable source, meaning a fairly recent biblical scholar. Achar Sva (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Reddish 2011, p. 13.

Without detracting from the two responses above, the substantive difficulty here is that there's no evidence the author of Matthew's gospel was the apostle. See Gospel_of_Matthew#Composition_2. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to the responses above, when it comes to applying information from the Bible, inexperienced editors often make the mistake of assuming they can use the Bible as a source, as you did in your most recent attempt to put this information into the article. There are certain situations where a primary source is acceptable, but those are very specific instances and this isn't one of them. You'll need a secondary source. Make sure you understand the difference. Refer to WP:PSTS. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m a little disappointed at the lapse in decorum here. I do not believe It is beneficial to any reader, or participant of this site to have a mob few strike down and or insultingly call a point of view (fringe) without thoughtful and careful consideration. One should be open to discourse that leads to a positive review of the discussion at hand, I.E., (Christ, Matthew, & Disciples.) I keep seeing a word that strike at the source (pun intended) of this debate – and we are not using the same sources.

Considering none of us were present at the time of Christ, we must rely on other sources; Scholars who themselves relied upon decoded scrolls, and literature offering a single point of view until a quorum was convened and those ideas were cemented. But cement breaks and erodes over time, and sometimes new cement can be laid to reinforce the old or start anew. Debating if the Bible can or cannot be used as source material is akin to saying water cannot be a source of why things are wet; it all comes from somewhere!

I encourage everyone to take a step back – let go of ego, and work towards a solution, without trying to break another’s ideas and beliefs. If you believe you are correct in your line of thinking, assist! Use this as an opportunity to share your knowledge and teach or perhaps learn something. As a group you can come to an elected view – At best, you will have built a bridge, earned a new ally, and discovered something new. At worst, you remain closed and harden in your position, which helps only the ego! signed User:Tankemo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankemo (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a great comment, @Tankemo:. Too bad (so sad) it is infrequently attempted and rarely accomplished. Thank you for expousing consideration. Liberty5651 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no lack of decorum in the above discussion. Referring to a view as WP:FRINGE is not an insult - the term has specific usage in editing here, hence the wikilinked reference to the content guideline. The "mob" as you referred to it is nothing more than responses to the original editor as to why their edits were reverted and how they should proceed in the future. The question was asked, and multiple experienced editors responded to give (1) guidance and (2) build consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. To clarify on your question/statement of sources, you cannot use the Bible as a source to say that Matthew was the author of Matthew's gospel. You need to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources (WP:PSTS). In fact, I would recommend that you read the content guideline on the concept of "no original research" very carefully - see: WP:NOR. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Dear Mr. Butler, Decorum starts with the first letter written and ends with a period (.) I encourage you to know the difference. furthermore, I will not argue the merits of your sincerity in this matter, nor am I interested in dabbling in pedestrian platitudes. Please keep in mind that tone of text is everything! I am new, and inexperienced posting to Wiki. You Mr. Butler, are not new - but an experienced ward of these pages, Do you not believe it would be prudent to pace one’s dialogue in a manner that promotes impartiality? If you wish others and myself to understand and even gravitate in the direction of your argument; start with your words. With that being stated, I’d like to come to a consensus with you and others over the following: so, I ask you and others posting here - Can anyone provide a reliable published source that supports (Matthew was not the author of the Book of Matthew’s gospel.) and that (Matthew was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.) As I stated in my previous post: "none of us were present at the time of Christ, we must rely on other sources; Scholars who themselves relied upon decoded scrolls, and literature offering a single point of view until a quorum was convened and those ideas were cemented." I am interested in working with you and others here to find an answer. And since we cannot use our own research as a reliable source, how do you think we should go about coming to a consensus? Or are you not interested in a different view? I await your response. --Tankemo (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tankemo: Go back and carefully read the section of the article that you have an issue with - it specifically says "none of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus" (emphasis on "authors"). Nowhere does it say that Matthew himself was not an eyewitness. If that's what you're coming away with, you're misreading the text of the article. The issue is that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel of Matthew. You shouldn't need to ask for a source for this because it is already properly cited in the article (Reddish, 2011). The page cited is page 13 and you can read it here. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: I am firmly, and clearly aware of the article, so no need to go back. But one article doesn't support the entire argument of either point, nor does one or two articles/sources equal consensus. I will continue this perhaps over the weekend or into next week when I've had more time to reply appropriately. Until then Mr. Butler, you've put a smile on my face and a challenge in my pocket! --Tankemo (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Wikipedia kowtows to MBS and you won't be able to overturn that. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't. Its fate has been sealed since it chose to endorse mainstream academic learning, you know, Ivy League, WP:CHOPSY.

To cut through the craps, if it has not been recently written by MBS, a source discussing Matthew is not a WP:RS, and therefore cannot be WP:CITED in our article.

let go of ego is insulting, I am not prepared to let go of my ego in order that your push WP:FRINGE POVs in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. and work towards a solution, without trying to break another’s ideas and beliefs.—you may have your own ideas and beliefs, but Wikipedia is not the place to ventilate those, see WP:NOTFORUM. Besides, only utterly puerile people have no ego—you're effectively asking me to become infantilized enough to buy into your story. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew is infantile historiography, which does not abide by the historical method. Letting go of Ivy League learning in order to believe puerile stories about the Bible is insulting for our intelligence. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently one source to support the idea, "It is almost certain that none of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus". What happens if one source is found to support the idea that Matthew the apostle/disciple was also the author of the Gospel according to Matthew? Do the sources cancel each other out and the idea that "It is almost certain that none of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus" comes down? JWSorensen22 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The ideal is to find a source that says "a majority of scholars..." or words to that effect - Reddish doesn't say that. If someone does find a source that says Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel, we'd need to go looking for a source that gives an opinion on the majority view. Let's leave it for now. Achar Sva (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The topic is actually covered more in depth at Gospel of Matthew (which of course makes sense), there are 4-5 additional sources there. Ultimately, that's where the discussion really belongs anyway. The more I read this article over, the less I like the sentence as written - it creates confusion for the reader (and thus becomes an unnecessary lightning rod). The point could be made just as well with only the "Mark was the source used by the authors of Matthew and Luke for their "abomination of desolation" passages" part (or something similar). I can agree with leaving it for now, but would like to see it edited, rephrased, or dropped (provided there is discussion and consensus) since it is not the hook this section of the article hangs on. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It does seem irrelevant. Achar Sva (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWSorensen22: If the WP:CONSENSUS is that it has to go, it has to go. Anyway, Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew is not a mainstream academic idea, it is not mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I hope you are doing well today. It seems we are all after the truth here, not necessarily what is mainstream or the consensus. Though it would be nice if we can all agree. I am holding out hope we will find what we are looking for. JWSorensen22 (talk)

@JWSorensen22: If you want the Truth, see WP:THETRUTH. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not "Truth". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWSorensen22: You've got it exactly backwards. Consensus is what we're after. When editors on Wikipedia speak of "consensus," they (we) are talking about how we arrive at decisions and conflict resolution. That's how we work here. Please review (and understand) WP:CONS before proceeding. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to eyewitness sources as that seems to be the general feeling here. Full disclosure: I was the one who put it there in the first place. Achar Sva (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in saying this, but I wanted to say thank you to everyone for listening to my concerns here. JWSorensen22 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia will never state as an objective fact that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, since that's WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Be careful with the word "never". You may be surprised at what sources you might find, if you desired them. JWSorensen22 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That ship has long since sailed. When will the Ivy League teach that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew? Answer at WP:SNOW. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem awfully defiant for someone who claims to just go with the Ivy League flow. JWSorensen22 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot. I know very well that your claim cannot be mainstream history. Don't offend my intelligence. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

JWSorensen22, the line you objected to was removed because it was deemed irrelevant ,not because it was incorrect. Matthew as author is rejected by the majority of scholars today: or what it's worth, here are the arguments:

The gospel was written in Greek, and displays a level of sophistication in that language which one would not expect in a Galilean toll-collector;
Matthew based his gospel on the gospel of Mark, whom nobody claims to have been a companion of Jesus, plus the "sayings" source known as Q - why would someone who had known Jesus base his account on that of someone who had not, and a collection of sayings of unknown origin?
Papias, the source of the tradition of Matthean authorship, describes what Matthew wrote as a collection of sayings, but the gospel is not a collection of sayings;
The gospel of Matthew is the only gospel which has a disciple of that name - in the other gospels the toll-collector is called Levi. Did Matthew exist, or was he an invention? The clue lies in the meaning of his name.

I'll answer that last point, since it's a bit obscure: Matthew means Gift of Yahweh in Hebrew, but in Greek (the gospel was written in Greek) "Mathetes" means a student (as does Talib, the root of Taliban - interesting how history rhymes), so that the name Matthias means a "learned disciple" bringing God's gift. Achar Sva (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone who is a little more learned needs to work on this.

Pay closer attention to the text your elaborating on. 172.58.107.51 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Masked revert

@Achar Sva: you just reverted my two edits with the summary "edit separated statements from sources, created inferior internal links, and other minor problems".

My copyedits however, added and improved wikilinks, including avoiding unnecessary pipe-links per WP:NOPIPE. Your revert didn't avoid any sources being cited at the end of different sentences, as I didn't move any. Could you please explain your intent? UpdateNerd (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologise and have done a self-revert. Looking over it, I can't see what I was talking about.Achar Sva (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

[FOOTNOTEReddish201113-1] Reddish 2011, p. 13.

[1]