Talk:Triumphal entry into Jerusalem

PLEASE NOTE, THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT

Article doesn't explain the subject well
I came to this article looking to find the following things, which I've found are not covered in the article: --Ozhiker (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What was triumphal about his entry? - i.e. who had he just triumphed over?
 * Is the meaning of triumphal as per [Roman triumph]?


 * Good point actually. I will get to add that sooner or later. The part about using the donkey rather than a horse works into that, but will need expansion for sure. I will put it on the list. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest to move it to its redirect "Entry into Jerusalem", same as the Commons, less POV. The text could still explain, why some call it triumphant, others not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide a few references to show per WP:Commonname. My search suggested the current name is the common name, but I do not have that now. Since ou are suggesting, burden of the proof is on you now. History2007 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be sure I checked, and Chapter 15 of The Synoptics: Matthew, Mark, Luke by Ján Majerník and Joseph Ponessa is actually called "Triumphal entry into Jerusalem", (as here). Also see here and here. I think the page has the right title. But your comment made me remember "the list" and the meaning of triumphal as asked above, so I should fix that now. History2007 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that a great number of Bibles call it that way. My German Bible says "Der Einzug in Jerusalem", no triumph on a donkey. I think we should remember that chapter headings were later additions to scripture, not without a certain POV. On an international scene, I would therefore prefer to be cautious in the title, s.a.. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The links I provided are not Bibles, they are books about the Bible. What matters is the common usage in the other books, in English. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't argue but will have to do a pipe link then every time I refer to it in non-English surroundings, such as I did for BWV 182. Just for fun: while that was on the Main page, someone added a photo of a donkey, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that is Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Flevit super illam
The chronology of the WP article has lost the reference to Flevit super illam, an expression that shows the humanity of Christ, the awareness of the death on the cross he was going to meet, in order to fulfill the Old Testament's prophecies.

Now it has been replaced again in the WP article (edit 982653362, 9 October 2020).Philosopher81sp (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Maurice Casey does not seem to make an erroneous argument
A quotation from the Article section "The donkey(s)":

"Maurice Casey disagrees and states that the similarity of the event with Zecharia is not sufficient to rule out the historicity of the event and notes that only Matthew mentions a colt (probably attempting to literally fulfill Zecharia's prophecy), while Mark and Luke simply speak of an ass.[21]"

1) The source behind citation 21 doesn't appear to make this claim that Mark and Luke simply speak of an ass? 2) Such an argument also contradicts the known facts that both Mark (Mark 11:7) and Luke (Luke 19:35) used the Greek word 'polon' which translates to 'colt' rather than the Greek word 'onon' which translates to an ass/donkey.

Phytographer (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)