Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. John254 21:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD started by Java7837 on grounds that article is NPOV - but deletion is controversial - discussion required. Fayenatic london (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article is pov and does not belong on wikipedia it only lists supposed prophecies without listing reasons why most biblical scholars reject them as predicting jesus for example

I think it for npov reasons there should be a Messianic prophecies disproving Jesus article why should we not make Messianic prophecies disproving Jesus

Why biblical scholars are skeptical about the prophecies is below

Matthew 2:15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

yet it says

Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

also look at

Matthew 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

"the above prophecy doesn't appear anywhere in the old testament" http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=nazareth&x=0&y=0

This is obviously pov and one runs into the problem of christians disputing what a prophecy supposedly predicting and which one isn't

--Java7837 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- If it is just POV put it might be better to put a pov-check template up and help clean it up.ChrisLamb 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

* Weak Delete- Seems a bit like a indiscriminate collection of information to me ChrisLamb 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep- While I still think that this article is a bit "Listy" it has potential for clean-up, this discussion has gotten ridiculous and should be closed ASAP ChrisLamb 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - POV is not a reason for deletion. Fix the article.--Rocksanddirt 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete cannot be cleaned up from POV problems, no different than Claimed proofs that Jesus was not the Messiah. Carlossuarez46 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Claimed and proof contradict. This article never claimed to proove anything but simply listed. --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? claims and proof contradict? so this article contradicts that Jesus was Messianic because it's about claims? Now that's a twist and further evidences its incurable POV problem. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I sense sarcasm. Twist? Really??? I love English, it's so much more subtle than Russian. In any case, yes, arguably POV but if an entire theological consensus of many Christians, with plenty of sources to back it up, agrees that thus are the messianic verses that align with Jesus, then is it really a non-objective POV?  Rather it's a paradigm of Christian theology.  I could pull up plenty of theological articles regarding different movements and ideas in Christianity, that could be POVs under such an analysis, given that they present the claims of different paradigms.  The only reason this article is in question is because it spills over into a subject that non-Christians care about.... the validity of the Bible. But I think I've said more than enough in all this as I'm getting tired of going back to it. So, hopefully, I'm done. :) --David Andreas 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Okay, controversial no doubt; but this article is very thorough on listing the commonly known messianic prophecies, that even Jews accept as being messianic, regardless of secular retionalistic analysis. I believe the nomination was in bad-faith since it's reason is simply skeptical argumentation.  The article could use an expert on the subject to contribute and make it neutral, but not deletion. Should we delete Christianity simply because someone thinks the religion may be false? Also, Java's argument about the nazarite prophecy is again out of place.  Matthew could have been referring to a number of Biblical prophets in writings that didn't make it into the Bible.  So, if he/she feels inclined, add such an analysis to the article. But geez, this article has plenty of sources. --David Andreas 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment David Andreas Jews don't accept any of those as prophecies i would know i am one --Java7837 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One... --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh yeah a text of a prophet survived all the way to 100 without being mentioned by anyone else and not only that matthew who was a jew had it come on why would a jew being using a text that other reject --Java7837 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- If you are concerned about that please place the POV-check tag on the page and help clean-up ChrisLamb 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment This is not the place for such discussions. Provide a valid reason for deltion without your personal bias involved. --David Andreas 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously make Claimed Prophecies disproving Jesus and i will agree --Java7837 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am ready to make Claimed Prophecies disproving Jesus if this encyclopedia is really npov this would be fine but if i do i know it will be deleted because wikipedia has a christian pov--Java7837 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't disprove anything with a prophecy. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;26t19:53z


 * Speedy keep; POV can be fixed without requiring deletion. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;26t19:53z

Actually i can debunk jesus with 1 prophecy Jeconiah is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in Matthew 1:12 yet Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know?29 O land, land, land,hear the word of the LORD!30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

--Java7837 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead with your proposed article; I'd be very interested to read that. Wikipedia is certainly a place that includes challenges to our own points of view -- there are articles that summarise criticisms of certain Christian beliefs & practices.  Meanwhile, I consider that this article contains matters worth keeping in an encyclopedia.  At present it's unwieldy, having two sections pasted together from different articles, structured by text and by subject; I would like to have the opportunity to edit it and give more prominence to different established viewpoints.  Strong keep. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment-This is not the place for this discussion if you want to add that to Wikipedia please do it at the article Criticism of Jesus or Rejection of Jesus ChrisLamb 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jechoniah is listed as an ancestor of Jesus in Matthew 1:12 yet in Jeremiah 22:28-30 god promises to not allow Jechoniah to have a royal descendent --Java7837 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jesus didn't rule Judah. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;28t18:54z


 * Speedy Keep Come on. ~   Wi ki  her mit  20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3delete ChrisLamb,Java7837,Carlossuarez46 3keep  æ²,David Andreas,Wikihermit
 * Keep. This article sucks, but it should be fixed, not deleted. johnpseudo 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I find myself almost irritated at the unprofessional tone that Java7837 is taking in a complete unfamiliarity with the AfD process: debating the Bible, which is already highly subjective enough, displaying plenty of personal bias, attacking one out of many other religious articles regarding Jesus, pitting person against person in the AfD debate, attacking wikipedia for having a Christian pov (it does?), and cluttered editing - making this even more confusing. I almost want to say WP:SNOW keep for common sense, but maybe someone thinks this is a substantial debate? --David Andreas 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

results 3delete ChrisLamb,Java7837,Carlossuarez46 4keep  æ²,David Andreas,Wikihermit,Johnpseudo --Java7837 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I say give it a day then if we keep the article or not will be decided--Java7837 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

of note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Christian_claims_of_fulfilled_Old_Testament_prophecies the result of the discussion was delete list of christian claims of fulfilled prophecy--Java7837 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh I don't think you read or hear what any of us are saying. Learn the AfD process.... Anyway, if I had a vendetta against the claims of evolution, atheism, and a number of other worldviews than Christianity (which I personally dont) I could likely do as you are doing and pour my bias into AfDs against such articles... because they could be arguably POVs. However, there is a big difference between claims and proof.  Evolution is a claim (theory) with some scientific evidence, Christianity is a religion with historical, though not necessarily moral, validity. Since this article is listing the claims of Christians regarding messianic prophecies, then it is arguably objective in that it is displaying the Christian paradigm on these prophecies.  The title itself says "claimed" not proof. Like Merzul said below, if a an actual Judaist contributed it would find more balance.  But deletion, simply because it is the POV of Christians on the prophecies, is unnecessary as long as counterpoints can be contributed.  Give the article some time and it will likely improve.  But I don't think Java should be the one to contribute these counterpoints. --David Andreas 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I say the results of the dispute should be done when there is 50% + two or more voting for keep or delete --Java7837 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the above for the end of tomorrow though --Java7837 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)so if there is 1 pushing for
 * You seem unfamiliar with the process here at AfD. If discussion is heated, especially as close as this one, the full 5 days is warranted. Given this was only begun on the 26th, that means it will not close until July 1. I am not !voting in this one, but I would suggest you take some time and read through various older AfDs to get a feel for the process. -- Kesh 02:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Java7837, please don't tally responses. AfD is not a vote. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;27t06:32z
 * So there was no need to use your sockpuppet, but having done so you should not have deleted the response either. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fully agree with JohnPseudo (see also here). Something should be done about this article, but there is enough material here to make at least an encyclopaedic list. I wouldn't mind each prophecy having a Jewish response as well (as long as it is sourced), because it is great to know how people interpret these prophecies differently, but these NPOV concerns should be addressed on the talk page. --Merzul 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix As the creator of this article, I have to remind critics of its purpose, and that is to list and explain the Old Testament verses which are interpreted by a reasonable number of people to be prophecies. But, in order to be included in this article, one must supply a legitimate reference to prove that what he or she is writing is not original research.  I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a necessary article, a crucial one for anyone studying religion;  this is simply a matter of upholding Wikipedia policies. AdamBiswanger1 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete It presents only one pov. By reading the article, I felt that I was led to believe the "claim" by the structure of article. It should refer to the counter arguments. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.145.47 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 June 2007
 * It does refer to them. Everybody agrees that it needs to do so more prominently.  The article should and can be fixed, and does not need to be deleted. Fayenatic london (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep this article is about what a particular Christian belief is, in other words, what the Christian POV is. If accurately expressing what specific religious beliefs are is grounds for an article's deletion, then every article about religious beliefs from Abrahamic religion to Zoroastrianism should be deleted. Edward321 03:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.