Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel of Matthew 5 According to Advaita Vedanta.


 * 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 of the debate was delete as original research. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  21:12, Dec. 25, 2005

Gospel of Matthew 5 According to Advaita Vedanta.
I actually find this very interesting, but is appears to be original commentary and however interesting, it does not appear to qualify as a Wikipedia article. The author is obviously highly intelligent and I hope his genius will be used to improve Wikipedia in other ways. File Éireann 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I hope that we can keep internecine problems out of the discussion. I understand my commentaries are not accepted by modern Christianity but no doubt would be more acceptable to the Essenes, whom I believe Jesus was a member. Also as it is widely accepted generally that Jesus studied in India, my commentaries from an Advaita point of view would not be far fetched--Aoclery 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)..........Tony
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. &mdash;Preost talk  contribs  18:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. KHM03 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. A line or two in essenes or advaita would be nice. Plenty of advaita teachers reffer to Jesus, just keep that clear- that Advaitas look to Jesus, not Jesus IS advaita. Sethie 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * After thought, redo this article, either as it's own piece or as a section in advaita. Don't go verse by verse, instead quote some advaita teachers who reffer to jesus, a quick summary of advaita and a few verses. It is not origonal research at all, it is common for Hindu teachers to quote Jesus and say his teachings are in line with advaita... just make it more of an article and less a piece of spiritual literature.Sethie 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure I could edit this into the Advaita Vedanta page, but I doubt it would last. I doubt it would even survive as a reference...I shall have another look at it--Aoclery 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)..........Tony.

I think I will call Jesus 'Humpty Dumpty' that way only Shakespeare could be offended....--Aoclery 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony. I suppose it is an interpretation of the term 'original research'; the Gospels are hardly original. I have offered an interpretation that is not the usual but would be accepted in an Eastern Philosophical sense. I'm just basing my article on what I have seen in other articles, where much interpretation and explanation has taken place. Also on the statement on guidelines about the socialist workers party's paper being less reliable than the NY Times..that again is only opinion. NY Times has recently published some glaring errors. If it is to be deleted....so be it--Aoclery 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)...........Tony. Perhaps it would be better as an external link as a footnote to an article on Eastern Philosophy.....--Aoclery 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony.
 * Delete as per JIP. DeathThoreau 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Summarize and merge into Matthew 5 and its subpages. - SimonP 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ReferenceThis was for Thomas but it applies to Matthew also... Here is a academic opinion on these purports by the venerable professor..............Tony O'Clery.

"V. Krishnamurthy"  wrote: > > > > > Namaste, > > > > I have written a commentary on this gospel at this site. > > > > http://www.geocities.com/aoclery/Jesusbook/Thomasgospel.htm > > > > I hope you will appreciate it....Tony. > > Namaste, Tony-ji > > I just browsed through your site on the Gospel of Thomas. It is > wonderful. I shall keep reading it more and more in detail. In the > meantime I recommend it to all the members of this list for their > reading. Your purports are illuminating and refreshing from an > advaitin's point of view. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. > > PraNAms to all seekersd of Truth. > profvk. Got itWikipedia isn't a magazine....--Aoclery 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony


 * 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.