Talk:Beatitudes

older

"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 02:10, 12 March 2003‎

To Do

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJones (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that the Beatitudes have anything to do with international business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.237.200 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sine Nomine (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It seems to me also that in the construction of:

"The beatitudes present only in Matthew are:

The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".

The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".

The pure of heart. The text says that they will "see God".

The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God"."

The repetitive "The text says..." breaks up the flow, and does not offer a correct version of the Beatitudes to the reader. Indicating one of a few classic translations as source, and putting the individual Beatitudes in quotes would make for a more readable article. "The text says" could be used once at the top of the list with no loss of information. Anyone have a problem with that modification? I will check back in a couple of days to see of there is any comment, and if not, go ahead and do the clean-up. Tellurium130 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, though the article clearly cites Matthew 5:3-12 the chapter and verse of Luke is omitted. For completeness, we should consider including the citation in the discussion along with Matt. 5:3-12. Tellurium130 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Weasel words

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

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)

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)

I agree. The analysis needs to be sourced. As it stands now it is just one editor's opinion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and be bold and remove the interpretations sections. After going over them more carefully, I can't find anything that I can salvage. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I must certainly agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.29.56 (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged the contributions by Radu Comanescu (talk · contribs) as original research, essay-like, and written from the first-person. I was tempted to completely remove them as this editor has a history of adding OR/essay content, but I think there is some content here worth salvaging. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that my first-person concerns have been addressed, but I still have a problem that a significant amount of the content is still an unreferenced, OR essay. Per Wikipedia:No original research,

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

— excerpt from Wikipedia:No original research (original emphasis)

In other words, if this is Radu Comanescu's own argument/interpretation of the meaning of the Beatitudes, and it has no coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, several of Radu Comanescu's edits (see have explicitly been called "synthesis" (see page history), which is also not allowed per WP:SYNTHESIS. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel as though we should roll the whole page back to April 23rd before it was overhauled. Leadwind (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Which I did. Thanks for trying to keep this page under control, K. Leadwind (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have mentioned the reliable sources I've used for the text I've posted, including my own researches, published in reviews of theology. Among the main reliable sources quoted there are such as New Bible Dictionary and The Catholic Encyclopedia. Yet, my contribution is deleted again and again. I've asked for an explanation, and my request was deleted, too. I'm going to ask again for an explanation. Radu Comanescu (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I find your claim that your request for an explanation was deleted to be unsubstantiated. You last posted to this talk page in August 2007, despite several requests in the article edit summaries for you to view the talk page, which date back to April 2009. To answer your question, I suggest you read my post above, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The entire content is synthesis of sourced material, which is considered original research. Another relevant excerpt from WP:OR: "Only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" [emphasis added]. In the interest of fairness, as this appears to be a two-on-one conflict, we can solicit opinions from uninvolved editors. A good starting point would be WT:Christianity. Other options are WP:No original research/Noticeboard and WP:Requests for comment. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and requested input from uninvolved editors at WT:Christianity. I figured this would be a good starting point, as the members of that WikiProject have likely dealt with issues of this nature before. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on a review of the material Radu added, it looks to me like the removal of the content was called for. There are clearly serious issues regarding OR and SYNTHESIS, and, actually, we prefer to use sources with are not themselves encyclopedia or dictionaries for our own articles. And we can only add material which is explicitly in the published sources themselves. Any sort of synthesis is explicitly not allowed. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try to do a better job. It is clearly that the actual text does not cover the complexity of the Beatitudes. Let's improve it. I will write a new text, observing the requirements of WIKI. It will be ready in July.Radu Comanescu (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

I removed the associated text of the external link *"Christian Faith and its "fulfillment" of the Natural Moral Law". If one looks at the version before my NPOV edit, one can clearly see the use of external linking as 'advertisement' in the very least, if not more so POV. Talonx84.152.255.121 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What now?

Can you explain why you have deleted my text now? You put instead the same insufficient, dull explanation of the Beatitudes, truly low-rating. That's what you want? Radu Comanescu (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncited Paragraph

"The last of these eight is followed by what appears to be commentaries on it, with Matthew's, according to author R.T. France, integrating elements from Isaiah 51:7.[6] Amongst textual critics, this is seen as an attempt by Matthew and Luke to re-interpret quotations from Q that do not quite fit with their theology if read literally. That the commentary discusses the persecution of Christians, who clearly would not be able to consider Jesus' crucifixion until after it had actually happened, is regarded by most scholars as indicating the timeframe for when Matthew and Luke were written, although more fundamentalist Christians believe that this commentary is an example of prophecy. Matthew refers to only verbal attacks, while Luke also refers to excommunication, which scholars feel indicates[citation needed] the differences in situation between the writers."

This whole paragraph contains the most controversial statements about interpretation and analysis, using the ambiguous language of "scholars agree that..." and yet, it is largely uncited. I would ask for clarification about who is being referred to in the terms "scholars" and "fundamentalist Christians". 66.112.240.208 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddball non-grammatical biased unrefereced assertion floating in midst of beatitudes

Two lists of beatitudes are presented (those in both gospels, then those only in one). This seems quite reasonable, but there's an oddball paragraph that separates them:

The Beatitudes a way of being. They help us to see the characteristic if the Kingdom of God and the types of people that will enter the Kingdom of God first. They tell us how we should act to get Gods blessings.

Two sentence fragments and a sentence. They appear to have been here quite a while, otherwise I'd have removed them as appearing to be a well-meaning half-baked thought. It seems to me that the author of these statements is pushing a particular viewpoint which is not substantiated by reference and comes nowhere near a neutral POV. I'm inclined to delete the paragraph entirely. 96.54.165.114 (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no discussion - no dissent. I'm removing it. - 96.54.165.114 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Blessings

Why does the article mention eight blessings in Matthew but list nine blessings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.43.84.140 (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

References?

This article has been marked as unreferenced since 2007! And there is a great deal of junk floating in it. I think needs a serious trim of the unsourced junk and some decent references. I will try to get to it soon. History2007 (talk)

As a note, I have now fixed those and added WP:RS references, etc. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

The book of Mormon should stay iff you bring a neutral source that it got smth to do with the scope of the article. 80.132.78.141 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That was originally not my edit, but I see it as relevant, as do the other two people, the one who initially put it there and the one who re-added it. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

While some might try to decide the relative merits of religion, that isn't our province in this encyclopedia. I'm all for having both a citation to the Book of Mormon and whatever independent sources are out there. One man's "religion" is another man's "cult." But however you characterize it, they are equal in the eyes of the encyclopedia, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, there are plenty of refs. I added one, end of story. History2007 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why there is a book of Mormon reference? The beatitudes are not from the Book of Mormon. Should I add a Zoroastrian section and cite similarities between the two? Would that also be acceptable?

It has no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm62 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The passages from the "Book of Mormon" are not the Beatitudes, and should not be in this article. We do not need to have a list of passages from various religious texts that have similar meanings to the beatitudes; if we did, then this article would be at least twice as big, and have passages from mormons, Islam, Buddhism, and all sorts or religious texts that have no relevance to the Beatitudes. 121.223.18.165 (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how History2007 sees the reference to the Book of Mormon "relevant." I will continue to remove the paragraph until someone can justify it's relevance to the page, and can write the section without violating WP:OR. 121.223.18.165 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I also see it as relevant. If you want to put in sections that deal with similar themes in other religions, I suggest you do so. One man's religion is another person's heresy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is even close than that, in that Mormon teachings are about Jesus, so they are not a far away topic in any sense. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a discussion over whether a religion is "true" or not, so you can cease with the "one man's is another man's" line of thought. The article specifically deals with the Beatitudes. Is is therefore irrelevant to have a section dedicated to a different text, from a different book, from a different religion in this article. 121.223.18.165 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR is not cool. 121.223.18.165 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is even close than that, in that Mormon teachings are about Jesus, so they are not a far away topic in any sense.

Mormons are Christians, so of course their teachings will be about Jesus. This still doesn't mean an unrelated passage from a different text should be here. Neither of you (btw, pretty sure you are one person) have even given a reason as to why you think its relevant; you've just said that you do. 60.228.67.223 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone please stop reverting... WP:3RR has been reached. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There you go anyway... History2007 (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How about actually adding to the discussion for once, rather than telling people to "stop doing things"? How about actually using your (limited) intellect to argue why this irrelevant passage should stay, rather than attempting to shut down discussion? How about stop using multiple accounts to push your POV on this article? 60.228.67.223 (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd that these "two" accounts zealously insist the Book of Mormon paragraph is relevant to the article, yet they are both unable to come up with one single reason as to how it is relevant. As said previously, until someone can come up with a valid reason for this paragraph to be here, and can source it without violating WP:OR, I will continue to remove this obviously irrelevant section. 60.228.67.223 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How about you talk about edits instead of editors. WP:Civil. Given the edit histories, for you to say that History2007 and I are the same person is wrong and unsupportable. Frankly, I thhought that the two anonymous contributors here are much better candidates for WP:Sock. I note that 60.228.67.223 only came on board after I warned 121.223.18.165 about is violation of WP;3rr and WP: Edit warring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comments and remain civil. Again I'll state that it's hilarious you take the time to write all of that, but still can't give me one reason for that passage to remain. And I never stated I was "two" editors; it's obvious the two IPs are mine, as I have a dynamic IP (btw, my new IP showed up BEFORE you wrote that message on the IP talk page). 60.228.67.223 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is the Mormon's version of Beatitudes. That is the reason. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. You have not provided one reason why it should be excluded. Please get an account, and we will not have to discuss your 'wandering IP.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not the "Mormon Beatitudes" any more than the Ten Commandments are the "Jewish Beatitudes". Relevance is not in the eye of the beholder; relevance is not subjective, it is objective. A reference to the Book of Mormon in this article merits a one sentence mention at best and that is what I will add. Give me a few minutes. 101.162.25.187 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note: the beatitudes in the Book of Mormon are nearly word for word what is in the Bible. There are some small differences, for instance, instead of "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" the BoM version says "Blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (italics mine). The text is here if anyone wants to check. One premise of the book is that Jesus appeared to ancient inhabitants of the Americas and repeated teachings he had given in Israel, and that is the context of the quote. (Of course, whether this actually happened, or whether Joseph Smith just copied them from the Bible is a matter of belief.) I hope this helps. (Note, I was alerted to this discussion by a note at the LDS Wikiproject.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

*NOTICE: History2007 (talk · contribs) has engaged in canvassing here. If you came here from that page, please stay neutral, civil, avoid original research, and keep in mind the article deals specifically with the Christian Beatitudes as they appear in the New Testament of the Bible.

Note: that was not canvassing. History2007 followed Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate_notification to the letter. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unlike his statement, I know policy and I follow it. I have only done one edit to the article in 2 weeks, so no edit war on my part and my post there was fully within policy, because I did not ask for a specific response, but only asked for an opinion. And given that that project relates to the topic, my post was fully within policy, per approp notification, of course. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please place new posts at the bottom of the page in future, in line with talk page practices. As can clearly be seen over the past fourteen months, you have continually reverted the article to a version you "approve" of. Just today, without engaging in any discussion, you reverted yet again. You then canvassed for Mormon editors to come here and push your POV. But I guess all this is within policy guidelines, yeah? IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

To address Adjwilley's note, as is now stated in the article, many non-Christian religions including Mormonism, have the Beatitudes passage almost word for word in their texts; most notably the Baha'i faith (compare from the New Testament: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" with this from the Lawḥ-i-Aqdas: " "Blessed the soul that hath been raised to life through My quickening breath and hath gained admittance into My heavenly Kingdom." To give one preferential treatment over the others violates the WP:NPOV policy.IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the general trend of your edit, but the "word for word" part does not apply to the Bhagavad Gita "at all" as page 43 of Randall's book clearly shows. The similarities there are in the suggested directives intended teachings and not at all in the exactness of the wordings and phrases. As for the Baha'i they had direct access to the Bible anyway, but i is worth noting the similarities in any case. History2007 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith had direct access to the Bible as well. In fact the main reason many Christian texts and Mormon texts are so similar is that Smith rewrote certain Biblical passages to include in his book. IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that LDS and Baha'i post-date the first century is well known. My point was that your blanket "word for word" statement does not apply to the Bhagavad Gita at all - so you need to change that and clarify the issues. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"...some almost word for word" - This is how it's written. This is obviously not a "blanket statement" claiming all these religions have the text almost "word for word". There is no more clarification needed, as it is already clear. IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to stop fr a while now, but in a day or two will give extended examples out of Randall's book. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It is also obvious that the Church of Latter Day Saints professes to be "Christian". In that sense, the force of any analogies should recognize that fact. This is no different than discoursing on the textual differences between Bibles used by Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There was aqo discussion sometime ago on the Wiki-project Christianity talk page that there is no consensus to call LDS non-Christian in Wikipedia; so that part is also incorrect per that discussion. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Examples of what? What is your goal here? Are you still trying to place a heavier emphasis on a passage from the BoM over other religious texts? The article explicitly deals with the Christian Beatitudes as written in the New Testament of the Bible. There need only be a sentence or two at most commenting about how there are similar passages in other religious texts, with no importance placed on one over the other. IcarusVsSun (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant that the quantification of some that applies to some and not others is too inexact and exactness will help. All can be treated equally, but more precisely. But no rush now. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay I understand what you're saying, and yes I can agree to that. IcarusVsSun (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Blessed are those who agree with each other... History2007 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I do like the change you've just made to the article, and do not object to it remaining that way. EDIT, just noticed Adjwilley made the change. IcarusVsSun (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You could have known I was not going to edit it in the middle of all the reverts. I am pretty careful about policy, a I said. History2007 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm good to go with the current iteration, understanding that everything is subject to change, albeit by consensus. I would also mention that the Bahá'í are a faith of the book (the Bible) (like Muslims), and recognize Christ as part of their religion. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is 90% there, the last parag may need minor touch up to distinguish Quran and Gita better, but almost there. History2007 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Last part of lede

"Together, the Beatitudes present a new set of Christian ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction. They echo the highest ideals of the teachings of Jesus on mercy, spirituality, and compassion.[5][6]"

The above is from the end of the lede. I found myself thinking "citation needed" until I got to the two cites at the end, so I looked up the relevant parts of the cited works. I used Google Books for 5 "The Synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke" and sadly page 68 was cut off so it's possible that that one page has all of what's in the above quote but I doubt it. Otherwise neither that book nor the Dictionary of the Bible make claims anywhere close to the end of the lede. I get where the writer is trying to go with what they wrote but it should either be rewritten to be more in keeping with the citations or be removed. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd wording

"... focus on a spirit love and humility ..." If this is correct, I don't understand what is meant by "spirit love". Perhaps it should read: "... focus on a spirit of love and humility ..." That I can appreciate. Dawright12 (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This was amended some time ago BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing beatitude. There are a couple things which should be here.

Mathew 5:42. And luke 6:30. Give to those who ask. If a man asks formyour coat give him your shirt too. Also james 1:5

I had to look these up. They should not be mssing. The whole poimt was to show that god acts upon us from the outside. The human request is a serious one because humans contain a soul. Requests come from that which is outsode a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.241.13 (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Low Quality: No Wonder

In an attempt to sanitize the article to Wikipedia standards, it looks as if a whole whack of content has been deleted over time.

I also wonder that no one refers to The Daily Study Bible by William Barclay. He spends quite considerable time expounding on the very first of the beatitudes, describing someone who is "poor in Spirit" as someone who recognizes his own spiritually destitute condition.

The often used definition of "meek" is strength under control, signifying that when a person yields control to the Holy Spirit, it is like a strongman who listens to an inner voice that is even stronger than he is. Ricgal (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Cryptic

"Cryptic" doesn't fit for me. The meanings are not perfectly clear . . . the words, some of them have more than one meaning but I would never use "cryptic", that has an import of intentional ambiguity. I think these words are as clear as possible and that studying them can bring great insight. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say any more. Benvhoff (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nine beatitudes

There are nine Beatitudes, not eight.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye when [men] shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.

The ninth beatitude is directed at the disciples.

SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Scope of Wikiprojects

At the head of this talk section, we are told that this article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity. Should this not also be within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bible? Vorbee (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Informal modern Beatitudes

Should not #3 read "Him" and not "him"? "Blessed are those who see God in every person and strive to make others also discover him." vs. "Blessed are those who see God in every person and strive to make others also discover _Him_." 67.241.75.93 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The cited reference has lower case "him" both in this sentence and later in the summary line, All these are messengers of God's mercy and tenderness", Pope Francis said. "Surely they will receive from him their merited reward". - BobKilcoyne (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Let "poverty of spirit" to mean exactly what it says.

Let "poverty of spirit" to mean exactly what it says. Elaborate explanations by this person or that do little to embellish and much to confuse language and sentiments already clear. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.127.36.182 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

added new - better - reference

I added this reference to the HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS from 2016 since the one that was there is not referring to the right one: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20161101_omelia-svezia-malmo.html

Twelve Modern Beatitudes

The Spanish icon Joan Manuel Serrat offers his own set of Beatitudes in the song 'Bienaventurados', tongue firmly in cheek :

Blessed are the fools who risk giving advice because they appear wise at the cost of others.

Blessed are the poor because they know with certainty that no one loves them for their riches.

Blessed are those addicted to strong emotions because these are good times for party people.

Blessed are the owners of power and glory because they inform us of what's going on.

Blessed are those who reach the top because it is downhill the rest of the way.

Blessed are those who taste failure because they will know who their friends are.

Blessed are the chaste because they have divine grace when opportunities abound to sin.

Blessed are those who love because they have better than 50% chance of a great romance.

Blessed are those who are have hit bottom because things can only get better.

Blessed are those who show off their guts because they will have a chance to prove it.

Blessed are those who got into debt because someone once did them a favor.

Blessed are those who have clarity about things because theirs is the kingdom of the blind.

Tofindya (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)