Talk:Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament

Archives
November 2004 – November 2007

Light of the World

Light of the World (Jesus) redirects here, but this article doesn't have anything about this topic. --62.214.229.215 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NPoV and sources?

I and not sure this article represents a neutral point of view. It seems like the entire article is spent trying to provide evidence against the possibility that Jesus considered himself divine. Certainly this is one possibility, but it seems like the article takes too strong of a position. I find it a little humorous that one subsection explains why in the phrase "my lord and my God," "lord" does not necessarily mean "God," but does not attempt to explain why "God" does not necessarily mean "God." Also, this article seems very highly dependent on the scholar Geza Vermez. Is there any way the sources could be diversified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.20 (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to above

I, too, notice a concerted effort to minimize the divinity of Jesus. Geza Vermez is an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Revised 06:04, 2 April 2010

The names and titles of Jesus are to come from the Bible, specifically from the New Testament. All the names and titles listed are authenticated by Bible references. When men such as Geza Vermez contradicts the Bible, they are either ignorant of scriptures, or deceived. See Free Masonry for purposeful deception (Do a search for "blasphemy titles Jesus free masonry" --> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=blasphemy+titles+jesus+free+masonry&aq=o&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.50.144 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Word of God

The page excludes the important title "Word of God." --Ephilei (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal name

A friend of mine once said that in Jesus' day he would have been known (full name) as Yeshua bin Joseph ha Dovidl (spelling is, I think, as how he had it), literally, "Jesus (/Joshua), son of Joseph, of the house of David". Would that form of name construct have been used in Jesus' day, or would just the simple name of "Yeshua" (one name only) be more plausible? (I'm thinking having another name as a distinguishing mark isn't all that uncommon, for some of Jesus' contemporaries were "James, the son of Zebedee" (which leads me to believe that the "son of Zebedee" (bin Zebedee?) was used to distinguish from the other Jameses around at the time) and "Judas Iscariot" - seeing as how "Judas" was/is a common name of Jews at the time, a further identification makes sense, but, as far as I know, Jesus/Joshua was common too, which makes sense that the prophet from Nazareth would have a "more full" name (if you want, a "last name") than just "Jesus". Is Yeshua bin Joseph ha Dovidl likely? --Canuckguy (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Christology of the Old Testament

The article should maybe point out that the Old Testament has been a source of christology just as well. There is a notable work on the subject by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. ADM (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Christology as study?

The introduction to this page says that christology is the study of the names. This seems to be false on its face, since all the theology I've studied purporting to be christological has dealt with the nature of Christ rather than names. If the study of the names is a branch of christology, though--which is absolutely plausible--shouldn't the linked christology page have some material on that? In any event, clarification is probably in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.162.115 (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Misquote 1 John 5:7

Please remove or correct this personal opinion. The trinity doctrine is not related to this article and is a matter of doctrinal argument.

Trinity is not found anywhere in the scriptures.

There is no God the Father, God the Word and God the Holy Spirit. It is the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit. It is a misquote.

The fact is that this verse says that they are one and not three, not three in one.

Word

1 John 5:7 says there are three persons (not one person) in the Godhead—also called “Trinity”—(1) God, the Father; (2) God, the Word (Jesus); and (3) God, the Holy Spirit. John writes: ‘‘“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”‘‘

trichagcJune 23, 2009

NOT a misquote 1 John 5:7

Revised 06:04, 2 April 2010 by Special:Contributions/69.170.44.194

Revised 06:08, 2 April 2010 by Special:Contributions/69.170.44.194

The ORIGINAL LINKS upholds the verse given in 1 John 5:7

http://bible.cc/1_john/5-7.htm

But someone changed all the original links from BIBLE.CC to BIBLEGATEWAY.COM. The BIBLE.CC website gives about 17 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS for a single verse. It is one of the most helpful websites for study of a single verse, such as for the Names and Titles of Jesus. You can see at a glance which Bible translations have changed from the original Greek.

Someone changed the links to BIBLEGATEWAY.COM, which shows THE MOST APOSTATE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS -- the New American Bible and the New International Version. (Do a search on the Internet for DELIBERATE changes made to these Bible translations.) Why were the weblinks changed without consulting the author, AND without concern for inacuracies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal--Change Links back to Original Websites

I propose we change the web links back to the original websites to prevent more errors and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Users are encouraged to be BOLD. I'd support linking to Bible.cc, but editors should be aware that there is an ongoing dispute about whether external links to Scriptures should be allowed. They typically are allowed, but that seems to be more community looking-the-other-way than an explicit rule.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that external links are healthy; otherwise, there exists the danger of controlled information (propaganda). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.215.122 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Names of Jesus

Please add - 1. Wonderful, 2. Counselor, 3. The Mighty God, 4. The everlasting Father and 5. The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

trichagcJune 23, 2009

---

The present page deals with the Names of Jesus in the New Testament.

Proposal. I suggest we create another page for the Names of Jesus in the OLD TESTAMENT--e.g., Messianic Names.

Yeshua | Yahshua, PLIM

I removed this section:

The original Aramaic (or late Hebrew) name for Jesus is Yeshua—a contraction of yehÖshÙa (Joshua), help of Jehovah + yÀh, Jehovah + hÖshïa, to help." ( http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm ) In Hebrew, YESHUA is from the Hebrew YESHA—Yud Shin Ayin—meaning Help, Salvation, Deliverance. (Alcalay, R. The Complete Hebrew English Dictionary. Jerusalem: Massada. 972); also http://www.hebrewbabynames.com/item.cfm?itemid=292 ) The more accurate name for Jesus, derived from YHWH, may be spelled: Yahshua, which means "Yahweh is salvation," or "God is salvation."

Its sources are articles written by religious groups that make pretty weak linguistic claims and present no proof. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose Reinstating Title

The author of one website has a Doctors Degree in Theology (D.D.). The other website uses authentic Hebrew dictionaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

D.D. is not a Doctor of Theology, which is a D.Th.. D.D. is Doctor of Divinity and, in UK tradition, is the highest of all doctorates. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeshua

I came to this page after noticing that Template:Jesus has ישוע in its header image. ישוע is the unvocalized Hebrew spelling of Yeshua. As far as i know, it is not certain that Yeshua was indeed Jesus' Hebrew name. It may also have been Yeshu (ישו), Yehoshua (יהושוע or יהושע) or maybe something else entirely.

The "Personal name" section here does nothing to establish with any certainty that Yeshua was indeed his name. It simply describes the names Yehoshua and Yeshua and the possible linguistic relation between them. This information is reasonable and well-referenced, but it does not necessarily relate to the Jesus of New Testament.

The section should say clearly that the true name is not known - correct me if i'm wrong.

And Hebrew spelling ישוע should be removed from Template:Jesus. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also the standard spelling of "Jesus" in all Aramaic dialects within two centuries (with the only exception of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, where the convention is to transliterate the Greek "Iesous"). The scholarly consensus is based upon ossuary inscriptions, written documents, and what is known about the language from that time period, itself. The only individuals who dispute this vehemently are some individuals in the Sacred Name Movement, a fringe group. אמר Steve Caruso 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but i don't see this consensus expressed in the article here. Am i missing something?

I only know Biblical Aramaic well, and you seem to know more Aramaic than i do, so could you edit the article so it will clearly express this consensus?

And what about Yeshu? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The name ישוע (Yeshua`, or as it was probably pronounced in Jesus' lifetime Yeshu`) was the post-exilic Hebrew version of the name "Joshua" and occurs in the Hebrew Bible at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15, and also in Aramaic at Ezra 5:2. In Nehemiah 8:17 this name refers to Joshua son of Nun. All these occurrences were commonly translated into Western languages identically to the name "Jesus", until the Renaissance, when some Bible translators (especially Protestants) went back to the original Hebrew, and so chose to render the same name as "Jeshua" in an Old Testament context, but left it as "Jesus" in the New Testament, so creating a somewhat artificial distinction... AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Informative or Evangelism?

I've been noticing that several edits to this page have been made lately, the vast majority of them being by an unregistered user with the IP address 66.93.140.42 and all of them (as far as I can see) being made as additions under the "Other titles in the New Testament" heading. Currently there are 89 subheadings. At what point do we draw the line? It almost seems as if we keep going, we're going to end up quoting the entire New Testament. Additionally, the user making additions seems to have a kind of evangelical agenda as seen by the following specific edits.[1][2][3][4] So what do others think? Is this informative or just evangelism? Euphgeek (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing as one who completely agrees with the agenda of the four edits you link, I have to agree with you: these are evangelism not reporting; they're not without controversy even within Christianity; and they're about Jesus' nature, not name (it's in the wrong place, even if admissible by other measures). Jackrepenning (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed what seem to me to be a few instances of evangelism - some from the IP 66.93.140.42 mentioned just above. They seem to be stating some Christian beliefs as fact, rather than from an NPOV. I might have misunderstood though, and they might not have been meant like that, so I'll hold off for a while and see what others think. Oscroft (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, some of it seems quite blatant - removed a bit more today. Oscroft (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye I've just pulled down a few things, too, but I find myself a bit pinched for time to continue. This article needs a thorough culling of 100% POV material an re-writing of that which is POV but could be better put. Much of this could be expressed in a constructive and NPOV way without preaching. אמר Steve Caruso 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a LOT of preaching, but there's more. I'm a little confused about The_Thadman's note in recent edit summary: "True God: I also hate to say it, but declarations of divinity as fact doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV." The article reads, "The Bible says that Jesus is the true God" and gives the citations. The Bible may be wrong, but the very title of the article is Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't see how we can go all the way through the article and be more neutral (assuming the preaching/teaching comments are gone). Since I work on the article, please give me your suggestion. Thanks, Afaprof01 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - saying "The Bible says that Jesus is the true God" and providing a reference that supports the assertion seems entirely factual and NPOV to me. Oscroft (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of Views being erased

Almost ALL the root definitions of words (greek/latin/hebrew word origins) have been removed. These were neutral. Also, many links which were neutral have been removed, but the ones that breed skepticism against Christian beliefs have remained. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yahshua-Yahshuah

See Talk:Yahshua#Merge regarding a proposal to merge the articles Yahshuah and Yahshua. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

Some names and titles are hotly contested; these should be grouped into a Disputed section to avoid cluttering the article with contention. I can do that soon. Incidentally, a response regarding an existing thread is usually best kept within that thread and section rather than as a new section with a new title. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do a disputed section, otherwise 3/4 of the article will end up in it. Much of this isn't "hotly contested" in Catholic/Protestant/Evangelical Christian circles and can be easily sourced. Maybe in the opening paragraph it could be worded in such a way that there isn't uniformity for everything presented. After all, a lot of this is moving into exegesis. Basileias (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed?

The names and titles are taken directly from the New Testament. If the Bible is the authority we have all agreed to use for Jesus, why are these names and titles being disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.44.194 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Most disputes wouldn't be whether or not a particular name or title is found in some translation of the NT, but whether or not the term actually applies to Jesus. I believe perhaps less than a quarter of these titles belong in a proper "Disputed" section.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps changing the web links have brought about this confusion. The ORIGINAL WEB LINKS explained what the verse meant. The change to biblegateway.com DO NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION conveniently on one page.

A dispute section is not a smart move. You may feel "less than a quarter" but experience tells me much more will happen. It's like a controversy section, it invites controversy and it will be on going. There's no such thing as a proper controversy or dispute section. Also, I'm not sure what the purpose this article serves. It's not very encyclopedic and I'm even wondering if it should be considered for deletion. Basileias (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood what you meant by a "dispute section." My apologies. There's a lot of information in the article that doesn't make sense, is off topic and some is confusing. I think a lot could be removed. Please go ahead and feel free to work. Basileias (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please research Jesus' name/title before you make changes. There now exists confusion because the original web links have been changed. Also, non-believers may have difficulty understanding the names of Jesus, and this can cause further errors or relevant data being deleted.

Third opinion

I can actually see sense in either keeping the article to titles of Jesus in the NT, or extending it to be those titles, with discussion of titles which are contentious between religious traditions that are based on the NT.

One way to solve the issue is to do both things: we have a WP:List of titles sourced on the many books that do list Jesus' titles from the NT; AND we have an article, like the current one, which discusses differences of opinion regarding how the titles are to be interpreted, or whether the NT actually offers them.

• List of New Testament titles for Jesus
• Disputed New Testament titles for Jesus

Alternatively, it might be good to admit that the List article would be very long, and might not be a good idea. Instead, we should just have an article simply called

• Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament (like the current one, or slightly modified).

One problem with this article, as it currently stands, is that it tries to be a list. I'd suggest one way forward would be to create the list article, with information already in this article. Then remove list items here that have no debate. This article can then develop by using reliable sources which discuss the names and titles of Jesus. And those reliable sources should include all points of view, not just the mainstream Christian point of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "Reliable sources" may not be "reliable". And "all points of views" will also not be reliable. The people who are the true experts on Jesus are those who have developed a personal relationship with Him, and know from experience the reality of the titles. Otherwise, the page might become a circus of debating and skepticism. I propose we rely on the Bible, on proven reputable commentaries, and on true Christians who have a living relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.215.122 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disrespectful to your beliefs, but "a living relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit" really isn't a valid source for an encyclopedia. I agree with using the bible as a source, because from that we can objectively get information about names that Christians use for Jesus, regardless of whether any of the claims are actually true. And that's the crux of this article - it has to be a valid article whether or not Jesus actually existed. A Wikipedia article must remain neutral and cannot be written from the point of view that a specific religion is true. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

By "a living relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit", I tried to address the issue of "not understanding" a name or title, which seems to be a problem for some people. "Not understanding" a name is not a valid reason for removal of data. For example, Jesus as "Husband" OR "Bridegroom" means a great deal to Christians who experience Jesus in a real way. But someone who is a nonbeliever would not understand this experience.

OK, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that a lack of understanding is not a good reason for removing material. But it's still problematic, because there still needs to be a notable explanation in a reliable source for everything that's added, and we can't really accept "I'm a Christian with personal experience and I say this is what it means..." as such a source. If there was a reliable source out there that clearly explained what the terms mean to Christians, I think that would be ideal. -- Boing! said Zebedee

Many of the references to explain the terms were DELETED; hence, now the confusion. Also, "man's authority" often is not reliable. The 300-year Inquisition was caused by the most "reliable sources"--the pope and the religious "authorities" of that time. They deliberately disobeyed the Bible and the teachings of Jesus (Jesus' teachings of love, not murder). "Man's authority" (the Pope) demanded the killing of innocent Christians who were following God's laws (Biblical laws). This resulted in the murder of millions of innocent Bible-practicing Christians. For example, soldiers (by the union of state-church) were ordered to find and murder anyone who did NOT worship on SUNDAY (a pagan day of worship of the sun god, the 1st day). These martyrs worshiped on the SABBATH (Saturday, the 7th day) as God, in the Ten Commandments, commanded them to do.

An editor claiming to "understand this experience" would likely be able to write and perhaps publish his own book elsewhere, using his own original research. However, Wikipedia cannot directly use such original research. Honest summaries of verifiable references are needed here at Wikipedia.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs re-organization and some of the material presented, the more a look at it, the more some entry's don't make sense. I guess maybe a question to ask is, is the article even worth keeping and reworking? Basileias (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Partial list of disputed titles

There are at least three types of disputes.

• Disputes may concern obvious practicalities: The sections "Creator" and "Holy One" don't cite a single translation with the terms "Creator" or "Holy One"; the section "Christ Crucified" insufficiently demonstrates that 1 Cor 1:23 contains more than a simple noun (Christ) and verb (crucified) rather than a formal title.
• Disputes may concern translations: The section "Lord God" cites a controversial translation of Jude 1:4 which should be discussed (namely, others believe that the verse should be translated to refer to both God and Christ, or to Jesus as "Master" rather than as "God").
• Disputes may concern interpretations: For example, "true God" at 1 John 5:20, "Almighty" at Rev 1:8, "Alpha and Omega" at Rev 22:13, "God our Savior" at Titus 3:4, "Lord God Omnipotent" at Rev 19:6, and "Lord of all" at Rom 10:12 all arguably refer to God the Father rather than to Christ the Son. The reference-supported discussion of those contested titles shouldn't clutter the uncontested titles.
  

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone had not changed the original links, you could read the commentaries, which say that the titles above do refer to Jesus. Or explanations which would have clarified this issue were deleted.

Other views, like for example on 1 John 5:20, etc. can be included with the verse. Basileias (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jude 1:4

I looked a few of these up and Jude 1:4 doesn't make any sense quoting it in a reference to deity for Jesus. I also wasn't able to quickly find any quality sources that claim that. I'm fine with it and I think we can remove Jude 1:4 from the article. Basileias (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jude 1:4 references the titles "Lord" and "Sovereign" or "Master" depending on the translation. I'm placing this here for further inclusion and removing the "Lord God" reference for Jude 1:4. I can't find a citation that makes the claim Jude 1:4 is for Jesus titled "Lord God". Basileias (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

1 Cor 1:23

"Christ Crucified" isn't any kind of title that I can tell. That can probably be removed also. Basileias (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone other than me already removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Lord of all" at Rom 10:12

Looking at the context, "Lord is Lord of all" doesn't appear to be a title. Basileias (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Section removed. Please do not reinstate without verifiable reference and discussion here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Lord God Omnipotent" at Rev 19:6

This one differs depending on the translation used. There is a title but this could use some outside sources. I'm not sure if it refers to "God the Father" because I didn't see that wording in the translations I looked in. Basileias (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

1 John 5:20

See Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament#True God and User talk:Alastair Haines#True God and 1 John 5:20.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Article quality

This article is so bad!

I found this seller statement,

The title Christ occurs in the Hebrew Bible...

The word "Christ" is English and it would never be found in a Hebrew language Bible! Now if they're referring to the Christian reference Old Testament and meaning Messiah or something else...maybe...arge! Basileias (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems no reason to be overly critical of that.
As is well-known, "Messiah"="Christ"="Anointed" and "Hebrew Scriptures"="Old Testament".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax adelphe mou!

Christos anesti ek nekrwn.

It is very common at Wikipedia for articles related to Jesus to be rather messy.

It takes patience to clean them up.

Two things are needed:

1. reliable sources;
2. neutrality.

The traditional Christian point of view is always significant regarding Jesus, and is protected by Wikipedia's most holy policy WP:NPOV. However, that view must be presented from reliable sources, and it must permit reliable sources that have been offered against it.

I can speak for the excellent quality of User:AuthorityTam as an editor. I suspect Basileias and Tam will disagree on things here, because I suspect they come from different traditions, both of which consider themselves to be Christian, yet which disagree about some very important things. It is very important to realise that at Wikipedia, both points of view are permitted, in fact, it is demanded that both points of view be documented.

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Must enforce refs

Agree that enforcing WP's rules about verifiable refs will improve quality. Rather than deleting material or stubbing, however, I'd suggest:

• Being immediately strict about unreferenced ADDITIONS
• Being temporarily lenient about existing unreferenced sections (for perhaps a month)
• Tagging existing unreferenced sections in the next few days
• After a month, merely hide unreferenced sections; likely someone will eventually get a chance to fix

Consensus? --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Basileias (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been about two weeks since I proposed the above. So, in about two weeks more, many of the sections will be hidden until each so-called name or title can be verified by a notable source. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds fine. This article is on my list of things to work on. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation and TOC

The number of terms/sections is large. I plan to:

• Consolidate terms to reduce the number of section names (see very next paragraph).
• Put a visible anchor in each section for each term discussed therein.
• Replace standard TOC with non-standard TOC similar to that used at Bible translations by language.

Consolidating terms: Some consolidation is needed, and some consolidations seem obvious. For example, a single section could discuss all titles involving "Lamb". We'll keep section names SIMPLE. Immediately below each section name, we'll put a visible anchor for each title in that section (the anchor allows linking directly to section). So, a typical section will look like this (except not in green):

Lamb
Lamb of God • Lamb that was Slain • Lamb Slain from the Foundation • Lamb without Blemish
"Lamb" discussion. "Lamb of God" discussion. "Lamb that was Slain" discussion. "Lamb Slain from the Foundation" discussion. "Lamb without Blemish" discussion.

My hope is that the number of sections will be reduced enough for a standard table of contents (TOC) to be used. Otherwise, or in addition to a standard TOC, we'll use a bullet-list TOC (table of contents) that looks like this:(except not in green):

• Lamb of God • Lamb that was Slain • Lamb Slain from the Foundation • Lamb without Blemish •

I'll suggest that intermediate work happen at these two draft pages: Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/2010old and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament/2010new (per old and new). Any thoughts? I'll probably wait until next week to tackle consolidating work, and I'll intentionally do as little copy editing as I can during this step.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: any editing should occur via consensus at this article and through this talk page. Copy-paste versions of this article and subsequent edits would not preserve the original edit histories of the article, which is required by Wikipedia's licensing (see WP:CC-BY-SA and WP:GFDL). The "draft" articles that were created have been removed as they violate this requirement. (No editing had yet occurred, and thus no changes have been lost.) --Kinu ^t/_c 03:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I did not well-explain that the subpages were to be used for sandboxing prior to edits, encouraging others to attempt some of the work discussed above. Since I personally don't need sandboxing, I'll not mention the subpages again.
I was going to start soon on the consolidating work for the more obviously valid titles, but I realized that controversy and rancor might ensue about which terms actually are valid "names and titles". I greatly prefer for that determination to be made by verifiable reference, so I'll ask again that editors cite some reference for each term they hope to keep in the article. Along with the citation please include a pithy quote similar to '[Such and such term] is a title of Jesus' or perhaps '—name of Jesus'; the reference may elaborate or not and we don't need quotes for every point it makes. My hope is that enforcing refs will winnow us down from the currently-over-a-hundred terms. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)