Talk:Rex Deus
Merge
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- Loremaster (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No, my preference is not to merge the two articles. It should be noted that this article is quite derogitory with regards to the "fringe" ideas, and gives the reader a sense that the information presented is not legitimate, there is a significant amount of "this is false information" leading the reader to either agree or disagree with the writer. Really, this article should be removed totally because of the writer's slant, and un-academic approach to the information. Thank you.
No I do not believe you should attach this to any discussion of Jesus until you can provide concrete proof that the claim of Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Christ child at the time of His crusifiction is true. There is no proof and it is all based on speculation and false claims thus far.
(3rd opinion). I agree with the sensibilities of those in the first paragraph of this discussion. The wikipedia writer is already biased (seems so). Specifically the term "appointed themselves" can apply equally well to the initiation and evolution of the Catholic Church itself. I also believe that, should a more balanced article be written, it should NOT be merged with the Jesus Bloodline thread, as these two hypotheses are sufficiently independent of one another (i.e. the hypothesis of a bloodline descendant from Aaron does not also guarantee it passed through Jesus and Mary). "Concrete proof" applying to any of this is quite moot, as there is very little concrete proof of ANY major doctrinal ideas which support accepted scriptural interpretation or non-accepted scriptural interpretation, including the pregnancy and the crucifixion/resurrection.
- I would like to see a paragraph in this article that simply tells the reader when the term "Rex Deus" was first invented and first appeared in print. I believe that I can provide a publication (and its author and publication date) that first used the term. Anyone that wants to challenge that date with an earlier one certainly may do so.PGNormand 00:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)