Talk:Sermon on the Mount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I was informed that Christ drank coke while giving the sermon, is this not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he turned it into a wine cooler first.
VerdanaBold 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Debate over literalness[edit]

I've slightly altered the wording (but not the content!) of the first paragraph of section 3.1 in observance of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. All the same ideas are expressed, but no longer as statements of fact. Now they are presented as viewpoints with which you may agree or disagree. Wikipedia is here to inform us, not to tell us what we should think. Thank you for respecting these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the first bullet point for "debate over literalness", where does this line come from: "Proponents of this view include Francis of Assisi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and in later life Leo Tolstoy" There are no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation Copyright[edit]

From which translation is this taken? Any copyright concerns? Wesley

I stole ("thou shalt not steal") this from the RSV at the U. of Virginia. You think they'll sue? Over such a small excerpt? I'm not posting the whole Bible. User:Ed Poor

Here's a page that tells you what the folks behind the RSV allow:

Alternatives would be to use the KJV or the World English Bible, both of which are in the public domain. —Eric
Translation removed. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not number 12 for more info. --maveric149.

Text of the Sermon on the Mount[edit]

User:Maveric149 took off the translation because of "number 12" in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. As of May 11, 2006, there aren't any numbers in that project page. I'm pretty sure you can add the text of the Sermon on the Mount in King James Version, because it is in public domain.

So, I made this page, Talk:Sermon on the Mount/Text, to compile the Sermon on the Mount until it is completed. I will thereafter add it to the article if no one objects. —Black and WhiteUSERTALKCONTRIBSBlack and White 21:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a typographical error that reoccurs through out this thread. Please check the spelling of "sermon". MLFreeman (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Shall we link this article to salt of the earth? Nathan Larson 04:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should remove the link to Ellen G. White's gloss on the Sermon on the Mount. Thousands and thousands of commentaries on this passage from the Bible have been written, and we should only link to those that are notable in their own right (e.g. Augustine seems appropriate). If no one objects I'll delete it when I come back (and the link to the Catholic catechism, which doesn't work). (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


since this falls under the dicussion on Category:Abrahamic mythology, I am not repeating it here, mearly stating that I am adding the approptriate categorization and to see the category talk for any debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

All I see is that you waltzed into that discussion (which has been dormant since September), a few minutes before you posted this, proclaimed everyone there wrong, and yourself right, and you think that somehow constitutes "consensus"? Nobody but you is trying to assert on any page that the "Sermon on the Mount" meets anyone's definition of "mythology". You seem to be either a troll who is just after attention, or some kind of megalomaniac who thinks everyone should be buying into your pov. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

see the talk ont he relevant category pages. I will NOT debate this in 12 places. I have better things to do -- like fix your POV. 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

due to lack of disention, i am adding the categorization. Codex has not made an argument aggainst the categorization, rather he attacked me. 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The addition of biblical material was discussed at great length several months ago, and the consensus was that it should not be in that category. Please abide by the consensus. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no references to said discussion on this page. If Codex can insist that every page carries the debate, so can I. Why is this not mythological according to the definition of that word? Why is this not christian, according to the definition of THAT word, and furthor more, how is this not christian mythology? 17:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad nauseam; please review the discussion and the consensus reached at Category talk: Christian mythology and be sure two read all of the archive pages to find where many, many people have all answered your question. "Mythology" is not neutral, it is POV pushing. You can state in the article that some people "consider" it mythology, but its not neutral to state that it simply "is" mythology, because others disagree. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

are you REALLY as dumb as you are acting? (not an attack, just a question). Let me go slow for those of you having trouble following along.... IT. FITS. THE. DEFINITION. OF. MYTHOLOGY. FROM. THE. DICTIONARY. AND. FROM. THE WIKI. IT. IS. MYTHOLOGY. NO. DEBATE. NEEDED!. Go freaking debate that the world is flat or something, you will get just as far. You can state in the article that some people consider it fact, because THAT is debateable. People who disagree with it being called mythology obviously don't understand the definition of the word. 17:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "Sermon on the Mount" does not fit any definition of mythology; it's not even a creation story said o take place before the beginning of time. It's presented as a historical event, not allegory. You have stated that you think it was fictional, but that's an extreme minority view, and I don't see anyone else here foaming at the mouth about it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it is apparently too hard for you to read the definition from the category page before you insist on your bias, here it is. What part of this definition does NOT fit this article? "The Christian mythology category contains articles concerning the body of stories that explains or symbolizes Christian beliefs. A Christian myth is a religious story that Christians consider to have deep explanatory or symbolic significance." 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ANother definition of mythology is "fiction". It's a POV to state that this historical event is fiction at any rate. Please look at this edit you made here on Mar 3: [1] Note in the summary line you wrote in response to my saying that there were more appropriate categories, that mythology is better than what you evidently consider to be another appropriate cat, the category of fiction. So the real POV you are pushing here comes out. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I call BS. Show me how this does not fit the definition as used on wikipedia for other major religions (which you called dead, like hindu and buddhist) and as definied in the damn categories themselves. Stop using red herrings. 18:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article fits the "myth" definition. Webster's defines "mythology" as an allegorical narrative...the Sermon on the Mount isn't a narrative, it's a sermon or, perhaps, a collection of proverbs and sayings. Wikipedia calls a myth: "...a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form." Wikipedia calls mythology: "...stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity." The Sermon on the Mount doesn't fit any of these definitions. Tower of Babel, Garden of Eden...those might fit better. KHM03 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

christians believe these to be true... some even foam at the mouth at the thought that they might not be (see codex's behavior)... and jesus is about as supernatural as they come..... 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But the supernatural aspects of the Jesus story are not at issue here. The question is: Is the Sermon on the Mount myth? Strictly speaking, according to the academic definition of myth, no. It's a sermon, or collection of sayings. It isn't myth. KHM03 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
To find the previous versions of this discussion to to Category talk:Christian mythology, Talk:Christian mythology Talk:Noah's Ark and a whole pile of other places. Once again, this has been debated at length and the consensus was not to include biblical stories in mythology categories. DJ Clayworth 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC

Irrelevent. People argued for YEARS that the world was flat... and it never has been.... I would like to point out that I am in favor of a central debate point but was shot down... only to have the lack of a central debate thrown in my face after winning a vote on a particular page. Moving goal posts and all. 22:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the old 'flat earth' argument. The difference is that people changed their minds about the flat earth because they had new information. You have brought no new information here. If you do we'll listen. DJ Clayworth 04:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Would "don't throw stones in glass houses" be considered a myth? If the answer is no then you can't really call the sermon on the mount a myth. It's a collection of aphorisms, and analysis on the aphorisms; to be a myth it actually requires narrative, which it really doesn't have. Maybe you can call "and Jesus said" a myth, but that's less than 1% of the sermon, so it doesn't really count. Clinkophonist 14:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it would be not be neutral, since the only possible interpretation "myth" could have in that case would be in the sense of "fictional", or to state as definite fact, the pov that he did not say it. There's no way "and Jesus said" could be called a "myth" in the so-called academic sense of "a story explaining origins". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


I have just changed "south" to "north" in the first paragraph, "as a mountain on the north end of the Sea of Galilee, near Capernaum." Capernum is located on the north side of the Sea of Galilee. -- 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

the black cross[edit]

Why is the cross black in all the articles about Chritianity? Dot Bich

It's the symbol used by WikiProject Christianity, which is a group of people working together on all the pages related to Christianity. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


"It is, however, still a religious speech recorded and widely distributed by people whom believed Jesus to be the messiah of their people, and therefore an accurate recount of what was claimed cannot be found." As well as stylistic concerns, I think this does not represent what we would like to say, if we wish to challenge historical accuracy in the lead. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16 14 September 2006 (GMT).


I think it would be good to put more scholars views in there. Most of what you have is people saying humans can't live up to the standards handed down by Jesus because it's to hard in todays world. I don't think that is the meesage that should be put forth. I think the teachings stand on there own ground. YOu will know a christian by how they act. If someone does not act as a christian, are they one? I would say no. I can say I'm the king of france, but that doesn't make it so. A christian lives up to christian values. If he cannot he is not a christian (unsigned)

I take your point. In the Gospels Jesus says "I am nice, and you also be nice" and "As I am perfect, so you also be perfect". But human nature wants to be clever. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Dostoevsky would be better two sentences earlier, rather than at the end of that paragraph, since the Brothers Karamazov does NOT imply "this will change when the Kingdom of Heaven is proclaimed and all will be able to live in a Godly manner." Rather, it suggests that the bar of Christianity is set so high, most will fail, and that the church shelters its flock from that harsh light, a la the "Grand Inquisitor" chapter. Bromwiki (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

The article needs footnotes! If it's mentioned that a scholar has a specific opinion, there should be a reference listed immediately after. — Emiellaiendiay 01:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note 9 referencing McArthur seems to be from "A Summary of Understanding the Sermon on the Mount" by Greg Herrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

section labeled "Jewish background"[edit]

This section, featuring such antisemitic gems as "the Jewish leadership in order for them to manipulate the people to their evil plans", appears to be an unreferenced personal essay. I labeled it as such and attached "Template:Unreferenced" though "Template:Unreferencedsection" would have been a better choice. In any case, User:SpaceFlight89 promptly reverted my edit, without an explanation, perhaps being unfamiliar with wikipedia policies such as NPOV and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: User:'s (perhaps a sockpuppet) unsigned response on my talk page was "Hey dont tell me what i can write please". (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that section needs work. I've added a ref improve and an NPOV tag. - SimonP (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a bunch of references cited at the end Sermon_on_the_Mount#cite_note-15, but the writing itself may be an original synthesis (perhaps a class project) or even copyright infringement. I'd like to see a specific reference for the claim that "the Jewish leadership in order for them to manipulate the people to their evil plans", and if there is one, then the source should be clearly stated. Also, why is the section called "Jewish background"? Seems like it's just another interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, rather than a discussion of the Jewish background, where one would expect something more like found at Cultural and historical background of Jesus. (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was added by User talk:Benelohim74 here. Perhaps he can explain its sources. (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to make some edits but this time User:RandomStringOfCharacters (another sockpuppet?) reverted me for not including edit summaries, which I in fact did if you check the edit history. Appears to be some sort of cabal if you ask me. (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: the land of invention[edit]

As I was cleaning this article up, I tried to confirm the section called "Structure" to add more references and it is now clear that it is really innovative - it has invented the structure for the sermon. The solid agreement among scholars is that the structure and configuration of the sermon is an open question - and this is none of the proposed structures - some editor just invented it. Even the page names for the sections seem to be innovative - I mean inventions. Time to clean them all up - I will also add refs etc. Interestingly a Googlebooks search shows that the only books that use the structure, are the "author free books" which copy Wikipedia content and package it into a book. It is time to make those books outdated by fixing this article. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and good work clearing up this article. The bigger problem are pages like discourse on holiness, which is a title that doesn't exist much of anywhere beyond Wikipedia. One option might be hacking it down and merging it with Matthew 7. - SimonP (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was why I said the page titles were also "innovative". And the contents of some of those sub-articles ... they are so mixed up, it takes 3 Kleenex minimum by the time one has read them half way. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Those articles are the product of a debate over whether individual verse articles like Matthew 7:6 should exist. For a time all the verses were grouped and merged into pages like discourse on holiness. The resulting articles are a bit of a mess, and now that pages like Matthew 7:6 exist, there is a lot of unnecessary duplication. - SimonP (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, except about the "a bit of a mess" part. They are in an absolute mess. I will thin about it for a day, then let us talk. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It took less than a day to look into it, after all. It is clear to me that using page titles such as "Discourse on holiness", and claiming the title "Expounding of the law" to be part of the Sermon sets the type of journalistic standard set by Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair. These are pure inventions as was that 5 level structure.

As this search shows Discourse on ostentation is not by any measure a common term considered as an integral part of the Sermon. Neither is Discourse on holiness.

The Expounding of the Law is a valid title in its own right, but as this search shows there is no basis at all for claiming it to be part of the sermon. Most of the references to it are again from books ripped off from Wiki-content.3.

I think the pages on holiness and ostentation should have the fate of the articles written by Ms Cooke and Mr Blaire. I will save what I can from the text, then redirect to the suitable portions of Matthew. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not from: McArthur, Harvey King; Understanding the Sermon on the Mount? That seems to be the reference used for the article. I haven't seen the book myself so I don't know, just asking. (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
McArthur is used for this article, and the 12 points here are based on that. The other article titles such as "Discourse on holiness", as well the the 5 section structure that used to be here are just incorrect and subject to WP:OR. And per WP:V one can not go around just guessing what came from where. History2007 (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way Simon, I have not stopped working on this yet - but there is a lot of background research to do to get it completely right; and I built a page for Augustine's book on the Sermon, etc. My guess is that it will take all week, or may be two weeks to get it into a semi-acceptable form. History2007 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Turn the other cheek[edit]

Is there a reason that it's not included in this article? Seems to me to be a fairly important doctrinal and theological aspect, particularly since it seems to revoke the Old Testament. I'd claim right-wing Biblical revisionism, but such a claim would be unfounded and rather inflammatory.-- (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, "right-wing Biblical revisionism" over a link? Aren't we upset about something else today? Chill out my friend, I added a link anyway, no big deal, but it is part of the Expounding of the Law material which needs a major clean up and I have not had a chance to work on - but that is a separate article. History2007 (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bonhoeffer an absolutist?[edit]

I admit to being no expert on either the Sermon on the Mount or Bonhoeffer. But knowing what little I do, I have a hard time agreeing that Bonhoeffer is an absolutist. The Sermon on the Mount says "resist not evil" (Matt 5:39). Bonhoeffer (as wikipedia's article on him makes clear) was involved in plots to assassinate Hitler. Clearly his views were a little more nuanced than those of an absolutist. I'd need to look up passages to cite them, but Bonhoeffer's discussion of the Sermon on the Mount in his book on Discipleship make clear that his is not an absolutist. --Matthew1221 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Simon probably added that, so we should wait for his response. I do not know Bonhoeffer, but based on that I would say: is he a big name? If so, why is this the first time poor ignorant me has heard of him? So maybe a better known person needs to be used there anyway. History2007 (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Exact Version of Sermon[edit]

I believe at least one version of Sermon should be written there..., — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutawassam (talkcontribs) 06:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. We need to add this somewhere. McBenjamin (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It is 3 chapters of Matthew! It is in Wikisource and one click away. Adding it here will quickly get a tag on the article by someone objecting to "too much quotation". History2007 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Direct contradiction to the Christian faith[edit]

When I was reading the article a section read:

One method that is common, but not endorsed by any denomination, is to simply modify the text of the sermon. In ancient times this took the form of actually altering the text of the sermon to make it more palatable. Thus some early copyists changed Matthew 5:22 from "whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" to the watered-down "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." "Love your enemies" was changed to "Pray for your enemies" in pOxy 1224 6:1a; Did. 1:3; Pol. Phil. 12:3. John 13:34-35 tells the disciples to "Love one another". The exception for divorce at Matthew 5:32 in the case of porneia may be a Matthean addition;[27] it is not present in Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11, or 1 Cor 7:10–11; and in 1 Cor 7:12–16, Paul gives his own exceptions to Jesus' teaching. Additions were made to the Lord's Prayer to support other doctrines, and other prayers were developed as substitute. More common in recent centuries is to paraphrase the Sermon and in so doing make it far less radical. A search through the writings of almost every major Christian writer finds them at some point to have made this modification.[citation needed]

Obviously, these people who changed "love your enemies" to "pray for your enemies" were directly contradicting the Christian Faith. I can cite a source to prove it![1] 2 verses very close to the end of the Bible say, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." McBenjamin (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the Pauline privilege. (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You know, I have been unhappy about that entire Debate over literalness section as well, and someone else added unref tags to it. I actually left a message for Simon P some time ago if he wanted to come and fix it, given that it was mostly his material - but he did not. I think we should seriously shorten that section and add refs to it, because as is it i snot flying at all. History2007 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit to match the ref and added Keener's groupings from that ref. Any comments? (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Keener is a good source. Do you have McArthur's book? I do not. For the tags to come off, you need to be sure that McArthur says exactly what the article says and add page numbers where there are citation needed tags. And is his book (from 1960) the definitive scholarly view? I doubt that. So that section is still not home by any measure. I suggest we just use Keener, expand based on that and get rid of the McArthur items. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have either book but was able to view some on google books. I think we should keep both Keener and McArthur, at least the main category titles. Some of the subclaims may be original research, if you want to trim that down, I'm fine with that, in fact I'm gonna be bold and separate the titles from the additional information. (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that Keener is available, the best way will be to expand what you added from his book. I left out the McArthur items because on their own the titles said very little and overlapped with some Keener anyway. So now it is a question of expending Keener which is a more modern source, McArthur being half a century old. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that you added links that section looks better, but it really needs a one line summary of each category from Keener, the way you summarized Luther, else will be subject to guesswork by the reader. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations. according to whom[edit]

The the supposed medieval view has no citation backing it. in the reference given of Craig S. Keeners Commentary (which isn't a neutral source). keener states "1. The Predominate medieval view reserving a higher stander for the clergy especially monastic orders."

and the article states The predominant medieval view that it applies to the clergy (specially in monastic orders) and not the laity

Now where does the given reference state the sermon doesn't apply to the laity. as currently stated on this page. this view needs a reference. and it needs the statement that it is quoting Craig S. Keener Removed. or it needs to be changed to reflect what Craig Keener actually said.

also how is a literal view specific to anabaptists. Augustine took it literally, so did nearly all the early church fathers. Augustine could be called the most influential writer to medieval theology. so why is this called the anabaptist view. the catholic church takes it literally. per paragraph 1965 and the following paragraphs of the catechism. so why the anabaptist view. isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral. I feel the whole interpretations and analysis should be left up to the reader. a commentary is not a sufficient source (or at least diminishes the quality of the article) when you can use a real theologian who believes one of these views and explains why. --DoubleA

Comparison with Buddhist teachings[edit]

The one example that is cited (the Dalai Lama's book) makes no suggestion that Christ ever visited India; so why is the rest of this section devoted to denying that he ever did? It loses the point entirely. Kortoso (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the section seems to make the implicit assumption that the people who believe that the parallels to Buddhism are due to Jesus travelling to Buddhist majority areas. But I think most supporters of the parallels believe it was either cultural borrowing or the common concerns of humanity. Apart from that, every sentence of this section is problematic.

Although modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus such as the Sermon on the Mount and some Buddhist teachings have been drawn (by the 14th Dalai Lama[29] for example)

The Dali Lama's observation is the not most interesting one academically.

these comparisons emerged after missionary contacts in the 19th century,

Isn't this a tautology? How could there be comparisons before Christianity contacted with Buddhist communities?

and there is no historically reliable evidence of contacts between Buddhism and Jesus during his life.[30] Modern scholarship has almost unanimously agreed that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India (see Unknown years of Jesus) and the influence of Buddhism on his teachings are without historical basis.[31][32]

There is no historically reliable evidence of anything Jesus did except his existence and crucifixion, so this is a pretty misleading thing to say. More importantly, my understanding is that Buddhism was known in the Hellenic world for at least a few centuries before Jesus's existence (and many centuries before the gospels were written). As such I think this whole section is fairly worthless without a more serious discussion of the topic. Ashmoo (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ashmoo. This article has nothing to do with Buddhism. Are we now going to add sections comparing the sermon to Hinduism, the LDS, the Adventists, and every other bizarro mythology? I'm an atheist, but the sermon is wise and beautiful and poetic. This article should be about that, and it should contain the text of the sermon. I've half a mind to put it there myself.
VerdanaBøld 22:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talkcontribs)

wikipedia lets me down again[edit]

I came here to read the sermon. I figured that it was too much to ask that it be included in the article, given the manifest stupidity of many articles at WP. But I did assume that one of the external links would point to the text.
So after reading this article and all the external links, I still can't read the sermon on the mount.

Absolutely characteristic of Wikipedia.
VerdanaBøld 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talkcontribs)

Thank you! I'm going to add this to the top of the external links section after I read the sermon.
I'm an atheist, but just about everything Christ said was beautiful and right, almost poetic.
You don't have to pretend he did harry potter magic to appreciate the message he tells again and again.
VerdanaBøld 22:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talkcontribs)
I take it back. Your link (below) points to Revelations.
VerdanaBøld 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)