User talk:Lalvia

"Miracle," the word[edit]

Dear Lalvia, You may find the following of interest: The word miraculum is a Latin word. It appears in the Vulgate from the late 4th century. In the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament the word terata is used. This means "wonder", not miracle. A wonder brings about a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable. Admiring the stars at night can cause a feeling of wonder or surprise, not necessarily miracle. Watching an ant can bring about wonder. In Hebrew the word נֵס (nes) today means miracle, but its meaning in Biblical Hebrew is a symbol of victory held high for all to see. The term "supernatural" is not used till about 1520-1530. I suggest reading: The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings by Martin Gardner, Revised Third edition, 1990 Miistermagico (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Folk Religion[edit]

Magic or sorcery is the use of rituals, symbols, actions, gestures and language with the aim of exploiting supernatural forces. Belief in and practice of magic has been present since the earliest human cultures and continues to have an important spiritual, religious, and medicinal role in many cultures today.

Introducing: Dr. Roberta Mazza https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/po......48).html

An ancient Christian magical spell or charm from the sixth century has been found in an old papyrus manuscript housed at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. The discoverer, Dr. Roberta Mazza, believes the Greek charm, originally unearthed in Egypt, was part of an amulet to be worn or carried as protection. The newly discovered ancient Christian magical spell reveals Egyptian influence.

An unpublished Greek papyrus from the John Rylands collection, dating to the end of the 5th beginning of the 6th century AD. The manuscript main side bears a Christian amulet divided into two sections: the first consists in citations of verses from the Psalms, the second is an abbreviated, so far unattested formula of the Eucharist prayer. The papyrus leaflet was later folded and re-used to draft a tax receipt, illegible to the naked eye, which was deciphered through the use of multi-spectral imaging technology: this has led to the discovery of the ancient provenance of the manuscript from the village of Tertembuthis, in the region of Hermopolis (al-Ashmunein). The combined application of papyrological and scientific methods (carbon dating and multispectral imaging) has implemented greatly the deciphering and interpretation of this new important text.

Introducing: Marvin Meyer See book: Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power,Edited by Marvin W. Meyer & Richard Smith Princeton University Press (March 15, 1999) This thought-provoking collection of magical texts from ancient Egypt shows the exotic rituals, esoteric healing practices, and incantatory and supernatural dimensions that flowered in early Christianity. These remarkable Christian magical texts include curses, spells of protection from "headless powers" and evil spirits, spells invoking thunderous powers, descriptions of fire baptism, and even recipes from a magical "cookbook." Virtually all the texts are by Coptic Christians, and they date from about the 1st-12th centuries of the common era, with the majority from late antiquity. By placing these rarely seen texts in historical context and discussing their significance, the authors explore the place of healing, prayer, miracles, and magic in the early Christian experience, and expand our understanding of Christianity and Gnosticism as a vital folk religion. Miistermagico (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming that Habermas conducted a survey[edit]

He doesn't make this claim. I have no idea why after I reverted you with an edit summary the first time saying he didn't conduct a survey you repeated the claim, but you need to stop. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, did you not look into the source?

A study by New Testament scholar Gary Habermas published in the peer-reviewed Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus found that:

"A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event. But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological 'party lines.' To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.

"Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority." - by Gary R. Habermas

You need to stop or you will be blocked. Lalvia (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've been reverted by other editors now, I'm not going to be blocked. You are extremely new here but it might be wise when experienced editors revert you to consider that you have made an error (and I myself, with all my experience, am not completely error-prone). The only survey mentioned is a 1994 one:"After a survey of contemporary scholarly opinions regarding the more general issue of Jesus’ christology, Raymond Brown". A survey is done with people. Gary Habermas chose a number of texts to analyse. He calls it a "study", not a survey". That's quite a different thing. Habermas's article is a WP:Primary source even if by a reputable scholar, and needs to be handled with care, preferably through an independent source meeting WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take any further discussion of this to the article talk page so that others can take part. However, it's now in the article in a more acceptable way. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Barabbas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Put that tag on the article again without opening a discussion on the talk page and I will report you. Putting original research into edit summaries such as "Too bad, it's fact, not opinion" is also completely unacceptable.Smeat75 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Smeat75 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, especially repeatedly edit warring right up the the 3RR "bright line" and adding flyby "disputed" tags without discussion on talk. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Yahweh have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yahweh. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yahweh, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yahweh. General Ization ^Talk 04:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yahweh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pol front page.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pol front page.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]