Talk:Jesus

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Seeing as the plural for Jesus is not a commonly used word, there is no proof that it should be Jesuses. If there is no specificly stated alternative, should it not automaticly fall in the Latin rule of us to form i, among many other nouns with the same suffix? I have tried a number of times to edit this page, yet someone is conviced that I am wrong and keeps reverting my edits. I would like my argument to at least be given some thought before being overlooked. I am aware that this post will probably go unread for many years to come, yet i will try my hardest to correct this long held misconception. User:Plural

The English plural of Jesus is "Jesuses". The Latin plural of Iesus is Iesūs. There is no "Jesi". Do not continue to try to push your "correction" or you will be permanently blocked from editing here. —Stephen 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew[edit]

How do they know his Hebrew name? What's the source? Yeshua/Joshua is politically motivated and inaccurate. 97.118.33.205 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The entry does not give Jesus' "Hebrew name"; it gives the Hebrew name from which the Ancient Greek name derives. The sources are (1) the Septuagint, where a Greek name is used for the Old Testament Joshua, and (2) the Greek text of the New Testament, where the same Greek name is used for the name of Jesus. So, your assertion about political motivation is groundless. --EncycloPetey 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I had thought I saved a comment here after adding the meaning of the anglicized word Jesus on February 27, 2016, but had not. The word comes from the Hebrew, and the Hebrew means "God (Yahweh) is salvation", and yet there is no meaning of the word here. The Hebrew (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3091.htm) and Greek meanings (http://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm) are the same and the English word comes from the Greek. Since baby name dictionaries (for example, http://www.babynames.com/name/JESUS) and other dictionaries do give a meaning for the word Jesus (a translation, though it may be rough) it seems a meaning from the original language is lacking here. Here is what I added: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=37437901&oldid=37428772 Galahad879 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2015[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Jesus

Rfv-sense - in Mormonism - the son of Elohim (no such mention in Mormonism-101) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan are brothers is based on their concept of God being the Father of all pre-existent spirits. Since :Jesus is the son of the Father and all other spirits, including Satan, are sons and daughters of the Father then all are brothers and sisters! This idea has been part of Mormon teaching from the time of Joseph Smith and continues today. Few LDS authorities have been bold enough to plainly state this.
Please note what Mormon prophets and church officials have had to say about the matter. From their writings it is clear that they believed and taught that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers.
Bruce R. McConkie, in his work The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, Pg.407-408 under the heading " Lucifer and the Law of Temptation" has the following to say;
"Hence, there is -- and must be -- a devil, and he is the father of lies and of wickedness. He and the fallen angels who followed him are spirit children of the Father. As Christ is the Firstborn of the Father in the spirit, so Lucifer is a son of the morning, one of those born in the morning of preexistence. He is a spirit man, a personage, an entity, comparable in form and appearance to any of the spirit children of the Eternal Father. He was the source of opposition among the spirit hosts before the world was made; he rebelled in preexistence against the Father and the Son, and he sought even then to destroy the agency of man. He and his followers were cast down to earth, and they are forever denied mortal bodies. And he, here on earth, along with all who follow him -- both his spirit followers and the mortals who hearken to his enticements -- is continuing the war that commenced in heaven."
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.,the LDS prophet, wrote in his work, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, Pg.218 -Pg.219
"We learn from the scriptures that Lucifer -- once a son of the morning, who exercised authority in the presence of God before the foundations of this earth were laid -- rebelled against the plan of salvation and against Jesus Christ who was chosen to be the Savior of the world and who is spoken of as the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'"
In the Discourses of Brigham Young, on Pg.53-54 he lets it be known that Lucifer is the second son, the one known as "Son of the Morning."
"Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?" The Eldest Son said: "Here am I"; and then he added, "Send me." But the second one, which was "Lucifer, Son of the Morning," said, "Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth."
In the work of Otten & Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants, Vol.2, Pg.28 it is found that Lucifer rebelled against his "Heavenly Father."
"We also learn that Lucifer ... was in authority..." in the premortal life. (See D&C 76:25) Authority in the presence of God is known to us as priesthood. In other words, Lucifer held the priesthood. We know that Lucifer rebelled against his Heavenly Father. One of the great insights given in this vision was the way this rebellion was manifested."
Through reading John A. Widtsoe's work Evidences and Reconciliations, Pg.209, it is learned that Lucifer strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ and became Satan, the enemy of God.
"The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. Lucifer, son of the morning, through diligent search for truth and the use of it, had become one of the foremost in the assembly of those invited to undertake the experiences of earth. But, in that Great Council, his personal ambition and love of power overcame him. He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ. When his proposition was rejected, he forsook all that he had gained, would not repent of his sin, defied truth, and of necessity lost his place among the followers of God. He was no longer Lucifer, bearer of truth, who walked in light, but Satan, teacher of untruth, who slunk in darkness. He became the enemy of God and of all who try to walk according to the Lord's commandments. One-third of the spirits present in that vast assembly supported Satan and became enemies of the truth that they had formerly cherished. With him these rebellious spirits lost their fellowship with the valiant sons of God. What is more, they lost the privilege of obtaining bodies of flesh and blood, without which they cannot gain full power over the forces of the universe. In the face of that defeat, and that curse, they have sought from Adam to the present time to corrupt mankind and defeat the Lord's purposes."
James E. Talmage in his book, "Jesus the Christ," on Pages 132 & 133, discusses the council that is supposed to have taken place concerning "Free Agency" and the attack on it by Lucifer. He states that Christ may not have remembered the part He had taken in the great council of the "Gods" where the Firstborn Son's plan was chosen and Lucifer, the rebellious and rejected son's plan was refused.
"The effrontery of his offer was of itself diabolical. Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, tabernacled as He then was in mortal flesh, may not have remembered His preexistent state, nor the part He had taken in the great council of the Gods; while Satan, an unembodied spirit -- he the disinherited, the rebellious and rejected son -- seeking to tempt the Being through whom the world was created by promising Him part of what was wholly His, still may have had, as indeed he may yet have, a remembrance of those primeval scenes. In that distant past, antedating the creation of the earth, Satan, then Lucifer, a son of the morning, had been rejected; and the Firstborn Son had been chosen. Now that the Chosen One was subject to the trials incident to mortality, Satan thought to thwart the divine purpose by making the Son of God subject to himself. He who had been vanquished by Michael and his hosts and cast down as a defeated rebel, asked the embodied Jehovah to worship him. "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him."
Neal A. Maxwell, in his book Deposition of a Disciple, on Pages 11 & 12 informs those interested that;
"Lucifer knew about this plan, and his very pleading was real rebellion. The scriptures tell us plainly that he sought a throne above the stars and God. (2 Nephi 24:13.) Therefore, he was from the beginning a serious rebel. President George Q. Cannon said, "He was our brother, sitting side by side with our Redeemer, having equal opportunities with him. But he rebelled. He turned against the Father because he could not have his own way." This council was no abstract exercise. It reflected a deep, deep difference. Lucifer, by what he did, told us much more about himself than about his so-called offer. Clearly, he was already becoming an outsider, using (and trying to profit from) an insider's information."
Sterling W. Sill, writing for the Improvement Era, December 1970, Pg.79 states that the Son of God is Jehovah the warrior.
"We have national holidays to commemorate the birthdays of George Washington, the father of his country, and Abraham Lincoln, who saved it from dissolution. Both were our commanders-in-chief during important wars. Some of our more recent war heroes were John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and our present great commander-in-chief, Richard M. Nixon. We should also keep in mind that the greatest of all military men was the Son of God himself. In the war in heaven, he led the forces of righteousness against the rebellion of Lucifer. We can also draw great significance from the fact that before the Savior of the world was the Prince of Peace, he was Jehovah the warrior."
Joseph Fielding Smith's Gospel Doctrine, on Page 371 states that;
"The devil knows the Father much better than we. Lucifer, the son of the morning, knows Jesus Christ, the Son of God, much better than we; but in him it is not and will not redound to eternal life; for knowing, he yet rebels; knowing, he is yet disobedient; he will not receive the truth; he will not abide in the truth; hence he is perdition, and there is no salvation for him."
Bruce R. McConkie, in his definitive work, Mormon Doctrine, on page 744, says;
"This name-title of Satan (Son of the Morning), indicates he was one of the early born spirit children of the Father. Always used in association with the name Lucifer, son of the morning also apparently signifies son of light or son of prominence, meaning that Satan held a position of power and authority in pre-existence. (D. & C. 76:25-27; Isa. 14:12-20.)"
To plainly state that Jesus (Jehovah) and Lucifer (Satan) are brothers the writings of Spencer W. Kimball, the LDS prophet, must be considered;
Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, Pg.95
"There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judaea, on the temple's pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim."
Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, Pg.87
"There is another power in this world, forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judea, on the temple's pinnacle and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim. When physically weak from fasting, Christ was tempted by Lucifer: "If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread." (Luke 4:3.) "Similarly Satan had contended for the subservience of Moses. Satan, also a son of God, had rebelled and had been cast out of heaven and not permitted an earthly body as had his brother Jehovah. Much depended upon the outcome of this spectacular duel. Could Lucifer control and dominate this prophet Moses, who had learned so much directly from his Lord?"
Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pg.216, The Savior's Example
"The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior's example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Pg.67, AUTHOR OF SALVATION
"Thus when the Father presented his own plan in the pre-existent council, he asked for volunteers from whom he could choose a Redeemer to be born into mortality as the Son of God. Lucifer offered to become the Son of God on condition that the terms of the Father's plan were modified to deny men their agency and to heap inordinate reward upon the one working out the redemption. Christ, on the other hand, accepted the Father's plan in full, saying, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." Our Lord was then foreordained to a mission which in due course he fulfilled, which mission enabled him to make salvation available to all men. (Moses 4:1-4; Abra. 3:22-28.)"
The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.33
"But thank God that there were enough sane and sagacious souls on the side of truth and wisdom and the rebellious souls were vanquished as to the eternal and ultimate program. The principal personalities in this great drama were a Father Elohim, perfect in wisdom, judgment, and person, and two sons, Lucifer and Jehovah. (12/19/59)"
"Satan tempted both Christ and Moses. There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judaea, on the temple's pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim. When physically weak from fasting, Christ was tempted by Lucifer: "If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread." (Luke 4:3.)"
The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.163
"The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior's example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by saying, "All right, Satan, I'll listen to your proposition. I need not succumb, I need not yield, I need not accept -- but I'll listen."http://bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm
Writing for the LDS periodical Times and Seasons, W.W. Phelps stated:
"And again, we exclaim, O Mormonism! No wonder that Lucifer, son of the morning, the next heir to Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, should fight so hard against his brethren; he lost the glory, the honor, power, and dominion of a God: and the knowledge, spirit, authority and keys of the priesthood of the son of God!" (Times and Seasons, 5:758)
Seventy Joseph Young (brother of Brigham Young):
"Who is it that is at the head of this? It is the Devil, the mighty Lucifer, the great prince of the angels, and the brother of Jesus." (Journal of Discourses 6:207).
Mormon Apostle James Talmage:
"Christ, the Creator of heaven and earth, tabernacled as He then was in mortal flesh, may not have remembered His preexistent state, nor the part He had taken in the great council of the Gods; while Satan, an unembodied spirit—he the disinherited, the rebellious and rejected son—seeking to tempt the Being through whom the world was created by promising Him part of what was wholly His, still may have had, as indeed he may yet have, a remembrance of those primeval scenes." (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p.132)
Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe:
"The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. Lucifer, son of the morning, through diligent search for truth and the use of it, had become one of the foremost in the assembly of those invited to undertake the experiences of earth. But, in that Great Council, his personal ambition and love of power overcame him. He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ" (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.209). http://www.mrm.org/lucifers-brother --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR - where in all that does it mention that Jesus is the son of Elohim. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the more curious evolutions in Mormon theology is that of God. Any active member of the LDS faith will now tell you that Jehovah of the Old Testament was in fact Jesus and the father of this Jehovah-Jesus is God or Elohim. In fact, a recent proclamation confirms this changed belief. Both of these supposed beings have bodies. When this same Mormon begins to read some of the writings of the early church leaders (including the first edition of the Book of Mormon) they are generally surprised to find out that this wasn't always the doctrine of the church.http://www.lds-mormon.com/godsname.shtml It says it in this quote. The Mormon Jesus is a different entity from the Roman Catholic Jesus. The Mormon Jesus was produced by sexual intercourse between Elohim and a woman. He also fought a battle against his brother Lucifer. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, in what I had above, there was ""There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judaea, on the temple's pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim." Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, Pg.87 When I went to college I took a class about Mormonism, the teacher was a Mormon, and he said that in the Mormon religion, Jesus is the same entity as Jehovah. Jehovah/Jesus is the son of Elohim. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
is this a distinct sense, i.e. it does not refer to Jesus or Nazareth? Because if it does, it's just a redundant definition to sense #1. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Jesus of Mormonism is synonymous with Jehovah, is the son of Elohim, was born through sexual intercourse between Elohim and a woman, is the spirit brother of Lucifer, is not a deity, and has a ton of other differences from the Christian Jesus. Bill Keller has stated, "if you understand Mormon theology, the God and Jesus of Mormonism is not the God and Jesus of the Bible." So its not redundant.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: Do Mormons believe that Jesus of Nazareth was not Jesus? —CodeCat 18:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
They believe in a Jesus who married, had children, moved to North America, etc. He's more like "Jesus of The Da Vinci Code" than Jesus of Nazareth. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mormons use the words 'god' and 'jesus,' yet the god and jesus of the Mormon cult are NOT the God and Jesus of the Bible! " Bill Keller, a pastor from Florida, has stated this. I think Bill Keller is a bigot, and intolerant, but he's correct about this issue. It would be like calling Sigmund Freud or Buddha or George Bush Jesus and saying that because we gave him that name he's Jesus of Nazareth and we don't need to separate from the real Jesus.http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7816717980.html And actually Keller is wrong that Mormonism is no more Christian than Islam, its more different from Christianity than Islam is. Muslims believe Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet, they believe in the same Jesus, Mormons have a completely different Jesus.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
All kinds of different religions and sects have a different idea of who Jesus was. The point is that they all fall under the first definition referring to the person Jesus of Nazareth. We don't want to include a different definition for each of who Dan Brown, Nestorius, Mohammad, Bishop Spong, Joseph Smith etc. thinks Jesus was. —Internoob 18:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Lucifer of Mormonism is different from the Lucifer of Christianity, "(chiefly Mormonism) One of the literal sons of Elohim and Heavenly Mother; and a spirit-brother of Jesus/Jehovah."https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lucifer#English thus getting his own definition on wiktionary. If the Mormon Lucifer gets a separate definition from the Christian Lucifer, why should not the Mormon Jesus get a different definition from the Christian Jesus?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As Internoob says, Mormons have a different idea of who Jesus (sense 1) was, but that doesn't seem to be a separate sense: Caesar the military leader referred to in texts about military history is not different from Caesar the statesman referred to in Shakespeare's play. The separate, problematic sense of Lucifer, added in diff by the same contributor who added e.g. this, seems like it should also be removed. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If I talked about Sigmund Freud, and said he was the Democratic Party's candidate for president in the year 2004, then I'm not talking about Sigmund Freud, I'm talking about John Kerry. When you change the meaning of the name Jesus as much as the Mormons do, you're not even talking about Jesus of Nazareth, he's not even Dan Brown's Jesus, because the Mormon Jesus was a polygamist who immigrated to America and lead Native American tribes. He's not even the same person.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the Jesus of Mormonism is the same person as the Jesus of Christianity, he just is not allowed the same claim to divinity. Also, if we had to add the Mormon Jesus, then we'd also have to add the Muslim Jesus, the Christian Science Jesus, the Jehovah's Witness Jesus, the Nation of Islam Jesus, the Quaker Jesus, and all the other Jesuses that are figures in non-Christian religions (like Islam) or Christian descended non-Christian cults (like Mormonism), and the entry would go on forever. So I was wrong about this one, and I will defer to the consensus not to include the Mormon Jesus in the Jesus entry. I've already taken the Mormon Jesus out, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php? --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Striking since the person who added the sense agreed with removal, and removed it. Equinox 01:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


RFV discussion: July 2015[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


Jesus'

Don't know if this is the right place to put this, but the genitive form Jesus', listed on the German entry for Jesus, is something I've never seen before. I didn't conduct a thoroughgoing search of the internet, but a simple ctrl + f search of the German Wikipedia page turned up zero hits. I haven't seen the genitive form Jesus either, but Jesus' strikes me as particularly suspect. Any citations with the form would be appreciated. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly rare, but I did find this (I was searching for Jesus' Geburtsort to make sure I got genitives; we can try searching for other likely nouns too.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... I've tried the search with "Leben," "Lehre," "Einfluss," and "Jünger" and haven't come up with anything. I did find one with "Botschaft" (the genitive Jesus' is used throughout this work), though with such minimal attestation I'm really tempted to write it off as an error or an author avoiding standard usage to be sensational or controversial. The German is suspect throughout in that work you linked to, and I don't know if "Die Gute Botschaft der Menschenfresser" is really a good source from which to draw standard usage, either. At the very least, if we retain this minimally attested form, it should have some sort of qualifier as daß does. My opinion is still to exclude it; fwiw, de:Jesus lists Jesus as a possible genitive but not Jesus'. Aperiarcam (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I doubt anyone writing "Jesus'" is trying to be deliberately sensational or controversial; it would after all be the standard genitive of any other name ending in the /s/ sound (Thomas', Lukas', Max', even English names like Vince'). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Not according to our entry for Thomas. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was to say that a work like Die Gute Botschaft der Menschenfresser (apparently based on the Gospel of Thomas), which aims to "demythologize" Jesus and assert his humanity and historicity versus the canonical gospel accounts, is inflecting Jesus as a regular personal name, instead of using the Latin forms used >99% of the time, as a conscious choice to suit its message. (Doesn't it seem that way to you?) With what citations we have seen so far, anyways, it seems to me that Jesus' is more of an innovation by independent authors than a previously attested form that they learned. Aperiarcam (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Wikitiki89 That is an issue with our entry (but see de:Thomas) Aperiarcam (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I was hinting that it should be fixed. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
de:Thomas does list Thomas' as the genitive, and Duden lists both Thomas and Thomas'. I do think that using Jesus' is a way of humanizing the name; I would expect to see it more in works about the historical Jesus (and in reference to other people by that name such as Jesus Justus, Jesus ben Ananias, or any number of Spanish speakers named Jesús) than in liturgical language. Duden, lists all three of Jesus, Jesus', and Jesu as the genitive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess we aren't really in a position to contradict Duden, but I would hope it be made clear that Jesu is the form employed in the overwhelming majority of cases, both religious and secular. Aperiarcam (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added citations to Citations:Jesus.
In Google Books' corpus, Jesus' was formerly only 1/1000th as common as Jesu, and is now 1/100th as common, perhaps corresponding to the increase in the use of Jesus as a personal name and the practice of regarding Jesus as a human historical figure. Hans' has also gotten more common over time at roughly the same rate. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The user who added this has been adding (either as both a registered user and an IP, or in conjunction with a like-minded IP) obsolete inflected forms to quite a few entries, which is indeed helpful — we're one of the few dictionaries that cover obsolete forms, and hence one of the few places someone reading an old document can turn for help in figuring out what it says. But because the information is so obsolete, no-one (myself included) has been interested in creating templates for the information, so the user has just been adding it in large wikitables, or (in the case of vocative and ablative forms) bulleted lines below the tables. I will go design noun templates that include vocative and nominative forms now. As for things like der: so few of the forms in the "obsolete declension" are different they I think we're better off using usage notes like we do in other entries, e.g. laugh (but possibly placed below the inflection table), to specify the only two alternative forms which previously existed (the plural dative and plural genitive). Likewise, in Gott the current setup gives the impression that Götteren was formerly the plural genitive form, when in fact Götter has always been in use even when Götteren was also in use. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Aperiarcam: de.wt is prescriptive and a wikitionary, so doesn't count. And as mentioned above [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Jesus] - not a wiktionary, but prescriptive and maybe using auto-generated inflections which sometimes might be wrong - has it as "Jesus, Jesus', Jesu". It should be like this: Traditionally it is "das Leben Jesu" or "Jesu Leben" (declined the Latin way), besides "das Leben des Jesus", while it's younger also "das Leben Jesus'" or "Jesus' Leben" (many people can't decline Latin anymore, and in some languages Jesus is a "normal" proper noun).
@-sche:
  • There were/are other people besides me who added/add older forms/words.
  • You mean "vocative and ablative forms", right? (BTW: Albertus' grammar (16 century) implies that there was a "real" vocative in German, like "das Herz" & "o (du) Herze".)
  • Götteren was also genitive plural (e.g. see Citations:der: "der HERR der Götteren") - and there are examples of using both genitive forms Götteren and Götter in the same text. Also:
    • Schottel's grammar might also imply the genitive form "Götterer" (cf. Bürgerer), but Joseph Kehrein also wrote that he couldn't find the genitive form "Bürgerer" anywhere.
    • Albertus only lists the genitive plural Götteren, so Götter might have been a colloquial contraction or error first. On the other hand, he also only lists dative singular Gott, so his declension table might (in some way) be incomplete.
    • Maybe dative and genitive plural could also be contracted to "Göttern" (cf. modern NHG "den Göttern").
  • Regarding the article der: There are also other even more obsolete forms, namely "daß" and "deß" - so it's not just genitive and dative plural which where different. But ok, one could still put these four forms in a text note. Also: Maybe deme was also used as an article instead of dem. Searching for "deme Manne" gives a few results, but they should be MHG.
-eXplodit (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)