Talk:Jesus/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Paragraph 3 and Christian views section

And I've copied previous discussion on the third paragraph to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro. The archive dates back to Jan. 8, when the paragraph was added to the intro.

I don't mean to jump the gun, but when we are ready to move on, we might want to review the previous discussion. archola 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few introductory comments. The paragraph as it stands represents a compromise. We tried to come up with a description broad enough to cover all forms of Christianity. The reference to the Nicene Creed is mine; it acknowledges the historic and ongoing distinction between Nicene Christianity and its descendents on the one hand, and other forms of Christianity on the other. It also acknowledges that the beliefs expressed in the creed are widely, but not universally, accepted. Since "other forms of Christianity" includes the various historical lost Christianities (citation: Bart D. Ehrman, Talk:Jesus#Bart Ehrman), it also provides a link to the previous paragraph's discussion of historicity. "Other forms" also refers to modern Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentacostals, and other bodies outside of the Nicene tradition, as well as some Christians outside of organized religion. archola 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PS:The full title of Ehrman's book mentioned above is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. archola 17:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that anyone who has suggested changes read the Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro discussion. Then, in respect of the comprimise, that a discussion be undertaken here, and, unless it reaches consensus, the main page not be edited. --CTSWyneken 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

John 3:16

I don't want to get into a debate over interpretations of the Nicene Creed, but the reference to John 3:16 seems redundant. Or at least confusing: it's not clear what's being cited to the creed, and what is being cited to the Gospel. (Of course, the creed itself is based on an interpretation of the Gospels, as well as the rest of the New Testament. "Life and Teachings" starts with Some other relevant verses, so John 3:16 might fit in better there.) Arch O. La 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Nicene Creed citation was meant to cover everything between "Most Christians" and "Other Christians." After proposing the compromise, I stayed out of the debate over the finer points of theology re:atonement, salvation, sanctification, justification, et al. I'm a Lutheran, but CTSWyneken is better qualified to explain the Lutheran position than this lay believer. Arch O. La 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll not get into the debate here until the 2nd paragraph is settled. Since I haven't read the discussion, it really isn't fair for me to wade in, much less suggest, much, much less cbange anything. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity?

I have made an emendation to the "Christian view of Jesus": Jesus is a member rather than part of the Holy Trinity. According to orthodox Christianity the Holy Trinity is not divisible into parts. Each divine Person is totus Deus, each having the fulness of deity. It is not the orthodox Christian view that Jesus is a third of God while the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two thirds. There is no denomination of Christendom which publically believes and teaches that the Holy Trinity is divided up into parts. Of course, anything is possible. I would like to assist in editing this article as I am a Christian theologian dedicated, though, to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am glad, by the way, that the red neutrality flag has been removed. We want to try to make this article the best it can be in the greatest online encyclopedia. With all respect to all. drboisclair 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That said, I doubt there will be much quibble over this one word. Arch O. La 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: God is beyond human understanding, and thus beyond words. Any words we use are only true in an approximate way, since, unlike God, language is not absolute. That said, some words are more true than others. Arch O. La 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive Index & Historicity vs. Historical

I've updated the archive index as it was a dozen archives out of date.

As I did so I noticed that the article forked from here as Jesus and textual evidence is currently Historicity of Jesus. Why was it renamed? The title is close enough to Historical Jesus to cause confusion.

Also, someone should probably break up Archive 22--it is much longer than the other archives. archola 02:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is going to do this, why not bring together all the discussion on particular topics into single, subject-titled pages? (Isn't it great when I propose work I want others to do?) 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This works well on other talk pages, but it will take a bit of work. I've got it started with the "Christian views in intro," and there are other things that have been debated ad nauseum (AD vs CE, anybody?) Better organization is always a good idea. Arch O. La 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized this page to make the discussions easier to follow. Arch O. La 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And I have done it again today ;) Arch O. La 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr and date notation

Chooserr has decided to unilaterally overturn the longstanding agreement regarding dating on this page, apparently because he is unhappy with the state of some other page. Chooserr, you have agreed to stop making these kinds of edits; please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

6 of one, VI of another. AD=CE:they are the same calander. AD is no more Christian than Thursday and Wednesday are Norse, or that last month was Greco-Roman. It's all part of our cultural heritage. Please, this whole date issue is ridiculuous. Arch O. La

There is a specific, longstanding agreement regarding this page, which has been re-confirmed several times. I urge you to review its history. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop no need to worry, but I find it kind of funny that Colle would say that Euripides should be BCE/CE because it doesn't involve christians yet an article that refers to the Messiah is inappropriate for the BC/AD dating system. And as for my agreement while it was a while ago I can still distinctly remember saying that I could hold my peace for a week maybe too, but not forever. Well I didn't make any such changed for the week or two... Chooserr 02:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point.--Colle||Talk-- 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we could call this an outright disruption, it's not like he kept going at it or anything :/. Homestarmy 02:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Two times is more than enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, WP:POINT is a really bad idea, and people are often blocked for that alone. As well, I can tell you is that the Arbitration Committee has placed fairly onerous restrictions on editors who edit-war in general, and on those in particular who cannot stop themselves from indulging the exact same kind of crusading in which you are currently engaging. I direct your attention to this and this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point anyone who contests the date notation to Talk:Jesus/Archive_15 and Talk:Jesus/Archive_16 (among others). It's a settled issue—not to mention a silly one. Arch O. La 03:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before we get rid of the blatantly POV AD nonsense. Robsteadman 09:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it only a matter of time that Rob rids us and WP of his POV pushing crusade? Str1977 09:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for more evidence. AD, as has been pointed out several times, is POV and should be removed from use in neutral documents. Robsteadman 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for repeatedly stating your opinion (which neither is evidence). We know it by know. But we also know Wiki policy and we the consensus on this page (which has been violated by Chooserr). If you are not content with that, go to the page where you can discuss this policy and try to change it. Until then, leave us alone with your POV. Str1977 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of a talk page is to talk - many have expressed their concern at the offence and POV of AD/BC and yet the "christian" apologosts and protectionists continue to maintain that this is not the case. What a pity they cannot open their mind to this offence. A consensus is only of a moment - maybe it's time to re-open the debate? ;-) Robsteadman 10:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, the talk page is for talking, yes, but AD/BC is not POV according to Wiki policy. If you want to "re-open the debate" on this policy you have to go somewhere else, as this talk is about this article and not about policy.

As for my preference: I take AD as the traditional and accepted date notation and despite being a Christian I have no particular love for it (remember it is not the only notation that was ever devised by Christians), but it came to be accepted. CE is IMHO an attempt to do away with our cultural heritage, regardless of one's faith. I can accept it as a non-Christian notation in non-Christian publications (be they atheist, Jewish, Islamic or whatever) but that doesn't make it neutral.

Having said that, if WP policy required BCE/CE notation I would submit, maybe grudgingly, but I wouldn't rave about the wrongness and POVness of the polivy all the time. You should do the same.

Discussion ended.

Str1977 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is not ended. Wikipedia is a non-"christian" publication! Maybe the "god squad" would like this year to be refereed to as "The year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2006"? Because that's what AD is ramming down everyone's throats.... but of course, that's not POV is it? Open your eyes to the blatant offence. Robsteadman 10:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be correct, it is the year of our Lord Jesus Christ INFINITY - as a member of the Trinity, He has existed forever! ^rossnixon 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For my part the discussion is ended and I won't respond to any more trolling. Only one last point: there we have the crux of the matter - you WP is a "non-Christian" publication. WP is not a Christian publication but it subscribes to NPOV which translates not as "NonchristianPointOfView" but as "NeutralPointOfView". WP is neutral and Christians are just as welcome (I thought) as others are. Open ... and Shut ... Str1977 10:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman conflicts and an appeal to clarity

==Robsteadman, please go away==

This title, above, I think is hostile and not civil. We should not ask for people we disagree with to go away.Giovanni33 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not not add that secondary title, but the one above it. I strike it out. Arch O. La 08:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been away for two days and don't know whether I am pleased to see the strong consensus that has emerged over the weekend, or disturbed to see that Robsteadman continues to try to waste our time and violate our policies because he elevates his own ignorance over the research done by dedicated editors. As far as I can tell, robsteadman's broken-record has three tunes:

1. "No keep the citations - though they need to be updated as they are still dody in content and heavily biased, historians should be removed, many historians of the period (those without "faith") just don;t mention "jesus" as there is no proof of existence."
2. ""faith" schoalrs have such a huge POV that their "scholarship" has to be doubted."
3. "The lack of extant contemporaneous documents is not interpretation but is fact."

First, note Robsteadman's deceptive use of language, "historians of the period..." The Hellenic world was vast and it should surprise no one that historians of 1st century Gaul or Persia do not mention Jesus. The question is not whether historians of "the period" mention Jesus, but "historians of the period and the place". Robsteadman's weasly dodge is meant to cover up, once more, the overwhelming fact of this whole discussion: Robsteadman has yet to provide a verifiable source. What historian of first century Palestine makes no mention of Jesus, Rob? Please provide your source. If you have none, go away.

Second Robsteadman's use of "faith scholars" is another of his weasley dodges. Does he mean scholars who are biased by their faith? Or does he mean scholars who also happen to have ascribe to a religion? Robsteadman thinks the two are one and the same but they are not. By repeatedly repeating this weasley dodge, Robsteadman covers up the fact that he has never presented (despite repeated requests) any proof for this assertion. Steadman, what is your evidence? If you have none, go away.

Third Robsteadman again reveals that he does not accept Wikipedia's NPOV or NOR policies. To say that there are no extant documents is indeed a fact, but to then use this fact to make any claim about Jesus, including the claim that "there is no evidence that Jesus existed," is to make an original interpretive or analytical claim and violates NOR. Robsteadman, if you know of a historian of first century Roman-occupied Palestine who says "because of the lack of extant documents there is no evidence Jesus existed" then you would not be violating our policy. But Steadman, you have to provide the source. What is your verifiavble source? If you have none, you are just pushing your own POV. Go away.

Three requests for verifiable sources from Steadman. Steadman, provide them, or leave us alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What an aggressive and abusive post. Thank you for such great proof for my case against protectionists. Robsteadman 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Three requests for citable sources. Still, no citable sources provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno Rob, this is the most un-aggressive agressive post i've ever seen, mostly because what slrub says makes sense :/. Homestarmy 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose he is responding to my phrase "weasley dodges." Be that as it may, he can easily prove me wrong - by providing sources. Which is precisely what our policy suggests. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean up activities

May I suggest the following?

1. The discussion be archived in one of the numbered archives.
   1. What I'll do is archive all discussions on this page that haven't been touched for a few weeks. I'll leave all semi-active and active ones on this page. Deskana (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
   2. Well, it's somewhat difficult, as most of the topics are active! Instead, I've moved ones not active for a few days. I doubt they'll be touched again. If they are, just start a new topic up again on this page. Deskana (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
   3. I was going to point this out. but my browser froze. Archiving the large "discussion of paragraph 2" section (as it was before there was another Robsteadman and others revert war), which you did, is probably sufficient. Arch O. La 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
2. A subject subpage be set up with a short title for the discussion of this paragraph. I think all the pertinent conversations throughout the archives should be placed there.
   1. My next task. I already formatted a special "Active Sub-Pages" section at the top in preparation. Deskana (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
   2. Thinking about it, I don't think it's a good idea. Many people won't bother looking for the subpage. What I propose is that we keep the discussion active on the talk page and simply have an archive especially for discussing the second paragraph. I'll create that archive later if you want. Deskana (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
   3. It'll be A VERY large set of subpages. When I reorged the last two days, I had references to earlier parts of the discussions in the archive. Arch O. La 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      1. Whatever works. I just want a simple place to refer editors who stumble into a revert, not knowing that all this has been going on. I'm thinking of a wiki version of a FAQ. We then can ask people to apply general nettique to our page. Read the FAQ before posting. --CTSWyneken 16:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
3. We continue to add to the list of works supporting the paragraphs statements. I'll do this all by myself, if needed, but I would sure welcome the help. Once the uncited names are fully documented, I'd like to add a few more names, mostly of historians of ancient history to note 2, and historians, if they can be found, to note 3.

I agree in principle with these two competing needs, to archive excessive talk and to keep talk concerning an active discussion. My suggestion is archive what is a reasonable amount of discussion, and create a notice at the top of the talk page that newcomers interested in the debate over paragraph two should consult archive x before entering into the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)