Open main menu

Welcome!

Hello, Smeat75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Lindert (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

New Testament Scholars are Unreliable and biasedEdit

Regarding Christ Myth Theory - this article has the Papal Seal of Approval - an article about the Christ Myth Theory that is obviously written by believers in the New Testament - the New Testament that is steeped in mythology and made-up history. The Christ Myth theory article is awful. "Oh yes, let's write a critical article about the historical Christ, and while we're at it, let's endorse the Word of God found in the Holy Bible and discredit the false disbelievers". Dickie birdie (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for taking the time out of your day to come to my talk page and tell me that. As this is my talk page, I can go into a little rant. You and a lot of others seem to think that anybody who insists that it is the mainstream view that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate is an undoubted historical fact is a frothing at the mouth Christian fundamentalist. That isn't why I think that, it is because I am a ROMAN PAGAN and I believe it because TACITUS says so!!!!! There is only ONE THING that we know FOR SURE about Jesus, which is that he was crucified, the historian from whom I learned almost everything I know about classical history, Michael Grant, says so and so does the greatest Roman historian, TACITUS. If he was crucified, he had to exist first, so he UNQUESTIONABLY did, it is just IGNORANT people who know NOTHING about Roman history who think anything else.
I feel so much better for getting that off my chest.Smeat75 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • First, the "Annals" of Tacitus were first pronounced as fake when they first appeared during the 15th century - no ancient writer is aware of their existence. You can't say "Hey, here is a second century reference, or third century reference, or fourth century reference to the Annals by Tacitus". Secondly, relating to the crucifixion, which Christian of the first century mentions the name of Pontius Pilate? None of the early epistles found in the New Testament mention him within the context of the Crucifixion. You can't say the Gospels, because no Christian of the first century referred to the existence of the Gospels. The theory that the Gospels date from the first century is only that, only a theory and yet another example of New Testament scholarship bias." Dickie birdie (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That's what I said, ignorant people who know NOTHING about ROMAN HISTORY and ARROGANTLY imagine that know better than the greatest classicist of the 20th century MICHAEL GRANT. Please do not continue this stupid argument on my talk page, I unfortunately waste too much time trying to keep the articles relating to Jesus and ROMAN HISTORY neutral and accurate I don't need to do the same thing on my talk page also.Smeat75 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ARCEdit

Hello Smeat. By accident I more or less stumbled my way into discovering that I was recently mentioned somewhat indirectly in a recent ArbCom case. Although I don't think we've discussed any of the issues involved directly (not that I'd want to) I'm grateful that you clarified things and managed to do it all tactfully enough not to drag me into the discussion. Although like anyone else I sometimes get in disagreements, being able to keep myself uninvolved from some of the most toxic disputes on Wikipedia is a large part of what keeps me mentally able to continue editing here. Although I'm not glad that two editors are no longer here on Wikipedia, I'm glad that I didn't see the explosions till after they were already dealt with. Thank you for your tact. Alephb (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Buone FesteEdit

 


May you have very Happy Holidays ...

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!



Best wishes and many thanks for all your work at Project Opera, Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2019Edit

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Christ myth theory cleanupEdit

Hey smeat. I cleaned up the Richard Carrier page to my satisfaction (though more can be done), but I just came to realizing the fact that the Christ myth theory page is even more tedious and badly written. I've already started, though I would appreciate some help in cleaning up the article.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Good luck, it is very very contentious. I tend to pick a few areas in articles like that and the Carrier one, mostly on scholarly reception, and concentrate on those. I think you are quite new here, I hope you don't get burnt out by having to deal with people arguing with you, I quit WP for two years for that reason, but yes I am happy to try to help you.Smeat75 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chandos Anthems?Edit

I learned something new today: that the name Chandos Anthems is common and wrong, because James Brydges became Duke of Chandos only after Handel left, and serious people call them Cannons Anthems of Anthems for Cannons. What should we do, article name, texts, referring to them, etc.? Usually, Wikipedia prefers common name over correct name, or we wouldn't have The Flying Dutchman (opera) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "Chandos Anthems" is the common name. I think the way you have clarified the issue in the lead of the article is fine. Thanks for your work on the pieces.Smeat75 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Found a few good sources today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Census of QuiriniusEdit

Hi there, I can't help but notice that the "Mention in the Gospel of Luke" offers a rather one-sided perspective. I am in no way trying to perform 'exegetical acrobatics' or to delete any arguments against the plausibility of conservative claims, but since there are arguments both in favour and against don't you think both sides could co-exist? I am just looking for a neutral, informative page. 92.109.57.20 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please start a discussion on the article talk page if you want to discuss this so others can participate. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

In case you're interestedEdit

Return to the user page of "Smeat75".