Solascriptura

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Solascriptura, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name.

I've noticed that you have made several edits regarding the Christian faith, and that's great! We have a committed and diverse group of editors in our community with similar interests! Please feel free to ask us questions and interact with us on the various talk pages for Christian topics; we'd love to have you working with us!

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 11:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Paul of Tarsus

Please take your concerns to the article's talk page, where you are free to make your case, and leave Midnite Critic alone. Also, please review WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 11:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I note your inclusion of material on the Ebionites. I think if this is to remain undeleted you will need to quote sources. Many of these are late and unreliable.

Also I would be hopful if you could explain the relevance of the matterial on St. Paul's Hebraisms. The article is not about St. Paul's mistakes but about the claim that his version of Christianity distorts the primitive faith. I think your material belongs somewhere else.Roger Arguile 22:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Doctrine Police?"

Mr. (Or is that Dr.?) Scholar:

Doctrine Police? I don't think so. However, you may have some valid points. For example, I resonated with your comment that Protestantism in general selectively accepts, or rejects, different aspects of the Tradition. At the same time, the most workable strategy on Wikipedia to get those points included, especially when one is coming from a minority viewpoint, is NOT guerilla edits which presents debateable issues as facts. On Wikipedia, we try to work by some form of consensus that allows for the presentation of all viewpoints, including minority ones, in as an objective, NPOV manner as possible. Above all, we assume good faith on the part of the people we work with, even those with whom we may vastly disagree. Now, given that, I invite you to share your worldview with us, perhaps on your user page, and we will be happy to work together with you to see that it is included, but not to the exclusion of other views, especially majority ones, and in a manner which is as NPOV as possible. All I really know about where you're coming from at this point is that Christian observance of the Jewish Sabbath seems incredibly important to you. Why is that? Shall I assume that you are SDA? Or are you coming from some other place? This is important because material that is presented as "fact," whether actually so or not, is usually of little relevance outside a context.

A little about me: I am a priest in an Independent Syriac Orthodox Church, a denomination which follows a non-Roman Catholic tradition, but which is in direct descent from the early Church. Besides the Roman, Western tradition, there are three Eastern Christian traditions which also are direct descendants of the Apostolic Church: mine, which is sometimes called "Oriental Orthodox," that of the Assyrian Church of the East, and, of course, Byzantine Christianity, best exemplified by the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. Concerning myself, I also think it is important to specify that I was not raised in this tradition, but rather, in a fundamentalist Protestant environment. I am also a white-bread American, for good or for ill, who is traditional theologically but pretty liberal politically, especially when it comes to economic matters. I am pro life. I am also a recovering alcoholic, by the grace of God and the fellowship of A.A. Hope to hear from you soon. --Midnite Critic 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Restorationism

"Man this article is awful." (16 May 2006). No kidding. Perhaps an AID nom will bring in some help. See Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Restorationism (1 vote, stays until August 15). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Anna Diggs Taylor

Hello! I've allowed myself to revert your addition to Anna Diggs Taylor, because the bearing of your text was on the political implications of her decision, and not on the judge as a person, which is what the article is mainly about. I suggest that you contribute such text to the article about the decision itself, ACLU v. NSA. Do remember, though, that all Wikipedia contributions must conform to the neutral point of view and must not consist of original research. If you would like to discuss this further, I suggest we do this at Talk:Anna Diggs Taylor. Thanks and goodbye, Sandstein 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply at Talk:Anna Diggs Taylor. Let's try and find consensus there. Sandstein 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bible

Hiya, I may not have spent the most time in Seminary or be familiar with all religious approaches to the Bible but I can be corrected and I can roll with the insults when I see a job that needs doing. :) Such as at the Bible. As of a month ago, there was one paragraph for the OT and 6 pages of Hebrew Bible, my approach was to use the proper info in the Hebrew Bible section (as demonstrated on other wiki pages) to demonstrate it as the source for the OT and thus not requireing a complete rewrite. Many people who felt a connection to that section didn't want it tainted with others' perspectives and I caught allot of flack. I guess what I'm saying is it sure would be great to get some opinions on the subject from the perspective of a seasoned expert on the subject.. if you've got the time. Peace. --Home Computer 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul of Tarsus

I have reverted your edit since, as you mayhave read further down, MacCoby is dealt with at length. As for Jefferson, it may be the view of Europeans only that Thomas Jefferson's views on Scripture are not of significance, unlike his views on the US Constitution. I appreciate that many editors of WP live in the United States, but in relation to matters outside that country many Europeans would think that there are very many people whose views on St. Paul are more in need of a hearing.Roger Arguile 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I really think that your claim that your cuts are a minor edit is unsustainable. You may not feel that you have to defend your claim that what is written there is 'Catholic', but it would be kinder if you did. As I have written elsewhere I am not a Catholic priest (and if I were it would not be an 'admission'. What I have restored which you removed is simply a setting out of what St. Paul (or, if you will,'Paul') wrote. ) Paul's doctrine is crucial to an understanding of him as a person. No one has to agree with his ideas but to remove them on the unsustainable groounds that they are 'Catholic' will not do. I have to say that what you have done is improper. Paul's view of the atonement matters to much of modern history. It has been the source of dispute and even war. Many of your compatriots think it crucial - though they disagree aboiut it. To deny interested people access to a precis of his thought is irresponsible.

Disagreements are best dealt with by gentle if firm sustained debate not by unilateral acts which can't be justified. I think, given your precipitate action, we really do need to seek arbitration. But to begin with: please tell me what in the excised passages which I have, perhaps temporarily restoried, is 'Catholic' and what is POV. It may be your view that scepticism alone is neutrality, but censorship scarcely qualifies under any guise. Roger Arguile 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just reread what you excised. I think you should note reference to protestant scholars including Calvin, Hastings Rashdall, Aulen, Luther and others. I cannot quite believe that you read the material you removed very carefully. I would be grateful if you would read it again before being tempted to remove what is intended to be descriptive. I am sure it can be modified and it may be too long, but to discuss Paul without reference to justification by faith is to omit what many of your compatriots would consider essential. Incidentally, I do not know any Protestants in England who would object to the expression 'St. Paul'. Roger Arguile 21:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

"External links do NOT lower the quality of an article but provide additional information for research. The whole of Wikipedia is filled with them." - well said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The See Also / Exernal Links section was removed during Peer review, per consensus of the editors at the time, to upgrade the article for FAR. Part of the problem was that it was being used as free advertising for several gnostic and vegetarian Christian fringe groups. We can discuss it further on the talk page, but I am opposed to using the section as a back-door way of adding non-notable and non-verifiable fringe groups to the article. Cheers. Ovadyah 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, an endorsement by someone being investigated by the admins for fraudulent statements is, imho, not an endorsement worth having. Ovadyah 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Being investigated is one thing. The only person found against in the latest review process is Ovadyah [1].--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)