This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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, please go away==
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:
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)
Three requests for citable sources. Still, no citable sources provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 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)
May I suggest the following?
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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, please go away==
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:
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)
Three requests for citable sources. Still, no citable sources provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 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)
May I suggest the following?
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)