It strikes me that the existance of these articles is an attempt to flood the internet (via wikipedia mirrors) with articles about the resurrection of Jesus. It comes as no surprise that it is the account of the resurrection in John that is treated in this manner and not those of Mark, Matthew, or Luke. The UCCF/ IVCF has a heavy favouritism for the Gospel of John over the others.
I have seen absolutely no argument that each of these 18 articles is noteworthy in its own right, nor can I see any justification for continuing to keep the verses discussed in seperate articles. Particularly since the division into verses are an artificial construct of the mediaeval era, and have no relation to the original text, or how it was originally meant to be read. -- Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me that the existance of these articles is an attempt to flood the internet (via wikipedia mirrors) with articles about the resurrection of Jesus. It comes as no surprise that it is the account of the resurrection in John that is treated in this manner and not those of Mark, Matthew, or Luke. The UCCF/ IVCF has a heavy favouritism for the Gospel of John over the others.
I have seen absolutely no argument that each of these 18 articles is noteworthy in its own right, nor can I see any justification for continuing to keep the verses discussed in seperate articles. Particularly since the division into verses are an artificial construct of the mediaeval era, and have no relation to the original text, or how it was originally meant to be read. -- Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)