Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets

message: There is an attempt to add to the 2nd Paragraph without prior discussion. It has been reverted twice this half hour. If offer to talk is accepted by the editor, it will take place at: talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
: Actually, the prior discussion is here: Talk:Jesus/Archive 39#If Jesus mythers are alllowed then conservative scholars who affirm the gospels historicity and Jesus.27s resurrection should be allowed. Arch O. La 23:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you edit, the sections are referred to by number. Someone was archiving, which changed the numbering of the sections. It should be okay now. Arch O. La 23:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your conclusions. At best, the sentence is redundant, because it's not news that Christians believe in a resurrection. At worst, it's simply Ken's POV. I lean towards the latter interpretation. Alienus 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you both. I affirm the Resurrection in my capacity as a disciple/theologian, but there's no way to affirm it using historical methodology. The only way to prove or disprove it is to find the body of Christ, which would, of course, end the debate as well as Christianity. FF Bruce was one of the finest NT scholars/theologians of the 20th century, and I respect him tremendously, but wasn't an historian proper. So, the claims of Kdbuffalo/Raisinman are without merit and inaccurate. More than that, given the heated debate on this article, no one should really add contested material such as this without first bringing it here. Surely, we have a consensus on that. KHM03 02:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To affirm is simply to state as fact. That Christian apologists state Christ's historicity to be fact is hardly meaningful. PiCo 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this is theology rather than history and belongs in the Christian views section? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Christian Views section makes it redundant, to my best understanding. Heck, even as a Christian, my only reaction to the sentence was "Don't waste my time with what I already know." Though I have to admit that I'm ... not very sympathetic of KD/Raisin at all, and I'm gaving grave difficulties assuming good faith. Pending the results of the WP:RFCU, their actions smack of "playing" the policies to push POV--if the Checkuser comes back positive, then I'm going to be very peeved for the time wasted arguing with yet another sockpuppet. Justin Eiler 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Check out my TCF link. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm not talking about Jesus' historicity...the fact that he existed is affirmed by the vast majority of historians...plenty of evidence for that. What I'm disputing is whether historians can affirm his Resurrection. While I affirm it strongly, that's a faith decision; historians can say little about it other than, "It is claimed...". KHM03 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to add my voice to the choir...I have to agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions mentioned above... The fact that the proposed addition is worded quite poorly notwithstanding, there is simply no good reason to include it in the article. It's not "redundant", it's like stating "some people who are colorblind see the sun in shades of gray" in a discussion about the wavelengths of visible light that make it through Earth's atmosphere in Sun. Not only is it a "duh statement", it's a lot of words stating the obvious. The only thing I see in the statement is an attempt to use the article as a venue for giving legitimacy to a POV. (Wikipedia should be proud. :-p) Tomertalk 05:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hallelujah! Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does seem to state the obvious and therefore be redundant. SOPHIA 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with the "Christian Scholars" issue