Talk:Jesus/Archive 34

message: 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)
replies: text:  I'd recommend that anyone who has suggested changes read the Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro discussion. Then, in respect of the comprimise, that a discussion be undertaken here, and, unless it reaches consensus, the main page not be edited. --CTSWyneken 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 3 and Christian views section

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John 3:16

message: 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)
replies: text: He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity?

message: 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)
replies: text: If someone is going to do this, why not bring together all the discussion on particular topics into single, subject-titled pages? (Isn't it great when I propose work I want others to do?) 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This works well on other talk pages, but it will take a bit of work. I've got it started with the "Christian views in intro," and there are other things that have been debated ad nauseum (AD vs CE, anybody?) Better organization is always a good idea. Arch O. La 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Index & Historicity vs. Historical

message: ==Robsteadman, please go away==
:This title, above, I think is hostile and not civil. We should not ask for people we disagree with to go away.Giovanni33 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. I did not not add that secondary title, but the one above it. I strike it out. Arch O. La 08:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What an aggressive and abusive post. Thank you for such great proof for my case against protectionists. Robsteadman 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno Rob, this is the most un-aggressive agressive post i've ever seen, mostly because what slrub says makes sense :/. Homestarmy 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robsteadman conflicts and an appeal to clarity

message: May I suggest the following?
# The discussion be archived in one of the numbered archives.
##What I'll do is archive all discussions on this page that haven't been touched for a few weeks. I'll leave all semi-active and active ones on this page. Deskana (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up activities