Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA

message: Just to let you know, Rob has posted a draft of his proposed revisions (as some have asked him to do). Link: User:Archola/Robsteadman%27s Jesus Draft Arch O. La 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the use of "authoritative", it's just such a funny word to me :D.Homestarmy 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intro is not far different from where we're at. Most of the difference have already been considered here and rejected, but, if we're willing to be civil and not repeat the same arguments over and over again, we could look at them on the subpage. Again, as I said above with other issues, I'd rather not discuss it in detail on the main talk page. --CTSWyneken 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been interesting, though. In the Chinese curse sort of way. Arch O. La 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robsteadman version of the article 

message: The article is surprisingly comprehensive and there are not POV tags(surprisingly). It is well sourced, so I'm posting it here to see how it could reach FAC. Newbie222 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Not quite a peer review, but I received the following from an agnostic friend:
# "the time when Jesus was purported to live" -- this seems to be bending over backward for the Jesus-mythers.  You already mentioned that they exist, but are a small group.
# "Although some critical scholars, including archeologists, continue to use them as points of reference in the study of ancient Near Eastern history[9] some have come to view the texts as cultural and literary document" (emphasis added). -- and some don't give a damn?  "Some" is too weasely.  Are there any percetages available?  Do more argree with statement one, or with statement two?
# Since you link to hagiography, do you really need this explanation? "Hagiography has a principal aim of the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus."
# This indicates that there is proof that Paul had visions: "Paul saw Jesus only in visions, but he claimed that they were divine revelations and hence authoritative (Galatians 1:11-12)."
# Develop this a bit more?  Admit that they may not exist because they may have been  intentionally destroyed? "Questions of existence of earlier texts" (I would change the title to "Earlier texts" or "Possible earlier texts" as "questions" carries a certain implication that the documents never existed).
# The footnote doesn't exactly support this, in addition, there is no indication of potential bias on the part of the scholars. "However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives"
# Is the many and some true in this section, "External influences on gospel development"?  Also, are these historical scholars (i.e., non-reliously inspired) or Biblical scholars?
Please remember that I am merely the messenger and do not deserve to be shot. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul having visions. I agree with the reviewer, but I cannot figure an appropriate rewording. "Allegedly" or "According to the bible" both could work, but I wanted to get other's input.--Andrew c 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "According the Bible" is good, reference to specific verses is better. It's in Acts at least 3 times and all over the Pauline epistles. It shouldn't be too hard to cite. In fact, we alreadty cite Galatians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the suggestions sound good. I only request that if we include something about the possibility of "intentionally destroyed" older texts, we attribute it specifically and source it. --MonkeeSage 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Have these suggestions been implemented? If so we need to strike this off the to-do list. —Aiden 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of historicity section