Talk:Jesus/Archive 36

message: == Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created ==
I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subpages & Reorgs

message: I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created 

message: Ditto for scholarship on the dates of birth and death. Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death --CTSWyneken 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Birth and Death Subpage Created 

message: I've reorganized the page for ease of reference and added N. T. Wright. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited Authors Bios Subpage Reorganized 

message: Ok, I've reorganized the page a bit...but all this hellacious voting is still a mess. I tried to work around it. Arch O. La 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorg

message: == Again with John 3:16 ==
The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"
:Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.
I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and 
:* believe 
::* Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::: and 
::* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
and NOT
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and
:* believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::and
:* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward.
But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.
1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research. 
2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.
3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.
**The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
**Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view
4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.
5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him. 
6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.
7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?
I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus
*See also
** Talk:Jesus/Archive_19#Catholic_view_on_salvation
** http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
** http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
** http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34
--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whazza? Just because you could hypothetically claim the Nicene Creed doesn't necessarily advocate acceptance of Jesus doesn't mean the Creed is locking all Catholics into not being allowed to accept Jesus, it doesn't say "And knowing this alone is all you need to be saved" does it, plus not all Catholics quite honestly act Catholic at all, and what I mean by accept is the same as "to believe in compleatly", its a popular way of saying it because then you can say "accept Him into your heart" which is a wee bit metaphorical, but works the same and seems popular. Homestarmy 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what he's saying is that the Creed and the Gospel of John need to be considered as separate issues (and the paragraph written so that's clear that they are separate issues). If that's what he's saying, then I agree. Arch O. La 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that discussion on this paragraph has been tabled until the war over the previous paragraph is over. I recall Tolkein (The Hobbit) and the Battle of the Five Armies. Who won? The last survivor. Is that what we really want here? Arch O. La 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Nicene Creed is of interest for reasons other than those mentioned here.  A critical look into its full history can be a real eye-opener. Jim62sch 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 3 (tabled) 

message: The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"
:Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.
I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and 
:* believe 
::* Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::: and 
::* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
and NOT
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and
:* believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::and
:* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward.
But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.
1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research. 
2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.
3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.
**The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
**Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view
4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.
5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him. 
6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.
7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?
I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus
*See also
** Talk:Jesus/Archive_19#Catholic_view_on_salvation
** http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
** http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
** http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34
--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whazza? Just because you could hypothetically claim the Nicene Creed doesn't necessarily advocate acceptance of Jesus doesn't mean the Creed is locking all Catholics into not being allowed to accept Jesus, it doesn't say "And knowing this alone is all you need to be saved" does it, plus not all Catholics quite honestly act Catholic at all, and what I mean by accept is the same as "to believe in compleatly", its a popular way of saying it because then you can say "accept Him into your heart" which is a wee bit metaphorical, but works the same and seems popular. Homestarmy 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what he's saying is that the Creed and the Gospel of John need to be considered as separate issues (and the paragraph written so that's clear that they are separate issues). If that's what he's saying, then I agree. Arch O. La 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that discussion on this paragraph has been tabled until the war over the previous paragraph is over. I recall Tolkein (The Hobbit) and the Battle of the Five Armies. Who won? The last survivor. Is that what we really want here? Arch O. La 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Nicene Creed is of interest for reasons other than those mentioned here.  A critical look into its full history can be a real eye-opener. Jim62sch 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again with John 3:16 

message: Last sentence in the third paragraph reads "Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy." The word ASLO should be removed since the previous sentence applies to SOME Christians but not ALL or MOST.
Stuartyeates 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove "also"  

message: Surely it is time to unprotect this page and allow the wider WP community to have a go? Robsteadman 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The dust should have settled on our vandalism and we can surely go back if it reoccurs. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure.Gator (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the semi. Hope it works out... William M. Connolley 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect