Talk:Jesus/Archive 42

message: I made a new template, Template:Niv, which is similar to Template:Bibleverse, but doesn't use an external redirect and is only for the NIV translation. If anyone wants to update the article using it, it should decrease the size a bit. Template syntax is at Template_talk:Niv. --MonkeeSage 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty neat.  Thanks for your efforts! I'll see if I can't convert some links when I get some more time.--Andrew c 02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I updated the article to use the template. I think I got all the refferences. :) --MonkeeSage 08:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Template

message: So there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led Zeppelin Backstage Pass (talk • contribs) 
:No, you're thinking of The Beatles. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeppelin is bigger than Big J. 

message: The Gnostics believed that matter was inherently evil, spirit was inherently good, and that salvation was achieved through secret knowledge (gnosis) of the spiritual world. Gnostic Christians believed that Jesus was an Aeon who provided gnosis, and who was sent by a higher deity than the evil demiurge who created the material world. Gnostic Christians further believed that Jesus was a spiritual being whose material body, and thus his crucifixion and death, were divine illusions. Some Gnostics believed that Jesus had a syzygy named Sophia. The Gnostics wrote several texts and tended to interpret the New Testament as allegory.
Suggestions for improving and referencing this paragraph will be appreciated. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should include the term (wikilinked of course) Docetism in your description. Perhaps: Gnostics oftentimes held docetist views, believing that Jesus was a spiritual being whose material body, and thus his crucifixion and death, were divine illusions. or something less wordy.  And off topic... I was thinking about some of the recent books I've read by Bart D. Ehrman, and it made me wonder why the adoptionist and Marcion perspectives weren't mentioned anywhere in the article.--Andrew c 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check again: Docetism is linked to "divine illusions." I don't know enough about adoptionism or Marcionism to comment, but perhaps someone else could. BTW was that Ehrman book titled Lost Christianities? I've seen a sample and have been trying to find a copy. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the title of the book (I also recently read The New Testament also by Ehrman). I got it from the Virginia Commonwealth University library (I work right next to it). Maybe I could get it again and review the information to see if I could add to the other perspectives.--Andrew c 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeez, I didn't notice till know that "divine illusions" was linked to Docetism, my bad. I guess I am just partial to the actual term being used. That's all.--Andrew c 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it in the article to give a reference that better explains the Gnostic view. They did think matter was inherently evil but the "Gnosis" was most important. SophiaTalkTCF 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reference, but I had to fix the link to Demiurge#Gnosticism. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I didn't think I'd done any damage but I obviously missed that. SophiaTalkTCF 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnostic paragraph

message: Currently although the first section mentions the documents controversy this is not picked up in the Historicity section. For consistency across the whole article you would expect to see a very slight elaboration on this issue (maybe with a link?). In the "accuarcy" part of the historicity section there is discussion of the documents so there would be scope for adding a one liner to pick up on the intro. I've put this here first so that people don't go off the deep end about adding more of this "touchy" stuff. It might be better if someone else added it anyway.
Any chance of a picture in the first section? It always does look good and gives the immediate impression of a major cleanup/revamp even if the content is mostly the same. SophiaTalkTCF 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I will not go off to another part of the article myself, I'd like to see the article structured like this:
Intro summarizes very briefly the whole article; sections below cover the basic concepts of their subjects, functioning as summaries of the full-blown subarticles that cover the whole of their topic, all major views on their subjects, etc.
So I'd say, yes, pick up the "extant documents" thing, with the majority reply, in the section below, but try to leave the blow-by-blow to the historicity article itself. --CTSWyneken 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absooolutely - no blown up arguments on this page. I think you are spot on with your hierarchical view of the detail structure of the article. Nice picture anyone???SophiaTalkTCF 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would the Grunewald Altarpiece do?  [] --CTSWyneken 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does forcefully bring home the power of the sacrifice. Is this the side of JC that you would like emphasized? I must admit I did imagine some aspect of JC as a teacher as this is almost universally recognized - even by non christians. SophiaTalkTCF 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For me, yes! It's my favorite artwork for that reason. But then I am a Lutheran! 8-) Seriously, any appropriate image is fine by me. The other is perfectly acceptable in my book. --CTSWyneken 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the picture next to the "legacy" section is pretty good - it could just be moved up. SophiaTalkTCF 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it going to upset anyone if I move the "Legacy" picture up to the first section? Or shall I upload CTS's suggestion? Speak now or forever hold your peace! SophiaTalkTCF 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea for a picture to be at the beginning, go for it :D. Homestarmy 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lack of extant... and a picture too!