Talk:Jesus/Archive 81

message: I reverted the removal of this tag.  The edit summary said "(→External links - Jesus did not found the religion that was Paul and Peter inspired by his teachings, hence it is they who need to be categorised and not Jesus, same as haile Selassie who was remov)" but Matthew 16-18 says;  "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  which I maintain makes Jesus the founder of the Christian church.  --BenBurch 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In fact, I was just going to revert, but BenBurch beat me to it. ElinorD (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same editor has made changes to John the Baptist, Paul of Tarsis and Peter...  Complimentary changed to this one.  Should those be reverted?  And they appear to be some sort of statement about Rastafarianism, somehow...  --BenBurch 02:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already reverted those. The thing about Rastafarianism is about me removing Haile Selassie from the cat, simply because he had NOTHING to do with the founding of Rasafarianism! Zazaban 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I have Rasta friends who seem to know that fact though...  --BenBurch 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: y'Welcome, glad I could help. In the end it turned out it was a Rasta throwing a hissy fit over Haile Selassie being removed from the category. :( Zazaban 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founders of religions category tag 

message: I'm the least person the start a debate, trust me, but while reading I found startling evidence that Jesus was not moral and not wise. The Gadareth swine and the fig tree is a good example of those. (PRhyu 11:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PRhyu, my perception of your statement is that the two instances are difficult for you personally to understand; not necessarily an example of being immoral or unwise. You may appreciate doing some more in-depth study of these passages by reviewing what theologians have said. I am sure you will find some references published by your church or other trusted source. If not, I am certain I could find references for you to review. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PRhyu, just because the gospels say Jesus did something, doesn't mean he did it. The swine and fig tree stories don't float my boat, either, but that's the gospels' business, not Jesus'. Jonathan Tweet 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus's Character

message: I added this text, and its not original research, but could use more citations and also could be reduced dramatically. This article is about jesus, and its relevant to say why the jews don't believe and talk about the controversy about the messianic propherices. Wyatt 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reduced the additions and moved them lower in the section. Wyatt 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've added what may be a Christian (mis)interpretation, but it is unsourced original research and doesn't represent Judaism's view.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism View 

message: The gospel of John is dated within the 1st century also. There are 12 disciples and 70+ apostles, and its more accurate to say the disciple peter. I also used the ESV text, which is a more colloquial translation. Wyatt 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll respond further in a little bit. But for now, I wanted to ask you to please not edit war. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, especially on a fairly stable, top tier article like this one, don't go adding your exact same content in again. Come to talk if necessary and work things out, through a process of collaboration and consensus. Strong wikipedia articles are built on team efforts, not from one editor forcing their edits in through reverts. I'd urge you to refrain from reverting if someone disagrees or removes one of your edits. Instead, come to talk, work things out, and only after a group decision has been reached, returning to editing that section of the article. We can all work together, not against, each other. (specifics relevent to the content in question soon to come).-Andrew c 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on all your concerns about my edits in the talk page, and didn't find your claims founded, so i went ahead and reverted. also, during the revert, other minor edits were reverted too because the revert process wasnt done right. we can discuss it more, but i put a lot of time and research to make those updates and you'll find them accurate. Wyatt 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right that Mark is the earliest Gospel, and I added John because I know they had early fragments found around 70AD, but the date is debated. My point was that Paul's documents were not the only documents written in the first century, and although Paul's documents were written first, I thought it was misleading and saying that only Paul's documents were actually found.Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think people will throw away information unless it appears in all four gospels, but rather one gives more details about the others. If there is a contradiction between them, it might be worth reconsidering, but the accounts are in accord. Scholars who dismiss texts that aren't exactly the same between them, are usually trying to discredit the whole thing like the Jesus Seminar. I don't think its unreasonable to specify a disciple and even better to say that it is Peter and I'd like to see some reference that says its not peter that contradicts the passages in the Gospel of John: I don't see how its original research for me to quote it.  Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit it was laziness that caused the sources to differ, because i quoted teh ESV and then realized its not part of wiki but I knew that it could be cleaned up easily by some generous person. I actually like the ESV right now which is 90% literal, but i don't think that is used by the bible citation short cut, so I was trying to use the NASB because its the most literally accurate at like 93%, where the NIV is an old translation. If the editors wish to use the NIV that's fine, I just think that the KJV is difficult to understand and modern translations like the NRSV, NASB and ESV are better. Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: agreed. Paul B 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel that this article should be closed to all future edits or revisions, even if the text gives the same facts? please do not be angry with me, I just would like to help improve this article. Wyatt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if I did think that - which I don't - my opinion would be irrelevant. It is fundamental to Wikipedia that it is open to edits. All articles are provisional. However I agree with Andrew's view of your edits. Paul B 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits Reverted 

message: This article needs to be improved towards FA status, so i vote that sections be revised. I understand that voting is evil, but im just trying to follow wiki guidelines so my edits stick! Wyatt 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Status 

message: I'd like to propose the change of the opening part of this article where it says, "...(Jesus) is the fictional figure of Christianity."
This I believe is biased since you are assuming from your POV that he didn't exist. People do believe that he exists and so stating that he's fictional is biased toward the people who don't believe he was around. I suggest changing it to something like, "some believe that Jesus was only a fictional character while others believe that he did exist."
That'll make sure that it keep a nuetral point and both sides of the discussion is covered fairly allowing the reader to come to his/her own conclusion.
Lucky Foot 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's called vandalismBrian0324 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know. Thanks for changing it. I saw a lock symbol in the corner and thought that meant this page was protected. Lucky Foot 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Bias? 

message: For those who are interested, I've reported Dr Lisboa for violating the 3RR here..  If anyone would like to make comments there for or against, please do so. (It's worth noting that looking at the history of her page shows that she's deleted past issues similar to this, which appears to be a pattern in her edits.)TJ 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you having made similar attacks against most of them as well, I doubt they're inclined to listen.TJ 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a dabate about the 3RR rule. You both disagree totally, and your trying to stop the other from editing out what you disagree with. Theology John and Dr Lisboa, this is a really purile act displaying your disagreements. If you both can't agree on the said segment, why don't you comprimise and replace said segment with something vague but non offensive to either of you. Do you really believe either of you have general support,, bull. I don't care how much support you might claim to have, you both chase support to have your way. If you can't agree, comprimise. And argue with each other out of the public domain. You could both learn from the Japanese who have the concept of Haragei86.4.59.203 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You complain about people disagreeing by disagreeing. What hypocrisy ! So it's OK for you to disagree with other people's actions, but it isn't OK for other people to disagree. Do you have some kind of monopoly on disgreeing with the actions of other people ? I haven't chased any support. It's better to be right and have everyone disagree with you than be wrong and have everyone agree. TJ is the one that is trying to get support because he doesn't and couldn't have any confidence in what he writes. Vague and non-offensive atheists section. That's foolish. It is supposed to represent what atheist views are - not what Christians would like their views to be. If all atheists thought that Jesus was an insane paedophile or a pink elephant then that is what is should state regardless of whether it was right or it offended anyone. --Dr Lisboa 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was trying to promote a comprise, but you seem to have taken offense at comments which were not necessarily thrown at you. I shall make a point to you about 'views'. Atheists don't have a majority view about Jesus, and neither do theists. As TJ can read non christian views, he can also edit the atheist section so long as he quotes sources. Same for you, if you can quote your sources whilst editing the Christian view. What is best for the article obviously requires debate. It seems to me that we should keep the article page for views of published scholors only, whether it maybe an atheist or theist or agnostic viewpoint. That way, the insane paedophile view might be left to the conspiracy theorists blog websites lol..I'll site my point again about Haragei. If neither of you two can agree on what is said in that section, perhaps what is required is either: Two paragraphs showing opposing views, or a vague non offensive paragraph which sides with neither view.86.4.59.203 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mu. --Stephan Schulz 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Report for violating 3RR

message: How DARE we use BCE and CE here, how dare we! This is the page for JESUS CHRIST! America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and despite what some whiny Europeans want to believe, this really is the AMERICAN encyclopedia. We are living in the WEST, and our culture was founded upon Judeo-Christian values! How dare you try to insult our history by inserting liberal dating notations into this article, HOW DARE YOU!!!
Spotswood Dudley 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Wikipedia, a site not restricted to an American POV. I'm not sure how BCE/CE is an insult to Jesus, and I believe it is current practice in modern history texts. Splintercellguy 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Liberal bias? Don't you know that everone here is an "extreme Christian". Paul B 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. We must be doing something right if we manage to upset both the Judeo-Christian AMERICAN conservatives AND the in-your-face atheists at the same time.-Andrew c 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't "extreme Christian" more or less the same as "liberal" (US understanding)? I mean, the whole new testament is about a group of unshaved guys in sandals, with the head guy (a Jew!) talking about pacifism and turning the other cheek, actually demolishing a valuable trading place and preaching against earthly wealth, but in favour of paying taxes...how much more liberal can it get?--Stephan Schulz 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For all those whom may add to this tread. This is a regular debate, and the issue is always hottly debated. Nobody has yet to agree a general consensus. The only approach therefore has been to include both conventions. It will probably be a waste of your time to add further comment, this is an unresolvable debate.86.4.59.203 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, despite the rhetoric, this person brings up a question that no one has directly answered when I've asked it.  Why is this article and a tiny handful of others the only ones that have the clumsy and ridiculously non-encyclopedic "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" designations? All I've been told is "check the archives," which is a cute dodge, but doesn't answer the question. Jinxmchue 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you read the archives, you would see at least 2 very large votes regarding the issue. If you read wikipedia's MoS, we have no preference over which is better, AD or CE, as long as the era notation is used consistently through the article. So looking at both of those large votes, you will see that there was never a consensus big enough to support either side, so a compromise was drawn. It is clunky, but it keeps the peace because there hasn't been a consensus to support just using one or the other. And what I always say when this topic is brough up for the umpteenth time, we should not attempt to tackle this issue until we have addressed the items on the To Do list, and gotten this article up to FA status. What is more important to you, two silly letters at the end of years, or getting this article FA status? No need to beat a dead horse and dredge up this old debate. Move on, and find better ways to improve the article for now. I hope this helps explains things.-Andrew c 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, we already went over this with Spotswood Dudley (here) - that he is bringing it up again means only that he is trying out his Bill O'Reilly immitation, or his charicature of a troll - honestly, can the tone of his above rant be intended to do anything other than make us smile? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Well, if you read the archives." My point is proven. In any case, I've little doubt that the anti-Christian atheists (of the PZ Myers and Michael Newdow ilk) are having quite a smug little laugh that the "BCE/CE" designation has been included in this article. Jinxmchue 13:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, have you read the archives? There is a rather useful index. Spending two minutes, I found Talk:Jesus/Archive_74#Era_notation_vote, and of course there are many other discussions, e.g. Talk:Jesus/Archive_14#Common_Era_v._Anno_Domini (and the whole rest of that page) and Talk:Jesus/Archive_15#Common_Era_v._Anno_Domini (and the rest of that page, too). --Stephan Schulz 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jinxmchue, exactly what point have you proven?  You said that no one has directly answered your question about why this article has a particular era notation style.  Andrew c answered your question.  He also referred to the archives where you can see all the gory details of the debates.  Sounds like a direct answer to me.  Your comment about smug atheists is a nonsequitur.  I really don't think there are evil cackles of glee emanating from the dark halls of atheism over a hybrid era notation in the Jesus article on Wikipedia.  No doubt they're too busy maiming puppies and stealing broadband wireless from their neighbors to pay much attention to what's going on here. alanyst /talk/ 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course not.  You don't use your ears to read, silly. Jinxmchue 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The most likely explanation for "vanishing content" is that you never successfully submitted it in the first place. It happens quite a lot to me - I hit "Show preview", and forget to hit "Safe page" in the end, or I hit "Safe page", but never notice there was an edit conflict. As for your comment on my remark: It should be obvious that I wrote tongue in cheek. As you rightly point out, we know very little about what really happened back then (and that of course includes that we do not know exactly how the disciples kept their beards!). "Had Jesus never arrived, all Christians would be Jews" - um, no. Had Jesus never arrived, there would be no Christians at all. Assuming you mean "all current Christians would be Jews", no again. Judaism is not particularly contageous as religions go. Mithraism was fairly popular at the time, or the religion of Sol Invictus. Or see Harry Harrison's The Hammer and the Cross triology for one version of what might have happened. As for the rest: I assume you know that you are interpreting scripture, and that it can be, and frequently is, interpreted differently. Christianity started as a messianic Jewish sect. It transformed (under the significant influence of Paul) into a religion popular among the lower classes and slaves in the Roman Empire. It took quite a while until it became popular throughout the social strata, and even longer until it was used to support various forms of gouvernment and social stratification. --Stephan Schulz 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIBERAL BIAS 

message: The vandalism saying Jesus is an E.T. is still there. Yet when I view the history, it says it was removed. 68.55.183.136 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try purging and a forced refresh. I can't see it. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism! Help! Someone!