Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 2

message: We need to talk about your revert to the introduction.  I have made the following changes, which you seem to dislike.  First, I cleaned up a lot of information that didn’t belong there.  I don’t object to this information, but it is not needed in the introduction.  All the business about Paul’s eschatology is misplaced in the introduction – make an eschatology section if you want.  That Paul “did not originate the idea (of gentile Judaism)” is unnecessary.  If all Paul did, according to you, was continue an earlier idea, then all one needs to mention are his changes to that idea (thus put in the stuff about the Jewish law).  Again, if you want to mention the gentile dimension of Judaism, and Paul’s relation to it, make a section and put it there, but not in the intro.  Also, I didn’t like the “then came his Road to Damascus experience”, I rather preferred my “until his experience on the Road to Damascus” because it sounds less “story-ish” and more encyclopaedic, if you know what I mean.  Lastly, I don’t think you need to say what Messiah means since it is linked to the proper article.  Lostcaesar 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I just performed a major, and very time consuming, reorganization of this article.  Over the past few weeks I have watched all sorts of information, most of it dubious, make its way into various inappropriate sections of the article.  In the intro there was a discussion of Paul's eschatology.  In the writings section there was talk about Gnosticism and Irenaeus.  There was also discussion of Revelation (why?).  I have reorganized all this, and made the proper sections.  Let me advice everyone that I have a reluctance to delete information, and for this reason much that was said remained, although I think it poor.  So, before anyone overreacts and reintroduces information, please 'read the article and see if it is already more or less covered.  If anyone just tosses more crap in here that is already covered (like another description of the Road to Damascus, even though there is a lengthy section in the article on it, a separate article dedicated to it, and a mention in the introduction) then I will find where you live and bring scholarly wrath upon you.  Let me say that I actually changed very little, although the writings section had pov issues, and I encourage everyone to examine my changes (remember, much of this information, which was theological, was simply moved around).  Also, let me give two warnings.  There were many references from this "pbs" site that were just absurd – I left what I could honestly leave in the article, but please don't reintroduce this crap as though it were stone fact.  Also, a fellow named MacDonald gets tremendous play in this article, indeed the entire "legends" section is entirely about his thesis.  I don't recall taking any of his stuff out, but it seems odd, and I really don't like the section dedicated as a shrine to his musings.Lostcaesar 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I called "absurd" was presenting the pbs information as though it were stone fact, that is to say they express an opinion, a point of view, and the article ought to reflect that.  I don't mind it being in there, I mind an opinion substituted for a fact.  And btw, I don't see how it matters what you call yourself. Lostcaesar 20:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Btw, half the stuff you put back is already in teh article, somtimes word for word, in a different section (like the stuff about circumcision), please read the article and make sure you arn't doing silly redundancies. Lostcaesar 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: also i am a confused as to "POV". It is my understanding the policy is NPOV or neutral point of view. The information I present is anything but personal, as it often conflicts with famously held christian personal beliefs. These views are by definition neutral, you only need look at the sources. 
I would also like to comment that it does me no good to refute sources rather than information. We would not argue the source of a mathematician from PBS who said 2+2 = 4, but perhaps we would if our preachers taught 2+2 = 5. I hope you understand, my goal is not to disprove and persuade anybody, rather to present knowledgable and objective information. This by definition, is not POV.
Biblical1 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework of the Article 

message: What information did I “erase” that you want in the article?  I didn’t consider my edits to be erasing so much as reorganizing.  Most of the removals were due to the reorganization, which made their existence redundant (in that they were mentioned twice in the article).  Lets go through the specifics of my pov changes in the “scholarly consensus” section.
1: Notice how I say "scholars who hold this say X, while others say Y", whereas you say "X is the truth", or "All scholars say X [quote one]".
2: Whether or not Paul’s writings are “the” foundation of Christian literature depends on whether the traditional Gospels are ascribed to their proper authors.  The name of the section is “scholarly consensus”.  All scholars agree that Paul’s writings are “a foundation”, but not the foundation.  Why?  Because there is differing opinion as to whether the next statement you like so much “no writing survives from Jesus’ disciples” is true or not.  Many scholars think that Mark was one of the seventy disciples, and that he wrote Mark.  Some scholars (though a minority) think that Matthew is the author of his Gospel.  Likewise, some scholars identify John as a principle source of the Gospel with his name.  Hence, it isn’t fair for the article to say what it does.  It expresses a point of view to which there is no “scholarly consensus”.  I like my reading much better.  It expresses a far more nuanced (and accurate) view of scholarship, and also articulates the traditional Christian position (which I think is worth noting, even if just to bounce modern scholarship off of).  It is also the format that most other articles on the New Testament take.  
Compare: 
: Scholars generally classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as the foundation of Christian literature, as no writing survives from Jesus or his disciples.
:'My edit: 'Scholars classify Paul's epistles (or letters) as a foundation of Christian literature. Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature.
Which is a better representation of the entire field of scholarship, and the "scholarly concensus"?
3: The issue of Marcan priority is not a settled matter amongst scholars.  My edits improved the clarity of the article.  Paul’s wirtings are considered the earliest New Testament texts by those who ascribe to Marcan priority – what's wrong with that addition?  It better expresses the field of scholarship.  Scholars who think Matthew wrote first (see Augustinian Hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis) obviously think that Paul's writings are not the earliest in the New Testament.  All I did was change the article to include this view. 
Compare:
:Yet scholars generally concede that we can learn almost nothing about Jesus' life or teachings from Paul. Although Paul lacked knowledge of the historical Jesus, Paul and his followers are attributed with 16 of the New Testaments 27 books and he is also it's earliest writer, earlier even than the Gospel of Mark. The earliest surviving of all Christian literature is Paul's First Thessalonians.
:My edit:  Those who follow this position [that Jesus' disciples wrote nothing] generally concede that nothing can be learned about Jesus' life or teachings from Paul.  Paul himself claimed knowledge of Jesus from visions, or "divine dreams", and from the apostles (particularly James the Just and Simon Peter), as he never met Jesus in the flesh. Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light. Paul is traditionally attributed with 16 of the New Testaments 27 books. Scholars who follow Markan priority see Paul's writings as the earliest of the New Testament, and hold that the earliest surviving of all Christian literature is Paul's First Thessalonians.
Do you see how one expressed a point of view as fact, while the other gives both points of view as points of view?
4: Did Paul dissent from Peter and James?  Did Peter and James think of Christianity as nothing more than a Jewish sect?  The answers to these are opinions, to which there are arguments in support or against, scholars on both sides, and the like.  You present this as fact and give one scholar's opinion to back it up.  I present them as differing views.
5: You added the "circumcision was seen as a divine mark" paragraph (and the quote of which you are convinced that I am ignorant) to the "scholarly consensus" section.  It now exists twice, word for word, in the article (it is also in the more appropriate "Salvation and the Mosaic Law") section.  Why did you put the same words in twice?  That is just redundancy to the extreme.  It makes the article look very sloppy.
6:You say "Jews compromised their faith" and cite one scholar – I say "some scholars argue that Jews compromised their faith" and cite the same one author – see the difference?  Did Jews really compromise their faith?  Why not go with my wording?
7:You added that Paul believed there would be an imminent apocalypse.  There is a section called "eschatology", which beings "There is evidence that Paul… believed there would be an immediate apocalypse…" – see what I mean about repeating the same material.  Furthermore, you added material about the Book of Revelation.  What does a book written after Paul died have to do with Paul, and his eschatology?  Also, your section claims to know, absolutely, the mind of Paul, both his views on marriage and his understanding of the apocalypse.  That's going to far (even if Mr. MacDonald is convinced that he knows Paul's mind).  What you gave is one interpretation of Paul's views on marriage.  If you are going to quote anything claiming to know the mind of Paul, then quote something from his letters.  
8:How do you know that Paul thought the Old Testament God was "never jealous"?  Paul never said that, indeed his beloved Scriptures said the opposite (Exodus 209:5).  In fact – Paul quoted this in 2 Corinthians 11:2 !
9:The quote from Ezekiel and Jeremiah are now in the article twice (see Jewish Scriptures in Christianity).  The stuff about Sheol is now in the article twice (see "nature of the afterlife"). Both word for word !
10:I did remove the following:
:These contradicting views and dissimilarities between God in the Old and New Testament were pointed out by dissenters from Orthodox (meaning ‘straight’) Christianity such as Marcion who put them in a now lost and extant Antithesis. Paul's epistles were later joined by the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in 170 by Bishop Irenaeus who believed, "There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.” < Irenaeus' movement subsequently caste all of the other widely circulated gospels as Gnostic, most of which were lost.   "Fortunately, the arid sands of Egypt have protected fragments of many works, including the spectacular caches of thirteen forth-century Coptic Codices (or bound books) discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. Over a thousand pages of text contain some forty documents otherwise unknown, many of which had been composed by Christians centuries earlier." The discovery at Nag Hammadi gives scholars incite into original Christianity and Paul because it "contained no fewer than 41 early Christian scriptures we've never heard of. Their titles had previously appeared in no list, no correspondence, no surviving document of any kind. If the church could successfully erase all memory of these 41 scriptures, it could do anything; 15,000 years is a long time to get a story straight"
::What does this have to do with "scholarly consensus"?  What does it mean that Irenaeus "joined" the four gospels together? There are earlier references to gospels books before Irenaeus (like Justine Martyr) – besides again this is an opinion about the development of the Gospels.  What does his quote about the four corners of the earth have to do with anything?  The sudden mention of Marcion is strange, with no explination – what is he doing here?  Orthodox doesn’t mean straight – the ortho part means that, the dox part means something else (and important addition, mind you).  What does the business about arid sands of Egypt and Gnostic texts have to do with anything?  This is perhaps all a strange and disjoined reference to "Paul's significant to the formation of Christian orthodoxy" – hey, if you want it in make that section (and make it make sense).
I reverting this till we get all the mess straightened out.  I'm not unreasonable or uncompromising, either, but I just don't understand the changes.  Lostcaesar 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the above arguments compelling and approve of the edits made by Lostcaesar. My only problems with the passages is the use of the word traditional when it seems you meen literalist. Cheers. JPotter 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I particularly agree with Caesar's points 2 and 10. I know this hasn't been set up as a vote, but I wanted to add my 2¢ Carl.bunderson 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 8
How do you know that Paul thought the Old Testament God was "never jealous"? Paul never said that, indeed his beloved Scriptures said the opposite (Exodus 209:5). In fact – Paul quoted this in 2 Corinthians 11:2 !
My friend, we must keep in mind your argument from earlier, if we are to knowanything about anyone, perhaps its best to read their own words. Very well. 'Love knows no jealousy' in Corinthians 13:4. Now it would seem Paul blatantly says Love knows no jealousy, unless you want to revert back to the idea that perhaps Paul didn't write this document? Please cite sources again.
What does this have to do with "scholarly consensus"? What does it mean that Irenaeus "joined" the four gospels together? There are earlier references to gospels books before Irenaeus (like Justine Martyr) – besides again this is an opinion about the development of the Gospels. What does his quote about the four corners of the earth have to do with anything? The sudden mention of Marcion is strange, with no explination – what is he doing here? Orthodox doesn’t mean straight – the ortho part means that, the dox part means something else (and important addition, mind you). What does the business about arid sands of Egypt and Gnostic texts have to do with anything? This is perhaps all a strange and disjoined reference to "Paul's significant to the formation of Christian orthodoxy" – hey, if you want it in make that section (and make it make sense). 
We would both agree that the term scholarly consensus implies a consensus, or rather an agreement. Thus Bishop Irenaeus joining or combining the four gospels with Paul's epistle is worthy knowledge as it reveals the logic. You appear to argue that it is misguided for such an article, however the date and the logic are still fact and quite pertinent to understanding the history of Paul's doctrines. It is also a worthy endeavor to explore a point before posting it, thus your comment orthodox doesn't mean straight is off base relevant to religion. One who is orthodox is one who is straight and conforming to canonized views, those who are heretical in essence choose. Luckily we are already aware which direction you support. I will also add the reference to the Gnostic gospels should've been elaborated. Paul spoke of Jesus' revelation, or the idea that he would soon return and instill a political kingdom on earth. The gnostics were perhaps more credible as they preached Jesus' wisdom, Paul was quite off base with his assertion God would rule over the earth. You must also understand the term Christian, as some like to classify Paul as a first Christian, however the wouldn't be used for another 50 years. Paul never used the term. He was also a proud Pharisee Jew. Marcion mentioned the paradox of teachings prevalent in the New and Old Testament in his antithesis which can easily be observed from reading the bible.
Also I would like to add I appreciate you organizing the article and I am no longer speaking in Irony. I just browsed and reread the whole thing and I appreciate you including the proper topics in each section, as you can see, I still have a *few* things I disagree with and I must find time to poke and prod and add information. Never worry, i will provide sources. 
Biblical1 03:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your work on the article and comments above.  Let me respond to them briefly.  It is important not to import personal judgements, especially to which there is not scholarly consensus, as facts.  The issue of Marcan priority, and whether Mark was one of the “seventy” disciples of Jesus, is abundantly discussed within wikipedia itself in the relevant articles (Mark the Evangelist, Gospel of Mark. Gospel of Matthew, Two-source hypothesis, Augustinian Hypothesis, et al.).  Surely you understand that your interpretation of the Kingdom of Heaven is not universally held, hence you must tolerate information concerning other positions.  That Paul claimed to know James and Peter is explicit in his letter to the Galatians, whether or not this is true is not judged by the sentence I wrote, rather the claim is merely expressed (and it is certainly a relevant claim).  I do not understand your accusations of bias, since I merely wish to have the article encompass the relevant views of Paul, and I have not edited out the diversity of views (you have done that), instead I have included more than one intentionally.  As to what I called “looks sloppy” was not the argument in question, but the fact that it appeared word-for-word twice in the article due to your edits, and I merely removed one of the copies.  I stand behind the assertion that one ought not to claim special knowledge of the mind of Paul absolutely, though quoting his letters is the best way to express this unbiasedly (there is a section, and a separate article specifically, on the reliability of his letters, so this is not an issue).  Even though you took pains to refute that anything in Paul’s letters should be used, you took up a particular interpretation of 1 Cor 13:4 to support your judgement that Paul though his God was never jealous – why place such judgements in the article?  There are articles on Gnosticism and its relation to Christianity, if any mention of that belongs here it much be in the context of Paul, and still ought to link to the more proper article (this is an organizational issue).  The first use of the term Christian appears in Acts 11:26 (see Christian).  All that said, I will review the article in its present incarnation and see what I think.  Thanks again for entering into a spirit of collegiality in this matter.  Lostcaesar 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The incident at Antioch is already mentioned, so I tried to reduce and merge some of the text quotes, including only the essential material.  Is White's book really a "novel"?  If so it ought not to be in the article at all (I suspect it is a history book, though, so I left the material).    I also fixed your footnote style (and removed the product ISBN number!).  I also cut down on later stuff too, keeping your inserted points but using less language.  Basically I summarized some, and put references rather than quotes from some biblical passages, when possible so as to reduce the bulk of the article.  The article is almost too long for wikipedia standards, and we need to be careful.  I would like you to look at the quote from Russell – I chopped off a bit of this because it was so long, and I think the point gets across in the first part, but let me know if you agree.  I did some reverting on the Scholarly views section, since I am still not satisfied with some of your rewordings, though I left in your additional material.  I removed the material about Paul considering himself a devout Jew because this is not pertinent to his writings, and is already covered a bit in his life section – if it is put back in it should go elsewhere.  We don't need the quote from Irenaeus, I don't think, rather just the reference link in his writings is fine.Lostcaesar 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also unfamilar with why the ISBN and page numbers were eliminated with some sources. I fear the subjective condensing of the article relates to altering whatever information one chooses and briefly summarizing controversies rather than leaving in their articulation.
Biblical1 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  detailed discussion, by [[User:Lostcaesar|Lostcaesar]] 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 

message: Facts, information, and sources are not to be edited to promote a special bias. The fact Paul believed Jesus' would return from heaven and instill a political kingdom has forced alteration of the article attempting to cover up the evidence and controversy. This is being disguised as solidifying the article, or perhaps drastically moving the information to other parts. New logic to eliminate these facts is also the article is too long, perhaps the server time on wikipedia will slow. I also find it rather ridiculous that I have gone out of my way to include sources, scholarly information, page numbers, isbns, etc. Only to have an individual alter much of it because of popular christian views and markan theory, this is then grounds for LostCaesar to continually add: 
Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light
He also continually edits, Scholars who hold that Jesus' disciples did not author the works traditionally attributed to them consider Paul's epistles to be the foundation of Christian literature... The above alteration is intended to incapsulate a differing view (perhaps a scholarly view with sources from the Oxford University press taught at public universities)... unfortunately there is no other source, nor any other view associated with this claim... it therefore gives grounds to completely altering an article with factual information. It is also rather obvious the bias that prevails. One who continually alters new information on Saint Paul is not likely Jewish. One only needs to read Caesar's Christian tradition has seen Paul in a much more authoritative light the first four times whenever he alters scholarly information. Also the titles, "Yale" and "Harvard" have been removed from my sources, perhaps to discredit them. I sincerely question the above where he stats, "Is it a novel". I suppose this childlike question gives ground to massive editing in which sources for Paul's apocalypse and his view of himself as a pious jew are altered. Do not edit anything without first consulting sources and facts. Promoting christian beliefs in the effort to eliminate Paul's short comings will not be allowed. I have even included sources praising Paul, this remarkably was kept (Adolf Harnack), and then humorously Professor MacDoanld's elaboration on no writing survives from Jesus in his disciples was removed. I would very much like for one to attempt to refute the information in question, as I have yet to uncover a single hypothesis with any credence that Mark actually wrote Mark. Scholars generally believe Paul to have been the same age growing up with Jesus, Mark would've had to been in exile for 40 years and in his sixties addressing a community concerned about crucifixation. (Unless we are to say he was 12 when he was Jesus disciple... then perhaps he was 52 when he wrote it) 
Biblical1 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't say that no writings survive from Christ's disciples...it is still up for debate, but many do continue to believe that Mark was written by mark, and that at least First Peter was written by Peter. Saying that "no writing survives from Jesus in [sic] his disciples" asserts something as undisputed fact which is actually debatable. Carl.bunderson 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I genuinely feel you have mischaracterized me and my edits.  Frankly I am tierd of preserving you additions, cleaning them up, including painstakingly fixing your faulty citation system (It goes Author's name, Title (Publisher, Year) pages), and working to include every view thus added to the article, only to be accused of some unilateral bias.  Case in point, you completely mischaracterized my statements about the "novel" (you put in a quote, said it was from a "novel" – I left this in the article but asked if it really was a novel and said, if so, it should be removed – and it should according to wikipedia policy).  The ISBN numbers were removed because they are not part of standard footnoting, and this is not a place to advertise wares.  I did not remove any page numberings from your notes.  Many of the things you accuse me of removing I merely summarized (or left in).  On and on it goes.  Lostcaesar 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up bias... scholarly opinions, eschatology, and Consultation with other apostles restored 

message: I totally removed the paragraph at the end of "Scholarly views". It really doesn't belong in that section or even this article. It reads as though it was tacked on to the end of the section...it has nothing at all to do with the content before it. And it should not be in this article because a discussion of the formation of the canon belongs in Biblical canon or somewhere similar, not here. A brief discussion of the Pauline epistles' inclusion in the canon is already mentioned in the intro; it could be repeated in "Writings" if necessary. But a discussion of the decision to make 4 gospels canon does not belong in an article about St Paul. Carl.bunderson 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon discussion

message: Further editing of the Eschatology section should be to correct grammar as the sources listed more than display Paul's view of an oncoming apolocalypse, any alteration of content seems to be an attempt to undue the evidence. Paul's view is also not unusual, see Jesus and the Gospels. Readers should not take it negatively as one must be ignorant to think the bible has not been redacted to refrain from this view, it has been over 1900 years since the time of Jesus and his pronouncement of his return. What his return is has changed meaning.. 
There are certainly passages in the Gospels that make it clear that Jesus is anticipating an imminent moment of apocalypse. That the end is very near. Certainly the earliest Christians took away from his message the belief that his return would occur in their own life time. And in his final sermon to his disciples before his arrest, when he's asked, "What are the signs of the end times?" He tells them about wars and conflict and wickedness and evil, that then ends with the promise, "All these things shall be fulfilled in your own time. So yes." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/bios.html#boyer
As for Paul's piety I believe it should go on scholarly opinions because it seems The Early life section simply reflects his Jewish background. That is all. The scholarly opinion section is attempted to give incite to the uninformed, the quotes are directly pulled from this in the world of acadamia, thus Scholarly opinions. It would do no good to pull those quotes and place them elsewhere, only to be summed up with Paul was jewish. He was far from Jewish and he was not Christian, thus it does one well to explain this in scholarly opinions.
::Wikipedia is not a place to prove a thesis, it just mentiones the revelant ideas and moves on, do you understand this? Lostcaesar 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschatology & Paul's Jewish piety 

message: It is rather obvious to me and others that Saint Paul's specific controversies have been vandalized by Christian enthusiasts. Simply read the discussion prior relevant to editing and check my specific examples. St1977 even has a history of deleting such controversies in the Christianity main page. If this continues the page will be locked and this clean up propaganda will be eliminated.
Biblical1 10:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits I have made are not biased, as I have diligently explained.  There is a section in the article on "alternate views of Paul", including six mutually exclusive views.  I have left them all in, unchanged.  I have left in seven references to White, MacDonald, and Russell – seven of the twenty-four references in the entire article, I might add.  The section on Eschatology is dedicated entirely to their views.  I have a documented history of including your numerous additions in this way or that, whenever possible.  I cannot see how you construct a case that I am biased from this.  I will agree with you, that my intent "is obviously not to give the reader the ideology of Paul."  My intent is to give views on the ideology of Paul.  My edits affirm this consistently.  I stand by my revisions, and welcome the opinion of others. Lostcaesar 10:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not my intention to degrade you or question your edits, your edits often help. I question your elimination of particular sources (see above), specifically comments relevant to eschatology. It is quite possible you include other views, but the controversial facts surrounding the saint (his view of the judgment day) are summed up and some eliminated. I do not understand how such a crucial topic as eschatology and his jewish piety can be questioned, much less continually altered. I have requestd a third party and the page to be locked, not due to any criticism against you but to protect the page until our conflict can be resolved. I have no such problem with many of your alterations, it seems your recent ones are only over objective material however. Biblical1 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have regularly degraded and questioned my edits, only the former of which is inappropriate.  Nonetheless, now that you have requested a third party to moderate, and have thus subsequently and abruptly changed your manner of speaking and backed off pervious assertions (which I appreciate), there are still too many difficulties with your last changes, particularly the section on "Paul's Faith" – which is obviously PoV.  Thus, I reverted – let your third part decide.  Lostcaesar 12:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biblical, I believe that Caesar's edits are in good faith. They are by no means vandalism. We all have good intentions here. If nothing else your edits must be edited for grammar, wording, etc. Your paragraph that you gave earlier [The best evidence we have as to what the followers of Jesus thought...] is really poorly written; it does not read like an encylopædia should. And when you first started making edits to the page, I felt that you were a POV-pusher, remember? I've done my best to support you since then, and I would appreciate it if you don't take others' edits as vandalism when they are well-meaning.  And Ceasar, would it be too much trouble for you to make a user page, just so we could get to your contribs and talk from this talk page, cuz the link in your signature is red. O and I think the proposed solution sounds good enough. We really need to find something to solve this. Thanks ;) Carl.bunderson 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carl, its good to get your advice.  I actually had just finished editing a page that restored most of Biblical's lost information in accord with my proposal below.  I included a special section for the moved material.  I will save my edits on my computer, and will post them somewhere if it is requested.  Interestingly, I think the page has actually gotten a lot better with all the changes, as much as the "revert war" appearance might otherwise seem.  Also, I will work on my member page, my apologies. Lostcaesar 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing that Caesar, and no apology is needed. Yeah, in the end edit wars are usually catalysts for a positive change. And congratulations on your marriage :) Carl.bunderson 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx =)   Lostcaesar 08:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I propose we take all of the information and theses of L Michael White (and the PBS documentary he wrote) and move them to a section under "alternative views of Paul / White thesis".  Thoughts Lostcaesar 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine. However, From Jesus to Christianity isn't a novel and that needs to be changed. White teaches early Christian origins at the University of Texas in Austin. The work meets Wikipedia's verifiability statues. Now of course, I agree that Biblical is using the source too heavily and that his edits exceeds Wikipedia's undue weight provisions, but there is no reason to exlude it or to call it fiction. Please unprotect the article and remove the word novel from the description of From Jesus to Christianity. JPotter 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so, I wasn't sure though because Bib. wrote "novel" and kept saying that White was from Yale - so I thought it might be a different guy; we ought to fix that for sure. Lostcaesar 08:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Solution 

message: I am currently putting this proposal into effect, with the hope that it will provide a solution and worthwhile outlet for the energies of Biblical1, since much of his lost material is reintroduced in a more fitting area.  Lostcaesar 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation of proposal 

message: This article has been listed at the 3rd opinion page for quite a while (almost a month).  Is a 3rd opinion still needed, or has the dispute been resolved? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved; The person who brought it up was locked for a few hours, and didn't return, and it has been a few weeks since then.  Lostcaesar 08:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Opinion