Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 12

message: I have a small nit to pick with this sentence regarding the area of Jesus' ministry:
:  Although there were many Phoenician, Macedonian, and Roman cities nearby (e.g. Gesara and Gadara; Sidon and Tyre; Sepphoris and Tiberias), there is no record of Jesus having spent any time in them. 
There is at least one case where he apparently did, in Luke 8:26-39. Verse 26 says, "Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes, which is opposite Galilee." There Jesus cast out a "legion" of demons from a man, who entered a herd of swine and cause the swine to drown in the lake. The fact that there was a herd of swine there strongly suggests that it was a Gentile town. Another significant point in this story is that when the healed man asked to join Jesus' followers, Jesus tells him in verse 39, "Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you." This potentially sets a precedent for Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. Or you could argue that this was added to Luke to justify preaching to the Gentiles? Anyway, would you agree it's worth mentioning this brief trip to a Gentile area? There are also several occasions when he visited Samaritans. Wesley 04:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd completely forgotten about that. Dionysus (who didn't actually exist, but did come before Jesus) did something similar. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll make a change; if you aren't satisfied, please fix it, Slrubenstein 17:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  surrounding towns 

message: While I don't have a scholarly source at my fingertips just yet, I seem to recall from a number of places that the Bar Kochba revolt played a significant role in alienating Christian Jews from non-Christian Jews. Wesley \
:Agreed, this was always my understanding of this. CheeseDreams 23:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is plausible -- but I really never heard this, so I'd ask you to find sources.  Also, many Jews did not believe Bar Kochba to be the messiah. Slrubenstein 17:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I think SLR's request is reasonable, and don't expect to have too much difficulty finding a source or two, once I find the time to look seriously. Cheese-dreams, I'm a little surprised to hear you agree with this, as a belief in Jesus as fulfiller of messianic prophecies would seem to imply that bar Kochba era Jewish Christians thought Jesus existed in real history so as to fulfill those prophecies?  Wesley 05:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a brief mention in Justin Martyr's First Apology, in paragraph 31: "For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy." There's also a mention in the Jewish Encyclopedia  that refutes the reason given by Justin Martyr and other Christians, and instead blames the suffering of Christians on their refusal to join in the revolt. It might be fair to conclude that there was conflict between Jews and Jewish Christians at this time, though the exact reasons are disputed. Wesley 02:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bar Kochba revolt and Christianity 

message: I'm just passing by (due to the above incident), but I noted
:"All four Gospels present Jesus as the unique and literal son of God."
Now, with claims of this sort, it would be useful to refer to specific verses. It is true that the phrase "son of god" appears in all four gospels, but not with qualifiers like "unique" or "literal". Most of the time, the statement is attributed: in Mt4:3, Lk4:3 etc. to Satan, in Mt16:16 to Peter, in Mt 26:63, phrased as a question, to the high priest (to which Jesus refuses to give a plain answer, this is like sockpuppeteering :) Mk1:1 is straightforward (but no "unique" qualifier), Lk3:38 calls Adam the son of god (i.e. it is not a unique title, even within the gospels). John is the only gospel which has "only begotten" (huios ho monogenes) 3:16 (etc.). It follows that "unique", translating monogenes, is in John only. While "literal" (which must be taken as 'physical', i.e. God copulated with Mary, the idea on which Mohammed's rejecton of Christianity is based) is not in the gospels at all. dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is the place to get into theological issues -- nor do I think we should add the quotes.  There is a separate article on the NT view of Jesus, and it is only in that article that we should have such details from or about the NT.  The line Dab is referring to is meant for background only. Slrubenstein 15:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, well, but I was pointing out it's erroneous 'background'. 'unique' and 'literal' should not be there. 130.60.142.62 16:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TY

message: I suggest that instead of simply reverting cheesdream/acidmonkey every time the article goes up, we continue to work on the 'real' version, ignoring the noise. If someone is able to put a ban on the bloke thatwould be fine, but I guess s/he will just reappear. It would be better for all our nerves if teh article would proceed as normally as possible - whether it is visible or not and - once in a shape - we can probably simply ask for protection - given the arbitration order. Refdoc 11:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not quite sure how to "ignore the noise," unless you're proposing an alternate location to work on the article that then gets moved back here. I've reverted Tigermoon twice just now because: she added the NPOV and ActiveDiscussion tags without discussing why those tags were added on this page; the edits at a glance appear to be very disruptive, again without any discussion here; and she seems to be trying to impose an old version that the rest of the editors have moved on from, without any attempt to engage in a constructive discussion here. I'll wait a day at least before any more reverts. Wesley 18:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I am terribly sorry, I had thought I removed the tags. It isn't an old version, I restructured the article about a weak ago to make it more (a) encyclopedic (b) readable. There were a few instances of Opinion Pushing that I removed as well. Tigermoon 18:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked you again, because your first action in the article upon returning from the block was to re-instate the CheeseDreams edit yet again: .  The ArbCom ruling is quite clear, so please stop acting as CheeseDream's sockpuppet, and use the Talk: page to propose changes to the article. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've reverted Tigermoon again, and hope that if Tigermoon wishes to make changes he/she will discuss them here first, and help build consensus.  A revert war serves no one well. Jwrosenzweig 20:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I didn't want to get involved here, but my revert was reverted by User:Red before blue, an obvious sockpuppet (look at their contributions -- they make sure their userpage and talk pages are blue links, not red, and then they revert the page).  I have blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely.  I don't do more than one revert a day, unless it's blatant vandalism, and while I think Tigermoon's (and the Rbb sockpuppet's) reverts are against policy, I'm not going to break my rule because I'm not positive this is technically "vandalism", and I'd like not to block someone and revert their edit (even though I'm upholding an ArbCom decision doing so, so it's not an abuse of my sysop privileges as far as I can tell, it still doesn't sit right).  I hope someone else will revert and we can get this thing over with. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no trouble calling this string of attempts by various ip's and sockpuppet accounts 'vandalism'; it's just a little more structured and deliberate than usual. Thanks for your work, and for your restraint. Wesley 05:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with editwarriors 

message: I just reverted the article, in the process reverting a number of minor edits by Everking and others.  I did this in order to revert Arius_Heresiarch's recent changes (I have checked and made sure that the other edits made to AH's version are not necessary for the earlier version. I did this because User:Arius_Heresiarch's change  , made the was identical to the change made by His Own Rectum , Their Bowels , Red before Blue , Tigermoon , Tigermoon, , Tigermoon , Neutra|ity ,81.156.93.188 , 81.157.11.54 , 81.157.15.105 , 81.156.179.223 , 81.157.101.99 , 81.157.101.99 , 81.157.101.99 , 81.157.101.99 , CHEESEdreams , Acidmonkey , Acidmonkey , Tigermoon , Tigermoon , 217.150.114.18 (also Tigermoon) .  These are all instances in which CheeseDreams or someone acting on her behalf deleted the article, reached through a long process by many editors, and replaced it with her own version.  This matter was addressed by the ArbCom twice (first ruling, in which she was banned from editing Christianity-related articles for one yearsecond ruling, in which she was banned for 6 months for disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee; 3 months for abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures; 3 months for abuse of sockpuppet accounts).  I believe Arius Heresiarch is either a sock-puppet of CheeseDreams or of Tigermoon. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explaining my recent revert 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  14:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing new policy proposal 

message: In the revert war, people seemed to be complaining about it; but maybe that was just a side effect.
:This seems like an flame-bait question, particularly since it is anon.  But realistically, Jesus was one of, if not the most, famous Jews in history.  --Blainster 18:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry; I forgot to sign it. But the rationale, I believe, is that this article is really as much about the development of Judaism as about that of Christianity. Ben Standeven 01:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone really object to the Jew infobox? 

message: Sanders is not a theologian, he is an historian.  The books and articles he has published are on history, and not theology. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not going to change it back again (though you could have left in the link to Sanders himself which I've restored) but I would note that his doctorate is a Th.D, he was Professor of Exegesis at Oxford and is now Professor of Religion in the Department of Religion. How about "historian and theologian"? --G Rutter 20:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Why describe him at all, since you have the Wikilink?  Just give the name, and if people want to know who he is they'll click on the link. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanders