Talk:Acts of the Apostles

message: Ever wonder why the number of engaged editors is decreasing on Wikipedia? Mrs. January (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Silliness or not, this is a bizarre passage to retain in Wikivoice. Elizium23 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And, yet, I've been reverted twice in trying to remove/fix it. Mrs. January (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And quite rightly so - it's reliably sourced. Achar Sva (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  because editing requirements have become very academic and professional-like. Not everybody is up to such task. tgeorgescu (talk)  02:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

text: We don't tell readers what to think or to do with our facts. This is editorializing and a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Would you like me to tag the dispute thusly in the article or just remove it and then we can discuss its reinsertion, since you lack consensus to keep it? Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has claimed till now that it fails WP:V, nor that the source would be unreliable. If anything, WP:PRESERVE applies. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anyone talking about WP:V. Sure it's verifiable that scholars have opinions on this. Wikipedia can also have opinions on it. What we object to is that you're telling editors what opinion to have. This is in the style of: https://xkcd.com/149/ Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

text: But it's OK to tell readers to censor their own thoughts? Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the POV of Wikipedia editors, it is the opinion of an expert on the subject. Claiming that the Bible is inconsistent is WP:BLUE in the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claiming that the Bible is inconsistent is WP:BLUE in the mainstream academia." It is also painfully obvious to anyone who ever bothered to compare the four gospels in the New Testament, which constantly contradict each other. So what? The Bible is an anthology, and its books often represent entirely different points of view. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I bought the Bible with Apocrypha, cross-reference edition, NRSV anglicized edition, Oxford University Press, . The cross-references take the form of bold or italic letters in the text, referring to similar marks in the margins or page foot, which give book, chapter and verse of similar or related material. It's very comprehensive: within Matthew 1:1 alone, we have six notes: a, a, b, b, c and d; the associated marginal notes extend halfway down the page. So, a directs us to Luke 3:23-38, and similarly, note j at Luke 3:23 directs us to Matthew 1:1-16. According to Matthew, Jesus was descended from Abraham by 42 generations; but counting the names in Luke, Jesus was 56th-generation direct descendant of Abraham. One of them must be wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the mutually exclusive hermeneutic? The Gospels don't contradict anything, they're just explaining something from a different point of view. Just ask journalist Lee Strobel: eyewitness accounts that differ on details are more likely to be true and accurate, because different eyewitnesses see and describe things different ways. Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: All three of you ought to remember that this is not a forum; it is a place for discussing improvements to the article. I recommend you take discussions like these to an actual forum. Seb773 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice that the last comment was more than twelve days before you posted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: THirty days have passed, so the RfC banner has been removed, and it is no longer listed at WP:RFC/A. But it's not been formally closed, so discussion may continue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing 

message: See WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk)  02:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's OK to tell readers to censor their own thoughts? Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the POV of Wikipedia editors, it is the opinion of an expert on the subject. Claiming that the Bible is inconsistent is WP:BLUE in the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claiming that the Bible is inconsistent is WP:BLUE in the mainstream academia." It is also painfully obvious to anyone who ever bothered to compare the four gospels in the New Testament, which constantly contradict each other. So what? The Bible is an anthology, and its books often represent entirely different points of view. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I bought the Bible with Apocrypha, cross-reference edition, NRSV anglicized edition, Oxford University Press, . The cross-references take the form of bold or italic letters in the text, referring to similar marks in the margins or page foot, which give book, chapter and verse of similar or related material. It's very comprehensive: within Matthew 1:1 alone, we have six notes: a, a, b, b, c and d; the associated marginal notes extend halfway down the page. So, a directs us to Luke 3:23-38, and similarly, note j at Luke 3:23 directs us to Matthew 1:1-16. According to Matthew, Jesus was descended from Abraham by 42 generations; but counting the names in Luke, Jesus was 56th-generation direct descendant of Abraham. One of them must be wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the mutually exclusive hermeneutic? The Gospels don't contradict anything, they're just explaining something from a different point of view. Just ask journalist Lee Strobel: eyewitness accounts that differ on details are more likely to be true and accurate, because different eyewitnesses see and describe things different ways. Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: All three of you ought to remember that this is not a forum; it is a place for discussing improvements to the article. I recommend you take discussions like these to an actual forum. Seb773 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice that the last comment was more than twelve days before you posted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not censored 

message: Per MOS:NOTE, should Wikipedia advise the reader of a "need for caution" when interpreting Scripture such as in the currently disputed edit? Elizium23 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: THirty days have passed, so the RfC banner has been removed, and it is no longer listed at WP:RFC/A. But it's not been formally closed, so discussion may continue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The lede contains a phrase which I don't think is very accurate: "the message of Christ was sent to the Gentiles because as a whole Jews rejected it". A source is cited (Burkett 2002, p. 263), but I can't fully access at the moment. Still, on the face of it, the phrase seems wrong to me. As I understand it, most (not all) Jews rejected Christ's message. But, independent of that (not because of it), Christ's message we opened to Gentiles anyway. What are people's opinions of this present phrasing, and is it really consistent with authoritative sources? Thank you, Mrs. January (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: tgeorgescu (talk)  16:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not following you. Yes, most Jews rejected Jesus's message, but that his message was (also) opened to Gentiles seems like a different issue. Mrs. January (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Jesus by and large did not preach for Gentiles (taking the Gospels at face value). That Christianity should be opened to Gentiles is Paul's take. One of his letters says explicitly that since Jews have rejected Christ, he (Paul) will turn to the Gentiles. Since nowadays Christianity  mainly means Paulanity, his POV is normative for Christianity. St. Peter's adepts were hunted down as heretics, and they became a footnote in history. If I learned anything from mainstream Bible scholars, is to distrust claims that Peter got convinced by Paul. We know very few about what Peter thought, but it seems he lost the power fight over controlling Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but let's focus on the issue, which is the text in the lede. Note that this forum is about the text of article, how to improve it, etc. Mrs. January (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish rejection of Christ's message and opening to Gentiles. 

message: https://thebricktestament.com/acts_of_the_apostles/accept_communism_or_die/ac04_32p34-35.html tgeorgescu (talk)  19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian communism is mentioned nowhere in the body of the article, nor in any of the sources that I could see. As was explained in the edit summary, . Whether or not the Apostles were 'communistic' -- which may or may not be true -- Christian communism is a , as per the page. It also is not consistent with the manual of style:  Linking , which is a scriptural quotation, to Christian communism, which is a , is a WP:EASTEREGG. Quite ironically, WP:RNPOV does apply here -- the piped link should not imply that Christian communism is inherent to scripture.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 05:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neither a Christian, nor a Communist, but for me it is hard to see Christian Communism as anything else than Sola Scriptura. tgeorgescu (talk)  05:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That means literally nothing, and even if it did, it isn't relevant to the page. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is  Christian communism is -- once again -- the . If you are saying that Christian communism is synonymous with sola scriptura, well, you're wrong. If you're saying that sola scriptura implies Christian communism because of Acts 4, well, that is a position some people surely hold -- but it is not present in the sources, and even if it was, WP:RNPOV dictates that it should not be presented as mere fact, especially not by means of a WP:EASTEREGG. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 08:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Communism