Talk:Jesus/Archive 40

message: ==Moved to Archive 39==
Moved to Talk:Jesus/Archive 39 - Documentation Report, Archive Report, Final Avery vote and its aftermath, scholars who affirm the Gospel's historicity, viewpoint of a noob Arch O. La 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said okay, so I did. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive and subpage logs

message: Moved to Talk:Jesus/Archive 39 - Documentation Report, Archive Report, Final Avery vote and its aftermath, scholars who affirm the Gospel's historicity, viewpoint of a noob Arch O. La 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to Archive 39

message: Okay, this talk page was getting way too blody long, so I took the following actions
#I moved the discussion on Judaism's views to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus. The authors are working to revise that article, and when finished will return here with a summary for this article.
#I moved all the sockpuppet stuff to Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets because it, too, was clogging the page
#I archived the tabled Dane Jude/Archola proposal to the archive, as per CTSWyneken's motion.
#I created a new page, Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA, which contains this article's previous peer review and featured article comments. It also includes links to alternate versions (such as Robsteadman's), and comments about these alternate versions. There might be ideas here we can use.
I'm not sure whether the "Moving On" section should be archived. I'll let CTSWyneken make that decision. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said okay, so I did. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived a whole bunch

message: ==Help with Miracles of Jesus article==
Copied from Talk:Historical Jesus: Arch O. La 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw man, does that mean no cursing, screaming like a banshee and hopping up and down like a man with his pants afire?  :) Jim62sch 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, no "cursing, screaming like a banshee and hopping up and down like a man with his pants afire." How about badmouthing (not quite cursing), shouting like an irate drill sergeant, and hopping up and down like a man who needs desperately to find some compatable plumbing? :D Justin Eiler 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Prob'ly not. Unless its a voice of moderation! 8-) --CTSWyneken 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Stuff

message: Copied from Talk:Historical Jesus: Arch O. La 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with [[Miracles of Jesus]] article

message: I've done a careful copyedit of the whole document, supplying all requested references and mostly fixing things like comma errors.  At least, as the new round of edits begins, we have a clean text to start with.  One problem I was not able to fix is with the footnotes.  The clustered footnotes at the beginning cause all later footnotes to be misnumbered.  Someone who understands Wiki footnotes better than I will have to fix that. Rick Norwood 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: copy edit 

message: Arch O. La | TCF member 04:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw man, does that mean no cursing, screaming like a banshee and hopping up and down like a man with his pants afire?  :) Jim62sch 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, no "cursing, screaming like a banshee and hopping up and down like a man with his pants afire." How about badmouthing (not quite cursing), shouting like an irate drill sergeant, and hopping up and down like a man who needs desperately to find some compatable plumbing? :D Justin Eiler 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Prob'ly not. Unless its a voice of moderation! 8-) --CTSWyneken 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm

message: Another contributor, CrazyInSane, has edited the range of dates for Jesus's birth without discussion. On the other hand, he is simply "Wiki editing" to make sure the dates here in the Jesus article agree with the dates arrived at in Chronology of Jesus article. Personally, I don't think any Israeli archeologist could even contemplate the late date of 6 CE for Jesus's birth. I haven't examined the Chronology of Jesus article yet to see how the argument handles conflicting information. Anyway, how do you guys want to handle CrazyInSane's Wiki editing. It does conflict with the dates arrived at in the Jesus article, being 8-2 BCE. --Haldrik 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've been gathering evidence for scholarly opinion on the dates of Jesus' life at Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. This will take time to complete, but I have two observations: most scholars seem to go with 5-6 BC/BCE, while some go as early as 12 BCE/BC and some as late as 2-1 BCE/BC. We can go two ways: try to catalog all dates proposed by scholars in the field (8-2 BC/BCE) or state 5-6 and relate that there's a variety of opinion in the footnote. I thought we'd pretty much decided to go with the former, in which case we shoud say 12-1 BC/BCE. Thoughts? --CTSWyneken 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, it looks like we double posted about this heh. But like I said below, the source cited in the edit summary's is, quite frankly, pretty bogus looking, never mind scholarly. Homestarmy 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be 6BCE to 4CE Jim62sch 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we agreed on like 8 BC as the first date, something about us finding a bunch of historians and quoting them all to fit ideas into the widest range feasibly possible? :/ Homestarmy 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still gathering evidence and you all can help by adding to Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. Not every source I've documented is here (some of it was in the note summarily dismissed by the user who edited it). I believe that I've seen arguments from scholars ranging from 12 BC/BCE to 1-2 BC/BCE. Most agree the majority place the date at 5-4 BC/BCE. Why don't we leave it at 8-2 for now, gather more opinions and come hack to it later. --CTSWyneken 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus born (6 BC/BCE-6 AD/CE) ... 6 AD/CE?! 

message: I think Crazyjane or someone changed the dates, the source cited in the reference summary seems to rely all it's evidence solely on Josephus, and then goes on to note that because of how 2 of the books of the gospel somehow contradict each other on these timelines, that Jesus apparently could never of logically been born by Biblical standards. This seems very POV, and most certainly is erasing the dates we settled upon for, let's face it, an extremely biased source (I didn't really read far into it before I knew it was ridiculous, read it for yourself if you like). And hey, if the Jesus-myth department can slam Josephus, so can I, if people really think he's that reliable, why can we not use him to say that Jesus was notable yet the other side can use him to start throwing down weird dates? Should those dates be changed back? :: See above under the BC/BCE section. But, wait, did you say whoever destroyed my references Homestarmy 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they messed up the citation but the dates were not only changed, the citation provided in the edit summary was, quite frankly, bogus, and certaintly not scholarly looking in the slightest. Homestarmy 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm trying not to loose my temper -- difficult to do so when hours of my work have been undone -- but I do not think the editor realizes he did this. I've left a note for him on his talk page. Hopefully, he will stop by. --CTSWyneken 23:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What surprised me is that's Darwiner's new username, even before he says he was a Christian, he was pretty well into defending articles about Christianity, we got into this discussion over December 25 and then I guess he vanished (By the way, we just lost the Christ in Christmas in there, could use some help to get it back, ain't POV in the slighest when you've already mentioned Christmas....hmmph). He gave me a bunch of interesting links about Near Death experiences which he says convinced him of Christianity, but the source he's cited in his edit summary, it's pretty anti-Christianity. Dunno what the deal with that is, im a bit bamboozeld. Homestarmy 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no objections appear before morning, I'll do that. Can we work at documenting it in the dates  subpage? Then we can decide how we wish to adjust the visible dates. --CTSWyneken 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Dates

message: I keep getting reverted, so I'll bring it here. Having taken a bible as literature course, I am deeply fascinated by the subject. So I want to add this page to a category detailing people as charecters in a book... closest I found was charecters in fiction. If there is a less inflammatory category, please tell me, and that will be fine, but I want to tag this into some sort of category with famous figures in literature. -137.229.197.141 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, it would help if you register as a user and sign in. --CTSWyneken 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Closest I can see is :Category:Biblical People. rossnixon 19:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bible as literature? Besides Jack Miles, who was taught in that class? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taught a version of this, too. Could we create a catagory for histories and historical fiction? --CTSWyneken 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, it's not historical fiction -____- Homestarmy 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly, The Bible as Literature does not belong here.  Also, I don't think taking a single course on the subject is enough background to write an article.  But, it is an interesting subject, and there should be a Bible as literature article.  One thing that comes to mind that could be used in such an article is C. S. Lewis's opinion that because the Bible is unlike any other ancient writing, it must be inspired by God.  He did not, however, believe that the Bible is inerrant, only that it is unique for its time. Rick Norwood 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's history. Notice the "and." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archie picked it up. The Bible is a history and one that is written with high literary quality. For example, you could take a biography of Martin Luther and make a movie of it. When describing the movie, you might talk about the character of Martin Luther or the story line. That's the literary quality of the work. If we want to find an appropriate category to talk about this, we need something that talks about historical figures as literary characters. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I know of at least one study of the New Testament as literature and vaguely remember the new method called "Reader Response Criticism" takes it up. --CTSWyneken 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that that is/was the main point raised here... to some, he is simply a character in a book. To others he is the son of god most known for a retelling of his actions in a book. Either way some way to categorize this page as dealing with a person in a book seems to be right to me, and I can't really see why anyone at all would get worked up over it, provided we don't use one so perjogative as the original 'in fiction' cat. -AKMask 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a "Biblical characters" or "Biblical people" category? Wouldn't that work? KHM03 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a category for "Biblical people" and a subcategory for "New Testament people." There is also an infracategory for "Jesus"—which this article already belongs to. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible as Literature

message: I have restored the new form of the paragraph as agreed on at talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate Please discuss there before reverting or changing. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Form of 2nd Paragraph Restored