Talk:Jesus

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Key to archives, Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

	Subject-specific:	Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus

	ACTIVE sub-pages	/Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus

---

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

/Archive 40 sorted, here's the key: Archive and subpage logs. Discussion of first three paragraphs, including date issues (range and notation). Skeptic's view of Jesus, including philosophy of ethics and literary analysis. Other stuff: Help with Miracles of Jesus article, Rick Norwood's copyedit, and calm talk.

/Archive 41 is a long debate over the use of Hebrew in the first paragraph (etymology of the name "Jesus").

/Archive 42: Life, the universe, and everything; Ecumenical councils and Biblical canon; New NIV Template; Dates of Jesus; Led Zeppelin and Jesus; Gnosticism; sources controversy and a picture; Assessing the FA Drive.

/Archive 43: March 9 archive; Translation of Mishneh Torah; Proposal to rename this article "Jesus Christ"; Referencing (new footnoting system); SOPHIA's revision of the intro; Redundant sections on Christian views; etombment vs. burial; Andrew c's recent changes.

/Archive 44 - Life and teachings or biography of Jesus?, Date Notation Sillyness, Wikinfo on Jesus, Alternate Antenicene Christianities, Jesus Seminar

/Archive 45 - Biography, Geography/map, Congrats from Rick Norwood, Wikiethics, Jesus Christ redirect.

/Archive 46 - Non-Christian religious views, Jesus Seminar Part 2, Plagiarism allegation, dates.

/Archive 47 - Divinity of Jesus article, Christianity Knowledge Base, Etymology (again), Jesus' vs. Jesus's, agape.

Subpage Activity Log

Judaism's views of Jesus

To save space, this section has been moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.

Sockpuppet issue, Kdbuffalo's proposed revision

Discussion of recent sockpuppet allegations against Robsteadman and Kdbuffalo have been moved to Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets. Discussion of Robsteadman's draft has been moved to Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA.

Paragraph 3 (Christian views in intro)

Discussion archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.

The omnicontroversial second paragraph

We have been debating the second paragraph for nearly two months, and it remains controversial. We created the subpage /2nd Paragraph Debate so that we could continue the discussion withoout stifling discussion on other parts of the article. I just moved 66 kilobytes to that subpage. I, for one, do not mind having some discussion on this page, because many editors will be more likely to notice it here. However, please keep any discussion of paragraph 2 within this section, and not in other sections of this page. Also keep in mind that any comments may be moved to the subpage at any time.

Among the items currently being discussed:

1. The charge of sedition

Further discussion should be undertaken under /2nd Paragraph Debate or below with a new subsection (use == to start a new subheader). Again, any discussion on this main talk page may be moved to the subpage at any time. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Biography or Life and Teachings or whatever we call the section these days

I'd still like to see more history in the biography section to complement the Gospel accounts. I prefer sola scriptura for my theology and prima scriptura for my biography. If all we do is retell the plot outline of the Gospels, we might as well merge the section into "Christian views." Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Before we start deciding to add different branches of content, I would personally prefer a peer review at this point, I mean, think about all the work this article has been through since the last peer review :/. Homestarmy 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some things we are working on, but I for one think this will help. I wouldn't mind a peer review. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Muhammad article. They do a really good job of giving a detailed, but not too long biography, then discussing other things in latter areas. I think in terms of a biography, we have none. Perhaps we should expand the 'biography' section be actually be a 'biography'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiden (talk • contribs)

Wow, I'm impressed. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but they also are not a featured article :D. And Muhammad was born like 600 years or something after Jesus and led some sort of army trapeizing all over the place building that empire, far more people would probably notice him and make records immedietly simply through the whole "This guy is like taking over the country" sort of thing. Homestarmy 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well regardless we have a lot of information in the four canonical Gospels alone that we are basically ignoring. You can really learn a lot about Muhammad reading that article, while I think someone who knew nothing about Jesus would probably either come away from this article knowing only very little, possibly confused, and probably doubting whether he even existed at all. —Aiden 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think our article is at least decent so far, i'd like more mention about the eternal salvation thing though. Homestarmy 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Names section

Haldrik, here's the place for you to propose changes to the current "Names" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Haldrik, but I'm wondering: peer review or RFC? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What we really need is a real linguist, without an agenda, and then someone who can write. As it is, the prose is almost completely unreadable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I studied Linguistics and Hebrew is one of my languages. Is there something I can look at and verify its plausibility? I must say that I think it should include the words in Hebrew script and not just transliterations. —Adityanath 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The editors who are linguists have already corroborated the etymology. What we really need are contributors who do not reactively delete the scholarly consensus because it contradicts their POV. --Haldrik 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You might have missed it above. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(Archola leaves to let Jayjg and Haldrik duke it out.) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote Peer review, its just been so long :). Homestarmy 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The English naming convention of the King James Version of the Bible uses the English names "Joshua" and "Jeshua" to represent the names Yĕhôshūa‘ and Yēshûa‘, respectively, in the Hebrew Bible, but uses the English name "Jesus" to represent the Greek name Iēsous in the Apocrypha and the New Testament."

Except for Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8 (depends on translation).

Peer review sounds good to me - as long as we focus on the text and don't use it as a forum for more grief against individuals. Do we need a peer review to get it to FA status? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it, but from what I can tell, they normally provide all the suggestions articles need to get wherever they should get to. From what I read of the process you have to ask readers what you want to know about the article I think. Homestarmy 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it enough to ask, "what do we need to do to bring this article to FA status?" Also see the minireview above. I've been busy elsewhere, so I haven't had time to check whether or not these suggestions have been implemented. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Im no expert on peer review policy, but that question seems to be just vauge enough to work. Homestarmy 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Should not the article state what the name "Jesus" means? The New Compact Bible Dictionary Edited by Alton Bryant says it means, "Jehovah is Salvation". If one wants to avoid the name "Jehovah" this can be done. It could say Jehwah or another form. However we should be consistent since this is an article on "Jesus" not "Yeshua". Regardless names are and were very important and the meaning should be brought out as it is in dictionaries and other scholarly work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanneum (talk • contribs)

• Just looking over what is on the main page. It says "The Hebrew name Yĕhôshūa‘, is a compound of the words יָהוּ שׁוּעַ, Yāhû Shûa‘.[13] It literally means, “God (is) a saving-cry”, or in other words, when someone needs help they shout, “God”, and God responds." This is not accurate. "Yahu" is a shorten form of the Divine Name it is not "EL" or the pl. "Elhoim" which mean "Ggod". Thus it can say at the least, "Yahweh" or "Yahoweh" is .... We need to be accurate wheter we like the conclusion or not.Johanneum 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly source for this? It's the first I've heard it. --CTSWyneken 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

??? יהו is a contraction of יהוה , see BDB Lexicon (H3068-3069), cited as the name of God by Theodoret and Epiphanius, also the name of a Babylonian diety. The name of God is not the same as the Hebrew word for God.

Elohim (gods)

see also Iaoue

The quote of Philo in the current article needs to be corrected. This is what it says[1]: "Joshua means "the salvation of the Lord"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.160 (talk • contribs)

STOP TROLLING!!! --MonkeeSage 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Forensic

The section on "forensic reconstructions of Jesus' life" has absolutely nothing in it relating to forensics. How about "historians'?" Anyway, "forensics" is just wrong, and needs to go. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The old reading was "Historical"...not sure why it was changed to "Forensic." I don't think the crime lab has anything to do with this article. ;) --MonkeeSage 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest FORENSIC is possibly accurate - definition 3 on this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forensic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsteadman (talk • contribs)

Actually I think Rob might be right, doesn't Forensics also have to do with conceptualizations not necessarily based on compleatly physical evidence? Homestarmy 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this isn't a court of law, but the rest of the definition applies. I'm not sure who it was, but this was changed some time ago as a reference to the historical method, both here and at the disclaimer at Historical Jesus. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The denotations of "forensic" are correct, but not the connotations (which conjure ideas of Quincy M.E. looking for post-mortem contusions on a murder victim). Also, "forensics" in the sense intended, are included under the broader category of historical studies, as a means to the end of reconstructing history. "Historical" seems better to me. --MonkeeSage 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The denotations of forensics are inappropriate for this article. We are not talking about points made by a debating team, nor are we talking about research relevant to a legal procedure (and no, you can't say this is forensics if you just ignore the part about a court of law. That is like saying, a car would be a bicycle if it had two wheels instead of four). Homestarmy's understanding of forensics is not only completely (nb) wrong, it is even ignorant of the perfectly fine definition Rob provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I kept out of this one as I'm unsure of the usage. The only thing I would say is I've never seen it described that way anywhere else and that should always ring alarm bells that the terminology is suspect. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Forensic" comes from the latin word "forum," the market/meetingplace where people would debate. In English it refers specifically to debates (a debating team at a university if often called a forensics team) and also to court-related investigations (e.g. forensic medicine, forensic anthropology, forensic chemistry - they all use scientific techniques to examine physical evidence for the purpose of criminal or other legal proceedings). Forensics is never used for general scholarly research whether by philologists or historians aor literary critics. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't really live up to my namesake do I? My excuse is that you don't get "forensic astrophysics" (even when someone is killed by a metorite strike!!) so I'm not used to the term other than applied to "Quincy"! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom always begins with questions and an open mind. I'd say you live up to your namesake just fine! (And, god help us if we ever need a forensic astrophysicist! Imagine what crimes could be committed if one could move planets and stars!) Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the other sense of forensic, I wonder what they called it when the Big Bang folk were debating the Steady State folk. In the legal sense, I think the life of Jesus qualifies as a cold case. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 10:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protect

I've semi protected the page. Let me know when you would like to lift it.Gator (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction; some minor changes which might ruffle feathers.

Hey, all. Hurtstotalktoyou here. If you would all take a moment to compare the history of the Jesus edits, you'll find a temporary illustration of some changes I'd like to make to the introductory paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=46696853 Ordinarily, these would all be simple changes that I wouldn't think twice about. However, due to strong feelings and short tempers--and also to comply with wiki policy--I changed it right back to the way it was. But now my edit is logged in the history and can be viewed with a simple click. Anyhoo, on to the nasty...

The first and most important change I'd like to make is the bit about the Gospels being "generally dated after 65." While that is true, very strictly speaking, it is very misleading. The fact is, we have a very wide range of dates to play with regarding the Gospels. Narrowing down that range is generally the product of speculation, not hard evidence. I'd like to change it to the more flexible date of c. 48 (which is, if I remember correctly, the earliest plausible date for Paul's first epistle, and thus for anyone writing under the direction of Paul) through c. 140 (Marcion's time). If you guys don't like those exact numbers, something near there would be acceptable, anywhere between, say, 45 and 55 for the early cutoff and between 125 and 150 for the late cutoff. The "after 65" remark is pretty sloppy and imprecise.

The second change I'd like to make is in the third paragraph. It seems to me that the Nicene Creed discussion is off-topic for an introduction to Jesus. This is easily sidestepped with some condensation. Instead of this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed; believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets Scripture." ...try this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe in that Trinitarian doctrine, instead adopting various other interpretations of Jesus' divinity." Not only does this revision eliminate topic straying, it makes clearer the diversity of Christian beliefs. I highly recommend it!

The third change is also for the third paragraph, but is relatively basic. I propose adding a "mainstream" clarification before the fourth and fifth sentences of the current version. The logic behind this is simple: Although most Christians agree on both points, there is a minority who do not.

The fourth change is similarly mundane: Instead of using AD/CE and BC/BCE, I propose we just use AD and BC. Trying to accomodate both is redundant and therefore undesirable. We should therefore choose between one notation or the other. Considering that, I believe we should default to the traditional AD and BC in order to minimize the appearance of anti-Christian bias, which is a major concern for Christians and non-Christians alike.

The fifth change I'd like to make is editing "Biblical prophecy" in the third paragraph to "Old Testament Messianic prophecy," "Old Testament prophecy" or "Jewish prophecy" (or something to that effect). Saying that Jesus might have fulfilled "Biblical prophecy" is misleading due to the fact that the Bible did not exist until long after his death.

In my final proposal, I'd like to make a simple sentence structure alteration: Change "8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE" to "born c. 8-2 BC/BCE, died c. 29-36 AD/CE". The former has too many dashes, and reads poorly.

Maybe also change "the second coming" to "his second coming."

So, that's it. Any thoughts? Good ideas? Bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtstotalktoyou (talk • contribs)

You proposals sound fine to me, with the exception of the fourth, since giving both notations was a compromise by both parties (the ones who wanted AD/BC and the ones who wanted CE/BCE). See Archives 15, 16 and 17 (and a few others) for lots of discussion on the issue. Ps. Don't forget to sign your edits on talk pages (~~~~). --MonkeeSage 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

...or else someone will sign for you. I generally agree with MonkeeSage. Mention of the Nicene Creed (a particular trinitarian formula) was also the result of a compromise, and now that we mention Trinitarianism more directly, it may be redundant. As paragraph 3 has also been the subject of long discussion, I'd like to hear what others have to say first. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Short tempers - never! We're a friendly bunch really. The "after 65" was used this was the most cmmonly accepted earliest date. I would have no problem being more precise with the date ranges as long as we give the full range not just the earliest but the intro is very inclined to get too wordy with too many qualifiers so we have to be careful as this is just the intro. As for the Nicene creed - as others have said that is a carefully crafted sentence and others involve with that should give their thoughts. I personally like the reference to "other interpretations of scripture" - it seems NPOV as it does not claim any one group to be the authority on the bible. The third change - no problem to me. The forth change - nooooo - please we have so many pointless arguments about this and the version we have seems to be stable - so please leave it be (pretty please). Fifth change - good point - no problems for me. Final proposal - looks very good - nice one. Second coming - again no problems. Welcome to the page - it's nice to have thoughtful input. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being kind to us all by not leaving these changes live. I think the AD/CE notation is sensible. Both notations are used in the scholarly literature. Also, I have no stomach for the Era Wars returning.

I'll start a Nicene Creed section. I do think it sensible to drop it, since some Christians affirm the Creed and the Doctrine, some the Doctrine but not the Creed and others whom most of us would not consider Christian, but claim the label, neither the creed nor the doctrine.

On the date of the Gospels, I'm with Sophia. Earliest and latest dates. I'd add, with documentation. Would someone 'please' help with that? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if we include the uppermost and lowermost possible dates, we are no longer speaking "generally" and the wording of the sentence would need to change to reflect that. "[Meier] accept[s] the standard view in NT reasearch today: Mark... composed his Gospel somewhere around A.D. 70. Both Mattew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 periord (most likely between 80 and 90)." pg. 43 A Marginal Jew. and "70+ C.E. first narrative gospel (Mark) 90+ C.E. derivative gospels (Matthew, Luke, John)" p. 8 The Acts of Jesus. I see no reason to cover fringe views in a 'generally dated' section. If we go with a range of dates, we'd have to out generally, and I feel its important to at least somewhere convey the scholarly consensus.--Andrew c 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What does Metzger say about the Gospel dates, exactly? Anyone know? If not, we could just delete the reference to dates. It's not necessary, I wouldn't say. Unfortunately, there's no real "scholarly consensus," here. Like I said, dating the Gospels relies on a great deal of speculation. So we should probably keep that in mind. And that's a shame about the AD/CE arguments. I can't imagine anyone being so childish about insisting on the newer notation. What's the big deal, seriously? --hurtstotalktoyou

But that's the way it is for the date notations. As was pointed out above, please just glance at archives 15, 16, 17 (pages and pages and pages) to see an example of the depth at which this has been discussed. Best to just let it go. --Oscillate 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent]I found this page. It isn't sourced, but if it is to believed, Metzger doesn't date any before 65, and the number of people who do is small. You can also read the entries at earlychristianwritings.com for each gospel in order to learn a bit more about the majority scholar position. --Andrew c 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

hurtstotalktoyou: For a brief rundown of the for/against views on the dating notation, see BCE. Personally (as an "evil" funimentalist Christian), I don't mind either notation, and if having both keeps the peace, then I'm okay with that. I wouldn't characterize those who hold strongly to one notation or other as being immature -- I think it's just a matter of strong conviction because of perceptions. Some Christians feel strongly about one notation, some non-Christians feel strongly about the other. Just remember that "B/CE" can be understood as "Before/Christian Era" and you get the same meaning as AD/BC. :) BTW, to sign your posts, you don't have to type your whole user name, you just have to type four tildes (4 x ~)...the wiki will do the rest for you! --MonkeeSage 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On the dates thing - remember we were trying to improve on what it said before: "written in the decades after his death". Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed in Third paragraph

I have no problem deleting it. Any comments? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to accuse any editors or anything, however I believe that the inclusion of the Creed references was an attempt to exclude certain 'Christian' groups that do not accept the Creed. The question is, how important to the majority of Christians is the Creed, and who exactly are we excluding by mentioning it? I can see a case for leaving it in and for excluding it.--Andrew c 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was the other way around: there was a dispute over how to word the Christian views subparagraph (not yet a full paragraph) and whether to include nontrinitarian views. My proposed (and accepted) compromise was to attribute the views that were already there to those Christians who affirm the Nicene Creed, while also acknowledging that there were other Christians who believe the creed misinterprets scipture. This was all discussed at the beginning of Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 1. However, as I said earlier, I see no real need to mention both Trinitarianism and the creed itself. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the whole point of including the creed is to indicate Trinitarianism, and since that is now explicitly mentioned, the creed reference can go. I mean, apart from the Trinity, I think that everything else in the creed is affirmed by all the various "flavors" of people who take the title "Christian." So I see no problem with getting rid of the mention of the creed. --MonkeeSage 16:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, especially since we moved the "Nicene bracket" back a couple of sentences. I suggested the creed last January because we were discussing the historical roots of trinitarian beliefs, and also because Aiden's summary quite frankly sounded to me like a paraphrase of the second article of the creed. We kept the creed reference later because it provided a transition from the previous paragraph about historicity. Now, however, direct reference to the creed sounds redundant even to me. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How do we accomodate those who affirm the doctrines in the creed, but reject creeds themselves? ("No creed but Christ") --CTSWyneken 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just me thinking out loud (mabye I'm wrong!), but I think that such people are a small enough minority that they do no warrent specific inclusion. Aside from such a view being unintelligible (because "no creed but Christ" is a creed in itself), I think that the large majority of Christianity accepts secondary, uninspired creeds as a necessary part of the life of the Church; in practice if not in word. --MonkeeSage 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The large majority of Christianity (Catholicism+Eastern Orthodoxy+Oriental Orthodoxy+Assyrian Church of the East+Lutheranism+Reformed+Methodist+Anglican, at least) accepts the Nicene Creed in full. Can you provide any evidence that the groups which accept the content of the Nicene Creed but not the idea of creeds are any less significant than non-trinitarian groups? john k 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a minority, but not a small one. I do not argue for the logic of the position (I'm a Lutheran seminary staff member, after all! We add a whole volume of creeds! ;-) ) The Baptist tradition, especially the Southern Baptists, and the Restorationist movements (Churches of God, Churches of Christ, Christian Church -- Disciples of Christ, etc.) and I believe the Mennonites and the Amish are there. The point (as they make it) is that the Bible alone has authority and each believer is required to allegiance to it. Anyway, these fit my prior description. They are confessors in the doctrines of the ancient symbols, but oppose symbols themselves. --CTSWyneken 21:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand the distinction between a doctrine and a statement of doctrine, which is all that a creed is. Those of us who affirm creeds affirm the scriptural basis of the creeds. However, all of the above will become a nonissue if we reference the doctrines rather than the creeds, ie Trinitarians and Nontrinitarians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do we stand?

I took the liberty of archiving old talk. I thought we might also take a moment to assess the current state of the article.

It seems we are currently discussing:

1. Improving the biography section (cf. Aiden's remarks about how an outsider might be confused).
2. Revising the intro as per Hurtstotalktoyou's recommendations above.
3. Nicene creed (dropping this from the intro, as it's redundant to the discussion of trinitarian and nontrinitarian views).
4. The charge of sedition and other issues with the second paragraph (see /2nd Paragraph Debate).

Some other things to consider (not sure where we stand):

1. Incorporating the suggestions at /PR-and-FA, including the fairly recent suggestions about the Historicity section that I just archived.
2. Incorporating the findings of the Jesus Seminar into the article.

Some things to consider for the future:

1. Condensing the article (it's getting a bit long) and moving appropriate data to appropriate subarticles (see /Related articles).
2. Conducting an Article Improvement Drive to build on our recent work at Good Article Collaboration of the Week.
3. Requesting a Peer Review, perhaps even an External Peer Review if possible.

Any comments? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Small Change

Hi, I am new here. I have changed the dates to BC and AD only, to keep the article better. I hope that is OK. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotswood Dudley (talk • contribs)

Please read this talk page itself and archives 15, 16, 17 to see how extensively this has been discussed. You haven't made the move as of yet I see, but it will be immediately reverted to the previous notation, so you know. Not a small change at all. --Oscillate 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there is one faction who feels that AD/BC are shoving Christianity down people's throat, another that feels that CE/BCE is political correctness (or anti-christianity) run amuk, and a third faction (including myself) who thinks the whole thing is silly. We do have a working compromise: use both. Otherwise someone could propose another "small change": use the pre-Christian Roman Calandar. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:25 4 April 2777 (UTC)

oh

Sorry. I thought they were the same time.