User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I think that the important thing is to communicate what you wrote on my talk page, in the article. Also, to simplify things, (1) Bloom is suggesting that for Jews, "love" is fundamentally "justice," wheraes for Christians, it is fundamentally "charity." If there are ANY Christians who would agree with this, they should be cited. And if there are Christians who have taken issue with this, they too should be cited. (2) My sources stress the relationship for Jews between "love" and "law," that is, the Jewish notion of "love" is the basis for, the justification for, and is actually achieved, through observing all the law (the 613 commandments in the Torah, and the body of law in the Talmud). How does Christian thought differ from this (again, acknowledging that there are different views -- different interpretations of Paul's epistles and statements about Jewish law, and also later theologians understanding of the place of law in the Church, whether for them any Church law is fundamentally about "love" or something else? If Jews express their love for God and their neighbors by observing Jewish law (e.g. keeping kosher), how do Christians express their love? Maybe these are things you, or someone else, can address? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your intention of drawing on CS Lewis sounds very promising — thank you. However, I do not understand what you mean when you say "We love God by obeying both the spirit and the letter of the law." To my knowledge, Christians do not circumcise themselves (at least, not because it is commanded in the Torah); Christians do not have separate dishes for milk and meat; Christians do not make sure that all of the blood is drained from an animal before eating it (indeed, I think that there are devout Christians who eat blood sausage); Christians do not abstain from eating pork; Christians do burn fires and use electricity and write on the Sabbath ... in short, it seems to me that Christians do not obey the law at all. And if you really think they do, then what Christians think the law is and what Jews think the law is is radically different. And if there is a strong link between love and law, and Christians have a different notion of law, then they must also have a different notion of love. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comment was neither long nor preachy; it was very informative and appreciated. Your account of the Jewish view of law is largely correct (there are some nuances you leave out but they are not necessary at this level of discussion. You should know that while Jews do not contrast "civil law" to "universal law," they do distinguish between God's commandments and laws specifically for the jews, and "universal" laws for all humankind. By the way, the universal laws are NOT the 10 commandments. See Noahide laws. Jews also believe that it is very possible for people to observe all of the law (not that it is easy, just that anyone willing to study and act consciously can do it, and do it all). I don't know of any published Jewish sources that discuss Jesus' words on divorce and murder. I imagine that a Jewish historian would say that at the time Jesus lived, there was no consensus among all Jews as to how to observe "the law" and that Jesus' interpretations were well within the realm of possible Jewish interpretations, but that his interpretations, like many others (those of the Essenes and Saducees, for example), did not appeal to the majority of Jews, and were inconsistent with the corpus of Jewish law and interpretation that became hegemonic among Jews after the destruction of the Temple. Now, as to why most Jews did not follow Jesus's teachings, and why they are incompatible with Rabbinic law, that is another question and I would only be speculating. One guess is that Jesus cared more about intentions than effects; the Rabbis were the opposite, caring more about effects than intentions. But that is just a guess and I wish I knew of some literature that explored this.

In any event, I think this has been a very fruitful discussion and we both have a clearer idea of the differences between Judaism and Christianity in this regard. I leave it to you to decide how to incorporate this discussion, at least insofar as it highlights important elements of Christianity that are not shared by Jews, into the article. I don't mean to put all the burden on you, but the section on the Jewish view of love is now very long, and the Christian section is very short. I just think it is only fair that the Christian views be given the same amount of attention and explication, even though I am obviously not qualified to do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:Jesus[edit]

Did I miss something? Who is this Doherty and what has (s)he written? --CTSWyneken 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pookster asked for clarification of the Jesus-Myth view, and I seconded his motion. Alienus then brought up a website by Earl Doherty (here's the discussion.). Oh, and I've brought out the ¶ 3 table again. Arch O. La 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here's a direct link. I haven't read the page myself, but Doherty's credentials have already been challenged. Arch O. La 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick look establishes that Earl Doherty is a humanist, does claim a degree in Ancient History (although it is not said from where and which degree) and the article appears to be from a journal. This would be enough to include him in footnote 3, but it doesn't establish that he is a part of the scholarly community in the discipline of history. I'll ask about. I'm having trouble gaguing the value of the journal in which his article was published. It is not in either of two scholarly indexes, Academic Search Elite, where most generally cited journals are indexed, or ATLA Religion Index, where almost all journals dealing with scholarship in religion are indexed. More later. --CTSWyneken 10:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
According to Pookster, Doherty has a BA in ancient history and classical languages. Arch O. La 12:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I only know what Pookster has said, so...ask him where Doherty's BA came from. Arch O. La 13:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Adminship[edit]

Something you said in another post made me realize, you're just the kind of person we need as an admin. You have acted fairly and in a non-biased manner throughout this whole mess. I don't believe you ever reverted to personal attacks (one of my own shortcomings as of late) and you tried to be fair to all parties.

I would like to nominate you for adminship. Is this something you would consider? --Avery W. Krouse 05:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

CTS, if you do accept than I will second. I'm still uncomfortable with Rob's latest trouble, but as it's only for 24 hours I can let it go for now. I suppose Rob could appeal. Arch O. La 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm touched. Sure, I guess, but let me ask around as to what I would be asked to do. I also wonder, practically speaking, how much it would help me with moderating discussions, etc. So, is it worth the grief? Wait a week and ask again. --CTSWyneken 10:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I encourage you to accept nomination. You are unbiased and NPOV! drboisclair 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention fairly verifiable. Homestarmy 16:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Cogito, ergo, sum! However, simul justus et peccator. --CTSWyneken 17:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the Latin word for "universe?" I've been trying to phrase a Theistic axiom: God, therefore the universe. Deus, ergo ---- Arch O. La 17:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I do not know the exact form, but it would be related to: universalis. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd make a fine administrator. It's not that huge a deal; you don't have to use your powers if you don't want to. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean, like Clark Kent; "Faster than a speeding vandal..." 8-) --CTSWyneken 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, go ahead! But please wait until Sunday Afternoon. And may _____ have mercy on your souls! ;-) --CTSWyneken 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck if you do decide to go forward. Just one word of advice — I haven't noticed your name appearing much in project namespace (pages that begin with Wikipedia or WP in the title), so perhaps you should do a little bit of voting at AfD pages, or RfA pages, or making comments at RfC pages before you try. Also, what about a little bit of RC patrol, so that you have a record of reverting vandalism (assuming that you don't already)? If you don't want to go to Special:Recentchanges regularly, you could add some frequently-vandalized pages to your watchlist, even if you're not particularly interested in them. Some suggestions would be Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Michael Jackson, Pope Benedict XVI, Wikipedia, etc. If you have them on your watchlist, it should be easy enough to build up a record as a vandal fighter. Cheers. AnnH 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent ideas. Thanks Ann! I haven't expanded my horizon to the project namespace yet. I have done a fair bit of vandalism reverts, mostly on pages you'd expect me to haunt. Can you all hold off on the RfA till next Sunday afternoon? --CTSWyneken 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I voted for you, anyway. I wonder why Avery hasn't stopped by, since he first brought up the idea? 23:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF

Centrist Faction[edit]

Hey, you're the last of the "charter" members who hasn't signed the membership rolls! Your dedication to NPOV and reflecting scholarship (as evidenced by your Alito barnstar) will certainly be an asset to the cause. Check out User:Archola#The_Centrist_Faction.

Oh, and Avery also gave you a barnstar on your main user page. You might want to keep them together. Arch O. La 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Things are moving so fast, I haven't had time to come and play. I'd move the Alito to the user page (I think it's a hoot!) But I'm not sure how regular it is. 8-)

BTW, is there a limit to how many Cabals I can belong to? After all, strange as it is for a Missouri Lutheran, I'm already the Worshipful Master of the Secret Order of Lutheran Knights! 8-) --CTSWyneken 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check my user page (not my talk page) for a message from Ril re:Systemic Bias. Arch O. La 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page collecting the discussions that led to The Centrist Faction (it was confusing having them scattered across four talk pages!) Arch O. La | TCF member 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not on my watch[edit]

I'm a hawk baby. I'll take a diligence barnstar though LOL.Gator (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Authorities[edit]

When you have set up a sub-page for issue 6, please let me know and provide me with the link. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For God so loved the world...Catholics, too![edit]

Our discussion on paragraph 3 is stuck on a debate on John 3:16 (JimWae has raised objections). See Talk:Jesus#Comments_on_Aiden.2FArchola.2FJimWae_version Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not yet recovered from paragraph two, so I've not looked at paragraph three. I may look in long enough to ask (or you can) do we have citations to back all the statements in the paragraph? This one will be a real... challenge to manage without them. So, I'd ask for sources for the assertions.
My intial interest in the paragraph will be that Lutherans do not believe "accepting Jesus" is the basis of salvation. We believe salvation is God's gift from start to finish. We only accept Jesus AFTER He has saved us. (I can provide sources to that effect.
My observation would be we're likely trying to say too much about the Christian consensus. I think we'd be safer to speak about Jesus and miracles and the resurrection there. Even this is a bit of a slog.
My thought is, at the moment: once mess at a time. --CTSWyneken 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We're basically working off of Aiden's original paragraph, expanded to include nontrinitarians and historicity (including the Nicene Creed). The Creed itself is a citation for a lot of it; JimWae is challenging that there is no citation for the interpretation of John 3:16, and Homestarmy and others are counter-challenging. My own opinion is to refer to the whole Nicodemus-Jesus discussion (not just verse 16) and include it not in the intro, but in either the "Life and Teachings" section or the "Christian views" section.
BTW, JimWae has asked how many Christians really believe in the virgin birth (although this has not provoked as much debate as John 3:16!) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We can easily cite info that most do. But I'm not done with the first and second paragraph. Can't everyone just let it go and help? *sigh* --CTSWyneken 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. As I understand it, the Greek work parthenos could mean either "young woman" or "virgin," and the Hebrew word in the OT prophecy it fulfilled simply means "young woman" Jim--our Jim, Jim62sch--and I have discussed this. But, we're getting nowhere with the Gospel of John.

Isn't it ironic that we waited until Lent to discuss the Christian views paragraph? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

... and there's endless discussion in scholarship about that. The big point missed in all this is that Jewish women of the first century were married at puberty. The only non-virgin young women were called something different -- wives, or women! But I'm not going there! Clean up last mess first, finish citation second, think about adminship third... --CTSWyneken 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may chime in, personally, i'd really like John 3:16 here somewhere in the intro, because it's just so increadibly important to Christianity no matter what side of the viewpoint spectrum your on, and that section is supposed to be relating what most Christians believe. A big problem that seems to be happening is, well, we can't find facts or statistics. I googled for Catholicism and John 3:16 but nothing ever came up as far as I saw to the effect of Catholicism actually choosing a side. What are we gonna do? :/ Homestarmy 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We were making considerable progress revising the paragraph until we got hung up on this one verse. I prefer John 3:1-21 myself. Right now we're debating necessary and sufficient causes for salvation.... Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And that is one of the points over which the major Christian traditions disagree. And that does not even begin to catalog those most of us would not like calling Christian at all. (In the same way that most Jews do not like calling Messianic Jews Christian) Why are we taking this up in the intro at all, I wonder? As with paragraph two, this is supposed to be a summary. We can take it up later, with a link, IMHO. But I've already spend too much time on this. We have work to finish on para. 1 & 2; citations, remember? 8-) And since few others are helping, I need to squeeze it in a the beginning of an academic term, when students are desperately looking for me... So, that's about all I'm going to say on the matter, except for perhaps a refereee role. --CTSWyneken 10:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested "Christians believe that Jesus provides salvation." That's simple enough for the intro, and broad enough to cover everybody (I hope.) I also raised your point about "accept Jesus." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That works, I think. I'll not get into the "where" int should go. Enough for now. --CTSWyneken 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jim Wae agreed, I think Storm Rider did too, but Homestarmy and Aiden found the clause too vague. Aiden also objected that simply stating "Jesus provides salvation" allows for too many heterodox interpretations. Myself, I feel that to say any more opens the door to interdenominational doctrinal debate—such as the one we've been having—and that we don't need it for the introduction. I pasted this enter section to Talk:Jesus and tried to explain my reasoning again. I don't know what else to do.
I hoped to have a cleaner paragraph for you to look at when you finished working on the first two paragraphs, but I guess we're stuck on salvation. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

...and also the Virgin Birth, since some are still pushing to have that in the intro. We may need the documentation you mentioned earlier; we're not getting aware by saying, "We're Christians and we believe that Jesus was born of a virgin" since JimWae doubts that this is a significant majority. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not the time to dig, but I know there are opinion surveys out there, asking Christians what they believe. I don't have much time at the moment, but that's where I'd go. --CTSWyneken 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving "Moving On"[edit]

Another point: I archived/moved a lot of stuff last night. I wasn't sure whether we were done with the "moving on" section, so I left it out. Let me know if it should be archived. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I might after church. Or, since you're an hour ahead, you might have a chance to do it while I'm in church. BTW the consensus on virgin birth seems to be to accept Jim's motion to discuss it later in the article, not in the intro. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --CTSWyneken 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup. But now it seems to be Aiden vs. JimWae, with the rest of us caught in the middle. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems more to me like their trying to work together a bit, I mean, I like the latest suggestion as long as we fix that last sentence, it's really unweildy. Homestarmy 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait until JimWae comes back. But yes, I'm trying to get us to work together. :) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated[edit]

Thanks for updating me on the Jesus article. I added my perspective on including Greek/Hebrew in the intro to the talk page. I really appreciate your stabilizing effect at that article, and also all your work with sources! Wikipedia could use a lot more editors like you. : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on George H. W. Bush[edit]

Thanks for your message concerning George H. W. Bush. I had a look last night, and while it had been heavily vandalized that day, the vandalism seemed to have died down. It seems fine today. Some admins will semi-protect more hastily than others. I'm glad you told me about that page, anyway, as I have now added it to my watchlist. Cheers. AnnH 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' Hebrew name[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for letting me know. Frankly, Haldrik doesn't seem particularly rational to me on this point. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus, &c[edit]

Cross-posted from Jim's page:

Folks! Please do not do anything so radical as to replace the content of the Jesus page. That would indeed start a war. Help me dispose of the two issues on the table at the moment. The way to do this is NOT to debate with anyone over facts. (Including me with the "Jesus spoke Greek" comment. We can do that here or by email). Urge a move towards the exit. Then revert to enforce what most of us think, hopefully without a vote.
Then, let's talk about the page in general. I like the overview as summary of the main issues, with links to subject specific articles. --CTSWyneken 11:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that we "replace the content of the Jesus page," just that we have "the overview as summary of the main issues, with links to subject specific articles." My suggestion to Jim was that he might make more progress adapting his German translation to the Historical Jesus article. This is pretty much what Project Echo is all about: using featured articles in one language to improve articles in other languages. Oh, and I'll cross-post. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: To put it another way, I simply suggested a division of labor. You and I can continue to work at Jesus and Christian views of Jesus as we have been doing (nothing "radical" implied!), while SOPHIA and Jim will be working on Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus in much the same way (again, nothing radical implied!) I'm looking at the whole Jesus series (as per my outline) as a whole, and one of my long-term goals is to promote accuracy, consistency and organization within the series. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Names and Dates of Jesus[edit]

Dear Haldrik: In attempt to get things back on track, if it's OK with you, I'm going to archive the whole lot, propose we focus on the text of the article and not on debate of the facts and try to move us on. It is clear to me that Jesus = Joshua = Y'Shua, but no amount of debating is going to change minds. I will try to list the options, then list reasons why or why not we should do one or the other and move us to discuss which will work. I'm going to ask everyone not to get into the debate over the name itself again. Does this work for you? Bob --CTSWyneken 14:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't archive the information until the dust settles, at least not until tomorrow on 3/10/2006. I would consider the Jesus article unhelpful if it doesn't accurately convey who the ancient Jesus really was. Understanding his original Hebrew name is an important part of the information to call attention to his historical setting. --Haldrik 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope the dust settles soon. I just sorted the talk page, and there is a very long discussion over where to place the origin of Jesus' name. It seems to come down to a dispute over whether Hebrew was a common or sacred language, and thus whether Jesus was ever addressed by the Hebrew form. I say, why not use Aramaic?
I've posted a modest proposal that makes a lot of sense to me, but we'll see how well it goes over.
Please leave the paragraph 3 discussion out for now; I'll archive it when it seems our discussion is over. The same with the German article translation. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did archive the inactive portions of the above. Haldrik's got a new proposal for the first paragraph. When do we get to archive the debate over the status of first century Hebrew? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hey CTSWyneken/Archive 4, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Banana.arp.750pix.jpg Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Martin Luther[edit]

No worries. I've actually had it on my watchlist for a few weeks now but each time I've noticed it being vandalised, someone has beaten me to reverting it. What other Christian-related pages are getting vandalised? Let me know and I'll add them to my watchlist. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had Jesus but I added Pope Benedict XVI. I appereciated the "g'day" and "fair dinkum" from a Hoosier (my uncle teaches at Purdue and I did year 12 over there). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Mysteries[edit]

I found a reference to this book while I was traipsing through the Gnosticism pages. The authors argue that Christianity arose from Gnosticism, and the book seems to be popular among the Jesus-Myth folk. Below is a cross-post from Talk:Jesus: Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I haven't seen The Jesus Mysteries listed in the cited authors page. This 1999 book seems to be popular among the Jesus-Myth folk. Timothy Freke is a philosopher, and Peter Gandy is an expert on ancient mystery religions. Gandy might be a historian (not sure), but definitely neither of them are critical Bible scholars. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have two copies of the book! let me know what you need and I'll look it up. SophiaTalkTCF 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Here you are Bob:

Title: The Jesus Mysteries

Subtitle: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?

Authors: Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy

Name and address of publisher: Thorsons. An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. 77-85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB

Copyright: 1999

ISBN: 0 7225 3676 3

Page 158: " The lack of any evidence for an historical Jesus finally made us completely abandon the idea that the true biography of Jesus had been distorted and overlaid with Pagan mythology to create the gospel stories."

Page 133: Chapter 7 "The Missing Man". This whole chapter is a study of the contemorary writers and known documents that refer to Jesus. The quote above is in the last page of this chapter where they summarize their conclusions based on the evidence they have (not) found.

Glad to help - if there is anything else then let me know. SophiaTalkTCF 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's essentially written for a "lay" audience so I would not expect it to get much academic interest or aclaim. It's importance to the reader is that they can go into most high street book shops (in the UK) and buy a copy. When I have time I will investigate the list of historians writing at the time or soon after Jesus is said to have lived to see how this stacks up. SophiaTalkTCF 12:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly- but bear in mind that only 20 years ago in the UK people were convicted of blasphemy just for printing a poem that Jesus may have been gay so it's been pretty complicated by the state/church link here - not sure what the US set up is though. SophiaTalkTCF 12:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, SOPHIA. As I understand it, the scholarship has been criticized for not taking into account the history of ancient Israel and the Jewish subtext of the New Testament, including the prophecies that (we Christians say) Jesus fulfilled. It is, however, written for a mass audience, and has become a bestselling popular work; even more so since it is once of the "sources" for The Davinci Code. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Bob, good to hear from you. I'm not watching the developments there closely but I see your name often. FYI, it seems we have resolved the conflict at Talk:First Council of Nicaea#Antisemitism. Take a look if you have time and take care. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob. My apologies for temporarily neglecting your question. According to Portal:Judaism, "Passover will be observed from dusk of Wednesday April 12 2006 to after dusk on Thursday April 20, 2006." Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, friend. Happy holidays to you as well! ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Jesus[edit]

Well, I suppose we can go there if we must. Must we, though? The changes seem pretty non-controversial to me; just a matter of better writing, really. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll go take a look again. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars, scholars and scholars[edit]

Just to clarify, I never said that I agreed with the implication that people who aren't Biblical scholars aren't scholars, I was pointing out that others have made this objection. What I am stating is in my Venn diagram, which is pretty much what you said: Biblical scholars and historians are not necessarily the same people.

As for the rest, I simply rephrased "critical Bible scholars" to "scholars of Biblical criticism" to clarify, I'm afraid that if we drop the word "critical," we lose the distinction Slrubenstein made between those who base their argument on religion, and those who bracket their religious beliefs. The former belong in the religious views paragraphs, the latter belong in the second paragraph. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is our set of scholars include those who would object to being called "critical" scholars and would have those who claim to be "critical" scholars object to them being so called. Large portions of the assumptions of critical scholars are rejected by such. This is not to say they are arguing from religion. For example, higher criticism rules out the miraculous up front. Prophecy does work, for example, because no one can predict the future. So that Isaiah knows Cyrus's name is proof for critical scholars that portion Isaiah was written after the exile. Traditional Biblical scholars do not rule it out because they allow that the miraculous is possible, although almost impossible to document. --CTSWyneken 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Is there another word that describes the distinction that Slrubenstein has raised? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Scholar! 8-) That's what a scholar does. They investigate honestly, aware of their biases, to be as objective as possible, discipline themselves to consider all possibilities from the data and come to as clear and supportable an opinion as possible. That's what makes someone a schoolman or womann. --CTSWyneken 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But "scholar" also has such a broad meaning. I was called a "scholar" when I was inducted into Alpha Chi. This amounted to getting good grades and paying $30.Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
'tis why we say Biblical scholars, historians, etc. ;-) --CTSWyneken 01:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the validity of the term, or of any objections, Robsteadman and Ems have both argued that "critical Bible scholars" are writing from a religious POV. I just fear we'll get even more objections if we drop the word "critical." I for one get tired of repeating the same old arguments for new people. Yes, we mean people who "bracket their religious beliefs," but is everyone going to understand that? Look at the debates we've had over the word "healer." Same problem. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Me, too. So we don't. We guard the page, refer people to the archives and respond only if something new appears. --CTSWyneken 11:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
That's another thing. When you write "guard," some people (especially those new to the page) read "protectionism." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
They can read such if they wish. As you know from experience with me on a page or two, when they come and talk, make reasonable arguments, I do back off. The point is not that I get my way, but that we do not have constant change in a page, have work done over weeks destroyed without the common courtesy of trying to gain agreement amoung editors, etc. If a new persons comes and talks it out and the rest of the editors like the result, I not only will get out of the way, I'll guard the text. --CTSWyneken 21:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I know. There is, of course, a difference between owning a page and maintaining a page. I'm just concerned about how this appears to outsiders, especially since we're supposed to working towards a Feautred Article candidacy. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I've discovered that doing something because it looks or does not look good never really works. Besides, I don't know that I care about featured article status. I just want a page I can feel comfortable with my students quoting in a paper. 8-)
Besides, if I worried about what people thought, I'd be scared stiff of what all this would look like when someone gets around to nominating me for adminship. 8-) --CTSWyneken 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I just feel the presence of eyes watching us. It makes me self-conscious. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I never worry. I try to keep within wiki rules, be polite, wade in as an old-fashioned listserv moderator, and let the bytes fall where they may. --CTSWyneken 22:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Good for you, but I'm not there yet ;) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus and all its myriad children[edit]

Just to let you know, I just finished sorting, archiving, and subpaging Talk:Jesus, and this includes your favorite subpage. 2nd Paragraph Debate and its third archive are both over 90K in size! I wonder how many megabytes we've spent on this omnicontroversial paragraph. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

re:3RR dispute.[edit]

Well, I am not inclined to get involved solely because Gator1 and I are pretty tight. I think it would be hard for me to not pick sides in the dispute. Can you summerize who needs to be blocked and why?--MONGO 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll review it again.--MONGO 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I protected the page and left a note there to all that they need to work things out on the discussion oage. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.--MONGO 04:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be protected for more than a few days to a week...hopefully by not blocking them, they will work out their differences peacefully...maybe.--MONGO 11:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


I think enough is enough and we need to call in outside help. There are the same old problems happening time and again - I've watched this current "my scholar is better than your scholar" at least 3 times and I've only been on these pages 3 months! I hope it will be a positive processs as being on the other side I can see why Rob and Gio think the Christian editors are a "cabal" - at times like this they do act as one. As I keeep my head low I think I'm the only one on the "other" side that notes when you all have a doctrinal dispute and the "cabal" like behavior vanishes!

I'll give everyone the link as soon as I have made it - I don't know what I'm doing so am going to ask Ann how it's done. SophiaTalkTCF 13:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problems have never gone away - they were just having a rest ready to come back with vengeance! Seriously though I am not happy with the amount of reverting that goes on and the style that you favour can be viewed as "cabal" like and contrary to what wikipedia is supposed to be for. We have very disparate views who will not see eye to eye and I'm hoping this will help - we're not getting anywhere just hoping things will be ok so let's try something new. SophiaTalkTCF 17:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The problems have died down at Jesus but are starting up again at Historicity of Jesus and especially Jesus-Myth. It's pretty much the same old arguments that both sides have raised before. There are several editors there I have only encountered in the last three days, and at least one [[[TrumpetPower]] has admitted to being a new editor. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues[edit]

I was serious when I said on the talk page of the Jesus article that the EB is a valuable source of material if copying from it is permissible if done properly. While no doubt the ideal is as SLrubenstein noted on that talk page, it is not always possible to do that sort of research. Since you are an expert on copyright, I want to ask your help in this area.

Please take the following link, if you can: "Salmuth, Hans von." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. <> [Accessed March 25, 2006]. If it works, and gives you access to the EB article, please let me know here, then I wish to ask you a further question. Keep the window to the EB article if you can, or make a temporary copy of of it for yourself, its very short. Drogo Underburrow 12:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at what Hans von Salmuth looks like now - I couldn't have done this without the EB. I still feel like I'm ripping them off, but you say say its ok? Drogo Underburrow 05:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Durant[edit]

I am at a loss to understand the objection to Will Durant as a reference. He has won both the Pulitzer Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Rick Norwood 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, but to say that Durant is not a historian is like saying that Einstein is not a scientist. Rick Norwood 14:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitatation and question[edit]

The invitation is to join the Christianity Knowledge Base. The question is, what license is the text on Project Wittenburg under? I'd like to add the Book of Concord to the CKB. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 13:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Time line of unfulfilled Christian Prophesy[edit]

The final round of voting is in progress. Your opinion would be welcome. --T-rex 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


See latest attempts at putting dubious "Yeshua" in intro again... --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, it wasn't me. I'm surprised you'd even ask: I don't know Hebrew. My only recent edit to the Jesus article was to make the map bigger (300 px rather than 200) so that it's actually readable. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Berman[edit]

Hi there. Point taken. Feel free to remove the prod notice if you think the article should be retained. (Incidentally, there appear to be two articles on the go now: David Berman (R.G.D., FGDC) and David Berman, R.G.D., FGDC). Cheers. —Whouk (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I steer clear of articles like that :-) In the mean time, I'll try to wikify it a bit. —Whouk (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh - looks like it might be a copyvio of —Whouk (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus called God in NT?[edit]

Whether or not he is called God in the NT is, in fact, disputed by even Christian groups. In any event, the verses used by the anon certainly don't demonstrate it. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Word" is an indirect reference, and "The Deity" is not the same thing as "God". It is precisely for these reasons (among others) that even some Christian groups dispute the claim that Jesus was God. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is getting off topic, but I don't think the author of the Gospel of John was Jewish at all; he sees Jews entirely as "other". Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Done....duhGator (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversation w/ anonymous editor[edit]

I don't want to sign my comments on this page, other than the URL, which is a URL used by hundreds of people. The reason behind this is because I don't want to identify myself. I have already been the subject of a behind-the-back email sent to some higher-ups in the synod, including a district president. I personally don't want to risk my neck. I don't want anyone to identify me or for such an email to happen again to me. I am afraid of District Presidents because they wield a lot of power. For example, one could force my pastor to either excommunicate me, and if my pastor doesn't, he could be removed from the synod by his District President. But don't worry, I'm not an LCMS member/LCMS churchworker, nor do I intend to become an LCMS member/LCMS churchworker. I do currently happen to be a member of a congregation that is a member of the synod, though.

Registering as a user can be done annonymously. It is important to know which person is proposing changes, even if we do not know who that person is in real life. Take a look at a few user pages. Very few ID themselves personally. It is important to know where someone is coming from if we're going to be working together on an article. If you cannot do this, people will feel free, as I did the first time you edited, to summarily revert your work. It would have allowed me, for example to leave you this message, rather than hope you will come back and find this comment.
As far as Synod politics, I understand how you could be gun-shy. But still set up an online ID, please. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the LCMS position on Creation on wikipedia must be qualified. It is dishonest. Even though the LCMS as a synod says it is Creationist and opposed to Evolution, once you get inside the synod's schools, it is obvious that at least some of them have persons in them that teach Evolution, and not just as a scientific idea, but as an old-earth actuality. Doctrinal discipline is not happening in cases where it said. And whatever teaching goes uncorrected is the teaching of the synod, no matter what the official position says.

Our system is indeed uneven in its doctrinal discipline. You could, of course, say so. In fact, some of the individuals who teach these things have been publically identified. Then again, without a username, you may be reverted. Also, please understand that everything in these articles is supposed to be documented. So you'll need to do so, if you hope someone that doesn't like what you say to leave it in place.
Regardless of the state of discipline, however, creationism is the doctrinal position of our Church Body.

What I meant with the, "Doctrine of the Gospel" was no more than what Scaer and Pieper write. Scaer writes with the one-doctrine concept, Pieper calls this Doctrine of the Gospel, "Scripture doctrines." Marquart also says that total agreement on Scripture-Doctrine is needed for fellowship, and that one can't just accept part of the Doctrine of the Gospel and not part of it. Scaer also says in this "Sermon on the Mount" that the Gospel incorperates the structure of the law into it. If you don't believe me on this, walk over to his office during break and ask him.

That was you, too? It really would help if you had an ID. I'm confused. Prior to seeing that paragraph added to the page, I'd never heard the "one doctrine" comment even discussed, much less taught. Since I am a graduate of the St. Louis Sem, served as an LCMS pastor for seven years and as a librarian at the Ft. Wayne sem for thirteen years, this is kind of odd, if true. I asked Dr. Scaer if he'd ever heard of the doctrine and he said no. I checked Pieper -- also no luck. We have always taught that two doctrines sum all of Scripture -- Law and Gospel. I'm afraid I need more from you in the way of specific citations to get where you're coming from on this. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Two more citations ought to do it. 1. CTCR 1967, "What is Doctrine?" 2. The Fire and the Staff. Both of them refer to the whole Doctrine of the Gospel as a whole of what some (like Walther and Pieper) refer to as doctrines in the plural. What I meant in that the law was incorperated into the Gospel was not a mixing of law and Gospel, but it was just a confusing way to say that the Law is fulfilled in the Gospel. I still think I saw it in his book. Perhaps he too was confused by my confusing statements.
It really would help if you cite actual page numbers. I've never heard of "Fire and the Staff" either. Please be precise. --CTSWyneken 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with putting up "Antichrist," and listing the synod's teaching of the Antichrist? Some think amillenialism is a type of millenialist, but when they see what we believe about the Antichrist, they will know what we mean.

Nothing wrong with it, so go for it. The article is far from complete. I've been tied up in other places in the wiki, so I haven't had time to work on it. But please cite a source or two, when you do. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zion on the Mississippi is a work known to contain numberous errors. If you wish to the the Wikipedia examination of Zion on the Mississippi, go to the "Stephan Martin" and click on the discussion, and you can see how abuse of Zion on the Mississippi really scews history. This book has a liberal POV bias, it should not be relied upon. The book I used is a pan-Lutheran book. "The Missourians" is only a single chapter in a book that goes extensively into the histories of groups now in the ELCA. Unlike Zion on the Mississipi, it is objective. Remember that 1880 was before many of the things that now color our glasses came about: Seminex, DayStar, the One List, Jesus First, publications like Christian News, unprecidented politiking during conventions, ect. ect. ect. While normally time allows for a clearer view, I'd have to argue that the view certainly isn't any clearer.

I'm afraid slandering a book does not work with me. You are welcome to criticize a work, but be prepared to defend the criticism from the facts. It is possible, you know, to read a work for the facts and draw your own conclusions. I went over to the library and picked up a copy. The sources are almost all primary sources. I've not seen a thing that tilts toward one doctrinal view or another. So, give an example, cite a published critique and we'll go from there. Until then, since it is the accepted work on the subject, its viewpoint should be respected. So far, it is simply the opinion of an annonymous editor against a historian who has done solid work. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was confused about the book when reading Marquart's Anatomy of an Explosion. He makes a reference to Zion on the Mississippi in the beginning that appeared to be negative. But now I think I was mistaken. My hostility toward the book was based on the concern that it makes Makes Stephen look good. I misread the citation on the Martin Stephan page and assumed that it was coming toward him via the book, but now that I read the page for like the fourth time or so it is apparent that the Stephen heirs are actually attacking the book. You discerned correctly that I haven't read it, but don't pat yourself on the back for recogning that one, cause even a gradeschooler could have caught that. Perhaps the definition of "utopian community" has changed since he wrote it. But that's just pure speculation. I withdraw the claim of liberal on "Zion on the Mississipi"--for I thought that was were they were getting all this pro-Stephan material (although pro-Stephanism is not quite liberal, but more of a bad hierarchical spirit mixed with an ugly, sinful conservatism.) I recant the whole of the comments on "Zion on the Mississipi in the previous paragraph.
Zion on the Mississippi is pretty even handed when it comes to Stephan and our cast of founders. I'm currently rereading it to deal with the Stephan articles lack of balance and accuracy. Please understand: I'm not out to score points, especially here. I'm trying to defend a scholar (think 8th Commandment) and to produce articles I won't have to yell at my students for citing. --CTSWyneken 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the marks of utopianism is the idea that people are basically good. The Missourians never agreed to this. Calling them a utopian community confuses them with the Amana communities of Iowa, where the Anabaptists there thought that people had merit and worthiness in themselves.

Not so. Please read the article on Utopianism, which does a decent job. It is about condemning the world around you as hopelessly corrupt, withdrawing from it to a place where you can live by your ideals, hoping to build a much better life. This is exactly what they did. Can you quote a published, scholarly source that says otherwise? --CTSWyneken 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
But did we withdraw? I dispute this because Walther did not withdraw. He even set up a joint Christian newspaper with other denomninations-that is engagement rather than withdrawing. We did withdraw from Germany, but not from the world as you are implying. Utopianism does mean withdrawing oneself from the world. Missourians, however, engage themselves in the world. Sure, the Bible says that we are not to try to leave the world (I think that is from John's Gospel, the upper room chapters, or perhaps Gethsemene). The Triglot preface says Scripture is the only norm of doctrine, right? But the Triglot and Scripture don't count very much in the eyes of the world. Well, I do know that the CTCR doc against the WELS on fellowship has the thing about Walther and the newspaper.
Not we, my friend. At this time, as Walther and the Saxon founders freely admit, they were near cultic. Only the basic orthodox shape of the material and formal principles saved them from falling out of Christianity altogether. The second thing you're missing is that Utopian is a social science term. In basic shape, the Saxons and the Saginaw Valley communities behaved in socially similar ways to the Mormons, the Shakers, etc. On this point, you need to look at the facts on the ground. Simply because they said they adhered to orthodox doctrine and practice does not mean they did. The power of Stephan's personality put blinders on them. It is a cautionary story that meeds to be learned from. Thank God for their defense of pure doctrine, but do not elevate them to entire sanctification. --CTSWyneken 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I also will note that the stating that there isn't really much difference between "evangelicals" and "traditionalists," is offensive and objectionable to many in the synod. I have been to loads of synod churches, and I see the diferences first-hand. Some churches have pastors that make the third use of the law the main thing, other have Law/Gospel sermons, some are creationist, some permit teachers (synod members)of old-earth evolution (that really believe it, too, not just because it is what Modern Science says) to be congregation members, another that has the confirmands on questioning day explain that if evolution is true, you might as well throw the whole of Christianity into the garbage, some that allow members of the Roman church, the Methodist church, the Baptist church, ect. to take communion, and some that don't allow certain synodical or district officials to commune, some that practice church discipline against free masons, another one that does not, some pastors that are permissive of women pastors in the synod, some that aren't, one church that keeps it's pastor on a month by month interim Call (so they can fire him at will by not renewing the interim call), other churches that think that the practice is indicative of false doctrine, some churches that have female presidents/officials, others that won't let females vote, some churches that think the Muslim god is the same God as the Christian God, others that think those that believe this are guilty of false doctrine, some that think communion with leavened bread is valid, others that think it is invalid, some that think communion with grape juice is valid, others that think its invalid, some that think allowing females to give testimonials in church is a good thing, others that think that allowing females to lector is sin, some that believe the synod is an umbrella organization so total agreement on Scripture-doctrine is uneeded, others that think the synod is dead because it has become an umbrella organization, some that redefine Biblical Inerrancy to whatever they want it to be, others that use Pieper's explaination of it, some that commune WELS/ELS congregation members, others that regaurd the teaching of WELS/ELS as heterodox, some that use the hymnal Christian Worship, others that use TLH, others that use LW, others that use the Lutheran Book of Worship, others that use Best of the Best, some that sing about how we "chose God now," others sing that such doctrine is a "false, misleading dream," some pastors that protest in front of abortion clinics, a teacher (synod member) that tells his students that life doesn't begin at conception so research that kills embryos is okay, another teacher (synod member) that says it is not a sin if you kill an abortion doctor or bomb an abortion clinic, some that think article 5 of the AC means that the ministry is a sacrament, others that think people that believe this are guilty of false doctrine, some that think Brief Statement is still binding, others that do not...I'm sure there is more, but I feel I've commented about it enough. You might criticize me for not naming names, proving myself specifically, etc., but the fact is I really don't want to risk my neck. These are not rumors but actual instances of what a congregation, a pastor, or teacher, all synod members, believe or do. I've been a wittness to most of these things I mentioned. Those that I was not a witness to, I either had a reliable person I know that was a wittness to or I've read from a credible source, like the notice from the president/BOD about the article 5 and the Concordia: TLC revokation.

You can, of course, write on all of this you can document. If you don't realize that wikipedia articles are imperfect and sometimes flat out wrong... There is only so much good editors can do at once. We are also in an environment where all views are supposed to be represented. If you cannot work in the rules, I suggest you don't edit. If you can, we can use all the help we can get. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If I prove this, I will have loads of angery people...and no I don't have enough confessional courage for that. When people are obstinate when you talk to them face to face, there isn't really much recourse. For if I prove that certain LCMS members teach evolution--which I have the full capability of doing that, they will not be happy. They will send more behind-the-back emails, and they will get my family angry at me. Not a good idea. For even if the DP takes their jobs away (which I personally don't think would happen, although yes this sounds like I'm slandering the DP--honestly I think we've all gotten a bit cynical), my extended family will be unhappy with me. Whoever loves his father or mother more then me is not worthy of me." I do love my family, but I think Jesus wants me to use my reputation in ways other than online posting. That is a real cheap way to lose a reputation. In any event, Wikipedia is an environment where all views are to be represented equally, no matter how true or false the claim, if you can find a nickel and dime academic to agree with you, it has equal footing no matter how false it is. I've wondered if Christians really have any buisiness posting doctrinal stuff in a place that not only allows the lies to be seen as having equal footing as the truth, but makes it it's mission to enforce that they have an equal (or even greater) footing than the truth). I'm curious what you think about that.

You can see that this stuff here is really hot. I don't dare give out my name. Please overlook that I don't have my name out here.-- 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, establishing an account does not require you to reveal your real identity or to allow people to email you. It does tell us something about you by allowing us to build a relationship with you. It is the only workable way to be able to work together. If you can't manage that amount of confessional courage, I don't think we'll be able to work together.
Actually, I do have an ID, but it is the same as my email, so people could find out who I am. I've left enough of an electronic trail on the Internet that links my name and my email. In some cases I do use it my ID. If I were to use it to prove things against synod members, they could get angery at me. Sure, Luther has his principle of open sin, open rebuke, private sin, private rebuke, but in the 1990's and 2000's most Missourians expect you to only do private rebuke no matter what. In any event, when you are anonymous you can place your half baked ideas out on the table and have others comment on them. Then, you can go to sleep when they are corrected and know that your identity is totally safe. If I do something stupid, like trash a good book like "Zion on the Mississippi," but no one knows I do it, my reputation is unharmed, and I have learned something.
There is nothing to stop you from setting up a new account and using it, if you will not use the one you have. The only time this is a problem is when you use two accounts to set up a sense of consensus that is not there. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to know that I tried to explain my actions in the discussion page of the LCMS. If you want to deleate this, go right ahead, I don't mind, because I see I'm not following your organized style.-- 04:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gospel date range[edit]

I'll help if I can but I'm pretty limited to what there is on the internet and my bunch of "heathen" books. They should be good for late date sources as they generally try to discredit the Gospels! Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any Jesus seminar books and my little town library is unlikely to have such stuff. I'ss search the web and order a couple of Robert Price books from amazon as I think I should read those anyway. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Check ou these links - our work may have been done for us!

Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) edits to Jesus[edit]

You've reverted this IP's edits to the "Life and Teachings" section, but I wonder if you've noticed the earlier edits to the second paragraph: [5]. This IP added the clause "was additionally regarded by many as either a prophet or the Messiah." This IP also removed references to Pilate and sedition, leaving the clause "was sentenced to death by crucifixion."

I've brought this up at Talk:Jesus/2nd_Paragraph_Debate. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as Archola).

I'll do what I can, but my reverts are just as limited as yours are. I'd prefer to talk this out myself. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 12:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to flush 'em out. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 12:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Philo and Jesus[edit]

"Joshua" or "Yeshua"? Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental Union and consubstantiation[edit]

You might want to weigh in on this discussion. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pastor CTS! Please see at your convenience the quotations from Mueller and Pieper that I put on User_talk:Drboisclair and Talk:Sacramental Union. I have also revised the last paragraph of Sacramental Union to further disavow "consubstantiation." Duh! (on my part!), "consubstantiation" is like homoousios: the bread is of one substance with the body and the wine is of one substance with the blood. But what substance??? A new one???? Consubstantiation is problematic and not Lutheran. drboisclair 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I currently attend a Wisconsin Synod church because it's the closest geographically, although I have never officially become a member. I have put off the decision on whether or not to join until the Holy Spirit guides me through the confusion I feel over the differences between various American Lutheran sects. I was actually raised in the LCMS (St. John's in Sand Prarie, IL), ALC and early ELCA (St. Paul's in Hedrick, IA), although some parts of the ELCA have grown too liberal for my tastes. As an adult I attended and was a member of an LCMS congregation (Trinity Lutheran in Ottumwa, IA) until my parents passed away in December 2000. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: My uncle (Rev. Ernest Elzey) is a fairly conservative ELCA minister. Yes, there is such a thing. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether people should not respond to me[edit]

You said that people should not respond to me unless I get a username. Please don't do this. Is it charitable? Even if I am at least a partially ignorant, sometimes even misinformed layman, remember that Wikipedia is for the partially ignorant laymen too. This is not only helping me understand the nuances of the positions better, but also it should result in an article that doens't confuse anyone that went to a Lutheran school or had a Lutheran pastor that used the term "consubstantiation" in a way other than theologians use it. Even the term "local presence" can be confusing. An ignorant Lutheran could think, "the bread is there three dimensionally, and the Body is "in, with, and under" it, so yes, the Body is there three dimensionally." That was how I thought. Of course, the three dimensions is a property that is part and parcel with the nature of bread, and the Lutheran would in no way think that we are eating a three dimenionsional hunk of flesh, a piece of body. Even the term local is confusion in and of itself. I thought that local meant "down on earth with us" rather than "up in heaven communion on Jesus's Divine Nature alone". The problem is that the Latin cognates were substituted for the Latin terms. This is the same problem with the new translation of the Book of Concord put out by CPH. I have read some of it, and it uses all these English cognates for complex, specifically defined Latin or German terms, which I largely do not understand to begin with. If I go off the meaning of the cognate, I could end up being wrong.-- 02:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a userbox for partially ignorant laymen? Because I sure could use one! Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to do so, because we need to know who we're talking to. Anybody from the same computer system could comment and pretend to be you. I can only guess you're the same person who challenged Dave, commented here or on the Jesus pages. Create a user ID and sign your comments and we will happily work with you, as we do with all manner of folk. You do not even need to create a user page and ID anything about yourself. Having a distinct ID, we know that it is you or someone you gave your password to, who is talking to us. It is simple courtesy. Until then, I do not intend to interact with you and will advise the same of others. --CTSWyneken 13:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Anybody at Concordia University in Seward, Nebraska, that is. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 23:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gator and first century Jewish movements[edit]

Two completely different topics, but in case you didn't know our friend Gator1 has had some trouble.

I was wondering where we could find some sources that compare Jesus and his disciples to other first-century Jewish movements. We only have E. P. Sanders, who argues that Jesus was a Pharisee, but, ah, using only one source is a bad idea. I've also heard that some think Jesus might have been an Essene, but I don't remember where I heard that. They always say to ask a librarian when you need to find information, so here I am asking. What I really want to do is to be able to place Jesus in His incarnate historical context for the life and teachings/biography section of the Jesus article.

Some sources that mention the relationship between Galilee, Judea and Samaria would also be helpful. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief! I'll comment more later. Try Shaye Cohen's book. Also, just about all the books I've used says something or other about these topices. On Galilee, there's an archeological report on the "Galilean Jesus" that's pretty good. --CTSWyneken 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Which book? The Jesus article lists two of Cohen's books as sources. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 23:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The one in the paragraph two note. Remember, I've barely gotten to para. three. 8-) --CTSWyneken 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do hope the Omnicontroversial Paragraph 2 gets settled soon. I've been working on other parts of the article, although my lack of access to scholarly sources makes this difficult.

It's been suggested that other than the nonexistence hypothesis and the mythological school, there are two main schools of historical thought: Jesus as moral ethicist, and Jesus as apocalyptic prophet re: Schweitzer, Ehrman and others. John K feels that the Jesus article ignores the Apocalyptic Prophet model. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 04:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He forgets the Jesus as Divine School. ;-) And I suspect many more! --CTSWyneken 10:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, we already have the Christian views included. Unitarians and others who deny Jesus' divinity notwithstanding. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is that it is the opinion of valid historians, regardless of what others think! 8-) --CTSWyneken 10:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the Copenhagen school, which includes Thomas L. Thompson. I found his faculty page, which includes contact info. I suppose we could just ask him whether or not he believes that Jesus is a historical figure.Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 12:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


I've made some changes to your Talk:Jesus#Proposed_paragraphs, hopefully you don't mind, of course if you do you can always revert. 03:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, that wasn't your addition, sorry. 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No it, was mine, but you can still comment. I think comparing Jesus to his cultural and historical background helps to point out that he was a real historical figure and not a myth. At the very least, presenting the parallels to other first-century Jews helps to provide a counterbalance to those who point out the parallels between Jesus and pagan myths. (Even the meaning of the latter is contested. I think it was C. S. Lewis who said that God was preparing the world for Jesus' incarnation, thus making Paul's ministry easier.) Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 09:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please consider my proposal for paragraph 2. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BIG favor[edit]

When you have some time (er, can you find time?) could you work on the Cultural and historical context of Jesus article? Specifically, this section: [6]. Currently, the article is very top=heavy with context, and not enough content on how the context leads to new interpretations of Jesus' life. Also, when I worked on it I was really focussing on what historians mostly agree about. In the section to which I draw your attention, I think it is timely (and important) to start specifying different historians views (Sanders versus Fredricksen versus Meier versus Crossan). That is, showing how different historians draw on the cultural and historical context to make different claims about the historical Jesus. It seems to me that you are the contributor who has been most attentive to the works of these different scholars. And, your knowledge of them is much fresher than mine. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I was able to spend several days not only with my parents, sister and brother-in-law but with my 18 month old neice as well, a true joy. I hope you have a fulfilling and joyous Easter. I have not been following the Jesus article too closely, but it seems to me that it is in a pretty stable state right now, and quite good - which is why I think it is timely to start working on linked articles. We have worked hard to ensure that Jesus is NPOV, NOR, accurate and accessible. But most of the linked articles have not gotten the attention that the Jesus article has. I do hope you can improve the Historical and cultural context article, but I suspect the Christology article can use a lot of work too. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Concordia In St. Louis[edit]

Thanks for the Welcome,

I noticed that you are associated with a Lutheran Church based in STL (am I getting that write)? A pass the Concordia Seminary here in STL every Sat and Sunday biking to my favorite coffee spot, small world!


Well, I guess I have to aplogize for letting my dog run on your lawn(I aways cleaned up the mess, thu)!

Like this ?Steve kap 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Administrator[edit]

Alright, here we go, you're on! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that it could change the outcome really, but since Slim brought up the point about project space edits, you could come join me at WP:GA, or maybe even help me out on the GA collaboration of the week, we're....well....I am doing Berlin right now :). Homestarmy 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support anyway. I don't think I'll ever receive adminship, since I do actually have other work to do -- placing documents on the internet, writing for print publications, doing research, etc. I cannot range across the whole of the wiki and still manage to do the detailed work needed. If I'm to fully document the pages I work on, I can have no other time for other work. --CTSWyneken 10:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning/block process[edit]

Hi there. The two things I particularly noticed were a couple of recent posts on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The first [7] was asking for an administrator to warn a particular editor about vandalism. I would expect a potential administrator to be warning vandals themselves, most likely using messages from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (e.g. {{subst:test-n|The Ten Commandments}}), rather than asking an admin to place a warning.

The second [8] was asking for action to be taken on WP:AN/I. I would expect this to be raised on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead. While there's nothing wrong with not knowing about WP:AIAV, again it's something I'd expect from a potential administrator, and I'd recommend familiarising yourself with the procedure there.

Hope this helps. —Whouk (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Believe it or not this page was the product of many long and drawn out battles, one of which culminated in an ArbCom case, and is the rusult of a hard-won set of compromises. The current version is a relatively stable consensus version, si I would discourage you from making any major changes without first allowing for discussion on the talk page. Personally, I do not think anything should be deleted, and I would hesitate to rearrange it much (but am open to suggestions). I DO however see a need for more citations, and I see a major need for more detailed discussion of how major historians and scholars actually reinterpret jesus's life and teachings in light of the historical and cultural context. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. I agree that not all scholars consider the NT to not be historically accurate. You should know the history - this particular article was meant to represent the views of those hscholars who do not view the NT as entirely reliable/accurate. I think the question is, how properly to identify these scholars as a group. I used to call them critical scholars, but you took objection to that on the Jesus page. If you can think of a better adjective to qualify "scholars" I think that would be very useful, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest message. If you have not already, I will add "critical" and if you think it is crucial to wrote "higher critical" by all means do so.

Next wuestion: do you think there is a page where the views of Meier, Wright etc. will be represented? I think this is the fundamental issue - a sub-page for every major distinct POV. Ideally, all would be present on the main Jesus page, but there is no room for that. I am glad you agree that it is worth having a page representing the views of scholars who do not believe the NT is 100% historically accurate/reliable. But I do not think that this means the scholars you mention should not be represented somewhere. The question ius, where? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Slimvirgin already moved it back. I suppose that discussion is in the archive, it is not on the talk page. There is a note from someone who did the same thing as me though, at On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)#Title. Maybe there should be a comment there, with link to the prior discussion. // Habj 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I am not sure what I can add to the discussion concerning Luther. I do believe that he was an anti-Semite. This does not mean that he was an anti-Semite in the same way Hitler was (most anti-Semites are not). Nor does it mean that his anti-Semitism occured in a historical (and political and social) vaccum, or that we should just judge him and not try to understand him in the context of his times (this is true even for Hitler). Nor does it mean that he never did any good, or tht he is only an anti-Semite and nothing more. Wagner was an anti-Semite and the article on Wagner pretty much says this, and I can't see how anyone would object to his name being on the list of anti-Semites - but the article on Wagner is mostly about other aspects of his life and work, and you can bet he is on many other (benign or even honorable) lists.

In any event, following our policies, it does not matter what you (or I or Slim Virgin) think. If enough credible sources label him as an anti-Semite we have to put him on the list. Remember Wikipedia is not about truth, it is an account of what verifiable sources say. It goes without saying that the list of anti-Semites is not an authoritative list of "real" anti-Semities, it is like any list a list of people considered by some to be anti-Semities.

If you think that these views will make a productive contribution to the debate, by all means cut and paste them there. I haven't done that myself because I do not believe I am really adding anything of substance to the debate, and this may not be what you were hoping for, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Various debates on RfA[edit]

My best advice to you is that one should avoid getting caught up in the debates on the RfA, or worrying to much about this go-round. While this RfA is unlikely to succeed, I think if you broaden your areas of interest and contribution a future RfA would go much more smoothly. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for a couple of days but life has been too hectic here. I just wanted to apologise for not voting on your RfA. I could not bring myself to oppose but in my heart of hearts I felt you had too limited an editing experience to support. With the work you are now doing to broaden your involvement I look forward to supporting your next RfA. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther[edit]

I'm pressed for time recently, but I'll try to take a look over the next few days. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Jayjg (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert, and thanks for your kind words and your message. Yes, I did not read the entire discussion. But as you can see, my edit didn't touch the quote. I thought it is important to briefly mention Michaels' credentials next to his name. Regards. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Robert. Sorry, I thought the matter is settled. Apparently I was wrong. Sure, we should not promulgate fraud. Yes, if you have R. Michaels' essay in electronic form and could email it to me, that would be great. Thanks! ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I got it, but didn't have a chance to read it entirely yet. I think a quote (or two) may be found to replace the one in question. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Would you please stop making baseless accusations? Did I indicate that I would use the admin tools? If not, kindly keep your thoughts to yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

I'm not vandalising pages, and anyway I've stopped editing for a bit while I decide what sort of appeal I should make against the rather odd treatment I'm getting here from "some of the other editors", if you catch my drift. Legendary Steve 23:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed your talk page a bit more, it seems obvious that you are interested in Luther. Please note that it is not my intention to use criminal in a derogratory sense; merely in the sense of breaking many laws at the time (hence my tagging of Jesus as well). This is not a judgement on whether they were right to break the law either way or the other. Legendary Steve 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I do wonder whether I should find a less offensive synonym for criminal - the problem is that the term implies morally wrong (for example, one could say that selling papal indulgences with very little scriptual justification was frankly criminal ;) ) whilst I intended to communicate law breaking. I added Luther because I had previously added Martin Luther King Jr. to Black Criminals, which was removed for (as far as I can tell) 'racism' or something. Legendary Steve 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: On the Jews and their Lies[edit]

There are too many words there for me to want to try to get more than the gist. The only thing that really caught my attention was the distinction between quoting from an abstract and quoting from the actual work. Indeed, abstracts are (often) not written by the actual authors, any more than headlines in a newspaper often aren't written by the journalists, and blurbs on the backs of paperbacks aren't written by the novelists. I'd never given it much thought, but I'm going to be more careful about citing abstracts rather than articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Legendary Steve[edit]


You left a vandalism warning for User:Legendary Steve. I think that he's trying to act in good faith, but his problem is that he doesn't understand convention. Could I ask you to lay off the vandalism warnings? I've given him some helpful suggestions. He could become a great editor. - Richardcavell 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for supporting my RfA. As an archivist, you are in the trenches and have my utmost respect. 8)--Rockero 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article[edit]

CTS, when you have a chance please return to Talk:Jesus. There have been some rather heated discussions as of late. I'm just about ready to give up. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, after this weekend I've been thinking I need a break from the Jesus page, maybe from Wikipedia altogether. I don't think I can add anything to Tom Nieto or Uwe Siemon-Netto. Drboisclair invited me to vote on the Martin Luther page, but just reading the discussion there makes my head hurt. Then there are controversies surrounding the Talk:Christianity page. An off-site double blue page ("DWEEC" is the latest incarnation of the Christian Cabal allegations) released personal information that led to harrassment against User:KHM03, who felt that he needed to retire.

Things are getting out of hand. Sartre or Groundhog Day or something else, this weekend I've seen the souls that try men's times. (Aphorism tortured to make a point. Well, my soul has been tried as well as my time, so I suppose I can start using a straightforward quote as well).

Welcome back to Jesus. I hope things will settle down. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Group promoting civility[edit]

I think you might want to check out this. Peace. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA[edit]

Hi! As your RFA generated more oppose votes that support, I had to fail it. You are ofcourse free to try again after a few weeks. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-Space Shuttle and Roman Chariots[edit]

If you think that is strange look at this-

  1. Elsa Masriera was in Madre sin saberlo (1927) with Mercedes Olivares
  2. Mercedes Olivares was in Bajo dos banderas (1926) with Edmundo Fuenzalida
  3. Edmundo Fuenzalida was in Los Cascabeles de Arlequin (1926) with Placido Martin
  4. Placido Martin was in Suena mi amor (1946) with Chela Bon
  5. Chela Bon was in Curse of the Stone Hand (1964) with John Carradine
  6. John Carradine was in The Sentinel (1977) with Eli Wallach
  7. Eli Wallach was in Mystic River (2003) with Kevin Bacon

It couldn't have happened without you[edit]

Bad Title Example.png Dear Robert, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Bob, have you tried to search [9]? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: What, then, would you suggest?[edit]

No, I won't protect the article. Just keep talking; you and Slim are well-intended editors who are perfectly capable of working out your differences on the talk pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments[edit]

I have responded to you on User talk:Jpgordon. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a quorum call[edit]

...but Jim62sch has raised a motion at Talk:Jesus. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On your Nom[edit]

It was a pleasure and I have every confidence that next time you'll breeze through. The constructive criticism was general stuff that would make us all better editors if we heeded it, and I learned something as well. Thank you for being willing to be my guinea pig, my first experiment in nominating : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther et al[edit]

Oy vey what a contentious set of articles. I can't really get involved, if I did they would just call me the fourth member of the Lutheran cabal. I've also heard that when a web forum invokes the Nazis, it's time to find a new forum. Besides, you're the Luther scholar and I'm merely a partially ignorant layman, so there's not really much that I could add.

People seem to forget that Christ was born a Jew specifically rejected Catholic antisemitism. Unfortunately, Luther grew bitter later in life and his words were used to support the Nazis. The Nazis were masters of manipulation and could have made Maimonides sound antisemitic if it had suited their propaganda. In Luther's case, all they had to so was quote his later work and ignore his earlier work.

As an aside, Christian antisemitism has never made sense to me. Jesus was incarnated as a Jew, so IMHO antisemitism is automatically antichristian— or, more to the point, Antichrist-ian.

It's silly to put Martin Luther in both categories. Surely "Antisemitic people" is a subcategory of "Antisemitism"?

Slimvirgin seems reasonable, but Doright was basically trolling at your RfA (much as Robsteadman did at Deskana's RfA). There is a dispute resolution process. RfA is not part of it.

Well, that's what I think, but reading the talk pages of those articles gives me a tension headache. If you're looking for an outsider's perspective, why not ask Jim62sch? He's a former Lutheran and a current Agnostic, so surely he can see both sides. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 20:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whenever web forums invokes Nazi's, generally, that means Godwin's law applies somewhere, just so y'all know :) Homestarmy 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My regrets, Wikipedia is the loser here[edit]

Dear Professor Smith, I regret that the value of your contribution to this website has been overlooked. It was an honor for me to vote in your favor. To quote William Shakespeare, "Hereafter in a better world than this I shall desire more love and knowledge of you" (As You Like It, Act I, scene ii, ll. 280-81). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homestarmy (talkcontribs) No, I am sorry, it was I who wrote this, but if Homestarmy wants to join me in expressing this, I will not demur. Drboisclair 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

I'm sorry your RfA failed. I suggest more activity in the community, such as WP:AN and WP:ANI, WP:AFD, WP:DRV and other high-profile places where other users can see your name and get to know you. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Goodluck for the future. :) --Andy123(talk) 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep on your positive edits and you will still have my support.--Jusjih 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


thank you for your message. I appreciate the thought that others are willing to help.

Shalom, Thetruthbelow 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

i thank you for the nice template message. If I need any help, I'll know where to look :-) Whopper 00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On the run[edit]

Bob, sorry: I'm on the run, this is sooo late. This is the exact quote. As you know, I like short reputable quotes on topic. Who doesn't? I own the book and can scan a page or two for you if you'd like. I didn't follow all the talks (this seems like a full-time job), it seems I missed some developments. I think we all should be calm and civilized. Best. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi -

I saw your comment on Jayjg's talk page. The "IP editor" was myself; I must have forgotten to log in before making a change. Sorry about that. Hasdrubal 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ave atque vale. I will stay away from the Luther pages altogether. The style of dialogue being currently used is a little too much, frankly. Three things, though - (a) wouldn't Luther's unfortunate role during the Peasants' War be just as worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraphs as the subject now being discussed? After all, if I am not mistaken, what happened in the first case was a direct address by Luther to the troops inciting them to kill; the troops proceeded to do as much. (b) The role of Luther's writings during the Third Reich is an extremely interesting topic; it would be good to see what the source now quoted in the introduction to justify the cited assertion. I must confess I am presently unaware of any systematic usage. (c) See my comments in the talk page on the subject of the passage being quoted. Perhaps a very close translation of the entire quoted text (as shown in German on the talk page) is in order? Hasdrubal 19:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also - what about some quotations from "That Jesus Christ was born a Jew", or a brief statement on Luther's apparent change in opinion? There seems to be a rather good account in Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews, for one thing. Hasdrubal 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sedition and Jesus[edit]

Codex Sinaiticus is challenging the crime of sedition in the second paragraph of the Jesus article. Since you helped to compile the sources, I thought that I would let you know. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahead of you. See talk:Jesus. --CTSWyneken 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


I hope that you succeed in your next RFA. You teach at a university? Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)