User talk:Jonathan Tweet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page, where everyone gets along nicely.

POV Editor[edit]

An editor with whom I was in a dispute recently resigned. Some of you know that. Some of you might also remember that he once said he was quitting the religion pages. He was gone for a long time. Then, in February, he returned and overhauled the page that was in dispute. He and I have been fighting over it ever since. Is he really gone for good? Maybe. I hope not. Jonathan Tweet 03:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is a bit like the Hotel California ... you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. Have a look here to see what I mean. Rbreen 11:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Could be a coincidence, but unlikely: same point of view, same mode of operation, same location (Yorkshire), and highly characteristic frequent use of the word 'hence'. Rbreen 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, to respond to your post about this, you can only read the IP address and thus location of anonymous editors. Otherwise you have to hope they reveal the information. You may need to do some textual critical analysis! As to your earlier post, thanks for your offer of help, I'm trying to keep out of edit conflicts right now but will bear it in mind. Email me via my user page if you feel my help would be useful. --Rbreen 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jonathan, probably the best course would be to ask your troublesome editor if he is, in fact, the same person. You might like to note this entry: [2] on the Purgatory talk page, which uses the same phrase 'a purgation of its own', as used by the new editor in the edit summary; the IP address of the that entry is Leeds University; I believe the other editor was a student there. As far as I can see there is no requirement in Wikipedia to prevent someone who has cancelled an account from coming back with another account, and no requirement to declare the fact. At the same time, for reasons of clarity and openness, such a user, if editing the same article, ought to make the fact clear, and it would be wrong to deny the fact. Assume good faith - but verify. Hope this helps. Rbreen 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your weblink[edit]

In your site, you said "Thomas Jefferson was so conscious his debt to Jesus that he collected Jesus' moral teachings into a book, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." What did you mean by "conscious in his debt"? Jefferson was certainly influenced by moral teachings of the bible, but he, along with many other founding fathers, would not be considered Christian by today's standards. He did not believe in Jesus dying for mankind's sins, did not believe in resurrection, trinity, or any other miracles described in the bible. (See Deism and The Jefferson Bible) -intranetusa

secular authorities?[edit]

Secularism is the separation of church and state, a freedom from religion for the government. Fairly certain it would be the religious fundamentalists who initiated the witch hunts. -intranetusa

Re: Satan and the Serpent[edit]

Hey man.

As far as the Satan article goes, if you look at the history page, I was only responding to a vandal ( who blanked most of the article. You may notice that my revision (simply a revert) is identical to the version before the vandal's version. I think the edit you're looking for was actually made by Ardric47. Sorry I can't be of more service. Keep up the good editing! Seidenstud 05:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Satan Contents[edit]

Hi Jonathan I've just seen your new post on satan talk page I didn't relise some of the contents was being moved. Last night I did a ton of alterations removing cites from that page, your new page still has them so you will have to recopy some of the info over to include the citations. It's just be a case of moving the paragraphs the references will generate them selves. Lots of the cites you can simply remove because they refer to info thats already cited on other pages. Anyway just letting you know. Best Regards, -- Shimirel (Talk) 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, No problem I've done it already, it wasn't too bad seems most of my edits missed the content on the other page the only change I made that effects you is to View - Middle Ages. I've added some Categories and also put the References bit at the bottom so the references generate properly on the new page. I've added a message at the top of the Satan page so other editors know about the content being moved. Ill probably remove the info from the other page for you too as long as the internet stays on. Hope you wife gets well soon. Best Regards -- Shimirel (Talk) 14:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the majority of the info some bits might still be left on the original pages Satan and Devil you would have a better idea than me. I've also added a section to link the Satan/Devil page to Devil in Christianity page with the intro. It seems to me either the Satan or Devil pages shouldn't really exist as they serve the same purpose. I might stick a merge tag on them what do you think? -- Shimirel (Talk) 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost tribes[edit]

I am coming to a conclusion that you have a fixation on Europeans and rather obscure LDS thought! (lol) I will post this entry on Jade's talk page also. I am not aware of any precise doctrine regarding literal or adoption into the House of Israel; they both result in the same thing. I am aware that based upon Biblical teaching the ten lost tribes were taken into the north country; that has been interpreted as any country north of Israel. Early leaders of the LDS felt that some of the scattered descendants of these members of the House of Israel did end up in Europe. Some further concluded that because some Europeans readily accepted the gospel that they were these descendants.

I believe Jade's comment on the Ten lost tribes article is not a statement with which I would be completely comfortable, but I also think it is a difference without any significance. We are talking about LDS thought that is obscure; it is not often discussed.

The one time where tribal affiliation is discussed is one's patriarchal blessing. This blessing's main purpose is to identify tribal affiliation. The majority of LDS in days past has been from the House of Ephraim. However, in discussions with multiple patriarchs I have been made to understand that within the church are represented members of every house of Israel. The distinction between adoption and literal descendant is not often discussed. It is believed that some are literal descendants and some are adopted. As I said earlier, it is a difference without significance. All members become part of the covenant people and are responsible for learning to become like the Master, Jesus Christ. That is where we tend to have problems; it is a lifelong pursuit and and we all fall short, but we continue to strive to live as His disciples.

I believe the article should be edited to read more in keeping with this statement or something similar: Within the LDS church is believed to exist members of all of the tribes of Israel; either adopted into the House of Israel or literal descendants. However, there is no difference between being a literal descendant and adopted into the House of Israel. Hope this helps. Storm Rider (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Old Nick[edit]

Thanks for fixing the "English" link so that it goes to a real page. But I think that page should be "England," since it's the English nationality and heritage that it refers to rather than to the language. I'm fixing it, hoping that you agree. Jonathan Tweet 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Sometimes I do so many of those disambig pages that I get confused. The vast majority of my wiki edits happen at work, so that doesn't help things either. Thanks for catching my mistake. --Oatmeal batman 04:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have achieved the Wikibrains barnstar medal for your contributions to Euthanasia! Congratulations --F3rn4nd0 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)!


Thank you for the compliment. I don’t expect things to get heated, and I would like to take the chance to thank you again for your interest and time concerning the article. I will say, if you are interested in things like purgatory, you're likely to bump into a Catholic or two. =) Lostcaesar 08:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


To be quite honest, you've stepped into this discussion quite late. There has been a lot of consensus on this issue, from a multitude of editors: Aminz has consistently tried to add content saying that Christians have not been persecuted under Muslims much at all, something which is patently unhistorical. What's more, we have often been willing to try to negotiate with him, to include part of his text, but he is unwilling to negotiate. He has gone through many mechanisms to add this text, and quite frankly, we've been more than patient with him. Please, I ask you, if you are going to take a side so strongly in the future, I encourage you to do your homework. While I am a Christian, I do not think I am any more partisan towards an issue than you probably think yourself; I do not have a grudge against Aminz. But he has consistently added this unhistorical content in order to promote his Islamic agenda. Again, please, do your homework before making an assumptionin the future. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi JT, first let me say I did not mean any slight at all by the comment I made about referencing a good book rather than an internet article (though I will say that a fair amount of experience in debating has ingrained an ability for me to sneak in a slight in even the most well-meaning of statements, perhaps a drawback in more friendly dialogue!). About the JS, I think you will get farther in the section on Non-Trinitarians first if you quote from a source that has a smaller axe to grind, if you get what I am saying. Like I said, I don't know enough about the JS to say one way or another myself. Part of the difficulty that you are running into is that the Trinity is about the only doctrine holding together certain protestant ecumenical groups, and since in those groups (by their nature) it is often wondered just what makes someone Christian, the easy answer of Trinitarianism (and the related belief in the consubstantiality of Jesus), once accepted, relegates other groups like LDS and JWM to non-Christian status. The article itself seems to ponder over just what constitutes the identity of "Christian/Christianity", and so your edits have inflamed an open wound, so to speak. So this is quite sensitive. I don't know how much I can help but I will think about it an get back to you. There is a way to phrase this, I know, but it just has to be properly nuanced. Lostcaesar 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PS, I haven't forgotten about this, Im just burried atm, sorry, I will get to it soon Lostcaesar 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Its up, Lostcaesar 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought I got that in there about the "unbiblical" and "tainted peroid of history" part, but I forgot you wanted the JS reference; I think we can say around this place "...which has found agreement by the contemporary scholars of the Jesus Seminar" or something like that... let me have a look. Lostcaesar 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since I don't have the ref at hand, let me know what you think about this: at the end of the section, last paragraph, add a final sentence "The view that Jesus did not teach his own divinity [or perhaps "did not claim to be divine / coequal with the Father - you get the idea] has found agreement by the contemporary scholars of the JS [ref]" Lostcaesar 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Its up, if you get more refs then more can be added if needs be. Lostcaesar 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Something I was curious about[edit]

I've read some of the things on your website, which makes me curious as to your motivations on this comment of yours. It doesn't seem like a comment that someone who's a bright and makes a website with articles like yours would make, were you being sarcastic? I'm just curious is all Homestarmy 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Curious about something else[edit]

Hey Jonathan, I feel driven to ask you this question: why aren't you Christian? You know so much about Christianity and what the Bible says; and the way you talk about it, it almost seems like you do believe it. So, out of curiosity, what's keeping you from becoming a Christian? --Christknight 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I must start by saying that you have an extremely philosophical mind, and I admire that; I wish I could sit down and and have a real discussion with you. But on to the point. The problems with Christianity you put on your site all have answers to them. I understand how difficult it is to believe in what you can't see, but this is exactly why Jesus tells us in Matthew 18:3-4 to become like little children. Now what this means is not to become ignorant or misunderstanding, all it means is to have the faith of a child. If a child is told something by his father, he belives it no matter what anyone else says. This makes it hard for us because we think that as we've grown, we've gotten more more intelligent and more logical - so we think that something we can't see must not be there. However, the Bible says in John 20:29 "blessed are those who believe without seeing." Now, about hell... Christians do not think that Hell is some sort of payback system for them to believe in to help make themselves feel better about themselves. In fact, the Bible says many times not to think that way about our enemies. One example, Matthew 5:43-44, which says to love our enemies and pray for them, not hate them. Also, people don't go to hell because they are mean to Christians or anything like that, but beacause of separation from God. That's why God tells us to spread the good news - to keep people from going to hell at all. But, in the second to last paragraph of your hell page, you have Christianity confused with Islam. The Bible never says anything about God giving his children eternal sex in heaven or anything perverse like that. So, if you can't tell already, I'm saying that the Bible can fix all your problems, and that I think you should be a Christian. --Christknight 06:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus[edit]

Thanks for the nice message. I'll take on board your advice abt going thru the talk page. As for the cross section, I agree that it needs a new start, but I lack any reference books. PiCo 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Christianity article is a bit big for me, and full of things I know nothing about. (I did delete the reference to Acharya S, whom I see you want to keep in - I've explained my reasons on the talk page). I'll keep on a bit longer with the HJ article, but I'll restrict myself to editorial suggestions in view of my complpete lack of books. PiCo 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC).


Just randomly wanted to say "hi", and comment that your home page is the first reference I've seen to Tekumel for several years. I've never played EPT, but a friend at school (about a hundred years ago) had the book, and I thought its crafted coherence superior to the sprawling chaos that is D&D. Myopic Bookworm 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote some things on the talk page of Christian apologetics.[edit]

I wrote some things on the talk page of Christian apologetics. I don't think we are going to resolve our difference of opinion on this matter though. By the way, I do believe we achieved a compromise position on the articles opening, however. ken 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Kdbuffalo


I read your comments on the Christianity page and i'm sorry you're having such a hard time but I'm afraid every editor I've seen challenge the orthodox view eventually gets burned out with all the wikilawyering that goes on there. Modern scholarship is moving the way you state but Christians detest the JS so it's like sticking in pins to use them as an example. Have you read Elaine Pagels or Thomas L. Thompson [3] [4]? You can waste an awful lot of time on that page - great if you've got it but I would advise finding other areas where your contributions won't be deleted by the faithful. They are not bad guys (personally the ones I've worked with I have a lot of respect for) but they really think you are wrong and that's a hard step to overcome. It's also why alot of people recognise that the wiki process is fundamentally flawed on sensitive subject such as this. Hope you are managing to contribute sucessfully in other areas. Sophia 07:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Have fun then - the advantage of Pagels is that she is a respected academic - Thompson is a little less well known but he ticks all the right boxes for a qualified religious/biblical scholar. Sophia 16:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I am well known on that page don't worry! Some of the editors there are very knowledgeable so you need references and a good knowledge of all the current academic players to be taken seriously. I've dropped out at the moment due to other reasons (the wikipedia hierarchy sucks) but I also don't have the time to format all the current research to back up the view that the historicity of Jesus is an assumption aggressively pushed by the Church and not a fact. More books are being published all the time so I'm hoping more people like you will come along and make it easier to show the others that the status quo is changing. One piece of advice to heed is that you will find the arguments and requirements demanded by the faithful change as you fulfill previous ones. This is extremely frustrating and time consuming so i would try building on the Pagels/Thompson tips I have given you, as I have had it conceded by some of the editors that you are currently dealing with that Pagels is a respectable qualified biblical scholar. It gives you a start anyway. I will drop in and say a brief message of support but I'm teacher training at the moment so the intricacies of teaching algebra to 12 year olds is higher priority right now. Sophia 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Glad I could help JT, and though I don't know exactly what I said to inspire the confidence, I do appreciate the kind words. Cheers. Lostcaesar 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Verhoeven[edit]

On his page here on Wikipedia, the statement that he as a Ph.D is cited to the following article, which indicates he has a Ph.D in mathematics and physics. JPotter 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar[edit]


I'm actually removing the statements made by detractors of the Jesus Seminar, instead of tagging them for citation. I think that's more prudent because the statements are NPOV and even if they are cited, they will be coming from POV and unreliable sources. I had the good fortune of training under one of the Jesus Seminar fellows and have made significant contributions to the article removing POV from Christian fundamentalists over the years. JPotter 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Because it interupts the flow of the introduction, putting it in between two paragraphs on mythological uses. And because it's already been noted, see footnote 2. Tunnels of Set 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Right Lazarus?[edit]

Well, yes and yes and no. The thing about Saint Lazarus is that there are several Lazaruses to choose from. We have the friend of Jesus who is returned to life, and there was a questionable tradition in various churches about what he did after being called from the tomb. Then there is the Lazarus in the parable. Then there was at least one later (3rd c.). Scripture would be taken as unimpeachable authority for the saintliness of a life, and therefore, even without the legends of "cold Lazarus," he was venerated as a saint. If Christ deemed him worthy of raising, then his status was secure. Similarly, the Lazarus of Lazarus & Dives is not only shown in heaven, but receiving intercessory prayer. The association with the plague is clearest with this Lazarus, as he was afflicted with boils and wasting disease. That said, I didn't add the attribution to the article, but I do think it's correct. That, of course, doesn't mean that one of the other saints Lazarus isn't also associated with plague victims. Geogre 05:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

John 1:1[edit]

Jonathan, I have appreciated your edits (and more importantly, your editing demeanor) when I have run across your edits in the past. I have responded to the RfC on the talk page of John 1:1, and I am trying to get a few more sets of eyes on it. Would you mind taking a glance at it when you have a chance? Thanks. -- Pastordavid 06:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


JT, I have decided to take an indefinite break from editing the general religious articles (with an exception here or there). Instead I will spend time in other areas, e.g. history and especially anglo-saxon studies. I thought I would respond to your request about books concerning the "historical Jesus" field. The text I would recomment is Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. There are some other texts I would not endorse per se, but that are important works in the history of the field and some familiarity with them is important if one is interested in the field in general. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz wrote a German textbook - its been translated into English, though "study questions" sections have been added and that annoys me. There is John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person - warning, its long. E. P. Sanders and R. E. Brown (I think) each wrote an intro text also. Also, a very liberal view is that of Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

I find the work of Crossan to be just too condescending and patronizing to read.

If you want to see something critical of the JS (and you should have a look), read Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus ed. by Mr. Michael J. Wilkins & J.P. Moreland eds. If you want something critical of the whole process, see Luke Timothy Johnson , The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels

Cheers, Lostcaesar 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis GA nomination[edit]

Hi, I'm just letting regular contributors to the C. S. Lewis article know that its good article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article. We have two weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers, Martin 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical Jesus/JS/Pagels[edit]

Sorry if this is out of the blue or covered ground. After someone asked me to have a look at some authorship pages, I stumbled across your talk page. I was interested in some of the comments here, and I skimmed the long discussion you had on the Jesus Seminar. I think I've a basic idea where you are coming from, and am trying to decide where and if I might be of use in the seemingly endless debates regarding historical Jesus studies on WP. Any thoughts would be helpful.

My perception is that editors have been far too touchy about a perceived liberal/conservative or religious/atheist bias. At the end of the day, I feel the articles should be based around the existing mainstream scholarship. Yes, the majority of the scholars are Christians. No, that does not affect their ability to be professional historians/critics anymore than being a materialist would affect one's ability to build a bridge. A few academic points:

1) You can find a comprehensive reading list on all things (historical) Jesus here:

You'll be interested in any of the sections on criticism and, obviously, the one entitled "Jesus". I would add Raymond Brown's 'Introduction to the New Testament' and Barton and Muddiman's (disclosure, John Muddiman was my graduate advisor) 'Oxford Bible Commentary' for more generalist approaches. Currently mainstream historical Jesus discussions (the "3rd quest") have focused on the Jewishness of Jesus. Sanders is the father of this, and Meier's and Vermes's books are the best representatives. The Fredriksen and Allison books are good as well.

2) You might notice a lack of Jesus Seminar works on that list. It's because that whole debate is somewhat dated, and inside the academy the Jesus Seminar as a collective endeavour is largely scoffed or ignored. I wonder whether there was a "controversy" at all, or just some DaVinci Code-esque publicity created by the JS leading to the eventual refutation by leading scholars who got tired of the whole thing. I should point out that some of the individual members have made interesting contributions. Marcus Borg's marxist interpretation of Jesus, for instance. His dialogue with NT Wright is also a good read.

3) Elaine Pagels's work is also not very well regarded by most NT/early Xian scholars I know of. Before mentioning Princeton, please consider that she is in a department with Cornell West, at a university that just axed its 40 year old ESP studies program last week.

I raise the last two points only for clarification and discussion. Despite the seeming diversity of historical Jesus/NT/early Xian studies, it is actually a very insular community. Borg, for instance, studied under GB Caird at Oxford. Caird was also NT Wright's advisor, as well as John Muddiman's and God knows how many others. So, despite appearances there are some very basic agreements amongst the vast majority of NT scholars (like the existence of a man Jesus). Much like any other discipline, most of the debate here is esoteric and done in articles or commentaries, not full length books. The JS/Pagels popularised content coming out is eye catching because it is controversial or derivative, but it is a minority view and far from mainstream.

Enjoyed Ars Magica back in the day, btw. Though I disagree with you about ADnD. Best,--Mrdarcey 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"It's not being a Christian that makes one ill-qualified to address Jesus historically. It's believing that the New Testament is something other than a fallible, human-created document subject to standard historical analysis."
I don't disagree. But that is a reductionist statement. 3 methods of biblical interpretation other than literalism, including alegorical interpretation, have been officially endorsed by the Church since Origin's discussion of them in the 2nd c. CE. I knew a man who left a very conservative Protestant seminary when they taught Genesis should be read allegorically, for instance. Additionally, I think you would be hard pressed to find any relevant, mainstream scholarship about the NT from that sort of ultra-Calvinist perspective. Even more traditionalist scholars like Dale Allison or NT Wright would never approach textual interpretation in that manner. Particularly since most scholarship after Norman Perrin began disagreeing with Bultmann has focused on understanding the man Jesus in his contextual setting. The vast majority of scholars find literalism as irresponsible as they do the JS.--Mrdarcey 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Literalism? Who said anything about literalism?"
You did when you described a belief in the NT as "something other than a fallible, human-created document subject to standard historical analysis." The specific term for this form of reading is "literalism." A pejoritive for someone who follows such a reading is "fundamentalist." And quibbling about semantics merely avoids my point, which is that no scholar worth their salt allows such a belief to permeate their work. Most find it as insulting a characature of Christian belief as they do Elaine Pagels and Starhawk. In fact, almost exclusively, academic analysis of the NT treats it precisely as a "fallible, human-created document[,] subject to standard historical analysis."
"Look, I'm sorry but if you and I are so far apart that you think I'm talking about literalism when I never mentioned it, then we're too far apart to have a meaningful exchange on this topic."
I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. I have some level of academic knowledge regarding early Christianity. If I don't know something, I've direct access to leading academics who might. I would like to apply said knowledge to editing WP articles. Unfortunately there are a vast number of articles in this area, most of which suffer from some bad information/argumentation and are held hostage because of a loggerheads between extreme skeptics and extreme believers. Forgotten or ignored, often accused by ignorance, are reasonable, representative and knowledgable editors. For instance, pointing out Elaine Pagels's appointment at Princeton does not change the fact that a clear majority of NT/early Xian scholars consider her work marginal, if not simply incorrect. While you are quite obviously a skeptic, you appeared to be interested in finding some consensus. To that end, I was asking to what specific articles I might be of use.
"I do entertain ongoing discussions with believers on my discussion boards, but not on WP talk pages. So it's up to you whether you want to take it there or drop it."
While I've no care to discuss any matters of personal belief other than the value of scholarship, please do not assume holding degrees in theology a "believer" makes. Good day,--Mrdarcey 12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


NPOV and NOR are sacrosanct to me. I did not mean to offend; I really respect all religious views of editors. But we just need to keep them out of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree we can work it out. My view is this: the section on the life of Jesus according ot the Gospels should be clear about synoptic and/or John - something I know you have been very dilligent and careful about. I also think as you do that it should stick to the text as close as possible. But I also think we should stick to the most non-controversial reading of the text as possible. Now to applying my principles: in the specific case we are in conflict over, I really think that what is going in in Mark itself is open to interpretation. I think that many things in this section of the article actually fall short of my principles, and on my talk page you offered a perfect example. The quote you highight on my talk page is editorializing, in my view. So, what should we do? Rather than achieve NPOV by adding equally (if opposing) controversial or partisan interpetations into this section, I think we should prune out the editorializing and elements subject to interpretation. i.e. cut the passage you quote on my talk page. Other editors may not agree with me but I think that the "Gospel account" of Jesus' life should stick to what Christians and non-Christians, laypeople and scholars, theologians and historians, would agree on. For example, I think everyone would agree that according to the Gospels Jesus used parables. When it comes to why, I think the Gospels are open to interpretation. I think you know of many other passages in this section of the article that go beyond a straightforward caaount of Jesus' life according to the Gospels and strays into "how Christians interpret the Gospels." I think virtually all that material belongs in an article on Christology, or some other article like "interpretations of Jesus' ministry" and do not belong in the general article on Jesus. I know you fear I hold you to a double standard. I deleted what you added because I had a free moment to follow the page and it coincided with your edit, and it was immediately suspicious to me. I agree I have not systematically gone through the section and cut other things, although I did make some other cuts of egregious stuff (like, it was Jesus who started calling God father). Look, if you see other clear examples of editorializing that you think takes any specific POV, Christian or non, and want to cut it I will likely back you up all the way. And to anyone who gets upset I would encourage them to work on an article on Christology or views of jesus' ministry. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Here is the requested text from the old article page:

In the 3rd century, Hippolytus of Rome depicted the righteous and unrighteous alike as going to Hades where they suffer temporal punishment and await the final judgment. For the righteous this punishment is a form of purification which prepares them for their entrance into the blessedness of Heaven, some measure of which they experience in anticipation whist in Hades[citation needed]. For the unrighteous, their sufferings are merely a foretaste of their eternal torments which they shall suffer in Hell after the last judgment. The elect, meanwhile, are in bliss rather than in torment.[1]

Lostcaesar 08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Against Plato, on the cause of the universe [1]. As to the state of the righteous, he writes, "And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom."



I would be quite happy to contribute. I have not looked at the article Purgatory recently. I have read, and quite enjoyed, Jacques Le Goff's La naissance du purgatoire (The Birth of Purgatory).

Do you have any advice to give?

Best Regards

Miguel de Servet 14:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please[edit]

Take a look at this [5]

Thanks --Aminz 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


The reference was added to the talk page. 1550 for a performance, then again in 1570, although, of course, since those were performances rather than printings, it's impossible to be sure that we're talking about the same melodies. That's how it is with ballads, though: they were too "low" for printing. Even the composers who wrote them in a later age (Tom D'Urfey and Henry Carey (writer)) were tarred with the charge of being trivial and worthless for writing ballads, and, in Carey's case, this is after the success of The Beggar's Opera! Geogre 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


On the purgatory page you wrote, "This page should be about purgatory, not about purification after death". What you do think the differences are, and on what source do you gain your information? Lostcaesar 09:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


This is a reply to your question on my talk page, if your summary of the edits on the article "Purgatory" is a fair summary.

I do not consider that a fair representation of the process as it is highly selective. It ignores, first, that I have made numerous attempts to incorporate your suggestions, insofar as that is possible. Every request you have made has resulted in substantial effort and improvements to the page.

The text you wrote was, as a general rule, either unsourced, original research, or, in the rare cases a sources was given, insufficiently or erroneously sourced. I had little choice but to correct statement that were mistaken, honest mistakes I am sure. For example, you tried to edit in that Tertullian believed no one enjoyed the blessedness of heaven until judgment day, as per your own personal reading of one of his works. However, you did not know, since you are not an expert on Tertullian, that in another work he stated that martyrs go directly to heaven. You made similar personal commentary on other Church Fathers. The Fathers wrote much, its understandable that you would not know all they wrote, and I certainly do not, but this is why original research is not allowed. I had to read three journal articles before finding a text on Tertullian’s eschatology before I was able to correct your error on him. Yet this work on my part you somehow think is hostile or pov, when its nothing but hard work and good faith editing. The page at present has 76 references (with many of those containing multiple sources per reference), from books and academic journals mostly. It is much better than it was, no doubt.

Further, I am not convinced you truly wish to have a NpoV article, and I have reasons to think this. For example, after my changes, following the request for comment, you placed on Alecmconroy’s talk page a statement that I had not implemented his suggested changes yet had removed the pov tag. Not only is this incorrect, as I had made substantial efforts to include his changes, but you noticeably did not make any requests on the talk pages of InfernoXV, who stated that he wholly agreed with the page, nor did you place a comment on the page of Vassyana. In other words, you seem to have placed personal requests on talk pages of people whom you believed would agree with you, and not those whom you feared might not. Hence, it could be inferred from this that you are not entirely interested in a truly non-pov article. Here it should be observed that, earlier, after I had first edited the page to your objections, you put in requests on the talk pages of Miguel de Severt and Andrew c, (saying I had overhauled the page for a catholic pov). Now, let me say I have no difficulty with these editors contributing, as I have worked with some of them well in the past and appreciate their work, and indeed I have long thought that more input was needed, and certainly welcome all opinions. But my point is, first, your statement on my talk page that you were “playing along” with my edits, presumably meaning that you decided to allow me to make contributions with little objection, hides the fact that you were in fact actively seeking support to undo the contributions but, when this failed to be forthcoming, you had little other recourse. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, since this is a collegial website, but you did leave this out of your presentation, noticeably. Second, and more importantly, it may be, though this is not certain, that you are less interested in a truly n-pov article as you are in having your own pov (for which there seem to be few to no citations, or at least none provided) manifested, hence you welcome only contributions from those whom you believe will agree with you.

So, to answer your question, I do not consider your summary on my talk page to be “reasonable”. You ignored that I have patiently tried to incorporate of your contributions and wishes which may aptly be included, you did not mention that your edits have no references or only primary source references and contained errors, you made it seem as if you sat back patiently when in truth, it would appear at least, you tried to find support for your position and, failing that, had little choice, and, finally, you did not mention your selective requesting of commentary.

All that said, I would like to say I think you are a fine editor. I make no firm statements otherwise, only I wish to make observations. I appreciate your thoughts and contributions, which are always helpful. It is in part thanks to you that the article is so much better now. I also appreciate your demeanor and patience, you tact and reasonableness. And, of course, I look forward to working with you in the future.

Lostcaesar 07:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan, you are smart, inquisitive, reasonable, and amiable. One day I hope to call you brother. Lostcaesar 08:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a synod in Northumbria in the early eighth century attended by Bishop Wilfrid. There, Wilfrid was asked if he agreed, out of obedience to the archbishop, if he would sign all documents produced therein. He was then taken into a tent, and it was revealed to him, by a nobleman, that this was a setup. Afterwhich, he declared that he would not sign something without first knowing the contents, at which point he was told that he had to agree to relinquish all his monastic holdings, not only in Northumbria but in Mercia and elsewhere. If you want to know how the story ends, you can read the Life of Wilfrid. My point here is made. Lostcaesar 16:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to work together well. Lostcaesar 18:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
JT, let me just say that I don't like these odd regulations. I stick with WP policy. If you add material that is informative, properly sourced, NPoV, and not OR, then add what you want. The reason I deleted your earlier points is because you added clearly OR material - you read some origen and made a personal conclusion and added it - same with Tertullian. You made a mistake (you thought they didn't believe anyone was in heaven until the end of time) because you are not a Patristic scholar and did not know their entire corpus. Also, you mischaracterized the RCC position, against the cited Catechism. I'm just trying for accuracy. Lostcaesar 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

updating the Trilemma[edit]

Hello Jonathan, I am planning to update this article and I know you take an interest in it and I thought it would be useful to have another perspective on this. Essentially, I think the details of the whole "Jesus claimed divinity" section are getting out of hand - this is not the place to have such a debate. The article is about Lewis's variant of the trilemma and criticism of it. Since one major criticism is that Jesus never made such a claim (and I have a number of well-referenced academic sources which support this view, including a former Archbishop of Canterbury), it is appropriate to show that this view exists. I don't think, however, that it should go into a to-and-fro debate about whether the claim is valid or not; it is enough merely to show that there are well-supported opposing views. (I do think, and I mentioned this on the talk page, that it would be interesting to have such a discussion on an appropriate page, but there isn't one).

Anyway, what I am proposing to do is to remove the paragraphs of Debate over the Trilemma's validity beginning with "Although some Christians see..." down to "In the absence of any Gospel verses ...". Since some of these were written by you, I thought might be useful to find out your opinion before going to the Talk page. (By the way, I was the one who removed the trilemma reference in the historicity of Jesus article; I didn't know that was one of yours. I think I explained this clearly but I am very happy to discuss it if you want). Probably this section could then be expanded again with some material directly relevant to Lewis's claim and scholarly opinions about it.

Do you have any thoughts about this?

Rbreen 14:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

John Money[edit]

I saw your basic statement at Talk:John Money, and I would be very curious to see you elaborate. Thanks! Joie de Vivre 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Me as well. As you know, I am open to arguing facts, but would appreciate your assistance in explaining to the above editor the difference between arguing facts and simply reverting with insult. While we have disagreed on this topic, you have not put words in my mouth to argue against, rejected referenced facts, or claimed inaccuracy without pointing it out and supporting it. Thanks for your input on this. alteripse 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel completely misunderstood at the MedCab for John Money. If you have time to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Joie de Vivre 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find a source for him covering up, then we can't add it. I don't claim to be an expert on the case, but if he really did, wouldn't you think his tenure would be revoked? If you have any questions, leave one on my talk page! mcr616 Speak! 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for participating in the discussion! mcr616 Speak! 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I now have a new appreciation for your ability to disagree and question me while cheerfully sticking to arguing the facts. I mean that sincerely. I don't want to perpetuate the argument on the mediation page, but wanted to respond to this part of what you wrote:

For instance, AI says "[Money] lost touch with the family before the child reached adolescence," when the fact is the Reimer threatened to kill himself if forced to see Money again. Why does AI choose such a vague version of this fact? Looks like POV to me. AI is aggressive in defending their POV.

You realize of course, that my version and yours are both true, and certainly not exclusive. I emphasized the "lost touch" angle because it is unreasonable to accuse Money of covering up a changing situation he no longer had the opportunity to observe and confirm, but I have certainly not denied that he was cut off because Reimer rebelled against continuing to see him. My admiration for Money has some limits, but I draw the line at some of the ignorant, self-righteous character assassination that this article is full of. Your characterization of me (there is only one of me) isn't entirely inaccurate (especially the "aggressive about defending a POV" if I think someone is trying to insert inaccurate information), but it seemed strange to be described as "pro-nurture". I think of myself as more "let's not get too comfortable with political conventional wisdom" and have argued the hormone and nature side (like Pinker) far more times than the nurture side over the last 3 decades. It is just that I am old enough to see how much prevailing political views influence the popular acceptance of either the nature or nurture viewpoint, when the accurate answer is usually "both," cynical enough to expect the pendulum to swing the other way in a decade or two, and burned enough by being trained in the Hopkins approach to be skeptical when anyone evinces too much confidence that he or she has The Answer and everyone else is a fool or a villain. Perhaps my real POV is that all the Hopkins doctors were generally admirable, caring, and well-respected men who were trying to do their best for their patients (I have met all of them, but only worked with one-- not Money). They don’t deserve demonization by those whose understanding of this is too shallow and recent to know anything other than the kind of nonsense currently in the article. My actual views on the magnitude of biological influences on gender identity are not far from Gooren (who is about as pro-hormone as they come in his career publications). His 2006 review of The Biology of Human Psychosexual Differentiation in Hormones and Behavior 50 (2006) 589–601 is excellent and I can send you a copy if you do not have university access.

I would like to resume fixing the Money article. You seem to respect accuracy and referencing, and seem to understand the difference between opinion and fact, not an ability all contributors to this page show. I would like to pre-empt arguments that confuse fact and opinion and am thinking of posting to the talk page a "full disclosure" of my opinions about Money and the Reimer case, and a fully distinguished list of what I consider the verifiable facts. I don't particularly care whether everyone disagrees with my opinions (which I do not intend to put in the article), but I would like to avoid the tediousness of arguing with those who think that discerning my opinion thereby refutes a fact. I would welcome referenced correction of facts, and your critical look will help ensure I don't inadvertently slip an "inaccurate fact" through. After getting some consensus on the facts on the talk page, I hope to avoid hysterical reversions when we start fixing the article. Are you interested enough in this topic to be game? alteripse 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


I made some changes at Elijah.ThomasHartman 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Council of Jerusalem[edit]

In case you're interested, looks like some major changes are being proposed for Council of Jerusalem, see also Talk: Council of Jerusalem. 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Because, while referring to Jonathan Tweet more unmistakably than, say, JT, it is so short. (I have been on a journey. Though I linked up once, I was interrupted before I could reply to your question.) Lima 18:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Celsus ref is incorrect[edit]

Would you care to defend the material you added to Criticism of Jesus at the talk page? I think you were just propagating an error, but in the off chance you know anything..... -- Kendrick7talk 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Brown-[edit]

I've removed the edit since the edit was much more of a rant/soapbox than anything relevant to actually improving the page. See WP:TALK. JoshuaZ 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You can read JoshuaZ's comment to me on You can read my apology and reply to him on

I just don't want to see Father being smeared as a Priest who was not in full communion with the Church when the Church has never made such a comment about him. God bless. (Runwiththewind 06:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Informal mediation[edit]

I have adopted Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory. I have reviewed the general history of the article and talk page. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. I have contacted the mediator from the previous case, in the instance they had advice to offer or would like to join in the current case. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Vassyana 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please join us on the case talk page so we can define the scope and issues involved. I have posted a few questions to be answered to help us towards that end. Vassyana 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Christianity[edit]

Jonathan, I will no longer be editing Liberal Christianity. So feel free to make up anything you like and add it to the article.--Riferimento 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament[edit]

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [6]. 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Higher Criticism[edit]

Thank you for your kind comments about my attempt to improve article on Higher Criticism. I have been running a serious discussion with Kuratowski's Ghost who seems to find obscure Medieval Ethiopian Christian documentation as relevant to the History of ancient Israel and Judah. Your help here would be appreciated. Warm regards - John D. Croft 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Harnack, Iranaeus etc[edit]

I have cited Chadwick in support of the fact claim in the Adolf von Harnack article that the canonicity of John was accepted at least by the time of Iranaeus. Chadwick gives a brief account of the controversies about John and notes that its canonicity had been claimed before Iranaeus but not fully accepted, while after Iranaeus questioning it was the exception rather than the rule. That seems to be the support the Harnack article needs. The role of Iranaeus in this matter is indeed common knowledge among church historians but cannot be assumed to be among encyclopedia readers. The Chadwick book is widely available in libraries. seglea 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for linking the reference to the Chadwick page - I was looking for it in the wrong place. seglea 15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dei Verbum is Dogma[edit]

I recently noticed you have been led to believe that Dei Verbum is not dogma. This is not true. You may want to visit SSPX to understand that some Catholics are following an ultraconservative position that rejects Vatican II. Their leader, Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated! They have a voice on the internet but not in the Church.

Catechism #891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council." ----Catechism of the Catholic Church

You will probably want to read Pope Benedict XVI at [7] who discusses this problem of rejecting Vatican II. It is a great document! Have a nice day. (Runwiththewind 10:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

To further prove this point the user that misinformed you about about Dei Verbum is now claiming that Vatican II was not infallible. [8]


Do you have the page numbers available for this referenced material?[9] I'd like to make sure we use proper citations. Thanks! Vassyana 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Fancy meeting you here indeed. All the best people drop by here. Didn't know you were so embroiled in the religious categories here; will have to come back and peruse the discussions when I have a little more time. Janna Silverstein 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


There has been a recent RfC at this article, and it has gotten more recent attention, resulting in some improvement, and several interesting ideas for further improvement. As an editor who has been involved in the past quite extensively with it, I wanted to give you a heads up. If the spirit moves you (sorry!), see you on its talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Empire vs. Holy Roman Empire[edit]

Little detail: The Roman Empire did not become the Holy Roman Empire. The Roman Empire continued centuries after this soi-distant "Holy Roman Empire" upstart proclaimed itself. That Westerners chose to pretend it ceased existing and magically transformed into a "Byzantine Empire" with no continuity to the past is notwithstanding. Dogface 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Textual criticism[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Question on Sheol article[edit]

Hi Jonathan, I noticed that you seem to be the main editor of the Sheol article in Wikipedia. I was wondering if you would take a look at the bottom section of the discussion page. I suggested an external link to, what seems to me(?), to be a pretty good source. I didn't get any response and tried adding it a few days later. An admin removed it, saying that the site is pushing a book (as far as I know its all free and online), and that it is a "personal website". I don't think either of these things are true. Then, he said that because he's never heard of the guy, it probably isn't a valid source. I don't know that there are too many theologians whom the average person has heard of. Just wondering if you could take a look at it, as to whether these are valid criticisms. I'm new here and did take the time to read the rules for external links. It's not a big deal, bit it just seems frustrating. (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Have you seen Elijah recently? I have been away for a while-health reasons. ThomasHartman —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Just wanted to express my appreciation for your very good work over a long period on the historical Jesus, and the excellent humour with which I have seen you deal with people disagreeing with you. I also very much like your book Grandmother Fish. Keep well and have a happy Easter time. All the very best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Judeans / Jews[edit]

Hi Jonathan, please could you let me know which of the sources at Ioudaios#External_References would be acceptable to you to source the statement we are discussing at Jesus? I didn't fully understand your edit comment but realize that you don't agree with the sources proposed so far. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, I was looking forward to discussing this with you, but I must say I am extremely disappointed with how you misrepresented my proposal. I am also disappointed that you did not both to refer to any of the sources I pointed you to. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


I realise you're an experienced editor, so I'm really puzzled as to why you're removing large chunks of (well-sourced!) text from a Featured Article. This content that was present in the article when it achieved Featured status, and it has been edited repeatedly and fine-tuned by dozens of contributers. I think you may have a good case for removing the text - i.e. there is too much focus on relatively peripheral matters and not on other important aspects of Jesus - but I think any changes should really be discussed on the talk page first. By removing paragraphs you're only going to aggregate other editors. -- HazhkTalk 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, as long as you're following the rules on Wikipedia you can edit the article on yourself as you wish. You'll just get a lot of extra scrutiny, and generally lose any debate over your edits. If all you're doing is cleanup like you did, you won't run into any issues. You can also remove unsourced negative information, given that it's a BLP. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)