User talk:Archola/Jesus Christ!/2

Historical Jesus

OK, great idea. Given that, can I suggest then that you rename the article Jesus Christ? I'll contact Sophia to start work on a Jesus of Nazareth page. (This is what I wanted anyway...and explains all the hints about two articles.) If you agree to this suggestion, how about if I make the suggestion on the Jesus page (after I contact Sophia), then you guys could do what you want unfettered, but we can each feel free to borrow good info from each other. Let me know. Jim62sch 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing Jim in my direction - I'm up for the FA challenge - looks like the centrists are making a start! (This post is just an excuse to show off my new signature - thanks for the help). Sophia^TalkTCF 22:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I like the new sig. One day, I'll create a cool one.  ;)

Arch -- what you put on my user page is what I meant. So, I'm going to make the proposal --

but it's be better if you or Robert (the minister) made the proposal re dividing Jesus among religions. I get your point on them wanting to divide Jesus nine ways to Sunday. This text is important, no that text is, but his real name was, no his real name was this...it can be rather maddening, even for an agnostic. It must make you want to cry sometimes. Jim62sch 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Archie! That clarifies. As you can tell by my ramblings, that's in keeping with my thought. I a perfect wiki world, would build the subarticles and then work on the summary. That will not work. So, let's dispose of the tempests on the page, archive the stuff and try to talk people out of debating. Maybe we can calm some of it by going to more subpages. Let's try a lot of "that's nice. but what about the article. No debating the subject. Quote scholars! This is supposed to be a summary. Let's take it up below and in the subarticle." --CTSWyneken 12:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk:Jesus

I did some housekeeping. Could you review it a fix what I messed up. (I'm not the best cleaner!) --CTSWyneken 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I usually do this in the evening, when the page is quiter (after 10pm here, or 4am UTC). I'll have to sort out the discussion on paragraph 3 and put it in the "Christian views in intro" archives. Since Aiden is on a 48-hour block, I cannot be sure whether or not that conversation was really over ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you create a banner template for real life intruding on wikilife. Something like: "I'm not on a wikibreak, but it sure may look like it this week." ;-) --CTSWyneken 11:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I may then try a moderator role: let's back up a bit from the details. (discuss those on subpages for now) What do we want to do in the intro. Should we read encyclopedia... etc.--CTSWyneken 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nowiki" heading

Hi, Archola--I deliberately nowikied the header in the Talk:Jesus article so that I didn't make a new section on the talk page--that's my proposed header for a new section on the page to put the "Hebrew/Aramaic" argument to rest. Justin Eiler 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I saw the message you left on Justin Eiler's talk page, and I must admit I'm confused. 1) Why was a message addressed to "Arch" left on Justin's page? 2) What was deleted, who deleted it, and what does this "it" have to do with Greek or Hebrew? 3) Essentially correct about what? 4) Does MPerel's "point" matter now that Mperel and Haldrik have reached an agreement? (I'm not sure about Jayjg, though.) 5) Why did you sign this mesage twice? 6) Is this any of my business, or did you address this message to another Arch?"

See Justin's page for a better explanation, one that includes arrows and blinky lights. Justin deleted my comment (which turns out to be the likely source of Haldrik's proposal that Perel agreed to) -- that's a no-no in Wikiworld. Now it could have been an accident, and if so that just means that Justin needs to be more careful. If it was intentional, Justin had better have a damn good explanation.

In any case, see the updated version, note what I said about reversing the Greek to Hebrew. (Oh, just in case there's a misundersanding -- I don't care about this for credit purposes, but I do not appreciate having my comments deleted). Jim62sch 12:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Justin Eiler)

Hi, Jim and Arch--what happened is I was trying to revert Arch's removal of the "Nowiki" tags--he thought I included them accidently, but they were part of my proposal for a new subsection (you can see the Nowikied heading further down in the diff). I evidently took too long and you got your edit in while I was trying to get mine finished. I had no intent to remove anyone's posting, and I apologize for the confusion. Justin Eiler 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Arch, more debating? Sheesh, you've made some nice progress, but that debating gets rather insane. Jim62sch 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Name of Jesus

I wish they would stop already! It makes no difference whatsoever. We either place the names in the intro, with at least a footnote indicating it is the near unimous opinion of scholars on the issue, or, as I prefer, put a link in to the names page. As much as I hate it, I'll probably suggest a vote. --CTSWyneken 10:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A week later, and still going on about the Greek and Hebrew. Amazing.

"Nonsense. Greek represents documented fact, Hebrew represents speculation. They shouldn't be mixed in an intro. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I agree. The Hebrew and Greek need to kept together, whether in the intro, the "historical reconstruction" section, or somewhere else. It's misleading to split them up. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC) "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

I just think we should keep the Greek and Hebrew together. I'll let Haldrik and Jayjig fight over the rest. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is missing a key point: all one needs to say is, Ιηςους, likely from Hebrew Yeshu(a). After all an overwhelming majority of linguists have theorized that to be the case (I've pointed that out three times already and I'm not interested in going for four).

As for the other argument made by a few people that since Jesus spoke Aramaic peredominantly (which is true) his name would have been in Aramaic, they miss the sociological point that his given name would be in Hebrew in order to retain the Jewish lineage and heritage. Jim62sch 10:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Greek_John.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Greek_John.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a screenshot of John 3:16! I thought all Wikipedia articles were GFDL I've restored the image copyright tag, but we'll see how long it lasts. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Archola/Wikiproject:Jesus

AWESOME. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said I think the article should include a more detailed account of events and be more biographical. What I'd like to see is an entire new version of the article implementing your layout. Each section could point to a main article, with a summary of each major event. Let me know if you need any help! —Aiden 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Jehova's Witness view. I've actually never heard that before so I'm not sure--it needs to be verified. About Wikiproject, not sure about that either. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know much about the behind-the-scenes action. I've duplicated the Jesus article at User:Aiden/Jesus and want to use your outline to revamp the New Testament section on Jesus. —Aiden 19:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I've begun implementing your outline to the NT section of the Jesus article on my talk page. I think most of the rest should be left alone, but possibly we'll need to revamp the Historicity section based on updates being made to that article and the Historical Jesus article. By all means feel free to jump in and start adding content on the duplication I made; and if you would rather work on a new version somewhere else just lemme know. —Aiden 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, check User:Aiden/Jesus and tell me what you think so far. —Aiden 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at my progress with User:Aiden/Jesus#Genealogy_and_Family and User:Aiden/Jesus#Nativity_and_Childhood. Following a modified version of Arch's layout, I've condensed material from each section's main article and information in the current version of this article to yield what I think are more readable, well-rounded sections. Let me know what you think. —Aiden 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Judging by those two sections, which seem to cover a good amount of biographical data without being too long or unreadable, I honestly would have to disagree that the biography section would be too long. I think by merging some of the related sections (such as Geneology and Family, Nativity and Childhood, Resurrection and Ascension) we could cover all the bases without making the section too long. —Aiden 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Mysteries

I'll see if we have a copy here. Thanks! Bob --CTSWyneken 10:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have two copies - tell me what your're looking for and I'll let you know. Sophia^TalkTCF 11:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Texan Americans and scholars?

I am sorry, but I still think your point is both illogical and inaccurate. You state "Saying "Bible scholars, historians and philosphers" is exactly like saying, "Texan Americans, Iowans and Californians."" This is not a reasonable analogy, because people say "Bible scholars" all the time, and never just say "Bible." But people do not say "historian scholars" or "philosopher scholars." Moreover, people say "Biblical scholars" all the time, but do not say "Texas Americans" at all. So this is inaccurate in that you either are unfamiliar with English, or with the was English speakers identify different kinds of scholars. And, this is a poor analogy, because you are comparing a common phrase (Bible scholars) to a non-existant phrase, "Texan Americans." If you are going to make an analogy, do it right. Here is a good analogy: saying that "Bible scholars, historians, and philosophers" is like saying "New Yorkers, Iowans, and Californians." Yes, "Bible scholar" is a nominal phrase consisting of two words, whereas "historian" is a nominal phrase using only one word. Similarly, "New Yorker" is a nominal phrase using two words, and "Iowan" is a nominal phrase with only one word. Does that mean that people are wrong to say "New Yorker," that they should say only "Yorker?" Does that mean that people are wrong to say "Iowan," that they ought to say "New Iowan?" No - this would be absurd. It is perfectly fine that some states are called by two words and other states by one word. And this practice is in no way disparaging - no one in the US thinks New York is more "new" than Iowa! "New York" is how one refers to one state, "Iowa" is how one refers to another state. "Bible scholar" is how one refers to one kind of academic, and "historian" is how one refers to another kind of academic. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a bad analogy based on an illogical implication. My point was that we might find a better way to phrase it. CTSWyneken's phrasing of "scholars in the fields of Biblical studies and history" is better than anything I came up with. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

I understand that Archie - it's the wording of the sentence that could curently be read to mean that there are slight disagreements that the gospels were written in the decades after Jesus died - ie it implies some think they were written before. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're referring to a specific date (first 60 AD/CE, then 65 AD/CE, although JimWae mentioned 68 AD/CE) this is less of an issue. Actually, the subsection Jesus#Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life says "Most scholars agree the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans." The destruction of the Temple was c. 70 AD/CE. Of course, the hypothetical Q document could have been written before the Temple was destroyed. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I've decided enough's enough. An RfC is called for to stop these crises happening at regular predictable intervals. The only problem is I have no idea how to do it so I've asked Ann but suspect she might be busy at the moment so I'll let everyone know the link when I have it.

Hopefully pulling everyone into a neutral (non talk page) environment will calm things down and if people have to fully explain themselves the real areas of conflict will emerge. I do see this as a centrist move and hopefully it will be a positive experience. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Still working on the RfC but one question I must ask you is - do you ever sleep? You are always editing when I finish - no matter how late and yet are still on the go when I wake up! What's the secret - caffine? Sophia^TalkTCF 08:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, etc.

If you can get the article the way you envision it (which is essentially what I was talking about -- present the different cases in an NPOV manner, including religious, hystorical, mythological, etc.) then I would suggest you Anglicise it as that tends to be seen as a "higher" form of English (very snobby indeed!). But, if it stays as it is, or drifts further into a Sunday School-style presentation, then American English would be best as that really is the way the article reads (to me at least). Hey, if we could find a Buddhist monk to rewrite the article, we might actually have something good -- a spritual person who is logical and non-theistic. Nah, never happen.  :) Jim62sch 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to wake people up, Arch. It'll never work, but it's worth a shot. The historicity section I'd give a 7 out of 10 crosses to (seven out of ten Mogen Davids?). Anyway, generally, I still think the article leans heavily toward Jesus Christ rather than Jesus, although I must admit that you and CTS have done a pretty good job reigning in the nutters on the different sides.Jim62sch 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't spent much time on the German version -- too many fires to put out between people swearing that the 20 versions of Genesis chapter 2 written in the 12 languages I can read are all mistranslated from the Hebrew; two other people hell bent on arguing that humans aren't primates; another person hell bent on disrupting the Pseudoscience article; Benapgar's delusions; writing four other articles and taking care of 4 kids, working a lovely job as an IT manager, and assisting people with linguistics questions. Oh, sleeping and eating go in there too.  :)

More seriously

• "the time when Jesus was purported to live" -- this seems to be bending over backward for the Jesus-mythers. You already mentioned that they exist, but are a small group.
• "Although some critical scholars, including archeologists, continue to use them as points of reference in the study of ancient Near Eastern history[9] some have come to view the texts as cultural and literary document" (emphasis added). -- and some don't give a damn? "Some" is too weasely. Are there any percetages available? Do more argree with statement one, or with statement two?
• Since you link to hagiography, do you really need this explanation? "Hagiography has a principal aim of the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus."
• This indicates that there is proof that Paul had visions: "Paul saw Jesus only in visions, but he claimed that they were divine revelations and hence authoritative (Galatians 1:11-12)."
• Develop this a bit more? Admit that they may not exist because they may have been intentionally destroyed? "Questions of existence of earlier texts" (I would change the title to "Earlier texts" or "Possible earlier texts" as "questions" carries a certain implication that the documents never existed).
• The footnote doesn't exactly support this, in addition, there is no indication of potential bias on the part of the scholars. "However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives"
• Is the many and some true in this section, "External influences on gospel development"? Also, are these historical scholars (i.e., non-reliously inspired) or Biblical scholars?

OK, that's enough for now. Hey, wait, I'm supposed to be in competition with you for FA status.  ;) Take care, Jim62sch 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not telling them who to shoot! :) BTW, did I ever mention my parents tried to raise me Lutheran (so I really do know where you're coming from). Anyway, if playing the Devil's advocate gets the article together, I'll keep on playing it.  :) Jim62sch 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Sorry, no New Testament map... AnonMoos 01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nits

I see what you mean - I was just trying to help a pretty convolved sentence flow. Anyway I had to do something to claim some of the credit for the current paragraph. I look upon removing "to" as a turning point in the whole debate! (I can be satirical too!). Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

DId you put the Hebrew in the Jesus article?

Was that you, or did you just miss another's editor's addition? --CTSWyneken 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. no, I know no Hebrew. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't think so. But my very quick look had your name in the edit history. I think you must have changed something else and left a previous change in place. Welcome back to the Cabal! ;-) --CTSWyneken 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

William Hung is Jesus

How else can you explain his success? Have you checked out his recent accomplishments? Matthew 25:45: 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Surely William Hung is the "least of these" who ever appeared on that TV show. Drogo Underburrow 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My progress

Hello. I just thought I'd let you know: I've been bogged down with various real life things lately and have paused my work at User:Aiden/Jesus until I get some more free time. However, I have still been checking in on the progress at the article and think the introduction is looking good. I do think though that a lot of time is being spent on representing and refining very small views, especially fringe views in Christianity--far more time than is being spent on expanding the biographical sections of the article. I think the latter is far more important, as the readers of this article are going to be far more concerned with learning about Jesus than learning about various obscure views of him. —Aiden 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm more concerned with making sure Christian views aren't mis- or under-represented here. —Aiden 23:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Who made God

Yep - we're actually back to Carl Sagan who raised just that point. His way of looking at things was "why add God - all it does is push the question back one step". The best reply I've ever had to that, and one I don't argue with, is that adding God to the begining of the universe is a step of faith. When I was doing cosmology at Uni there were discussions on "perturbations in the entropy" and other such stuff. I think it's something we can know about but never really know for sure as the laws of physics start to break down when you get to any singularity. I have never understood why evolution and science are a problem with religion as to me someone who can set up the rules and conditions for this universe to happen by it's self is infinitely cleverer than someone who has to manhandle it every step of the way. Then of course the "word of God" be comes science as that is the real way to "know the mind of God". And then we're off with the Pythagoreans! Some could argue that like Justin Martyr Christians like their own God better as the maths is easier! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can "prove" 2=1 if you like - it doesn't work for 3 though!Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

*Stirring the pot* — Only things that were made need a maker. ;) Of course, I think that the cosmological argument for God's existence has all kinds of problems (as with all the Thomistic arguments):

1. Even granting that "nothing comes from nothing," who says that the universe ever "came" from anything, mabye it has always existed?
2. Even granting that there cannot be an infinite regression of antecedent causes (which is actually an epistemological issue, not an ontological one, so the appeal is a category error), who says that the universe is not the "first cause" of itself (i.e., some kind of ontological "structuralism")?
3. Even granting that the universe had a beginning, and that there must be some "creator" which is not the universe, who says that there is only one "creator," why not as many "creators" as there are causes?

There are other problems too, but those are already devastating! I'm a "presuppositionalist", so as you can probably tell, my stock is not in the "evidentialist" type arguments. Ps. You can prove that 3=1 also, if you accept Fregean "slingshot" arguments! ;) --MonkeeSage 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus Talk Page

I am incredibly impressed with the tenor of your posts. I doubt we'll ever agree on much outside Wiki-ness, but it's great to see logic and true NPOV expressed on pages normally filled with (often holy) flames. Diversity of viewpoint and ruthless pruning of POV is what may make Wiki our generation's "great wonder". PS: Any idea why most of the Historical Jesus talk page vanished a couple days ago? The edit history makes it look like a mistake, but I was wondering if it got archived somewhere due to the rather, um, heated exchanges from a while back. I thought the discussion was interesting and very on-point. Kevin/Last1in 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Various "Jesus" Issues

Sorry for getting you mixed up with Avery! (WHY do I do that?)

I have reverted twice, reaching my limit, the anonymous user's additions. He is signed in from an AOL IP, so it is essential we urge him or her to establish a user ID. Also, the addition he has tried to add simply is too much detail for the main page and is repetitive. If you agree, would you be willing to help restrain this person? --CTSWyneken 12:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no! Good eye! --CTSWyneken 12:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So, how to we flush 'em out? --CTSWyneken 12:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You ask for a citation. Sadly, I read a lot, and don't take notes. I'm sure all of the ideas I mention are from books I mention, but which idea comes from where is more than my powers of memory will supply. I think these ideas are in common currency. I have supplied Biblical references for the ideas. If you can't find a secondary source, how about changing it to read, "According to the Bible..."? Rick Norwood 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus#Proposed_paragraphs

I've made some changes to your Talk:Jesus#Proposed_paragraphs, hopefully you don't mind, if you do you can always revert.209.78.19.195 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You have added some good stuff on the historical Jesus (e.g. Neusner). Can you look at the Cultural and historical context of Jesus article, and add it there as well? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ToDo list on Talk:Jesus

I really like the todo list! I have one suggestion though — could we use Template:Todo2? I think it would look better with the other banners. It is exactly the same as Template:Todo just different aesthetics, so you just replace {{todo}} with {{todo2}} if you want to use it. --MonkeeSage 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

historical Jesus stuff

I've spent the last two days trolling around the WP Jesus stuff, particularly the historical/myth related activity. The shock caused me to open an account. Since you seem interested in working with people to get it right, I thought I'd come to you for some advice.

I don't want to jump into something if its just going to be carte blanche worked over by extremists from either side. But, in my opinion. there are major problems that really need to be addressed (Gnosticism, for instance, has extensive factual errors that keep getting replaced). Any collaberation on where to begin would be appreciated. I don't have a lot of time as I've exams coming up quickly, but after that I can devote some effort.

In general, there is a lot of emphasis on the gnostic/mythicist position here. This is fine, as people are reading the Da Vinci Code and seeing the NGS Gospel of Judas stuff and want to know what it is about. To me, anything that gets people to pay attention to my field is great. When it leads to conspiracy theories which ignore mainstream scholarship, or to accusing people of an "overt Christian bias", there is a problem, however. In fact, it shows that people have absorbed the mythicist playbook, and causes real questions about POV. The search for non Christian sources on the historicity of Jesus is useless, for instance, since the academy considers it a closed question. The only people who are going to take the bait are by nature conservative Christians.

Since this is clearly a condentious area, before I start axe-wielding, I'd like to know where I can be more useful and get involved with the dialogue. Sorry to ramble, but this deserves to be done well. Best.--Mrdarcey 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Christian abuse of wikipedia"

Hey, on Mrdarcey's talk page, I notice you said, As for accusations of overt Christian bias, there is a double blue website which is asserting "Christian abuse of Wikipedia." One of the pages they are watching is Jesus-Myth, so that is the most contentious page at the moment. How do you know this? Do you have a link? john k 16:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail, but for reasons of privacy and security I prefer not to post the URL at Wikipedia. This is related to an incident that has been reported. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jesus#Ministry

Yes, and it appears various other anons are doing the same thing. It is not the fact that they want to provide specific examples that bothers me--it is that they are cherry-picking things which may seem fundamentalist and leaving out others. I prefer the original summary of "abide by the spirit of the law rather than just the letter." That covers all bases without getting into this nitpicky debate. —Aiden 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First I think we should contact an administrator to have the article semi-protected. —Aiden 18:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deutscher Gesu

I kind of got involved in other stuff. I'd have to look at the page to see what the heck happened that caused it to lose it's star -- no doubt the same thing that's been happening to the English page. I know you and CTS and others have kept it from getting totally out of hand, but it's even more of a Sunday School lesson dressed up like a church full of ikons than it was a month ago.

BTW, if you ever get the chance, get a copy of "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliott Friedman. I could have used it when User:PiCo and I were battling Codex a while back on Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve. •Jim62sch• 21:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Man, I'm sorry to see all that stuff. Maybe you should take a Wiki-break, even if only for a day. It's just ridiculous. BTW, and I mean this seriously, whence the half-brother? I did a search on the KJV and there's nothing that indicates half-brother, other than "James, son of Mary".

I voted for CTS even though he hasn't a chance.

Are you saying the following isn't true to some people? entombment = "buried in a tomb." What does it mean then? Out picking grapes?

I hate to say this, but religion brings out the worst in many people (or, perhaps I should say that their monolithic views of their religion do). Take care, man, don't get stressed. •Jim62sch• 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the argument. I commented. The whole thing sickens me. Agape my ass. Everyday, I understand more and more why I jettisoned religion twenty-some years ago. The genetic question was a rational question. (Of course, every "good Christia person" better hope there never is any genetic evidence -- the whole religion goes down in flames if the body is ever found.) One other point: not all Chrtistians accept the virgin birth -- many see it for what it was: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for young girl that led to the creation of a myth that became canonised in the NT (well, not in all of it). •Jim62sch• 23:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Say Archola, rather than leave all the articles, you could come join me with the Good Article collaboration, lots of project related edits in case either of us ever want to be admins for some reason :D. Plus, if the collaboration ever gets off the ground, its energies could be refocused, so other editors could fight the fights for us on all the Jesus and Christianity related pages without any of us really having to deal with it. Homestarmy 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't go! You are a model wikipedian in difficult circumstances - we need more of your kind not less! Don't take this a suggestion to use sockpuppets! LOL Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article

Archie:

I'll try. I've had to work on the Luther pages again because of the return of Doright and the sudden renewed interest in the pages by SlimVirgin. The issue here at the moment is one of scholarly integrity.

Also, I'm trying to work at a variety of non-theological pages, considering the criticism at the soon to be failed first RfA.

If you want to do something competely different,why not join me at Tom Nieto and Uwe Siemon-Netto? 8-)

Bob --CTSWyneken 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But you can read websites just as well as I can. I just have a bigger library! (I assume you don't have 175,000 just outside your office! 8-) --CTSWyneken 12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know...

request for full protection

Good Idea

I agree. Let the mad rams and madder bulls beat themselves senseless for a while, then, when they're groggy, try to restore sense to the page. •Jim62sch• 16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sig check. As I'm withdrawing from the Jesus pages until certain issues here and on certain Orwellian websites are dealt with, I see no reason to remain an active member of the TCF. The subpage will remain in my user space, and the remaining TCF members are still welcome to use that subpage. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)