Jump to content

User talk:Divus303

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eschatology

[edit]

Fragment from source no. 35 ( "The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain"):

Apart from the Jesus Seminar, most participants in the third quest would agree that Jesus was, at the very least, an eschatological prophet proclaiming the imminent coming of God’s definitive rule and kingdom, a rule and kingdom made present even now in Jesus’ authoritative teaching and mighty deeds of healing.

Fragment of the article Scholarly interpretation of Gospel elements:

Most of the scholars participating in the third quest hold that Jesus believed the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

This sentence has the same three sources that I included in my last edition (no. 33, 34, 35). Please do not change the content of the article inconsistent with current sources. Wikipek (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, friend! However, I tweaked your edits to include (also from the article Scholarly interpretation of Gospel elements) about contemporary views on the subject of eschatology as there is still no consensus on the topic, and thus other views should be highlighted. Divus303 (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article ("Eschatology") now includes well-sourced text: "Most of the scholars participating in the third quest hold that Jesus believed the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries."
The third quest started in 1977 and lasted at least until 2021. In the next sentence you wrote today: "This view, generally known as "consistent eschatology," was influential during the early to the mid—twentieth century. "This is an obvious contradiction. Third quest these are modern times. See the title of source no. 35, created in 1999: The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain. So: This view, ... is currently influential! I don't have the source "Geddert, T. J. (1992). "Apocalyptic Teaching"", but it couldn't have been written there as you edited in the article: "This view, ... was influential during the early to the mid—twentieth century". This is obviously untrue. Unless the source is unreliable, even deceitful. Please remove the blatant and obvious contradiction (created by you today) between "Most of the scholars participating in the third quest hold that Jesus believed the end of history was coming within his own lifetime or within the lifetime of his contemporaries" and "This view, ... was influential during the early to the mid—twentieth century".
The same goes for the Apocalypticism article. Under an extensive paragraph, sourced from: Ehrman (2008), Doole (2020), Eurell (2020), Sanders (1993), Hays (2017), Keown (2017), Meier (1999), Theissen & Merz (1998) - today you wrote : "This view, ... was influential during the early to the mid—twentieth century." Please remove this untruth that creates an obvious contradiction in both articles. There cannot be contradictory statements in a Wikipedia article. The untruth must be removed. Wikipek (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no contradiction, the problem is that you are using the Third Quest in the present tense. Again, I am simply pasting from an already existing article. I concur that better sources should be used, however, in part due to the fact your sources (or yourself) misleadingly infer the apocalyptic portrait as the scholarly consensus. I have since added a better explanation to clear up your proposed contradiction, which better clearly reflects the current standing of biblical research. The information does seem to conflate the second quest with the third, so I have altered it.

There is no need for this section to be removed, as its important other views are represented given the topic isn't that of consensus, it just needed rewording to fix your proposed contradiction.

I have done a partial self-revert on the Apocalypticism page as I just noticed I added repeated sources. I have removed the repetitions and also merged the sections. The edits for Eschatology at your request have been done to clear up your proposed contradiction and to better reflect scholarly consensus. Some of the sources are also wrong, for example one cites the research from the Second Quest when its clearly talking about the Third. I have also reworded the text on the sections themselves to better represent the sources (Meier, for example, is cited but is misrepresented). This suffices, I hope that settles the issue. Divus303 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misleadingly inference. If a most of scholars share a view, it is not yet a consensus. Wikipek (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the revisions I have made better reflect what scholars and the sources themselves say, acknowledging different perspectives. You were partially correct about the contradiction, so thank you for pointing that out. However, there were still important revisions to be made, I hope you understand and I hope the current forms satisfy you. Divus303 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Divus303! Your additions to Isaiah 53 have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravely sorry! I copy-pasted information that was already part of the Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament which wasn't originally by me in the first place. I was unaware of any copyright infringement. Thank you for the highlight though. Divus303 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky

[edit]

You've got a sneaky way of pov-pushing. It's no coincidence that I check your edits, and with good reason: diff diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally pushing no POV. The first edit was literally one word, lol. The other was condensing a source. Divus303 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historical reliability of the Gospels. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This warning goes to both users involved and it not a comment on who is right Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I'll remember to use the talk page next time. Sorry for the bother. Divus303 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Divus303&oldid=1258304229"