Talk:Eternal life (Christianity)/Archive 1

1 John 3:14
Hi guys. First of all THANKYOU user:History2007 for putting all this together! Long time no see man! From time to time I take interest in your edits and check you out. I hope my inclusion of 1 John 3:14 in this article (Eternal life (Christianity) makes sense. Alan347 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your addition of "Theologically already accomplished by God, yet still a work in progress" was actually necessary to add, and I was trying to get there via the ladder picture at the top. It may need a little more explanation but was certainly necessary. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's why in the realm of philosophy "the future does not exist" but in the realm of theology "there is no past, present or future". Time is in eternity, but eternity is not in time. I think the ladder is Jesus in the temporal dimension. We start Eternal life as soon as we cling to the ladder. Demons can try to rob us of Eternal life by making us loose hold of Jesus. Not holding to the ladder is not being in the life. Holding to the ladder and climbing depicts the "already but not yet". Meeting Jesus at the end of the ladder is the consumption into eternity of what has already started here. BTW, the Marian event we talked about last year is still happening! His talk about Mother Mary talking to us here really gives me hope that life eternal that for the Christian has to start here and will be one day consumed, there in eternity.Alan347 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, but I think the NT items still need to get checked and expanded. I hope to finish this article by tomorrow. I started it last week because I was surprised to see that teh term Eternal Life was just pointing to a song by some guitar player. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

John 3:16,36
Alan347 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life
The Gospel speaks in the Kairos about eternal life "now is the time of salvation". Therefore I don't agree with "generally at the resurrection of the dead". First of all what do we mean "generally" ? second: it starts by being born again here, from baptism we are endowed with the gift of eternal life. I hope the Overview is more clearly. I will attempt to change it later on today but first I will put up a table with the New Testament biblical instances of "Zoe" using Strong's bible concordance entry 2222. We then need to find the equivalent of Zoe in Hebrew and put up a table with the OT references. Alan347 (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please discuss these before dramatic changes. I think we are getting so much Greek in there now that the average reader will be lost. The baptism issue is certainly related, but the source directly referred to the model of Jesus, etc. Remember that the article starts by saying that the NT does not define "eternal life". So please suggest here and we will work on it here, then add in, else we will cause chaos in multi-edits, broken ref, etc. I think your Baptism issue is probably more suited to the Salvation (Christianity) article than here, but needs a small mention here. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that we need to be clear in this article that in Christianity, eternal life starts here and continues after death. Alan347 (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a valid statement. It is stated via the here and now, but probably needs to be clarified. I have to stop now for a while, but will discuss later. I added 1212 anyway, that was needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alan, it is best that we stop editing for a day or so, because we are about to inadvertently trip over WP:3RR. Thanks. Anyway, I had to restore the DYK hook that was deleted. So please let us stop for a day, then discuss via WP:CALM. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life is clear in the NT
The bible is very clear about what it presents. It's very wrong to start an article with saying that the bible is not clear about such an important issue. If else, Nichodemus was not clear about it but Jesus told him "You are Israel's teacher, and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - The Son Of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert [see Wilderness Journey], so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life." Alan347 (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the WP:RS source says: "Eternal life is never described in detail in the New Testament". So that is what the source Basic Christian doctrine says. If you have another WP:Secondary source to supplement that please present it here so we can discuss. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please ! http://www.cuttingedge.org/salvation.html 10:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Bible is very clear on the necessity of a person being "Born Again" if they are to receive eternal life. Jesus coined this term, in John 3:3-7, when he told Nicodemus, "You must be born again" to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Since this necessity is so critical, Satan has attacked it with all his might for two thousand years, causing most "Christian" churches to stop teaching this doctrine, even though no one can be saved without undergoing this wondrous spiritual conversion. However, Satan's most effective weapon against being Born Again has been, and still is, confusion" Salvation.Html says it Alan347 (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok Alan, I think this is a better and more structured way of discussing this instead of re-editing each other. Let me understand what you want to add, so we can discuss it clearly. What you seem to want to add is a reference to John 3:3-7:


 * Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.

That quote is certainly valid about "entering the Kingdom of Heaven", and John 3:3-7 is totally clear on that. On that I agree, and it would be a good addition to the page on Kingdom of Heaven. Now to relate that to "eternal life" we need a connection between and an assertion of equality that "Kingdom of Heaven" = "eternal life". That line of argument will need some WP:RS source if it is to be presented in the article. The www.cuttingedge.org/salvation website is not however a WP:RS reference and is a self-help test. Either you need to find a clear WP:RS source for that, or I need to look into that in more detail and it will take half-a-day or so. Interestingly, although eternal life is one of John's favorite items, he does not say "Except one be born anew, he cannot have eternal life." Although intuitively it may mean that. But let us look into that in more detail and find a few WP:RS sources related to it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But, I DO want to REMOVE all ambiguity as to what Eternal life is. The start of the article is ridiculous. Eternal life is clearly described in the bible: centers around Jesus, starts here continues in Eternity. Have that, expand on that in Article. LETS make it clear. The Icon you rightly chose to insert is very clear: the ladder, Jesus, it's a clear icon. Please let's have a clear article. Alan347 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So let me try to understand this. Are you saying that the statement in the book Basic Christian doctrine that "Eternal life is never described in detail in the New Testament" (link above) is incorrect? If so, how do you/we know that it is incorrect. Your own opinion, or do you have a WP:RS source that says it is incorrect? Please clarify that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just shown you I think why it is incorrect by the quote of Jesus' astonishment at Nichodemus' lack of understanding. He told him "We speak about things which we know". Jesus said in many places in John: I am the truth, I know the Father, in my house there are many places and you know about this, you even wrote about the stream of water where Jesus compares eternal life to this water so he talks about eternal life many times. Should I go to the Libary next week and study the commentary on John so that I will have the commentary from which to quote ? Alan347 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Eternal life is not some vague thing in Christianity. It's to know Jesus, that's why its based on the model of his resurrection. Come on we need to have a clear article. We can't afford to be presenting something vague ? ? Alan347 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to look in he library next week you can. But if you wait a day I will look into it more as well and will come up with suggestions. It seems that we may be able to move what you call uncertain to the NT section so it does not start that way, and in the NT section we can have a broader view that also discusses Kingdom of God. Now, I think this article must address that issue, for the reader because if we are discussing it, many readers will also have questions. So please wait a day or so and I will have done more research to provide a "Wikipedia usable" version.


 * I think you know this, but what you and I think does not matter in Wikipedia. What matters is what a few professors of theology have published in WP:RS sources and we need to get the best summary of those presented. So please wait a day and I will suggest some WP:RS sources that will address Kingdom of God vs eternal life etc. In fact the rich young man parable is one of the key sources of relating the two in that the young man asks about eternal life but the responses from Jesus comes back in terms of the Kingdom. But some sources interpret that as closeness rather than equality, so we need to do it carefully and do it right.


 * If we do not get it just right, in 6 months someone else will start a question session and time will be required again. So let us do it carefully with solid WP:RS references. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now done some more checking and one problem is that the Wiki article on Kingdom of Heaven is an absolute mess, so we can not even refer to it. In fact there is not even an article on Kingdom of Heaven in Christianity and the discussion there is very inconsistent. But that has to wait. For now, we can do the following:


 * Add a discussion of the relationship between eternal life and Kingdom of Heaven to the NT section. I have several sources now and the general consensus is that they are "simialr concepts" in various pericopes, but not exactly equal. There is certainly a need for this.


 * Move the Basic Christian Doctrine quote which you consider uncertain to the NT section in a toned down way, given that there are other references and we can balance them.


 * Move some material to the Johanine section to balance the sizes.


 * I will try to get the refs together, type it here on the talk page first. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NOT my vision of Wikipedia (refer to User:Alan347). Wikipedia is dependent on the reciprocity of consciences so I have a right to say how I see things just as any other person has.

This was today's Gospel at Mass:

No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Verse 16 is a clear presentation of ETERNAL LIFE not Kingdom of heaven. So it clearly addresses the article. The Gospel clearly describe ETERNAL LIFE - refer to John 3:16-17 (for example) It's also in other parts of the Gospel according to John. Jesus spoke clearly to the apostles. It all relates to Him being the way the truth and the life. Why should we present as unclear what is in fact clear ? Alan347 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy vs user opinion
I am sorry Allen but your statement of "Wikipedia is dependent on the reciprocity of consciences" is your opinion, and is on your user page. It is not Policy. There are thousands and thousands of Wikipedia editors with many ideas, and their ideas usually do not match. All that matters is Policy. I hope you focus on those policies. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

LINE of ACTION
 FROM WHICH IS INCORRECT In Christianity the term Eternal life traditionally refers to continued life after death, often interpreted through resurrection, although the term is not explicitly defined in the New testament.[1]

 TO THIS CORRECT APPROACH 

Eternal life does not Traditionally refer to continued life after death in Christianity because it all starts here. It is explicity defined in the New Testament.

Alan347 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "correct" statement is the combination of the two in John, as the article says given that John has a "here and now" component. But in the Synoptics the Kingdom of Heaven and the closely related use of eternal life have less of a "present" component. But again, what I think and what you think can not just be typed into articles, it needs to be based on WP:RS references which are WP:Secondary. What the Bible says can not be interpreted in Wikipedia by itself without WP:Secondary WP:RS sources.


 * So "Eternal life does not Traditionally refer to continued life after death in Christianity because it all starts here." can not be supported as far as I can see. Do you have a WP:RS reference for that? Or is it personal opinion?


 * Think of it this way, does Kingdom of Heaven start here? Do you have a WP:Secondary reference for that?


 * Reemember WP:Primary statements are not good enough. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is so wrong. the WP:Primary statement in the bible presents it as starting here, yet you prefer a WP:Secondary source that interprets the WP:Primary source wrongly. 1 John 3:14 "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death" is a statement in the past tense not in the future tense. (I've read it in Greek but provided the English NIV translation here). If you want to insist on presenting the bible wrongly be accountable yourself, not towards man, but towards God. Alan347 (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but there are multiple WP:RS WP:Secondary sources which present statements that you consider as "interpreting the WP:Primary source wrongly". The way Wikipedia works WP:RS secondary sources need to be relied on when they are in agreement, and our own opinions do not matter. History2007 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This won't stop here, I will read the commentaries on John and come up with the secondary sources to contradict your false rendering of the Word of God. Then I'll see what you'll have to say then. I'll try my utmost on this vital topic. Alan347 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No one asked it to stop, but to follow WP:Policy regarding secondary sources. And please also read the commentaries on the Synoptics. The Bible is not just one gospel, as we all know, but the use in the synoptics needs to be considered. And it is not my rendering, it is what the secondary sources say. And the addition of "other sources" will not eliminate existing WP:RS sources, but will simply require the addition of those other perspectives. So the current perspectives must remain, but can be enhanced. History2007 (talk) 09:41, 14 September

Ofcourse I'll read the whole library and all the secondary sources that where written throughout these 2 millenia as you have done right ? (joke) learn to choose your secondary sources. Discern, read what you want but also trust whom you want, remember what you want, speak about what you want, decide what you want. You have a will. Alan347 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Alan, I have reverted your major change to the lede per WP:BRD. I was expecting a discussion after you went to the library, so let us discuss per BRD. By the way, you again deleted reference Mercer513 somewhat carelessly. Please edit carefully so other people do not have to clean up as you delete "named references" again and again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, give me an hour and I will suggest a merger of what you typed with what I was planning to do, then we may be closer than it appears. Your Beasley-Murray is actually a respected source, but it is not the only source in the world and can not be the major basis for the lede. History2007 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In order to end this discussion before we jointly achieve the Matthean concept of eternal life, I suggest the lede below which presents both the Johannine and Synoptic views of the term, and avoids it upfront. It refers to your reference, as well as several others e.g. Hastings which mentions both perspectives. Per WP:LEAD this needs to be 4 paragraphs, so any longer than this is pushing the limit.


 * I actually avoided the issue of "directly defined" because the Basic Christian doctrine book and your reference seem to run against each other. So it is best left out of the lede, and we can discuss it after the lede has become stable. History2007 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion


In Christianity the term Eternal life refers to a unique gift of God bestowed on believers, used in a sense akin to the concept of entering the Kingdom of God. While the Synoptic Gospels often refer to the Kingdom of God, eternal life is the central theme of Jesus' preaching in the Gospel of John.

In Christianity all life (zōḗ in Greek) is both physical and spiritual, derived from and sustained by God who shares his life in an intimate manner with believers, created in his image. However, eternal life is not the same as human existence, but is a further gift from God, resulting from the believer's proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God. John 18:37, John 3, Rom 8 1-4 and Romans 6:3-5 emphasize the importance of listening to the truth, being born again, being in Christ and Baptism. Christians consider the Resurrection of Jesus, a unique event through which death was conquered "once for all", permitting believers to experience eternal life.

Johannine writings present eternal life as pertaining to the present, so those who accept Christ can possess the (biblical) life "here and now" as part of eternity, for they have "passed from death to life", as in John 3:36, John 5:24 and 1 John 3:14. Other uses, as in Matthew 25:46, refer specifically to the continuation of the blessed life in the future, as a promised inheritance of life after death, often interpreted through resurrection.

In the Pauline epistles (e.g. Romans 3:25), life becomes possible in the person of Jesus Christ. And by the grace of God and through Christ humans can receive the gift of eternal life as in Hebrews 11:1. . Paul discusses the relationship of eternal life to the Holy Spirit, stating that to be with the Spirit and to think with the Spirit leads to eternal life, as in Galatians 6:8.


 * Alan, are these your final changes? If so, almost there except the last sentence which repeats Romans and teh ref is not clear. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/2Cor/Expectation-Eternal-Life 5th paragraph Alan347 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry that is not the way to add refs to Wikipedia. Needs a Book Name and you must have seen the book yourself, not copy a ref from a ref. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

These proposed changes (now made) do not represent all points of view. I find it disconcerting that there appears a deliberate manipulation here to avoid any mention of Christian belief that eternal life is linked to the resurrection as was explained in the original version before Alan347 started lobbying for this change. The lead should represent multiple points of view in order to meet the WP:NPOV policy and this change does not do that. The blithe statements summarizing what "Christians" believe is not credible and should be limited clearly to those branches of the faith that have these particular beliefs. Fæ (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Next round of suggestions
Fæ, please make a new version as a suggestion and discuss with Alan. Thanks. I do prefer an emphasis on resurrection after life, as you suggested, as was in the previous version. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose a revert to the previous version before Alan347 started lobbying on the basis of belief rather than a neutral viewpoint. As I am no theologian I do not feel up to rewriting the lead in order to satisfy a claim of heresy. I shall revert now and let Alan347 reconsider their approach, if they wish, from a more balanced perspective and make a proposal that retains all the viewpoints of the original version. Implementing such a proposal will require a consensus for which he may find a RFC useful as this will now require more opinions than ours. Fæ (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I really hope there will be easier ways than an RFC which amounts to wasting 50% of an eternal life. To do an RFC over 3 paragraphs will really be taking the long road.


 * Fæ, I think you suggested an RFC to Alan, so it is of course his option. However, I am 90% sure that the "preaching tone" (please see my comments about preaching on this talk page which were cleaned out an hour ago), will be an obstacle therein. I would therefore like to resolve it here if possible. My suggestion is for a 2 day break, then rethink. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If anything you'rs is a bias [User talk:Fæ|talk, not mine. Go and ask real Christians does it start here or there ? What does the Gospel say? It's now or never. "Now is the time of salvation" NOT later. See the ladder, they're in life. "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" That is in the present. - John 7:38. Alan347 (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are branches of "Christianity" that believe all sorts of stuff. You have taken no account of fringe views or theological writings on the Old Testament viewpoint. Fæ (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No Christianity presents eternal life in the kairos. That's why Catholics have the Eucharist, that's what the WOG preachers preach, that's why the Renewal is in a hype, that's why healings and miracles occur, that's why lives are changed, that's why we are baptised, that's why we are born again. That's what the Gospel says, that's what the protestants speak about Alan347 (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Platonic view on life after death which your viewpoint of eternal life seems based on, was created by the Christian movement in the medieval period. Sources such as might help bring out this context and illuminate alternative views. By purging alternatives you are only covering modern views of certain Christian groups (albeit mainstream) and ignoring the earlier views of Christian belief that may not be accurately reflected in modern editions of the New Testament written in English in modern language for a modern audience. Before making sweeping changes, I suggest you research your proposal more widely than your modern and limited views and gain a wider consensus from contributors in these topics who have an interest in fringe Christian beliefs and the early history and development of Christianity beyond modern editions of the New Testament for followers of Martin Luther. Even with History2007's concerns about how long such things take, I strongly suggest you consider using a RFC to achieve a consensus here. Fæ (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's nothing to do with a Platonic view. It's simply the Christian view. Why do we get baptised now ? read Romans 6. We're incorporated into the life of Jesus, death and resurrection. We have passed from death to life read 1 John 3: 14. See what the evangelical preachers teach, what the Catholics celebrate in mass, what the protestants believe. Alan347 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The word Platonic relates to the Christian movement changing from an expectation of bodily resurrection to a spiritual view of eternal life. I would expect this to be covered in the lead text. Everything you are saying here relates to post-medieval movements without consideration of the viewpoint of early Christianity. Fæ (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Allan, but this is getting very tiring. This is not how Wikipedia works. Your edits assume certain knowledge of the topic based on WP:Primary sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. It is not the responsibility of other editors to "Go and ask real Christians" what the truth is. You can not ask Fæ to go and perform interviews to confirm your edit. Again, Wikipedia does not work that way.

In Wikipedia, a summary of the current state of scholarship needs to be presented via reliance on a wide range of WP:Secondary sources that meet WP:RS. If you present a view that other editors see as "too narrow" then telling them to go and interview Christians achieves nothing.

And please stop reverting multiple editors, you are about to cross WP:3RR here. I did not make a big deal when you deleted my talk page comments about preaching, but I did not like it. But please stop reverting other editors at will. I am sorry I have to revert your revert of Fæ because she had reverted in you in good faith, on WP:NPOV grounds. Please stop this.

Look at it this way, 10 days ago this article redirected to a page about a guitar player. I only wrote the page because I thought the topic was missing from Wikipedia. Now you have wasted more of my time on these discussions, and the endless repetition of Wikipedia policy than it took me to write the article. I could have fixed other articles in the meantime. Your are in the Tendentious editing zone. This can not go on. You must stop preaching and must stop reverting others at will. This can not go on forever this way. This page is about eternal life, not "eternal debate". History2007 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're incorrectly presenting the Christian's perception of eternal life in this article. This does not stop here. Alan347 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel you have a case for escalation, as well as RFC and asking for admin help I have already advised you about, you might find Neutral point of view/Noticeboard helpful. Fæ (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"life becomes possible in the person of Jesus Christ"
Please explain what this is supposed to mean: "life becomes possible in the person of Jesus Christ", repeated but not explained, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, and good point. The source said Romans 3:25 and I just used it without looking it up in Romans, but now I think there was a typo in the source and it should be Romans 5:21 which states: "even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ". I think we should edit that out, or change it b finding a separate Secondary, now that it is in doubt as a source typo. Else more searches on other sources. I can do it in a day but I have made enough edits now, so if you want to fix it, please do so. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protected
Per a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the page for 3 days. Since the page history is a bit complicated, I can't identify one specific "pre-dispute" version, so I have fully protected the current version, even though I'm certain this is the WP:Wrong version. Some of the talk above concerns me, and I think some editors may need to review core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you can't resolve the dispute on your own, I recommend going to the dispute resolution noticeboard if it's a broad problem, or asking for an Request for Comment if there is a single key question you can ask. I've watchlisted the page, and if edit warring resumes after the protection expires, I'll consider either longer protection or blocks, depending on the exact circumstances. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea actually. This may calm things down. History2007 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Qwyrxian. As per the standard notice, if anyone sees something simple for immediate correction please use the Edit protected template and someone uninvolved can make a judgement. As someone involved in the discussion so far, I'll avoid editing during the protection period myself too. Fæ (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This article lead makes me sad
Because it starts out on the wrong foot. In Christianity, eternal life starts now not after death ! Alan347 (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues with your statement have already been covered above. As a further example of how problematic limiting this article to a single point of view is, logically that means religions that believe in eternal damnation are not Christian. Fæ (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fæ, despite your modesty, you do know this topic. So please feel free to edit. I will leave it there. History2007 (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to give you such an impression. I am profoundly ignorant of theology but can apply analytical reasoning here. Perhaps a better answer is to as for help in one of the related religion wikiprojects? In practice this topic could be an interesting one but needs to cover a wide range of religious variations and the full span of time, including some of the context from the pre-Christian period. Doing this would take some expert skill and several contributors in order to ensure appropriate neutrality can be retained, as Alan347 has demonstrated. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, as you wish. In any case, I have to focus on other things for a little while, deal with the possible typo regarding Romans, etc. History2007 (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fæ, no Christianity doesn't exclude eternal damnation. Eternal damnation is a continuation of the present state of not having the eternal life. The logic is this: If I have eternal life now, I will continue to have it later. If I don't have it now, I won't have it later which is equivalent to eternal damnation. Alan347 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Refrain: WP:Secondary? History2007 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Source please, preferably not just vague interpretations of the New Testament but one based on the historical development of Christianity and explains clearly that eternal damnation is the same thing as not having eternal life (which rather limits the idea of what the devil and other fallen angels might be up to or in what realm they may exist). Fæ (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Logically speaking you are right, but practically speaking I am not sure if logic will get much attention at the moment, for it may be met with more proclamations of "go ask the real Christians", or may even start a more complicated discussion. So I will try to set up a few clear sources below for Alan, as a last resort. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps this is WP:Tirtiary ? No its WP: Trinity. When we make the sign of the cross we're saying that we have life in God. Eternal life. Alan347 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Christianity suggestions
In order to help clarify the issue at hand regarding eternal life being only "here and now" vs having a component "in the future" as well, help was sought from Wikiproject Christianity.

Please provide comments and suggestions below, referring to suitable WP:Secondary sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Eternal life is "here and now with all its future component" User:History2007 gave the scriptures for its eternal componement, my focus is on the now or never but I of course its eternal. The now being a part of eternity. Alan347 (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Refrain: WP:Secondary? And why is that the only view to be represented? History2007 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It is incredibly easy to find secondary sources that say eternal life starts now. After all, Jesus said, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24). So, for example, George Eldon Ladd says, "Jesus spoke of entering the Kingdom and receiving eternal life as though they were synonymous concepts" (Theology of the New Testament,, p. 70). It's the classic now/not yet duality. Anyway, I could find many, many more references if I tried. It's sad that the debate has gone on like this. StAnselm (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a less than ideal debate. And yes, there are sources that say it starts now, and there are others that say it happens later. In fact the the debate is about saying that both views have followers, or saying that it is primarily here and now. I did not ask for a source that says there is a now component. The article has such a source (Mercer) already, does refer to the here and now component of John. In fact, I put John 5:24 that you refer to in the lede long ago, and it is there now. I asked for a source that would say there is never a future component interpretation. I think there are multiple perspectives, including that of a future inheritance. Given that you know the topic, please suggest a concise wording that can end this debate so we can move on. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of quotes. I also thought I'd might as well start an article on Inaugurated eschatology. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good. Now with those additions, do you see any errors in the article as is, or do you see it as a reasonable presentation? If so, we should just agree to move on, else please make further suggestions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Question?
Does this article deny the Intermediate state? 75.15.194.19 (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be added as one of the article topics. Fæ (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As is, the intermediate state issue is side stepped in this page but should probably get a small mention. Intermediate state has scant biblical basis, and is a Pandora's box in its own right - as evidenced by the patchy quality of the Wiki article on it and the utter chaos that persists within the related wiki-topics in schatology. Knowing most of the knowledgeable editors who have been active on the topic this year, I seriously doubt if there are enough resources to remedy the major errors and inconsistencies within the myriad of Wikipedia articles on schatology within the next two years. Unless new knowledgeable editors are found (sign-on bonuses will be required), with the current resources, that topic will remain at the bottom of the Wikipedia quality scale for a while. History2007 (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OF course I agree with you 75.15.194.19 it does not, its now or never as ( can I propose a Saint ? Elizabeth of the Trinity ). No  History2007 I don't endorse your philosophical thretise, you're way out West. Let's go North. Fæ, its not merely 'one of the topics' it's the topic because it all starts now. It's the kairos, not the chronos that interests me. (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC), Alan347 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already heard the word thanks. Your much evangelized point of view can be incorporated in the article, you just can not eliminate other points of view or over-weight this single argument. Further if you want to propose a section on the "Kairos" then you have to do more than boorishly keep repeating a recent English version of the New Testament as verification. Fæ (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your logic and interpretation of policy are correct. Yet, it is not clear if logic or policy are to win the day here, at the moment. Anyway, I also posted on Wikiproject Catholicism for further ideas. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about logic, but policy will (hopefully). As Fæ says, having multiple, well-sourced viewpoints in the article is fine. Removing references that you don't like because you only hold to one perspective is, of course, unacceptable.  I've blocked Alan347 for 31 hours for repeatedly violating this policy.  Now, maybe there's something "wrong" with those references, I don't know.  Maybe they're not WP:RS, or WP:DUE, or something else, and I have no problem with Alan347 or anyone else discussing that issue here (or at a relevant noticeboard), and maybe eventually consensus will agree to remove them.  But edit warring to push a POV...not so good.   So, you know, play nice, everyone. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Source: Basic Christian Doctrine by Leith
This book has been blanked several times by Alan347 (most recent diff). Does anyone else agree that this source is unhelpful? Looking at the book on Google it seems highly relevant and specific, with statements such as "Eternal life is never described in detail in the New Testament" and "Eternal life is obviously not life in the body." Leith is a Professor Emeritus in theology and it seems to me that this source nicely presents an opinion counter to Alan347's lobbying to eliminate all mention of what he has previously called a "heresy". The repeated removal appears to be a deliberate attempt to suppress alternative views in this article and directly counter to the basic policy of Neutral point of view. I would reconsider my opinion if anyone apart from Alan347 could explain why this source is not a useful addition to the article.

The full citation is:

Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is about "Christian doctrine" and hence relevant. It is also certainly WP:RS and John H. Leith is not by any measure a novice in the field. And the same type of statement was also in other references I had - I will look for them later. But it is certainly a good reference. History2007 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There it was: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible 2000 ISBN 9053565035 page 430 : "The nature of eternal life is only sketched in its essential elements in the NT. The emphasis throughout is on a basic assurance of eternal life, not on a fanciful depiction of details." We should probably reword that to avoid copyvio, but it also provides the basic observation that the New Testament has no exact definition of "eternal life" and only sketches it, pretty much in line with the other source. I think we should add this ref too, given that the Eerdmans Dictionary is a highly respected source. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I noticed that on the same page Eerdmans has a pretty concise characterization of the "now and then" issue as well: "The NT searches for a balance on eternal life between present and future - the believer has passed in Christ from death to eternal life, but this remains to be fully realized in God's future, specially in the Resurrection and new creation at the eschaton". After rewording, we can use that as a balanced quote on the other issue as well. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for thinking it through. It is rather sad that the general feedback I get around high level theological topics is basically the same as political and sexual topics, that the majority of Wikimedians feel they are a waste of editing time due to endless non-neutral lobbying with a particular bias for North American viewpoints (I'm coming from a European perspective). Cheers Fæ (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article should be renamed to Eternal life (Bible), or New Testament or something like that? Because that's all I see in the article. Nothing on the different views in Christianity, the change over time, the emphasis on Hell in the early Middle Ages, the introduction of Purgatory, rejection of this by the reformation, the official position of the Catholic church, the views of the main denominations, Born-again Christians, Anglicans, ...
 * If you want to write an article on what the Bible really says about eternal life, you'll never reach consensus. Present the different views. DS Belgium (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea actually. Again, I never planned to write this nightmare article 3 weeks ago. Somehow I clicked on eternal life and it redirected to what is now Eternal Life (song) and I thought it was strange and an article was needed. Come to think of it I should have called it Eternal Life in the New Testament given that I knew the general eschatological issues were in a Pandora's box I did not want to open and work on for the next 7 years. So a rename may be a good idea, but will not resolve the current issue about the exact definition. That needs to be resolved by itself via WP:Secondary discussions. And again let us remember that the series of articles on salvation are in desperate need of help themselves. But a rename is a good idea, although I would also avoid the OT issues here given that they need careful treatment and deserve attention on their own. An attempt to bridge the gap between the OT and NT will then lead to the general discussion of eternal life. A much larger issue as you pointed out. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would much rather see the article get expanded (gradually) to address the wide scope suggested. A dry analysis of the New Testament sounds unlikely to attract many layman readers. Fæ (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, and I will personally promise a 15% salary increase to the Wikipedians who expand it... But I will just not have the time to do it, given that back in July and August I had promised myself to fix the supercomputing articles which are even in need of more help. But my guarantee of a Wiki-salary increase here stands, regardless. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also an overlap with Immortality. DS Belgium (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That article has only 11 tags on it... a record? History2007 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, once this article improves enough it can be pointed to from there as a main article per WP:SPINOFF. Good to review one against the other. --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, someone who could expand the page, and is very knowlegeable is St. Anselm if you want to try to talk him into it. History2007 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another user who is clearly well versed in these topics is Mannanan51, but only does minor edits, despite his knowledge. If these users can be encourages (and protected from undue headaches) then these series of Wiki-articles on eschatology may find salvation at last. History2007 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life in the body
In John 4:14, Jesus said:


 * Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again, but no one who drings the water that I give will ever be thirsty again: the water that I shall give will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life. (New Jerusalem Translation)

I want a paradigm shift in the way we look at the bible. It's not a source, it's the source. We don't say something and then refer to it to confirm what we say. We look for what it says, and expand on it.Alan347 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "I want a paradigm shift in the way we look at the bible." it is not what you want or any other editor wants that drives Wikipedia. It is what WP:RS sources say. And Wikipedia content is not about a specific desire of a specific user to create paradigm shifts - in fact it works exactly the other way around. Wikipedia is not about "changing the prevailing scholarly view", it is about summarizing it. Maybe you should read WP:OR again a few times. Regarding John 4:14: Refrain: WP:Secondary?


 * Look, you can not use Wikipedia to preach your own version of truth to bring about new paradigms in any article. That should be made clear. History2007 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alan347, you appear to be using this talk page as a forum rather than discussing anything of benefit to this article. If you are incapable of agreeing with the policy at Primary, secondary and tertiary sources on religious grounds then you will be unable to help improve Wikipedia. Repeatedly quoting a recent English translation of the New Testament as the The Truth will be treated as you using Wikipedia for promotional purposes (evangelizing is specifically addressed by WP:NOTADVOCATE), is highly disruptive and will lead to you being blocked. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What you think, what you say, makes no diff. to me. My local bishop hasn't stopped me. Neither do you have the authority you think you have, just cause you're wp legalists and experts of the law and resort to it for every trivial matter. Alan347 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)