Talk:Failure of John the Baptist

What we hope to show, using scripture passages straight from a King James version the truth as reported about the relationship John the Baptist had with the commujnity around him, the community at large and his relationship with Jesus. It is complicated but we hope to last long enough to build and present this case. The intent is not to detract John or place Jesus in a pitiable light, but to present a case of failed human interaction and the lessons to be learned therefrom. It is a vaules centered argument. Thank you for your patience. Robby159 22:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with John the Baptist
In response to a speedy delete tag - which I have removed - I think this material could be merged into John the Baptist.

But there is also some info on this topic at either Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, or their talk pages. This is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts regarding UC theology, and has a bearing on "Jesus did not come to die". Uncle Ed 22:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No doubt that there is (or could be) some good content here. I take issue, however, with two items. First, this article is written from a Unificationist perspective and thus it is at its core very POV. That would be true of any article that assumes as fact any religious precept. My second concern is a more mundane one; there won't ever be enough content to justify this as a standalone article, so it should be merged into John the Baptist. Gregmg 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian perspective on Christ, God and the Holy Spirit. The question is whether the article assumes the religious precept as a fact - or merely states that the church believes it. Does the "failure of John the Baptist" give the reader the impression that the article endorses the UC perspective? Uncle Ed 00:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * At present, this article treats Jesus and John both as historical figures. For a Christian there is no question that they were. For a non-Christian, it may be a matter of some debate. Further, the article is written from a UC perspective. Whether it remains as an independent article, or is merged, it needs to be revised to remove all bias and simply present the facts. The Trinity article is quite well done and serves as a good example of how an article on a religious topic should be written. Gregmg 02:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this position unique to the Unification Church? My studies in other Christian theologies have found that John's "failure" is of little or no importance.  If so, this article should probably merge with John the Baptist, under "this is the UC position on him"; with a cross reference to UC.   Allegrorondo 14:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to have been a burst of discussion here for only a few days, and almost a year later, no action taken. The content is obviously theology, the Unification Church perspective on John the Baptist, and as such it's hard to image any serious editor (those who would put Wikipedia guidelines above the promotion of the Unification Church) not agreeing with Allegrorondo immediately above. A substantial portion at present of the under-developed page Theology of the Unification Church has similar discussion already; important points from this page should be merged into it also. I have not done a merge, but will attempt to do so in a few days if no one else does. -Exucmember 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This article's content was merged into Theology of the Unification Church. The article page can be deleted. -Exucmember 06:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting it, I creadted a redirect.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)