Talk:Jesus/Archive 36

=Subpages & Reorgs=

Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created
I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates of Birth and Death Subpage Created
Ditto for scholarship on the dates of birth and death. Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death --CTSWyneken 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cited Authors Bios Subpage Reorganized
I've reorganized the page for ease of reference and added N. T. Wright. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorg
Ok, I've reorganized the page a bit...but all this hellacious voting is still a mess. I tried to work around it. Arch O. La 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

=Jesus Seminar=

Since this article is about Jesus, why is there no mention of the scholarly findings of the Jesus Seminar? I think they should be included, stating what their puprose was, and their findings. Their scholarly consensus about the words of Jesus as reported in the NT have been very influencial. Giovanni33 00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there was some mention of this on the talk page, but we are still working on citing sources. I leave it to one of the people doing that to explain further. Arch O. La 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what happened was we were really mentioning it just to answer Rob's objections and it got bogged down while we were using it, we do still need to gather those sources though. Homestarmy 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The difficulty is that we have only been able to work through one, almost two intro paragraphs. Jesus Seminar scholars are a part of the group that we are documenting in the second paragraph. When we finally make it far enough into the article to take up the differing perspectives among Biblical scholars, we will certainly want to make their viewpoint explicit, along with scholars who have a more traditional view of things. The real challenge will be in keeping this article general, leaving the specifics to the topic articles that spin off from it. Please be patient.
 * If you'd like to help, with the documentation, it would be greatly appreciated. Take a look at the list of scholars in note 2 and the folk in note 3. If you have access to books by them, I'd appreciate bibliographic information on the book at the page numbers where they agree to the various assertions we make in paragraph 2 (if they so agree) --CTSWyneken 01:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This should not be hard and should be brief. State their mission was to perserve Christianity in light of modern understandings, critiscism, (and is thus part of the reform movement) by finding out what saying attributed to Jesus could be regarded as credible, stated it was composed of a group (state number) of hightly regarded scholars, and that their results. To wit:


 * The Jesus Seminar is a group of New Testament scholars who have been meeting 1985, initial totatlly up to two hundred, focusing on the sayings of Jesus within Gospels to determine the probability of his actually having said the things attributed to him. Their conclusions was that over 80% of the statements attributed to Jesus were rejected non-credible. This means that only 20% of Jesus' statements are likely to have been true. Their conclusions were published in 1993 in a book entitled, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. The primary author of the book, Robert W. Funk, also the Founder and Chair of the Jesus Seminar, crafted the results of their deliberations in a color-coded format with charts, graphics, appendices, and copious footnotes.


 * Might also mention some intersting things such as that the Jesus Seminar determined early in 1995, by a nearly unanimous vote, that the resurrection of Christ did not happen. "It's more likely, the Seminar fellows decided, that Jesus' crucified corpse 'rotted in some unknown grave,' as a press release by the Santa Rosa, California-based group put it. Consumption by scavenger dogs, a pet theory of Seminar co-chair John Dominic Crossan, was another possible fate for Jesus' body, the fellows agreed." Giovanni33 03:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, I don't remember an "80 percent of everything was fake" idea when we discussed this....? Homestarmy 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The 80% fake is refers to the statements attributed to Jesus. Ofcourse, if Jesus was fake, then its 100% fake. But, for sure, at least according to a consensus of NT scholars at least 80% is fake. Giovanni33 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes it complex is that a substantial number of scholars reject part or most of their conclusions. I our context, when we talk about them, we also need to talk about other's views as well. In the light of the fact that we have yet to finish just one footnote and expand another two, it's just not practical to move on to Jesus Seminar.


 * If you do decide to go there, expect at least as vigorous a response as you've gotten on the Jewish views of Jesus from those that support the traditional school of scholars, or even some moderate critical scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson. I, for one, will not be wading into that one until the current documentation is done and until I wade into the third paragraph. Do not take this as non-interest, just that I do have a day job and only so much personal research is able to be done at the end of one the beginning of another academic term. (we are on a quarter system here) --CTSWyneken 11:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should accurately represent all major views, including the Jewish view. I think they should all be included. I don't see the need for people to argue about this. If this view is included, and the Jewish view is included then they should include the conservative view, as well. I find that we sometimes argue too much amongst ourself attack views we dont agree with instead of just representing all views in the article. Giovanni33 11:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But they will, hopefully civilly. We say "two Lutherans, three opinions." What would you say the statistic is for wikipedians? ;-) Part of the problem is they will want to debate this issue, rather than summarize scholarship. We will have to patiently explain that, I'm afraid, and document in detail. Hence, I can't join that discussion for awhile. I'm saying this so you don't misinterpret my (at least planned) silence on the issue. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since someone said, I should note that it is not "consensus of NT scholars at least 80% is fake" - the 80% is the result of the activities (I hesitate to call it research) of the Jesus Seminar, which itself constitutes only a certain spectrum of scholars, to put it mildly. Str1977 (smile back) 11:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * True, the seminar is composed of scholars from the left, and is not "fair and balanced", but they are the most significant aspect of the "quest for the historical Jesus" in the past 50 years. Heck, I think we ought to have a Jesus Seminar section, maybe near the end of the article (after we've explained the dominant traditional understandings of Jesus).  Several paragraphs explaining their rationale and methodology, as well as explaining their critics.  KHM03 11:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, KHM, I only wanted to forestall any impression that the JS are anywhere near a "consensus" of all, or a "general authority". Also, it is methodological incorrect to equate "findings about the historical Jesus" with the only reality and discounting anything else as "fake" (assuming for the moment that what the JS did was research. Str1977 (smile back) 11:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Right...we don't have to agree with their conclusions (some of which I find fascinating, some of which I reject), but most "Jesus research" in the past at least decade and a half has been either directly associated with the seminar or a reaction to the seminar, and we should recognize and address it (but, again, not at the expense of the dominant, more traditional understanding). KHM03 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So the builk of scholarship says.... but we'll go with the older more trsdityional view!!! Brilliant!!! How selective can you get? Robsteadman 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

= Biographical Article... lacking Biography? =

It seems to me that this article, a biographical article, lacks much of a biography. Most of the content that references events in Jesus' life seems to assume a basic to intermediate knowledge on the part of the reader. I think the sections based on the NT should be more focused on explaining the life of Jesus according to the Gospels, with a more critical intepretation or controversies of in a following section. Think about it. Assume you knew nothing about Jesus and read this article. I think you would be more confused than informed. —Aiden 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We're almost down there anyway, right? the problem is the information seems to come from the Jesus in the New Testament article I think, and that and several other related articles, including Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are all bogged down either in controversy or their just not exceptionally good. We could update the Jesus in the New Testament article as we update this perhaps? Homestarmy 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to step through something like the Harmony of the Gospels which would at least place the events in Jesus' life in chronological order. -- M P er el ( talk 23:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like maybe:


 * Was born to the virgin mary, named Immanuel (Matthew 1:22) which/to fulfille/d Isaiah 7:14 (I think there's some literal meaning of hebrew dispute on "virgin", it might be important to note)
 * King herod sends out Magi to Bethleham to find baby Jesus, because of the teachers of the law quoting Micah 5:2 to find the location of the Messiah, Magi trace the star over Bethleham to give baby Jesus gifts and worship Him (Matthew 2:1-12)
 * After this, an angel warns Joseph to take the child to Egypt to avoid Herod, fulfills Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15 until Herod dies and they go back to Israel and Nazarath, fulfilling something else... (Matthew 2:13-23)

etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I know you told me not to "argue" over fulfilled prophecy or not, but im getting my information straight out of the NT chronologically and it quotes those verses from the OT inside it, I wasn't kidding when I said it was almost like an apologetics book heh. Is this the sort of format we want? Homestarmy 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no harmony or concordance of a virgin birth -- neither Mark nor John deal with the issue at all.
 * Alma, the Hebrew word, means "maiden", so does Παρθενος (parthenos), in its primary meaning, and so originally did virgo. The translation from alma to parthenos was incorrect: νεανις should have been used instead.
 * The other two issues I'll avoid.
 * For your reading pleasure, I suggest King Jesus by Robert Graves. Jim62sch 21:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking more in a general sense. I think the NT section needs to be entirely rewritten with an actual biography. —Aiden 17:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * so basically, turn those bullet points into paragraph form? Homestarmy 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The bio should reflect the historical Jesus, with a critical assessment of midrashic material. Haldrik 00:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

= Change to 2nd Paragraph was according to Consenus =

The recent change did reflect the consesnus we reached, but I wish that, in the future, we put an "intent to post" message here to be absolutely sure. --CTSWyneken 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, it's just I looked and saw a mess of votes "support" and one vote for no support, so I thought we might accidently forget it :/. Homestarmy 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a big problem, really. It just gives folk who may not have caught the discussion a chance to weigh in, or, as happened with the last one I did, lobby for additional changes. I find it good form, though not necessary. --CTSWyneken 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is there any sort of consensus on "what they consider"? Looking on this page, all I see is back and forth, not agreement.  Perhaps someone could point out the specific place where the issue was settled.


 * See Talk:Jesus note my lukewarm opposition. Reverting. You are welcome to argue for it, and, if we can agree, I'll support taking it out again. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For that matter, how exactly do we quantify "large" and "small" with regard to the majority and minority views? Did someone poll qualified scholars and get hard numbers or is this just a wild guess? Alienus 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In a way, yes. Take a look at the footnote to the paragraph. To this date, I am waiting for the name of even one historian who maintains the nonexistence hypothesis. So far, we have a handful of philosophers, a scholar of German language and culture and a journalist. We have also noted there that Bertrand Russell and Voltaire asserted the existence of Jesus. See also the quotes near the beginning of the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios page. You can help by providing citations, both to the majority and minority viewpoint. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The small minority is actually a "fringe" group of about 3 historians, so need not really be mentioned. The reason we have included it is to pacify two groups - the ignorant, and the Christophobe. rossnixon 08:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ross, please avoid terms such as "fringe" and ad hominems directed at the minority Also, do you have the name of a historian from the nonexistence hypothesis school? I have yet to see one. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

However it doesn;t fit with the concensus of the week before on the enture paragaph. The additions of "what tehy consider" is POV pushing because it is suggesting taht their viewpoint is incorrect. Do look up the meanings of extant and contemporaneous. It is verifiable, factual and widely believed that there are NO extent contemporaneous documents from with "jesus"' supposed lifetime that make reference to him. You are clearly adopting other, incorrect, meanings to these words.

Have a look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extant

And here" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contemporaneous


 * As I've said before, I can see it both ways. The other side argues that by mentioning the minority argument, we give it credence, when most scholars do not. For historians, a document does not have to be contemporaneous is the strictest sense of the term to be evidence of events. I don't view it that way, but the majority above does. Perhaps we should strike both this clause and the mention of the reason why the minority holds their position. It would nake for a smaller and easier to read paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite documents which are widely believed to have been written during the period 8BCE to about 36 CE which make reference to "jesus" that we currently have please name them. Otherwise the sentence should remove "What the consider" as it is unverifiable, inaccurate and POV. Robsteadman 10:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just had a look, it's was only 5 days ago that the para was put up with "consensus" not to include "what they consider". Some who voted FOR then are now voting AGAINST. What sort of consensus is that?! Stop the nonsense POV pushing and start actually editing in favour of NPOV. Robsteadman 10:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Jesus. If you dispute this amounts to a consensus, we could perhaps invite a neutral party to weigh in. Or we can try to work out a wider consensus. See my proposal immediately above. The only way this article is going to be stable is if we respect votes. So, in the mean time, I revert an edit, doing so contrary to my opinion. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it as opportunism and, as there is now clear evidence of a cabal, team work going against a consensus set up a couple of days before - if this is to be allowed (ie a POV unverifiable slant) we nend to get rid of the info banner on the edit option as THAT consensus has been broken. Robsteadman 12:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish people not to insult you, Rob, you should stop insulting others yourself. --CTSWyneken 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not insulting anyone, mere;y stating the facts as have been obserbed by myself AND others. So you have documents, extant contemporaneous ones from 8BCE - 36CE that refer to "jesus"? Please provide the list below so we can work out whether this "consensus" is correct or not. Robsteadman 12:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, if "what they consider" is to be kept could someone please name the documents written between 8BCE and 36 CE that mention "jesus" please. If there are none (as I believe the case to be) "What they consider" MUST be removed regardless of consensus - the important thing is that we present the verifiable facts. s, Robsteadman 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A consensus that flies in the face of the facts is worthless. The fact is that there are no extant contemporaneous documents that support the existence of a historical Jesus. This doesn't mean that Jesus did or didn't exist; that's a matter of interpretation. What's not a matter of interpretation is whether anyone at all can show a single document of this sort. Nobody can.

Any attempt to insert "what they consider" is desperately misleading because it implies there's any question at all about whether that consideration is true. There is no question. There is no controversy. There's just this desperate attempt to make people look bad by distorting the facts.

I am very unhappy with the behavior of the editors here. It is not at all consistent with Wikipedia policies or simple intellectual honesty. One of you claimed that "Truth cannot contradict truth". Well, if so, then why are you trying so hard to hide the truth? One thing I can't hide is my disgust. Alienus 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some may consider some of the Roman documents of the period believed to make references to Jesus as "extant contemporaneous" documents. Thus, including "what they consider" is not in any way "POV-pushing" as it simply qualifies this belief as belonging to the group mentioned. Universalizing this belief as fact is, however, POV. —Aiden 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of which period? There were none during the life of Jesus. There's considerable debate over what the earliest mention, with "traditional" sources consistently leaning towards early dates than modern scholarly sources. It's not even clear if any document mentioning Jesus could have been written by someone who was alive when Jesus was. Alienus 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is varying degrees of definition on "extant". When I learned the meaning of this word, the meaning was clear, "It exists". Some people apparently feel extant only means "it exists" when we can see it or we have it in our possesion, similar to the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?" argument, which is not a resolved argument by any means since you can change what perspective you look at it from. What if we just find a better word than "extant"? Then this whole argument would be moot, as we could find a word which only means one thing from all perspectives. Homestarmy 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To say something is extant, you are claiming to know it exists. Things that may possibly exist and could potentially be found if they actually do are hypothetical, not extant. For example, Q is hypothetical. Alienus 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Truth cannot contradict truth" depends on Platonic Idealism, because it describes the ideal form of "truth." (Dig deep enough into Western Christian theology and you find Neoplatonism, which is why I prefer to approach this article philosophically). Of course the phrase makes no sense if you do not subscribe to Idealism. I myself am not trying to hide the truth, but to find the proper balance. I cannot answer for anyone else. Arch O. La 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with Platonic idealism. As it happens, I reject it.
 * The quote you used is often taken to mean that religious truth, as obtained by faith, revelation and tradition, will never be contradicted by mundane truths. obtained by a rational evaluation of the available evidence. Alienus 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I recognize this. I was merely trying to clarify my own POV, as well as take my own advice to examine my convictions. Arch O. La 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what I'm seeing here is people putting "Truth" above truth. Alienus 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have used the quote to admonish my fellow religious people (Christians and Jews and I don't know who else) not to feel threatened by mundane truths; I have also used the phrase to show the nonreligious that I can be reasonable, even if we subscribe to different philosophies. Again, I can only speak for myself. Arch O. La 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would simply say that we should start with the available evidence and follow it to the conclusions it supports, rather than starting with desired conclusions and selecting evidence to support it. Alienus 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly a vaid approach, although difficult because many if not all of us already have developed desired conclusions long before we came to this article. Everyone, examine your convictions, including your desired conclusions. Arch O. La 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, it really does not matter what you, I or others here think is good evidence or what is not. We are here, according to wp:cite, No Original Research and wp:NPOV to reflect what scholars in the field say. Do you contest that the majority of historians and Bible scholars accept the existence of Jesus? Do you contest that the minority opinion is that Jesus does not exist and that they cite the lack of extant, contemporaneous documents as the reason for doing so? If so, can you provide citations to works that contradict these assertions? If not, then the paragraph is accurate and NPOV according to wiki standards, as it exists. --CTSWyneken 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be more productive if you addressed the issue in dispute, which is whether the lack of extant, contemporaneous documents is actual or not. Since it's actual, the "what they consider" is a lie. Alienus 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They have to consider something to be actual if their basing arguments off of it, that's like trying to write something without actually considering what words your going to use. If they don't consider it to be true, they don't believe there are no extant contemporaneous documents. Homestarmy 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But the attribution is to "them" considering it to be so, when in reality, all scholars consider there are none --JimWae 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

=Paragraph 3 (tabled) =

Again with John 3:16
The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"
 * Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.

I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such
 * Most Christians
 * affirm the Nicene Creed
 * and
 * believe
 * Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
 * and
 * acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

and NOT


 * Most Christians
 * affirm the Nicene Creed
 * and
 * believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
 * and
 * acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward. But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.

1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research.

2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.

3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.
 * The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
 * Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view

4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.

5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him.

6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.

7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?

I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus


 * See also
 * Talk:Jesus/Archive_19
 * http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
 * http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
 * http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34

--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was meant to include both Nicene and non-Nicene views within the broader "Christian views." I have proposed that the reference to John 3:16 be moved to under "Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels." Beyond that, the paragraph was essentially designed by commitee, and the syntax could use some work. Arch O. La 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The compromISE needs to be revISEd. It is a misrepresentation of the majority view & deserves speedy action. Compromises (& votes) should be about content - not about etching text in concrete.--JimWae 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But the majority view affirms the essense at least of the Nicene Creed, and John 3:16, right? Where's the problem? Homestarmy 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nicene creed yes, interpretation of John 3:16 - NO, not clearly at all. While probably over 95% agree with the Nicene Creed part, somewhere from maybe 45%-55% agree with the interpretaion of John 3:16. It is misrepresentation to lump them together --JimWae 23:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we have sources for that? I totally forgot what the Nicene Creed even was before I saw it in this article debate, much less could I affirm to it, at any rate, do we have any numbers somewhere? Homestarmy 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all Xians assert the specific parts of the Nicene Creed mentioned in the article (although probably less assert the virgin birth & that too should be reviewed - but it is part of most Xian doctrine, even if the members do not believe). Approximately half of the Xians in the world are Catholic, and they do NOT interpret John 3:16 so literally - so anyone can do the math. Then there's the problem with what "accept Jesus" means. If I accept he lived & that he was generally a good guy, am I saved too? The intro should state ONLY what nearly all Xians agree on.--JimWae 23:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whazza? Just because you could hypothetically claim the Nicene Creed doesn't necessarily advocate acceptance of Jesus doesn't mean the Creed is locking all Catholics into not being allowed to accept Jesus, it doesn't say "And knowing this alone is all you need to be saved" does it, plus not all Catholics quite honestly act Catholic at all, and what I mean by accept is the same as "to believe in compleatly", its a popular way of saying it because then you can say "accept Him into your heart" which is a wee bit metaphorical, but works the same and seems popular. Homestarmy 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

??? there is no link between the Nicene Creed & John 3:16. The article seems to have confused you on this - which is why it needs to be changed. When the intro presents Xian views, it should present ONLY what nearly all Xians agree on - without using vague language. --JimWae 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But now your saying that no Catholic agrees with John 3:16, correct? Homestarmy 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what he's saying is that the Creed and the Gospel of John need to be considered as separate issues (and the paragraph written so that's clear that they are separate issues). If that's what he's saying, then I agree. Arch O. La 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that discussion on this paragraph has been tabled until the war over the previous paragraph is over. I recall Tolkein (The Hobbit) and the Battle of the Five Armies. Who won? The last survivor. Is that what we really want here? Arch O. La 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Nicene Creed is of interest for reasons other than those mentioned here. A critical look into its full history can be a real eye-opener. Jim62sch 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

remove "also"
Last sentence in the third paragraph reads "Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy." The word ASLO should be removed since the previous sentence applies to SOME Christians but not ALL or MOST.

Stuartyeates 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. Sorry.Gator (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

=Unprotect= Surely it is time to unprotect this page and allow the wider WP community to have a go? Robsteadman 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The dust should have settled on our vandalism and we can surely go back if it reoccurs. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure.Gator (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the semi. Hope it works out... William M. Connolley 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)