Talk:Jesus/Archive 48

Names section
Haldrik, here's the place for you to propose changes to the current "Names" section. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not Haldrik, but I'm wondering: peer review or RFC? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What we really need is a real linguist, without an agenda, and then someone who can write. As it is, the prose is almost completely unreadable. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayjg. I studied Linguistics and Hebrew is one of my languages. Is there something I can look at and verify its plausibility? I must say that I think it should include the words in Hebrew script and not just transliterations. &mdash;Adityanath 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The editors who are linguists have already corroborated the etymology. What we really need are contributors who do not reactively delete the scholarly consensus because it contradicts their POV. --Haldrik 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is what Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:


 * You might have missed it above. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(Archola leaves to let Jayjg and Haldrik duke it out.) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote Peer review, its just been so long :). Homestarmy 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The English naming convention of the King James Version of the Bible uses the English names "Joshua" and "Jeshua" to represent the names Yĕhôshūa‘ and Yēshûa‘, respectively, in the Hebrew Bible, but uses the English name "Jesus" to represent the Greek name Iēsous in the Apocrypha and the New Testament."

Except for Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8 (depends on translation).


 * Peer review sounds good to me - as long as we focus on the text and don't use it as a forum for more grief against individuals. Do we need a peer review to get it to FA status? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  12:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't need it, but from what I can tell, they normally provide all the suggestions articles need to get wherever they should get to. From what I read of the process you have to ask readers what you want to know about the article I think. Homestarmy 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it enough to ask, "what do we need to do to bring this article to FA status?" Also see the minireview above. I've been busy elsewhere, so I haven't had time to check whether or not these suggestions have been implemented. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 08:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Im no expert on peer review policy, but that question seems to be just vauge enough to work. Homestarmy 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Should not the article state what the name "Jesus" means? The New Compact Bible Dictionary Edited by Alton Bryant says it means, "Jehovah is Salvation". If one wants to avoid the name "Jehovah" this can be done. It could say Jehwah or another form. However we should be consistent since this is an article on "Jesus" not "Yeshua". Regardless names are and were very important and the meaning should be brought out as it is in dictionaries and other scholarly work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanneum (talk • contribs)


 * Just looking over what is on the main page. It says "The Hebrew name Yĕhôshūa‘, is a compound of the words יָהוּ שׁוּעַ, Yāhû Shûa‘.[13] It literally means, “God (is) a saving-cry”, or in other words, when someone needs help they shout, “God”, and God responds." This is not accurate.  "Yahu" is a shorten form of the Divine Name it is not "EL" or the pl. "Elhoim" which mean "Ggod".  Thus it can say at the least, "Yahweh" or "Yahoweh" is ....  We need to be accurate wheter we like the conclusion or not.Johanneum 01:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a scholarly source for this? It's the first I've heard it. --CTSWyneken 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ??? יהו is a contraction of יהוה, see BDB Lexicon (H3068-3069), cited as the name of God by Theodoret and Epiphanius, also the name of a Babylonian diety. The name of God is not the same as the Hebrew word for God.

Elohim (gods)

see also Iaoue

The quote of Philo in the current article needs to be corrected. This is what it says: "Joshua means "the salvation of the Lord"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.160 (talk • contribs)


 * STOP TROLLING!!! --MonkeeSage 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Forensic
The section on "forensic reconstructions of Jesus' life" has absolutely nothing in it relating to forensics. How about "historians'?" Anyway, "forensics" is just wrong, and needs to go. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The old reading was "Historical"...not sure why it was changed to "Forensic." I don't think the crime lab has anything to do with this article. ;) --MonkeeSage 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest FORENSIC is possibly accurate - definition 3 on this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forensic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsteadman (talk • contribs)


 * Actually I think Rob might be right, doesn't Forensics also have to do with conceptualizations not necessarily based on compleatly physical evidence? Homestarmy 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this isn't a court of law, but the rest of the definition applies. I'm not sure who it was, but this was changed some time ago as a reference to the historical method, both here and at the disclaimer at Historical Jesus. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The denotations of "forensic" are correct, but not the connotations (which conjure ideas of Quincy M.E. looking for post-mortem contusions on a murder victim). Also, "forensics" in the sense intended, are included under the broader category of historical studies, as a means to the end of reconstructing history. "Historical" seems better to me. --MonkeeSage 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The denotations of forensics are inappropriate for this article. We are not talking about points made by a debating team, nor are we talking about research relevant to a legal procedure (and no, you can't say this is forensics if you just ignore the part about a court of law. That is like saying, a car would be a bicycle if it had two wheels instead of four). Homestarmy's understanding of forensics is not only completely (nb) wrong, it is even ignorant of the perfectly fine definition Rob provided. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I kept out of this one as I'm unsure of the usage. The only thing I would say is I've never seen it described that way anywhere else and that should always ring alarm bells that the terminology is suspect. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Forensic" comes from the latin word "forum," the market/meetingplace where people would debate. In English it refers specifically to debates (a debating team at a university if often called a forensics team) and also to court-related investigations (e.g. forensic medicine, forensic anthropology, forensic chemistry - they all use scientific techniques to examine physical evidence for the purpose of criminal or other legal proceedings). Forensics is never used for general scholarly research whether by philologists or historians aor literary critics. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I don't really live up to my namesake do I? My excuse is that you don't get "forensic astrophysics" (even when someone is killed by a metorite strike!!) so I'm not used to the term other than applied to "Quincy"! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  10:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom always begins with questions and an open mind. I'd say you live up to your namesake just fine! (And, god help us if we ever need a forensic astrophysicist! Imagine what crimes could be committed if one could move planets and stars!) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the other sense of forensic, I wonder what they called it when the Big Bang folk were debating the Steady State folk. In the legal sense, I think the life of Jesus qualifies as a cold case. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 10:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protect
I've semi protected the page. Let me know when you would like to lift it.Gator (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction; some minor changes which might ruffle feathers.
Hey, all. Hurtstotalktoyou here. If you would all take a moment to compare the history of the Jesus edits, you'll find a temporary illustration of some changes I'd like to make to the introductory paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=46696853 Ordinarily, these would all be simple changes that I wouldn't think twice about. However, due to strong feelings and short tempers--and also to comply with wiki policy--I changed it right back to the way it was. But now my edit is logged in the history and can be viewed with a simple click. Anyhoo, on to the nasty...

The first and most important change I'd like to make is the bit about the Gospels being "generally dated after 65." While that is true, very strictly speaking, it is very misleading. The fact is, we have a very wide range of dates to play with regarding the Gospels. Narrowing down that range is generally the product of speculation, not hard evidence. I'd like to change it to the more flexible date of c. 48 (which is, if I remember correctly, the earliest plausible date for Paul's first epistle, and thus for anyone writing under the direction of Paul) through c. 140 (Marcion's time). If you guys don't like those exact numbers, something near there would be acceptable, anywhere between, say, 45 and 55 for the early cutoff and between 125 and 150 for the late cutoff. The "after 65" remark is pretty sloppy and imprecise.

The second change I'd like to make is in the third paragraph. It seems to me that the Nicene Creed discussion is off-topic for an introduction to Jesus. This is easily sidestepped with some condensation. Instead of this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed; believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets Scripture." ...try this: "Most Christians are Trinitarian and believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe in that Trinitarian doctrine, instead adopting various other interpretations of Jesus' divinity." Not only does this revision eliminate topic straying, it makes clearer the diversity of Christian beliefs. I highly recommend it!

The third change is also for the third paragraph, but is relatively basic. I propose adding a "mainstream" clarification before the fourth and fifth sentences of the current version. The logic behind this is simple: Although most Christians agree on both points, there is a minority who do not.

The fourth change is similarly mundane: Instead of using AD/CE and BC/BCE, I propose we just use AD and BC. Trying to accomodate both is redundant and therefore undesirable. We should therefore choose between one notation or the other. Considering that, I believe we should default to the traditional AD and BC in order to minimize the appearance of anti-Christian bias, which is a major concern for Christians and non-Christians alike.

The fifth change I'd like to make is editing "Biblical prophecy" in the third paragraph to "Old Testament Messianic prophecy," "Old Testament prophecy" or "Jewish prophecy" (or something to that effect). Saying that Jesus might have fulfilled "Biblical prophecy" is misleading due to the fact that the Bible did not exist until long after his death.

In my final proposal, I'd like to make a simple sentence structure alteration: Change "8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE" to "born c. 8-2 BC/BCE, died c. 29-36 AD/CE". The former has too many dashes, and reads poorly.

Maybe also change "the second coming" to "his second coming."

So, that's it. Any thoughts? Good ideas? Bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurtstotalktoyou (talk • contribs)


 * You proposals sound fine to me, with the exception of the fourth, since giving both notations was a compromise by both parties (the ones who wanted AD/BC and the ones who wanted CE/BCE). See Archives 15, 16 and 17 (and a few others) for lots of discussion on the issue. Ps. Don't forget to sign your edits on talk pages ( ~ ). --MonkeeSage 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...or else someone will sign for you. I generally agree with MonkeeSage. Mention of the Nicene Creed (a particular trinitarian formula) was also the result of a compromise, and now that we mention Trinitarianism more directly, it may be redundant. As paragraph 3 has also been the subject of long discussion, I'd like to hear what others have to say first. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 08:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Short tempers - never! We're a friendly bunch really. The "after 65" was used this was the most cmmonly accepted earliest date. I would have no problem being more precise with the date ranges as long as we give the full range not just the earliest but the intro is very inclined to get too wordy with too many qualifiers so we have to be careful as this is just the intro. As for the Nicene creed - as others have said that is a carefully crafted sentence and others involve with that should give their thoughts. I personally like the reference to "other interpretations of scripture" - it seems NPOV as it does not claim any one group to be the authority on the bible. The third change - no problem to me. The forth change - nooooo - please we have so many pointless arguments about this and the version we have seems to be stable - so please leave it be (pretty please). Fifth change - good point - no problems for me. Final proposal - looks very good - nice one. Second coming - again no problems. Welcome to the page - it's nice to have thoughtful input. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  09:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being kind to us all by not leaving these changes live. I think the AD/CE notation is sensible. Both notations are used in the scholarly literature. Also, I have no stomach for the Era Wars returning.


 * I'll start a Nicene Creed section. I do think it sensible to drop it, since some Christians affirm the Creed and the Doctrine, some the Doctrine but not the Creed and others whom most of us would not consider Christian, but claim the label, neither the creed nor the doctrine.


 * On the date of the Gospels, I'm with Sophia. Earliest and latest dates. I'd add, with documentation. Would someone 'please' help with that? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if we include the uppermost and lowermost possible dates, we are no longer speaking "generally" and the wording of the sentence would need to change to reflect that. "[Meier] accept[s] the standard view in NT reasearch today: Mark... composed his Gospel somewhere around A.D. 70. Both Mattew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 periord (most likely between 80 and 90)." pg. 43 A Marginal Jew. and "70+ C.E. first narrative gospel (Mark) 90+ C.E. derivative gospels (Matthew, Luke, John)" p. 8 The Acts of Jesus. I see no reason to cover fringe views in a 'generally dated' section. If we go with a range of dates, we'd have to out generally, and I feel its important to at least somewhere convey the scholarly consensus.--Andrew c 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. What does Metzger say about the Gospel dates, exactly?  Anyone know?  If not, we could just delete the reference to dates.  It's not necessary, I wouldn't say.  Unfortunately, there's no real "scholarly consensus," here.  Like I said, dating the Gospels relies on a great deal of speculation.  So we should probably keep that in mind.  And that's a shame about the AD/CE arguments.  I can't imagine anyone being so childish about insisting on the newer notation.  What's the big deal, seriously?  --hurtstotalktoyou


 * But that's the way it is for the date notations. As was pointed out above, please just glance at archives 15, 16, 17 (pages and pages and pages) to see an example of the depth at which this has been discussed. Best to just let it go. --Oscillate 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent]I found this page. It isn't sourced, but if it is to believed, Metzger doesn't date any before 65, and the number of people who do is small. You can also read the entries at earlychristianwritings.com for each gospel in order to learn a bit more about the majority scholar position. --Andrew c 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

hurtstotalktoyou: For a brief rundown of the for/against views on the dating notation, see BCE. Personally (as an "evil" funimentalist Christian), I don't mind either notation, and if having both keeps the peace, then I'm okay with that. I wouldn't characterize those who hold strongly to one notation or other as being immature -- I think it's just a matter of strong conviction because of perceptions. Some Christians feel strongly about one notation, some non-Christians feel strongly about the other. Just remember that "B/CE" can be understood as "Before/Christian Era" and you get the same meaning as AD/BC. :) BTW, to sign your posts, you don't have to type your whole user name, you just have to type four tildes (4 x ~)...the wiki will do the rest for you! --MonkeeSage 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the dates thing - remember we were trying to improve on what it said before: "written in the decades after his death". Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Small Change
Hi, I am new here. I have changed the dates to BC and AD only, to keep the article better. I hope that is OK. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotswood Dudley (talk • contribs)
 * Please read this talk page itself and archives 15, 16, 17 to see how extensively this has been discussed. You haven't made the move as of yet I see, but it will be immediately reverted to the previous notation, so you know. Not a small change at all. --Oscillate 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there is one faction who feels that AD/BC are shoving Christianity down people's throat, another that feels that CE/BCE is political correctness (or anti-christianity) run amuk, and a third faction (including myself) who thinks the whole thing is silly. We do have a working compromise: use both. Otherwise someone could propose another "small change": use the pre-Christian Roman Calandar. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 19:25 4 April 2777 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could ask, what calandar did Jesus use? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 19:31 6 Nisan 5766 (UTC)


 * WCDJU? --Oscillate 19:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we can give up on dates altogether? BTW Spotswood made the edit to the very beginning of the article. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 19:40 Date Unknown (UTC)


 * I'm with Archola on this one as it wastes too much time. Whatever seems to be the most stable and offends the least people is good for me. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF


 * Let's be wiki bold and start our own notation scheme: YBZ/YAZ (yibz/yahz) -- Year Before Zero/Year After Zero, or for those who are religiously committed, "Year Before/After Zoroaster" ;) --MonkeeSage 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Go MonkeeSage! Can we move the zero point as I'm getting to the age where I need to start lying about it! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever works. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 15:30 5 April Year of Our Chola 32 (UTC).

oh
Sorry. I thought they were the same time.

--Spotswood Dudley

Debate on Common_Era - concerning Jesus as a historical rather than a spiritual figure
The debate concerns this article as well, the topic being Jesus as a factual/historical figure as opposed to a figurehead. All comments welcomed! (bring a cuppa tea) Sfacets 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The notation issue is settled here, as far as I'm concerned. --CTSWyneken 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * CTS, the user isn't talking about era notation he's concerned about whether to link the term "Jesus", at the Common Era article, to the article "Jesus" or the article "Historical Jesus". I assume you misunderstood, but you're welcome to add discussion at Talk:Common Era, which has already began. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sorry about that. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To do list
I took the liberty of archiving old talk. I thought we might also take a moment to assess the current state of the article.

It seems we are currently discussing:


 * 1. Improving the biography section (cf. Aiden's remarks about how an outsider might be confused).
 * 2. Revising the intro as per Hurtstotalktoyou's recommendations above.
 * 3. Nicene creed (dropping this from the intro, as it's redundant to the discussion of trinitarian and nontrinitarian views).
 * 4. The charge of sedition and other issues with the second paragraph (see /2nd Paragraph Debate). Also how it synchs with the rest of the article.
 * 5. Incorporating the Apocalyptic Prophets school of the historical Jesus, as per John K.

Some other things to consider (not sure where we stand):
 * 6. Incorporating the suggestions at /PR-and-FA, including the fairly recent suggestions about the Historicity section that I just archived.
 * 7. Incorporating the findings of the Jesus Seminar into the article.

Some things to consider for the future:
 * 8. Condensing the article (it's getting a bit long) and moving appropriate data to appropriate subarticles (see /Related articles).
 * 9. Conducting an Article Improvement Drive to build on our recent work at Good Article Collaboration of the Week.
 * 10. Requesting a Peer Review, perhaps even an External Peer Review if possible.

Comments
Any comments? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan of action. --MonkeeSage 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice one Archie. I have been busy elsewhere the last few days but I was wondering how the FA drive was going. I'll have a look at the historicity archive as I think I missed some of that. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  11:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all that we finally agreed on is that the Seminar supports the vision hypothesis. Robsteadman's proposed paragraph has been slighly modified and incorporated into Jesus Seminar, and it would be odd to use the full paragraph in the main article, which is meant to be a summary. Half of the sources for the paragraph on Rick Norwood's talk page come from the Jesus Seminar. In fact, the one sentence I borrowed from Rick (see citation needed below) has been narrowed to the Seminar and Bart Ehrman, and I'm not sure about Ehrman. It seems we finally do have some oblique mention of the Seminar in the article. The question remains of how much of their findings should we include in the main article, and where ("Historicity" and "Other current ideas about Jesus" have been suggested). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 13:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Progress

 * 1. Discussing. Aiden's done the most work here. I've added biographical data from Luke re:"15th year of Tiberius Ceasar," "about 30 years old," Agripa's involvement in Jesus' trial. I've also added two paragraphs about Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zeaolts in Jesus' day, and how He relates to them. However, I moved the scholarly views on Jesus as either Pharisee, Essene or new movement, and the comparison to the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, to the historicity section.
 * 2. Done.
 * 3. Done.
 * 4. Still discussing.
 * 5. Just opened discussion on this.
 * 6. Pending; I haven't had much of a chance to look this over.
 * 7. The Seminar is mentioned in the "moral teacher" paragraph. Other points might be discussed in the historicity section.
 * 8–10. Pending upon completion of the above.

Articles Lacking Sources Category
Are we ready to remove this one? Our article, while it still needs sourcing, is better documented than most. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. KHM03 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that category is added automatically by the template.  There is still one such tag in the article (as well as one on this page).  Powers 13:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced comment (it was peripheral to the article anyway). It seems the category is gone.  KHM03 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup is what did it: "This tag will categorise tagged articles into Category:Articles lacking sources. . ." (from ). --MonkeeSage 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Computers are amazing! Except when they think Luther's Bondage of the Will is not about philosophy, but... ;-) --CTSWyneken 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review time!
Let's see what the world of Peer Review has to say about this article now that it's been edited for, what, a year since the last peer review? Homestarmy 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the rule is different for re-requests, hold on a second. Homestarmy 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Half a year. The last peer review was October 5, 2005. I wouldn't mind a peer review now, but check my to do list in the next section. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I already moved the old one, so it might not be sporting to just, you know, not have the review :/. Homestarmy 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "moved the old one," but it has been six months. It's time for our semiannual Peer Review Checkup. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the instructions said to move old peer reviews to an archive, so that's what I did. Before the new request just kinda linked to the old one :/. Homestarmy 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Say, did those paragraphs up there marked "insert today" ever get inserted? is that what that discussion is about? Homestarmy 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, half in Jesus (what the Gospels say), and half in Jesus (what scholars say). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly OT. I saw Robert M. Price speak today. I wonder what he would think of this article. I should have asked him :P --Andrew c 00:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly Old Testament? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 00:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! O.ff T.opic.--Andrew c 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's what the article looked like during the last peer review ;. While much of the article is better, some seems to have disappeared. Binatarians? Mandaeanism? Cultural and historical background? (We've really been missing that last one). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 07:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I added one-sentence descriptions of Binatarianism and Mandaeanism, and cleaned up the Pauline Christian Views section. However, we still need more about the cultural and historical background. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kepler's research
Add this?

I've found a nice link, which supports the 3BC birth date - http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html :) Brand 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno, some of it's justification comes from what appears to be some really odd allegorical looks at Revelations..... Homestarmy 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)