Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal life (Christianity)

Eternal life (Christianity)
Created/expanded by History2007 (talk). Self nom at 07:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that eternal life is the central theme of Jesus' preaching in the Gospel of John?


 * Reviewed: Jane Colebrook




 * Comment: Link for verifying the hook (is also in the article): History2007 (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Good to go, AGF on offline sources. Difficult to work the image into the hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks I usually add the links in the DYK page but I guess I forgot this time, but here is one anyway for the hook. History2007 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pulled from prep due to concerns that the article is not stable, among others. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, rightly so. Should only put it up after the debate has ended. History2007 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, the following are the concerns, copied from WT:DYK:)
 * I find the term [Eternal life] itself debatable, also the (of course) simplifying hook, and at least one unexplained line in the article, s. talk. But perhaps I am the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be rather unstable. It could be pulled if you are worried about the issues, although "The possibility of attaining eternal life and avoiding the wrath of God is dependent on believing in Jesus, the Son of God." is cited in the lead (poor MOS, I know), and most of the parts without normal intext citations are quoting the bible, with links to the applicable verses. (Crisco) --202.152.243.103 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)-
 * I am concerned about the terminology of hook and article. A line like "life becomes possible in the person of Jesus Christ" (in the lead) is completely incomprehensible to me - may be my personal language problem. What does "life" mean here? What "becomes possible"? I don't recognize the statement as biblical, and don't see a relation to Rom 3:35 mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg end of copy, the article is now protected, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the term:


 * A chapter in the book A theology of the New Testament is devoted to discussing the term.


 * Ratzinger (who was a theologian of note beforehand) wrote book about it.


 * There are also other books on the topic,


 * Mercer dictionary of Bible has an entry for it,


 * A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Volume I covers it as an entry


 * The Wordbook of the Bible has an entry for the term


 * A dictionary of the Bible, also


 * Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, a highly respected source, has an entry for it, etc.

So the term is clearly well established and notable. History2007 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you got me wrong. No question about all the above, and thanks for supplying the sources. But on the Main page, a hook should clearly say that the Christian Eternal Life is meant, not a broader concept of eternal life, imo. Also I am afraid, any article on all those sources will be tricky to summarize different approaches in a fair way. And I don't see a hook coming to terms with the complexity of the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So the hook can say,


 * ... that in Christianity, eternal life is the central theme of Jesus' preaching in the Gospel of John?


 * although Jesus was probably not preaching anything except Christianity. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are getting to the core of the matter: people named what Jesus was preaching, named it differently and will disagree. I would withdraw the nom if I was you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdraw the nom in this economy? You must be kidding.... or I may be.... But jokes aside, I do not really understand what you mean by saying "people named it differently". The entire Bible has been subject to dramatically, I mean dramatically different interpretations on thousands of issues, e.g. the debate about what Jesus meant about Peter leading the Church, whether Catholics are right about succession or Protestants are right. They all read the same Bible and they all argue with each other for ever. That does not mean that no article can appear about Peter, does it? And in fact, this is a much less disputed issue among denomination than Peter's succession line. So I see no problem. History2007 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative hook (which may help the impasse): ... that eternal life has been regarded the central theme of Jesus' preaching in the Gospel of John?
 * The words "has been regarded" put it beyond doubt that it is factually true. There is a clear citation from George Eldon Ladd. I don't think the picture belongs, however. StAnselm (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, good idea. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the article stable? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No earthquake today. But let us wait 1 more day and then we call it stable. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a bit of feedback from Gerda as well. If life is eternal, it can wait. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the alternative hook. Please wait for me until Monday, I have to write on The Creation, that is a lot, smile. Btw a Bach cantata, BWV 77, is ready imo, and should appear on Friday the latest, that can't wait. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, a bit of advertising never hurts Gerta. I'll get there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the article, an edit note on my watch list "Removing a foolish reference" tells me something about stability, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, goes to say one should not try to predict earthquakes. But no one has died yet.... History2007 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely different idea (the Creation text being arranged at least): what about a very specific (!) hook connected to the attractive picture? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be fine with me, and if you have a nice piece of music to go with it, so much the better. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love it if Gerda has some PD music that is related to this article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a few mixed remarks before returning to The Creation: 1) Many composers wrote truly heavenly music, but I expect something even better in "the world to come". 2) Please work on the punctuation of the lead of article. 3) A blocked editor changing doesn't give me the feeling of stability of the article. 4) Perhaps it should be split in "Eternal life (Mr. A's teaching)", "Eternal life (Mr. B's teaching)". - Actually I can't imagine an article which could rightly claim "Eternal life (Christianity)", because there are so many views of what the term means. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding multiple views, that is the purpose of Wkipedia: explain the multiple views. A split will immediately get a WP:POV Fork notice on it. Articles need to explain multiple views and that was what the debate was about, but will eventually stabilize. History2007 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think you can achieve pointing that out at the very beginning of the lead and structure the article accordingly? Anything resembling a definition, "eternal life is ...", is wrong because if there is one "thing" we don't (or can't) know what it "is" it's eternal life, - to add my view, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting, your view is my view too, but my view does not matter - what matters is the "general scholarly" opinion, as expressed in the first sentence of the article: "the term eternal life is not explicitly defined in the New Testament". But it says the same thing anyway. There are also other references that say the same thing: no exact definition for "eternal life" in the New Testament, and that should probably be explained even more. That was the sentence getting removed, by the way. History2007 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Back from The Creation and BWV 99, I expected to see a hook here related to the picture. - Looking at the article, I wonder what "we" means in a line such as "However, although as in John 3:16 God has provided the gift of eternal life to believers, the possibility of perishing (απόληται) remains if we reject Jesus." It doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. - The lead presents the term "old aeon" unexplained. A quote there is not ended. The term "Fourth Gospel" is linked, but as a redirect, which doesn't help people who don't know that it is the Gospel of John. The term is not consistently capitalized, "fourth gospel". Please, authors, address also readers who are not familiar with your terms. - The picture caption seems unrelated, at least to the lead. - If the article would qualify for the Main page - which I am not the right person to judge - I suggest a simple factual hook which I get from the sources but not - yet - from the article:
 * ALT1:... that the term eternal life appears once in the Old Testament, but 17 times in the Gospel of John? - (The article says "about 17", what does that mean? - Let readers find out themselves if that is enough to be called "the central theme of Jesus' preaching".) - I don't have time to study the talk page, but see it pop up on my watchlist. If the article makes it to the Main page, it should probably be protected, controversial as it is, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

First, regarding "about 17" there is (as usual) debate among scholars on how to count them. That happens in many other cases as well, but some scholars say 17, some may say 18 etc. depending on textual variations and so on. I had not edited that article for a few days because of some obvious debate issues there, but those issues have just resolved (the editor in question was given an indefinite block), so I will touch it up now.

Regarding the hook for the picture, it may send us on another round of discussion, so I will just pass on the picture.

But as an ALT hook, we could try the famous quote in question which starts the article, and has two references ( and ):


 * ALT2 ... that the term eternal life is not explicitly defined in the New Testament?

That should do, given that it has been discussed on that talk page for eternity, and is well referenced. History2007 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an acceptable hook, so I gave it a number to be discussed. We lost poor John. I wonder if we would talk about the term at all without him. I went to his Gospel on Wikisource and searched for "eternal life" and found 13 occurences. Any different number (if I counted right) should be explained, because it seems a matter of interpretation. - If the article was changed accordingly, a hook might be - with John, defining the Fourth Gospel and raising curiosity:
 * ALT3: ... that the term eternal life, mentioned at least 13 times in the Fourth Gospel, is not explicitly defined in the New Testament?


 * The picture: please connect it to the lead or place it elsewhere or drop it, if no connection to the text can be established. The Gospel of John pic could replace it in the lead position, also in the hook if mentioned. I would prefer all references formatted with a link to the ref title, not just a number. Also the capitalization is still not consistent, not even for New Testament. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the "hand counting" of 13 does not work. The WP:Secondary references specifically point to 17 or so, because sometimes different theologians interpret life as eternal life. If you search the refs mentioned in the article you will see.


 * Surprised that you say "no" while we agree that the extra "mentionings" are interpretation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the "best hook in the universe" I do not sweat over it. It will be there for a few hours, 3,000 clicks, and then it is yesterday's news. So no need to make a big deal. As is ALT2 has solid references and can just be used sans fanfare. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ALT2 is fine with me, the article - I am not the right person. I would like to see at least the minor formality points to be addressed. Can we find someone also familiar with Christian theology, or are you the only one here? (For Messiah Part II, I asked the project Classical music for support.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let us go with ALT2 for the DYK before eternity arrives. As for help from other users, I posted for help on project Christianity, project Catholicism, project Calvinism and Lutheranism! Only 1 person (St Anselm) came over to help. He is fully knowedgeable about the field, and made a few changes. The other good way to get people to come to help is a DYK. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So do we have an agreement? Hope springs eternal, but so does purgatory. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am ok with ALT2, so we should ask Gerda. I think she was ok with ALT2, but wanted to attract more editors to review the page. We need to email images of $100 bills to editors it looks like before they edit that page... History2007 (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to give this the tick myself; I would rather someone else do it as the last time I did it there were issues. I think ALT2 is good enough, although if there were a PD piece of music regarding eternal life I'd love it... Anything in Messiah or something? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry (smiling), eternal life is not a term in Messiah, nor in The Creation. Almost every Mass has a section in the Credo "et vitam venturi saeculi", "life of a coming what???" (century? time? world?) - typical English "life of the world to come", but not "eternal life". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no music then. But not the end of the word either... History2007 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you are also fine with ALT2 we will let that be the item, and wait for someone else to click Ok and move it over. As for music, it would be nice, but is not a requirement in general. History2007 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg ALT2 (i.e., ... that the term eternal life is not explicitly defined in the New Testament? ) is good to go forward. --Orlady (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)