User talk:Drboisclair/Archive03/

Jesus Article
I noticed your recent edit and I wanted to point you to Talk:Jesus/Christian_views_in_intro, in case you haven't had a chance to read it. That said, we're likely to open discussion on "Christian views" this coming week (unfortunatly we've been bogged down in a debate over the historicity of the nonexistence hypothesis...sigh...) Arch O. La 01:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) PS: I've also organized current discussion into this section. Arch O. La 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, am I aware that there are different theories of truth vs fact and all that, but it takes an expert to point out A.J. Ayer. ;) The reference to historical revisionism is similar to earlier references to dogma. Rob has shown that he holds his convictions too deeply to be amenable to such arguments. Quite frankly, he perceives himself to be repressed, and thus pushes his own POV ever more forcefully. My own rhetorical gambit was a little more subtle: grant him his definitions of "truth" and "opinion," (similar to Ayer's--again thanks!) then show them to be irrelevant. Arch O. La 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: His worldview scores show him to be 100% materialistic and 0% idealistic. So he draws a very strict distinction between the physical evidence (largely Christian and Jewish texts) and historian's perception and judgement based on the evidence--then dismisses the whole thing because he has already rejected religion. It's a logical fallacy, but I don't think he sees it. (I hope Rob reads the A. J. Ayer article). Arch O. La 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix the format of the paragraph above, but I did read your note. I actually agree with you, but in the past few days I've been trying to play devil's advocate to help avoid another out-and-out Wikifight. That said, I think if we're going to reach Rob it will take more social psychology than straight rhetoric. Arch O. La 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The comparison to other historical persons has been tried and has failed (I brought up Socrates). Nice try, though: A. J. Ayer was a much better reference than Sherlock Holmes! Arch O. La 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will not clobber you. I'm actually starting to withdraw a little from the debate, although I will continue to follow it ;) Arch O. La 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! But, as I told CTSWynekan, sometimes the trouble with striving for the center is that you get caught in the middle. I'm not withdrawing to the degree that Avery Krause did; just enough to clear my head and strengthen my impartiality. ;) Arch O. La 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That will make you even more fresh and helpful for the sake of accuracy and truth. I am glad that I met you through this website. drboisclair 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who calls "Illinois" flatland has never been to Kansas! When you went through Illinois, did you ever stop at St. John's Lutheran Church in Sand Prarie Township (LCMS)? My family attended there until my grandfather (an ALC minister) had a stroke, and we moved to Iowa to be near him. Arch O. La 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your new User page look.
Dear David: I know your furious with Rob Steadman, but I think your old page was better. It told folk who you are. Bob --CTSWyneken 13:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just glad that you were able to confront Rob on his methodology. I have come to realize that we differ from Rob too much to debate anything having to do with religion. I am open to all ideas (even ones I don't agree with), but I prefer civility. Arch O. La 22:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Debate about methodology!!! - so you don't want the verifiable and factual? Because that's all I'm trying to achieve and some are trying to block. STate that some things are merely opinion and concentrate on the things we can confirm. I know that flies in the face of "faith" but it is the encyclopedic wqay to progreess.Robsteadman 10:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back
Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: A new motion about KHM03's addition to Jesus article
I am not seeing your proposal on Talk. Could you help me find it? —Aiden 23:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk
Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a misrepresentation - no fats one is being pulled, just an attempt to remove a hugely POV few words and achieve NPOV. Try it, you might like it. Robsteadman 10:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholar
You refer to yourself as a scholar. Could youn point the WP community in the direction of some of your publications please? Robsteadman 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * THanks for your reply on my talk page - shame not to have it here though. S you;re an UNPUBLISHED and UN PEER REVIEWED "scholar". IN fact you cl;aim a master's degree makes you a scholar - well I think that makes you someone who has taken two master's degrees. Interesting taht you claim to be a scholar in FOUR subjects and uet, even by YOUR definition, only have TWO MAster's degrees. Seems your love of fiction goes beyond "god". Robsteadman 13:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As this is a current discussion I've brought it out from its premature archiving - you do seem very keen to hide things away qyuickly...

Scholar
You refer to yourself as a scholar. Could youn point the WP community in the direction of some of your publications please? Robsteadman 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * THanks for your reply on my talk page - shame not to have it here though. S you;re an UNPUBLISHED and UN PEER REVIEWED "scholar". IN fact you cl;aim a master's degree makes you a scholar - well I think that makes you someone who has taken two master's degrees. Interesting taht you claim to be a scholar in FOUR subjects and uet, even by YOUR definition, only have TWO Master's degrees. Seems your love of fiction goes beyond "god". Robsteadman 13:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus vote for the aleph-first time
Frankly, I think this whole debate over contemporaneity is mixing tomatos into fruit salad, to torture an aphorism from SOPHIA's user page. It only adds to the tension on both sides. Either you believe, or you don't. Without the Holy Spirit, all you can rely on is historicity, and some doubt even that. That said, Avery Krause has called the umpteenth final vote on Talk:Jesus.

As an aside, I've got quite a poker game going on my user page! Arch O. La 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Vote
Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 11:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. Just wanted to ask you to move your comment under the vote table in the comments section. I just don't want it to get cluttered again and if we start out on the wrong foot, we'll end up on it as well. After all, I did ask for people to not comment directly on the table. Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure you've noticed that much of the disgraceful things that have gone on concerning that page have the same root. The NPOV flag, the edit war, the repeated stalling of progress, it all has its singular stem. Hopefully, however, that root will soon be pulled because I highly, highly expect a revert war to follow the end of this vote (if the short text wins), and I would be willing to bet that the already exhausted patience of Mongo, Ann H, and William Connelly, the three admins watching the page, will break. --Avery W. Krouse 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting..
...that you're busily hiding all new discussions away in an archive rather than keeping them up for a while so that people might respond, get answers from you, etc. Rather bad form. Or do you fear that something will be put here that will make you look silly?

So, you have 2 masters' degrees - and still claim to be a scholar in 4 subjects. Could you explain further. Masters' Degrees don't really say "scholar" to me - do you have, perhaps, a Ph.D? You say you have no publication and nothing peer-reviewed.... what is YOUR definition of scholar? Robsteadman 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't give a plugged farthing what you consider to be a scholar, but since you want to know what I think: a scholar is any human being who reads and investigates the world around him or her. Even a little child is a scholar if he or she is inquisitive. Evidence of scholarship is graduation from college, earning a professional degree and a graduate degree. Does that answer your question? drboisclair 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a scholar takes care in spelling correctly. drboisclair 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So if everyone with an active brain is a scholar there is no need to give yourself such a misleading title is there? I imagine virtually ALL WP editors, by YOUR definition, are scholars. That is why, of course, your definition is incorrect. Robsteadman 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving all of what I said above. BTW, I have a new user box about the historcity of our Lord Jesus Christ that I designed from your plethora of self-glorifying boxes on your user page. Check it out, Dude. drboisclair 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1) I am not a Dude - how pathetic. 2) It is not my lord - please don't try to pass on your "faith". 3) I must remember what a great scholar you are - unpublished, un-peer reviewed and only at Masters' level... I'm sure the great minds of academia are quaking in their boots. 4) Ooo, you've got a new user box - oh joy! You must be very happy. Little things eh?! 5) Why are they self-glorifying? they are a way to let people know where you come from and what you are interested in. If they're so self-glorifying why have you bothered with any?! Robsteadman 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am praying for you, Rob Steadman. drboisclair 14:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Truly pathetic. I hope it is a lie because you surely have better things to do. Robsteadman 14:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would both of you stop engaging in this insult fest. It is not becoming of either of you. --CTSWyneken 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for looking in, and giving good advice. drboisclair 15:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not meaning to insult either you or Rob, but how much sturm und drang must we endure? Also, which circle of hell is reserved for eternal ineffectual voting? Arch O. La 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * With timidity, Arch, I inquire, "How else may things be done on this article?" I readily wish to call a moritorium and wish that we could trust one another a little more as persons of itegrity. The problem comes in with suspecting each other's motives in editing. I share your angst. drboisclair 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are various strategies in play, and I myself am running out of ideas. My latest attempt to synthesize the debate was rebuffed because it was too POV. Maybe someone should invent telepathy so we can all understand each other ;)
 * SOPHIA has said that she feels she can translate for Rob. There are other people, fairly new to the page, with whom we can communicate better than we can with Rob, even if we disagree. Perhaps there is still hope that the center will hold.Arch O. La 20:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kinda funny...Rob needs a translator. KHM03 23:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, KHM03, how are you holding up? Can we ever reach "consensus"? I wonder. I wonder if there is a possibility of finding common ground. I think that Rob would do well to write his own version of the articles in question. Then we could see what all the allegations of non NPOV are all about. POV is not a bad thing as long as it comes together with other POVs that make for a NPOV. 1 POV + all other POVs=NPOV. drboisclair 23:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm doing OK...just stepping back a bit. KHM03 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even this one? That's not to defame anyone involved on the Talk:Jesus page. But what if someone new says that Jesus was a gnome from Rigel 12, or something? Arch O. La 12:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Arch, that is the point, but how can we persuade the Jesus-Mythers that we are not a "Christian cabal"? BTW, I would say that I am short enough to be a dwarf from Rigel. 5' 9" is dwarfish!!! drboisclair 14:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We're Christians, but a cabal? For me, Christian cabal brings clear television pictures into a Christian home for $40/month. No, wait, that's Christian cable. Oh, and I'm 6'4". We Christians fight amongst ourselves too much to form a cabal. Look at all the pretty denominations. I recall when Aiden and Storm Rider had a revert war over what is now paragraph 3. I stepped in to settle the dispute by referring back to the Nicene Creed. We've been needing to the clarify that paragraph for a while now...but the filibuster "voting" over paragraph 2 has slowed us down. Arch O. La 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Literary allusions

 * If we don't find common ground, then it will be like fighting the Battle of the Five Armies: the last survivors "win." I'm trying to follow Bilbo's path ;) Arch O. La 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I said Bilbo, not Gandalf! One book at a time! Arch O. La 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone loves Bilbo, the recent finder of the ring! They are disappointed by the taking of the lime light by Frodo, right? in the trilogy? Since I am ordained I could be Gandalf the white. drboisclair 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You do seem to fill that role...perhaps Homestarmy is Aragorn? More seriously, who will be Saruman? Arch O. La 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * wouldn't he have to be some diabolical character with great power like the White Witch of Narnia? drboisclair 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And now we're into C. S. Lewis? Haven't read Narnia. Took a peek at Mere Christianity. Arch O. La 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental Union article
I'll give it a look, but to be honest, I'm not sure how "pure" a Lutheran I am. I'm a weird Lutheran who debates philosophy with Athiests, listens to Jehovah's Witnesses, recently graduated from a Quaker college, and affirms the Catholic position on religion and science. Not to mention that I've started to read the words of Rabbis. How's that for ecumenicalism? ;) On the other hand, I am a genetic Lutheran, so as I told SOPHIA, the Force runs strong in my family. I may have to talk to my uncle (an ordained minister) before I have anything meaningful to say. Cheers, Arch O. La 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "And may the Force be with you!" as one Star Wars aficionado would say to another! drboisclair 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And also unto you. Arch O. La 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WHY do I want to say: "Lift up your light sabers!" --CTSWyneken 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because "When I am gone the last of the Jedi will you be!" drboisclair 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have extended my Star Wars allegory. Arch O. La 22:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Christianity and POV
I know, I know. It's enough for me that the Christian positions are presented fairly and accurately. As Homestarmy has said, that may bring some to Christ. Beyond that, it's all politics. Of course, God and Satan both play politics. Witness Job. Arch O. La 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have appealed to User:MONGO to consider the discrimination that this affords. This is simply not fair in light of the fact that all of us are careful to be NPOV. However, despite all of our efforts we cannot free ourselves from POV no matter how we try. It must be understood that POV is not an evil thing, just all POVs need to be represented to make something NPOV, and NPOV means "neutral point of view" not "no point of view." That, at least, is my understanding of it. drboisclair 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Appealing to a neutral admin is a good strategy, and CTSWynekan has done the same. We may be nearing the time when mediation will be required. I affirm what CTSWynekan has said, that we must be careful of our own conduct. Arch O. La 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Christianity articles tagged NPOV
All I can say is that there is one or more editors that question the neutrality of the articles. My recommendation would be to try and narrow down exactly what the neutrality dispute is about on the talk page. I did see that the one editor thinks that concensus is not the way to determine if a dispute over neutrality is to remain on an article as a tag. This is incorrect as an argument for unless we have some sort of concensus we don't have a direction. I understand what he/she is saying, but that doesn't qualify it as enough of a reason to slap neutrality tags on articles. If the discussion pages are achieving nothing, you can try and attract further outside views by filing a Request for comment, or seek mediation to resolve disputes. I may post a short question in both articles which hopefully will help pinpoint what the major arguments are.--MONGO 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cabal?
Isn't that the capital of Afghanistan? Forgive my pronunciation, I'm just making jokes. But if Christians can split over such silly issues as wet hair, then how can we form a cabal? As for myself, I've tried (not always successfully) to exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness gentleness and self-control in all their fruity taste combinations. Taste the rainbow! Arch O. La 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that it is good that he talks to someone like SOPHIA. Sophia as you know means "wisdom" in Greek. drboisclair 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know. I've left the "Sophistry" section on my main talk page to demonstrate that it is possible for those with different viewpoints to communicate, even to cooperate. I wish we could all do so. Arch O. La 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The above has now become The Centrist Faction. Arch O. La &#124; TCF member 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Counteroffer:. It looks like this: Arch O. La &#124; TCF member 06:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your weigh-in requested
I was asked to help Christianity with it's discussions on becoming NPOV... there is a debate on Talk:Hermeticism on whether it should be stated that some scholars believed Hermes Trismegistus to be a real man. In my arguments I have noted the Christianity article, and I feel that the contributors of it may be able to give some view on how a religion article should be NPOV. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but your help is requested.

KV 06:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Test message to determine IP address
69.153.171.62 16:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks...I added links to the Crusades & the Inquisition, which Gio & his friends wanted to see...that's fair, I think. Most importantly, there already existed links to other articles for further reading. Let's hope we've seen the last of the warnings there (I'm not holding my breath!). Hope you have a holy Lent...KHM03 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we live in a pluralistic world...many paths to God, and all that. Relativism.  Tough times for those of us who believe in absolute truths...but a mission field ready for harvest!  KHM03 16:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that I have done harm in simply dismissing Giovanni and Robsteadman, who are a Jesus-Myth scholars, out of hand. I was unaware that there are reputable people who are questioning our Lord's existence as an historical person. Just ignoring them will only introduce the return the stigma of the POV flags. As a pnemonic device I put a few POV flags on some of the atheist scholars to see how they like it. When there are scholars laboring desperately to render articles NPOV they should not be flagged. I find that I am possibly in fervent opposition to the atheists, but I have to oppose them with respect and having all my ducks in line. drboisclair 16:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the flags. It attracts interest from other editors. --CTSWyneken 11:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Info Boxes
Dear Dave: You appear to have figured out how to make such things. (if not, I'll bother Stan!) I need one that says something like: Real life intruding on wikilife. "I'm not on a wikibreak, but it sure may look like it this week." ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental union
Added stuff? I only added a see-also to this and related articles. Your article already looks well-written to me ;) Arch O. LaTalk TCF 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Maier Page
There are a lot of red links here... have fun! --CTSWyneken 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like his "biographical novel" of Pilate. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll tell him. He's a friend! 8-) Have you read the two Skeleton books? --CTSWyneken 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, just the Pilate novel. That was 15 or more years ago, so if I find it again, I'll have to reread it for Lent. ;) Arch O. LaTalk TCF 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

ELCA and Sacramental Union
Sorry, I forgot a letter in the link. To be honest though, they talk around the question of local presence. Basically they affirm that Christ is really present, and that different theologians have described this in ways that are complementary rather than contradictary. I also added the second link, which is an e-mail form. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Article section needing expansion
Actually, Eucharistic discipline needs to be written.. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote that might interest you
talk: Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy--CTSWyneken 02:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To consubstantiate or not to consubstantiate (that is the question).
I suspect that it's a matter of how the term is being used.

I was confirmed in the ELCA, in fact if not in name. I'm not sure at what point they officially adopted the ELCA name, but the three sects were pretty much merged by that time. My confirming pastor (Rev. Theodore Gulhaggen) used the term "consubstantiation" to mean that Christ's body and blood were present through, with, and under the substance of the bread and wine. How this happens, we were told, was not revealed by God, and was thus a divine mystery beyond human understanding. My pastor's use of the term "consubstantiation" did not imply local presence; he didn't even mention local presence, but it seems to me that this is unknown and unknowable. I wasn't even aware of the philosophical implications until I discovered them on Wikipedia. It seems to me that Lutherans who accept the term "consubstantiation," as I did until fairly recently, use the term in the same way that my pastor did.

It seems to me that the whole debate on whether the Real Presence is substance or spirit (pneumatic) or both or something else, or whether it is local or nonlocal or impanation or some of the above or something else, or whatever else it might be, is also a divine mystery. Any philosophical speculation beyond divine revelation is just guessing.

As you know, I searched the ELCA's website in vain for any reference, for or against, to local presence. The best I could find is their full communion agreement with the Reformed churches, in which they said that both were describing the Lord's Supper in the same way, but using different words. Since the Reformed church teaches pneumatic presence, this implies that the ELCA accepts that Christ's body and blood are spiritually present. However, this is merely implication; I don't know for sure. If need be, I could ask my uncle, who is an ELCA minister. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just noticed that this anon editor (192.160.64.49) is apparently the same one who's been having a long conversation with CTSWyneken on the latter's talk page. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All I know of William of Occam is that he had a razor. His definition of consubstantiation is apparently not the same as the definition that some Lutherans use. To be honest, I find all this talk about local vs nonlocal vs pneumatic vs impanation vs whatever else to be confusing. My catechism class didn't get into that; my pastor merely discussed why we reject the Catholic transubstantiation doctine, and also the symbolism doctrine of some other Protestants. Better, I think, just to take and eat, and also take and drink. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble, Arch, is that you have to be clear on what it is, because the Bible is clear about what it is, and it is simple: of the bread in His hand Jesus said, "This is my body" and of the wine in the cup He said, "This is my blood." Like your pastor said, "It is a mystery." The point on consubstantiation is that we don't want to explain the mystery away as the word "consubstantiation" does. drboisclair 18:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The "explanations" are confusing. Anything beyond the Gospel accounts and 1 Corninthians 11 are confusing and confusion. It is bread and wine; it is also the body and blood of Christ. Wikipedia quotes The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church quotes Martin Luther comparing it to red-hot iron: both fire and iron, both unchanged. We are commanded to take and eat and drink and to do both in remembrence of Christ. I don't know how anyone could "explain" the mystery. I don't see anything in the Bible about form or substance or spirit or locality. It just is what it is, beyond explanation. Unless I'm missing something? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't get away from locality. Where is the Lord's Supper going on? There is the Church. The sacramental bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ as He says. This is not explaining it: it is accepting the words as they stand. You have to deny that it is MERELY spiritual. Yes, Christ is there spiritually, but His body and blood is also present in, with, and under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine in such a way as they can be eaten and drunk. While there are many mysteries to God and His ways: "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 'For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?' For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:33-36 NKJV); there is still what He reveals, and we are to hear and share that as long as it does not become speculation that goes beyond. It would be nice if we could just have it as simply as possible, but when errors spring up, the Church has to speak out clearly with the "pattern of sound words": the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. The springing up of ideas that contradict God's Word makes further elaboration essential if the Church is to remain faithful to its witness. This is how I answer as a theologian. I agree with Luther too that we must stick to the plain words alone, but the need to make Christ's message plain to the world necessitates further clarification. drboisclair 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I am wary of "speculation that goes beyond." Hence confusion and confusing. Clarification is another matter. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the anon. user. If you don't believe that the LCMS teaches consubstantiation, go to their website, lcms.org. There is a FAQ section, also, docs on Lutheran Doctrine and Practice by the committee we call "CTCR"

If you don't believe the WELS teaches consubstantiation, go to wels.net, and read their highly extensive Q&A section.

If you still don't believe me, there is a layman's theology book called, "The Fire and the Staff" written by an LCMS pastor, Klement Preus, and published by CPH, Concordia Publishing House, which clearly says in plain English that Lutherans believe that they eat Jesus's physical Body and Blood. Theolgical books puplished by CPH are checked beforehand for bad doctrine. If that wasn't what the LCMS teaches, I don't think it would be published, or if it was, it would have been revoked later, as has happened to the latest translation of the Book of Concord. The term spiritual is used in the FOC and some other docs to describe the nature how this happens. That is, holy communion allows us to eat the physical body and blood of Jesus because of a spiritual miricle--not that the Body and Blood are merely spiritual and not physical in nature. If you look at the, WELS seminary library site where they have an exensive quantity of scholarly articles, you will find one that expresses concern over the fact that some in the ELCA want to change the definition of "Real Presence" to deny the physical consumption of Jesus--even pretending the early Lutherans agreed with them. Many in the ELCA, esp. former ALC and Augastana members, dislike the theological experementation that is occuring by those in authority. Just because the liberal higherarchy of the ELCA says it doesn't mean it is what most Lutherans---even most Lutherans in the ELCA believe. The ELCA is very doctrinally diverse, so it is nearly impossible to say what the ELCA believes on doctrinal matters, because instead of "X, Y, and Z," it is "X, Y, or Z, and also ZX and YZ and YX." The vast majority of people in the ELCA say, for example, that Jesus is God, but some of their profs, such as the ELCA members of the Jesus Seminary, disagree. Therefore the ELCA both believes Jesus is God and denies that he is God. Whatever confessions of faith they have are irrelevant if people that disagree with them are still welcomed into fellowship with them.

The plain words of Scripture says body and blood. They are presented in the normal, physical way. To say that they mean spiritual rather than physical consumption of Jesus's body and blood for the Lord's Supper is to go beyond Scripture. The miricle is spiritual, but the presence is physical. Since when is real bread never physical??? John 6 is spiritual consumption of Jesus's spiritual body and blood through His Word, the Lord's Supper is physical consumption of His body and blood through a miricle that our reason doesn't like.

If you still don't believe me, call up and LCMS, WELS, or ELS pastor on the phone and ask them if they believe that the physical Body and Blood of Jesus is consumed "under" physical bread and wine during a valid sacrament. They will say yes.--192.160.64.49 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "If you don't believe the WELS teaches consubstantiation, go to wels.net, and read their highly extensive Q&A section."


 * I read it. They deny consubstantiation. Let me quote from their website:

"Although some Lutherans have used the term 'consbstantiation' and it might possibly be understood correctly (e.g., the bread & wine, body & blood coexist with each other in the Lord's Supper), most Lutherans reject the term because of the false connotation it contains. For instance, the word 'consubstantial' is used by thelogians to desginate that God the Father and God the Son are one in essence or being. Applied to the Lord's Supper, consubstantiation is the view either that the body and blood, bread and wine come together to form one substance in the Lord’s Supper or that the body and blood are present in a natural manner like the bread and the wine. Lutherans believe that the bread and the wine are present in a natural manner in the Lord’s Supper and Christ’s true body and blood are present in an illocal, supernatural manner."


 * Notice the distinction between the "applied to the Lord's supper" and "Lutherans believe" sentences: "natural manner" vs. "illocal, supernatural manner" for Christ's true body and blood. Which is why WELS denies consubstantiation. The page goes on to deny impanation and quote from the Formula of Concord. I only wish the ELCA spelled out their position so clearly. The LCMS position is implied in the question itself: "my LCMS pastors, who were very conservative, would say that consubstantiation is the best definition but not the most accurate and that there are subtle differences between the Lutheran beliefs on communion and the true definition of consubstantiation."


 * BTW I currently attend a WELS church. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, THAT anonymous user! I recommend we do not respond to him until he can register and we revert anything he does without explanation. Assuming this is the same person... how can we know? --CTSWyneken 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Grigory and CTS, I thank you for your eternal vigilance, but I must at least tell that anonymous user that CTS and myself are LCMS pastors! Call me up, and I will tell you that we do not believe, teach, and confess that consubstantiation is what we believe about the Lord's Supper. I think it is the same person by the lack of care in spelling correctly. drboisclair 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whereas I am a lay Lutheran confused by sectarian differences. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Grigory, I commend the WELS website for explaining it in "layman's terms": they are 100% right. The choice in using the term "consubstantiation" is 1) something like transubstantiation which removes the substance of the bread and wine, perhaps having a new kind of substance other than that of bread and wine, body and blood; or 2) cannibalism. drboisclair 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The LCMS website is usually clear as well. Statements on the ELCA website are usually vague or nonexistant. I haven't looked at the ELS website, but as they are close enough to WELS to share pastors their position is probably the same. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a quotation from J.T. Mueller's Christian Dogmatics in which he quotes a 17th Century orthodox Lutheran theologian: Against the misconstructions which the Reformed have put on the Lutheran doctrine of the sacramental union our dogmaticians have said (Hafenreffer): “The sacramental union is a) not a transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ; b) it is not a consubstantiation, or commixture of the two substances, but in both the bread and the wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed; c) nor is it a local or durable adhesion or conjunction to the bread and wine apart from the use of the Supper; d) nor is it an impanation, that is, the inclusion of some small corpuscle lying hid under the bread; e) nor is it, finally, a personal union of the bread and body of Christ, such as exists between the Son of God and the assumed humanity.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 571.) (p. 519-20). and The Lutherans very strenuously reject the charge that the real presence implies a local inclusion, or an impanation, or consubstantiation (localis inclusio, impanatio, cosubstantiatio). The Formula of Concord thus says (Thor. Decl., VII, 64): “For this command ‘Eat and drink’] cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking; however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way.” (p. 528).

The Sacramental Union article should be changed to reject "consubstantiation" if it means a mixture of substances or a cannibalistic understanding. This is from Franz Pieper:

The same principle of a solely local and visible mode of presence results in a polemic against the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper on the part of the Reformed which is untruthful through and through. Because the Reformed, the moment they hear of a true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament, always visualize only their visible and local presence, “as the peasant fills out jacket and breeches,” they ascribe to us Lutherans a local inclusion (localis inclusio, Hodge, Syst. Theol., I, 83) of the body of Christ in the bread, or a local consubstantiation (consubstantiatio), or even a physical compounding (permixtio) of bread and body of Christ. Because of the same bias they apply to us Lutherans the titles “carnivorous beasts,” “blood guzzlers,” and “cannibals,” and call the Supper instituted by Christ, with the real presence of the body and blood of Christ which is given and shed for us, a “Cyclopean meal” and a “Thyestean banquet.” All this is the result of their adoption of the thesis that Christ’s body can have only a visible and local mode of presence as their principle of Scripture interpretation. Pieper, F. 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953. Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.). Concordia Publishing House: St. Louis (vol. 3, pp. 326-27).drboisclair 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is important to explain the distinction. The impression I get is that the term "consubstantiation" is broad enough to cover the Lutheran view, but also broad enough to cover the one suubstance and Capernaitic and Lollardy and other views that Lutherans reject. Hence one LCMS pastor's description as "the best definition but not the most accurate definition." This vagueness is the reason why some Lutherans accept the term, while many other Lutherans reject the term.

The distinction should also be made clearer at the consubstantiation article. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerations of my concerns here. Thanks for explaining that consubstantiation could mean false positions that we reject, such as impanation. I was never taught that it could mean these false views. However, since the term is taught and understood by some in a different manner, attention much be made to those differences. Naturally, I don't think there is a piece of flesh inside the wafer! Franz Pieper clearly rejects that umbiblical notion, because the Bible says "body" not "a piece of my body." Of course the Body and Blood cannot be sensed or detected by reason and science. Of course the Real Presence gets there in a way nobody can comprehend-spiritually. But since the bread and the wine are physically eaten, the Body and Blood of Christ are also physically there. And no, by phyiscally, I don't mean a hunk of flesh--which is what "local inclusion" teaches. If you want an example of someone using the term consubstantiation in the lcms, try This congregational website. The reason the term physically is used is because Lutherans recieve Jesus in a physical manner in the sacrament. If Jesus is recieved in a physical manner, he is there in a physical manner. The term "spiritually" can be misunderstood as the Reformed opinion, in which communion, in Calvin's view, takes place as the soul ascends to heaven to feed on Christ's Divine Nature in heaven. Besides the denial of Jesus' word "is," this also means that Jesus can be seperated into a seperate "Divine Nature" and "Human Nature." You can't get one nature without the second nature being there with it. We must avoid the heresy of Nestorianism that Calvin seems to teach.--192.160.64.49 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You certainly speak the truth when you say that this LCMS congregation says that the Lutheran position is "consubstantiation." It is there in "black and white"! They write: "Consubstantiation is our church’s teaching on communion. The substance of Christ’s body and blood are there with the bread and the wine, but the bread and wine don’t change into the body and blood. When you receive communion, you receive 4 elements: bread, wine, body and blood." The Roman Catholics and the Anglicans say we teach consubstantiation, but careful Lutheran theologians say we do not. This is very confusing when some of us say, "Consubstantiation is what we teach" and some of us say, "Consubstantiation is not what we teach." I most strongly contend as you do for the physical presence of Christ's Body and Blood in, with, and under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine, but I steer clear of philosophical explanations such as "consubstantiation" that go too far. Thank you for sharing this external link. drboisclair 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bearing with me here. Even if I am at least a partially ignorant, sometimes even misinformed layman, remember that Wikipedia is for the partially ignorant laymen too. This is not only helping me understand the nuances of the positions better, but also it should result in an article that doens't confuse anyone that went to a Lutheran school or had a Lutheran pastor that used the term "consubstantiation" in a way other than theologians use it. Even the term "local presence" can be confusing. An ignorant Lutheran could think, "the bread is there three dimensionally, and the Body is "in, with, and under" it, so yes, the Body is there three dimensionally." That was how I thought. Of course, the three dimensions is a property that is part and parcel with the nature of bread, and the Lutheran would in no way think that we are eating a three dimenionsional hunk of flesh, a piece of body. Even the term local is confusion in and of itself. I thought that local meant "down on earth with us" rather than "up in heaven with Jesus". The problem is that the Latin cognates were substituted for the Latin terms. This is the same problem withthe new translation of the Book of Concord put out by CPH. I have read some of it, and it uses all these English cognates for complex, specifically defined Latin or German terms, which I largely do not understand to begin with. If I go off the meaning of the cognate, I could end up being wrong.--192.160.64.49 02:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I commend you as a layman for taking an interest in this. Never put yourself down. As you can see there are pastors who are saying this. Consider this quotation from Robert Kolb's The Christian Faith: A Lutheran Exposition:
 * 'Alternate Views of the Real Presence. There are other views of the Real Presence within Christendom. Luther accepted the medieval catholic affirmation of the Real Presence, but he objected to its attempt to explain how the Real Presence is possible. Medieval teaching affirmed the doctrine of the Real Presence but tried to explain it in terms of the physics of Aristotle, the physics taught in the schools of Luther’s time. Aristotle had taught that everything in this world had an inner substance, which determined its basic nature, and also had accidents, which give the specific individual item its own characteristics. According to this system of thought, all chairs are chairs because they have the inner substance of “﻿chairness.﻿” Each individual chair has the accidents of wood or plastic or metal, of specific colors and shapes, etc. Medieval theologians wanted to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence. They said that the substance of the sacramental bread and wine are replaced by the substances of Christ’s body and blood even though the outward accidents of bread and wine remain. They called this process “﻿transubstantiation.﻿” Luther believed that the presence of Christ is a mystery, which ought not be explained. He believed that trying to explain it exalts the human mind above the word of the Lord. He wished to accept the mystery of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in faith. Consubstantiation. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that Luther taught “﻿consubstantiation,﻿” a view held by a few medieval theologians. That view states that the substances of both Christ’s body and the bread, of both Christ’s blood and the wine, are present in the Supper by virtue of the power of God’s Word. That view still uses Aristotelian physics to try to explain the presence, and Luther insisted it remain a mystery, outside the mastery of human reason. (Robert Kolb, The Christian faith : A Lutheran exposition (electronic ed.). Concordia Publishing House: St. Louis, MO, 2000, c1993, pp. 233-34; emphasis added).
 * You could help by registering yourself as an editor with a made up name like some of us have and perhaps giving us a little background about yourself. I have been told that all of us are really anonymous, and we can be more or less anonymous. There is much about Luther and Lutheranism on this website, and oftentimes we have to contend for the right data being presented about Luther and Lutheranism. Of course, we must be committed to Neutral Point of View. You have an interest in it, and you could be very helpful. Of course, you have to refrain from using words like "liberal" or "conservative" and you have to develop a neutral style of writing, always ready to back up your facts. drboisclair 02:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what Edward Koehler writes in his Summary of Christian Doctrine, a Lutheran theological book: 'The Lutheran Church does not teach “﻿consubstantiation,﻿” which means that bread and body form one substance, or that the body is present, like the bread, in a natural manner; nor does it teach “﻿impanation,﻿” which means that the body of Christ is locally inclosed in the bread. The purpose of the words “﻿in, with, and under the bread﻿” is not to explain the sacramental union, which cannot be explained, but to reject the papistical transubstantiation' (p. 220). I think, though, that Koehler is surmising the definition of "consubstantiation" through its being associated with consubstantia=homoousia.drboisclair 04:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikistuff
See http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf --StanZegel  (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greek
You really speak Ancient Greek at native level? Amazing!

I know ancient Greek, but the category of native level is the only one that will register. If the other levels would register, then I would use them. BTW, please sign your posts. Cordially, drboisclair 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the inaccuracy. drboisclair 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostles Creed
Nice job on the article, thanks! Dominick (TALK) 17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a link for Old Roman Symbol. Perhaps the footnote reference can be duplicated, and put in wiki format. Let me know if you need me to do that. Dominick (TALK) 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Time check
What time is it? drboisclair 14:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

--drboisclair 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened?
Glad to see you're back after being retired for a few hours. I hope everything is OK. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you, Drb. I appreciate it, and look forward to a constructive relationship. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
As you're reverting a lot, it might be prudent for you to review the 3RR rule, in case you violate it. Please note that it refers to any revert of another editor's work, not necessarily the same material each time, and that it applies to whole reverts and partial reverts, which can be as little as one word. The policy page can be found at WP:3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You've just violated 3RR by restoring "alleged" parallels. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your "3rd lawful revert"
Please read this section of the WP:3RR rule: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an 'electric fence'; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." --Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther articles
Thanks to both you and CTSWyneken for inviting me over. I'm having my own problems at the Jesus article (really the troubles started at Christianity), so I can't get involved in another dispute at the moment. Besides, I'm sure they'll just say I'm the fourth member of the Lutheran cabal ;) (I don't even know Stan Zegel...)

I have, however, invited Jim62sch to take a look at the pages. He's a former Lutheran (LCA) and current Agnostic, so I'm sure he can see both sides. Take care and try to not to get your dander up&mdash;I've seen that backfire for too many people from various POVs. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I love quoting Shakespeare in these instances: "Grigory Deepdelver, thou art a summer bird, which ever in the haunch of winter sings the lifting up of day!" (Henry IV, Part II, Act IV, scene iv, ll. 91-93; but for "Grigory Deepdelver" read "Westmoreland.") The shewolf of France is presently running through the vineyard. Drboisclair 22:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
On contentious articles and in contentious times, it particularly behooves editors of good will to avoid personal attacks, or even the semblance of personal attacks. For example, That is because you do deal in truth, half-truth that is; you're calling someone a liar, a prevaricator. That doesn't help dialogue; admittedly, the target of your quip is a difficult editor; all the more reason to maintain civility -- how else are onlookers going to know the difference betwen you and he? Similarly, I'm going to play innocent and pretend I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the she-wolf of France" and "H M the Queen"; suffice it to say that though this doesn't, in isolation, rise to the level of a personal attack, it's obviously deliberate, albeit subtle, incivility.

The harder the fight is, the nicer you should be. It simply doesn't work the other way, at least in any on-line venue. The cost of harsh words is taken in credibility. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote Thomas More again, "I am well rebuked." Drboisclair 23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to be in a condescending mood today. Ah well, better that than snarkery. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, and I apologize. At times one needs to deliver chastisement. The editor in question is a brilliant man with an axe to grind as they say. I would like to see him and all of us work together. I say this with all sincerity and humility. I appreciate your concern and comments. Cheers, Drboisclair 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Johann Agricola (theologian)
There's a short article about this fellow, it could use some work, but I don't think I'm qualified to fix it. Sumergocognito 08:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Justification (theology)
Greetings,

If you have time, please check out the Justification (theology) article. I have begun to massage the text currently in the Lutheran section, and thus the language is less than ideal. I am looking for a good strong Pieper quote to place in the article, and perhaps a rewrite of it entirely. Any help would be appreciated! --Rekleov 14:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther edit
Can you explain this edit please? I would carefully read Sock puppetry if I were you. I would also suggest reverting that edit, as a sign of goodwill. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you making the accusation of sock puppetry against me, Sir? Drboisclair 18:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please fix this before it has to become more public. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored what the other editor did against my will. Drboisclair 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found out that my nephew, who is that editor made that change since this dispute is a topic of discussion in our family. I have had him read the policy, thank you. Drboisclair 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)