User talk:Lostcaesar/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jkelly 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Augustianian hypothesis
I agree with you and I think Andrew hacked at the Augustinian hypothesis page. I think he did it because he is against traditional Christianity and had an ax to grind.l I restored it to a previous version. I am in the midst of trying to restore your material that was lost in my bringing the article back to its earlier version. ken 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I agree, but.....
I was the creator of the Augustinian hypothesis article. Wikipedia didn't have one before and I think it is because Wikipedia has a liberal bent. The article has expanded a lot since I created it and it has expanded in a way that sometimes doesn't have citations. I am afraid my scholarship in regards to the Augustinian hypothesis is rather weak and I depended mostly on internet sources rather than written sources. So I am afraid I won't be much help except to help prevent Andrew from unnecesarily hacking the article to a bare stump. ken 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

A request
Now that you have an advocate on your side please feel free to say on the Augustinian hypothesis talk page that Andrew's editing was far too excessive. I would appreciate it if you did this. There is no point in compromising for compromsing's sake - especially when it makes the article poorer. ken 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

If you agree with Ken, then by all means state your position. If you feel that reverting the compromising we have been going through is TOO much, and if you feel offended (as I do) that positive edits that both of us have made are now gone due to a very sloppy revert, I also urge you to speak up as well. Whatever side of the fence you are on, I'd appreciate your precense on the Augustinian talk page. --Andrew c 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment
Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. — Mi ra  07:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

saint paul
I admire the time you spent in reworking the article. Most of it can be rather confusing I suppose for a new browser, as much of the information was repeated twice, and it seems you did well in editing the article for that purpose.

However, I noticed you edited much of the scholarly consensus article over his controversies and I am confused as to your reasoning, please see discussion. Also I noticed you removed pauls intentions with his first letter, First thessalonians. I believe this to be an imperative fact, if early christians do not realize their early fathers believed an immanent 'kingdom of god' was to take place, they are living a life of ignorance. Paul was the patriach of Christianity, if it weren’t for him than perhaps there would be none, this version of a “new kingdom” is paramount to learning about the religions history. Paul preached this oncoming judgment, where God would rule over the earth and massacre tens of thousands of those who are evil, and subsequently gained many followers.

I would also like to mention that religion in roman antiquity played a major role in one's life. Sacrifices and rituals to greek gods were common among many romans, religion was perhaps just as important as any other aspect. Christianity (though not termed christianity, it still was a sect of Judaism and did not gain much of its segregation from Judaism until the revolt of Baruch) was seen as a new form of Judaism, where new "have nots" of society could take worhship in in-house gatherings. These gathering also were supervised by some wealthy women, women back in ancient times had suppressed roles, these 'hostings' i shall say were far from cookies and crumpits. Christianity gave many pagans new roles not granted to them in society, not to mention Paul’s version of Christianity after the melt down at antioch (see discussion) accepted gentiles.

I fear you have altered this information for a bias, as it is worthy knowledge whose suppresement certainly displays a desire for one to limit controversy. If it is wrong I do apologize, but as such, I would prefer you debate those matters in the discussion page rather than completely rework the article.

Biblical1

---

Hey I just want to tell you I replied to your discussion thread under Saint Paul. I was a little "under the weather" so I speak in irony, just excuse it. I worked real hard on the article and didn't put any sort of bias and anything, I'm sure every side will love it.

I stayed up until 4:00 am doing it!

So anyway, I appreciate you ediitng the scholarly consensus, I took out the mumbo jumbo and added in some new stuff. tell me what you think

Biblical1 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to revert the eschatology as the past edited eliminated some of the more blatant examples of Paul's view of an apocalypse. This section must be stressed as I have yet to see any factual informatio otherwise stating Paul did not believe an oncoming apocalypse was near.

see: "'That Jesus had come as the messiah of Israel meant further, for Paul, that the apocalyptic end times had commenced and would be consummated soon when Jesus came back again (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13; 5:1-11). Finally, he was convinced that he himself had been set apart 'from before birth' for a special mission to bring the Gentiles in to this new, eschatological kingdom, in keeping with the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah."

I can even pull from Isaiah and Jeremiah to support this claim. This is the backbone of Christianity persay, Jesus' followers along with Paul believed he would return and instill a new political kingdom. This kingdom was not believed to be heaven until much later on. I also elaborated on the myth of Paul being the first Christian in scholarly views. I believe my grammar is sufficient enough and it does not require editing, much less constant condensing where scholarly sources (even with isbns) are eliminated.

Biblical1 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

-

I acknowledge your edits and the appropriate citations you have adjusted. I disagreed with the deletion of Paul's Jewish piety along with the quote from MacDonald on Jesus' disciples. I would like to discuss further things erased like that. I also feel the quote from White in eschatology very clearly explains Paul's messianic view yet it was erased in the edit process as awell, it was summed however the quote was much more informative.

Biblical1 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion in Ordination of women
Hello,

I'm a new Wikipedian, so I'm trying to learn the standards here. You deleted one of my sentences in the Ordination of women article, stating "b/c the ref was too poor, such a claim needs a better source to meet wiki standards".

Would it be acceptable if I were to look up the article directly in America (going to the library to do so), and then citing that article directly?

Thanks! -- Cat Whisperer 18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, I just found it online, saving myself a trip to the library:

License tagging for Image:Earlyimage.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Earlyimage.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry for edit war
Sorry for the edit war concerning "125" and the Title for the book of matthew. I was misreading things. There will be no more edit war. ken 13:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

FDuffy is messing with your Augustinian hypothesis contribution
I reverted 2 out of 3 of his changes. ken 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Purgatory
Hi there - thanks for the attention to my edits in purgatory. I should explain myself. Purgatory is a Roman Catholic belief, but Eastern Catholics do not teach it - that is why I specified 'Roman' in various places. On the other hand, Eastern Catholics do believe in a state of purification after death - which is a belief shared by all of the Catholic Churches, ergo the removal of 'Roman' from Roman Catholics and many Eastern Orthodox Christians consider it to be a fact of great beauty that God provides a means of purification after death. The article as it stands does not take into account the Eastern Catholic beliefs on the matter, which differ from the Roman sufficiently to warrant mention. Also, your removal of the line Eastern Catholics, like the Eastern Orthodox, do not teach the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. is unwarranted. --InfernoXV 14:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A polite request
I believe I am likely going less active at Wikipedia, although I may change this decision. If you could hammer out a compromise on the Jesus article in relation to the "little external documentation" I would be deeply appreciated. By the way, thanks for your input to the Augustinian hypothesis article which I created and has substantially grown. If you want to add to the historicity of Jesus article I would not stop you. I added some info on the early church fathers in the historicity of Jesus article. ken 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thank you very much and another polite request.
I thank you for your contribution to the historicity of Jesus article. The Jesus as myth article is a total mess. I put a POV/bias tag on it and other Wikipedians agree it is biased. By the way, I added the early church fathers to the historicity of Jesus article. Here is my small request. In the Jesus article, it now states, "As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus". I redirected the article to go to the historicity of Jesus article in the "As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus" sentence rather than go to the Jesus as myth article. Can you make sure this sticks? ken 08:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Your contributions to my new Wikipedia article would be most appreciated
I created a new article called Advocacy of the Bible. Your contributions would be most appreciated. ken 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I removed the POV tag for the Historicity of Jesus article and made a comment why I removed it in the talk page.
I removed the POV tag for the Historicity of Jesus article and made a comment why I removed it in the talk page. Please feel free to concurr in the talk page about the removal of the POV/bias tag. ken 23:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I added a sentence to the historicity of Jesus article to give a truer picture of the scholarship
I added a sentence to the history of Jesus article to give a truer picture of the current scholarship.

Here is what I added:

The majority of scholarship, including historians, believes that Jesus existed. The reason scholars give is that for an ancient person and event, there are a relative plethora (by ancient historical standards) of sources from the same century. According to JP Holding, "Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field." ken 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo