User talk:Lostcaesar/Archive4

Constantine and the rise of superstition in the fourth century

See: Ramsay MacMullen, Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary, Chapter 10: Constantine and the Miraculous, Chapter 11: Distrust of the Mind in the Fourth Century, Princeton, 1990. To look deeper you may also want to see Enemies of the Roman Order Chapters: 2-4, Ramsay MacMullen, Princeton, 1966 User:Kazuba 28 Oct 2006 ```Enjoy! Ramsay MacMullen is difficult to read, but according to the Association of Ancient Historians he is the best. I fell in love with his work. You will learn a lot. User:Kazuba

Okay, you're officially grüvy

So, when you got recruited by Arturo, accused me of misrepresenting sources and rebombing, I was worried that you might be an albino monk, sent here by special order of Prelate to sanitize the Opus Dei page and perhaps murder Tom Hanks in the process. I began to develop a good amount of skepticism after your pointing out the bulleted problem and telling us how to fix it, creating the ingenius Papal Response section, integrating the historical responses into the history, and fixing ten billion minor errors along the way. Now I've been sitting here worrying and worrying for five hours that I didn't know how to trim down the criticism section-- "Should I try to to substantially bulk up the replies? no, no-- the controversy section is big enough as is." "Should I maybe delete one or two of the criticisms? no, no-- they're important." And then all of a sudden, I get a compressed criticism section delivered to me, giftwrapped and all. At this point, I'm afraid I have no alternate but to declare you officially groovy and thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for making the page so much better!

This is what I adore about Wikipedia. Not being able to see the way, and then someone comes along and takes that things I've done and makes them infinitely better. So, thank you. Truly. I'm now convinced we'll get to FAC. There are a few places that still need just a hair of polishing, but we're so much closer than we were before you came here. --Alecmconroy 00:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If those things made you worry, you should have seen My Beliefs and Interests. It has been nice working with you Alec. I have butted heads with many editors, and am rather used to differing points of view, but generally so long as everyone is willing to be reasoned with things can move along nicely. There is still one part of the criticism section that makes me nervious. The supposed quote about Hitler, reported by "a certain priest" and hosted on two websites that I have no reason to trust — it just seems a little over the top. That aside, I think the article is getting much better and am glad you have contributed and been likewise willing to work with me. Cheers; Lostcaesar 09:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your beliefs page is interesting-- we share quite a number, but I won't say whichs ones. As regards the hitler allegations-- that has worried me to that we leave that a little too "un-rebutted". I think what we say about it crticism is factual--- I'm pretty sure that it's undisputed that (1) the priest does make those claims about Escriva saying those two quotes. Similarly, I think it's undisputed that (2) the critics make so much mention of that issue (in the press and elsewhere), that the issue is notable. The biggie source for these two statements are the Hitchens book, but we have four different cites to back up those sentence (two are hidden). More cites could be obtained, but I said, I don't think anyone disputes those two assertions.

Because of that, I wouldn't want to just delete the quotes, for example, because they are a valid part of the dialog. Recognizing, however, as that the criticism isn't a very reliable assertion, I suspect we should add extra rebuttal to that particular issue. We already directly quote the Prelate's denial, but I would like more there, and will look for some.

As an aside, something that's bugged me is that the controversy article never makes the case that even if all the Franco/Hitler allegations _WERE_ true, that still doesn't necessarily makes Escriva/OD "bad". Here is my simple, totally original research thoughts on something that could be said on that issue:

It's claimed that Escriva supported the Fascists. If it's true--- Big deal! WWII was gave people a choice between Fascismm and Communism, and by and large, people chose to support whichever side wasn't actively trying to kill them. For Escriva, you have the Communists under Stalin-- already having total violations of any rights, already having genocidal campaigns. And you have the Fascists-- bad and totalitarian to be sure, but they weren't trying to abolish the church and murder the catholics.

I don't care who you are-- when you have to pick sides between a bad person actively trying to kill and a bad person actively trying to kill the person who wants to kill you--- your choice is clear. If Escriva's alleged support of Franco/Hitler seems shockings it's because we're looking at it through the lense of a post-war western power: where the choise is between democracy and totalitarianism. We equate Hitler with satan, but we do that because we already know what happened in the camps under his regime. For someone like Escriva-- they didn't have a choice between democracies and totalitarianism--- they only have a choice between fasciscm and communism. Simiilarly they didnt' have the benefit of hindsight-- while they could know about that stalinist purges, Hitler's holocaust was obviously something that people didn't firmly believe yet.

That may make Escriva guilty of being a bad historian or something, but the fact is, whole nations full of good people supported Hitler. We don't criticize all germans, and they DIRECTLY supported Hitler, even going so far as to fightt for him, whereas St. Josemaria is only accused of having expressed ambivalence about whether the things being said about Hitler were true. In short, the very worst we can say about Escriva on the issue is that he was a little too guilty of "Assuming Good Faith"-- not quite quick enough to recognize evil in other humans. But does that make Escriva a bad person, or a good one?

So, anyway, that's the way I tend to go about responding. So far it's just my OR, but I bet someone notable has thought the make the same points, and it's something we ought to mention if we ever get to the controversies article. People say he said the Hitler stuff, so we have to mention it, but we don't have to treat its like it's persuasive, and we can definitely add more rebuttal in. I'll work on it finding more sources and more rebuttal-- hopefully one online, but if nothing good poops up, I can alwways go to the print sources to find a nice reponse from OD's supporters on the hitlet stuff. I already know at leat one reply I can add. --Alecmconroy 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul on homosexuality

We may need to discuss this. I am perfectly prepared to accept that my version offends some people. It was, not however, rubbish. I don't know whether you are aware of the debate about 1Cor. 6:9; it exists. Your quotation could well be shortened, as it deals with a number of different matters. It is also true that what St. Paul is referring to in Rom. 1:26-7 refers primarily to lustful relationships. I realise - here we are again - that the Holy See has an attitude towards homosexual practice which is firm. You may be surprised to read that I take it seriously - how else could I not. But, back to the text, I did not draw conclusions about what St. Paul might have meant. We cannot place before his judgement the kind of relationships to which I referred. I raised a question which you think merely a fringe opinion. As to how many people hold it I do not know. I should, on reflection not have replaced your new version without communicating with you. I fear I was moved by the use of a word which fails to notice that there IS a debate going on. My temptation is to make an amendment which more marginally draws attentioin to this fact. Roger Arguile 11:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramsay Macmullen

Has a new book out Voting about God in the Early Church. It sounds very interesting. Thought you might like to know about it. I'm getting one for Christmas. I see you and your friends get into the teachings of the Bible. Never forget this is the view of ancient persons thousands of years ago. They and their world no longer exists. Their world is not not today's world. They are a bit behind the times in just about everything. Be careful about assimilating their primitive beliefs and behavior. Notice the difference between the God of the Old Testament and New Testament. Time past and there were social and behavioral changes. Changes didn't stop two thousand years ago. User:Kazuba 4 Dec 2006

Historicity

Thanks for cleaning up that dab header, and the lead paragraph. It was a bit wordy, and a bit inaccurate to boot. I have made a very minor modification that I hope you don't mind. Just as saying Christians use "faith alone" is POV, it seems POV to say scholars use "historical methods alone", while Christians are blessed with additional, religious methods. (it doesn't say blessed, but that is the tone I got out of that sentence). So I removed "alone" and "additional". Seems neutral to me, but wanted to run it by you (and anyone else watching that page). And thanks again for cleaning up the lead.--Andrew c 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough situation, because there are obviously good Christian scholars. What this sentence is creating is a false dichotomy: that there is a historical Jesus, and a Jesus of faith, such that the former is a creation of historical methods and probabilities, and the latter is a literal and spiritual reading of a religious text. A problem rises from the large number of Christians that accept portions of both models, resulting in a semi-historical, semi-faith based Jesus. What really is being said is that it is impossible for historical methods to 'prove' certain things about Jesus (Ehrman and Meier both cover this topic in detail). And likewise, you will not be using faith-based, religious methods to say certain parts of the Gospel accounts are wrong or improbable or non-historical. I believe the current wording is fine because it isn't saying that the "Christ of faith" is identical with every single Christian's construction of Jesus. I guess the HJ and the CoF are just two extremes on a spectrum within Christian belief. My issue is that some historical methods conflict with religious methods (as opposed to compliment).--Andrew c 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

re:Curious

I apologize if I have flooded you with information.

Quotes from scholars concerning miracles

B.D. Ehrman, Jesus p. 207-8

Here I must stress even more strongly than before that the problem confronting the historian when it comes to discussing miracles. Even if a miracle did happen, there is no way we can demonstrate it, by the very nature of the case (see my longer reflections in chapter 11). Historians try to determine what happened in the past. Since they can't prove the past, they can only establish what probably happened. But by their very nature, miracles are highly improbable occurrences. That is to say, the chances of a miracle happening are infinitesimally remove, as opposed to other weird things that happen in our world that are not in and of themselves so highly improbable that we'd call them "impossible." Thus, even if Jesus was raised from the dead--and many Christians historians personally believe he was, just as most other historians think he wasn't--there is no way we can demonstrate it using historical methods.

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew v.2.617

At long last we come to the miracles of Jesus as narrated in the Four Gospels. As I emphasized throughout Chapter 17, when it comes to the miracles of Jesus, the focus of my historical quest is--and must be--a narrow one. I do not claim to be able to decide the theological question of whether particular extraordinary deeds done by Jesus were actually miracles, i.e., direct acts of God accomplishing what no ordinary human being could accomplish. As I have indicated, I think that such a judgment ("that this particular act is a miracle performed directly by God") goes beyond what any historian can legitimately assert within the limits of his or her own discipline.

Rather, my quest seeks to remain within the realm of what, at least in principle, is verifiable by historical research. Hence I ask: Given the fact of the many miracle stories present in the Four Gospels, are there reasons for thinking that at least the core of some of these stories goes back to the time and ministry of Jesus himself? In other words, did the historical Jesus actually perform certain startling, extraordinary deeds (e.g., supposed healing or exorcisms) that were considered by himself and his audience to be miracles? Or did such reports come entirely from the creative imagination of the early church, as it remembered the deeds of Jesus in the light of such OT figures as Elijah and Elisha and it proclaimed these deeds in a highly competitive religious "marketplace" that extolled Jewish and pagan miracle-workers?

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew v.2.511

Can miracles happen? Do miracles happen? The problem of the possibility and actual occurrence of miracles is logically the first question any inquirer would raise in a discussion of the miracles of Jesus. I fear then that I will be disappointing almost all my readers with the answer I give. In my view, these wide ranging questions are legitimate in the arena of philosophy or theology. But they are illegitimate or at least unanswerable in a historical investigation that stubbornly restricts itself to empirical evidence and rational deductions or inferences from such evidence.

No sooner do I make this claim that I imagine both believers and nonbelievers crying "cop-out!" On the one side, staunch Christian believers--especially those of a conservative bent--will protest that I am once again giving the victory to agnostics by default: I am in effect saying that miracles are not real events in time and space. On the other side, nonbelievers, non-Christians, and even some Christians will no doubt detect covert Christian apologetics in what seems a refusal to bite the bullet. In their view, I am refusing to pursue a thoroughgoing critical approach to history, an approach that necessarily accepts the conclusions of modern science and philosophy: miracles cannot and therefore do not happen. In their eyes, I am trying to preserve a tiny acre of a bygone mythical world within the otherwise modern universe of historical research.

J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew v.2.514

Hence it is my contention that a positive judgment that a miracle has taken place is always a philosophical or theological judgment. Of its nature it goes beyond any judgment that a historian operating precisely as a historian can make. What a historian--or a physician or a doctor-- may say in his or her professional capacity is that, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, one cannot find a reasonable cause or adequate explanation for a particular extraordinary event. The historian may also dully record the fact that a particular extraordinary event took place in a religious context and is claimed by some participants or observers to be a miracle, i.e., something directly caused by God. But to move beyond such affirmations and to reach the conclusion that God indeed has directly caused this inexplicable event is to cross the line separating the historian from the philosopher or theologian. The same person may make both types of judgments, but he or she does so in a different professional (or amateur) capacity and in a different realm of human knowledge.

Summary on miracles

Therefore, historians, using the same methods they use for anything else, can examine claimed miracles. And they can determine if it is a tradition that most likely dates back to the historical Jesus or not. They cannot say whether the event was actually supernatural. Some scholars attempt to posit alternative, naturalistic explanations for these miracles, but again these are just speculative and cannot be any more historically proven than divine intervention (without further evidence of course). It's like explaining a magic trick. I may be able to rationally hypothesize how a magician performs a trick. I may even be able to recreate the illusion. But without further evidence, I cannot say that magic trick X was performed using methods Y.

As for the resurrection in particular, scholars can examine the events historically. Some conclude that the evidence is weak, and most of the details do not date back to a historical Jesus. They also conclude that there isn't enough evidence to prove a physical, bodily resurrection. Only that claims by believers were made decades later. However, there are a handful of Christian apologists that claim the easter and post-easter events are historical, although I personally believe their arguments are more theological instead of historical. (see [1] for an example, a collection of apologetic essays written by not a single historian) Not surprisingly, there are anti-religious folk that claim the resurrection is impossible on theological grounds. Once again, not a historical argument. I think it is fair to say that well respected historians and Jesus scholars acknowledge this issue, and leave the supernatural considerations out of their empirical research (which is why I added what I added to the HJ article).

Responding to specifics

I would like to respond to a few of your points.

Thus we have determined the Luke is reliable, insofar as can be checked, and that is a reason to believe he is correct on the matters more difficult to check, like the burial to post-resurrection accounts.

This is a fallacy, faulty generalization. The exact same argument could be used for the Iliad. Scholars for a long time thought it was all mythological, until Heinrich Schliemann, using the Iliad as his guide, discovered a large number or archaeological sites. Now, we have established that the Iliad, for the most part, gets the historical setting correct. Does that mean we can assume the details are correct? Or that the supernatural/mythological events depicted in it actually happened? It would be a double standard to not view the works of Homer (or Dan Brown for the matter) in the same manner. Furthermore, extraordinary events need extraordinary proof, (like the Da Vinci code, just because a lot of it is historical, doesn't mean Jesus married Mary M.) Determining that a work can be 'reliable' is not enough to extend that reliability on absurd claims. On top of that, Luke isn't flawless in his history (such as the date of the census).

These would all be reasons to think that belief in Jesus' divinity was based on genuine personal experiences, or the testimony of those who had such.

People throughout history have been willing to die for their convictions. Look at the global conflicts today, and how many of them are theologically driven. Someone holding a strong belief is not evidence that the belief is true.

The apostles willingness to embarrass themselves personally when telling their experiences, again a reason to think their discourse genuine.

If something like that happened today, sure I could get on the internet and do some research, make some phone calls, even hop on a plane. But if you are a poor tradesman living in some small town in Asia Minor, hundreds of miles away from where these alleged events took place, decades after the alleged events took place, is it really feasible that someone could (or even would) be able to research the claims of a traveling evangelist? Christianity did better with the Gentiles then it did in Jerusalem, right? Who is to say that people didn't do this? It took centuries before Christianity became a major religion, and in the beginning it was a small sect. (Mormonism has grown at a much, much faster rate than Christianity historically did) It's not like you could just post on the internet that these guys were frauds. I also find this argument weak because it applies to many religious groups. There is nothing extraordinarily different about the Gospel accounts that would be any easier for an ancient public to debunk than say the claims of Apollonius. Even in this day and age, we see falsehood spread through the population, snopes.com is full of them (but at least we have the means to debunk a lot of this stuff today, imagine what it was like back then).

As for the Napoleon argument, the analogy is stretched pretty far. The difference between an Englishman and a Frenchman is about 200 km. The difference between a corpse and the resurrected corpse of God is much more significant. Also, the body of evidence is a lot different. We have physical evidence, artifacts and such for Napoleon, in addition to written sources, both favorable and unfavorable, from many different perspectives. All we have for Jesus is a handful of religious writings, and about 4 sentences from non-Christian sources about a century later. And all this amounts to is that with the evidence on hand, and the methods used by historians, we cannot say that the resurrection happened for sure. We can say things about the events leading up to it, and we can say things about the followers beliefs, but it is going outside of the realm of history to say anything else.

Anyway, thanks for starting the discussion and I hope I haven't overwhelmed you. I didn't have much else to do today until I go to work.-Andrew c 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Good call on images

Good job noticing the image of Escriva teaching to men and the image of Rome instead of NY. I did right-justified one of them because I've found out that left-justify seems to inspire jihad in some editors. :) --Alecmconroy 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul

You ask for sources. Tell me what you want. I haven't put in footnotes as this does not seem to me to be encyclopedic - see Britannica. Footnotes are for learned articles and books. If you doubt anything that has been written, tell me. There are, after all, numerous references to scripture, which is a source (!). I shall not advert to the other references since you can read the article. I shall look at it again and see what statements seem to need support. I wold prefer to add reference works which I shall do. That is normally the way that encyclopedias work. Roger Arguile 10:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me: are you asking because you think some of the statements are at all dubious? Some of them are simply paraphrases of the text.I confess to getting frustated that more of the talk is about process and less about the substance of articles. But I will attempt to deal with your particular queries.Roger Arguile 10:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be boring. I have just noticed that the book by Raymond Brown 'The Churches the Apostles left behind'(whom you pronounced 'controversial) has the Nhil Obstat and Imprimatur. It is at least free from error. Roger Arguile 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that you know more than I. I am not now clear what then the Nihil Obstat is for but if what you say is true than I fear that you are substituting private judgment for the declarations of the magisterium. This is the great charge against protestants; and is indeed the most proper definition of the protestant. But in any case I have attempted to provide you with some citations. Roger Arguile 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks

My respect for you has just shot up. If you ever need a favor, let me know. Jonathan Tweet 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ability and willingness to state fairly that which you don't personally believe is remarkable. I'm particularly grateful that you

took a stab at the Jesus Seminar on the Christianity page because you'd earlier said you wouldn't. Jonathan Tweet 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Thanks for your continuing interest in the article, "Roman Catholic Church." As you may have seen, I was trying to remove the "talking heads" type comment from the encyclopedic article. Too much "60 Minutes" for me. I'd rather the church define itself, as I've mentioned. I don't want to be changing something and by doing so, forcing you to change it back!

I was doing a section a day. I wanted to remove the statement which has no reference about the "criticism" that the Church destroyed Native American artifacts, most notably in Mexico. It very definitely did! But it needs a reference which I'm not going to furnish. I would think the author, who probably wasn't you, might say, "The church destroyed what it thought were pagan influences..." etc. Incidentally the church also destroyed a heck of a lot of Roman and Greek stuff, too! Too bad about that!  :) Anyway, just one little sentence!  :) Student7 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Catholic Teachings

Thank you for your thoughts. I think you will agree with the simple changes I just made and will make tomorrow. The section entitled "Controversial..." seems to be worded defensively. The content is okay, but I'd like to make the heading a little more positive. Maybe the section heading is defensive, as well. "The Church's Response to Modernism"? "...Response to Revisionists"? :) Maybe a bit too assertive!  :) Student7 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...I think I should take up something less controversial....like Medugorje!  :) Student7 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Revelation, Paschal view, and the Eucharist

Since you were glad to see this view added to the Revelation article, perhaps if you ever get the time, you wouldn't mind adding a little about this to the Eucharist article to make up for the sentence I removed: The fullest interpretation of the Book of Revelations[sic] can be explained in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

SV and the LEAD of John

I always thought "SV" was refering to a bible translation (maybe "Standard Version", as in ASV, ESV, or maybe RSV or AV) instead of sub verbo. I agree that sub verbo doesn't make sense in the LEAD.-Andrew c 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed additional. The sentence just doesn't make sense that way. We are drawing a dichotomy. Some people only believe in a historical Jesus, and some peoply only believe in a Christ of faith. Others mix the two. Maybe because you personally mix the two, or yo know of scholars/theologians that mix the two, are you trying to give credence to that view. I feel that we do not need to cover that position in the LEAD (but I wouldn't oppose introducing an additional clause clarifying the spectrum of belief). The fact is that there is a Christ figure described in religious texts that is not examined critically by many adherents (i.e. accepted on faith alone). This is not the same thing as the historical Jesus, which is a reconstruction using historical methods. This is a helpful dichotomy for what the article is trying to say. We aren't saying you are either in column A or column B because there is a spectrum of belief. There may be a way to work this section out, but adding "additional" isn't it. I'll tell you if I come up with anything, and please feel free to do something yourself. Good luck!--Andrew c 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what I am focusing on here is the lay position. I mean, how many people put as much reseach into their religion as you? Would that apply to every single Catholic in the developing nations were literacy and access to scholarly research are serious issues? Just think about the US (where most Americans can't name a single supreme court justice), how many Christians do you think actually know that Aramaic was most likely the primary language of Jesus, let alone more complex historical issues? That's where I'm coming from when I desire to keep a contrast between the HJ and the Christ of faith.-Andrew c 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

'Editorial changes' on Paul

I have made some comments on your editorial changes some of which I have reverted. I have left an explanation on the talk page. It would be kind if you could look at it some time. Roger Arguile 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Now you've gotten too conservative about the article. I wasn't even all that bold for the most part. A.J.A. 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I just don't think I changed too much either. A.J.A. 09:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

key texts

"JT, your webpage would benefit by attending to Pope Eugene IV's Sicut Dudum (1435), Pope Paul III's Sublimis Deus (1537), and especially Pope Gregory XVI’s In Supremo (1839), among other key texts." Thanks for the tip. Good stuff there. Jonathan Tweet 06:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Paul,Nietsche and the resurrection

You may have noted the intervention of Mike Ely who wishes to see Jefferson et al. reinstated. You will have seen that I am resistent. I think he may have a point that there are a good many people, some more qualified than others, who feel that the Christ of the gospels is very different from Paul's Christ. We have the possibility of another edit war here. My intention is to reinstate a bit more Harnack, not because I have a huge sympathy for the German Protestant Scholars of the last two centuries; many of them are very strange. I might put a little more from Harnack in Alternative Views. See what you think.

On the resurreciton, one of the problems is the very unstable state of biblical translations of 2 Corinthians 6. I intend to get hold of some modern commentaries of various kinds. Would it help I I shared some ideas through this page? One does not always want things to be displayed to the cold light of public sight before reaching a sensible conclusion. Roger Arguile 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to have done anything about the Resurrection section. I was looking at the article on 'Pauline Christianity'. I don't see that you have done anything on that. You might care to look at it. I have, as usual arrived with hatchet in hand and have tried to make it a bit more sympathetic. But you have a sharp eye. You might want to have a go at it. The last section I think is hugely out of focus, but I don't know enough about the cultured despisers of Catholic Christianity to give them fair air time. Roger Arguile 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

re: MH

Hi--thanks for your message. I'm a student at Yale (though on year-long leave in Heidelberg at the moment). I thoroughly enjoy my studies, which center both on early medieval history, and paleography and diplomatics.

I see you're a Roman Catholic: I guess this explains your position on the Census of Quirinius and such. (I suspect we read very similar apologist textbooks in high school.) Do you study at York? ECKnibbs 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Leeds Cathedral

Thanks for your message and interest in relation to the Leeds Cathedral stub I created. I would greatly appreciate any contributions you would like to make towards making this page something of real substance. The dominus 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll miss you

Editing WP isn't going to be as fun any more. Who's going to keep me honest? Have fun on the history pages. Jonathan Tweet 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources who complain about travel in Luke

Hi Lostcaesar,

I'll fear you may be sick of the topic by now, but I've been reading up on the matter, and I was wondering if you knew of any authors who complain that the requirement to travel to Bethlehem is an historical impossibility. A paragraph that I think you wrote in the Quirinius article seems devoted to refuting this position (as it should: of all the criticisms to make, this seems to be one of the most misguided). I've found more sources on travel required in Egypt, etc., during censuses (us. because of property ownership) and would like to add them--but I think it would be nicer if we could come up with a cited position to play them off of. "So and so have argued bla bla, but modern scholars believe bla bla bla." That sort of thing. Otherwise it's like punching the wind: readers won't know why this stuff is in the article.

nibbs ECKnibbs 11:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit reversions

Lostcaesar,

I am going to insist on the edits I made earlier, and it seemed only courteous to write and tell you so. I don't want an edit war with you, but I don't think you're really responding to my arguments or justifying your reversions. You advanced not a single specific point against the edit I made, and you reverted it with only a vague post on talk. If you want to alter the phrasing here and there, I would be thrilled. If you want to reinsert the passages I removed (please note that I did not remove any points entirely, just the passages listed), I am open to discussion on the matter, provided they meet OR standards and do not introduce redundancy. But I would ask you not to revert anymore: the edits I made are an attempt to respond to the point made by EALacey, and to clear up deficiencies in the article (for which cf. my newest post on talk).

I think you fear that I am biased and so regard my edits with suspicion. Doubtless some of my posts on talk have given you reason to think so. I am, in fact, quite biased, but maybe not in the direction you suspect.

nibbs ECKnibbs 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you cannot devote all of your attention to my posts on talk. I only ask why you revert my edits, if you have not had time to digest my points. ECKnibbs 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

Please b einformed that a request for comment regarding an editor with whom you had a dispute on Christianity has been started. Beit Or 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That dispute took place last fall, and it involved the issues of persecution of Christians by Muslims. You may refresh it in your memory by looking at the diffs provided in the RFC. Beit Or 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

I saw your move of Nicene Christianity. Next time, you may want to use the move tab instead of copy and pasting content. Using the move tab preserve the page history. More information can be found at WP:MOVE. I have requested help from an admin to fix the page histories.-Andrew c 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I realize that both pages are practically new, however comparing Special:Whatlinkshere/Nicene_Christianity with Special:Whatlinkshere/Late_Antique_Christianity made me reluctant to endorse a move without getting more input than just you and I. Can you cite some of those scholarly reference to the LAC term on Talk:Nicene Christianity now that it exists (you saw me make the page move comment before I'd actually gone to the talk page and started the discussion on moving it). I have no problem with moving it if that's where it should be, but wasn't sure myself. -- nae'blis 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)