The term believer's baptism is appropriate even without quotation marks because it indicates the emphasis laid on personal belief as an a priori condition for valid baptism according to the traditions that practice it. Infant baptizers, on the other hand, either deny that an infant can believe (Presbyterians) or that they need to believe in order for the rite to be valid (Lutherans, etc.). Luther discusses this idea at length in his Large Catechism, sections 52 through 63. Eugeneacurry 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase remains in itself a POV and should continue to be set off with quotation marks. Infant Baptism is also a "Believer's Baptism" and to say it isn't is pushing an Anabaptist POV.--Drboisclair 14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! You have a great deal to offer these articles, and (most of the time) I appreciate your wisdom and way with words. Sincerely, Afaprof01 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brother and Colleague Eugene. What do you mean by "totally owned Afaprof01" in the SBC edit? Sorry, I don't get it. Thanks for your additions to the article. Afaprof01 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has moved to User_talk:TigerTails#Christ_Myth_Theory_vandalism_by_User:Eugeneacurry –  TigerTails  talk  13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact, given the list, it seems that the only place Wright hasn't been is Conference Room "C" at the Akron Holiday Inn to hear Carrier's lectures to the local chapter of Angry Adolescent Atheists of America. But, then again, it seems Ehrman missed that fine opportunity too." That is amazing. --Ari (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted your attempt to link this subject to Holocaust denial and flat earthers in the lead. WP:LEAD requires an overview of the subject, not a verbatim rendering of footnotes used, let alone those of religiously motivated critics of it which are clearly WP:UNDUE WEIGHT anyway. You seem to think this page is Jesus or Historical Jesus rather than Christ myth theory, although given your clear conflict ot interest pastor, I question whether you should be editing it at all.Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Christ myth theory, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Haldraper (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Template:Do not delete[reply]

Haldraper,there are a number of problems with your comments, so I'll take them in order.

(1) Your edits to the Christ Myth article violate the Three Revert Rule; stop.

(2) The current lead is not a "verbatim rendering of footnotes" but a brief summary of some scholars' views, sourced with footnotes.

(3) The scholars who compare the Christ Myth to Holocaust denial and so on are not obviously motivated by religious concerns--don't try to mind-read--Crossan and Ehrman are very unlikely to possess such motivations in this matter.

(4) These critical comments are most apropos in the Christ Myth article and not the Jesus/Historical Jesus articles. The critical comments are explicitly directed at the subject of the Christ Myth page and are only tangentially relevant to your proffered alternatives.

(5) My edits clearly do not represent a conflict of interest. I am not writing about myself, my family, my friends, my business, my band, my legal case, my favored political candidate, or any other related thing. I am writing about a historical/literary theory articulated in the 18th century and developed since then. Further, all my edits are heavily footnoted with reliable 3rd party sources which generally derive from recognized experts in relevant fields. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you received any threats by user:Rpsugar (who signs his messages at skull) do tell me so we can get a few more admins involved. Apparently we are part of a conspiracy to attack the Acharya page. --Ari (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your recent edit to Rational Response Squad:

• First, you removed valid content from the Lead paragraph regarding the group's mission objective with providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. Please do not do this.
• Second, the first source you provided for Sapient's name makes no mention of it, and the second, for Rook Hawkins' name, is a Facebook page. Social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace are not permitted under WP:RS because anyone can start a page on those sites and pose as the people in question.
• Lastly, Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living People includes respect for people's privacy, and it will remove personal information such as birth dates and real names when requested by the subject. As has been discussed before, the members of the RRS prefer to be known by aliases. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nightscream. Thanks for contacting me regarding the page. Perhaps I was over hasty in deleting some of the intro; it's seem a bit like an advertisement so I paired it down. As for you other concerns, they seem a little off. I gave two sources in connection with "Brian Sapient": the first authenticated the claim that he was a co-founder of the RSS and the second provided his real name. As for "Rook Hawkins", his real name is now common knowledge, but I wanted to be thorough since I expected objections like this so I sourced it nevertheless. I checked the link you posted regarding reliable sources and I couldn't find the words "social," "networking," "MySpace," or "Facebook" anywhere. All I found was a statement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," which is exactly what the Facebook page I referenced was: a self-published source by the RSS on the RSS. Finally, given that Brian's real name is found in sources the article already was using, and that the RSS has itself publicized "Rook's" real name, I don't see how the preference for anonymity has any standing. I'm reverting the name info but I'll leave the "mission statement" this time. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the words Facebook or MySpace is not the central point. Again, the point is that social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace are not considered reliable because anyone can start a page on those sites and pose as the people in question, a point that I notice you didn't address in your message to me. Such sites can be cited if they can be authenticated as the official site belonging to the person or group in question, as with say, a mention or link of the social network page on the person/group's official website, but I searched through the RRS, and could not find one.

As for the issue of privacy, again, if a BLP subject requests that their name not be used in an article for reasons of privacy and safety, and keeping it out of the article does not harm a reader's ability to understand the content, then Wikipedia will keep the name out of the article even if it's used in the article's sources. This is a widely adopted policy with plenty of precedent. The real name of the Star Wars Kid, for example, is kept out of that article because Wikipedia does not wish to perpetuate the humiliation felt by that fellow that led to his notability, even though his name is in that article's sources. Another example is Brian Peppers, whose article was deleted for similar reasons. Quality and inclusion of sources is one principle, but like all other principles, it is not the only one; it is one of many that must be balanced along with others. Just to play Devil's Advocate, I double-checked this with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who affirmed this himself.

As for the link you included establishing that Sapient was co-founder of the RRS, I apologize; I didn't realize that that was the info you were trying to support with that link. I'll keep that one in.

Also, the "Our Team" page lists only Sapient as a co-founder, and Rook Hawkins as a "core member", not a co-founder. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading your contributions to Talk:Acharya S, and I think there is a real problem with your use of the discussion page. The proper function is to discuss the content of the article, not research you are capable of doing concerning it, not what you think about the views of the subject of the article, and certainly not what you think of other editors involved in the discussions. Please back off from pushing your own view with that tone. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I've given up trying to include Murdock's middle name in her article. I just couldn't win so I've resigned myself to defeat on this one; I won't be "pushing" my view with any "tone" whatsoever. Second, I clearly was using the aritcle's talk page to discuss the article--specifically the possible inclusion of facutal information. Discussions of research only arose when I was compelled to justify otherwise seemingly self-evidently credible sources. As for the insinuation that I was using the page as a place to duscuss what I "think about the views of the subject of the article," I must confess that I have no idea what you are talking about. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you wrote As to the matter of her safety, I've seen this objection a few times now and it's always struck me as misleading, as if the implication is that critics of Murdock's work are so enraged that they are seeking to do her bodily harm, as though if they could only get her full name they'd track her down to satisfy their crazed blood lust, you are discussing her own views on her own safety. That is what I meant. A Talk page is not a forum in which such matters are to be discussed. I have deleted some whole threads on that page now, since I consider what was going on there inflammatory. My comment left to you is a routine measure to ensure that you understand where the issues lie, that seem to me to require this unusual measure. Thank you for getting back to me on this. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted your creation of this article at WP:COIN.Haldraper (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more questions for you to answer at WP:COIN.Haldraper (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning that I regard your accusation at Talk:Christ myth theory that my raising of your conflict of interest was 'vindictive' as a personal attack and I will refer it to WP:ANI if you repeat it in any form.Haldraper (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead; the WP:COIN thread speaks for itself. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COIN#California_Southern_Baptist_Convention does indeed speak for itself, offering no basis for your personal attack at Talk:Christ myth theory that my raising of your conflict of interest was 'vindictive' and I warn you again not to repeat it.Haldraper (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eugeneacurry. Please see the result of the complaint you submitted at WP:AN3#User:Jbolden1517 reported by Eugeneacurry (talk) (Result: Voluntary article ban). It would be helpful if you and the others working on Talk would formulate some issues that might be settled via WP:RFC. The RfC could be advertised to appropriate WikiProjects. One problem is, that even framing the RfC might require some cooperative spirit that has not been in evidence recently. Anything you can do would be appreciated. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Jesus Never Existed button.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eugene. Talk:Creation according to Genesis has an active WP:RfC "Request for comments" that may interest you. It concerns the dispute over calling Genesis 1-2 a "creation myth." Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christmas Puppet Show.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Fastily, learn to take a joke. My little comment on the notice board ("Blast you, Fastily sock! This is the second picture I've uploaded you want to delete.") wasn't serious at all. Who even says "blast you" in real life? Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly thought it was funny.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eugene, I've been watching this article for a while now and this issue has come up multiple times. So, I just wanted to strongly suggest that a FAQ be created. That's my $0.02. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is pretty new as I suspected. Don't be surprised if it is challenged and certainly don't get impolite by calling people "liars". 89.242.159.206 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ is relatively new. The lead itself, however, has been in place--with the denialist comparisons--for months. As for calling certain editors "liars" (a word I haven't actually used, by the way), I'm reminded of A Man for All Seasons: "It's not a likeable word. It's not a likeable thing." Eugene (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Christ myth theory. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not characterise other editors as you did with BruceGrubb, when you described them as "disgruntled Christ myth theory sympathizers like BruceGrubb". Ttiotsw (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Ttiotsw (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(That sounds dumb ! - the javascript thingy said "Welcome ..."!.) Ignore the "Welcome...". You are not new here: don't comment on users. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ttiotsw, to be fair, Eugeneacurry has been very patient in dealing with objections to clearly documented and very reliable sources. Quite frankly, after your comment above, and Dbackmann's comment on the Christ myth theory "Spelling, grammar, readiness of article" section (dated 11:02, 3 February 2010), I think the phrase "disgruntled Christ myth theory sympathizers" is justified. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "attacking" editors. It is relevant to the discussion at hand that BruceGrubb only decided to support Dbachmann's call for a merger after learning he would not be able to shape the page to suit his ideology. Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ and you are very mistaken in your understanding of WP:CIVIL. One never refers to users in any way that can be misinterpreted especially when you edit on difficult subjects. If it ever comes to an RFC then commenting about users in any way will adversely affect any outcome. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get distracted by this. I grant that my comment might be marginally uncivil, but but so is "templating the regulars". But that's not immediately relevant to your claim ("you are very mistaken in your understanding of WP:CIVIL") because you didn't hit me with a template for WP:CIVIL, you posted the template for WP:NPA. This is moot though, we agree that the articles should not be merged. Let's move on. Eugene 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No one wants to engage in an edit war. However I urge you to create an article - called something like Horus and Jesus connection. If the article is sound and encyclopedic it will draw important connections between two ancient belief systems, perhaps the 2 articles will eventually merge. In my opinion the current article should focus on Horus...Modernist (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to engage in an edit war. Further, I have no real desire to see the pictures in question placed in the Horus article. The pictures initially were a part of the Osiris page and I removed them since they aren't about Osiris at all. Another editor has objected (Osiris has a much larger dubious section on parallels than Horus) as part of a larger desire to see the article include the fringey stuff. To demonstrate good faith I've tried to put the pictures in a more relevant article. I've failed. And I'm totally OK with that. Eugene (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are Paul directly saying he was a real human being. Feel free to remove Paul also saying he was God, I didn't have the time for a detailed edit. Paul saying he was a Jewish minister is certainly germane.Roy Brumback (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a look at this image and thought about moving it to the Wikimedia Commons (this is where public domain images should be uploaded), but it doesn't seem to be that safe in terms of copyright. Where's the evidence that it's public domain? I think it's the case that you've been granted permission by email personally, but we need a more formal process than this to accept that since anyone could claim that they have permission. It's also important to explain to the copyright holder what they're doing legally when allowing us to use the image, e.g. releasing most/all rights and such. If you can forward an email from the copyright holder to Wikimedia Commons OTRS team that should cover it. Please get back to me about this on my talk page. Richard001 (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Flickr is a good source for images (I've uploaded a few hundred from there actually). The problem is you didn't get any specific copyright release from this person so you need to do that first. I can ask her if you like and upload it to Commons myself; people usually do release the images under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA when asked to. But is the image you used on Flickr? Richard001 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have sent Sarah an email. Richard001 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the idea behind the two week wait is that it gives time for the issues raised in the FAC to be resolved before taking the article to PR. If you feel you've addressed them sooner, I think it would be OK to open a PR then, but I would give it at least a day or two and look carefully at the article to see what still could be done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me - you might want to mention in the PR itself that you have specifically asked me to satrt it a bit early. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eugene, I have a question. Am I allowed to comment on the CMT peer review page? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I mean, you're free to interact with the commentators, but I'm not sure you're allowed to post independent comments since you're an active editor on the article. Eugene (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my concern. Be that as it may, let me explain why I asked. Brianboulton said (regarding Holocaust denial, moon hoax),

The remaining information suggests to the reader that believers in the Christ myth are both wicked and stupid

My response would be that there is another option. That is, that believers (in Holocaust denial, e.g.) are simply uninformed of both the evidence and historical methodology. Anyway, I think I'll do what you did and simply label what I add in as a "reply". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

"Those Christ-myth cranks who thought the figure of Jesus created by lower class resistance to the ideals of Greco-Roman Society, at least had a case that fitted the main facts of the gospel story, which is more than can be said for Professor Dundes." Smith, Morton, "response to Alan Dundes' 'The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus'", Protocol of the Twenty-fifth Colloquy, The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenisitc and Modern Culture, Berkeley, California, 12 December 1976 (Berkeley, CA: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1977) p. 63

The Historical Jesus: Five Views cranks

In addition to that amazing quote above by anon(?), I just came across this today - "Reputable ancient historians irrespective of religious persuasion know that Jesus was a genuine figure of history." Paul Barnett, Messiah: Jesus-the evidence of history. (Inter-Varsity Press, 2009). The multiple reference things looks too complicated to me if you wished to add it. --Ari (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The defectiveness of this treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence." 76-77 "The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question." 269 case

Carsten Peter Thiede:

In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian.^[1]

Christopher Tuckett, Professor of New Testament at Oxford University (after examining the non-Christian sources):

All this does at least render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

John Dickson:

To describe Jesus' non-existence as 'not widely supported' is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, 'It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened.' There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method.^[2]

The comment was deleted for the reason I said. I didn't want distraction on the mediation. So lets do this here.

I think you think you are being much cuter than you are. Stay within wikipedias rules and the ferocious hatred I have for you will not find outside expression. Keep provoking me on this forum and it will. I didn't come into your life and do damage, you came into mine. You seem to feel perfectly free to attack me, degrade me and demean me. You have no remorse no conscience. There is a constant undercurrent of trickery and dishonesty it just about everything you write. If you were genuinely spooked you would be polite. You aren't spooked this is just one more stupid side show trick of yours. And if you do genuinely feel a little spooked, good, you should. You have crossed way over the line.

Keep your dialogue to a minimum and keep it on topic. I don't want to hear about your assessment of me on various forums. You need to learn some manners. Your rude snarky personal attacks have on wikipedia and given our history is a very bad idea for you in general. jbolden1517^Talk 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now where did THAT come from??? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eugene, I just added a criticism section to the Hector Avalos article. Can you please, time permitting, take a look at it and let me know if it looks ok? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eugene, do you know if WLC is an "Evangelical Christian"? I think he is but I have no RS for it. However, I do know that he teaches a weekly class at a Baptist church in Atlanta, Georgia, so he might be Baptist. Is Baptist different from Evangelical? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theopedia.com/Geoffrey_W._Bromiley. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Geoffrey W. Bromiley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter, Eugene!

Eugene, the proper response is "Alithos Anesti". Just FYI.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eugene, it seems SlimVirgin is ignoring the facts regarding the pseudo nature of the CMT. I don't see how she can maintain that position in spite of the huge amount of evidence clearly shown in the FAQ. She seems to think that a consensus can change facts. If for some reason she gets her way, then I don't see any option other than to go to mediation again. What are your thoughts? Thanks. (Note, please respond on your talk page. I'm watching it.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not eager for that, but I'd agree to it if necessary. Eugene (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does mean I support it. I couldn't think of the term "support" the moment that I wrote it. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then, I changed it to read "support" and struck out "Advocate". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eugene, it looks like SlimVirgin has modified FAQ #2 to include the Martin quote. I thought that such a modification requires some kind of consensus. If I'm correct, can you please restore it to what it used to be? Thanks. (Once again, I'm watching your page, so please respond here.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I protected this article earlier as there was clearly a content dispute and some edit-warring going on. It was probably just as well for you that I did this, as another editor contacted me that they were about to post a 3RR report about you; and looking at your various edits today, it would've been justified. Please ensure that whilst the protection is in place that you engage on the talkpage to try to reach consensus on any disagreements, because looking at the history of the article you appear to be very active in reverting other editor's actions. Hopefully all active editors can now take part in constructive discussion on the talkpage whilst the article is locked; I have it watchlisted and will be keeping a careful eye on it when the protection expires. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, please don't consider the recent edits by Eugene as being indicative of edit warring. He has been a solid editor and he reverts changes only when they go against mainstream scholarship (which I wholeheartedly support). This problem has been going on for the last few months (and I don't think anything is going to change without some kind of mediation). Please protect the page for at least 3-4 weeks, since I've been down this path before and can honestly tell you that 3 days is not enough - it's just a "speed bump".

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that Eugene is not guilty of a 3RR. There are other editors who insist on making changes without discussing them first (see edits by SlimVirgin and Graham Cole). Please check the history from about 3 days ago to today and I think you will concur. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my contribution to the talk page on Christ myth theory. There are at least 4 scholarly works that reference Remsburg's list. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your constructive post to my talkpage. I respect you as an editor, and I understand you know what you are doing. I appreciate that left to yourself, you would come up with a decent end product. However, I must also say that you seem to have more difficulty with coming to terms with the wikiprocess of iterative consensus-finding. I realize that for a good editor it can be annoying to have to react to "opposition" which they are convinced will only waste time and reach the same result by a detour. But a good Wikipedia editor must be capable of distinguishing opposition that is entirely without merit (trolling, cluelessness) to opposition which has some merit but which they think is for some reason less well-informed than their own approach or less than well argued. In such cases, it is important to show flexibility, be prepared to compromise, and appreciate what merit you can find in the points raised. Nobody asks you to sit back and let your article be degraded. But there is an important distinction between simply reverting to your own version, and reverting an edit and then present a compromise suggestion of your own.

This is the reason or context of why I reverted you here while I commend you for this edit, which shows your willingness to compromise and to engage in an iterative process resulting in a better version. This concerns the FAQ page. I think it is pointless to extend a controversy in the article to the FAQ page. If people cannot agree on something, it is futile to keep a FAQ entry. The point of keeping a FAQ around is in recording long-standing, solid consensus, not an update on a dispute that is ongoing on talk anyway.

Anyway, my point is that while I recognize your general quality as an editor and your grasp of the subject, I feel you have fallen short of the level of collaboration required among bona fide editors. I would like to see you recognize the point I keep raising. I don't expect you to agree with me exactly on how to deal with it, but I want to see that you understand what I am saying, and I want to hear what you propose should be done about it. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Robert M Price headshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christmas Puppet Show.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to support some suggestion for changes to the Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources. My proposal which will make the POV editing on the Christ myth theory go through much easier. My proposals may be found here. --Ari (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Eugene (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get charged with war crimes or something over the past few days? I am having some trouble understanding the strong anti-Eugene sentiments. --Ari (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the commenters were perfectly clear on what I meant but chose to jump on the anti-semitism band wagon as a way of shaming me for my stance on the CMT page. I guess it's just a part of the culture here. Eugene (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the last comment on ANI. I put it in perspective quite nicely, if I do say so my myself.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have nominated that for a review, I really am. It's not something I enjoy doing, which is why I didn't do it the first time I saw the article. But the filibustering on talk, the going against consensus, the policy violations, and the reverting, mean the article can't be fixed. If you had only allowed the editors on that page to help sort it out, I actually think you'd have been fine with the result. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've just said that 1RR would be useful, do you really think that re-inserting that holocaust denial quote - for the third time today - and especially given the current ANI discussion, was a particularly good idea? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote given already includes such material. I'm merely adding Powell to the list. If other editors decided to censor him, I suppose I won't fight it at this point. As for the ANI discussion, quite honestly, I'm flabbergasted. It's undermined my faith in the entire project. Eugene (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Eugene, this has gotten out of hand. What will we be accused of next? Pedophilia? SV is constantly misrepresenting us and trying to make herself appear as holding the moral high ground. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia? Well, Camelbinky just mentioned the clergy sex abuse scandal in connection with my complaint, so it looks like didn't take long. Eugene (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal!!!! At this point, we need serious mediation if we are to have any hope of resolving any problems. And the mediator has to be very experienced. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you write the request? At this point I fear my developing reputation as a Jew-hater would complicate things. Eugene (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I could not be of more help in the earlier mediation. User:The Wordsmith from MedCab would be an excellent mediator for this dispute if he agreed to help out. NW (Talk) 20:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about NW. Everything you did was much appreciated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to do it since I've never done it before, and I'm probably not the best person to drive the mediation. However, if you would like to help me with it, I'll do it. At any rate, we have a bigger problem on our hands, so it can wait a few days or a week. The slanderous statements and the admin abuse on ANI have gotten WAY out of hand. I just wrote a long response. Please read it and let's see if the admins over there can calm down and be reasonable. If not, we need to lodge a complaint. Would that be done as an Arbitration or is there some other avenue? I still haven't gotten any sleep and it's killing me, but the level of abuse being hurled is unreal. Anyway, please let me know what you think. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now the slander has been ignored...the thread has been closed. Now what do we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Principal Skinner once said, "know when you're beaten". I don't think it would be helpful to pursue this further. Eugene (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I disagree with you and Bill about these things, I have to admit the AN/I thread is surreal. Some comments are so ill-informed, I can not really comprehend how it happened. Maybe for editors unfamiliar with historical Jesus studies, the only alternative to the Christ myth is a wholesale acceptance of the New Testament view; otherwise, I can't see how some of this stuff is so controversial.

Personally, I think the Holocaust analogies are flawed, but many people have completely misunderstood the point these scholars are making when comparing the two. The idea is not that the level of evidence is comparable, but that the underlying logic of mythicists, their pseudo-scepticism, will in its extreme lead to such things as Holocaust denial or moon-landing conspiracy theories. This is neither preposterous or offensive if one understands what is being said.

Now, misunderstanding an analogy is one thing, but to then go on and accuse someone of anti-Semitism is quite another. I don't want to recommend you take action, but I want to say that I think you are being the grander man here. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vesal, it's always nice to hear new voices tell me I'm not crazy when I think that some situation is indeed surreal. I think that you're quite correct to say that the scholars are claiming that "the underlying logic of mythicists, their pseudo-scepticism, will in its extreme lead to such things as Holocaust denial or moon-landing conspiracy theories"; just look at people like Edwin Johnson (historian) and Revilo P. Oliver for exampls of men whose hyperskepticism didn't just conveniently stop at denying the historicity of Jesus. Eugene (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Vesal!!! After the experience I had on ANI, it's really great to hear your comment. Although we disagree, as you noted, your comment is indicative of someone with a good character. I was feeling kind of low after the ANI result, but your comment has lifted my spirits. Thank you very much. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several people in this thread have requested your thoughts. Regards.--Chaser (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by FAQ 1 that, in historical Jesus studies, the Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus, the brother of James, friend of Peter, did not exist. Presently, no one has shown me anything to contradict it. So, for me, that is what the article is about.

I am very skeptical about Testimonium Flavianum because

1. 'It is not referred to in any other text before it appears quoted in full by Eusebius.
2. Origen (writing around 240 AD) mentions the reference to Jesus as James' brother, but not the Testimonium Flavianum, though he does cite Josephus' description of John the Baptist, which is from the same chapter as Testimonium Flavianum.
3. Tanaquilius Faber (1615-72) observed that Origen says Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ," contradicting "He was [the] Christ" in the Testimonium Flavianum. Jean Daillé (1594-1670) noticed the the passage contradicted statements about Josephus’ attitude toward Jesus made by Theodoret.
4. Throughout his writing, Josephus uses the Greek term poietes to mean poet, but in the Testimonium Flavianum poietes is employed to mean doer ("a doer of wonderful works"). Eusebius habitually uses poietes in the sense of doer when referring to Jesus or God.
5. Louis Cappel (1585-1658) noted that the passage does not fit into its surrounding context very smoothly. The paragraph before the Testimonium flows naturally into the paragraph after it[1]
6. I think I read that it is the only passage in the Antiquities to use a particular form of first person plural.

But the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" suffers none of these flaws. Is there any other evidence against the Christ myth theory as solid as this? I'm unimpressed by anything else I've read in favor of the historical Jesus. Anthony (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should elaborate,

The gospels are unreliable because they are riven with contradictions:

• With the exception of the forty days and nights in the wilderness (of which we are told virtually nothing), everything described in the gospels could be compressed into three weeks.
• Not only the date but also the year of his birth are unknown. No nativity in Mark or John and the nativities of Matthew and Luke conflict grossly and irreconcilably with each other and history and their credibility is doubtful:

1. Matthew has the Annunciation addressed to Joseph in a dream, Luke to Mary by Gabriel.
2. Matthew has them living in Bethlehem and fleeing from (the ahistorical) Herodian slaughter of the innocents, Luke has them living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem for the census under Quirinius.
3. Quirinius' census happened no earlier than 6 BC but Herod died in 4 BC.
4. Luke has Jesus as God's son by Mary, but traces his ancestry through Joseph and his father, Heli, to David.
5. Matthew's ancestry differs greatly from Luke' - even calling Joseph's father by a different name: Jacob.
6. Matthew uses the Greek Septuagint's "parthanos" (untouched virgin), a mistranslation of Isiah's Hebrew 'almah (young woman), revealing the author to be no true Jew.
7. Luke's Magnificat (1:46-55) is obviously based on the Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2: 1-10).

• Gospel contradictions make dating the Crucifixion uncertain.

1. The 4 canonical gospels and Tacitus put it during Pontius Pilate's administration, 27-36 AD.
2. The 4 canonical gospels agree the day after the crucifixion was the Sabbath (Saturday), so the crucifixion happened on a Friday. John says the crucifixion occurred on Passover (15 Nisan), the synoptics say it happened on the day after Passover - 16 Nisan. I have not seen a list of years between 27 and 36 AD where Passover fell on a Friday or a Saturday.
3. Luke places Jesus' baptism by John in the 15th year of the emperor Tiberius' reign (29 AD). The synoptics suggest Jesus' ministry spanned a year or less putting the crucifixion at 30 AD. But John suggests the ministry spanned 3 years after baptism.

These extra canonical sources are shaky:

• Tacitus (writing c. 115 AD) says "Christus, from whom the name (Christian) had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius (14 - 37 AD) at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." But:

1. The author of this passage calls Pilate a procurator. Tacitus knew that until 44 AD Judea was governed by prefects, and he clearly knew the difference.
2. No early Christian writers refer to this passage, even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. (These 2 points come from Tacitus on Christ.)

• Suetonius (writing c. 115 AD) describing events in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41 - 54 AD) says "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome." But:

1. "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a common Greek name of the time. [2]
2. The use of "instigation" implies the agitator was alive at the time.

• Pliny the Younger (writing c. 112 AD) reports that he obliged Christians to invoke gods, pray to the emperor's image and curse Christ. But he doesn't say what he thinks Christ was, man, god or other.

Anthony (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's nice to see that at least somebody who's critical of the page nevertheless accepts that the Christ myth theory is what the article says it is. (I've never really understood why this has been contentious, by the way.) You might want to inform SlimVirgin about your take on this issue so we can stop hearing about "straw-men".

As for Josephus, of course you're entitled to you opinion of the Testimonium Flavianum, but as the article mentions, according to Louis Feldman a solid majority of scholars who've commented on the passage believe that an authentic core exists among the interpolations.

The same applies to Tacitus, only more strongly: you're entitled to your opinion, but the "vast majority" of scholars regard the relevant material as authentic according to Van Voorst. The objection you raise about procuator and prefect is hollow. Even as intensely bitter an anti-Christian as Richard Carrier has written: "It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D." Also, given the stingingly harsh tone of Tacitus' comment, it's not surprising that Christians wouldn't quote it left and right.

As for Pliny, I think you simply havn't read the passage closely enough: "They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity..." Pliny writes that Christians prayed "to Christ, as to a divinity", not merely that they prayed "to Christ, a divinity". The nuance indicates that something which is not obviously a god is being treated as if it were.

With Suetonius, again, you are entitled to your opinion. Yet, once again, the majority of scholars think "Chrestus" is an allusion to Christ. The book you linked to mentions the majority position (using the charming Latin phrase communis opinio) and seems to defend that view, citing the reasons why doubt is unnecessary starting on page 76.

The issues you raise regarding the gospels themselves are interesting, but none of them bear on the question of Jesus' sheer existence--which we agree is the focus of the Christ myth theory. Rather than take a swing at defending every point, I'll just pretend to be a theological liberal here and say that even if the birth narratives are hopelessly irreconcilable and blatantly non-historical (not my actual views, BTW) that doesn't really matter. Mark is widely believed to be the first gospel written (and a key source for Matthew and Luke) and it doesn't include a birth narrative. So even if Matthew and Luke came along latter, picked up a copy of Mark ten to twenty years after it was written, and started adding all sorts of legendary episodes to beef up Jesus' "kick-ass quotient", that wouldn't have any bearing on the historicity of Mark's general outline, let alone the historicity of Jesus.

The problems with the crucifixion accounts are even less troublesome: four different authors all say the same man died by the same method on the same day of the week in the same city under the same authority on the same charge around the same holiday--Jesus, by crucifixion, on Friday, in Jerusalem, under Pontius Pilate, on the charge of insurrection (e.g. "King of the Jews"), around Passover. Discrepancies of dating (the day before or the day of Passover?) may have an ideological explanation (John wanted to make a point) or they may have more mundane explanations (e.g. counting days from sundown to sundown or counting some other way), but they're not huge problems. (I think Joachim Jeremias provides a list of possible crucifixion dates in The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, but it seems to be out of print now.)

Of course it's logically concieveable (in that there's no rigorous logical contradiction involved--like with a "married bachelor") that Jesus never existed, but no even-handed evaluation of the evidence would produce that conclusion. Four different hagiographic biographies produced within 60-ish years of the time he lived detail the man's life, a bunch of letters were written by Paul within 30 years of Jesus' life which quote the man several times and presuppose a large international movement that accepts his historicity, a Jewish historian refers to him--probably twice--within the same century, Roman imperial records indicate an acceptance of his historicity, etc, etc, etc. It seems, then, that a person has three options: either he can (1) accept that this level of evidence is sufficient to affirm the historicity of any given person from the past and therefore affirm Jesus' historicity, (2) he can go Edwin Johnson's route and say that this level of evidence is not sufficient to establish history and then apply that opinion fairly, thus obliterating almost all recorded history prior to the advent of the printing press, or (3) he can apply a selective and generally ideologically motivated skepticism to only those things he doesn't want to believe--hence the denialist comparisons. Of the options, #1 is far and away the most reasonable. Eugene (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Have I missed any early non Christian mentions of Jesus as a flesh and blood man? Anthony (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you define "early". Considering that we are here dealing with ancient history, that word is normally taken pretty generously. (Alexander the Great's oldest surviving biography was written about 250 years after his death.) So if we define "early" sort of loosely we can add a few more non-Christian references to Jesus to Josephus and the Greco-Roman authors you've already mentioned. There's Lucian, who referred to Jesus as "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." There's Galen who spoke of Jesus as comparable to Moses (not Zeus or the furies or some other non-human being). There's Celsus, who wrote a major polemic against Christianity that survives in the form of lengthy quotations in Origen's rebuttal; Celus clearly believed Jesus was a man. And then there's the somewhat mysterious Mara Bar Serapion letter. Eugene (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've just seriously culled the FAQ into something that might be acceptable to most. Can you please tell me what you think on the deletion talk page? I had 2 goals there: to pare it back to only the elements that specifically addressed the question, for concision; and to remove derogatory comments. Did I delete the proponent who conceded the theory is seen as cranky or eccentric? Anthony (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wells statement on the consensus view is still in the list. Price offers a similar quote: "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain" (The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts, Signature Books, 2006, p. 1179). Doherty too concedes that his theory isn't well respected: "After a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles 'the noisy side current' of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as 'weak and bizarre' by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt." (Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case) Eugene (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're online, Eugene, but I just asked Bruce and Wdford to provide support for their assertion that Jesus Christ = pure fiction is not the only scholarly understanding of the term. I won't blame you at all if you want to respond now and answer them, but I'm just letting you know that I'd prefer to wait (some time possibly) to see what they can come up with. But it is totally your call, of course. Anthony (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking out loud. The Christ myth theorists propose no historical Jesus. To defend this, they (1) counter the case for the historical Jesus and (2) offer an alternative explanation for the emergence of the Jesus and Christ traditions. Do some just leave it at (1) or do all influential CM theorists offer (2)? Anthony (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with all CMT variations so I can't really answer that. But McGrath implies that some stop at one while others press on to two: "One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism." (James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010).

I hope you don't mind a long post from someone you don't even know, and I apologize for the length, but I thought this might be useful. I recently stumbled upon the recent discussions at Talk:Christ myth theory and I'm impressed with your knowledge of the subject, the evidence you marshal and with a lot of your reasoning. I haven't looked into everything and I might change my mind on some points, but I agree with you on some things, disagree on others. I have a couple of suggestions that I think you might find save you not only some time and effort but a lot of grief.

You've already gone through quite a bit of grief with wrongheaded talk about anti-semitism and conflicts over the article language. When I've been in similar situations, the last thing in the world I wanted to do was try to make peace with the editors I was having trouble with, but from a distance it's easy to see that it's the best course, and it also conforms with Wikipedia policy. Even faking it would actually help (seriously). Your strength in these discussions is knowledge of the sources, and you're properly concentrating on that.

Your weakness, at least recently, is in dealing with the editors in a diplomatic way. (I'm very familiar with this because it's a mistake I've made in the past.) If you stop characterizing them in negative ways in your comments, you'll find it easier to get support, partly because when more of the editors are calmer about this, your evidence will be a more important factor in the discussions. To put it another way, evidence is a dish best served cold.

(Well, maybe lukewarm. At least room temperature.)

Another problem with long-term heated discussions is that nobody can keep their cool forever, and somebody is likely to get blocked or sanctioned in other ways, formal and informal, and it could be you as much as anybody, especially since admins will swoop in unexpectedly and make decisions that will likely surprise one side or the other. Yet another problem is that you suddenly find you're burnt out long before the other side is, and you just walk away, having wasted time.

Other editors may find better evidence (that is, sources) than yours, but yours looks very good right now (it also agrees with the bit of reading on this that I'd previously done). To take one example, it's extremely difficult to make Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, into some kind of passion-warped promoter of the idea that Jesus existed because Ehrman's faith is too wrapped up in the idea for him to admit otherwise. Another example: That Ehrman and others would compare Christ myth theory with Holocaust denial shows just how confident they are that nowadays it's a fringe theory.

While I think the statements by Ehrman and others are useful to consider in that regard, I'm glad they're out of the article (especially the lead) and off the FAC page. They didn't belong in either spot because they're unnecessary to describe the subject (and unnecessary on the FAC page), and they can be really offensive to some readers and editors (just as an editor linking you with anti-semitism was an offensive thing to say). Giving way on inessential points is one good way to keep the atmosphere at the right temperature for your evidence to be served.

SlimVirgin in particular is someone it would be better to work with rather than against, if possible. I've agreed and disagreed with her in past discussions. She can be very determined but also very reasonable, and she knows WP policies and guidelines as well as anyone (she's written or rewritten significant parts of them). (She can also write some of the best prose and do some of the best layout you'll ever see on Wikipedia.) It would benefit the article enormously if you could find a way to work with her, or work out differences as diplomatically as possible, because I think you both have a lot to contribute to it. I think the alternative is many (more) hours of unnecessary conflict -- the kind of thing that happens easily and often on Wikipedia.

Please think about it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I realize that I've become a bit grouchy after dealing with this article for a while now. I'll take your hint and try to relax a bit. Eugene (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Eric Curry (photographer), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Curry (photographer). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Non-dropframe (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eric Curry (photographer), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Cptmurdok (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, thanks for collapsing the discussion on the CMT talk page, but it would be better if you hadn't made the comments that started the discussion in the first place. It's a good idea to refrain from making snarky comments about Price, or any of the other sources used in the article, because it's very easy for other editors to see them as violations of the biographies of living persons policy. If you're not familiar with the WP:BLP policy, please make sure you are; especially note that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages, user talk pages, etc. Even if you don't think you're violating the BLP policy, you don't want to find yourself in a situation where you're getting accused of doing so. It's an easy and fast path to getting yourself blocked. In fact, I would say that in general you don't seem to realize that you're skating on thin ice. You could have very easily been blocked for edit warring when Black Kite protected the article recently; if you get blocked once, it's very easy for others to see you as a troublemaker, and for you to get blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Akhilleus, I'll relax a bit. I'll also read WP:BLP again. Out of curiosity, how far does this go though? Am I not even supposed to call attention to Price's use of "Coleman Theological Seminary" as opposed to the full Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary? Or is that fair game as it has relevancy for the RS issue? Eugene (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eugene. As far as Price calling it "Coleman Theological Seminary", I think that's a non-issue. (Should be "Colemon", though.) Easily seen as a shortened version of the name, rather than as some kind of dodge. For assessing whether Price should be called a scholar/academic, the important feature of the institution is that it is not accredited. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism&oldid=356724643 NJMauthor (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've submited a report to the AN/I. SlimVirgin has a lot of friends though, so I'm not confident anything will be done. Eugene (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, as part of the dispute-resolution process, I'm asking you once again to tone down your approach to the historicity of Jesus issue, whether at Christ myth theory or anywhere else. The specific problems are the offensive comparisons (comparing sources to Holocaust deniers, skinheads, flat-earthers etc), the belittling of sources in other ways leading to BLP issues, the belittling of editors who disagree with you, and the frequent undoing of other people's work. I see that even one of your supporters, in content terms, has made the same request, [3] yet even as you told him you would try to relax a bit [4] you were edit warring at Historicity of Jesus to try to force in the Holocaust denial comparison.

I also request that you stop asking Bill to revert for you; or if you're not asking him that you specifically request that he stop it. It's fine for editors to agree, including when they agree all the time, but it needs to be clear that they are independent editors. Bill has made only 114 edits to articles, and is beginning to look like a single-purpose account.

A less aggressive approach would serve you better, and given the number of experienced editors now watching Christ myth theory if you would let them do their work you'd almost certainly find you wouldn't object to the article in the end. But the current situation will cause reasonable people to wander off, and when that happens there's no chance of the article gaining genuine consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note here for future reference that this was your response to my request. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I was going to submit the AN/I request ever since NMJauthor informed me about the votestacking last evening. But when that came through I was already on my way out the door so I didn't get a chance to respond until this morning. I'm entirely willing to adopt a "less aggressive approach", but we need to all play by the same rules. You seem to disagree about that last point.

As for Bill, if you have a problem with him, talk to him. He's an adult (I assume). I'm no more responsible for his behavior than you are responsible for Crum375's behavior--though at least Bill and I don't use the same catch phrases (e.g. "dog bites man" [5] & [6]). Eugene (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's up to you, because you're an adult too. We can either clunk through the DR process to the next stage, or you can take the advice of all the editors who've approached you. Just about everyone is finding your approach problematic, and though I'm doubtless wrong as always, it's unlikely that everyone is else too. So please turn things around. It's not a game, not a battleground, and the snide responses, caustic analogies, and ruleslawyering (when it suits) don't move us forward. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking you to agree to the highest level of the DR process (formal mediation) from almost the word "go" but you've avoided that again and again. You seem intent on not having to explain a number of your edits and I can only assume that's because you know that the sources aren't on your side. As for my approach, I took a day off Wikipedia to relax a bit and I've resolved to avoid BLP issues (real or imagined) as far as possible. I've also resolved to be a bit more calm on the talk page. But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to just roll over and let you rewrite the article in such a way that the quality and clarity go "down the drain", as dbachmann said [7]--especially when you use underhanded tricks. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that I see the issue as a behavioral one, but you want to start another mediation about content. As for your wikibreak it lasted just 22 hours so it's not really worth mentioning. :) I stress again that I'm not talking about content here, but about your approach. I think the content issues could be fairly easily sorted out by the other editors on the page. But so long as you are there editing in the same way that's unlikely to happen, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, if you have something to say to me, please feel free to use my Talk page, rather than asking Eugene to "reel me in" as if I was his little trained minion (which is obviously what you think). I have the same right to revert as any other editor and, it should be noted, that I've never violated the 3RR, nor have I have I ever been blocked or topic-banned. I always respect the rules of Wikipedia, except for one instance when I was fairly new and didn't know what I was doing, nor about the rule that I violated.

Also, I have only a limited amount of time to dedicate to editing, so I just pick what I'm currently interested in and 90% of my time is devoted to that area. If you go back about year to when I first started editing, you will see that the majority of my edits had to do with the American civil war (which is one of my favorite historical eras, by the way - you probably would not believe that amount of books I own or have read about the ACW). Therefore, my account is not a SPA - my contribs merely reflect the amount of time I have at my disposal.

And yes, I am an adult, although I must admit to having a charming child-like innocence, kind of like the picture on your talk page.  :)

Finally, I think we should have a formal mediation to resolve our issues (think of it as marriage counseling). Not for all of the issues still on the list, since I think some can be resolved without mediation. However, others can not, IMHO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't Volney and Dupuis arguing you don't need an historical Jesus to explain the NT? Rather than arguing Jesus never existed? Or is that the same thing? I'm going to bed now. Anthony (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly familiar with advocates that far back. The article though mentions that Dupuis at least flatly denied the existence of Jesus and sources that assertion with an article by Wells. Here's a quote from one of Dupuis' works:

"I know, that it could be possible, that they [(i.e. the authors of the gospels)] might have either deceived us, or that they might have been mistaken themselves about the particulars of the life of Christ, without this same error being prejudicial to his existence. But again, even with regard to the existence, what confidence or trust can we have in authors, who deceive, or who are mistaken in all the rest, especially when it is known, that there is a sacred legend, of which the Sun, under the name of Christ, is the hero? Is it not very natural, to be induced to believe, that the worshippers of the Sun-Christ may have given him a historical existence, just as the worshippers of that same Sun gave him one under the names of Adonis, Bacchus, Hercules and Osiris, although the enlightened leaders of these religions knew very well, that Bacchus, Osiris, Hercules and Adonis had never existed as men, and that they were merely the God-Sun personified? ... My object shall have been attained, if I have succeeded in convincing a small number of my readers (because the many I abandon to the priests) and that it should seem to them proved, that Christ is merely the Sun, that the Mysteries of the Christian religion have the Light for object, like those of the Persians and of Mithras, of Osiris, Adonis, &c., and that this religion differs only in the names from the ancient religions; that the foundation is absolutely the same; and that finally a good Christian is also a worshipper of that luminary, which is the source of all light. ... Christ was no more a real man, than the Hercules of the twelve labors."

Charles François Dupuis, The Origin of All Religious Worship, 1798

Eugene (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said I was going to bed but I just got hooked by this. Anthony (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's funny!  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your posting on Brunner Barrett Pashak (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. Anthony (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't going to do anything useful. WP:ANI is a place to create or intensify drama, not solve problems. You're looking for Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. But even that is unlikely to help.

Also, citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will almost never motivate an administrator to do much of anything. WP:TE is what you're looking for. However, I seriously doubt that anything can be done about this particular issue; if I thought there were anything that would help, I would have already done it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to suspect that you are right. It's a bit depressing, but oh well. I suppose I could just add another FAQ entry to the one on my page that addresses Bruce's quote lists. I could post a link to it each time Bruce brings them up. But I had hoped that it would just end all together. Eugene (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanished user 2345. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eugene, do you think it would be ok to add "Evangelical" to the lead in the WLC article, so that it reads like this (which is the way it currently reads):

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an Evangelical apologist, theologian, and philosopher known for his contributions to the philosophy of time, philosophy of religion, and historical Jesus studies.

Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I meant to say, can the "Evangelical" label be used without an RS that specifically says so? Thanks again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be okay. I don't think anyone would dispute that Criag is an Evangelical, in at least some sense or other. Eugene (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wasn't sure. I agree, but since this is a BLP, I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just I thought I'd be bold for once. Anthony (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its not sourced it is OR, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Job has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eugene. I'm writing to apologize about this [8]. I was still smarting over this mischaracterization. It won't happen again. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a thing about it. Getting together RfCs is time-consuming and unlikely to lead to a resolution in the near future, so it's a distasteful task, and I've been busy lately. So if you're motivated, go ahead, and I'll contribute; otherwise, I'll get it together, but not quickly. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Christ myth theory, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snore. Eugene (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, you need to take this template very seriously. It is highly inappropriate for a Christian to edit topics related to Christianity. Furthermore, your use of Christian sources, such as Oxford University Press, is undermining the credibility of this project. All in all, you are are a net negative in maintaining Wikipedia's liberal bias, and should be banned indefinitely. Vesal (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the really crazy part: given all the ridiculous things that have actually been said in seriousness on the CMT talk page, if you hadn't used the phrase "liberal bias" in your last sentence I wouldn't have known you were joking. Eugene (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following a discussion at COI Noticeboard regarding an acupuncturist editing Acupuncture - a controversial page, with possible pseudoscience issues, but some fairly rigorous scrutiny from real science. Two editors are arguing for his removal. On sum, unless a new argument that has not already been put in that case is found for excluding Christians from Christian articles, I can't vote for it. Eugene writes well and has a good grasp of the sources; this makes him a useful contributer. I haven't yet seen him misrepresent a source, apart from a couple of minor genuine mistakes. He puts his view strongly, and for my taste is too bold. But these can be dealt with through argument and application of WP remedies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:CIVIL, which I believe he needs to work on. (Yawn???) Anthony (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now know how the mythicists feel. Eugene, you have gone into crazy land here. I support any move to remove you from further involvement with this article. I thank you for all your work, but your actions on this question demonstrate gaming rather than thoughfulness. Barrett Pashak (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit bizarre. I've gone into "crazy land" by calling attention to the fact that we possess three reliable sources that were published before Van Voorst's book which plausibly connect Marx to mythicism and that such a number clears the threshold for inclusion? I don't see how that's crazy at all. I wonder why you are so eager to keep this information out of the article? Eugene (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now a joke. There is simply no foundation for the notion that Marx was a mythicist, despite what Evans, or Mani, or Van Voorst say. Marx was far too great a thinker to involve himself in this kind of claptrap. I would have thought you would have been glad to have Marx removed from the mythicist camp. It now looks like you have a great big Marxist=atheist=mythicist thing going on. And I can tell you that as a fan of Marx and an opponent of mythicism, this doesn't wash with me at all. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Everyone's happy [9] until it's their particular sacred cow under discussion. And then, suddenly, the reliable sources don't matter.

My being glad or not to have Marx on the page doesn't factor into this; I simply don't want to set the abominable precedent of throwing out reliable sources because the information they contain upsets someone desperate to keep his heroes unstained. Eugene (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that we have not a single quotation from the man himself on this subject. Not one. And do you know why? Because he wasn't stupid enough to fall into this. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Forest said, "Stupid is as stupid does." Eugene (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 5:38-42 Anthony (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyhow, this is one Christian-Marxist-atheist who will continue to fight against mythicism. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you for a 3RR violation. [10] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. I'll have to check it out but if you're right then I'll feel a little stupid. If you had warned me I would have quit; I wasn't keeping track of it since... well, since it wasn't that other article. I hope I'm not blocked; I'll voluntarily absent myself from that page for a few days if it helps anything. Eugene (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to collect information on SV, don't keep it in your user space—keep it entirely off-wiki. This is likely to be perceived as an attack page, whether you intend it so or not. Do follow the link in the previous sentence, and understand that this is the kind of thing that tends to arouse disproportionate responses. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it as an attack page. Do not restore it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's depressing. After all that work, poof, gone. I disagree that the article was an attack page; I noted that SV had amassed a huge number of edits (neutral/positive) and that she created the Wikipedia Cyberstalking group (also neutral/positive). I even retained the use of the phrase "stalking" (as opposed to "research") since that's what the source said and I didn't want to give the apperance that I was unsympathetic. I was very careful to use only reliable sources, to avoid editorializing, and to present the information in a balanced way.

I had intended to add a little bit more to the body and then submit it to Wikipedia:Deletion_review so as to get the article moved to the now salted SlimVirgin namespace. I imagine that the article would be protected after it's creation to keep trolls from just throwing nonsense on the page sourced to Bubba's-Big-List-of-Crackpot-Ideas or similarly unreliable sources, but the sources that I had used didn't fall into that category.

Akhilleus, any chance you could undelete the page so I can make the last few additions and changes? I promise that I'll promptly submit it to Wikipedia:Deletion_review and, if they think that it's an attack page, then I'll delete the material myself. Hell, I'll even let SlimVirgin proof read it first--just imagine how many BLP's would love that sort of opportunity--just to make sure it's as policy compliant as possible. So what do you say? She is, after all, notable with coverage appearing in the New York Times and Slate and she's given an interview to other publications. I suppose that, if you say no, I'll have to submit the matter to the Deletion Review guys so that later I can submit it to them again for a shot as an actually article when finished. Please, don't make me jump through that many hoops. Eugene (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't waste your time with this, Eugene. It's one of the most foolish ways you can use your time on Wikipedia (well, actually, if you keep on with it, you won't be on Wikipedia much longer). --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, SlimVirgin has indicated that she feels the page was an attack so I'll just drop it. Sigh. Eugene (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the page before it was oversighted, but I cannot imagine how you could have thought it would be acceptable. Jpgordon is far more charitable than I would have been, I would think. With all due respect, your user page says that you are a pastor of a Baptist church - you should act like it. I say that as a fellow Christian and Baptist. It is wholly unacceptable to create "articles" about users as a weapon in a content dispute. --B (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't see the article then you're hardly in a position to describe it as a weapon, are you? Eugene (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]