Talk:Eucharist

Requires prior knowledge

One of the very worst articles regarding christian rituals in the entire Wiki. Not only does it require tons of prior knowledge to even be understandable--such as the out-of-the-freakin-blue mention of "any real change in the bread or wafer" without(!) even mentioning what the heck transsubstantiation means--it doesn't make much sense even with that required prior knowledge. I am so tempted to say that this is "typical for religious zealots", but that would be a) falling to temptation, and b) an ad hominem. I have read the entire article thrice, and I still haven't got a clue what the eucharist even is. I somehow gathered that it's a rite, but that's about it. Seriously, I haven't got a clue. This article is beyond the pale. Shape up, or delete it immediately. 128.214.133.2 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In essence it is a cracker that probably was unleavened bread which serves as part of the passover meal of bitter spices on roasted lamb, and unleavened bread. The meal was suppose to be a reminder to Israel of the haste of leaving Egypt after the plagues. The reminder in the New Testament is that the perfect sacrificial lamb is Christ, whose body and blood not only serve as a reminder of our redemption from slavery, but are the very essence of our salvation. As death came by Adam, so to in Christ the last Adam, Jesus has brought the congregation up out of sin into the promise of eternal rest by his body on the cross, his blood being the purchase of our souls. User:bwildasi Wed Apr 16 01:31:57 UTC 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.50.80 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason for the WP:RS rule

I'm checking footnnotes and I find the primary sources routinely selectively quoted and not given proper sourcing.

I would propose rather than starting with bickering about content, start with makinig proper footnotes and eliminating all pontificating on the primary sources quoted. Give the translator and year of publilshing of all primary sources, and don't use anonymous sources.

Start there. Eschoir 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Bad sources are a good way to mess up a page. With good sources, even people who disagree with each other can work together. Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reapportionment of existing material

Eucharist (Theology) Contents
1.0 Names currently in use for Eucharist (partially new)
2.4 Some early sources on the Eucharist
2.4.1 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
2.4.2 Mark 14:22-25

2.4.3 Matthew 26:26-29
2.4.4 Luke 22:13-20

2.4.5 Didache

2.4.6 Ignatius of Antioch

2.4.7 Justin Martyr

4 Ritual and liturgy
4.2 Anglican
4.3 Baptist
4.4 Eastern Christianity
4.5 Jehovah's Witnesses
4.6 Latter Day Saint movement
4.7 Lutheran
4.8 Reformed/Presbyterian
4.9 Roman Catholicism
4.10 Open and closed communion
3 Christian theology concerning the Eucharist
3.1 Roman Catholic Church
3.2 Eastern Christianity: true sacrifice and objective presence but pious silence on the particulars
3.3 Anglicans/Episcopalians: Real Presence with opinion
3.4 Lutherans — the sacramental union: "in, with, and under the forms"
3.5 Methodism — Real Presence as "Holy Mystery"
3.6 Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence
3.7 Latter Day Saint movement
3.8 Zwinglian Reformed: no Real Presence
3.9 Summary of views
6 See also
7 References
8 Books
9 External links
9.1 Liturgical texts & services
9.2 History, theology, practice, etc.

Eucharist (Origins) Contents [hide]
1 Histories and Derivations of Names used for Eucharist
2 History
2.05 Traditional view (words of institution)
2.75 Contemporary view (scholarship)
2.1 Jewish origins
4.0 Greek precursors (new)
5.2 Dionysus theory
5.25 Mithras theory (new)
5.3 Theophagy theory
5.4 Mushroom theory
4.1 The Agape feast
2.2 Allusions to the Eucharist in the New Testament
2.3 Early Christianity
5.1 Jesus Seminar
5.5 Survey of views on blood-drinking in the Eucharist

Eschoir 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Still gotta cut by half.

First to go, the quotations from primary sources that should be linked.Eschoir (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one more of Eschoir's distractions, intended to dodge discussion. Clear up one problem before creating more. Lima (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone stopping you from discussing? Eschoir (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

lead

Eschoir did a bang-up job on the lead, and I have high standards for leads. Lima reverted it without explanation. FTR, I'm for Exchoir's new, better lead. Leadwind (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening, Leadwind. You are the answer to my oft-repeated pleas for someone to do so. I have confidence that you will discuss matters rationally. May I add that I agree fully with, I think, absolutely all the changes you have made to Eschoir's text. Many more are needed. I wish you joy in your work on this article, even if - or rather, especially if - Eschoir continues to employ the same tactics. It was impossible to keep up with all his many changes; so I insisted that we discuss one section at a time, leaving to him the choice of section. I could not accept his constantly shifting text as a basis for discussion, except, as I said, one section at a time. Now that you have compared the latest introduction with the older, I have no difficulty in accepting that the older be replaced. Lima (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I trust Leadwind will notice that Eschoir has once more put back a version of his own without deigning to discuss the differences between it and the text that existed before he made his personal changes. Even the older version has many elements of his, and it is good to see that Leadwind has begun dealing with them. While some (by no means all) of Eschoir's edits are quite acceptable, others have appeared to be only means of distracting attention away from concrete discussion of any of them. One excellent result (so far) of Leadwind's intervention is that Eschoir has ceased adding more of the changes that I refused to allow to distract from the topic(s) under discussion. Lima (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While some (by no means all) of Eschoir's edits are quite acceptable, others have appeared to be only means of distracting attention away from concrete discussion of any of them.

So you are reverting edits that are acceptable to you? Why?Eschoir (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To try to get you to discuss your changes, one section at a time, instead of continually inserting distractions. Lima (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, stop reverting Eschoir just because you want him to edit slower, OK? If you don't have a reason to revert, don't revert. Plus, no editor gets to set the pace of editing. Now, is Eschoir doing something wrong that you'd like me to try to help you stop? Is there some biased, anti-RCC POV that he's pushing somewhere? Leadwind (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never accused Eschoir of bias, only of inexactitude, and of making Wikipedia state as fact what is only the opinion of some writer he likes. I am glad that you have started dealing with the problem. Please keep it up.

The primary sources that you are working on now, who do you think put them in? Lima (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just sad, Lima. Eschoir (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your quick work, Leadwind. I question the usefulnes of the Ignatius and Justin Martyr excerpts in the body, they are candidates for linking. Didache too, for that matter. Trim those, review the sources (II would lean to a 'no sources from pre-Dead Sea Scrolls' rule)and links and the appropriateness of the Footnotes, and this article is about ready for prime time. Eschoir (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Two requests

1. The references (footnotes) are in a mess. Would the authors of this version please fix them.
2. If the lead is supposed to summarize the article, something must be done about the affirmations in it about the origins and history of the Eucharist, since these questions are no longer dealt with in the article.

Lima (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should address the origins and history of the E, as should the lead. Leadwind (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Then would you please undo Eschoir's hiving off of all that matter and making it into a new separate article. I have given up trying to undo Eschoir's changes, now that someone else is doing the work much more effectively. Thanks. Lima (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Some idiot (me) had imbedded one reference in another. Weird. Fixed. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The origins was 'hived off' with your approval, Lima. At 78KB the article is still too long. Eschoir (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be easier to remove the history summary from the lead and leave the history matter elsewhere? Lima (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Have you decided whether you are pro- or anti-hive?Eschoir (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank God, I can now leave such matters to Leadwind, who is doing good work on the article and has yet more to do.

He will, I am sure, also do something about the "see below" in the introduction that refers to a section on names for the Eucharist that he has temporarily hidden. He may perhaps wish to restore the "Names" section to something like (of course, not exactly the same text as) how it was in September 2005, when it was called "Terminology". It was considered important then, because of differences of view on what should be the title of the article. Lima (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"No last supper in John"

I have not made the obvious correction to this evidently false statement, by changing the words "last supper", since Leadwind, who has attributed the statement to a source (not quoted exactly), doesn't want me to touch what he attributes to sources. So I can only put in a citation request, seeing that I cannot believe that Harris did made this statement. After all, Harris doesn't hold - or does he? - that Jesus had another supper after the one immediately before his arrest to which John devotes five chapters (13-17). And Leonardo's painting of the Last Supper is taken to represent the reactions of the disciples when, at the meal John writes of, Jesus told them: "One of you will betray me", as described in John 13:21-25, not in the other gospels. Lima (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad. There's a last supper, but no bread, wine, body, blood, or covenant. Leadwind (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! How could he have left all that out? Was it so unimportant that he just forgot it? 51kwad (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In John, the "bread of life" discourse in Chapter 6 takes the place of the Institution Narrative at the Last Supper. Virtually all scholars believe that John was the last Gospel written, so its first readers would have been familiar with at least one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), not to mention the oral "tradition" of the Words of Institution, as recorded by Paul in I Corinthians 11:23-25 (Also, in all probability, I Corinthians was written before any of the Gospels were put in writing.) --Midnite Critic (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Histories and Derivations of Names in use for Eucharist

This section is a giant pile of punishment for the reader. It might be worth saving as a separate page. Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Or it might perhaps be reduced to what it was three months ago, when it was only "Names for the Eucharist". Lima (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it was only 675 words long the day of my first post, in September. Now it's up to a bloated . . . erm. . . 525 words long. Without footnotes. Get your facts straight before you make accusations. Eschoir (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anabaptist View

I noticed there is no mention of the Anabaptist tradition. Any reason why this should not be added? 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reason it should not be added: A true Baptist is not protestant or Catholic and therefore holds a view that is completley different than any given in the articles on the "Eucharist" in Wikepedia. We do not celebrate mass or Eucharist. I thank God that we are not mentioned in conjunction with these non biblical pagan rituals which are practised by the whore of Revelation, In Proverbs it says that by a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of Bread and also condemns fermented wine altogether, it says not to even look at it.

Reason it should not be added:

A true Baptist is not protestant or Catholic and therefore holds a view that is completley different than any given in the articles on the "Eucharist" in Wikepedia. We do not celebrate mass or Eucharist. I thank God that we are not mentioned in conjunction with these non biblical pagan rituals which are practised by the whore of Revelation, In Proverbs it says that by a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of Bread and also condemns fermented wine altogether, it says not to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.18.15 (talk • contribs)

Origins, elements, anthropological analysis and comparitive religion

I actually came to the Eucharist article when searching for "Holy Communion." What I was looking for was more information about the roots of the rite and its commonality with other rites, symbology and beliefs in other spiritual practices. While, 'Eucharist' is a christian topic, i was hoping that at least there would be mention as to such things such as parallels in other cultures and traditions.

Just throwing it out there. Maybe it was discussed before. But just curious. Thank you.

Lehel Kovach (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Edit

Referring to the "Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence" part of this page, I felt that the wording of "Many Reformed Christians, who follow John Calvin hold that Christ's body..." is incorrect. Calvinists are Christians, we follow Christ, not John Calvin. I've decided to edit it to "Many Reformed Christians hold that Christ's body..." in order to be more correct. (Also hope I did this in the right =p) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Using this article for discussion of the origin of the Eucharist

I propose or re-propose the removal from this again overlong article of anything having to do with the Origin of the Eucharist and relocation to that article. Opus Lima has seconded the motion. Eschoir (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should eliminate all the changes made by both of us since 31 July. That means returning the article to Flex's version of 29 July, but preserving the later changes by Barrybennett on 31 July, and by 65.79.202.58 on 1 August. Since this involves only the two of us, there is no need to wait for the opinions of others. I have therefore removed all our post-29 July edits. Lima (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed from this again overlong article of anything having to do with the Origin of the Eucharist as discussed above Eschoir (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, claiming that the usual description of what the Eucharist is (which was already in the article before he began his recent interventions) was a statement of its origin, Eschoir withdrew his consent to the removal of the material belonging to Origin of the Eucharist.

Statement questioned by the editor who inserted it

The editor who inserted the statement that the Eucharist is "a vestige of the common meals of Jesus and his followers, which, since the Fourth Century, Catholics have related to the '(alleged) historical event' of Jesus' Last Supper by consecrating bread and a cup" has now questioned his own statement. As the statement does not have even that one editor's support, it has been removed, together with the irrelevant quotations with which he accompanied it. Lima (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I question your unsourced SOME and INSTEAD, and asked you t oclarify the run-on sentence you creataed.Eschoir (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for intervention

After Eschoir persistently attempted to impose his ideas there with support from none and opposition from several, the Origin of the Eucharist article was protected. Since then, not being able to insert his views on the origin of the Eucharist in the article that deals with that topic, he has been inserting them here, beginning with this edit and then extending his work to other sections, in particular the lead. This, I think, is not good Wikipedia practice.

My disfigurement of his "History of the Eucharist" section here with a multitude of citation and verification requests is, in the abstract, something I should not have done. I have had recourse to it only because he removed my generic request concerning the section as a whole.

Some of my queries concern the use of tendentious terms such as (among others) "bread and cup course" instead of just "bread and cup". I question whether the sources on which he professes to base his text use such terms.

It was particularly out of place to add detailed discussion of the origin of the Eucharist to the lead section of this article. Lima (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On two occasions it seemed that we could agree, but on both occasions the agreement fell through. So I am now appealing to others to intervene, while I leave untouched Eschoir's latest typical-style edits, including his change of the quotation from the ODCC, which he has altered to make it appear that, instead of saying that "the Eucharist ... is recorded as celebrated by the early Christian community", it said that "breaking of bread is recorded ..."

For my part, I think the article should be returned to how it was before this dispute began, adding only changes made by editors other than Eschoir and me. That was last done with this edit of 6 August. The only further edit by someone other than Eschoir and me is the one-word edit of Barrybennett on the same day.

If that is done, it will put an end to matters on which I am hard pressed to accept either Eschoir's sincerity or his understanding, such as the non sequitur on which he insists that, since the last Supper seems not to have been narrated in the earliest celebrations of the Eucharist, it follows logically (?) that there was then no belief in a relationship between the Eucharist and the Last Supper. (He ignores the evidence that the connection between the two was in fact explicitly made, even if not as part of the celebration, as early as 1 Corinthians.) Lima (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MY Bible (St. Joseph's editon) says "breaking bread" in Acts 2:42 and 20:7. All the unsigned tertiary sources you can cite notwithstanding.

The two agreements fell through because Lima couldn't resist retaining the material covering the Origins of Eucharist in this article notwithstandng his agreement otherwise. This version was unacceptable to him/her. Working in the sandbox is also unacceptable.

I admit not comprehending lima's last point-It doesn't appear to be about the eucharist. Eschoir (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See I Corinthians 11:23-26. --Midnite Critic (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it, thanks. Anything else to add? Eschoir (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Eschoir even minimally serious? Once again he questions what he himself has written. Yesterday he altered the triply sourced statement "Paul the Apostle, writing to the Corinthian Christians about their celebration of 'the Lord's Supper', recalled to them the Last Supper" into the nonsensical claim: "Paul the Apostle, writing to the Corinthian Christians about the inappropriateness of their eating habits, recalled to them what he denominated 'the Lord's Supper'". (Eating habits?! What he recalled to them was the Last Supper, not "the Lord's Supper" that they celebrated and that they didn't need to have recalled to them.) And today he questions his own statement by tacking a citation request to it! Does the Wikipedia community think Eschoir's activity here is helpful to Wikipedia? Lima (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lima, I have asked for assistance on your behalf on the Administrator's noticeboard, and also contacted the admin who dealt with History of the Eucharist. I would try to help out myself, except that I think the right thing to do is to roll back at least the last 20 edits, and I don't have rollback privileges -- I would have to undo each of them individually. As it is, perhaps the best approach would be to be patient a little longer, until some admin help shows up. There's no sense in trying to improve the mess that Eschoir has created, all you can do that way is to make the situation more confusing. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked for comments. Here's mine: normally in an article like this, you'd expect it to start with the common definition, not with a revisionist view that has little support. That would normally go in a later section. I think the results are bad enough to justify a rollback and precautions such as locking, if necessary. On the substance, I find it hard to see how you can say it wasn't connected with the Last Supper or words of institutions until the 4th Cent. Unfortunately the early history of liturgy isn't explicit as we'd like. But we have 1 Corinthians, which I think it pretty clear on this topic, and around 150-60 we have Justin Martyr. In 1 Apology 66 we see the words of institution, a reference to the last supper, and a reference to the Gospel accounts of it. To my knowledge, there are no descriptions between Paul and Justin sufficiently detailed to challenge the obvious assumption that there was a reasonable degree of continuity between 1 Cor and Justin. While the actual content of the History section is defensible, the wording tends to be more skeptical than I would normally expect. What one would normally expect in a section like this is a review of the early historical data that we have. There's little enough it's quite practical to summarize all the early accounts. One could then add interpretation if you like, but at least the reader would then be in a position to make a judgement. The impression of the current text is not helped by misspelling narrative in one of the headings. I'm reluctant to fix it, because I think a misspelled heading may be an appropriate introduction to the contents of the section. Hedrick (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's quite the speech for someone who has under 20 edits in almost three years. Eschoir (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You all miss the point. But you weren't here at the time December 6 last year. This article was way too long. Sections on the Origin of the Eucharist were broken off into a separate article to make this article more manageable. Post hiving off, sections appeared here purporting to cover Origins and History of the Eucharaist, from a traditional POV. I proposed deleting that duplicative and overlong content. This version was unacceptable to him/her. That would have completely shut me up here. I've got nothing to say on doctrine. I offered to take administrator John Carter's advice, but working in the sandbox is also unacceptable to him/her. Lima wants an edit war here. (S)He would prefer to promulgate conservative traditions often using sources over a hundred years old, or using anonymous tertiary sources. Lima's footnotes are a mess. (S)he admits to disfiguring the article (above). All I'm seeking is a NPOV. Sorry that doesn't mean Opus Dei POV. If it has to be here, then this is what the article will look like. McGowan, Bradshaw, Taft, Daly, these are all distinguished contemporary scholars that I quote verbatim, who came to my attention through footnote-following. Sorry to break the news to you, but Eucharist doesn't belong to one tradition. Eschoir (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What point should this article be taken back to? It looks like Eschoir first began making disruptive and disputed changes on July 29. Is there a later state of the article that is preferable to the state at that time? Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How about December 7, 2007, when history and origins were first hived off to Origin of the Eucharist article? Or how about this August 5thversion featuring no Eschoir edits at all? Eschoir (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"No (recent) Eschoir edits at all" - except excision of all that the article said about the Eucharist in the Bible and in early Christian sources. I failed to notice this excision at the time, but it was restored when Eschoir again withdrew from his agreement.

The simplest roll-back, as I said above, would be to this version, changing one word so as to accept a later edit by Barrybennet. That would bring the article back to the 29 July 2008 situation but incorporating later edits by people other than Eschoir and me. Lima (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted the page to that version, by a simple copy and paste. Not the ideal strategy, because it confuses the history, but without admin assistance it's the only way to do it. I suggest that the strategy now must be not to let Eschoir insert anything that hasn't been discussed and approved here. If he tries, just revert it. There are a sufficient number of people disgusted with his attacks that he is going to find it difficult to wreck the article without committing vandalism so blatant that it gets him blocked. Looie496 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this edit, which is not verifiable in its present form. Reads more like an editorial, highly POV. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

History of the Eucharist

History of the Eucharist belongs in another article. That's the reason for the December 6th excision of all that the article said about the Eucharist in the Bible and in early Christian sources. Are you arguing that the Eucharist in the Bible and in early Christian sources isn't Origin of the Eucharist? Eschoir (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In most articles like this, the usual structure is that the top article (Eucharist) gives a brief overview of the history, and refers to the deeper article (History of the Eucharist) for details. So if you're saying that History of the Eucharist shouldn't be here at all, I don't think that's right -- but if you're saying that it contains too much detail, that might be reasonable. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no article specifically on the History of Eucharist. There is an article on the origin of the Eucharist, to which a redirect inaccurately points from "History of the Eucharist". The origin is only the point from which the history begins. In Wikipedia the history of the Eucharist is largely dealt with here and, in its later developments, in Eucharistic theologies contrasted.

Apart from what the New Testament and the early Christian sources may or may not say was the origin of the Eucharist, they report that Christians did celebrate the Eucharist, they give some account of how it was then celebrated, and they indicate what importance and meaning Christians then attached to it. These are matters quite distinct from hypotheses about what was the origin of the Eucharist, hypotheses ranging from non-religious common meals to psychedelic mushrooms. A separate article exists for that field. Lima (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you had those limits in mind when you recently unilaterally changed the title but you didn't say that back in December. Anyway it is obviously very controversial whether the sources today rather than in 1706 report that Christians did celebrate the Eucharist, whether they give some account of how it was then celebrated, and whether they indicate what importance and meaning Christians then attached to it. And for an article that is TOO LONG for Wiki, I'm saying saying that it contains too much detail, and that is reasonable. Eschoir (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lima, I've searched here and never found where you have advanced that arguement before today. "There is no article specifically on the History of Eucharist. There is an article on the origin of the Eucharist, to which a redirect inaccurately points from "History of the Eucharist". The origin is only the point from which the history begins. In Wikipedia the history of the Eucharist is largely dealt with here and, in its later developments, in Eucharistic theologies contrasted." Have you made that arguement before today? Eschoir (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

How does putting the date of publication in a footnote offend Wiki? Eschoir (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant lengthy remark

What is the relevancy of the remark, "Dr. Coffman's conservative interpretations affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and clearly point readers toward Scripture as the final basis for Christian belief and practice. He confidently and clearly refutes popular destructive criticisms that have crept into modern theology, never offering interpretations that are incompatible with Christian faith and with the acceptance of the Holy Bible as the word of God", to the statement that there are many who give (both recently and not so recently) a much less lurid description of the Corinthians' celebration of the Lord's Supper than Harris does? This they undeniably do. And Eschoir would be better employed in searching for any other source that agrees with his description, still based only on a single source, of the celebration as a "near brawl". If instead he prefers an edit war, that may happily bring further interventions here. So he may prefer to discuss.

By the way, I would consider it both wrong and undignified to add to the article Eschoir-like POV remarks about Harris's connection with the "controversial" (easily sourced adjective) Jesus Seminar. Lima (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My description? Eschoir (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems to be the one you want, since you attack anything that disagrees with it. But, to get back to the point, what is the relevancy of the remark that you did a triple revert yesterday in order to preserve it? Lima (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

it certainly seems to be the one you want, since you attack anything that disagrees with it. wp:proveit Eschoir (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevant or not, the Coffman passage violates Wikipedia rules of neutrality: it's a very strong pov-push. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That passage is taken from here, a marketing point for the book, and indicates the pov-push of the source. Does that source qualify as a good wiki-source? Do sources from 1706, 1831 and 1871 prove that 'commentators generally' give something? If so, why do you then have to suppress their 1706, 1831 and 1871edness? Eschoir (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever their date and whatever their attitude, they, like those from the 1990s, are commentators. They all, old and new, disagree with the one solitary source who is quoted as expressing a different opinion and who thus cannot be said to represent the general opinion among commentators. So, once again, why do you insist on the long but selective quotation that does not challenge this fact? (I say "selective", because you chose to omit the description of the work as "modern" and "Written with the thorough care of a research scholar". And this selectivity does seem to justify Looie's remark about your pushing your personal POV.) What is the relevance of your doctored quotation? Lima (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So you agree not to delete the other 5 footnote amplifications? Eschoir (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not stop at last your sidestepping of the question about how your POV-ly selective long quotation can be considered relevant to the common interpretation by commentators, old and new? Lima (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)