Some information I did not add, it was written with no resources. But, there is a resource for the factors, a rescource for The members of the Squad are (each squaddie had his or her own factor, depending on their power and/or skill would be the same as the one for factors.
This was originally on your user page, sorry about that.
No problem at all. Thanks for taking the time to move it here. I did notice and take into account the resource citation you mentioned, but I did examine the site and found no mention of the "factors". Please understand that I'm not saying that the factors aren't an official part of the show's world, I'm just looking for some definite sourcing for it. I've added cit. needed tags to the sentences in question, and I won't remove the mentions of the factors again unless I have evidence that they are, indeed, fan-made, which I DO NOT think they are. It still needs proper sourcing, though, as it does not have such at present. Evanh2008 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Salvation in Catholicism, as the article was at Votes for deletion (the predecessor to Articles for deletion) in 2005. Per policy, an article that has ever undergone a deletion discussion is permanently ineligible for deletion via AfD. If you still believe the article should be deleted, you are welcome to list it at AfD again; however, I would encourage you to go over WP:BEFORE before doing so. Specifically, your argument of "blatant POV throughout" is likely to get responses of "this is an issue that can be fixed with editing, not deletion". —KuyaBriBriTalk15:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I see that you're the one whose been changing my edits on the Miles Morales article. I abided by the rules and asked for discussion, so I'm asking your stance on the article. The one you wrote was inaccurate pertaining to the statement about Miles Morales being polarizing because of race alone, when that wasn't the main factor. A select few had that mindset ( we know what type of people those are ), but the vast majority of people who were against the character stemmed from the fact that it wasn't an ESTABLISHED character to take the mantle. I have great sources where you can see this for yourself. In fact, a lot of Black and Hispanic people were against the move (that's not to say they may not change their minds at some point), so are you going to also say that they don't like Spiderman because he's not white? If you weren't the one who wrote it, my apologies, but I see you're the one who removed my posts, so you must have something to do with it. If you're going to post or make edits, do so with facts and non-bias please. Niyemortal (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Niyemortal[reply]
The only thing I changed about your edits was to un-bold the phrase "non-white Spider-Man" in the text of the article itself, because that's not accepted practice here, and it was unclear at first why you had done so. To start a discussion, you take it to the talk page straight away. If someone else has been making more malicious edits to the article or the talk page, then it certainly isn't me, as the history pages will undoubtedly tell you. Again, like I said on the talk page, I have no problem with you adding properly sourced content to the article. In fact, I WANT you to. If you need help, let me or someone else know. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second inspection, it looks like you changed sourced content to unsourced content in support of your view of the truth. That's bad. And it certainly is against the rules. Please understand: I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG. I am only saying that you need to provide proper sources for the information when you add it to the article, and not step on the toes of information that has already been added with proper referencing (unless you can prove that those citations are unverifiable, in which case you should delete them immediately). That is why your original attempt to change the article was reverted (not by me, I might add -- though I certainly would have reverted it if I had been the first on-scene). Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My sincerest apologies then. When I viewed the history, I believed it to say you were the one that erased everything. I should have inspected more closely. Furthermore, while I've seen people discuss, I have yet to find it in article form, in which I could have used as a cited source. I was wrong to not have included that. I'll abide by the rules and get sources before I edit. Sorry for the confusion. I'd erase all of this, I want you to see my apology. So after you see this, you can clear it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyemortal (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped it since it's not clear who is being quoted, and for conciseness—which logo is being discussed is clarified in the following clause. It's no big thing though. Uniplex (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just took the option of erring on the side of maximum clarity. I'm not sure how many "logos" they may have used across their career, so I felt it was better to use the qualifier than risk confusion. Now that I think of it, though, the presence of the quotation marks could be a bit confusing. Feel free to change it back! I don't mind in the least. :) Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...18:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure on this, but it seemed to me that sighted readers don't need a description of the logo (they can see it) and for unsighted readers, we have ALT-text, so I moved it there (but described it slightly differently). I don't know where the "drop T" description originated from, I suspect it may be a recentism but if it's found to be common in our sources I guess it can return. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I have no objection to the removal of it. It's certainly the Beatles' most well-known symbol, and I don't know that I've heard the phrase "drop-T" outside of that article. Leaving it at "The Beatles' logo" is fine by me. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...02:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may be offline/unavailable starting on Saturday, November 26, potentially into the following week. If anything you think I should know about comes up during that period, please post a relevant message here on my talk page and I'll get to it when I get to it. Thanks! Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...05:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing Help!
Hello. Thanks for noticing my plea about ninth/tenth album. I thought I'd also check whether you'd noticed my note about copy-editing for the "Rejected Songs" section. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did! I liked your suggestion and do think that the article could use some clarification in that regard. I'll give it a second look later and get back to you with some deeper thoughts. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...09:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source criticism is a set of ways of analysing texts (any texts, not just the bible - it was first developed in order to find out which bits of the Iliad were original and which weren't). It works by finding patters through a text that seem to belong together. The strands that seem to belong together are a "source".
The word "source" as used in biblical criticism is fairly vague. Some critics use it to mean a single document by a single author - that was the way Wellhausen used it, and it was the common way in his time. Today the word "source" is usually taken to indicate a set of writings within a larger one that share certain features in common - though it is also used often enough in the older sense.
Wellhausen used the sources - they'd already been identified long before him - to argue that they'd been combined in a certain way, the way outlined in the articles in wikipedia. The "increasing challenge" that you highlight is referring to the renewed popularity since about 1970 of two other models, called the fragmentary and the supplementary models. "Models" here means not a theory but one of the three possible ways the Torah could have been written, given the acceptance of sources, the existence of which, if one accepts that, means that it didn't come from a single "source" (in this case, a single author, whether Moses or someone else).
Supplementary theories say that there was originally a single document (source A) and that someone or group of someones than "supplemented" it by adding material; fragmentary theories say that there was never a single document and that someone (or group) took a whole collection of tiny "sources", none of them a "document", and used them to write the final "document."
Note the meaning of "document" here: it means a complete account of the entire Torah-story, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Numbers. Not Deuteronomy, which is pretty much universally accepted to be a separate source, because it's so very different from what's in Genesis-Numbers.
The most striking differences between the three sources J-P-D are the theology: D is all about social justice and the obligation to support the poor and powerless (easy to spot because Dueteronomy is mostly a law-code); P is mostly about holiness and the need to remain close to God through separation and sacrifice; and J is simply pessimistic about humanity, which is forever falling short.
Nobody in practice takes a pure approach to the three models - most scholars mix them. Some of the more important approaches in recent years have been from Van Seters (he redated J to the 6th century and made that the base document with P as a supplement), Rentdorff, Whybray (not actually very popular on how the Torah was written, but very important in overturning acceptance of the documentary hypotheses) - all in the last quarter of the 20th century - and more recently Frie and Albertz and others who have suggested a theory as to why, rather than how, it was written, that's proiven quite popluar though it isn't anywhere near a consensus (it's called Persian authorisation - the idea is that the Persians demanded that the Jews produce an account of their laws and origins in return for the right to rule themselves).
If you're interested in this topic, try the books in the bibliography of the three articles Yahwist, Priestly source]] and Deuteronomist. Some are pretty technical, but some are good introductory works. PiCo (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, PiCo. I appreciate the clarification, but I do have just one more question: The Elohist article states that the E source is "one of four sources of the Torah described by the documentary hypothesis". So is the E source actually substantively different in the way it is described in relation to the doc. hyp.? Or does it have its origins in the same criticism as D, J, and P? Thanks again. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...23:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a little harsh to give this user a 4im warning, he's probably just new and unaware of what content belongs in Wikipedia rather than blatantly vandalizing. The only reason I'm mentioning this is because I reverted one of his edits and noticed this on his page. Jargon777Talk 04:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not be posting inaccurate information!!!!!!!! Your post is unscholarly and reeks of subjective delusions!!!! Dravidian - is a language group, and caucasians are not confined within the borders of North. Dravidian speaking people of the South are also mostly caucasians. Correct your post, or I will keep editing your erroneous submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.118.190 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed sourced and referenced material with no explanation. If you believe the information in question to be in error, take it to the article's talk page. But do not remove the material again without some solid third-party references as to why it is wrong. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...04:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your rollback request
Hello Evanh2008, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari08:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I was going to request it I saw you already had. It's just getting downright rediculous at this point. Sick. Anyway, cheers! Stubbleboy22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've accepted that the renaming is official (I think I even said as much on the article talk page), but you've been told that mere renaming does not constitute rationale for moving per WP:COMMONNAME. You can't just ignore policy because you don't happen to like it. What you need to do, if you are really dedicated to moving the article, is to contact people working on the various WikiProjects that the article falls under, and try to establish consensus for moving it. As is, the article's talk page has a population density slightly higher than that of a ghost town, so you're not likely to get consensus any time soon unless you do that. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been told anything, and there's no such policy. You are imagining all of this. Fine. We'll leave the stupid article the way it is and confuse the heck out of everyone.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This request seems to be based on exactly the sort of misconception that Wikipedia:official names seeks to address. Andrewa (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No one (that means you) has demonstrated that the article should be moved, either by establishing that "US Cellular Center" is the name most commonly used, or in any other way established by policy.
You've been referred to official policy summaries on the matter and have yet to even attempt to explain how your motion for a move comports with them. Now you're playing dumb and denying that you were ever referred to those policies, even accusing me of imagining that thesepolicies actually exist.
There is no reason to believe that anyone will be "confused" by the name of the article. We have a notice at the top of the article for the Iowa venue, and the Asheville venue article lists the official name. It's been three months since the thing was officially renamed. Moving per WP:OFFICIALNAMES is premature in the extreme, in my opinion.
That last bit bears repeating -- we only have three months to go on as to what the common name of the venue now is. It is entirely possible that, in the future, the official name will be the common name. As of now, however, you have not demonstrated that, nor have you seemingly made any attempt to.
I'm trying really hard not to be rude, but I (and I think Andrewa as well) would appreciate some reciprocation in regard to you actually reading the things we refer you to, and intelligently laying out how your vision for the article best comports with policy. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the other moves; I can only attempt to enforce policy as best as I can on articles I watch. Anyway, there's a learning curve for even experienced users. If you still want to move the article, then read through and contact some people that might agree with you, as I suggested above. It's nothing personal. I happen to not think I'm wrong, but it's entirely possible that I am. Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your trying not to be rude. I admit I didn't try very hard not to be myself, and I apologize for that, but I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for. If even once In that article the words "Asheville Civic Center" had been used, I could see your point. I don't think those words were used. And there's some big sports event under way, so if there is a problem, I guess we'll find out.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no worries about anything. If I were to be up-front, I should probably say that "U.S. Cellular Center" will likely become the common name of the establishment before the end of this year. News coverage is definitely moving in that direction right now, but we need to wait until we have a larger span of time to work with before deciding. I never disagreed with your proposition in principle; I just thought it was premature. Anyway, cheers! Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...21:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just so you know, I've removed the death information from Hildegard Neumann because the obituary provided no evidence that the subject of the article was the same person as the one in the death notice. Granted, it's unlikely that an obituary is going to including "former concentration camp guard" as a list of the person's achievements, but unless a reliable source makes that connection, we can't associate some poor woman's obituary with the Wikipedia article of a Nazi concentration camp overseer. Also, I checked the Social Security Death Index, and the person in the obituary has a completely different DOB (October 24, 1918), so it seems unlikely that these two people are the same anyways. CanadianPaul15:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I was very reticent to let it stay, and on second thought probably shouldn't have. I noticed that the obit says she emigrated from Germany, while our article (though it is unsourced) said she was Czech. Anyway, thanks for double-checking me! Evanh2008,Super GeniusWho am I?You can talk to me...17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Apostolic succession
Hi, please do not check the "minor" edit box when reverting edits, as you did here [[2]].
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m)."
I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns, and I wanted to make sure you still supported the proposed change. — GabeMc (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I've verified here that Mr. Wilson was the Publisher and Editor of one of the two publication companies listed, so I'm not sure to what extent that would affect the definition of self-publication. I can find very little information on the other company, so I'm not sure about it. Regardless, I should have delved a little deeper before CSD-ing it, so I appreciate you calling me out on it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but i am not trying to encourage vandalism. I am writing facts and I am truly offended for you to write that on my page. I will continue to edit the hunger games because I am using correct information and if you continue on deleting me edits I will send a report to Wikipedia. Let the people write!! --grasch2014Grasch2014 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were blanking talk page discussions for no (apparent) constructive reason. I don't believe your edits to the article were vandalism, but the talk page changes were just puzzling. Would you mind explaining them to clear up the misunderstanding? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-I am so sorry~ I thought you were talking about other edits I had made. I am very sorry and deep apology. As for the discussion board, there was a resolved topic that I had removed-- It was resloved... So sorry for what I had said above :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grasch2014 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. I know easy it is to get confused around here! Have fun editing! And let me know if you need help with anything. : ) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again- It's me and I need a little help~ you seem like you know what you are doing ;) But how do you change the picture on a infobox? I've created an article and I cant seem to figure out how to change it. I have a picture already on there, but I have a updated one and would like to replace it. Thanks always- Grasch2014 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For an infobox, you just need to change the file that is listed in the "image" field after the "=". If you link me to the article and to the updated image, I'll fix it for you. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it; I'm about to put the article up for deletion. A picture isn't really an important issue--the problem is that the article has no evidence that the church is notable in any way. To fix that, you're going to need to find independent, reliable sources that discuss the church in detail. So far, I can't find any reliable sources that mention the church except in passing (like to say "X's wedding was held at..." or "The funeral will take place at..."); those don't establish notability. In my experience, most churches (just like most businesses, most clubs, most organizations of any kind) do not meet our notability guidelines, so please understand that this is not saying anything bad about St. John's. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks notable enough to me; didn't deserve a PROD in my opinion, but you can go forward with nomination if you still feel that way. Grasch, you'll need to upload the image, so read WP:UPI for information on how to do that, but first be sure that the picture is public domain, or is a picture that you yourself have taken, and thus have the legal right to license to the site (the article I linked to will tell you more about that). Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was fixed after my prod--turns out its a NRHP property, so its almost automatically notable, plus another editor found 2 more sources. So, yes, now Grasch should be able to upload a picture based on the above instructions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I accidentally clicked the rollback button. It happens. If you check my contribs you'll see that I reverted myself about fifteen seconds later. Apologies. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OBL talk page
Hey, fine by me. A couple of us have been battling against the conspiracy nuts for a long time, as you can see from the rest of the talk page there. I wonder if deleting the other crap would make sense? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't delete the existing conspiracy threads, since they each have multiple replies. But I also wouldn't think twice about axing any similar threads that crop up in the future. That said, the "Beliefs and ideology" section on that talk page is pretty incoherent. Maybe it's constructive, but I can't make much out. My guess is few would miss it. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had just assumed that we would treat him like any other source in that situation, and an inline citation would suffice. Anyway, reference policy isn't my strong suit, so I trust you. : ) Evanh2008(talk|contribs)23:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I actually agree with you in principle, the cite after a quote should be a clear indicator where the quote came from, however, Spitz could be quoting something Paul said, so we need to make it clear who said it. Which can make for some awkward text, ala: Spitz writes, according to Harry, Miles states, etcetera. Thanks for your help Evan, I've read the article so many times that a good number of the errors you have already found I was not seeing. — GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help, but I would just as soon not start the whole "The/the" stuff here, if capitalization is optional in wikilinks then lets stick with the internal consistancy of the article. — GabeMc (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your edit summary, "Actually, is this sentence even necessary? Seems a bit out of place". We absolutely need to mention "Yesterday", and since it was released in 1965, it's position in the chrono is logical, if not a bit cluncky. It's really a topic sentence for Macca's first interests in electronica. — GabeMc (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, mentioning "Yesterday" is a must, I agree, but to have it embedded in, as you say, a topic sentence on electronica, just seems weird. Plus, the whole bit about him wanting to record an electronic version of the song but never following up seems trivial, and not quite summary style, given that the article Paul McCartney's musical career is really where detailed stuff like that belongs. Both "Yesterday" and his early forays into electronica/avant-garde deserve to be mentioned, but we might be able to find a better way to word it. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but keep in mind much of what I would have "farmed out", is included due to FAC comments, which I cannot ignore and still pass FA. To my knowledge, his inquiry about an electronic version of "Yesterday" is the earliest of his sourced interest in electronica. I'm certainly open to suggestions, but "Yesterday" must be mentioned in the proper place in the chronology, 1965, which is also exactly when he became interested in electronic music. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't think of any particular better phrasing/structuring for it, so I won't object to its staying, particularly since none of the FAC commenters have mentioned it. I may come back to it later to see if I can clean it up, but I suppose it's not a major problem right now. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)00:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge regarding the edit war you mentioned, so I can assure you that my PROD is completely unrelated to whatever that is about. If you can provide sources, please do, and afterward you can feel free to remove the PROD notice. Thanks! :-) Evanh2008(talk|contribs)07:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. I have just checked the article and it seems that the article was subject to a continuous vandalism from anonymous IP addresses since 17, may 2012. Please check the stable version before that date click here. Again I am more than happy to improve the article. regards Banimustafa (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Recently you warned user:banimustafa about article banimustafa cause there was no sources and it will be deleted within 1 week unless he/she didn't provide sources. I want to tell you that I checked the sources he/she recently provided and it cannot be verified. he/she added such any source just to keep his article and protect it from deletion. the information are so wrong and there is a lack of neutral view also he reverted the same old info and just put fake sources to force his point of view. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRak (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user JohnRak makes these claims as part of the edit war by Historyfeelings in Jerash article. JohnRak is only a socketpoppet of the user historyfeelings. All the sources provided are authentic Banimustafa (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have added sources to the article. two of the of the sources was written in english, one was translated from Germany, while the rest were translated from Arabic. Banimustafa (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete any thing in the user User talk:Evanh2008 talk page as claimed. All my contributions were according to wikipedia policy and I did not delete any talk as claimed. These are the only contributions, which I have made to the talk page of User talk:Evanh2008: 1st, 2nd, 3rd. All my edits are addition only! I just do not understand why I am accused of deleting any talk in this page??!!
As shown above, we agreed that the article Bani Mustafa will be improved with sources and according to the deletion proposal policy I am allowed to delete the deletion notice after improving the article. The accusation made by the user JohnRak was not justified as I am happy to defend and discuss the resources I have added to the article, and that was the reason of suspecting that the user is a socketpuppet after checking the history of his/her contributions. Banimustafa (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. User:JohnRak placed his comment in the wrong section, so when I checked the diffs and saw that you had added comments where his was supposed to be, I assumed (incorrectly) that you had deleted his comment. I sincerely apologize for the confusion. I've struck the notice on your talk page, as it was obviously in error. Since it's your talk page, you can feel free to delete it entirely if you desire.
Just a note on the deletion process: You could have (and may have, I'm not sure) deleted the PROD notice, which I put in place. At any rate, the PROD notice is gone, so someone deleted it. However, the AfD discussion (which I did not start) is a little more complex. The notice will not be removed from the article until the discussion is closed. Probably you should visit the discussion and plead your case there.
Thank you for reconsidering the issue. The reason for my accusation of JohnRak being a socketpuppet of the user Historyfeelings is the history of his contributions, which was initially dedicated for the deletion of Bani Mustafa article as shown here. The user:JohnRak admitted in his talk page that he has connections with and works with Historyfeelings, which makes him if not a socketpuppet a hired crowds. The first contribution of the user after its creation was the nomination of Bani Mustafa page for deletion click here. The user:Historyfeelings has a history of using anonymous IP addresses and hiring crowds to support his argument, please see the discussion page of Jerash article for examples. Banimustafa (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, but I just failed to understand, how can the user: JohnRak, whose contribution goes back only to 12, June 2012 and was made for the purpose of deleting Bani Mustafa article. How such a user had the power of putting the article Bani Mustafa under AFD as show here!?. Banimustafa (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming he is a sock, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not an admin, so I can't block him, and I don't have access to the checkuser tool to determine if he is a sock or not. If you're interested in having something done about it, then you can open a sockpuppet investigation here. At this point, I honestly don't think I can be of any help other than to refer you there. I'm taking the article off my watchlist now. Best of luck to both of you. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference desk continueation
Certainly.
I agree that only the children of Israel is expected to follow the Law. However, things are not as simple. For instance, I am convicted that the children of Israel failed "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy" within the 490 years as made known to Daniel. Their right of inheretance of the Kingdom of God, as the first-born of Israel was stripped by God and given to the Messiah, His Son. The Most Holy became a new Israel, He overcame Satan so that all who believes in Him shall become His children.
The old Covenant has not been replaced or nullified, the one who bears the title of Israel is no longer Jacob, but God Himself for He overcame.
Therefore, all Christians are expected to follow the Law. There is more though: A part of the Law was fulfilled by events surrounding Jesus. Such as the Ten Commandments, God said that He will write it in their hearts, and in their minds. This fulfills the Law of adding tzitzit to the Tallit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a Christian (well, I'm a Christian by my own standards, anyway, but I'm sure many Christian organizations would disagree with that assessment), personally, I'm not entirely certain about the meaning of Daniel's prophecy on that particular point. Your interpretation has some validity, but I'm not convinced of it. Myself, I'm suspicious of any theological claims that result in the status of "Israel" being transferred to the Church while simultaneously being removed from the Jews. It makes the Deity out to be, in my opinion, a little capricious and unpredictable, in violation of Malachi 3:6.
I agree with you completely that the Covenant has not been replaced, but I do disagree with your premise that it has been transferred to anyone other than its original recipients. Certainly, according to Paul in Romans 11, gentile Christians are "grafted in" to the root of Israel, but that's no implication that the original Israel has any less prominence in the equation. I'm aware of various teachings on the "fulfillment" of certain laws, but I agree with none of them. As I see it, many of them are just clever outs to avoid the fact that Jesus said he wasn't going to destroy/abolish the Law.
I'm not sure about Christians being "expected" to follow the Law, but I see no harm in such a proposition, either. As one example, none of the church leaders thought to mention rest on the Sabbath or many of the various dietary proscriptions in their message to gentile Christians in Acts 15. I don't think Christians are commanded not to eat pork, for example, but maybe there's something "extra" in it for you if you abstain from it; I can't say. Certainly the prohibition against "blood, and things strangled" still stands for both gentiles and Jews, as that was never a Sinai-specific commandment to begin with (it was given to Noah in Genesis).
In any case, I admire any Christian who takes any or all of the Biblical commandments seriously, rather than succumbing to the "easy believe-ism" of certain Protestant movements. I make no claim to hold absolute truth, except insofar as it is reflected in the Bible. My interpretations, like anyone's, are potentially fallible. I think we can respectfully disagree on some points Evanh2008(talk|contribs)01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That prophesy was given during the time of Babylonian captivity of the children of Isreal. During the time emediately prior to being carried off to Banylon, a prophesy was given to the then current king to repent and restore the fear of God within the his people, and what would happen if he disregarded it.
Note, I said the status of Israel was transfered to God, not the church. "Israel" is title, not a just a name, just like "Creator". The sons of Jacob was not consumed, not has God changed what He has said. His Words are still true for another Isreal and His sons and daughter's. Jesus also talks about removing the branches that do not bear fruit, does this not support the notion that the pevious children of Israel may well lose their inheretance to the Gentile who are grafted in?
Sabbath was not an issue worth discussing in Acts - remember, early Christians where a form of Messianic Jews they would have respected the Sabbath, as there was no contrary instruction. Of course, you are entitled to an opinion. I won't force you to see things as I see, I just need to be sure that there is no misunderstandi of my comments. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shall have a reply for you tomorrow. I've been busy with some other stuff today and want to make sure my next response is well thought-out. I thank you for an engaging dialogue so far. : ) Evanh2008(talk|contribs)08:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. Okay, if I'm following your logic correctly, I think what you're saying is that the status of "Israel", originally given to Jacob and, by extension, his descendants, was transferred to God (when?). So then, through Christ we become "children of God" or the new "children of Israel". Is that right? That's an interesting claim, but I'm not sure there's any biblical evidence for it. I understand that there are certain texts by Ms. Ellen G. White that are held in high regard in Adventism, so perhaps that's where the idea comes from (not to presume too much)? Even though I don't identify as a Protestant, I hold the concept of sola scriptura in fairly high regard, so if that is indeed the case, we will have to agree to disagree.
I think the omission of certain things in Acts shows what was expected of gentile converts. To say that early Jewish Christians were "Messianic" in nature, while a little anachronistic, is basically correct. The big debate, of course, was whether gentile Christians were to be held to the same Law that Jewish Christians were; whether or not being a Christian also meant, in effect, that you were a Jew, and what responsibilities came along with the status of Christian. That's what Acts 15 addresses. It does not outline various Jewish practices that we would expect it to, if the thesis that the Law was binding on all gentile Christians was indeed correct. The Sabbath would of course have been highly regarded by any first-century Christian, whether Jew or gentile, and in fact, we have evidence of this from period writings. But there is a difference between merely attending the synagogues and learning the Law on the Sabbath, which is what Acts 15 addresses, and the actual full range of commandments that attended its observance for Jews.
In response to your question "Jesus also talks about removing the branches that do not bear fruit, does this not support the notion that the pevious children of Israel may well lose their inheretance to the Gentile who are grafted in?", my answer is no, I don't think so. As far as I can tell, the time at which the branches were to be removed was most likely Judgement Day. if "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29), then we can safely assume that God will honor all his agreements. Even though covenants can be thought of as a two-way contract, they're actually much more than that. Certain promises are conditional upon covenant faithfulness, but the opportunity for repentance and return to full obedience is always present. The covenant is not annulled, and the "gifts and calling", as Paul puts it, are still valid. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)01:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The status was transfered, the moment that Jesus died as the final sin offering on the cross. Yes, you have it right - through Christ we become the children of Israel. At the moment, I don't have the evidense for it, but I am spiritually convicted about it, I don't claim ownership of the idea. I'm not very familiar with Ellen's writtings.
Acts 10 shows that Peter upheld the Laws concerning kosher food. Romans 3 also adresses the issues of Law. Romans 11:19 uses past tense, not future. In fact Romans 11 discusses the issue of Israel's rejection, those who remained loyal to God was not cut off. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think there's a lot more for me to say at this point other than that I disagree with you, but if it works for you, go for it. I'm not going to presume to dictate any interpretation to you, and if you feel, spiritually or otherwise, that your beliefs are correct, I respect that. Cheers! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)08:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
