Talk:Gospel

From Theopedia

Dude... I'm stunned. I can't beleive this article is blank. Lets get this page going. It is an amazing opportunity to allow others to hear (or read) the Gospel message. Again, lets get something going. JordanBarrett 17:46, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)

P.S. - Is this page supposed to be what a Gospel is? (i.e. the Gospel of John) JordanBarrett 17:48, 13 Oct 2005 (EDT)

My recent edits

I believe the bullet points I've changed/added should become the basis for starting an index for the page. We can expand on the Gospel as the good news story/nearness of the kingdom of God outrightly and then expand upon each implication in its own section. I think the difficulty here will be avoiding a natural urge to define the entiry of the Christianity and christian theology :) I think that can best be done by not actually explaining too much and providing wiki links for words that raise theological issues within the this explanation of the Gospel which need a deeper handling than what should be provided in this article.

So, so far, any thoughts on what I've written? Jason Gabler 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. We don't need to cover every detail, but we should be purposeful in linking to other articles that will give a deeper explanation. Good stuff. Jordan Barrett (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied the whole article, but . . . I think the introduction should be open for further rework. It seems rather cumbersome to me. I also don't think it is necessary or particularly helpful to inject Greek font. Transliteration is quite adequate and some Greek fonts don't show up correctly for all viewers. Finally, the footnote for reference 1 is a mystery to me -- I have no idea what it means and it does not appear pertinent. Jim Ellis 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, some more changes with your words in mind. Thanks for the suggestions. I think it is difficult to remember that this is not Wikipedia. Not all facts and concepts need to be explained, just those that intersect theology. I do not mean to suggest this as a blanket rule (e.g. perhaps a Creationism article might explain/cite things which are not directly theological but scientific), but on the whole I think keeping this in mind will keep Theopedia articles from turning into the mess that Wikipedia ones often do. Jason Gabler 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the intro, Jason. Regarding your point that "Not all facts and concepts need to be explained, just those that intersect theology", I would merely suggest that presenting theological interpretations (of passages) or theological perspectives may well need to be cited or have a concurring reference, especially if it is questioned by another editor or admin. In otherwords, the content should not be your opinion but ideally a predominate view from within conservative evangelical (Calvinistic) scholarship. For example, suppose I were to question your declarative statement regarding the Beatitudes as it relates to this article. Resolution would require a citation (in direct support) or possible modification of the wording until we reach an editors consensus. I hope this is not coming across as critical. I mean it as an aid in understanding as you proceed. Cheers. Jim Ellis 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)