"

 ""Jesus and Messianic prophecy"" 

Hey. I don't know if this is technically where I should be posting this; sorry if it's not.

1) Fine, if ""retort"" isn't 100% appropriate then I'll use ""counter-argue""- that is the meaning I was trying to get across.

But I think all your other points are too strict and therefore not in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines or encyclopedia guidelines in general.

2) You said: ""Christians retort that the messianic prophecies never specified a time-line for the Messiah's actions, and the New Testament, especially the Book of Revelation, detail how some of the prophecies will come to fruition later. . This is a bit vague and raises some questions. Which Christians? Where did they say that? How did they detail it? Can you reference it from a notable/semi-notable scholar?""

First, I can't point to a place in the Old Testament where the time-line DOESN'T exist, you know what I mean? There is no Jewish time-line so it cannot be referenced. But the New Testament does have a Christian time-line, as detailed in the Book of Revelation. Now, which Christians hold to this belief? Essentially all of them- all that have a moderate to literal interpretation of the Bible, which is essentially all. Where did Christian authors detail this belief? In the Bible! How did they detail it? They wrote it in the Bible!!! That is why I made Bible references! Which scholar can I quote? How about John the Apostle, who wrote Revelation? Is one of the founders of Christianity an acceptable source on the subject?

I find you taking objection to this equivalent to someone writing, ""Christians believe Jesus came back from the dead, as detailed in various places, including the gospels,"" and then you coming around asking for scholarly sources and not accepting Bible passages and asking, ""which Christians believe that?"". 

3) You said: This includes Jesus ruling an earthly paradise after the apocalypse (Revelation 19-22). , although it does reference The Bible, if left alone, it sounds rather confusing. It also does not specifically reference a line from Revelation, nor does it reference which version of The Bible it quotes (King James, NIV, etc) which could mean a slight difference in the quote. 

If you want many specific Bible quotes then I'll put those in, and I'll list if its KJV or whatever. But I don't think that's required as my broad citation of Rev 19-22 does clearly explain exactly what I'm talking about, including a physical kingdom on earth, a messianic age of righteousness and so on. Just because I didn't dissect it and show a specific line for each point doesn't mean they aren't there- any interested reader can easily find them by reading those chapters.

If I had written, ""The story of Noah's Ark is in Genesis 6-9,"" would you have deleted my entry and said its citation is too vague? Just because I didn't give a synopsis with ten references doesn't mean it's unworthy; just look it up! 

4) What bothers me most is how this whole thing started when I tried to correct incorrect data on your site (the line that Christians don't believe in a physical resurrection). That line had NO references! So even if my references are vague they still trump the initial post, don't they? You can't delete my post for dubious citation then restore something with no references at all.

5) I'm sure you'll disagree with me on this one, but most of all, I think that my contribution didn't need to cite ANYTHING as it is such common knowledge that Christians believe in Judgment Day, an age of peace etc. I feel like I'm in some kind of twilight zone defending this belief. 

It's almost as bad as someone posting, ""Christians don't believe Jesus was tried, executed and came back to life,"" then I post that they do, citing Luke 20-24, then you saying that it is too vague etc. It was pure courtesy to give the citation- it's such common knowledge that Christians believe these things!

But whatever- I'll repost with a several more-specific quotes. And BTW, you may think, ""Whoa, this guy care WAY too much about Wikipedia (and I'm a mod),"" but this is about preventing my religion from being misrepresented. (And I hate inconsistency.)

99.229.76.115  "