You wrote something is this meta post that is a huge red flag suggesting the question should not, in fact, be re-opened:

I would like to see more answers that address other views.

This sites's Q&A format is not well suited to polling for assorted views. If that's what you hope to get out of a question then you're doing it wrong. You need to ask specific questions that can potentially be well answered by a single post. If there is any possibility that answers could represent different views and all be valid answers then the question scope is broken.

Given the current state of the question it's a bit dicey. An "overview" scope has been tacked on, but it feels like a band-aid. A drive by visitor to the site isn't going to catch a clue that this isn't a discussion forum and they shouldn't just post their favorite view as an answer.

Starting with the title it reads like a truth question:

Did Jesus literally stand atop the temple when being tempted by Satan?

That sets the wrong stage. This title is clearly trying to get at the truth of a specific issue, Christian views not-withstanding. This is a question about a historical event, not about Christianity. If you are going to fix the question scope, the title is a good place to start. Perhaps something like “Is there consensus between Christian commentators about where Jesus stood during his temptations?” would fit the bill. Do you see how this points people toward an overview answer about Christianity rather than truth answers about the specific issue?

The question body likewise needs help as it basically argues one case against another. It feels like it's setting the stage for a debate—it lays out a scenario for opposite parties to take up and argue over. Only the very last line edited in after the question was closed suggests a different scope. In this case I would say it's too little too late.

So what do you want out of the question? If you want a truth answer or to pit views against each-other so you can decide what to believe yourself you're probably on the wrong site. If that's not what you're after and you want to know more about what extant Christian teachings are and why they are that way, then I would start at the top of the question and re-write it to reflect a scope appropriate for this site from the start.

You wrote something is this meta post that is a huge red flag suggesting the question should not, in fact, be re-opened:

I would like to see more answers that address other views.

This sites's Q&A format is not well suited to polling for assorted views. If that's what you hope to get out of a question then you're doing it wrong. Overview questions can sometimes work, but they are hard and all answerers need to cover all the bases, one or two views per answer doesn't work and more answers should not mean you get "other views", only perhaps a different way of explaining the same set of views. You need to ask specific questions that can potentially be well answered by a single post. If there is any possibility that answers could represent different views and all be valid answers then the question scope is broken.

Given the current state of the question it's a bit dicey. An "overview" scope has been tacked on, but it feels like a band-aid. A drive by visitor to the site isn't going to catch a clue that this isn't a discussion forum and they shouldn't just post their favorite view as an answer.

Starting with the title it reads like a truth question:

Did Jesus literally stand atop the temple when being tempted by Satan?

That sets the wrong stage. This title is clearly trying to get at the truth of a specific issue, Christian views not-withstanding. This is a question about a historical event, not about Christianity. If you are going to fix the question scope, the title is a good place to start. Perhaps something like “Is there consensus between Christian commentators about where Jesus stood during his temptations?” would fit the bill. Do you see how this points people toward an overview answer about Christianity rather than truth answers about the specific issue?

The question body likewise needs help as it basically argues one case against another. It feels like it's setting the stage for a debate—it lays out a scenario for opposite parties to take up and argue over. Only the very last line edited in after the question was closed suggests a different scope. In this case I would say it's too little too late.

So what do you want out of the question? If you want a truth answer or to pit views against each-other so you can decide what to believe yourself you're probably on the wrong site. If that's not what you're after and you want to know more about what extant Christian teachings are and why they are that way, then I would start at the top of the question and re-write it to reflect a scope appropriate for this site from the start.

You wrote something is this meta post that is a huge red flag suggesting the question should not, in fact, be re-opened:

I would like to see more answers that address other views.

This sites's Q&A format is not well suited to polling for assorted views. If that's what you hope to get out of a question then you're doing it wrong. You need to ask specific questions that can potentially be well answered by a single post. If there is any possibility that answers could represent different views and all be valid answers then the question scope is broken.

You wrote something is this meta post that is a huge red flag suggesting the question should not, in fact, be re-opened:

I would like to see more answers that address other views.

This sites's Q&A format is not well suited to polling for assorted views. If that's what you hope to get out of a question then you're doing it wrong. You need to ask specific questions that can potentially be well answered by a single post. If there is any possibility that answers could represent different views and all be valid answers then the question scope is broken.

Given the current state of the question it's a bit dicey. An "overview" scope has been tacked on, but it feels like a band-aid. A drive by visitor to the site isn't going to catch a clue that this isn't a discussion forum and they shouldn't just post their favorite view as an answer.

Starting with the title it reads like a truth question:

Did Jesus literally stand atop the temple when being tempted by Satan?

That sets the wrong stage. This title is clearly trying to get at the truth of a specific issue, Christian views not-withstanding. This is a question about a historical event, not about Christianity. If you are going to fix the question scope, the title is a good place to start. Perhaps something like “Is there consensus between Christian commentators about where Jesus stood during his temptations?” would fit the bill. Do you see how this points people toward an overview answer about Christianity rather than truth answers about the specific issue?

The question body likewise needs help as it basically argues one case against another. It feels like it's setting the stage for a debate—it lays out a scenario for opposite parties to take up and argue over. Only the very last line edited in after the question was closed suggests a different scope. In this case I would say it's too little too late.

So what do you want out of the question? If you want a truth answer or to pit views against each-other so you can decide what to believe yourself you're probably on the wrong site. If that's not what you're after and you want to know more about what extant Christian teachings are and why they are that way, then I would start at the top of the question and re-write it to reflect a scope appropriate for this site from the start.