1

Is there consensus between Christian commentators about where Jesus stood when Satan tempted him to prove he was God's son by leaping from the temple?

The question above was put on hold pretty quickly. I edited to ask for overview, added info to make clearer the reason for asking and another user edited some typos and added tags. There are 4 reopen votes and one good answer with 4 up votes I would like to see more answers that address other views. I also have an answer to post from a well written discussion on this very question.

My attempts to get the attention of some who voted to close have not been successful or perhaps not read yet.

Please consider the question again to see if it now is a good fit for this site.

  • 1
    I don't think your edit changes the substance of the question. If anything, you've added an answer to your question (which is generally frowned upon), not added clarity to your question. – Flimzy May 21 '16 at 14:18
4

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.

  • Thank you for the answer very informative and helpful – Kris May 22 '16 at 13:26
  • So would it be best to edit this question even if it makes DJClayworths answer seem off the mark. Or should I delete it and start over? – Kris May 23 '16 at 11:39
  • @Kris Only worry about existing answers when editing open questions. For closed ones changing the question scope in place is preferable; the alternative is that the answers get deleted anyway. – Caleb May 23 '16 at 20:23
  • 3
    @Pam The edits look good and I've voted to re-open it now, but a bit less demanding tone from you would be appreciated. We're all volunteers here, and the normal review process takes time. First at least one person has to spot the edit and vote to re-open it, then 2 more have to see it in the review queue and vote to agree it should be opened. Given several users have to visit the site and volunteer time for these reviews, acting like we did something wrong when the edits were just yesterday is kind of presumptuous. – Caleb May 27 '16 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .