![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
I appreciate the changes made to the section on Christian beliefs. It gives more meaning to the religion doctrine-wise than before. Before, the phrase "most Christians believe" was used to describe the belief in the deity of Christ and His virgin birth, morally perfect life, crucifixion, and resurrection. This served to render Christianity self-contradictory and meaningless. The Trinity section still bears the phrase "most Christians believe". I'd hope to see that corrected, but I like the improvements already made. Jlujan69 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think my comment belongs to this thread. An anonymous IP (75.81.17.21) added the word "only", making it "Christians believe that salvation from " sin and death" is only available through faith in Jesus as saviour." [1] A few minutes later, the same editor added that denial of the divinity of Jesus is "the thing that turns [groups] into a cult." [2] User:A.J.A. undid the second edit, but not the first. [3] Perhaps I shouldn't feel this way, but the second edit was so obviously trying to promote a particular belief, that I can't help looking more suspiciously at the first one. Regardless, I feel that to say "Christians" (rather than "most Christians"), followed by a statement that they believe that salvation comes ONLY through faith in Jesus is a bit problematic. I know of numerous church-goers who would say, if you asked them, that that salvation comes from leading a good life. I wouldn't want, in an encyclopaedia article, to start making a really, really, rigid list of what you have to believe in order to call yourself Christian. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any list at all. At the very least, I think that we could say that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, was born of a virgin, died on the cross, and rose from the dead. But I think we should avoid stating that "Christians believe" (as if we're talking about all Christians) when it comes to some of the more complex issues. ElinorD 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for numbering the quotes. I should have done that myself. I will use such a format in the future.
2. This is but one of a variety of differant accounts of his ressurection and appearances. This particular one is drawn from Mark and John. Matthew's has Jesus meet both Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary". According to Luke, the first appearance was to Cleopas and Simon. Paul's in 1st Corinthians differs also (having more agreement with Luke than the other Gospels). This is not even considering the variety of Christian legends/traditions regarding the appearances of the risen Jesus.
4. This strikes me as more than a bit dogmatic. Automatically assumes acceptance of the masculine personage of the Holy Spirit, which is hardly universal even among Trinitarians. Phrasing such as "essential to living a Christian life" reinforces impression of a dogmatic POV. I do not believe mentioning the belief of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in and of itself is not problematic however.
5. Implies universal acceptance. Also implies the complex formulation of the orthodox Trinity is expressed therein, which it is not (though one may certainly say it provides implication).
6. It also includes the filioque which would also exclude the Eastern Orthodox who split from the Roman Catholics partly over its inclusion (which they view as heretical). Additionally, the Athanasian Creed includes not just a very specific formulation of the Trinity and the filioque, but also a very specific formulation of the relationship between Man and God within Jesus. It is also notably includes the doctrine of bodily ressurection. The statement in the article serves only to give the impression of the "wrongness" of Nontrinitarianism IMO.
7. It certainly needs to be rephrased. Also, I do not feel inerrancy should be part of the statement, as the belief is a matter of some vicious contention.
I quite understand there are some disclaimers and there are alternate views presented. It just feels like the article includes just enough of them to try to be the letter of the law in regards to WP:NPOV instead of actually living up to it.
P.S. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me. It is appreciated. Vassyana 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some idiot vandalised this article. Can someone fix it? 24.218.198.220 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two examples of "saviour" and one of "savior". I use the British spelling ("saviour") myself, but I don't want to jump in and change it, as I imagine many Wikipedia editors are American. I do think the article should be consistent, though. Thoughts? ElinorD 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "was raised" versus "God raised Jesus", I prefer "Jesus rose". That's what's in the creed. I remember reading somewhere that NT Greek has a "middle voice" in addition to active and passive, and uses that voice for the resurrection, but I'm not sure. Does anyone here know Greek? "God raised Jesus" might imply that Jesus isn't God. Perhaps I should have discussed that before changing it, but somebody told me to be bold. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back.
In addition to my "was raised" versus "rose" change, I also made some change to the bit about the third day. It had "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day since his crucifixion". I think that "the third day since his crucifixion" sounds a bit awkward. I can't really explain why, but I prefer "after". In any case, there is some ambiguity with "third day" when using modern English to talk about this belief, since it seems to have been a Friday afternoon to a Sunday morning, so "after" would make it more misleading. My change says, "Jesus, having been crucified, rose from the dead on the third day", which I think makes the interpretation of "third day" a little freer. ElinorD 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the differences among Christians, I believe this to be an excellent article. There is, however, one word that I would like to see changed. The article states that Jesus was "raised" from the dead. As a Christian who believes that Jesus Himself is one of the Persons of God, I would say that Jesus "arose" from the dead, thereby indicating that He did not need anyone's help. DMADO 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)DMADO 2/3/2007
(Resetting indent) (edit conflict) That was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (6.2). "[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." (Copied from Jurgens: The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, p. 25.) I think the rose/was raised issue was discussed here before, so there's probably something about it in the archives, but I wouldn't know where to look. Musical L inguist 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Both the active as the passive voice are admissable as both are used by scripture and the early fathers. This does not denote a difference of opinion but merely one of wording and perspective. Of course, God raised up Jesus, the Father raised up the Son, but since in Christian believe the Father does everything through the Son he also raised up the Son through the Son. Str1977 (smile back) 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is pretty clear on the topic:
Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Cor 15:15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
Acts 2:31-32 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."
Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 10:40-41 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,
Acts 13:34 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'
Acts 13:37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.
Acts 17:30-31 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
1 Cor 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.
2 Cor 4:14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
Eph 1:20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
1 Thess 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Heb 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,
1 Pet 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Pet 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.215.164 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 February 2007.
I altered the end of the Christian divisions section. Expanded it slightly. Added fact tag until we can cite the claim. Just because we know it to be true is not sufficient. Feel free to revert if people object, but please explain why if you do. Vassyana 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the last sentance of the Jesus Christ section. Removed numerous examples in parantheses and wiki-linked to the appropriate articles instead. Vassyana 08:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shortened up the Non-Trinitarian section. It is a minority view and has an article of its own. Removed the bit about those sects denying the mortality/human nature of Jesus, as while this affects Christology and in some theologies is part of a non-Trinitarian belief, it does not necessarily negate a Trinitarian view. Tried making the section a bit more NPOV as well. Vassyana 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
May we agree to call them "Anglicans"? [:-)
Opuscalgary 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Since my concern above got a bit drowned, I will open a new section to raise it again: the Resurrection section currently is a retelling of the Passion narrative as gathered from the 4 gospels. This is valid information but IMHO fits more into articles like Jesus than in a subsection of Christian beliefs, which should be more concerned with what Christians belief about Jesus' death and resurrection than about a narrative. The underwent a big transformation from a very sketchy presentation of beliefes to a narrative in this edit. I don't want to simply move it back to this former state but the current version is not good either. Str1977 (smile back) 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that Hell, Purgatory and universalism are missing from the Salvation section. Without at least briefly touching on these topics, a reader unfamiliar with Christianity would come away with a very incomplete understanding of salvation/damnation in Christianity. Thoughts? Vassyana 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The schools can be verified [5]. Augustine in Enchiridion Ch.112 says "some, nay, very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so;". (Very many, "quam plurimi" usually means "most" or "majority".) Origen is not the only one to assert such a position in early Christianity. Notably on the anathema against Origen, his universalism was not one of the points against him. (It was not until the mid-6th century that the doctrine was condemned, and that condemnation had much to do with Origen's theory of the transmigration of souls.) Clement of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa all espoused universalism, as examples. Of course, there are other such as Justin Martyr, Iranaeus and Tertullian taught eternal damnation. Again, you misrepresent universalism as denying some measure of exclusionism and punishment, which is only true of its most extreme form. I would counter it is an unjust and absurd concept that a loving, merciful and just G-d would condemn infinitely for finite wrongdoing. Also, the New Testament is as filled with messages of universal salvation as it is exclusionism. 1Tim 4:9-10 "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." 1John 2:1-2 "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Vassyana 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need the paragraph about the Reformed Theology take on the Trinity? It seems to emphesize one particular POV and there's already an article for RT and the Trinity where such details would better fit. Why not remove that paragraph? Also, should we split off that paragraph about the Holy Spirit into its own section titled Holy Spirit? These change would drastically change the section and perhaps create another, so I'm not quite going to be bold on this until I hear some other feedback. ElinorD? Str1977? Vassyana 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There were no objections, so I made the changes proposed. Vassyana 15:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish to see the info of the following accademic journals in the article which will add credentials to the modern Christian movement
http://www.jecb.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
http://www.acfe.org.au/jcehomp1.html
http://www.luthersem.edu/ctrf/JCTR/default.htm
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/buddhist-christian_studies/index.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cicm
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
72.52.66.10 (
talk)
09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Hallo, what would you like to see included in this article? Str1977 (smile back) 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am putting this proposal here instead of at Talk:Roman Catholic Church because I think it needs the consensus of a wider group of editors.
There is a debate over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church regarding whether the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the category Category:Christian denominations. In a nutshell, the problem is that there is a popular tendency to characterize the Catholic and Orthodox churches as denominations similar to Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Catholic and Orthodox churches reject such a characterization.
I do not think there is a resolution to this debate short of one side forcing a majority "consensus" or "lack of consensus" result down the throats of the other side.
However, a compromise solution has occurred to me. Instead of having the category "Christian Denominations", why not have two categories: the first of which would be called "Major branches of Christianity" which would include the Catholic church, the Orthodox churches and Protestantism". The second category would be called "Protestant denominations" and would not include the Catholic church or any of the Orthodox churches. The category "Christian denominations" would be deleted (and salted).
This still leaves the question of what to do with the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. Do these reasonably fall under the category "Protestant denominations" or not?
-- Richard 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
How about just renaming Category:Christian denominations to Category:Branches of Christianity. This will avoid any debate on what constitutes a "major" branch, as well as some of the other issues raised above. -- Cat Whisperer 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The current proposal over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church is to rename the category to Category:Christian churches and denominations. The artgument against Category:Christian branches and denominations is that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Branch Theory either and so it would not consider itself to be a "branch" of Christianity. See Talk:Roman Catholic Church for a more detailed discussion. -- Richard 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The contention is that Catholicism recognizes itself as the trunk and everything as a branch from itself. I find the argument compelling, but I still think the term denomination applies for the common individual. -- Storm Rider (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
----You guys are too wordy. Have a look at situations in every parliament house where how major parties works with those Indepent MPs.
there will be three or more opinions as to what to call yourselves.
That's what Jesus should have said.
What happened to "They will know them by their love."?
OK, let's take a straw poll and see how things are falling out. If I missed your favorite combination, feel free to add it below.
Support
Oppose
Support
Oppose
Support
Oppose
I note that the category, Category:Christian denominations remains. Am I to assume that this issue is no longer of concern, or simply that editors are unable or unwilling to assume the task of recategorizing such a large array of articles? I know I am. Fishhead64 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following text has recently been repetitively added and then deleted:
This material is not suitable for this article for a number of reasons. I think that the most compelling is that it is an extremely minority view in academic circles, even if the research is supposed to be taken seriously. I genuinely cannot understand why someone keeps adding it. I have removed it again as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. And if you deny the resurrection, then how exactly do you call yourself a Christian? It's like me claiming to be a Muslim, and then insisting that Jesus must be the Son of God because I'm a 'Muslim' and I believe it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheologyJohn ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Rather than attempt to argue with each other through edit summaries, I thought we should go to talk.
These, so far as I can tell, are the main arguments voiced in removing the creed:
1. It's a prayer and/or it sounds like preaching. - This I think doesn't hold much water. This is simply the way theologians talk. The creed was put together by bishops after who knows how many debates. They knew how they wanted it to sound. Just because it may clang in modern secular ears is no grounds for removing it. 2. It takes up too much space - this is a more substantial objection that we can explore. But frankly, if the article is too big (and I don't know that it is), then other sections - i.e. summary, commentary, interpretations - could be culled in favour of something that comes from the proverbial horse's mouth. If we wanted to provide buckets of external links, we could do that on credal interpretation. 3. We're better off providing the text at Nicene Creed. Point taken, but the problem is that belief - specifically the contrast between orthodoxy and heresy - plays a central role in Christian self-definitions (Christianity is not an orthopraxic religion such as Islam or Judaism). Describing Christian beliefs in the article on Christianity is always going to be, to put it mildly, a big job. In this context, the Creed provides an excellent base for succint summary and analysis. It doesn't take up that much room after all. Slac speak up! 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Concurring with Str1977. I would add that the note about the Filioque clause makes less sense without the Creed itself preceding it, and that keeping it but removing the Creed gives undue weight to the areas of disagreement as opposed to the areas of agreement. A.J.A. 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
MR GIO, regardless of whether anyone wants the creed in or out or linked or whatever. Stop your misprepresentation of the talk here. There is no consensus to remove it and any unilateral attempt by you will be reverted in due course. Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just love it when Wikipedians say "there is no consensus to do X ..." when they mean "I don't agree that we should do X". Am I mistaken when I say that most of the above discussion seems to be in favor of removing the Nicene creed and maybe putting a link to it in the Wikibox?
Str1977, if you don't think there is a consensus to remove the text of the Nicene creed, do you think we should take a straw poll to see how far we are from consensus? -- Richard 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The creed is an important topic to keep in the article, due to its central place in Christian culture and majority identity. However, I really see no reason to include the full text of the Nicene Creed in the article. What are the reasons for inclusion? Shouldn't full text quotations and full treatments of the various subtopics be left to their main pages? The latter is my reason for believing the full text should be excluded. This is an overview topic and the details, including full text quotes, should be left to the appropriate topic page. Vassyana 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any link for the topic of Christian mysticism in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 ( talk) 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
The use of this symbol is abhorrent to many active and faithful Christians across the globe. Further more, historical evidence and the Bible itself suggest that this symbol has its origins in Paganism rather than Christianity.
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape."—London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.
Traveller74 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Sorry for spelling Jehovah's Witnesses wrong. No disresepct intended. -- Just nigel 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Traveller74 For what is it worth, you are correct. W E Vine states, "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake." An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words And that as he further states the "Cross" was accepted into Christianity hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. So yes "cross" may not be only inaccurate but also offensive, however the fact remains that most Christians except it as the instrument that Jesus died on. Thus an encyclopedia can present this, namely that the cross is a symbol of Christianity since most Christians except it as such, regardless if "cross" is accurate or not. Of course, such a stance can be qualified to show that not all Christians accept it as their symbol. Does the article indicate that "all" accept it? IF you feel it does how do you propose a change? In addition, to debate whether Christianity should use a cross or not is not fitting for an encyclopedia but is for those who would like to debate theology. Johanneum 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break. Of course the cross represents Christianity. It is the very essence of Christianity! The Apostle Paul said: "...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles... " 1 Corinth. 1:23 Jesus himself said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Of course, this is the "stumbling block" for many, if not most, anti-Christians -- the part about "denying oneself" and "taking up the cross." LotR 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is one thing that I have yet to see. That is the fact that the cross has been the symbol for more than just Christians throughout history, along with the fact that it is not the only Christian symbol. The fish for example. It stands for the fact that Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew as it is intended to be) was a "fisher of men". As to whether it should be used as a Christian symbol or not, that should be up to the individual. Some people don't think its proper to display it due to the fact that you are focusing on Yeshua's death, not his life, yet some (like LotR who really needs to keep his own opinion out of the topic and discuss this properly, bcc feelings cloud one's judgement when in a theological discussion) beleive that it is the very essence of the relgion. I looked at this topic from both sides of the arguement, and it seems as if it is a cimple clash of opinions, not beleifs. If I am right and that is the case, then its ridiculous due to the fact that everyone is going to have a different opinion than someone else. Solon Olrek 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In answer to Homestarmy, not sure how you've come to the messianic prophesy (please don't answer). Nor is it the view of one man and his research. If you take time to read the wiki article on the Christian cross you'll see many more in agreement, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also, I might remind you that wikipedia is a relatively new, open encyclopaedia, not having an article is in no way an indication of the veracity of any particular subject, and vice versa.
To Just nigel, no offence taken. Just thought the facts should be correct regarding the tree statement. Also, in answer to your most recent reply, I'm not sure if it does describe, "what is", being that a growing number of active Christians do not identify themselves with the cross. Surely the cross could at least be qualified with a small statement below, something along the lines of "Not all modern-day Christians identify themselves with the cross, see the Christian cross article"
Thanks Johanneum, you've certainly examined the facts before speaking. You're right about the question posed, perhaps it should read "Does the cross represent all Christians", and yes, the argument of "should" should be left to a theology debate. On first glance, the article seems to identify all Christians with the cross, there is nothing to indicate otherwise. How would I change the article to indicate this? Perhaps a small statement directly below the cross, something along the lines of "Not all modern-day Christians identify themselves with the cross, see the Christian cross article".
Re: Controversy Section: Would do this, if I could edit the Christianity page? -- Traveller74 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the cross represent Christianity? Consider Jesus' statement of the identifying mark of his Discilpes (John 13:35) .By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”” also there is the Prohibition of symbols given by Jehovah (Deuteronomy 5:8)“‘You must not make for yourself a carved image, any form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth.”does this help? Kljenni 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well There Was a Commandment to make the Cherubs. A commandment from God Himself and not without reason. A Cherub is an angel of high rank with special duties. Figures of cherubs were included in the furnishings of the tabernacle set up in the wilderness. Rising above each end of the Ark’s cover were two cherubs of hammered gold. They were facing each other and bowing toward the cover in an attitude of worship. Each had two wings that spread upward and screened over the cover in a guarding and protecting manner. (Ex 25:10-21; 37:7-9) Also, the inner covering of tent cloths for the tabernacle and the curtain dividing the Holy from the Most Holy had embroidered cherub figures.—Ex 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35.
These cherubs were associated with the presence of Jehovah: “And I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover, from between the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony.” (Ex 25:22; Nu 7:89) Hence, Jehovah was said to be “sitting upon [or, between] the cherubs.” (1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2; 2Ki 19:15; 1Ch 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Isa 37:16) In symbol, the cherubs served as “the representation of the chariot” of Jehovah upon which he rode (1Ch 28:18), and the wings of the cherubs offered both guarding protection and swiftness in travel. So David, in poetic song, described the speed with which Jehovah came to his aid, like one who “came riding upon a cherub and came flying” even “upon the wings of a spirit.”—2Sa 22:11; Ps 18:10.
Ezekiel also relates a number of visions in which symbolic cherubs of unusual description were seen. After speaking of them as “living creatures” (Eze 1:5-28), he later identifies them as “cherubs.” (Eze 9:3; 10:1-22; 11:22) In these pictorial visions the cherubs are intimately associated with the glorious personage of Jehovah and constantly attendant upon him.
resource: Insight on the Scriptures Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Kljenni 01:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you sir, I was replying to a question posed by another, but I believe it is a good topic, and I will continue to discuss it as long as anyone else wishes to. incidentally the number of people who are called christian by Jesus and the number calling themselves Christian will differ. Only Christ can say by how many and who these are,but he did say there would be many people that call him lord that ultimately are not truely his followers.
(Matthew 7:21-23) “. . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.”
Kljenni 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am again in the wrong. I thought the talk page was outside of wikipedia purview and need not need to conform to cyclopedic standards of neutrality. The topic does serve a purpose on wikipedia. As a Christian I would witness to anyone anywhere would I not? Of course I would. Just Trying to get people to read their Bibles. Kljenni 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I added "Most Christians consider themselves to be completed Judaism because they have the Old Testament and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah—the one who the Jews are still waiting for." but Zazaban reverted it. I think it's an important piece of information that should be included. Why was it taken out? Gert2 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}} Doh! I just went through a major reordering of the belief section (totally unrealted to the creed issue). I added the whole paragraph for "God" and as I went I made small copy edits along the way. But now I can't post it for you'll because the protection was added in the midst of my edit.
<dramatic voice> Damn you "revert war"ers you have foiled me again. :(
Anyway my new order was...
Especially with linking sentences between some of the sections it flowed very nicely, if I may say so myself.-- Just nigel 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object. This exactly wrong, and that for the same reason removing the Nicene Creed is wrong. It moves the article in the direction of being a bunch of little one-paragraph sections with no overall coherence. Just like it was before I rewrote the Beliefs section. Why? Where is the policy that says overview articles have to suck? I'm also strongly against the edit by Vassyana. Removing content and spliting a good section into two stubs? Why? A.J.A. 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection presently declined. The forum for an unprotection request is WP:RFP. Anyway, the page has only recently been protected, and there appears to be no consensus yet on either the issue that caused the protection or about the newly proposed edits. I recommend that all here continue consensus-building on the talk page before requesting unprotection at WP:RFP. Sandstein 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The following text is taken from the "Consensus in practice" section of WP:Consensus
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:
In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.
Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.
-- Richard 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to get the ball rolling and try to see clearly where everybody stands. I would politely ask that people leave essays and replies for another section for the sake of clarity. We could use a reference to know where people stand so we can try to form consensus on this issue. I would like to see everyone involved in editing this page, and particularly the edit dispute, make a short statement regarding the inclusion of the Nicene Creed and their position on that. Should the full text of the Nicene Creed be included in the article?
Vassyana
22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Nicene Creed should be discussed in the article, due to its central position in Christian history and identity. I believe the full text should not be included in the article, as this is an overview article and fine details such as full text quotations are best left to their main article. Vassyana 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment expressed above but I think there has been enough discussion. Further, I think a structured approach would be more productive. Let's do a straw poll. If your favorite option is not listed, feel free to add it. Please do not put discussion under any of the options. Either vote Support or Oppose. If you feel discussion is necessary, put it in the "Discussion" section.
-- Richard 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: Should the Nicene Creed be included verbatim in this article?
I'm not voting: however the voting goes, the text Gio, Sophia, et al favor is blatently biased and I have no intention of letting it stand as they wrote it. The 98% all Trinitarians agree on is gone. The only thing left is the Filioque controversy, as if that were the only thing remotely notable. Which, to them, it is, because they hate Christians Christianity. I know I'm supposed to pretend I don't know this or it doesn't affect their editing, but everyone here knows better. Just look at who's voting to remove it. E.g., Aminz, of all people, claiming it should go because it's too long. To anyone who's seen the history of his edits that's obvious bad faith. Storm Rider the Mormon: no comment needed. The people voting to remove it is all the case it needs to be kept in.
A.J.A.
20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote, but I will say that I think the talk page is becoming distressingly venomous, and I do mean the word distressingly. As an editor, not as an admin, could I make the following suggestions (to those I consider friends, I'll even call them requests):
If we could all stick to those guidelines — and I'm afraid there have been violations from both sides — I think it would really help.
The comments I see here do not, strictly speaking, fall into the category of behaviour that an administrator could block for, but I personally feel that what I've seen here in the last day is more damaging to the project than accidentally making a fourth revert because you lost count. Musical L inguist 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It seems to me that many people are abstaining from this straw poll. Also, while a majority of respondants (ratio 5:3) oppose the inclusion of the full text, a plain majority does not make consensus. I don't think anyone disputes the central place of the Nicene Creed in Christian history and identity. Lacking a consensus on removal, I feel the text of the creed should remain. Mind you, I strongly oppose its full-text inclusion. I am just one voice and if there is a lack of consensus to remove the quotation it should remain. However, we should try to build consensus. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Concensus is not unanimity, but rather an agreement whereby all can accept. In this instance it is where all can accept that the Nicene Creed is not included in its entirety; they may not prefer it, but can live with it. I have not really heard anyone say that they could not accept having the Creed deleted (while putting in various links). Is there anyone that is resolutely against deleting the Creed?
This is such a sacred part of Christainity for most Christians, I think many find it difficult to support deleting it. In some ways it may seem disrespectful or not in keeping with the behavior of a true Christian. I appreciate the wllingness of all involved to discuss this issue. My thanks to all. -- Storm Rider (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Of those who supported the full text, who would find the WikiBox link solution acceptable or tolerable? Of those who opposed the full text, who would find keeping the full text acceptable or tolerable? Please keep comments short. Please do not use this space to advocate an inflexible position. I am simply seeing who might be flexible so we can reach consensus and move past this impasse. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal for three articles related to the History of Christianity over at Talk:History of Christianity. The proposed article titles are:
The rationale behind these three proposed articles is explained in the section titled "Private penitence seems out of place here". Your opinion is solicited. Please respond on that Talk Page.
-- Richard 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
I appreciate the changes made to the section on Christian beliefs. It gives more meaning to the religion doctrine-wise than before. Before, the phrase "most Christians believe" was used to describe the belief in the deity of Christ and His virgin birth, morally perfect life, crucifixion, and resurrection. This served to render Christianity self-contradictory and meaningless. The Trinity section still bears the phrase "most Christians believe". I'd hope to see that corrected, but I like the improvements already made. Jlujan69 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think my comment belongs to this thread. An anonymous IP (75.81.17.21) added the word "only", making it "Christians believe that salvation from " sin and death" is only available through faith in Jesus as saviour." [1] A few minutes later, the same editor added that denial of the divinity of Jesus is "the thing that turns [groups] into a cult." [2] User:A.J.A. undid the second edit, but not the first. [3] Perhaps I shouldn't feel this way, but the second edit was so obviously trying to promote a particular belief, that I can't help looking more suspiciously at the first one. Regardless, I feel that to say "Christians" (rather than "most Christians"), followed by a statement that they believe that salvation comes ONLY through faith in Jesus is a bit problematic. I know of numerous church-goers who would say, if you asked them, that that salvation comes from leading a good life. I wouldn't want, in an encyclopaedia article, to start making a really, really, rigid list of what you have to believe in order to call yourself Christian. I'm not saying we shouldn't have any list at all. At the very least, I think that we could say that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, was born of a virgin, died on the cross, and rose from the dead. But I think we should avoid stating that "Christians believe" (as if we're talking about all Christians) when it comes to some of the more complex issues. ElinorD 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for numbering the quotes. I should have done that myself. I will use such a format in the future.
2. This is but one of a variety of differant accounts of his ressurection and appearances. This particular one is drawn from Mark and John. Matthew's has Jesus meet both Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary". According to Luke, the first appearance was to Cleopas and Simon. Paul's in 1st Corinthians differs also (having more agreement with Luke than the other Gospels). This is not even considering the variety of Christian legends/traditions regarding the appearances of the risen Jesus.
4. This strikes me as more than a bit dogmatic. Automatically assumes acceptance of the masculine personage of the Holy Spirit, which is hardly universal even among Trinitarians. Phrasing such as "essential to living a Christian life" reinforces impression of a dogmatic POV. I do not believe mentioning the belief of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in and of itself is not problematic however.
5. Implies universal acceptance. Also implies the complex formulation of the orthodox Trinity is expressed therein, which it is not (though one may certainly say it provides implication).
6. It also includes the filioque which would also exclude the Eastern Orthodox who split from the Roman Catholics partly over its inclusion (which they view as heretical). Additionally, the Athanasian Creed includes not just a very specific formulation of the Trinity and the filioque, but also a very specific formulation of the relationship between Man and God within Jesus. It is also notably includes the doctrine of bodily ressurection. The statement in the article serves only to give the impression of the "wrongness" of Nontrinitarianism IMO.
7. It certainly needs to be rephrased. Also, I do not feel inerrancy should be part of the statement, as the belief is a matter of some vicious contention.
I quite understand there are some disclaimers and there are alternate views presented. It just feels like the article includes just enough of them to try to be the letter of the law in regards to WP:NPOV instead of actually living up to it.
P.S. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me. It is appreciated. Vassyana 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some idiot vandalised this article. Can someone fix it? 24.218.198.220 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two examples of "saviour" and one of "savior". I use the British spelling ("saviour") myself, but I don't want to jump in and change it, as I imagine many Wikipedia editors are American. I do think the article should be consistent, though. Thoughts? ElinorD 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "was raised" versus "God raised Jesus", I prefer "Jesus rose". That's what's in the creed. I remember reading somewhere that NT Greek has a "middle voice" in addition to active and passive, and uses that voice for the resurrection, but I'm not sure. Does anyone here know Greek? "God raised Jesus" might imply that Jesus isn't God. Perhaps I should have discussed that before changing it, but somebody told me to be bold. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back.
In addition to my "was raised" versus "rose" change, I also made some change to the bit about the third day. It had "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day since his crucifixion". I think that "the third day since his crucifixion" sounds a bit awkward. I can't really explain why, but I prefer "after". In any case, there is some ambiguity with "third day" when using modern English to talk about this belief, since it seems to have been a Friday afternoon to a Sunday morning, so "after" would make it more misleading. My change says, "Jesus, having been crucified, rose from the dead on the third day", which I think makes the interpretation of "third day" a little freer. ElinorD 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the differences among Christians, I believe this to be an excellent article. There is, however, one word that I would like to see changed. The article states that Jesus was "raised" from the dead. As a Christian who believes that Jesus Himself is one of the Persons of God, I would say that Jesus "arose" from the dead, thereby indicating that He did not need anyone's help. DMADO 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)DMADO 2/3/2007
(Resetting indent) (edit conflict) That was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (6.2). "[Heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." (Copied from Jurgens: The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, p. 25.) I think the rose/was raised issue was discussed here before, so there's probably something about it in the archives, but I wouldn't know where to look. Musical L inguist 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Both the active as the passive voice are admissable as both are used by scripture and the early fathers. This does not denote a difference of opinion but merely one of wording and perspective. Of course, God raised up Jesus, the Father raised up the Son, but since in Christian believe the Father does everything through the Son he also raised up the Son through the Son. Str1977 (smile back) 13:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is pretty clear on the topic:
Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead
Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Cor 15:15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
Acts 2:31-32 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."
Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 10:40-41 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,
Acts 13:34 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'
Acts 13:37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.
Acts 17:30-31 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
1 Cor 6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.
2 Cor 4:14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
Eph 1:20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
1 Thess 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Heb 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,
1 Pet 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Pet 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.215.164 ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 February 2007.
I altered the end of the Christian divisions section. Expanded it slightly. Added fact tag until we can cite the claim. Just because we know it to be true is not sufficient. Feel free to revert if people object, but please explain why if you do. Vassyana 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the last sentance of the Jesus Christ section. Removed numerous examples in parantheses and wiki-linked to the appropriate articles instead. Vassyana 08:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Shortened up the Non-Trinitarian section. It is a minority view and has an article of its own. Removed the bit about those sects denying the mortality/human nature of Jesus, as while this affects Christology and in some theologies is part of a non-Trinitarian belief, it does not necessarily negate a Trinitarian view. Tried making the section a bit more NPOV as well. Vassyana 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
May we agree to call them "Anglicans"? [:-)
Opuscalgary 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Since my concern above got a bit drowned, I will open a new section to raise it again: the Resurrection section currently is a retelling of the Passion narrative as gathered from the 4 gospels. This is valid information but IMHO fits more into articles like Jesus than in a subsection of Christian beliefs, which should be more concerned with what Christians belief about Jesus' death and resurrection than about a narrative. The underwent a big transformation from a very sketchy presentation of beliefes to a narrative in this edit. I don't want to simply move it back to this former state but the current version is not good either. Str1977 (smile back) 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that Hell, Purgatory and universalism are missing from the Salvation section. Without at least briefly touching on these topics, a reader unfamiliar with Christianity would come away with a very incomplete understanding of salvation/damnation in Christianity. Thoughts? Vassyana 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The schools can be verified [5]. Augustine in Enchiridion Ch.112 says "some, nay, very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so;". (Very many, "quam plurimi" usually means "most" or "majority".) Origen is not the only one to assert such a position in early Christianity. Notably on the anathema against Origen, his universalism was not one of the points against him. (It was not until the mid-6th century that the doctrine was condemned, and that condemnation had much to do with Origen's theory of the transmigration of souls.) Clement of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa all espoused universalism, as examples. Of course, there are other such as Justin Martyr, Iranaeus and Tertullian taught eternal damnation. Again, you misrepresent universalism as denying some measure of exclusionism and punishment, which is only true of its most extreme form. I would counter it is an unjust and absurd concept that a loving, merciful and just G-d would condemn infinitely for finite wrongdoing. Also, the New Testament is as filled with messages of universal salvation as it is exclusionism. 1Tim 4:9-10 "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." 1John 2:1-2 "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Vassyana 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need the paragraph about the Reformed Theology take on the Trinity? It seems to emphesize one particular POV and there's already an article for RT and the Trinity where such details would better fit. Why not remove that paragraph? Also, should we split off that paragraph about the Holy Spirit into its own section titled Holy Spirit? These change would drastically change the section and perhaps create another, so I'm not quite going to be bold on this until I hear some other feedback. ElinorD? Str1977? Vassyana 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There were no objections, so I made the changes proposed. Vassyana 15:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish to see the info of the following accademic journals in the article which will add credentials to the modern Christian movement
http://www.jecb.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
http://www.acfe.org.au/jcehomp1.html
http://www.luthersem.edu/ctrf/JCTR/default.htm
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/buddhist-christian_studies/index.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cicm
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
72.52.66.10 (
talk)
09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Hallo, what would you like to see included in this article? Str1977 (smile back) 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am putting this proposal here instead of at Talk:Roman Catholic Church because I think it needs the consensus of a wider group of editors.
There is a debate over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church regarding whether the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the category Category:Christian denominations. In a nutshell, the problem is that there is a popular tendency to characterize the Catholic and Orthodox churches as denominations similar to Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Catholic and Orthodox churches reject such a characterization.
I do not think there is a resolution to this debate short of one side forcing a majority "consensus" or "lack of consensus" result down the throats of the other side.
However, a compromise solution has occurred to me. Instead of having the category "Christian Denominations", why not have two categories: the first of which would be called "Major branches of Christianity" which would include the Catholic church, the Orthodox churches and Protestantism". The second category would be called "Protestant denominations" and would not include the Catholic church or any of the Orthodox churches. The category "Christian denominations" would be deleted (and salted).
This still leaves the question of what to do with the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists. Do these reasonably fall under the category "Protestant denominations" or not?
-- Richard 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
How about just renaming Category:Christian denominations to Category:Branches of Christianity. This will avoid any debate on what constitutes a "major" branch, as well as some of the other issues raised above. -- Cat Whisperer 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The current proposal over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church is to rename the category to Category:Christian churches and denominations. The artgument against Category:Christian branches and denominations is that the Catholic Church does not subscribe to Branch Theory either and so it would not consider itself to be a "branch" of Christianity. See Talk:Roman Catholic Church for a more detailed discussion. -- Richard 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The contention is that Catholicism recognizes itself as the trunk and everything as a branch from itself. I find the argument compelling, but I still think the term denomination applies for the common individual. -- Storm Rider (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
----You guys are too wordy. Have a look at situations in every parliament house where how major parties works with those Indepent MPs.
there will be three or more opinions as to what to call yourselves.
That's what Jesus should have said.
What happened to "They will know them by their love."?
OK, let's take a straw poll and see how things are falling out. If I missed your favorite combination, feel free to add it below.
Support
Oppose
Support
Oppose
Support
Oppose
I note that the category, Category:Christian denominations remains. Am I to assume that this issue is no longer of concern, or simply that editors are unable or unwilling to assume the task of recategorizing such a large array of articles? I know I am. Fishhead64 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following text has recently been repetitively added and then deleted:
This material is not suitable for this article for a number of reasons. I think that the most compelling is that it is an extremely minority view in academic circles, even if the research is supposed to be taken seriously. I genuinely cannot understand why someone keeps adding it. I have removed it again as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. And if you deny the resurrection, then how exactly do you call yourself a Christian? It's like me claiming to be a Muslim, and then insisting that Jesus must be the Son of God because I'm a 'Muslim' and I believe it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheologyJohn ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Rather than attempt to argue with each other through edit summaries, I thought we should go to talk.
These, so far as I can tell, are the main arguments voiced in removing the creed:
1. It's a prayer and/or it sounds like preaching. - This I think doesn't hold much water. This is simply the way theologians talk. The creed was put together by bishops after who knows how many debates. They knew how they wanted it to sound. Just because it may clang in modern secular ears is no grounds for removing it. 2. It takes up too much space - this is a more substantial objection that we can explore. But frankly, if the article is too big (and I don't know that it is), then other sections - i.e. summary, commentary, interpretations - could be culled in favour of something that comes from the proverbial horse's mouth. If we wanted to provide buckets of external links, we could do that on credal interpretation. 3. We're better off providing the text at Nicene Creed. Point taken, but the problem is that belief - specifically the contrast between orthodoxy and heresy - plays a central role in Christian self-definitions (Christianity is not an orthopraxic religion such as Islam or Judaism). Describing Christian beliefs in the article on Christianity is always going to be, to put it mildly, a big job. In this context, the Creed provides an excellent base for succint summary and analysis. It doesn't take up that much room after all. Slac speak up! 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Concurring with Str1977. I would add that the note about the Filioque clause makes less sense without the Creed itself preceding it, and that keeping it but removing the Creed gives undue weight to the areas of disagreement as opposed to the areas of agreement. A.J.A. 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
MR GIO, regardless of whether anyone wants the creed in or out or linked or whatever. Stop your misprepresentation of the talk here. There is no consensus to remove it and any unilateral attempt by you will be reverted in due course. Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just love it when Wikipedians say "there is no consensus to do X ..." when they mean "I don't agree that we should do X". Am I mistaken when I say that most of the above discussion seems to be in favor of removing the Nicene creed and maybe putting a link to it in the Wikibox?
Str1977, if you don't think there is a consensus to remove the text of the Nicene creed, do you think we should take a straw poll to see how far we are from consensus? -- Richard 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The creed is an important topic to keep in the article, due to its central place in Christian culture and majority identity. However, I really see no reason to include the full text of the Nicene Creed in the article. What are the reasons for inclusion? Shouldn't full text quotations and full treatments of the various subtopics be left to their main pages? The latter is my reason for believing the full text should be excluded. This is an overview topic and the details, including full text quotes, should be left to the appropriate topic page. Vassyana 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any link for the topic of Christian mysticism in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 ( talk) 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
The use of this symbol is abhorrent to many active and faithful Christians across the globe. Further more, historical evidence and the Bible itself suggest that this symbol has its origins in Paganism rather than Christianity.
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape."—London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.
Traveller74 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
PS Sorry for spelling Jehovah's Witnesses wrong. No disresepct intended. -- Just nigel 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Traveller74 For what is it worth, you are correct. W E Vine states, "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake." An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words And that as he further states the "Cross" was accepted into Christianity hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. So yes "cross" may not be only inaccurate but also offensive, however the fact remains that most Christians except it as the instrument that Jesus died on. Thus an encyclopedia can present this, namely that the cross is a symbol of Christianity since most Christians except it as such, regardless if "cross" is accurate or not. Of course, such a stance can be qualified to show that not all Christians accept it as their symbol. Does the article indicate that "all" accept it? IF you feel it does how do you propose a change? In addition, to debate whether Christianity should use a cross or not is not fitting for an encyclopedia but is for those who would like to debate theology. Johanneum 02:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break. Of course the cross represents Christianity. It is the very essence of Christianity! The Apostle Paul said: "...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles... " 1 Corinth. 1:23 Jesus himself said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Of course, this is the "stumbling block" for many, if not most, anti-Christians -- the part about "denying oneself" and "taking up the cross." LotR 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is one thing that I have yet to see. That is the fact that the cross has been the symbol for more than just Christians throughout history, along with the fact that it is not the only Christian symbol. The fish for example. It stands for the fact that Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew as it is intended to be) was a "fisher of men". As to whether it should be used as a Christian symbol or not, that should be up to the individual. Some people don't think its proper to display it due to the fact that you are focusing on Yeshua's death, not his life, yet some (like LotR who really needs to keep his own opinion out of the topic and discuss this properly, bcc feelings cloud one's judgement when in a theological discussion) beleive that it is the very essence of the relgion. I looked at this topic from both sides of the arguement, and it seems as if it is a cimple clash of opinions, not beleifs. If I am right and that is the case, then its ridiculous due to the fact that everyone is going to have a different opinion than someone else. Solon Olrek 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In answer to Homestarmy, not sure how you've come to the messianic prophesy (please don't answer). Nor is it the view of one man and his research. If you take time to read the wiki article on the Christian cross you'll see many more in agreement, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also, I might remind you that wikipedia is a relatively new, open encyclopaedia, not having an article is in no way an indication of the veracity of any particular subject, and vice versa.
To Just nigel, no offence taken. Just thought the facts should be correct regarding the tree statement. Also, in answer to your most recent reply, I'm not sure if it does describe, "what is", being that a growing number of active Christians do not identify themselves with the cross. Surely the cross could at least be qualified with a small statement below, something along the lines of "Not all modern-day Christians identify themselves with the cross, see the Christian cross article"
Thanks Johanneum, you've certainly examined the facts before speaking. You're right about the question posed, perhaps it should read "Does the cross represent all Christians", and yes, the argument of "should" should be left to a theology debate. On first glance, the article seems to identify all Christians with the cross, there is nothing to indicate otherwise. How would I change the article to indicate this? Perhaps a small statement directly below the cross, something along the lines of "Not all modern-day Christians identify themselves with the cross, see the Christian cross article".
Re: Controversy Section: Would do this, if I could edit the Christianity page? -- Traveller74 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the cross represent Christianity? Consider Jesus' statement of the identifying mark of his Discilpes (John 13:35) .By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”” also there is the Prohibition of symbols given by Jehovah (Deuteronomy 5:8)“‘You must not make for yourself a carved image, any form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth.”does this help? Kljenni 12:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well There Was a Commandment to make the Cherubs. A commandment from God Himself and not without reason. A Cherub is an angel of high rank with special duties. Figures of cherubs were included in the furnishings of the tabernacle set up in the wilderness. Rising above each end of the Ark’s cover were two cherubs of hammered gold. They were facing each other and bowing toward the cover in an attitude of worship. Each had two wings that spread upward and screened over the cover in a guarding and protecting manner. (Ex 25:10-21; 37:7-9) Also, the inner covering of tent cloths for the tabernacle and the curtain dividing the Holy from the Most Holy had embroidered cherub figures.—Ex 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35.
These cherubs were associated with the presence of Jehovah: “And I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover, from between the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony.” (Ex 25:22; Nu 7:89) Hence, Jehovah was said to be “sitting upon [or, between] the cherubs.” (1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2; 2Ki 19:15; 1Ch 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Isa 37:16) In symbol, the cherubs served as “the representation of the chariot” of Jehovah upon which he rode (1Ch 28:18), and the wings of the cherubs offered both guarding protection and swiftness in travel. So David, in poetic song, described the speed with which Jehovah came to his aid, like one who “came riding upon a cherub and came flying” even “upon the wings of a spirit.”—2Sa 22:11; Ps 18:10.
Ezekiel also relates a number of visions in which symbolic cherubs of unusual description were seen. After speaking of them as “living creatures” (Eze 1:5-28), he later identifies them as “cherubs.” (Eze 9:3; 10:1-22; 11:22) In these pictorial visions the cherubs are intimately associated with the glorious personage of Jehovah and constantly attendant upon him.
resource: Insight on the Scriptures Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Kljenni 01:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you sir, I was replying to a question posed by another, but I believe it is a good topic, and I will continue to discuss it as long as anyone else wishes to. incidentally the number of people who are called christian by Jesus and the number calling themselves Christian will differ. Only Christ can say by how many and who these are,but he did say there would be many people that call him lord that ultimately are not truely his followers.
(Matthew 7:21-23) “. . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.”
Kljenni 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am again in the wrong. I thought the talk page was outside of wikipedia purview and need not need to conform to cyclopedic standards of neutrality. The topic does serve a purpose on wikipedia. As a Christian I would witness to anyone anywhere would I not? Of course I would. Just Trying to get people to read their Bibles. Kljenni 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I added "Most Christians consider themselves to be completed Judaism because they have the Old Testament and believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah—the one who the Jews are still waiting for." but Zazaban reverted it. I think it's an important piece of information that should be included. Why was it taken out? Gert2 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}} Doh! I just went through a major reordering of the belief section (totally unrealted to the creed issue). I added the whole paragraph for "God" and as I went I made small copy edits along the way. But now I can't post it for you'll because the protection was added in the midst of my edit.
<dramatic voice> Damn you "revert war"ers you have foiled me again. :(
Anyway my new order was...
Especially with linking sentences between some of the sections it flowed very nicely, if I may say so myself.-- Just nigel 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object. This exactly wrong, and that for the same reason removing the Nicene Creed is wrong. It moves the article in the direction of being a bunch of little one-paragraph sections with no overall coherence. Just like it was before I rewrote the Beliefs section. Why? Where is the policy that says overview articles have to suck? I'm also strongly against the edit by Vassyana. Removing content and spliting a good section into two stubs? Why? A.J.A. 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection presently declined. The forum for an unprotection request is WP:RFP. Anyway, the page has only recently been protected, and there appears to be no consensus yet on either the issue that caused the protection or about the newly proposed edits. I recommend that all here continue consensus-building on the talk page before requesting unprotection at WP:RFP. Sandstein 17:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The following text is taken from the "Consensus in practice" section of WP:Consensus
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:
In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.
Note: In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position; it is not uncommon to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.
-- Richard 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to get the ball rolling and try to see clearly where everybody stands. I would politely ask that people leave essays and replies for another section for the sake of clarity. We could use a reference to know where people stand so we can try to form consensus on this issue. I would like to see everyone involved in editing this page, and particularly the edit dispute, make a short statement regarding the inclusion of the Nicene Creed and their position on that. Should the full text of the Nicene Creed be included in the article?
Vassyana
22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Nicene Creed should be discussed in the article, due to its central position in Christian history and identity. I believe the full text should not be included in the article, as this is an overview article and fine details such as full text quotations are best left to their main article. Vassyana 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment expressed above but I think there has been enough discussion. Further, I think a structured approach would be more productive. Let's do a straw poll. If your favorite option is not listed, feel free to add it. Please do not put discussion under any of the options. Either vote Support or Oppose. If you feel discussion is necessary, put it in the "Discussion" section.
-- Richard 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Question: Should the Nicene Creed be included verbatim in this article?
I'm not voting: however the voting goes, the text Gio, Sophia, et al favor is blatently biased and I have no intention of letting it stand as they wrote it. The 98% all Trinitarians agree on is gone. The only thing left is the Filioque controversy, as if that were the only thing remotely notable. Which, to them, it is, because they hate Christians Christianity. I know I'm supposed to pretend I don't know this or it doesn't affect their editing, but everyone here knows better. Just look at who's voting to remove it. E.g., Aminz, of all people, claiming it should go because it's too long. To anyone who's seen the history of his edits that's obvious bad faith. Storm Rider the Mormon: no comment needed. The people voting to remove it is all the case it needs to be kept in.
A.J.A.
20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote, but I will say that I think the talk page is becoming distressingly venomous, and I do mean the word distressingly. As an editor, not as an admin, could I make the following suggestions (to those I consider friends, I'll even call them requests):
If we could all stick to those guidelines — and I'm afraid there have been violations from both sides — I think it would really help.
The comments I see here do not, strictly speaking, fall into the category of behaviour that an administrator could block for, but I personally feel that what I've seen here in the last day is more damaging to the project than accidentally making a fourth revert because you lost count. Musical L inguist 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It seems to me that many people are abstaining from this straw poll. Also, while a majority of respondants (ratio 5:3) oppose the inclusion of the full text, a plain majority does not make consensus. I don't think anyone disputes the central place of the Nicene Creed in Christian history and identity. Lacking a consensus on removal, I feel the text of the creed should remain. Mind you, I strongly oppose its full-text inclusion. I am just one voice and if there is a lack of consensus to remove the quotation it should remain. However, we should try to build consensus. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Concensus is not unanimity, but rather an agreement whereby all can accept. In this instance it is where all can accept that the Nicene Creed is not included in its entirety; they may not prefer it, but can live with it. I have not really heard anyone say that they could not accept having the Creed deleted (while putting in various links). Is there anyone that is resolutely against deleting the Creed?
This is such a sacred part of Christainity for most Christians, I think many find it difficult to support deleting it. In some ways it may seem disrespectful or not in keeping with the behavior of a true Christian. I appreciate the wllingness of all involved to discuss this issue. My thanks to all. -- Storm Rider (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Of those who supported the full text, who would find the WikiBox link solution acceptable or tolerable? Of those who opposed the full text, who would find keeping the full text acceptable or tolerable? Please keep comments short. Please do not use this space to advocate an inflexible position. I am simply seeing who might be flexible so we can reach consensus and move past this impasse. Vassyana 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal for three articles related to the History of Christianity over at Talk:History of Christianity. The proposed article titles are:
The rationale behind these three proposed articles is explained in the section titled "Private penitence seems out of place here". Your opinion is solicited. Please respond on that Talk Page.
-- Richard 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)