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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
First of all, I will comment that "History and origins" seems like an awkward section title. Since the origins obviously predate the rest of Christianity's history, the title should be something like "Origins and subsequent history". Or it should be just "History". After all, when would a "History" section ever leave out the "origins" of anything? Secondly, I noticed that there is an "Unbalanced section" template that has been in place since November 2008. I don't see any discussion on this Talk Page. If there is ongoing discussion about the problems of imbalance in this section, then the template should stay. If not, then it should be removed. I propose to remove it if no one specifies what the imbalance problems are.
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, sounds good to me.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 20:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Under the "Christianity" section, this is the given description of the beliefs of Christianity "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, God having become human and the saviour of humanity.", while I agree this is a solid description, I would wonder if perhaps adding "Most Christianity teaches...". There are a number of branches of (admittedly, less mainstream) Christian sects. For example, Christian Atheism believe in no God, but believe in the value of scriptural teachings and most centrally the figure of Jesus himself. These people view themselves wholly as being as much Christian as others in the faith. As such, it seemed that adding something to convey the fact that not all Christians adhere to the belief in God would give the statement a more unbiased view on the variations so common within religions. Charos ( talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Let us ask ourselves this question, is there any kind of substantial Christianity that doesn't fit this description? Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, they all fit under this description, even Mormons. What defines Christianity hasn't really been in debate, it's more or less details within the belief that have been in constant debate, but all Christians confess a belief that Jesus is the Messiah and they mostly follow the Canonical Gospels. The description is descriptive, yet broad enough so that it doesn't contradict forms of major Christianity defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Major_groupings_within_Christianity. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss these beliefs within the article, I am saying that it doesn't merit a change of the lead or of the description of Christianity both of which would violate WP:RSUW-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In the 'Early middle ages' stands that the Muslims opressed the Christians; resulting struggles. As we know, The Christians and Jews enjoyed religious freedom under the Caliphate. Thus this must be eddited. 86.80.208.136 ( talk) 19:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
“Only 0.9% off all Christians live in the Middle East.” I believe that the off should be changed to of. 62.221.41.242 ( talk) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Catholics have a whole different thought process on baptism. A infant has to be baptised and then later get CONFERMED into the Catholic church. Shall we bring this onto this page or leave it to the Catholic page? Alliereborn ( talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Alliereborn
Please elaborate. This is too incoherent.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 05:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
118.208.168.232 ( talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a frequent editor at this page, as I'm not very interested in religion, but reading over the article, I did note a fairly common sociological phenomenon in Christianity that is not discussed. It's fairly common for specific sects to take doctrines as recognizing specific other sects as not Christian. In particular, in the United States, several churches do not recognize catholicism as Christianity, and even more do not recognize LDS or UU churches as such. I brief google book search seems to suggest there is plenty of sources that discuss the phenomenon without mincing words. Is this topic appropriate for this article? I'm well aware of the fact that the Christianity article already has a lot of ground to cover, but inter-denominational divisions are a historically very important trend. i kan reed ( talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The historical section under "Early Church and Christological Councils" should be split into a new section (own title "Christianity as a Roman state religion" from the text "State persecution ceased in the 4th century, when Constantine I issued " and on. BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJOR SHIFT IN CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND CHURCH.
It might be useful to introduce a new wikipedia topic Christianity (a concept of political governing tool)
One of the problem of this article is that there is no historical political view of Christianity as a "as a concept of political tool" something that must be credited to Constantine I. The basic idea of governing the Roman Empire with the Christian religion as a political tool of governing. It was tried before with some elder religions and with the emperor as a god, but the Christian religion was found better suitable.
The basic idea/concept is to make the religion stated by the definitions formulated in creeds at start with the Nicene Creed, stating everyone that do not comply is not Christian and is at the same time a public enemy of the state/the empire. In reverse it means that if you are seeing yourself as a Christian person, you must also commit to the empire and the emperors sole governing power. And the concept in Roman imperial terms showed to be working for at least 1000-1100 years. And that is remarkable. It is the basis of the European, American and Middle East (outside Iran) political history.
The political foundation is still today the actual foundation of all political governing in "Christian" and "Muslim" states and in many respect more or less globally. The only basic exception is most likely Iran (see below).
The fragmentation of Christianity
The concept is also the basis of the fragmentation of Christianity of two reasons. The minor is isolation from the central political power in Constantinople, the Popes power in Rome and protestant state churches as POWs mainly in Siberia in the 18th century and the turmoil of British domestic politics in the 17th century. And the other major is repulsion of the central political power of Constantinople and later also the Pope in Rome. To make the political rift, there must be a religious rift in the terms of the creeds. To non-fundamentalists many of the religious rifts seems to be rather ridiculous but politically explosive. It is actually the explanation of the odd circumstances of most fragmentation of the Christianity as a communion.
There are a few very strong such rifts and the first is the Muslim rift that created Islam, where they really recreated the major religious foundations not making the rift looking that ridiculous. But still based on politics, repulsing the reign of the Caesar in Constantinople, mandatory rejecting the patriarch of Constantinople and the creeds. But still on the same religious basic foundation intermingled with local traditions and Sunni was born. Iran and the Shiites had no Christian traditions and hundreds of years of repulsion to the Roman culture created something else on the framework of Islam and is a very good explanation why still Iran makes the major resistance to western (Christian) culture today, while the Sunnis seems not to care that much. Looking into the history of Byzans it is amazing that so much of the loosing standpoints in previous political/religious battles (where the Eastern part of the empire normally was the losing side) in woven into Islam. A huge set of repulsion and a huge rift, but still the same major roots. But noticeable much better streamlined to keep conservative local power in reign (there are hardly any Muslim riots or revolutions in the past) and the lacking of central creed and central religious institution like the patriarchy or Papal power. Certainly a result of "local needs of its time".
The rift between the Pope and the Patriarch was certainly based on support from the kings and rulers of the medieval Western Europe and Charlemagne indeed (that was even declared emperor by the Pope in contrast to Byzans. But here the basic rift in the creed was at start minor points of the trinity and to most of us looks like religious bullocks, but dead political serious. Minor rifts not risking on a fragile political game making the rift. The basic and only matter was who is in political power where, and the repulse the Caesar in Constantinople there must be differences in creed. The major differences as emerged later by development of the Western churches making them, able to survive Western political demands and very different from the united Rome-Constantinople church of a 1000 years ago.
The political fight about power in the 14th-15th century in Western Europe between Pope and Kings is certainly the basis of the Protestantism. There has always been criticism and views of religious nature. And sometimes there is a political need for them. In the beginning of the 16th century there was a political need among kings in Northern Europe (where it was possible) to terminate the domestic Papal political power. Most remarkable is Henry VIII in England that at start did not realise this need writing a book criticising Luther & co and then just a few years later find he got to remove the Papal power in Britain. The talks about divorces as the main need of most likely not true, rather political as in his colleagues other northern European monarchies. So Henry could not be Lutheran, and Luther was sent as a gift from God in Northern Europe, stating the power of the king as the head of the national church.
The free religious protestants
In the political turmoil of 17th century Britain and the Swedish POWs in Siberia in the early 18th century had to live without Clergy and had to improvise just having the Bibles. And to many they read the Bible as amateurs and with no sense for the basic concept (both Jesus original mission (if statement informality and focus on the personal actions and thoughts) but also the national Church creeds). Coming home or/and solving the problem going to America many was happy getting them out of the way to the end of the world, what America was to a large extent at that time.
Fundamentalism has its roots in politics and survival
This syndrome is also the explanation of the religious fundamentalism in Christian, Muslim and also Jewish groups. The basic features that applied to Constantine were the Jewish roots of survival in harsh political and religious conditions. Features of the Jews surviving times like in Babylon and the later Jewish Diaspora of Rome was good in keeping an empire based on fundamentalist creed and so in repulsing that political power. The same made small fractions of super-fundamentalists kept alive as groups.
The slightly noticeable perspective of this is Jesus major non-formalistic and focus on acts and thoughts of the individual actually arguing against this Jewish fundamentalist tradition meeting the rabbis of the temple. But also the quite relaxed approach to life (and the has God shown another way of living you should respect it approach in the Quran )of Muhammad makes should in a fundamentalistic view also make fundamentalism impossible without rejecting Jesus or Muhammad.
It is also very odd to listen to Darwinists claiming one must be atheist to be scientifically and accept Darwin’s scientifically statements. Rather many fundamentalistic groups and national churches has confused themselves into remains from earlier fundamentalistic political turmoil that has nothing to do with Jesus of Muhammad, rather the political religious need of creeds.
This thread I would think should be developed with scientific references, because there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.188.34 ( talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't subjects like what baptism does be grouped by what each sect of Christianity believes it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.170.144 ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Christians have proof that jesus died by the shroud of Turin.The shroud has the image of jesus on it and blood. Also christians have proof that jesus rose from the dead is by him doing miracles and appearing to a lot of people. Christians have tons and tons of proof that Jesus was alive crucified and died and was buried on the third day he rose from the dead.If you don't believe in this than go search this up about miracles he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.70.147 ( talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I searched and found no such proof that "Is by him doing miracles and appearing to a lot of people". So before you include any of this as fact or make changes based on this "proof", I urge you to find ANY reliable sources to cite. And the shroud of turin is controversial and already included in the article, as are the biblical accounts of miracles. There is also mention of the claims that he appears to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.40.59 ( talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't believe the unqualified title "Christian cemetery" is accurate. There are very well graves with Star of David in that cemetery not visible in the particular view of the photo. Soldiers buried there may have been assumed "christian" in an ethnic or cultural sense and have crosses at their grave by default. The photo looks nice, but is misleading and should not be in the article. At least, if it's included, there should be an explanation and qualification of the photo meaning in the caption. 70.109.189.90 ( talk) 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if this photo is of Normandy cemetery (unknown since the source has been deleted, but we can assume in good faith that it is) it is not Christian. There are plenty of congregations with attached cemeteries that would do better to represent what the caption claims. However I think the point of the picture is to show the Cross' use as a symbol of Christianity, therefor the caption should be changed to read something to the effect of: "Crosses marking the graves of soldiers at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial". Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jesus Christ guys, why have we let this article get dumbed down and turned into speculation by the PC brigade, seriously, how can a man who fed FIVE THOUSAND, yes, that's 5 THOUSAnd, be desecrated like this. My God, we cannot allow this to happen. This article is something that everyone should be able to saviour, yet it has turned into little more than a graveyard of dead ideas promoted by the aforementioned "pC constabulary" and the "health and" safety freaks. The establishment shoould be ashammed of itsolf. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwweeeccc ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Should there not be an entry for those of 'Christian descent', as I do find it a bit odd that there's no such entry on Wikipedia. -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah well Judiasm is a religion, not a race, as I'm sure that you're well aware of given that such a religion is bound to many continents and peoples and thusly not to one's race or ethnicity, and I meant descent in terms of one's origin or background. Yeah, I know that there'd be a fight to keep it lol :D -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
See [1] and [2]. If you think that Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament you should find a reliable source which affirms it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
. Only 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East. Contents
This should be changed to be included in the rest of the list, this is biased and "Only" is not necessary.
Please change "Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania. Only 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East." To "Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania, and 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East."
99.107.146.138 ( talk) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania and 0.9% live in the Middle East."
Is it really necessary to include the percentage of Christians living in the United states? Why not also say the percentage of Christians living in Australia or Canada or the United Kingdom; I mean, they're English-speaking countries too!
I propose removing the "(11.4% in the United States)" statistic. Peter ( talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The sections contains the differing interpretation of Bible by the three main christian denominations. I think this subsection is irrelevant here, as the article is about Christianity and describes its main beliefs. I think this sub-section should be deleted or moved to the Article on Bible it self. Sajjad Arif ( talk) 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently this section includes the sentence: Taken together, these are the Seven Sacraments as recognised by churches in the High church tradition—notably Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Independent Catholic, Old Catholic most Anglicans, and some Lutherans.
The phrase: ", Old Catholic most Anglicans, and some Lutherans." should be changed to: "and Old Catholic."
The Anglican and Lutheran churches overwhelmingly teach that there are two sacraments. The various Wikipedia articles on Anglicans, Lutherans and Sacraments all echo the two sacrament belief.
Phgeyer ( talk) 22:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Which denominations of Christianity have no problem with pre-marital sex + gay marriage? Pass a Method talk 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section on criticism of Christianity? That it attracts criticism is a notable feature of the topic. DHooke1973 ( talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening paragraph should have an additional line that - following "Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[3]" - says "By definition, this means that - as far as the world is concerned - you accept the commandment to love all other members of the Christian faith [4]
[4]Joh 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." Joh 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
This is a non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith, as far as its definition - in whichever way being relative to the world - is concerned. No love for other members, no Christianity. It is therefore paramount that this be stated in the opening paragraph, by way of definition, as an article to be read by the world.
It is not an attempt to prosletyze. It is not subject to the interpretation of particular denominations. It is not an irrelevant subtext to the faith. It must be understood in the context of the faith, which is of the Jews, as being a commandment, like unto the ten commandments given to Moses on Mt Sinai (and therefore gravely serious).
I stress that you cannot define Christianity (for the world) without this commandment. Thanks in advance for your time, consideration and care.
Gottservant ( talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggested paragraph
|
---|
The role of the Christianity in
Western civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of
history and formation of Western society. Through its long history, the church has been a major source of social services like schooling, several universities in the world was founded by the Church,
[1] some historians of science
J.L. Heilbron,
[2]
A.C. Crombie,
David Lindberg,
[3]
Edward Grant,
Thomas Goldstein,
[4] and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of
science,
[5]
[6] and the Church's priest-scientists, many of whom were
Jesuits, have been among the leading lights in
astronomy,
genetics,
geomagnetism,
meteorology,
seismology, and
solar physics, becoming some of the "fathers" of these sciences,.
[7]
Church encourage medical care and welfare services and had influnce in
economic;
[8] inspiration for
culture and
philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. And engineering and mathematics was highly advanced and its reflected through the evolution of architecture in the Middle Ages. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western World and remains a source of continuity linking modern Western culture to classical Western culture.
The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. [9] [10] The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. [11] Long held Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage have also been influential in family life. Christianity played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, [12] infanticide and polygamy. [13]Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity. [14] While official Church teaching [15] considers women and men to be complementary Influence of Christianity does not stop the on Western civilization, Christians also have played a prominent role in the development and pioneering features of the Islamic civilization. [16] The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked universally as public holidays; Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and time itself is measured by the West from the assumed date of the birth of the Church's founder, Jesus of Nazareth: the Year One AD ( Anno Domini). In the list of the 100 Most Influential People in Human history, Percent 65 Christian figures from various fields. [17]
|
I will add this Paragraph it's with many Sources. Jobas ( talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
how about this Paragraph Christianity has been an important part of the shaping of Western civilization, at least since the 4th century. [1] beside secularisation. several universities in the world was founded by the Church, [2]. [3] and The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and the ensuing Counter-Reformation affected the universities of Europe in different ways. [4] some historians of science J.L. Heilbron, [5] A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, [6] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, [7] and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant influence on the development of science, [8] and had a imapct on arts, iterature, philosophy ,cultural tradition, law and politics. [9] and during middle age period church building and ecclesiastical architecture reached new heights, [10] Christians also have played a prominent role in the Islamic civilization. [11] . Jobas ( talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I'm pretty certain the Crusades didn't help Islamic civilisation. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Protestant Interpretations" the following reference is made: "The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith". Mb-soft.com. Retrieved 2010-11-19.. mb-soft.com is not a reliable source, a reliable publisher, and essentially serves as a kind of "geocities" for self-created content. Please remove this reference which is essentially, as far as I can tell, serving as WP:LINKSPAM. 69.86.225.27 ( talk) 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If the Islam and Muhammad articles (prominently) state that Muhammad is the founder of Islam shouldn't the same principle (of NPOV) apply to the Jesus and Christianity articles? 175.107.232.114 ( talk) 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine to add. Cite Hebrews 12:2 ("founder and perfecter of our faith") -- 75.65.161.214 ( talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Were there other women apostles? Other women who understood themselves, and were understood by others, to be commissioned by Christ in order to spread the word of his death and resurrection? We know of at least one other, one who could be thought of, in fact, as the original apostle: Mary Magdalene. Mary is called an apostle by some early Christian writers. ... Mary and the others, therefore, could be thought of as "apostles sent to the apostles," a title that Mary herself came to bear in the Middle Ages (Latin: apostola apostolorum).
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This has to be one of the most dry encyclopedic articles I have ever browsed over.
There are no culture specific mentions of Christianity in popular culture, movies, plays, songs, games. There is only a tiny mention of Christian festivals, Christmas, Easter, with no details. There is no mention of the charitable works being undertaken by Christians worldwide - poverty, hunger, thirst, first aid.
Where are you? This is an advanced encyclopedia! An encyclopedia captures nothing if it does not reflect the lives of those whom it discusses. Gottservant ( talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a map of the world where every nation with a population of 50% or more christians is colored purple. According to it more than 50% of Swedens population are christians. I don't know where those numbers came from, but it is just plain wrong. Denmark and Finland shouldn't be colored purple either. Those errors make me question the rest of the map too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.81.254 ( talk) 08:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Idem for Netherlands: much less then 50 percent are churchgoing, and less then 10 percent literally believe in trinity and resurrection. So depending on how strict you define 'Christians', Netherlands should either be pink or grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section entitled Protestant, the following text is offered:
The last source listed is the following: "American Holiness Movement". Finding Your Way, Inc. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
As discussed above, this is source to a poor-quality, self-published website (mb-soft.com). Please remove it.
69.86.225.27 ( talk) 05:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Done Celestra ( talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can the image on the right be used as the main christianity symbol, read the file description. The cross can be kept for roman christianity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church 91.182.147.92 ( talk) 13:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In the "Beliefs" section of the article, I feel that the sub-section devoted to Nontrinitarian theology effectively presents a bias; namely, on account of its omissions. The sub-section is four sentences, with the main two statements being: "Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity." And, "They are a small minority of Christians." I also expect that the second statement is only true if it is read as "they are a minority of Christians," and as set against the entirety of the global Christian population. To say that they are a "small minority" seems to suggest that among minorities, they are minorities. This seems a little absurd to me considering that some professed-Christian Nontrinitarian belief systems include the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church, all Oneness Pentecostal churches (being at least 13 formal denominations), and the Christian Science churches. I hardly expect that these three, even, could cumulatively be called a "small minority" of either historical or modern Christian influence.
I am personally not a Nontrinitarian, which I mention only to argue for my non-bias on the topic; nonetheless, I feel that the significance of the Nontrinitarian model of Christian thinking has been greatly understated, again, by omission. To this point, I would especially ask the editors to consider the great controversy in Christian history between John Calvin and Michael Servetus. If John Calvin is not considered to be a person of trivial influence, then neither should it be thought trivial how significant the issue of Nontrinitarianism was in his government. Michael Servetus was burned alive on a pyre that consisted of one of his Nontrinitarian books, and, John Calvin, although considering the exact means of execution "harsh," approved of his being put to death for heresy. This ought to solidify that today's Nontrinitarian sects, being significant in population, represent a very serious division of Christian thought. The topic deserves more than four sentences.
I believe that these main ideas should be added (however worded):
"Nontrinitarians reject the teaching that God exists in three distinct persons; however, a Nontrinitarian theology does not necessarily imply rejection of the divinity of Jesus, or of the divinity of the Trinitarian person of the Holy Spirit: A Nontrinitarian viewpoint asserts only that God, however named, is absolutely singular in identity."
I will not make a great fuss about it, but I would also be thrilled if a little more respect were given the weight of this theological division in Christian history. Men killed each other and died over the topic. I would like to see a few words to respect the weight that such a fact carries. Daniel.sparks ( talk) 06:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
There is a lot of white space in this article in the following sections: Creeds, Trinity, Worship and Baptism. I've tried moving a few things around but can't figure out what is causing it. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? Jainsworth16 ( talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If you know anything at all about Christianity, it is that its founder, Jesus Christ, instituted most famously of all that the body of believers that came to be known as "Christians" would be defined by their commandment to love one another.
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. Joh 13:35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
This is the Zenith of the Christian faith and you have not for even a moment mentioned this fundamental tenet in the first paragraph. It is not subject to wavering interpretation, it is universal to the Christian faith. It originated with the founder of the faith and was carried to the death by martyrs of all denominations.
I will be checking to see that this is addressed some time in the near future. I am not just picking out a random verse here. It SAYS "All will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another". It is the only time Jesus ever talks about the appearance of the believers to the world. Even if it is that you are only concerned with the appearance of Christianity in this article, mentioning this commandment is crucial to doing that with any kind of integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, if no one is going to add the "New Commandment" to the first paragraph, I will just do it. I don't want complaints though - I have already spellled out more than enough reason to add it. 58.161.50.116 ( talk) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct, "Love one another" is essential to the definitionof what it is to be a Christian. A L S O THE BIBLE SAYS: in Matthew 7:15-16, 20 to WATCH OUT for false prophets,.. and that we will know them by thier fruit,.. by the way they act. New Living Translation (©2007) 15 Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?...20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. ByStander2 ( talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that this would be more appropriate under the article for #REDIRECT Jesus. It does not help a reader understand "what is Christianity" though would help a reader understand "who was Jesus" Diraphe ( talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jainsworth16, thank you for all the recent work you have done to keep "Christianity" a quality Wikipedia article. I welcome most of the changes you have made to the "Scripture" section. I just have two issues with them. First, I think it is problematic to say that the traditional Christian view is that the Scriptures "literally 'God-breathed'", as this is not the case unless Christians have traditionally believed that God expelled the Bible from his lungs. I understand that this was a good faith edit: I believe that what you meant was that the wording in 2 Timothy literally translates to "God-breathed". If you want to in some way work the phrase "God-breathed" back into the section, I will not be contentious about it, so long as the meaning is clear.
My other problem is that while it is certainly the view of (many) modern fundamentalist/evangelical Christians that God inspired the Scriptures but not word-for-word, I do not see what makes this a traditional view. It was not all that long ago that Christians believed that the Bible was given by word-for-word inspiration (and that the dialect of Greek it was written in was a Holy Ghost language, as opposed to being the common dialect of its time).
Marie Paradox ( talk) 04:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"The third view of inspiration held by historic Christianity, is that God worked through the personalities of the biblical writers in such a way that, without suspending their personal styles of expression or freedom, what they produced was literally "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16; Greek: theopneustos). The emphasis of the 2 Timothy text is that scripture itself, not the writers only, was inspired ("All Scripture is inspired by God," NASB). If it were only the writers themselves who were inspired, then one might argue that their writings were contaminated by the interaction of the message with their own primitive and idiosyncratic conceptions. The teaching in 2 Timothy 3:16, however, is that God guided the scriptural authors in such a way that their writings bear the impress of divine "inspiration." Based on such verses as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21, the traditional Christian view is that the Bible communicates objective, propositional truth. Unlike the neoorthodox position, which conceives Scripture as becoming the Word of God when it acquires personal existential significance, the traditional position is that Scripture is and always will remain truth, whether or not we read and appropriate it personally. Jainsworth16 ( talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A passage in the lede says: "The saving work of Christ on the cross is often referred to as the Gospel message, or good news."
- Stevertigo ( t | c) 09:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I tinkered with the lede a bit:
I think this works well. The only issue is the usage of "in faith" instead of the natural "of faith." If we say "of faith" that gets into sticky territory of 'who gets saved' etc. and I want to avoid that somehow. It may be that an explanatory footnote is warranted. I come from a universalist perspective, which tends to dislike talk of special conditions (such as proper theology) on salvation and eternal life. The universalist perspective is that there is plenty of room in Heaven, even for atheists. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
PS: Ive made a number of changes, and the passage now states:
I think this way properly expresses the Universalism aspect of Christianity, and by referencing both faith and grace, covers all bases. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated. Marie removed it though. I did not mean to include "faith" itself as a representation of sola fide. I don't know where you are getting that from, Marie. I simply mentioned sola fide as an example of where conditionism does not apply. I used it, together with grace, in way which should appease both conditionalists and universalists. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have been watching the Criticism developement of wikipedia for a long time(years). I have read the archive however, this needs to brought up again. There is no criticism in the atheism or evolution article and before you say there is no valid criticism there is even no in the NAZISM article yet we seem to allow a criticism section here not because wiki policy permits(it does)it or because of validation but seemingly to accommodate people's politics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and if I were to read an encyclopedia I would expect consistency. I am not saying we need to add a criticism section to those articles but remove the one here leaving a link to it. For the record, I know wikipedia policy of criticism. 69.145.24.3 ( talk)
Yes, essays do present the Wanamaker quandary: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." in that one does not know which half to call nonsense at first - so I generally ignore them all unless they become guidelines or policy. The Undue policy does not refer to sections, however. Does it? History2007 ( talk) 13:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Criticism sections are bad style. I suggest criticisms be inserted throughout the article where relevant. See Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How many reputable tertiary sources include criticism sections in their articles on religions? I can think of none. FWIW the idea strikes me as odd. This article in particular ought to be about all that Christianity is and was. Criticizing Christianity will almost certainly give priority to modern Christianity over historical Christianity (unless we also plan on criticizing the Ophite belief that the Edenic snake was Jesus or the medieval Catholic practice of selling indulgences) and privilege certain Christian sects over others. There are ways that the current article seems whitewashed (why is there no mention of anti-Semitism, for example?), but this can be fixed by making sourced additions to the appropriate sections. -- Marie Paradox ( talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Christos,should be "From Hebrew:משיח.Moshiach,from Greek: Χριστός anointed as was the custom for the Jews of the 1st century to use Hebrew first, then to talk to gentiles Christos was used to use as the adjective. Cesparza1969 ( talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this section could be included if it is improved to include more than just a catholic reference. Jesus' command is To love God like you love yourself and to love your neighbor like you love yourself. The two are joined in that God is love. His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments. -Catechism of the Catholic Church 202, 2196, 214- Jainsworth16 ( talk) 09:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Section 2 Chapter 2 CCC 2196. Ghostprotocol888 ( talk) 05:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Allegations that are being made against the posting of Jesus' Command are non fact based. They are not based on valid policy, due to the misinterpretation of wikipedia policies by other(s) opposing. In compliance with all wikipedia policy, an addition to the Christianity article was made -WP:CON-WP:VERIFY-. Blanking, illegitamate Vandalism has occured, where significant parts of a page's content is removed without any valid reason -WP:VAND-. View Article's history, the orginal edit by Ghostprotocol888 was removed without valid reasoning; there is a not valid claim of WP:OR on the first reversion; the original edit by Ghostprotocol888 meets wikipedia's verifiability requirements: At the time of the original edit, it was previously unchallenged and attributable to the article -WP:OR-WP:VERIFY-. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute" -WP:CON-. After the original edit by Ghostprotocol888, a reversion was made claiming WP:OR invalidly. Technically, this inavalid reversion and all further invalid reversions is Vandalism. The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-. The actual course of action taken was making invalid reversion claiming WP:OR, a form of Vandalsim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.51 ( talk) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Removing Jesus' Command on the Christianity page is the epitome of bad faith. Vandalism occured -WP:VAND-. As already mentioned, a good faith edit would have been a revision and not a reversion, especially one not claimed invalidly -WP:CON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.51 ( talk) 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-.
There is no policy stating that, Jainsworth, agreement does not have to be majority. "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]" WP:NOR "...Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy — so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.[1]" The edit does show proof of, "love God like you love yourself" in, "The Son of God commands." -1 John 13:34- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostprotocol888 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
If edit warring starts up again, for whatever reason, please do not hesitate to raise at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bible enthusiasts could benefit from seeking advice from the community at WikiProject Bible, before behaving in a way that may be interpreted as using Wikipedia for evangelizing. Please take careful note of Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (the Bible is most often considered a primary source) and Religion. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
These reversions were never a matter of "edit warring." Consensus had already been reached on the talk page under "Fundamental tenet missing from first paragraph." This is a matter of Vandalism; revert only when necessary; please determine gravity before posting invalid opposition. WP:ROWN WP:WAR WP:VAND Ghostprotocol888 ( talk) 06:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"Solid" is not a modifier of "consensus" using valid Wikipedia policy; there is obviously consensus for The New Commandment when it is in the actual article. WP:CON I agree with Ghostprotocol888. Vandalism occurred, not Edit Warring. "Revert only when necessary; please determine gravity before posting invalid opposition." Promontorylink ( talk) 05:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll clarify it for you concisely. Don't you worry about it being messy. Promontorylink ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
POV To raise issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. Please do not override the consensus of the Christianity page by making reversions invalidly. "World" and "Science" are the location of the reliable third-party sources used in the citation for this section edit. Promontorylink ( talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, reliable third-party sources are usually written however they are and the example given in WP is a newspaper article WP:THIRDPARTY. World and Science are categories of News. Their location is not "Opinion." So, the sources are located in the "World" and "Science" of News Categories. I do care as to why you don't believe my most recent edits belong on Wikipedia, but belief is a form of truth which does not adhere to WP:VERIFY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is really simple to determine. If you view the article history page, you will see that I did not make a reversion. I undid your revision which was a reversion. Please do not submit paradoxical information to the Christianity page;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh right, I made a mistake, whoops. "The Son of God commands," is an in-text attribution form inline citation. As already mentioned, To raise issues with specific articles regarding POV, see the NPOV noticeboard. Consensus was made. You are the one edit warring by making invalid reversions. Even one invalid reversion is edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before editing. Promontorylink ( talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Response#1-"imo" is irrelevant. Your opinion is a form of truth and does not meet WP:VERIFY requirements. Sources must be cited. POV To raise issues with specific articles regarding POV, see the NPOV noticeboard. 5 WP:BLP Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 7 Jainsworth16's sources are not third party; Albert Barnes (thoelogian) is a secondary source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian). WP:THIRDPARTY Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 9 WP:BLP The rule is that I'm supposed to revert your reversion. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute," not an invalid reversion. 11 WP:CON Please learn to read before editing on Wikipedia. Promontorylink ( talk) 07:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
According to all valid sourcing, Christ generalizes all of the law into one underlying principle.
According to the Gospels, Jesus requires you to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Generally, two of the Gospels have these principles separated and in the other two combined, but that doesn't matter because of their Logos, which is supported by reliable third-party sources:
"There are divine laws which govern and maintain us - the science of perfect God, perfect man."-1 If you are loving God completely, when you love your neighbor as yourself you are also loving God completely. You cannot love God completely and love your neighbor as yourself without relating your neighbor and yourself to God, because you are already completely loving God. And when you are loving God completely you are loving; so you are loving as yourself completely.
It is impossible, in Natural terms, to be doing something 100% to one thing, using 100% as 1, and simultaneously exist doing that same act to another thing, let's say for perfection 100% or 1, unless those two "things" are equal. So, in mathematical terms, if x=1 and y=1, y = x.
Equally, Jesus commands us to love God completely as to love your neighbor as yourself. Now, knowing that Jesus is a Neighbor-2 and understanding the logical connection of when you are loving God completely then you are loving so you are loving as yourself completely, you will know that Jesus is indirectly saying that He is God and to Love him completely as yourself.
Additionally, The Commandment that Jesus made is that He is God, without saying it because He is supposed to be called God the Son by others us humanity, simply God.
"Christ Jesus transformed the Mosaic law by understanding God as Love."-3 "And [the Lord] passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness”, Exodus 34:6" "This true light is the light of the Christ that Jesus exemplified, the spiritual illumination revealing God as all-powerful Love and each of us as the expression of this Love."-3
Jesus' Commandment is one New Commandment from God, singular. Please do not waste, yours and my time further.
1http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Exploring+healing+prayer/6424493/story.html 2http://atheism.about.com/od/bibledictionaryonline/p/NeighborBible.htm 3http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/22464 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.77.100 ( talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The introduction for this article has reached an absurd length. It no longer serves to 'introduce' a reader to the topic and has become unwieldy. I suggest moving information into their appropriate categories within the article and summarizing the introduction to include the most important information. Diraphe ( talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I eventually managed to read through the lede here and I think it really misses the boat. Let me put it this way:
Now, how many times does the word love appear in this article? Just 5 and 4 of those are in the context of the Old Testament. In a sense the basis of Christian teachings are not presented in the lede, or elsewhere in this article, while various charts show the schisms. Far be it for me to work on this article now to fix these, but those who edit here may want to consider The New Commandment relevant to this page. History2007 ( talk) 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A simplified chart of historical developments of major groups within Christianity.
Suggested change relates to section of "Christianity" article about Major Divisions. Perhaps a second simplified chart to illustrate the suggested change might be considered.
Catholic Main article: Catholic Church Christian Denominations in English-speaking countries [show]Australia [show]Canada [show]United Kingdom [show]United States [show]International Associations This box: view talk edit The Catholic Church comprises those particular churches, headed by bishops, in communion with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as its highest authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[215][216] Like the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church through Apostolic succession traces its origins to the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ.[217][218] Catholics maintain that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" founded by Jesus subsists fully in the Roman Catholic Church." This would lead Catholics to understand that the simplified chart above should not show a separate "Early Christianity" in grey but that the same red used for Catholicism should extend back to the beginning of the Christian Church's life; there is no time after that which can be pointed to as marking the birth of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church acknowledges other Christian churches and communities[219][220],and the goodness of the members of those other groups. The Catholic Church admits that it was not always blameless at those times in history when splits occurred within the Church. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)the Catholic Church has become a strong proponent of ecumenism, the movement to restore visible unity among Christians, that had begun among some Protestant Churches early in the twentieth century. The Catholic faith is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[221][222]
Gerard Hore (
talk)
12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method made an edit which moved a substantial portion of the lede to a place several sections down in the article. In the summary he called his edit a "copyedit". I reverted ( diff) and brought it here for discussion. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It says Christianity is based on Jesus and the Gospels and other New Testament writings, but it is also based on Old Testament writings, I think that should be added.-- 174.49.24.190 ( talk) 21:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this violates the very essence of God's nature and has been declared a heresy by counter-cult movements such as the CRI (Christian Resource Institute). Hence, I deleted the parts about non-trinitarianism due to my knowledge about these cults claiming to be Christian, but alas, I was accused of vandalism. Most of these non-trinitarian cults have different bibles or very wrong doctrine, such as the Jehovah's Witness cult. It appears that the administrators are quick to accuse and they reverted all my hard work trying to fix the inaccuracies on this page. Mirianth ( talk) 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the following sentence in the intro: It grew in size and influence over a few decades, and by the 4th century replaced paganism as the dominant religion within the Roman Empire.
Could I propose an alternative? How about: and by the end of the 4th century had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, replacing other forms of religion practiced under Roman rule.
Would there be objections if I made this change? I'm chiefly concerned about the link to paganism, which mostly explains the history of the terminology, instead of linking to Religion in ancient Rome, which provides an overview of religion as practiced throughout the Roman Empire. Also, I think it would be good from a historical perspective to specify that Christianity actually became the official religion of Rome at this point. Cynwolfe ( talk) 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I just edited the "Christianity in brief" section, improving it slightly. However the section is only a few sentences long and seems rather redundant, so I believe that it should be deleted since all the information it contains is included in the article. I am a beginner Wikipedia editor however, so I would prefer if someone more experienced examine the section and decide what to do with it.
Vgp0012 ( talk) 08:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any reference on this Christianity page to the social and historical context of the beginnings of Christianity. The oppression of Roman slavery and the creation of numerous religious cults, including Christianity, as defences against this oppression, are not mentioned.
I think the Christianity page would benefit from a section on the social context of the beginnings of Christianity. There's an excellent book by the marxist historian Karl Kautsky called "The Foundations of Christianity" which is, in my view, the most thorough explanation of the subject, yet there is no mention of it on the Christianity page. It is not even referenced for "further reading".
Without a philosophical aspect to this page, there is a danger that it comes across as being one of religious propaganda rather than a more "objective" account of Christianity. John Rogan ( talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)John Rogan 8.9.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rogan ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Under the subtitle "Criticism of Christianity" it is claimed:
"Karl Marx was also highly critical of Christianity and argued that it is detrimental to progress because it "protects the weak", while society needs strong people to flourish." Citation number 297.
Firstly, this is a false statement. Secondly, it misrepresents the cited text. If you actually read the cited text it says this was the position of Nietzsche — a different German philosopher (already mentioned in the same paragraph) — not Marx.
To make accurate, the line should be changed to "Karl Marx was also highly critical of Christianity and argued that religion acted as an opium to keep the working class oppressed" (or something similar).
82.32.4.244 ( talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree- characterising Marx's criticism of Christianity as being rooted in it's "protection of the weak" is insufficient, and fits in much more closely with Nietzsche. Some kind of reference to Christianity being the handmaiden of feudalism or the opium of the people would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.206 ( talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Those mentioned people are not the only critics of Christianity, there are far more, and there are more and more of them as time passes. They mostly state out contradictions within the Bible or stolen material from other centuries or thousands of years older religions. Such author is T.W. Doane in his book: "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions". Far more examples can be seen on the page Exposing Christianity: http://see_the_truth.webs.com/ It can all be added in criticism section and this last link can be added to external links or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubt Instigator ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The text above in its present form can be found in the lead. However, previous revisions of this article read "Christianity has been an important part of the shaping of Western civilization, at least since the 4th century." [3]
I believe the former revision is more appropriate. Simply stating that Christianity has played "a role" diminishes this importance and the sentence might as well be removed; many things can be played "a role" in shaping Western civilizations, but Christianity played perhaps the most important role. The citations referenced clearly stress the importance of the role of Christianity, e.g. '"Western civilization is also sometimes described as "Christian" or "Judaeo- Christian" civilization."'
I'm not proposing that the former text should be reinstated entirely, but just that the word "important" should be inserted. To me this edit seems fairly uncontroversial, but with an article as important and heavily-edited as this one I thought I should explain first and see if anybody objects for whatever reason. -- Peter Talk to me 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
christanity is a religon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.228.249 ( talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus is not fully human, he is also the Holy Spirit, along with his Father, Jehovah. I know this because i am christian, and it is worldwide known. Tobybriant ( talk) 03:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm christian, and what I believe is Jesus is the soul and spirit of God in human flesh McBenjamin ( talk) 18:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we have this page redirect to "mythology" to fit with encyclopaedic conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.93.170 ( talk) 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, There is a picture on this page (Christianity) which has the following caption: "Christian cemetery" In fact, the picture is not of a graveyard but of a memorial site for (American) soldiers in World War 2, these sites are very common across Europe, France in particular. Just a small point.
Hedels ( talk) 23:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You would have no trouble finding sources to support the above statement, it is the first thing Americans mention if asked about their Christian beliefs. Many only go to church for marriages. But marriage is not mentioned in this article. It is bizarre that an article that purports to be "encyclopaedic" ignores central beliefs and practises of a large segment of contemporary Christians.
There is a link to Christian views on marriage - is this not part of Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Scriptures" section 3rd paragraph speaks of issues being brought up with the bible due to modern research. To be more even handed in the point of views concerning the Bible, the problems and issue brought up in this paragraph should belong in a separate section with both points of view described with the information and references attached. As it is now only one side of the issues are being raised and counter views and information is either not sufficient completely lacking.
the Following are examples of such point of views and information which should be included in the new section.
On the Subject talking about certain parts of Paul's letters being added in by a follower/copyist. My issue is that the opposite view that the biblical texts are accurate to the originals are not being shown with their supporting documents. I understand that the idea exists and perhaps some evidence exists to support it in the referenced book, and have no problem with that view being expressed, however there is also evidence that says what is recorded in the New testament including Paul's letters are reliably close to the original. Much more so than other secular ancient writing's that no one would even begin to question (Bruce, F., Are the New Testament documents reliable? The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, UK, p. 19, 1956.) A good place to get a general idea of this is ( http://creation.com/trust-the-bible) that includes 14 supporting References of its own.
In honesty, the verses used as examples of forgeries (1 Timothy 12[which should be 1 Timothy 2:12] & 1 Corinthians 14), if taken out would obscure the surrounding verses. In both instances Paul is using the differences between men and women as reasons for the different roles(not status) in the church . IN the church Women were allowed to prophesy but men were supposed to teach while women "remained silent" and learned. If a women had an issue with the teaching she could bring it up outside of the church in order to maintain order during the meeting. Also Outside of the church women were permitted to teach, in fact 2 Tim 1:5 shows Paul encouraging women to teach other women and their children. ( http://creation.com/biblical-view-women)
Also, the sentence "Other verses in 1 Corinthians contradict this verse such as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where women are instructed to wear a covering over their hair 'when they pray or prophesies'.[79] Clearly when they are not silent!" I don't mind the mention of the apparent contradiction but as above, an explanations or alternative view should be given an opportunity to be viewed and its evidence weighed. Looking at the context of the verse cited, Paul is again discussing order in the meetings of the early Christians not status in the church. It is argued that although allowed to "prophesy" in the church, which is made note of already, they were not allowed to discuss the interpretation of the prophesy in the church (Carson, D.A., “Silent in the churches”: on the role of women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36, Chapter 10; in: Piper and Grudem, ref. 10, pp. 142–144.)
Finally, the Topic of the "selected" books of the bible. "The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired" (A phrase used by historian Dr Ronald Higgins in his ‘Cracks in the Da Vinci Code’, <www.irr.org/da-vinci-code.html>, 23 December 2004.). Mentioning the Gnostic writings as something that is connected to the new testament canon is misplaced in this regard. The Very fact that they were Gnostic is why they aren't Christian writings. The fact that evidence exists that support gnostic ideas around the time of the writings of the new testament does not make them linked to them. That is like saying Harrison Ford (Star Wars Episode 4, 1977) was the Alien in the space ship from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) because both movies came out at the same time and involve space travel. The argument is not valid because the conclusion does not follow the premise.
To further my point, concerning the referenced Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas does reference New Testament verses but teaches such a different lesson to the actual New Testament writings it is laughable to think it should be included in the New Testament cannon. Compare these two passages:
Gospel of Thomas (114)Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Galatians 3:26-28 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gospel of Thomas clearly teaches that Man is superior to woman, where Galatians is teaching that Man is equal to Woman in status, both being one in Christ Jesus. The Gnostic writings were not recognized by the church, not because some council voted not to include it, but because of this type of contrary teaching. This also irregardless of when the gnostic writings were penned.
Justsayingediting ( talk) 01:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I'd also suggest being very specific about the exact change you'd like made (i.e., use a "before and after" approach). Needless to say, any new content introduced should be
reliably sourced, and creation.com doesn't fit the bill.
Rivertorch (
talk)
18:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Instances of WP:WEASEL wording:
The lack of mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem Church (and Jerusalem) seems an oversight. Especially, given the rising discussion of the effect on the putative rise of Pauline Christianity at the expense of the Jerusalem branch. But thanks Wblakesx ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia, as opposed to clergical situations, I doubt if Christianity actually passes the "monotheistic" definition. A god set up in a trinity of identity, cannot be strictly called "monotheistic" no matter how intimate the Trinity. This is accepted within the Hindu tradition but in the West, there has always been an attempt to shoehorn a three-tiered deity into monotheistic descriptions. In the Catholic tradition, several "saints" are worshipped or called upon for help, although it is "in Jesus' name" but the aid is sought nonetheless. In Hebraic\Islamic traditions, nothing else or no one else is called upon except God who has many attributes (names\titles) but there is no doubt as to Who is being called upon--not angels, prophets nor holy "mothers" or "children". (Although in both traditions, it is implied that the "forces" or "angels" of God are deployed, they are not called upon by the believer.) Within the Baptist tradition, the divinity is shared between "Father" and "Son" and each is called upon, one in the name of the other or even interchangeably; indeed, in many cases, Jesus has taken the place of God in terms of prayer and thanks. MARK VENTURE ( talk) 05:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The "argument" is an old one that Christian clegymen have never been able to defend other than to say it's "mysterious": only to those who belong to said church. The "Trinity" is a doctrine of compromise to allow for the worship of "Christ" (to distinguish him from the historical Jesus or Yeshua) and not run afoul of the First Commandment. I am not looking for "support" I just think encyclopedias should be neutral. There is already a lot of info in the article which details how the compromise was reached (including the Nicene Creed) but clearly, it's not "monotheistic" if Jesus is The Judge to whom God deferred His authority. Christianity, has more in common with Egyptian and Greco-Roman Paganism--which were non-monotheistic, than it has with either Judaism or Islam. If documentation you need, I can provide them MARK VENTURE ( talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If this phrase from the article:
"The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early ecumenical creeds which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was subsequently resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins. They further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven where he rules and reigns with God the Father"
That is from your own article, not just my opinion alone. If God is sharing His authority with anyone, then it's clearly not "monotheism". If logic and semantics are insufficient to say nothing of a rival movement within Christianity herself, as well as other faiths which directly challenge this doctrine, then there is nothing I can do except continue to be puzzled and amused by it. MARK VENTURE ( talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead states: "The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the saviour of humanity." I would like to request two changes. First, I think it is unnecessary and wordy to include the phrase "mainstream christian belief", and instead I believe we should put "Christians believe". The bible (Jesus himself) states that he is fully human and fully divine. Anyone who doesn't believe this would be selectively ignoring things that Jesus said about himself and entire portions of the bible, inherently making them not Christians; so it would be a fallacy to say it is "mainstream" as if there can be Christians that don't believe that. Secondly, it should be spelled savior, not saviour. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I will try to find a copy of the bible in original Greek, and then translate it and renew this request. Although I think you are just being facetious.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I am always amused by these discussions. The counterbalance to "He's not a real Christian" in several of the above posts is that Wikipedia articles on how many Christians there are in various countries and in the whole world always seem to include anybody who has ever self declared to be a Christian. It makes the numbers look good, of course, but it's pure hypocrisy. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to get consensus before making the change. Does anyone have any objections?-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting a change. I'm not sure that any form of Christianity has the belief that Christ "descended into hell" as only sinners go to hell. If this is wrong, please let me know which type of Christianity that is. Thanks, Ronster21 ( talk) 02:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21
During the Middle Ages, most of the remainder of Europe was Christianized, with Christians also being a sometimes large religious minority in the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia and parts of India.[12][13]
Ethiopia is majority Christian: in the region of two-thirds. Indeed, it was the first officially Christian country in the world. Can anyone think of a simple and eloquent way to reword this to reflect that? FrFintonStack ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's one of the main thing to understand 'the thing' and there is no information about it in this article. How deep was the fear against Huns and Turkic tribes at that times for example? Huns and Turkic tribes were Buddhist plus Tengriist and how did they affect the culture of Europe at that times, since they had almost ultimate power over original simple Germanic villagers and Romans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 ( talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Officially, it's 2.1 billion or 2.2 billion? Normally it's written 2.1 billion though. [4] Thus leading paragraph should be changed. Capitals00 ( talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page Abrahamic-Religions -- Wiki hamze ( talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
While it’s beliefs include “monotheism”. I hereby request the removal of Christianity from the category of “religion”…
Real Christianity is NOT a religion, but is technically anti-religious. The standard, accepted definition of a “religion” is a set of beliefs which always contain specific statutes, edicts, rules, or “laws” that MUST be applied to the daily lives of its believers. This would be the direct opposite of Christianity. Although Christianity acknowledges the existence of a specific set of rules / laws, they are not applied to the daily life of a Christian, accept as a reminder that due to the fallen or “sinful” state of humanity, said laws cannot be kept, attained, or applied. It is this specific understanding of the Judaic Law as “God’s unattainable measure of perfection”, which sets Christianity apart from any and all religions, and in its practice makes it irreligious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.32.242 ( talk) 21:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What a load of bollocks! 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 86.178.77.235 ( talk)
I would like to include the book "The Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 4 (1794-1796): The Age of Reason" in further reading. It is available free and legally from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3743 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.66.186 ( talk) 00:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You write: Some of the churches originating during this period are historically connected to early 19th-century camp meetings in the Midwest and Upstate New York. American Millennialism and Adventism, which arose from Evangelical Protestantism, influenced the Jehovah's Witnesses movement and, as a reaction specifically to William Miller, the Seventh-day Adventists. Others, including the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Evangelical Christian Church in Canada,[268][269] Churches of Christ, and the Christian churches and churches of Christ, have their roots in the contemporaneous Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, which was centered in Kentucky and Tennessee. Other groups originating in this time period include the Christadelphians and Latter Day Saint movement. While the churches originating in the Second Great Awakening have some superficial similarities, their doctrine and practices vary significantly.
Yet, it's important not to confuse the reader. Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Latter Day Saints are considered true to the basic Christian essentials of the faith. They may have been established as you report, but their beliefs have departed enough from the essentials of the Christian faith that they are considered cults. Dr. Walter Martin http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html did an extensive series about Jehovah's Witttnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses themselves identify their distinctions away from the essentials, http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/ Patheos does an good job describing Mormons http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2012/09/are-mormons-christians-yesnoand-yes/ Both these cults are only "Christian" in the sense that they claim to be Christian. I could claim I'm an apple and it wouldn't make it so.
I actually came to this article expecting to find information about Calvanism, Arminianism and Molinism, but found nothing. Perhaps you can add this in the future? Thank you for your work, I really apreciate it.
Pamela Christian Speaker, Author and Media Personality
2602:306:C5F3:53F9:3CE0:6452:8583:AA46 ( talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: Thanks for the comments and suggestions. The {{ edit semi-protected}} is meant to provide editors who are unable to directly modify an article a mechanism to make reasonable changes. It requires the request be detailed to a "please change X to Y" degree, have relaible sources for factual changes and have implied or explicit consensus. This request does not fulfill those requirements. Regards, Celestra ( talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
== Bibliography ==
Dunn, and Ehrman have taken the position that Since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360, Casey 2010 p 12 & Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117
Please see Talk:Oral gospel traditions. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method wishes to add a mention of Kingdom of Aksum to the lead. I reverted it, so it should be discussed here. The factoid wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so that would indicate it shouldn't be in the lead. St Anselm ( talk) 23:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Similar to the discussion above, I also disagree with this edit. This is undue weight for the lead: Christianity has certainly not influenced Sub-Saharan Africa in the same way and to the same extent it has influenced Western civilization. St Anselm ( talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence "The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father." in the second paragraph of the abstract to "Christian doctrine maintains that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh before ascending to heaven, where he shares dominion over all creation with God the Father." For the following reasons: a) the current sentence is poorly phrased and is inaccessible to many readers–the definition of 'creed' as pertaining directly to Christian beliefs is not in keeping with the more common use of the word, which simply denotes belief in X. b) the wording of the phrase 'Jesus bodily ascended to heaven' is both awkward and communicates a potentially erroneous message: there is no consensus that Jesus ascended to heaven in the flesh after his resurrection, rather, scholars tend to agree that the body of Jesus was resurrected and visited with disciples on earth for a period of time before Jesus left earth for heaven. DCBlumenthal ( talk) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC) -- Diannaa ( talk) 22:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Christianity has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
99.138.144.251 ( talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I came across a couple of resources that look like they may be useful in updating the Demographics section of this article:
I noticed this section under demographics
"A leading Saudi Arabian Muslim leader Sheikh Ahmad al Qatanni reported on Aljazeera that every day 16,000 African Muslims convert to Christianity. He claimed that Islam was losing 6 million African Muslims a year to becoming Christians,[200][201][202][203][204] including Muslims in Algeria,[205] France,[205] Iran,[206] India,[205] Morocco,[205] Russia,[205] and Turkey,[205][207] and Central Asia.[208][209]"
This should be removed for multiple reasons:
(1) It quotes a Saudi whose notability and qualifications are not specified. (2) His claim is not backed-up by scientific methods of data collection. It seems like those typical wild statements one hears from religious leaders every-now-and-then that seek to scare their religious followers and increase their wariness of the encroaching other. I mean 6 million annually sounds a little far-fetched and certainly if the numbers were that huge then we would of heard of a correspondingly huge Muslim uproar. (3) After mentioning his statement and the references that back this up, it quotes several conutries as if they are part of that Sheikhs statement when in fact they are seperate with unrelated references. (4) No doubt there are Muslims that convert to Christianity, but mentioning this one Sheikhs statement seems more like Christian grand-standing against its biggest competitor than adding appropriately scholarly and relevant content to Wikipedia. If Muslim converts to Christianity is to be mentioned, i think the 2nd part without the Sheikhs statement is more than enough i.e. it could read as "Muslims have also been reported to convert to Christianity, including in Algeria,[205] France,[205] Iran,[206] India,[205] Morocco,[205] Russia,[205] and Turkey,[205][207] and Central Asia.[208][209]." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.106.235.46 (
talk)
04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not on Wikipedia much anymore, so missed much of the back and forth about the Bowker quote. The passage is as follows on page 13 of the referenced book with some previous wording for context:
When Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire in the 6th century [BC], Zoroastrianism became the official state religion and was thus practiced from Greece to Egypt to north India. Zoroastrians are tolerant of other religions because judgment rests on works, not beliefs. As a result, the teaching was influential on other religions, not least on Judaism, when the Jews were in exile in Babylon at the time when Cyrus was coming to power, and on Christianity: angels, the end of the world, a final judgment, the resurrection, and heaven and hell received form and substance from the Zoroastrian beliefs.
In any case, it should not be controversial (except perhaps through a purely theological stance) that other religions influenced Christianity. There is no paucity of reliable sources to support this; Bowker simply highlights one and provides some specific details. I hope that helps. Airborne84 ( talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Just like how on the Muhammad page you wouldn't intentionally put an image of Muhammad as this offends Muslims, it is offensive to put an image of Jesus on the page, as no one really knows what he looks like, and this is all just speculation.
"We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." (Acts 17:29) 129.180.136.213 ( talk) 12:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Over on the Talk:Jesus page, we are having a discussion regarding the first sentence of the Jesus article. Currently, it reads Jesus ... is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. We are trying to find wording that would fit all sects, denominations and traditions of Christians worldwide, and in so doing, state as clearly as possible the central tenet upon which all Christians can agree. The primary problem with the current statement is the "...most Christian denominations..." phrase. This wording was chosen since Nontrinitarianists do not hold that Christ is the Son of God, or more precisely, they do not hold that God exists in three Persons. I am therefore proposing the following rewording: Jesus ... is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of all Christian denominations hold to be God incarnate. Would this adequately encompass both Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian views without diminishing either? Thoughts? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
McManners251
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 |
First of all, I will comment that "History and origins" seems like an awkward section title. Since the origins obviously predate the rest of Christianity's history, the title should be something like "Origins and subsequent history". Or it should be just "History". After all, when would a "History" section ever leave out the "origins" of anything? Secondly, I noticed that there is an "Unbalanced section" template that has been in place since November 2008. I don't see any discussion on this Talk Page. If there is ongoing discussion about the problems of imbalance in this section, then the template should stay. If not, then it should be removed. I propose to remove it if no one specifies what the imbalance problems are.
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, sounds good to me.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 20:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Under the "Christianity" section, this is the given description of the beliefs of Christianity "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, God having become human and the saviour of humanity.", while I agree this is a solid description, I would wonder if perhaps adding "Most Christianity teaches...". There are a number of branches of (admittedly, less mainstream) Christian sects. For example, Christian Atheism believe in no God, but believe in the value of scriptural teachings and most centrally the figure of Jesus himself. These people view themselves wholly as being as much Christian as others in the faith. As such, it seemed that adding something to convey the fact that not all Christians adhere to the belief in God would give the statement a more unbiased view on the variations so common within religions. Charos ( talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Let us ask ourselves this question, is there any kind of substantial Christianity that doesn't fit this description? Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, they all fit under this description, even Mormons. What defines Christianity hasn't really been in debate, it's more or less details within the belief that have been in constant debate, but all Christians confess a belief that Jesus is the Messiah and they mostly follow the Canonical Gospels. The description is descriptive, yet broad enough so that it doesn't contradict forms of major Christianity defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Major_groupings_within_Christianity. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss these beliefs within the article, I am saying that it doesn't merit a change of the lead or of the description of Christianity both of which would violate WP:RSUW-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In the 'Early middle ages' stands that the Muslims opressed the Christians; resulting struggles. As we know, The Christians and Jews enjoyed religious freedom under the Caliphate. Thus this must be eddited. 86.80.208.136 ( talk) 19:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
“Only 0.9% off all Christians live in the Middle East.” I believe that the off should be changed to of. 62.221.41.242 ( talk) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Catholics have a whole different thought process on baptism. A infant has to be baptised and then later get CONFERMED into the Catholic church. Shall we bring this onto this page or leave it to the Catholic page? Alliereborn ( talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Alliereborn
Please elaborate. This is too incoherent.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 05:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
118.208.168.232 ( talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a frequent editor at this page, as I'm not very interested in religion, but reading over the article, I did note a fairly common sociological phenomenon in Christianity that is not discussed. It's fairly common for specific sects to take doctrines as recognizing specific other sects as not Christian. In particular, in the United States, several churches do not recognize catholicism as Christianity, and even more do not recognize LDS or UU churches as such. I brief google book search seems to suggest there is plenty of sources that discuss the phenomenon without mincing words. Is this topic appropriate for this article? I'm well aware of the fact that the Christianity article already has a lot of ground to cover, but inter-denominational divisions are a historically very important trend. i kan reed ( talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The historical section under "Early Church and Christological Councils" should be split into a new section (own title "Christianity as a Roman state religion" from the text "State persecution ceased in the 4th century, when Constantine I issued " and on. BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJOR SHIFT IN CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND CHURCH.
It might be useful to introduce a new wikipedia topic Christianity (a concept of political governing tool)
One of the problem of this article is that there is no historical political view of Christianity as a "as a concept of political tool" something that must be credited to Constantine I. The basic idea of governing the Roman Empire with the Christian religion as a political tool of governing. It was tried before with some elder religions and with the emperor as a god, but the Christian religion was found better suitable.
The basic idea/concept is to make the religion stated by the definitions formulated in creeds at start with the Nicene Creed, stating everyone that do not comply is not Christian and is at the same time a public enemy of the state/the empire. In reverse it means that if you are seeing yourself as a Christian person, you must also commit to the empire and the emperors sole governing power. And the concept in Roman imperial terms showed to be working for at least 1000-1100 years. And that is remarkable. It is the basis of the European, American and Middle East (outside Iran) political history.
The political foundation is still today the actual foundation of all political governing in "Christian" and "Muslim" states and in many respect more or less globally. The only basic exception is most likely Iran (see below).
The fragmentation of Christianity
The concept is also the basis of the fragmentation of Christianity of two reasons. The minor is isolation from the central political power in Constantinople, the Popes power in Rome and protestant state churches as POWs mainly in Siberia in the 18th century and the turmoil of British domestic politics in the 17th century. And the other major is repulsion of the central political power of Constantinople and later also the Pope in Rome. To make the political rift, there must be a religious rift in the terms of the creeds. To non-fundamentalists many of the religious rifts seems to be rather ridiculous but politically explosive. It is actually the explanation of the odd circumstances of most fragmentation of the Christianity as a communion.
There are a few very strong such rifts and the first is the Muslim rift that created Islam, where they really recreated the major religious foundations not making the rift looking that ridiculous. But still based on politics, repulsing the reign of the Caesar in Constantinople, mandatory rejecting the patriarch of Constantinople and the creeds. But still on the same religious basic foundation intermingled with local traditions and Sunni was born. Iran and the Shiites had no Christian traditions and hundreds of years of repulsion to the Roman culture created something else on the framework of Islam and is a very good explanation why still Iran makes the major resistance to western (Christian) culture today, while the Sunnis seems not to care that much. Looking into the history of Byzans it is amazing that so much of the loosing standpoints in previous political/religious battles (where the Eastern part of the empire normally was the losing side) in woven into Islam. A huge set of repulsion and a huge rift, but still the same major roots. But noticeable much better streamlined to keep conservative local power in reign (there are hardly any Muslim riots or revolutions in the past) and the lacking of central creed and central religious institution like the patriarchy or Papal power. Certainly a result of "local needs of its time".
The rift between the Pope and the Patriarch was certainly based on support from the kings and rulers of the medieval Western Europe and Charlemagne indeed (that was even declared emperor by the Pope in contrast to Byzans. But here the basic rift in the creed was at start minor points of the trinity and to most of us looks like religious bullocks, but dead political serious. Minor rifts not risking on a fragile political game making the rift. The basic and only matter was who is in political power where, and the repulse the Caesar in Constantinople there must be differences in creed. The major differences as emerged later by development of the Western churches making them, able to survive Western political demands and very different from the united Rome-Constantinople church of a 1000 years ago.
The political fight about power in the 14th-15th century in Western Europe between Pope and Kings is certainly the basis of the Protestantism. There has always been criticism and views of religious nature. And sometimes there is a political need for them. In the beginning of the 16th century there was a political need among kings in Northern Europe (where it was possible) to terminate the domestic Papal political power. Most remarkable is Henry VIII in England that at start did not realise this need writing a book criticising Luther & co and then just a few years later find he got to remove the Papal power in Britain. The talks about divorces as the main need of most likely not true, rather political as in his colleagues other northern European monarchies. So Henry could not be Lutheran, and Luther was sent as a gift from God in Northern Europe, stating the power of the king as the head of the national church.
The free religious protestants
In the political turmoil of 17th century Britain and the Swedish POWs in Siberia in the early 18th century had to live without Clergy and had to improvise just having the Bibles. And to many they read the Bible as amateurs and with no sense for the basic concept (both Jesus original mission (if statement informality and focus on the personal actions and thoughts) but also the national Church creeds). Coming home or/and solving the problem going to America many was happy getting them out of the way to the end of the world, what America was to a large extent at that time.
Fundamentalism has its roots in politics and survival
This syndrome is also the explanation of the religious fundamentalism in Christian, Muslim and also Jewish groups. The basic features that applied to Constantine were the Jewish roots of survival in harsh political and religious conditions. Features of the Jews surviving times like in Babylon and the later Jewish Diaspora of Rome was good in keeping an empire based on fundamentalist creed and so in repulsing that political power. The same made small fractions of super-fundamentalists kept alive as groups.
The slightly noticeable perspective of this is Jesus major non-formalistic and focus on acts and thoughts of the individual actually arguing against this Jewish fundamentalist tradition meeting the rabbis of the temple. But also the quite relaxed approach to life (and the has God shown another way of living you should respect it approach in the Quran )of Muhammad makes should in a fundamentalistic view also make fundamentalism impossible without rejecting Jesus or Muhammad.
It is also very odd to listen to Darwinists claiming one must be atheist to be scientifically and accept Darwin’s scientifically statements. Rather many fundamentalistic groups and national churches has confused themselves into remains from earlier fundamentalistic political turmoil that has nothing to do with Jesus of Muhammad, rather the political religious need of creeds.
This thread I would think should be developed with scientific references, because there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.188.34 ( talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't subjects like what baptism does be grouped by what each sect of Christianity believes it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.170.144 ( talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Christians have proof that jesus died by the shroud of Turin.The shroud has the image of jesus on it and blood. Also christians have proof that jesus rose from the dead is by him doing miracles and appearing to a lot of people. Christians have tons and tons of proof that Jesus was alive crucified and died and was buried on the third day he rose from the dead.If you don't believe in this than go search this up about miracles he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.70.147 ( talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I searched and found no such proof that "Is by him doing miracles and appearing to a lot of people". So before you include any of this as fact or make changes based on this "proof", I urge you to find ANY reliable sources to cite. And the shroud of turin is controversial and already included in the article, as are the biblical accounts of miracles. There is also mention of the claims that he appears to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.40.59 ( talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't believe the unqualified title "Christian cemetery" is accurate. There are very well graves with Star of David in that cemetery not visible in the particular view of the photo. Soldiers buried there may have been assumed "christian" in an ethnic or cultural sense and have crosses at their grave by default. The photo looks nice, but is misleading and should not be in the article. At least, if it's included, there should be an explanation and qualification of the photo meaning in the caption. 70.109.189.90 ( talk) 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if this photo is of Normandy cemetery (unknown since the source has been deleted, but we can assume in good faith that it is) it is not Christian. There are plenty of congregations with attached cemeteries that would do better to represent what the caption claims. However I think the point of the picture is to show the Cross' use as a symbol of Christianity, therefor the caption should be changed to read something to the effect of: "Crosses marking the graves of soldiers at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial". Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jesus Christ guys, why have we let this article get dumbed down and turned into speculation by the PC brigade, seriously, how can a man who fed FIVE THOUSAND, yes, that's 5 THOUSAnd, be desecrated like this. My God, we cannot allow this to happen. This article is something that everyone should be able to saviour, yet it has turned into little more than a graveyard of dead ideas promoted by the aforementioned "pC constabulary" and the "health and" safety freaks. The establishment shoould be ashammed of itsolf. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwweeeccc ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Should there not be an entry for those of 'Christian descent', as I do find it a bit odd that there's no such entry on Wikipedia. -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah well Judiasm is a religion, not a race, as I'm sure that you're well aware of given that such a religion is bound to many continents and peoples and thusly not to one's race or ethnicity, and I meant descent in terms of one's origin or background. Yeah, I know that there'd be a fight to keep it lol :D -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
See [1] and [2]. If you think that Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament you should find a reliable source which affirms it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
. Only 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East. Contents
This should be changed to be included in the rest of the list, this is biased and "Only" is not necessary.
Please change "Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania. Only 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East." To "Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania, and 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East."
99.107.146.138 ( talk) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania and 0.9% live in the Middle East."
Is it really necessary to include the percentage of Christians living in the United states? Why not also say the percentage of Christians living in Australia or Canada or the United Kingdom; I mean, they're English-speaking countries too!
I propose removing the "(11.4% in the United States)" statistic. Peter ( talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The sections contains the differing interpretation of Bible by the three main christian denominations. I think this subsection is irrelevant here, as the article is about Christianity and describes its main beliefs. I think this sub-section should be deleted or moved to the Article on Bible it self. Sajjad Arif ( talk) 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently this section includes the sentence: Taken together, these are the Seven Sacraments as recognised by churches in the High church tradition—notably Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Independent Catholic, Old Catholic most Anglicans, and some Lutherans.
The phrase: ", Old Catholic most Anglicans, and some Lutherans." should be changed to: "and Old Catholic."
The Anglican and Lutheran churches overwhelmingly teach that there are two sacraments. The various Wikipedia articles on Anglicans, Lutherans and Sacraments all echo the two sacrament belief.
Phgeyer ( talk) 22:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Which denominations of Christianity have no problem with pre-marital sex + gay marriage? Pass a Method talk 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section on criticism of Christianity? That it attracts criticism is a notable feature of the topic. DHooke1973 ( talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The opening paragraph should have an additional line that - following "Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[3]" - says "By definition, this means that - as far as the world is concerned - you accept the commandment to love all other members of the Christian faith [4]
[4]Joh 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." Joh 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
This is a non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith, as far as its definition - in whichever way being relative to the world - is concerned. No love for other members, no Christianity. It is therefore paramount that this be stated in the opening paragraph, by way of definition, as an article to be read by the world.
It is not an attempt to prosletyze. It is not subject to the interpretation of particular denominations. It is not an irrelevant subtext to the faith. It must be understood in the context of the faith, which is of the Jews, as being a commandment, like unto the ten commandments given to Moses on Mt Sinai (and therefore gravely serious).
I stress that you cannot define Christianity (for the world) without this commandment. Thanks in advance for your time, consideration and care.
Gottservant ( talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggested paragraph
|
---|
The role of the Christianity in
Western civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of
history and formation of Western society. Through its long history, the church has been a major source of social services like schooling, several universities in the world was founded by the Church,
[1] some historians of science
J.L. Heilbron,
[2]
A.C. Crombie,
David Lindberg,
[3]
Edward Grant,
Thomas Goldstein,
[4] and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of
science,
[5]
[6] and the Church's priest-scientists, many of whom were
Jesuits, have been among the leading lights in
astronomy,
genetics,
geomagnetism,
meteorology,
seismology, and
solar physics, becoming some of the "fathers" of these sciences,.
[7]
Church encourage medical care and welfare services and had influnce in
economic;
[8] inspiration for
culture and
philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. And engineering and mathematics was highly advanced and its reflected through the evolution of architecture in the Middle Ages. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western World and remains a source of continuity linking modern Western culture to classical Western culture.
The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. [9] [10] The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. [11] Long held Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage have also been influential in family life. Christianity played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, [12] infanticide and polygamy. [13]Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity. [14] While official Church teaching [15] considers women and men to be complementary Influence of Christianity does not stop the on Western civilization, Christians also have played a prominent role in the development and pioneering features of the Islamic civilization. [16] The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked universally as public holidays; Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and time itself is measured by the West from the assumed date of the birth of the Church's founder, Jesus of Nazareth: the Year One AD ( Anno Domini). In the list of the 100 Most Influential People in Human history, Percent 65 Christian figures from various fields. [17]
|
I will add this Paragraph it's with many Sources. Jobas ( talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
how about this Paragraph Christianity has been an important part of the shaping of Western civilization, at least since the 4th century. [1] beside secularisation. several universities in the world was founded by the Church, [2]. [3] and The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and the ensuing Counter-Reformation affected the universities of Europe in different ways. [4] some historians of science J.L. Heilbron, [5] A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, [6] Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, [7] and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant influence on the development of science, [8] and had a imapct on arts, iterature, philosophy ,cultural tradition, law and politics. [9] and during middle age period church building and ecclesiastical architecture reached new heights, [10] Christians also have played a prominent role in the Islamic civilization. [11] . Jobas ( talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I'm pretty certain the Crusades didn't help Islamic civilisation. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Protestant Interpretations" the following reference is made: "The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith". Mb-soft.com. Retrieved 2010-11-19.. mb-soft.com is not a reliable source, a reliable publisher, and essentially serves as a kind of "geocities" for self-created content. Please remove this reference which is essentially, as far as I can tell, serving as WP:LINKSPAM. 69.86.225.27 ( talk) 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If the Islam and Muhammad articles (prominently) state that Muhammad is the founder of Islam shouldn't the same principle (of NPOV) apply to the Jesus and Christianity articles? 175.107.232.114 ( talk) 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine to add. Cite Hebrews 12:2 ("founder and perfecter of our faith") -- 75.65.161.214 ( talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Were there other women apostles? Other women who understood themselves, and were understood by others, to be commissioned by Christ in order to spread the word of his death and resurrection? We know of at least one other, one who could be thought of, in fact, as the original apostle: Mary Magdalene. Mary is called an apostle by some early Christian writers. ... Mary and the others, therefore, could be thought of as "apostles sent to the apostles," a title that Mary herself came to bear in the Middle Ages (Latin: apostola apostolorum).
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This has to be one of the most dry encyclopedic articles I have ever browsed over.
There are no culture specific mentions of Christianity in popular culture, movies, plays, songs, games. There is only a tiny mention of Christian festivals, Christmas, Easter, with no details. There is no mention of the charitable works being undertaken by Christians worldwide - poverty, hunger, thirst, first aid.
Where are you? This is an advanced encyclopedia! An encyclopedia captures nothing if it does not reflect the lives of those whom it discusses. Gottservant ( talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a map of the world where every nation with a population of 50% or more christians is colored purple. According to it more than 50% of Swedens population are christians. I don't know where those numbers came from, but it is just plain wrong. Denmark and Finland shouldn't be colored purple either. Those errors make me question the rest of the map too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.81.254 ( talk) 08:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Idem for Netherlands: much less then 50 percent are churchgoing, and less then 10 percent literally believe in trinity and resurrection. So depending on how strict you define 'Christians', Netherlands should either be pink or grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section entitled Protestant, the following text is offered:
The last source listed is the following: "American Holiness Movement". Finding Your Way, Inc. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
As discussed above, this is source to a poor-quality, self-published website (mb-soft.com). Please remove it.
69.86.225.27 ( talk) 05:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Done Celestra ( talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can the image on the right be used as the main christianity symbol, read the file description. The cross can be kept for roman christianity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church 91.182.147.92 ( talk) 13:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In the "Beliefs" section of the article, I feel that the sub-section devoted to Nontrinitarian theology effectively presents a bias; namely, on account of its omissions. The sub-section is four sentences, with the main two statements being: "Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity." And, "They are a small minority of Christians." I also expect that the second statement is only true if it is read as "they are a minority of Christians," and as set against the entirety of the global Christian population. To say that they are a "small minority" seems to suggest that among minorities, they are minorities. This seems a little absurd to me considering that some professed-Christian Nontrinitarian belief systems include the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church, all Oneness Pentecostal churches (being at least 13 formal denominations), and the Christian Science churches. I hardly expect that these three, even, could cumulatively be called a "small minority" of either historical or modern Christian influence.
I am personally not a Nontrinitarian, which I mention only to argue for my non-bias on the topic; nonetheless, I feel that the significance of the Nontrinitarian model of Christian thinking has been greatly understated, again, by omission. To this point, I would especially ask the editors to consider the great controversy in Christian history between John Calvin and Michael Servetus. If John Calvin is not considered to be a person of trivial influence, then neither should it be thought trivial how significant the issue of Nontrinitarianism was in his government. Michael Servetus was burned alive on a pyre that consisted of one of his Nontrinitarian books, and, John Calvin, although considering the exact means of execution "harsh," approved of his being put to death for heresy. This ought to solidify that today's Nontrinitarian sects, being significant in population, represent a very serious division of Christian thought. The topic deserves more than four sentences.
I believe that these main ideas should be added (however worded):
"Nontrinitarians reject the teaching that God exists in three distinct persons; however, a Nontrinitarian theology does not necessarily imply rejection of the divinity of Jesus, or of the divinity of the Trinitarian person of the Holy Spirit: A Nontrinitarian viewpoint asserts only that God, however named, is absolutely singular in identity."
I will not make a great fuss about it, but I would also be thrilled if a little more respect were given the weight of this theological division in Christian history. Men killed each other and died over the topic. I would like to see a few words to respect the weight that such a fact carries. Daniel.sparks ( talk) 06:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
There is a lot of white space in this article in the following sections: Creeds, Trinity, Worship and Baptism. I've tried moving a few things around but can't figure out what is causing it. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? Jainsworth16 ( talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If you know anything at all about Christianity, it is that its founder, Jesus Christ, instituted most famously of all that the body of believers that came to be known as "Christians" would be defined by their commandment to love one another.
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. Joh 13:35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
This is the Zenith of the Christian faith and you have not for even a moment mentioned this fundamental tenet in the first paragraph. It is not subject to wavering interpretation, it is universal to the Christian faith. It originated with the founder of the faith and was carried to the death by martyrs of all denominations.
I will be checking to see that this is addressed some time in the near future. I am not just picking out a random verse here. It SAYS "All will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another". It is the only time Jesus ever talks about the appearance of the believers to the world. Even if it is that you are only concerned with the appearance of Christianity in this article, mentioning this commandment is crucial to doing that with any kind of integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, if no one is going to add the "New Commandment" to the first paragraph, I will just do it. I don't want complaints though - I have already spellled out more than enough reason to add it. 58.161.50.116 ( talk) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct, "Love one another" is essential to the definitionof what it is to be a Christian. A L S O THE BIBLE SAYS: in Matthew 7:15-16, 20 to WATCH OUT for false prophets,.. and that we will know them by thier fruit,.. by the way they act. New Living Translation (©2007) 15 Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?...20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. ByStander2 ( talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that this would be more appropriate under the article for #REDIRECT Jesus. It does not help a reader understand "what is Christianity" though would help a reader understand "who was Jesus" Diraphe ( talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jainsworth16, thank you for all the recent work you have done to keep "Christianity" a quality Wikipedia article. I welcome most of the changes you have made to the "Scripture" section. I just have two issues with them. First, I think it is problematic to say that the traditional Christian view is that the Scriptures "literally 'God-breathed'", as this is not the case unless Christians have traditionally believed that God expelled the Bible from his lungs. I understand that this was a good faith edit: I believe that what you meant was that the wording in 2 Timothy literally translates to "God-breathed". If you want to in some way work the phrase "God-breathed" back into the section, I will not be contentious about it, so long as the meaning is clear.
My other problem is that while it is certainly the view of (many) modern fundamentalist/evangelical Christians that God inspired the Scriptures but not word-for-word, I do not see what makes this a traditional view. It was not all that long ago that Christians believed that the Bible was given by word-for-word inspiration (and that the dialect of Greek it was written in was a Holy Ghost language, as opposed to being the common dialect of its time).
Marie Paradox ( talk) 04:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
"The third view of inspiration held by historic Christianity, is that God worked through the personalities of the biblical writers in such a way that, without suspending their personal styles of expression or freedom, what they produced was literally "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16; Greek: theopneustos). The emphasis of the 2 Timothy text is that scripture itself, not the writers only, was inspired ("All Scripture is inspired by God," NASB). If it were only the writers themselves who were inspired, then one might argue that their writings were contaminated by the interaction of the message with their own primitive and idiosyncratic conceptions. The teaching in 2 Timothy 3:16, however, is that God guided the scriptural authors in such a way that their writings bear the impress of divine "inspiration." Based on such verses as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21, the traditional Christian view is that the Bible communicates objective, propositional truth. Unlike the neoorthodox position, which conceives Scripture as becoming the Word of God when it acquires personal existential significance, the traditional position is that Scripture is and always will remain truth, whether or not we read and appropriate it personally. Jainsworth16 ( talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A passage in the lede says: "The saving work of Christ on the cross is often referred to as the Gospel message, or good news."
- Stevertigo ( t | c) 09:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I tinkered with the lede a bit:
I think this works well. The only issue is the usage of "in faith" instead of the natural "of faith." If we say "of faith" that gets into sticky territory of 'who gets saved' etc. and I want to avoid that somehow. It may be that an explanatory footnote is warranted. I come from a universalist perspective, which tends to dislike talk of special conditions (such as proper theology) on salvation and eternal life. The universalist perspective is that there is plenty of room in Heaven, even for atheists. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
PS: Ive made a number of changes, and the passage now states:
I think this way properly expresses the Universalism aspect of Christianity, and by referencing both faith and grace, covers all bases. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated. Marie removed it though. I did not mean to include "faith" itself as a representation of sola fide. I don't know where you are getting that from, Marie. I simply mentioned sola fide as an example of where conditionism does not apply. I used it, together with grace, in way which should appease both conditionalists and universalists. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have been watching the Criticism developement of wikipedia for a long time(years). I have read the archive however, this needs to brought up again. There is no criticism in the atheism or evolution article and before you say there is no valid criticism there is even no in the NAZISM article yet we seem to allow a criticism section here not because wiki policy permits(it does)it or because of validation but seemingly to accommodate people's politics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and if I were to read an encyclopedia I would expect consistency. I am not saying we need to add a criticism section to those articles but remove the one here leaving a link to it. For the record, I know wikipedia policy of criticism. 69.145.24.3 ( talk)
Yes, essays do present the Wanamaker quandary: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." in that one does not know which half to call nonsense at first - so I generally ignore them all unless they become guidelines or policy. The Undue policy does not refer to sections, however. Does it? History2007 ( talk) 13:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Criticism sections are bad style. I suggest criticisms be inserted throughout the article where relevant. See Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How many reputable tertiary sources include criticism sections in their articles on religions? I can think of none. FWIW the idea strikes me as odd. This article in particular ought to be about all that Christianity is and was. Criticizing Christianity will almost certainly give priority to modern Christianity over historical Christianity (unless we also plan on criticizing the Ophite belief that the Edenic snake was Jesus or the medieval Catholic practice of selling indulgences) and privilege certain Christian sects over others. There are ways that the current article seems whitewashed (why is there no mention of anti-Semitism, for example?), but this can be fixed by making sourced additions to the appropriate sections. -- Marie Paradox ( talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Christos,should be "From Hebrew:משיח.Moshiach,from Greek: Χριστός anointed as was the custom for the Jews of the 1st century to use Hebrew first, then to talk to gentiles Christos was used to use as the adjective. Cesparza1969 ( talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this section could be included if it is improved to include more than just a catholic reference. Jesus' command is To love God like you love yourself and to love your neighbor like you love yourself. The two are joined in that God is love. His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments. -Catechism of the Catholic Church 202, 2196, 214- Jainsworth16 ( talk) 09:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Section 2 Chapter 2 CCC 2196. Ghostprotocol888 ( talk) 05:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Allegations that are being made against the posting of Jesus' Command are non fact based. They are not based on valid policy, due to the misinterpretation of wikipedia policies by other(s) opposing. In compliance with all wikipedia policy, an addition to the Christianity article was made -WP:CON-WP:VERIFY-. Blanking, illegitamate Vandalism has occured, where significant parts of a page's content is removed without any valid reason -WP:VAND-. View Article's history, the orginal edit by Ghostprotocol888 was removed without valid reasoning; there is a not valid claim of WP:OR on the first reversion; the original edit by Ghostprotocol888 meets wikipedia's verifiability requirements: At the time of the original edit, it was previously unchallenged and attributable to the article -WP:OR-WP:VERIFY-. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute" -WP:CON-. After the original edit by Ghostprotocol888, a reversion was made claiming WP:OR invalidly. Technically, this inavalid reversion and all further invalid reversions is Vandalism. The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-. The actual course of action taken was making invalid reversion claiming WP:OR, a form of Vandalsim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.51 ( talk) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Removing Jesus' Command on the Christianity page is the epitome of bad faith. Vandalism occured -WP:VAND-. As already mentioned, a good faith edit would have been a revision and not a reversion, especially one not claimed invalidly -WP:CON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.51 ( talk) 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-.
There is no policy stating that, Jainsworth, agreement does not have to be majority. "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]" WP:NOR "...Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy — so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.[1]" The edit does show proof of, "love God like you love yourself" in, "The Son of God commands." -1 John 13:34- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostprotocol888 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
If edit warring starts up again, for whatever reason, please do not hesitate to raise at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bible enthusiasts could benefit from seeking advice from the community at WikiProject Bible, before behaving in a way that may be interpreted as using Wikipedia for evangelizing. Please take careful note of Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (the Bible is most often considered a primary source) and Religion. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
These reversions were never a matter of "edit warring." Consensus had already been reached on the talk page under "Fundamental tenet missing from first paragraph." This is a matter of Vandalism; revert only when necessary; please determine gravity before posting invalid opposition. WP:ROWN WP:WAR WP:VAND Ghostprotocol888 ( talk) 06:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"Solid" is not a modifier of "consensus" using valid Wikipedia policy; there is obviously consensus for The New Commandment when it is in the actual article. WP:CON I agree with Ghostprotocol888. Vandalism occurred, not Edit Warring. "Revert only when necessary; please determine gravity before posting invalid opposition." Promontorylink ( talk) 05:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll clarify it for you concisely. Don't you worry about it being messy. Promontorylink ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
POV To raise issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. Please do not override the consensus of the Christianity page by making reversions invalidly. "World" and "Science" are the location of the reliable third-party sources used in the citation for this section edit. Promontorylink ( talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, reliable third-party sources are usually written however they are and the example given in WP is a newspaper article WP:THIRDPARTY. World and Science are categories of News. Their location is not "Opinion." So, the sources are located in the "World" and "Science" of News Categories. I do care as to why you don't believe my most recent edits belong on Wikipedia, but belief is a form of truth which does not adhere to WP:VERIFY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is really simple to determine. If you view the article history page, you will see that I did not make a reversion. I undid your revision which was a reversion. Please do not submit paradoxical information to the Christianity page;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh right, I made a mistake, whoops. "The Son of God commands," is an in-text attribution form inline citation. As already mentioned, To raise issues with specific articles regarding POV, see the NPOV noticeboard. Consensus was made. You are the one edit warring by making invalid reversions. Even one invalid reversion is edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before editing. Promontorylink ( talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Response#1-"imo" is irrelevant. Your opinion is a form of truth and does not meet WP:VERIFY requirements. Sources must be cited. POV To raise issues with specific articles regarding POV, see the NPOV noticeboard. 5 WP:BLP Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 7 Jainsworth16's sources are not third party; Albert Barnes (thoelogian) is a secondary source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian). WP:THIRDPARTY Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 9 WP:BLP The rule is that I'm supposed to revert your reversion. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute," not an invalid reversion. 11 WP:CON Please learn to read before editing on Wikipedia. Promontorylink ( talk) 07:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
According to all valid sourcing, Christ generalizes all of the law into one underlying principle.
According to the Gospels, Jesus requires you to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Generally, two of the Gospels have these principles separated and in the other two combined, but that doesn't matter because of their Logos, which is supported by reliable third-party sources:
"There are divine laws which govern and maintain us - the science of perfect God, perfect man."-1 If you are loving God completely, when you love your neighbor as yourself you are also loving God completely. You cannot love God completely and love your neighbor as yourself without relating your neighbor and yourself to God, because you are already completely loving God. And when you are loving God completely you are loving; so you are loving as yourself completely.
It is impossible, in Natural terms, to be doing something 100% to one thing, using 100% as 1, and simultaneously exist doing that same act to another thing, let's say for perfection 100% or 1, unless those two "things" are equal. So, in mathematical terms, if x=1 and y=1, y = x.
Equally, Jesus commands us to love God completely as to love your neighbor as yourself. Now, knowing that Jesus is a Neighbor-2 and understanding the logical connection of when you are loving God completely then you are loving so you are loving as yourself completely, you will know that Jesus is indirectly saying that He is God and to Love him completely as yourself.
Additionally, The Commandment that Jesus made is that He is God, without saying it because He is supposed to be called God the Son by others us humanity, simply God.
"Christ Jesus transformed the Mosaic law by understanding God as Love."-3 "And [the Lord] passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness”, Exodus 34:6" "This true light is the light of the Christ that Jesus exemplified, the spiritual illumination revealing God as all-powerful Love and each of us as the expression of this Love."-3
Jesus' Commandment is one New Commandment from God, singular. Please do not waste, yours and my time further.
1http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Exploring+healing+prayer/6424493/story.html 2http://atheism.about.com/od/bibledictionaryonline/p/NeighborBible.htm 3http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/22464 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.77.100 ( talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The introduction for this article has reached an absurd length. It no longer serves to 'introduce' a reader to the topic and has become unwieldy. I suggest moving information into their appropriate categories within the article and summarizing the introduction to include the most important information. Diraphe ( talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I eventually managed to read through the lede here and I think it really misses the boat. Let me put it this way:
Now, how many times does the word love appear in this article? Just 5 and 4 of those are in the context of the Old Testament. In a sense the basis of Christian teachings are not presented in the lede, or elsewhere in this article, while various charts show the schisms. Far be it for me to work on this article now to fix these, but those who edit here may want to consider The New Commandment relevant to this page. History2007 ( talk) 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A simplified chart of historical developments of major groups within Christianity.
Suggested change relates to section of "Christianity" article about Major Divisions. Perhaps a second simplified chart to illustrate the suggested change might be considered.
Catholic Main article: Catholic Church Christian Denominations in English-speaking countries [show]Australia [show]Canada [show]United Kingdom [show]United States [show]International Associations This box: view talk edit The Catholic Church comprises those particular churches, headed by bishops, in communion with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as its highest authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[215][216] Like the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church through Apostolic succession traces its origins to the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ.[217][218] Catholics maintain that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" founded by Jesus subsists fully in the Roman Catholic Church." This would lead Catholics to understand that the simplified chart above should not show a separate "Early Christianity" in grey but that the same red used for Catholicism should extend back to the beginning of the Christian Church's life; there is no time after that which can be pointed to as marking the birth of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church acknowledges other Christian churches and communities[219][220],and the goodness of the members of those other groups. The Catholic Church admits that it was not always blameless at those times in history when splits occurred within the Church. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)the Catholic Church has become a strong proponent of ecumenism, the movement to restore visible unity among Christians, that had begun among some Protestant Churches early in the twentieth century. The Catholic faith is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[221][222]
Gerard Hore (
talk)
12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method made an edit which moved a substantial portion of the lede to a place several sections down in the article. In the summary he called his edit a "copyedit". I reverted ( diff) and brought it here for discussion. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It says Christianity is based on Jesus and the Gospels and other New Testament writings, but it is also based on Old Testament writings, I think that should be added.-- 174.49.24.190 ( talk) 21:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this violates the very essence of God's nature and has been declared a heresy by counter-cult movements such as the CRI (Christian Resource Institute). Hence, I deleted the parts about non-trinitarianism due to my knowledge about these cults claiming to be Christian, but alas, I was accused of vandalism. Most of these non-trinitarian cults have different bibles or very wrong doctrine, such as the Jehovah's Witness cult. It appears that the administrators are quick to accuse and they reverted all my hard work trying to fix the inaccuracies on this page. Mirianth ( talk) 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the following sentence in the intro: It grew in size and influence over a few decades, and by the 4th century replaced paganism as the dominant religion within the Roman Empire.
Could I propose an alternative? How about: and by the end of the 4th century had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, replacing other forms of religion practiced under Roman rule.
Would there be objections if I made this change? I'm chiefly concerned about the link to paganism, which mostly explains the history of the terminology, instead of linking to Religion in ancient Rome, which provides an overview of religion as practiced throughout the Roman Empire. Also, I think it would be good from a historical perspective to specify that Christianity actually became the official religion of Rome at this point. Cynwolfe ( talk) 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I just edited the "Christianity in brief" section, improving it slightly. However the section is only a few sentences long and seems rather redundant, so I believe that it should be deleted since all the information it contains is included in the article. I am a beginner Wikipedia editor however, so I would prefer if someone more experienced examine the section and decide what to do with it.
Vgp0012 ( talk) 08:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any reference on this Christianity page to the social and historical context of the beginnings of Christianity. The oppression of Roman slavery and the creation of numerous religious cults, including Christianity, as defences against this oppression, are not mentioned.
I think the Christianity page would benefit from a section on the social context of the beginnings of Christianity. There's an excellent book by the marxist historian Karl Kautsky called "The Foundations of Christianity" which is, in my view, the most thorough explanation of the subject, yet there is no mention of it on the Christianity page. It is not even referenced for "further reading".
Without a philosophical aspect to this page, there is a danger that it comes across as being one of religious propaganda rather than a more "objective" account of Christianity. John Rogan ( talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)John Rogan 8.9.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rogan ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Under the subtitle "Criticism of Christianity" it is claimed:
"Karl Marx was also highly critical of Christianity and argued that it is detrimental to progress because it "protects the weak", while society needs strong people to flourish." Citation number 297.
Firstly, this is a false statement. Secondly, it misrepresents the cited text. If you actually read the cited text it says this was the position of Nietzsche — a different German philosopher (already mentioned in the same paragraph) — not Marx.
To make accurate, the line should be changed to "Karl Marx was also highly critical of Christianity and argued that religion acted as an opium to keep the working class oppressed" (or something similar).
82.32.4.244 ( talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree- characterising Marx's criticism of Christianity as being rooted in it's "protection of the weak" is insufficient, and fits in much more closely with Nietzsche. Some kind of reference to Christianity being the handmaiden of feudalism or the opium of the people would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.206 ( talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Those mentioned people are not the only critics of Christianity, there are far more, and there are more and more of them as time passes. They mostly state out contradictions within the Bible or stolen material from other centuries or thousands of years older religions. Such author is T.W. Doane in his book: "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions". Far more examples can be seen on the page Exposing Christianity: http://see_the_truth.webs.com/ It can all be added in criticism section and this last link can be added to external links or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubt Instigator ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The text above in its present form can be found in the lead. However, previous revisions of this article read "Christianity has been an important part of the shaping of Western civilization, at least since the 4th century." [3]
I believe the former revision is more appropriate. Simply stating that Christianity has played "a role" diminishes this importance and the sentence might as well be removed; many things can be played "a role" in shaping Western civilizations, but Christianity played perhaps the most important role. The citations referenced clearly stress the importance of the role of Christianity, e.g. '"Western civilization is also sometimes described as "Christian" or "Judaeo- Christian" civilization."'
I'm not proposing that the former text should be reinstated entirely, but just that the word "important" should be inserted. To me this edit seems fairly uncontroversial, but with an article as important and heavily-edited as this one I thought I should explain first and see if anybody objects for whatever reason. -- Peter Talk to me 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
christanity is a religon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.228.249 ( talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jesus is not fully human, he is also the Holy Spirit, along with his Father, Jehovah. I know this because i am christian, and it is worldwide known. Tobybriant ( talk) 03:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm christian, and what I believe is Jesus is the soul and spirit of God in human flesh McBenjamin ( talk) 18:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we have this page redirect to "mythology" to fit with encyclopaedic conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.93.170 ( talk) 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, There is a picture on this page (Christianity) which has the following caption: "Christian cemetery" In fact, the picture is not of a graveyard but of a memorial site for (American) soldiers in World War 2, these sites are very common across Europe, France in particular. Just a small point.
Hedels ( talk) 23:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You would have no trouble finding sources to support the above statement, it is the first thing Americans mention if asked about their Christian beliefs. Many only go to church for marriages. But marriage is not mentioned in this article. It is bizarre that an article that purports to be "encyclopaedic" ignores central beliefs and practises of a large segment of contemporary Christians.
There is a link to Christian views on marriage - is this not part of Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Scriptures" section 3rd paragraph speaks of issues being brought up with the bible due to modern research. To be more even handed in the point of views concerning the Bible, the problems and issue brought up in this paragraph should belong in a separate section with both points of view described with the information and references attached. As it is now only one side of the issues are being raised and counter views and information is either not sufficient completely lacking.
the Following are examples of such point of views and information which should be included in the new section.
On the Subject talking about certain parts of Paul's letters being added in by a follower/copyist. My issue is that the opposite view that the biblical texts are accurate to the originals are not being shown with their supporting documents. I understand that the idea exists and perhaps some evidence exists to support it in the referenced book, and have no problem with that view being expressed, however there is also evidence that says what is recorded in the New testament including Paul's letters are reliably close to the original. Much more so than other secular ancient writing's that no one would even begin to question (Bruce, F., Are the New Testament documents reliable? The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, UK, p. 19, 1956.) A good place to get a general idea of this is ( http://creation.com/trust-the-bible) that includes 14 supporting References of its own.
In honesty, the verses used as examples of forgeries (1 Timothy 12[which should be 1 Timothy 2:12] & 1 Corinthians 14), if taken out would obscure the surrounding verses. In both instances Paul is using the differences between men and women as reasons for the different roles(not status) in the church . IN the church Women were allowed to prophesy but men were supposed to teach while women "remained silent" and learned. If a women had an issue with the teaching she could bring it up outside of the church in order to maintain order during the meeting. Also Outside of the church women were permitted to teach, in fact 2 Tim 1:5 shows Paul encouraging women to teach other women and their children. ( http://creation.com/biblical-view-women)
Also, the sentence "Other verses in 1 Corinthians contradict this verse such as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where women are instructed to wear a covering over their hair 'when they pray or prophesies'.[79] Clearly when they are not silent!" I don't mind the mention of the apparent contradiction but as above, an explanations or alternative view should be given an opportunity to be viewed and its evidence weighed. Looking at the context of the verse cited, Paul is again discussing order in the meetings of the early Christians not status in the church. It is argued that although allowed to "prophesy" in the church, which is made note of already, they were not allowed to discuss the interpretation of the prophesy in the church (Carson, D.A., “Silent in the churches”: on the role of women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36, Chapter 10; in: Piper and Grudem, ref. 10, pp. 142–144.)
Finally, the Topic of the "selected" books of the bible. "The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired" (A phrase used by historian Dr Ronald Higgins in his ‘Cracks in the Da Vinci Code’, <www.irr.org/da-vinci-code.html>, 23 December 2004.). Mentioning the Gnostic writings as something that is connected to the new testament canon is misplaced in this regard. The Very fact that they were Gnostic is why they aren't Christian writings. The fact that evidence exists that support gnostic ideas around the time of the writings of the new testament does not make them linked to them. That is like saying Harrison Ford (Star Wars Episode 4, 1977) was the Alien in the space ship from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) because both movies came out at the same time and involve space travel. The argument is not valid because the conclusion does not follow the premise.
To further my point, concerning the referenced Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas does reference New Testament verses but teaches such a different lesson to the actual New Testament writings it is laughable to think it should be included in the New Testament cannon. Compare these two passages:
Gospel of Thomas (114)Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Galatians 3:26-28 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gospel of Thomas clearly teaches that Man is superior to woman, where Galatians is teaching that Man is equal to Woman in status, both being one in Christ Jesus. The Gnostic writings were not recognized by the church, not because some council voted not to include it, but because of this type of contrary teaching. This also irregardless of when the gnostic writings were penned.
Justsayingediting ( talk) 01:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I'd also suggest being very specific about the exact change you'd like made (i.e., use a "before and after" approach). Needless to say, any new content introduced should be
reliably sourced, and creation.com doesn't fit the bill.
Rivertorch (
talk)
18:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Instances of WP:WEASEL wording:
The lack of mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem Church (and Jerusalem) seems an oversight. Especially, given the rising discussion of the effect on the putative rise of Pauline Christianity at the expense of the Jerusalem branch. But thanks Wblakesx ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia, as opposed to clergical situations, I doubt if Christianity actually passes the "monotheistic" definition. A god set up in a trinity of identity, cannot be strictly called "monotheistic" no matter how intimate the Trinity. This is accepted within the Hindu tradition but in the West, there has always been an attempt to shoehorn a three-tiered deity into monotheistic descriptions. In the Catholic tradition, several "saints" are worshipped or called upon for help, although it is "in Jesus' name" but the aid is sought nonetheless. In Hebraic\Islamic traditions, nothing else or no one else is called upon except God who has many attributes (names\titles) but there is no doubt as to Who is being called upon--not angels, prophets nor holy "mothers" or "children". (Although in both traditions, it is implied that the "forces" or "angels" of God are deployed, they are not called upon by the believer.) Within the Baptist tradition, the divinity is shared between "Father" and "Son" and each is called upon, one in the name of the other or even interchangeably; indeed, in many cases, Jesus has taken the place of God in terms of prayer and thanks. MARK VENTURE ( talk) 05:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The "argument" is an old one that Christian clegymen have never been able to defend other than to say it's "mysterious": only to those who belong to said church. The "Trinity" is a doctrine of compromise to allow for the worship of "Christ" (to distinguish him from the historical Jesus or Yeshua) and not run afoul of the First Commandment. I am not looking for "support" I just think encyclopedias should be neutral. There is already a lot of info in the article which details how the compromise was reached (including the Nicene Creed) but clearly, it's not "monotheistic" if Jesus is The Judge to whom God deferred His authority. Christianity, has more in common with Egyptian and Greco-Roman Paganism--which were non-monotheistic, than it has with either Judaism or Islam. If documentation you need, I can provide them MARK VENTURE ( talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If this phrase from the article:
"The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early ecumenical creeds which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was subsequently resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins. They further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven where he rules and reigns with God the Father"
That is from your own article, not just my opinion alone. If God is sharing His authority with anyone, then it's clearly not "monotheism". If logic and semantics are insufficient to say nothing of a rival movement within Christianity herself, as well as other faiths which directly challenge this doctrine, then there is nothing I can do except continue to be puzzled and amused by it. MARK VENTURE ( talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead states: "The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the saviour of humanity." I would like to request two changes. First, I think it is unnecessary and wordy to include the phrase "mainstream christian belief", and instead I believe we should put "Christians believe". The bible (Jesus himself) states that he is fully human and fully divine. Anyone who doesn't believe this would be selectively ignoring things that Jesus said about himself and entire portions of the bible, inherently making them not Christians; so it would be a fallacy to say it is "mainstream" as if there can be Christians that don't believe that. Secondly, it should be spelled savior, not saviour. -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I will try to find a copy of the bible in original Greek, and then translate it and renew this request. Although I think you are just being facetious.-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 02:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I am always amused by these discussions. The counterbalance to "He's not a real Christian" in several of the above posts is that Wikipedia articles on how many Christians there are in various countries and in the whole world always seem to include anybody who has ever self declared to be a Christian. It makes the numbers look good, of course, but it's pure hypocrisy. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to get consensus before making the change. Does anyone have any objections?-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting a change. I'm not sure that any form of Christianity has the belief that Christ "descended into hell" as only sinners go to hell. If this is wrong, please let me know which type of Christianity that is. Thanks, Ronster21 ( talk) 02:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21
During the Middle Ages, most of the remainder of Europe was Christianized, with Christians also being a sometimes large religious minority in the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia and parts of India.[12][13]
Ethiopia is majority Christian: in the region of two-thirds. Indeed, it was the first officially Christian country in the world. Can anyone think of a simple and eloquent way to reword this to reflect that? FrFintonStack ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's one of the main thing to understand 'the thing' and there is no information about it in this article. How deep was the fear against Huns and Turkic tribes at that times for example? Huns and Turkic tribes were Buddhist plus Tengriist and how did they affect the culture of Europe at that times, since they had almost ultimate power over original simple Germanic villagers and Romans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 ( talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Officially, it's 2.1 billion or 2.2 billion? Normally it's written 2.1 billion though. [4] Thus leading paragraph should be changed. Capitals00 ( talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page Abrahamic-Religions -- Wiki hamze ( talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
While it’s beliefs include “monotheism”. I hereby request the removal of Christianity from the category of “religion”…
Real Christianity is NOT a religion, but is technically anti-religious. The standard, accepted definition of a “religion” is a set of beliefs which always contain specific statutes, edicts, rules, or “laws” that MUST be applied to the daily lives of its believers. This would be the direct opposite of Christianity. Although Christianity acknowledges the existence of a specific set of rules / laws, they are not applied to the daily life of a Christian, accept as a reminder that due to the fallen or “sinful” state of humanity, said laws cannot be kept, attained, or applied. It is this specific understanding of the Judaic Law as “God’s unattainable measure of perfection”, which sets Christianity apart from any and all religions, and in its practice makes it irreligious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.32.242 ( talk) 21:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
What a load of bollocks! 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 86.178.77.235 ( talk)
I would like to include the book "The Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 4 (1794-1796): The Age of Reason" in further reading. It is available free and legally from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3743 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.66.186 ( talk) 00:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You write: Some of the churches originating during this period are historically connected to early 19th-century camp meetings in the Midwest and Upstate New York. American Millennialism and Adventism, which arose from Evangelical Protestantism, influenced the Jehovah's Witnesses movement and, as a reaction specifically to William Miller, the Seventh-day Adventists. Others, including the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Evangelical Christian Church in Canada,[268][269] Churches of Christ, and the Christian churches and churches of Christ, have their roots in the contemporaneous Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, which was centered in Kentucky and Tennessee. Other groups originating in this time period include the Christadelphians and Latter Day Saint movement. While the churches originating in the Second Great Awakening have some superficial similarities, their doctrine and practices vary significantly.
Yet, it's important not to confuse the reader. Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Latter Day Saints are considered true to the basic Christian essentials of the faith. They may have been established as you report, but their beliefs have departed enough from the essentials of the Christian faith that they are considered cults. Dr. Walter Martin http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html did an extensive series about Jehovah's Witttnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses themselves identify their distinctions away from the essentials, http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/ Patheos does an good job describing Mormons http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2012/09/are-mormons-christians-yesnoand-yes/ Both these cults are only "Christian" in the sense that they claim to be Christian. I could claim I'm an apple and it wouldn't make it so.
I actually came to this article expecting to find information about Calvanism, Arminianism and Molinism, but found nothing. Perhaps you can add this in the future? Thank you for your work, I really apreciate it.
Pamela Christian Speaker, Author and Media Personality
2602:306:C5F3:53F9:3CE0:6452:8583:AA46 ( talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: Thanks for the comments and suggestions. The {{ edit semi-protected}} is meant to provide editors who are unable to directly modify an article a mechanism to make reasonable changes. It requires the request be detailed to a "please change X to Y" degree, have relaible sources for factual changes and have implied or explicit consensus. This request does not fulfill those requirements. Regards, Celestra ( talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
== Bibliography ==
Dunn, and Ehrman have taken the position that Since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360, Casey 2010 p 12 & Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117
Please see Talk:Oral gospel traditions. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Pass a Method wishes to add a mention of Kingdom of Aksum to the lead. I reverted it, so it should be discussed here. The factoid wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so that would indicate it shouldn't be in the lead. St Anselm ( talk) 23:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Similar to the discussion above, I also disagree with this edit. This is undue weight for the lead: Christianity has certainly not influenced Sub-Saharan Africa in the same way and to the same extent it has influenced Western civilization. St Anselm ( talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence "The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father." in the second paragraph of the abstract to "Christian doctrine maintains that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh before ascending to heaven, where he shares dominion over all creation with God the Father." For the following reasons: a) the current sentence is poorly phrased and is inaccessible to many readers–the definition of 'creed' as pertaining directly to Christian beliefs is not in keeping with the more common use of the word, which simply denotes belief in X. b) the wording of the phrase 'Jesus bodily ascended to heaven' is both awkward and communicates a potentially erroneous message: there is no consensus that Jesus ascended to heaven in the flesh after his resurrection, rather, scholars tend to agree that the body of Jesus was resurrected and visited with disciples on earth for a period of time before Jesus left earth for heaven. DCBlumenthal ( talk) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC) -- Diannaa ( talk) 22:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Christianity has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
99.138.144.251 ( talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I came across a couple of resources that look like they may be useful in updating the Demographics section of this article:
I noticed this section under demographics
"A leading Saudi Arabian Muslim leader Sheikh Ahmad al Qatanni reported on Aljazeera that every day 16,000 African Muslims convert to Christianity. He claimed that Islam was losing 6 million African Muslims a year to becoming Christians,[200][201][202][203][204] including Muslims in Algeria,[205] France,[205] Iran,[206] India,[205] Morocco,[205] Russia,[205] and Turkey,[205][207] and Central Asia.[208][209]"
This should be removed for multiple reasons:
(1) It quotes a Saudi whose notability and qualifications are not specified. (2) His claim is not backed-up by scientific methods of data collection. It seems like those typical wild statements one hears from religious leaders every-now-and-then that seek to scare their religious followers and increase their wariness of the encroaching other. I mean 6 million annually sounds a little far-fetched and certainly if the numbers were that huge then we would of heard of a correspondingly huge Muslim uproar. (3) After mentioning his statement and the references that back this up, it quotes several conutries as if they are part of that Sheikhs statement when in fact they are seperate with unrelated references. (4) No doubt there are Muslims that convert to Christianity, but mentioning this one Sheikhs statement seems more like Christian grand-standing against its biggest competitor than adding appropriately scholarly and relevant content to Wikipedia. If Muslim converts to Christianity is to be mentioned, i think the 2nd part without the Sheikhs statement is more than enough i.e. it could read as "Muslims have also been reported to convert to Christianity, including in Algeria,[205] France,[205] Iran,[206] India,[205] Morocco,[205] Russia,[205] and Turkey,[205][207] and Central Asia.[208][209]." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.106.235.46 (
talk)
04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not on Wikipedia much anymore, so missed much of the back and forth about the Bowker quote. The passage is as follows on page 13 of the referenced book with some previous wording for context:
When Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire in the 6th century [BC], Zoroastrianism became the official state religion and was thus practiced from Greece to Egypt to north India. Zoroastrians are tolerant of other religions because judgment rests on works, not beliefs. As a result, the teaching was influential on other religions, not least on Judaism, when the Jews were in exile in Babylon at the time when Cyrus was coming to power, and on Christianity: angels, the end of the world, a final judgment, the resurrection, and heaven and hell received form and substance from the Zoroastrian beliefs.
In any case, it should not be controversial (except perhaps through a purely theological stance) that other religions influenced Christianity. There is no paucity of reliable sources to support this; Bowker simply highlights one and provides some specific details. I hope that helps. Airborne84 ( talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Just like how on the Muhammad page you wouldn't intentionally put an image of Muhammad as this offends Muslims, it is offensive to put an image of Jesus on the page, as no one really knows what he looks like, and this is all just speculation.
"We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." (Acts 17:29) 129.180.136.213 ( talk) 12:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Over on the Talk:Jesus page, we are having a discussion regarding the first sentence of the Jesus article. Currently, it reads Jesus ... is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. We are trying to find wording that would fit all sects, denominations and traditions of Christians worldwide, and in so doing, state as clearly as possible the central tenet upon which all Christians can agree. The primary problem with the current statement is the "...most Christian denominations..." phrase. This wording was chosen since Nontrinitarianists do not hold that Christ is the Son of God, or more precisely, they do not hold that God exists in three Persons. I am therefore proposing the following rewording: Jesus ... is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of all Christian denominations hold to be God incarnate. Would this adequately encompass both Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian views without diminishing either? Thoughts? Jtrevor99 ( talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
McManners251
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).