Devil in Christianity has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 18, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Devil in Christianity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
A fact from Devil in Christianity appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 May 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Why is the devil called Old Nick in English? (wiki refers to this article when looking for Old Nick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.25.212 ( talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need two articles for this, having it all in one would make it more complete. This article isn't huge for it not to be in there at the moment, assuming there's any of this not in there. Sticky Parkin 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The disputes section is not inappropriate arguing between members, but contains issues that do come up in theological discussions about the devil. It is a matter of common teachings against Biblical evidence, and is something that must be considered when discussing the devil. It does NOT matter if one agrees or disagrees with one side or the other, the content should remain. No real argument for removal has yet to be presented, just disagreement with what is in there. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that Satan is depicted as the Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.72.3 ( talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a redrawing of the arms which were attributed to Satan in some forms of medieval European tradition... AnonMoos ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"Some Christian concepts of the Devil include Lucifer, which traditionally gives a name to the Devil. The name, Lucifer, is translated from the Latin, meaning loosely, "Light Bringer" (analogous to the Greek, Phosphorus) and is also used symbolically to mean the "Morning Star", (i.e. Venus), which held some significant meanings for Babylonians as mentioned in Isaiah 14:12. Since the time of Origen, Lucifer is not used to refer exclusively to the "king of Babylon", but rather solely (or additionally) makes reference to Satan before he fell, while he was yet uncorrupted, but powerful and glorious and an angel of God." GeneCallahan ( talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Contents:
* 1 Sources of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by topic * 2 History of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by time * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church = Christian teaching on.. by group * 4 Characteristics = [dubious heading? stuff that didn't fit, yet] * 5 Theological Disputes = Christian teaching on.. by more than 1 viewpoint * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) = [stuff that needs moving out to...] * 7 References
The contents tree breaks down:
* 1 Sources of Christian teaching o 1.1 Old Testament + 1.1.1 The Serpent (Genesis 3) + 1.1.2 Job's adversary (Job 1) + 1.1.3 David's satan (2 Sam 24. & 1 Chron. 21) + 1.1.4 Jeshua's Satan (Zechariah 3) + 1.1.5 Azazel + 1.1.6 Isaiah's Lucifer (Isaiah 14) + 1.1.7 Cherub in Eden (Ezekiel 28) o 1.2 New Testament + 1.2.1 Gospels = mess + 1.2.2 Acts & Epistles = mess + 1.2.3 Revelation = mess o 1.3 Extra-Biblical Material = is there more? * 2 History of Christian teaching o 2.1 Patristic Period = totally lacking sourced material o 2.2 Gnostics o 2.3 Middle Ages o 2.4 Cathars o 2.5 The Reformation = totally lacking sourced material * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church o 3.1 Roman Catholic views o 3.2 Eastern Orthodox o 3.3 Evangelical Protestants = totally lacking sourced material o 3.4 Latter-day Saints o 3.5 Unitarians and Christadelphians * 4 Characteristics o 4.1 Rebel = relevant, but where? totally lacking sourced material
o 4.2 Possession = probably needs link to
o 4.3 Black magic = probably needs link
o 4.4 Christian tradition = ? * 5 Theological Disputes o 5.1 Hell o 5.2 Sinfulness of angels * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) * 7 References
Does this structure cover most possible sourceable content on the subject Christian teaching on... In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Devil (Christianity), just a suggestion In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I cut the following about the Screwtape Letters from the Anglican and Episcopalian section
Here's my justification: The Screwtape Letters is a work of fiction. The presence of the devil in a work of fiction has nothing to do with the author's actual beliefs. If we were to argue that all of C.S. Lewis's allegorical writings were indicative of actual views, then we might as well claim that the Chronicles of Narnia is informed by the view that Jesus took the form of a lion at some point. IF Lewis believed in a literal personification of evil, AND if that information deserves mentioning in the article, it seems like it would be better to find the information from his nonfiction. eldamorie ( talk) 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence of the opening paragraph reads as follows "Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology." The word 'history' implies historical events rather than previously written literature. It gives an unnecessary bias towards the POV of the existence of the Devil. A more appropriate term would be 'literature' or 'stories', which both seem more like the appropriate term in this context. Permafry42 ( talk) 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
i saw a vision on a person On the top of his head was a halo of satans horns circling around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.67.147 ( talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Second sentence:
"Satan" later became the name of the personification of evil.
When is this "later" ? When was this concept clearly defined? Since the Jews didn't, and still don't to this day, believe in Satan or hell as the Christians do, then Jesus must have introduced it somewhere. Where and when? Darius 1 522-486 BCE made the official religion Zoroastrianism of the Persian area, which first introduced the concept for a personification of evil to the Jews, but it obviously didn't take. I think this is HIGHLY important as this is one of the cornerstones of all Christianity and to have no citation is pretty bad. Darrellx ( talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The section on the "Sinfulness of Angels" begins with the sentence "Some theologians believe that angels cannot sin ..." That proposition is supported by references to two anonymous "Christian" websites (one apparently run by a guy named "Phil" since he is hawking his newest book on the Rapture on the home page) with catechism-like ansewrs to the question. Are these really sources that an encyclopedia relies on? Are these people really "theologians"? Why not just quote statements from televangelists? AnthroMimus ( talk) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we get a citation for this section, specifically the proclamation made in the sentence: "He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others." Ta2dLibrarian ( talk) 20:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have rewritten the beginning of the Lucifer section, the text preceding the mention of Aquila of Sinope, to improve its organization. The previous version started out by mentioning a Babylonian myth of a "heavenly being" evicted from heaven for being overly ambitious; it then turned to the Old Testament prophecy, which has a similar story in Isaiah 14:12 –15, going on to note that Christians picked up on the idea. Then back to the Babylonians (aren't we through with them?) mentioning that, in their tradition, angels fell for being too interested in human women.
My revised version moves from the Babylonians to the prophet Isaiah then on to the Christian take on the matter without backtracking. It also avoids the awkward and ungrammatical phrase "Unlike in that" — "unlike" is an adjective requiring a noun or pronoun but no candidate is obvious. ("That" won't do because it's the object of a preposition.)
Peter Brown ( talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, Has someone a source for this claim "Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace."? It seems there have been indeed differences between both figures, however not to the extent claimed by the section.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The following passage is marked with a tag "not specific enough to verify": "An angel or any other rational creature considered in his own nature, can sin; and to whatever creature it belongs not to sin, such creature has it as a gift of grace, and not from the condition of nature. The reason of this is, because sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that rectitude which an act ought to have; whether we speak of sin in nature, art, or morals. That act alone, the rule of which is the very virtue of the agent, can never fall short of rectitude. Were the craftsman's hand the rule itself engraving, he could not engrave the wood otherwise than rightly; but if the rightness of engraving be judged by another rule, then the engraving may be right or faulty." Is this quote merely too long or too unprecisely-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)?
Greetings, apart from formatting the sources, is there anything important missing? -- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: I think the lead-section might be expanded though. Summarizing more of the article, than just the most important points of the devil.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
How is it about Captions? Is the devil captalized? Per MOS:ISMCAPS titles such as Messiah or God should be. Does the same apply to the Devil/devil? I was quite inconsistence with captilazation before.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I would further list a section about theological disputes: There could be a section about disputing Lucifer's affilation too. (Cherub, Seraph or neither).-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle: Many religions contrast light and darkness, but I don't know of any that view the lower air as dark. On a clear night, the stars are visible; dark air doesn't block our view. Is there some religious tradition in the early middle ages that considers the air close to the ground as being dark? The ninth of the plagues of Egypt is recorded as darkness so thick that people could not see each other, but there is no suggestion that it was limited to the lower atmosphere and anyhow it only lasted three days. Peter Brown ( talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I must have erred in copy-editing. I attribute to Aquinas the view that "the higher an angel stood the more likely he was to become guilty of pride", which implies that the seraphim, who rank the highest, are the most vulnerable, but also the view that "the seraphs' characteristic love for God makes them unable to sin". These views are surely incompatible; Aquinas could not have held them both. Somebody please straighten things out. Peter Brown ( talk) 17:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the word בְּלִיַעַל anywhere in this word-by-word discussion of Psalm 41:9. Perhaps another verse is intended? Peter Brown ( talk) 00:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if this might be too much for a Devil in Christianity article and should be moved into the main article instead? "After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there are still remaining parts of Bogomil Dualism in Balkan folklore. Before God created the world, he meets a goose on the eternal ocean. The name of the Goose is reportedly named Satanael and claims to be a god. When God asks Satanael, who he himself is, the devil answers "the god of gods". God requests the devil to dive to the bottom of the sea to carry some mud then. From this mud, they fashioned the world; God created his angels and the devil his demons. Later, the devil tries to assault god but is thrown into the abyss, lurking on the creation of God and planning another attack on heaven. This myth shares same resemblance with Pre-Islamic Turkic creation myths, as well as Bogomilite thoughts."-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle: I see problems with the final paragraph of the lede as written. You have written it as the following:
Scholars considered heretical by Catholics, Christian Orthodoxy and Protestantism repeatedly asserted that the devil was partaking in the creation of the world or even the creator deity himself. Marcion, Valentinus, and later the Cathars and Bogomiles adhered to this belief. This view is rejected by all established Christian denominations.
First of all, the structure of this paragraph is like this: 1. scholars assert thing, 2. the big boys of Christianity reject it as heresy. 3. assert 4. reject. This sets up the impression that there are these rogue scholars out there who are "repeatedly" trying to push some kind of false belief. There are countless millions of Christians who are familiar with that exact structure: it's the religious diatribe. Thus they may be given the impression that the scholars are obnoxiously wrong, and that Wikipedia is subtly trying to push this view. You might say "well I didn't really say that the scholars were wrong, maybe all these mainline authority figures were wrong." This is true, you didn't write that. But no matter how unintentional, readers may be given that impression anyway, especially given the charged nature of words like "heresy" and the subject of the devil in general.
Secondly I take issue with just opening with "scholars". Which scholars, really? I'd reckon that most readers will assume that "scholars" means "modern scholars", because that's how the word is normally used throughout Wikipedia. Further, I'd reckon that most readers will assume that scholars means specifically "scholars of Religious studies" and not theologians trying to advance a particular theological point of view. Finally, the flow of the paragraph implies that the Cathars and Bogomiles are scholars, which is a bad implication because they were not generally scholars. BirdValiant ( talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Peter M. Brown: I don't what the ciation tag for Brüggman is asking for. I have never seen a citation needed to verify an author's opinion or a scholar, who needs to be verified by another scholars claim. I am wondering if there is a confusion. This is not Brüggman's view ont he devil, it is their evaluation/analysis of Protestants' works.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
{{cn}}
, available as a
tooltip? It reads "Source needed for the claim that Brüggemann represents a majority view." I am not seeking verification that
Brüggemann actually held the view attributed to him concerning Luther's practice or that it was correct but rather thatThis is not to dispute Brüggemann's claims but this unreferenced assertion concerning "most protestant preachers"....most protestant preachers ... merged the anthropomorphic devils into only one unit of evil [and] argue that Luther himself merely used these anthropomorphic devils as stylistic devices for his audience ...
Okay the bible often makes reference to Lucifer and Satan. And during these references they make them the same being. But in truth they are not. There are 7 princes of hell and both Satan and Lucifer are in the seven. So that being said they are 2 different beings it states it clearly. So with that in mind in the bible those are 2 different conversations with 2 very different beings. So what the Christian god can't tell the difference or is this misinformation purposely spread by the Catholic church? SlayerofGods ( talk) 07:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jenhawk777 ( talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am excited to review this GA nomination.
Good Article review progress box
|
Looking forward to your feedback and as long as you're actively working on it, happy to wait a bit longer before deciding. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi VenusFeuerFalle I understand you have asked for a second opinion. I am Jenhawk777. I write exclusively on religion and philosophy as those are my undergrad degrees, and I have some grad school in philosophy in the field of ethics. A glance at this article tells me a lot of quality work has gone into this. It's both impressive and quite fascinating. I will do a section at a time, if that works for you. I'll focus primarily on prose but I will also check content and do the occasional reference check as I go through.
While the devil played for most scholars no significant role in the Modern Era, he became more important in contemporary Christianity again.
Sentence structure is awkward. I'd put 'For most scholars' at the front, and the second half needs explaining.
The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, and this one's a little thin, especially for such a long article with so much substantive content. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
accuser" or "adversary", which is used...This sentence is too long. Divide it. I suggest ending the first sentence after adversary and beginning the second sentence with "The term is used... That makes the third sentence begin with a repetition, so just change "The word" to It.
When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser,[7] but when it is used with the definite article (Ha-Satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser: "The Satan. Try: "When satan is used without a definite article, it refers to any accuser, but "the Satan" (Ha-Satan), with a definite article, usually refers to the heavenly accuser. (Pick usually or specifically, both aren't necessary.) Done
The word with the definite article...Just use the word: "Satan with the definite article ... Done
The word without the definite article is .. Book of Numbers, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings).The trouble here is that there are two other words also used for "devils" and demons – sâ'îr and shêd – in Zechariah, Isaiah, Job, Habakuk, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Psalms.
God asks one of them, Satan, where he has been, to which he replies that he has been roaming..."God asks Satan where he has been. Satan replies, roaming the earth." Keep it simple when you can. Done
Satan replies by urging God to let him torture Job, promising that Job will abandon his faith at the first tribulationNot exactly. Satan replies by pointing out how God has blessed Job – “Does Job fear God for nothing?" – take that away and he will curse you. Done
urging God to let him torture Jobis technically inaccurate. Satan never asks to torture Job. He asks to test his faith, to prove that Job is only a "fair-weather-friend". God consents to temporarily removing his blessing and protection, and the implication is that God has faith in Job. Interesting huh? Torture is never mentioned. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
God consents; Satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn God.[12]Add in that all his sons and daughters were also killed, and then Job's health, but that the story says he got back double what he had lost in the end. Done
Satan requests God to test him and to let him torture Job, so Job would abandon his faith. Do you have a reference that says 'torture'? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Since the satan is sent by the will of God, his function resembles less the devilish enemy of God, and even if it is accepted that this satan refers to a supernatural agent, it is not necessarily implied this is the Satan.I would divide it. Done
Some parts of the Bible, which do not originally refer to an evil spirit or Satan, have been retrospectively interpreted as references to the devil.[22]We'll discuss this one when I come back. :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Done
for example Hieronymus, in his Vulgate —this will be confusing for the average reader. If you want to give his name in the original languages, begin with the common name first: "Jerome, or Saint Jerome, (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος)"... Done
only the mystified end of a Babylonian king.did you mean mysterious? or maybe mystifying? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Done
However, the role of Belial is in opposition to that of Satan: while Belial, representing chaos and death, stands outside of God's cosmos, Satan roams the earth, fighting for the maintenance of the divine order and punishing precisely everything Belial stands for.You'll have to offer some real defense for this one. My Deutsch isn't good enough to decipher the full meaning of the text in the book you reference, but in any case, this claim is seemingly contradicted by your other source. Kelly's Satan: A Biography on page 41 in the footnote about Watson, and on pages 19, 36, 44, 50-51. There's also this
One of the most salient figures to emerge from the Qumran scrolls is the archdemon Belial, leader of the forces of darkness.from
Dimant, Devorah. "Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema." The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Brill, 2011. 235-256.And this one
Tucker, Paavo. "Reconsidering Bελιάρ: 2 Corinthians 6: 15 in Its Anti-imperial Jewish Apocalyptic Context." Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 4.2 (2014): 169-185.which says
Belial, who epitomizes power hostile to God. I'm thinking Theobald may not be the best source. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
If I didn't comment on something, that means I thought it was good. :-) I'll be back tomorrow. With a little diligence we should be able to finish this in a week easy peasy.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
... Satan and his angels are clearly in the service of God, akin to Satan in the Book of Job. Satan and his lesser satans act as God's executioners:In the first place, this is uncited, and in the second place, it is decidedly confused. The only source I can find that in any way comes even a little bit close is [1] and Pagels explains it quite differently than you have here.
This is not The Satan with a definite article as you have it here. This is a satan meaning only an adversary. This applies to your discussion of When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser
and is part of the history of the development of the concept, but it isn't about intertestimental texts, it's about the early Hebrew. If you want to keep this, it should be moved up to Satan in the OT.
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I made a few small grammar corrections, otherwise this section is good.
I corrected some grammar and content on the problem of evil.
creatures first, then the
no comma Done
to this view, which was borrowed
no comma Done
and the existence of the material world is a result
remove "the existence of" Done
destruction and suffering, too.
no comma, no too Done
grasp and the
add a comma after grasp' Done
followed by those who adhere to his will.
is a sentence fragment, it needs fixing
his will
whose? God's or the devils? clarify Done
restored, after
no comma Done
{od}} VenusFeuerFalle I think we have resolved all issues so far and are both caught up to the same place now, (Augustine) so if you are interested in having me finish this, I will. I will tell you that in RL right now, I am under some stress. My mother is in the hospital and not doing well. I should be able to work on this once a day or so - it will provide a good distraction - but it is also possible I may miss a day or two. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I ended up rewording some of the theology myself, w/citation. Augustine can be difficult. I hope that's okay. If you don't like it, feel free to rephrase yourself. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This is good; I added a 'that' and a comma, that's all. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
at some point, freely chosen evil
add 'had' after the comma
I moved names in one sentence. This section is good.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Done
No comments at all on this section except that it's very well done. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This section is also excellent. All I did was correct one typo. Well done. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, just two minor citation issues, the refs for Holden (176) and Campo (6) to not correspond to any items in the bibliography—I'm assuming the full citations are missing. Bravo on the article thus far! Best – Aza24 ( talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I made some very minor changes, and there is one citation issue here as well. I know that what you have written is correct, but it does need a citation anyway, especially since it is in wiki-voice. This section is also excellent. The changes I made were very minor, and since I know you are busy in real life, I didn't even think them worth mentioning and just did them. If that's not okay, again, there will be no problems if you go back and do something else. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I am finally home after over a month of clearing out my mother's house. It's been sad and exhausting and I am glad to be home and back at work on WP. It is late, so I will begin tomorrow. Thank you for being so understanding. Hopefully this will finish up quickly. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have gone through it all at least once, some of it twice, and will go through the rest a second time, but I am not finding much to trouble with. I have made a few minor changes to grammar, but otherwise, there is nothing much left. I'll take another day or two to finish up and will then give the okay. It is good, and I have enjoyed working with you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I am removing the unsourced statement in Devil in Christianity § Gospels that "The New Testament records several accounts of the devil working against God and his plan." No examples are provided, and instances are hard to find.
At Luke 13:16, in connection with his healing of a crippled woman, Jesus calls her "a daughter of Abraham whom Satan had bound eighteen long years." At 1 Thessalonians 2:18, Paul wrote "... we wanted to come to you ... but Satan hindered us." Are there enough other examples that we can say that there are "several" of them? I doubt it.
Luke 22:3 and John 13:2 say that Satan inspired Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus, but this is not a case of Satan acting "against God and his plan" as it facilitated Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection which were very much in accordance with God's plan.
The Bible quotes above are from the World English Bible, which is in the public domain,
Peter Brown ( talk) 17:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Please change the nomination template to GA! Right now you are the only one who can. Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC).
Right, I should correct this. A link is much better. Sorry for the delay, I haven't seen any notification of a reply to the nomination and just checked it today.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 22:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth I have reverted your revert of the images added by RileyXeon because the reasoning used for those reverts is incorrect. These images are indeed specifically designated as images of Satan. [2] is an article on the painting "Fallen Angel" describing it as a picture of Satan, while this one [3] explains the Doré is one of 50 such illustrations he did of Satan falling. While it might be good to distribute them more in the article, there is no reason to claim they have no place in it. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Some user(s) recently added repeatedly the Gospel of Bartholomew. Unfortunately, it was added under the "intertestamental"-header. As a New Testament apocrypha, it is not part of the formation stage. Next, it adds nothing to the article, since it is not important for the formation of the Christian devil. If it is, it must be shown and confirm to WP:GA (especially 3.b. stating: " it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"), since this is a GA article. It can't accept unnecesarily trivia. (see also: WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:1S) VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
References
I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to go back on the “thank” I received for providing this with a citation initially. What is in dispute is its time period, not the content. Twillisjr ( talk) 18:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
apocryph doesn't equal intertestamentalwhich is correct. Here is you putting it back again, with no explanation, no response, and no edit summary - again. [10] In the next edit, it is reverted, again, and your participation on the Talk page to discuss this is requested.
Would this article also meet the FA ( WP:FA?) criteria? If not, waht should be done to improve it further? VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Devil in Christianity has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 18, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Devil in Christianity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
A fact from Devil in Christianity appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 May 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Why is the devil called Old Nick in English? (wiki refers to this article when looking for Old Nick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.25.212 ( talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need two articles for this, having it all in one would make it more complete. This article isn't huge for it not to be in there at the moment, assuming there's any of this not in there. Sticky Parkin 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The disputes section is not inappropriate arguing between members, but contains issues that do come up in theological discussions about the devil. It is a matter of common teachings against Biblical evidence, and is something that must be considered when discussing the devil. It does NOT matter if one agrees or disagrees with one side or the other, the content should remain. No real argument for removal has yet to be presented, just disagreement with what is in there. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that Satan is depicted as the Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.72.3 ( talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a redrawing of the arms which were attributed to Satan in some forms of medieval European tradition... AnonMoos ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
"Some Christian concepts of the Devil include Lucifer, which traditionally gives a name to the Devil. The name, Lucifer, is translated from the Latin, meaning loosely, "Light Bringer" (analogous to the Greek, Phosphorus) and is also used symbolically to mean the "Morning Star", (i.e. Venus), which held some significant meanings for Babylonians as mentioned in Isaiah 14:12. Since the time of Origen, Lucifer is not used to refer exclusively to the "king of Babylon", but rather solely (or additionally) makes reference to Satan before he fell, while he was yet uncorrupted, but powerful and glorious and an angel of God." GeneCallahan ( talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Contents:
* 1 Sources of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by topic * 2 History of Christian teaching = Christian teaching on.. by time * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church = Christian teaching on.. by group * 4 Characteristics = [dubious heading? stuff that didn't fit, yet] * 5 Theological Disputes = Christian teaching on.. by more than 1 viewpoint * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) = [stuff that needs moving out to...] * 7 References
The contents tree breaks down:
* 1 Sources of Christian teaching o 1.1 Old Testament + 1.1.1 The Serpent (Genesis 3) + 1.1.2 Job's adversary (Job 1) + 1.1.3 David's satan (2 Sam 24. & 1 Chron. 21) + 1.1.4 Jeshua's Satan (Zechariah 3) + 1.1.5 Azazel + 1.1.6 Isaiah's Lucifer (Isaiah 14) + 1.1.7 Cherub in Eden (Ezekiel 28) o 1.2 New Testament + 1.2.1 Gospels = mess + 1.2.2 Acts & Epistles = mess + 1.2.3 Revelation = mess o 1.3 Extra-Biblical Material = is there more? * 2 History of Christian teaching o 2.1 Patristic Period = totally lacking sourced material o 2.2 Gnostics o 2.3 Middle Ages o 2.4 Cathars o 2.5 The Reformation = totally lacking sourced material * 3 Modern Christian teaching by church o 3.1 Roman Catholic views o 3.2 Eastern Orthodox o 3.3 Evangelical Protestants = totally lacking sourced material o 3.4 Latter-day Saints o 3.5 Unitarians and Christadelphians * 4 Characteristics o 4.1 Rebel = relevant, but where? totally lacking sourced material
o 4.2 Possession = probably needs link to
o 4.3 Black magic = probably needs link
o 4.4 Christian tradition = ? * 5 Theological Disputes o 5.1 Hell o 5.2 Sinfulness of angels * 6 Duplicated Material (literature) * 7 References
Does this structure cover most possible sourceable content on the subject Christian teaching on... In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Devil (Christianity), just a suggestion In ictu oculi ( talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I cut the following about the Screwtape Letters from the Anglican and Episcopalian section
Here's my justification: The Screwtape Letters is a work of fiction. The presence of the devil in a work of fiction has nothing to do with the author's actual beliefs. If we were to argue that all of C.S. Lewis's allegorical writings were indicative of actual views, then we might as well claim that the Chronicles of Narnia is informed by the view that Jesus took the form of a lion at some point. IF Lewis believed in a literal personification of evil, AND if that information deserves mentioning in the article, it seems like it would be better to find the information from his nonfiction. eldamorie ( talk) 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence of the opening paragraph reads as follows "Much of the popular history of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology." The word 'history' implies historical events rather than previously written literature. It gives an unnecessary bias towards the POV of the existence of the Devil. A more appropriate term would be 'literature' or 'stories', which both seem more like the appropriate term in this context. Permafry42 ( talk) 08:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
i saw a vision on a person On the top of his head was a halo of satans horns circling around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.67.147 ( talk) 06:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Second sentence:
"Satan" later became the name of the personification of evil.
When is this "later" ? When was this concept clearly defined? Since the Jews didn't, and still don't to this day, believe in Satan or hell as the Christians do, then Jesus must have introduced it somewhere. Where and when? Darius 1 522-486 BCE made the official religion Zoroastrianism of the Persian area, which first introduced the concept for a personification of evil to the Jews, but it obviously didn't take. I think this is HIGHLY important as this is one of the cornerstones of all Christianity and to have no citation is pretty bad. Darrellx ( talk) 12:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The section on the "Sinfulness of Angels" begins with the sentence "Some theologians believe that angels cannot sin ..." That proposition is supported by references to two anonymous "Christian" websites (one apparently run by a guy named "Phil" since he is hawking his newest book on the Rapture on the home page) with catechism-like ansewrs to the question. Are these really sources that an encyclopedia relies on? Are these people really "theologians"? Why not just quote statements from televangelists? AnthroMimus ( talk) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we get a citation for this section, specifically the proclamation made in the sentence: "He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others." Ta2dLibrarian ( talk) 20:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have rewritten the beginning of the Lucifer section, the text preceding the mention of Aquila of Sinope, to improve its organization. The previous version started out by mentioning a Babylonian myth of a "heavenly being" evicted from heaven for being overly ambitious; it then turned to the Old Testament prophecy, which has a similar story in Isaiah 14:12 –15, going on to note that Christians picked up on the idea. Then back to the Babylonians (aren't we through with them?) mentioning that, in their tradition, angels fell for being too interested in human women.
My revised version moves from the Babylonians to the prophet Isaiah then on to the Christian take on the matter without backtracking. It also avoids the awkward and ungrammatical phrase "Unlike in that" — "unlike" is an adjective requiring a noun or pronoun but no candidate is obvious. ("That" won't do because it's the object of a preposition.)
Peter Brown ( talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, Has someone a source for this claim "Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace."? It seems there have been indeed differences between both figures, however not to the extent claimed by the section.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The following passage is marked with a tag "not specific enough to verify": "An angel or any other rational creature considered in his own nature, can sin; and to whatever creature it belongs not to sin, such creature has it as a gift of grace, and not from the condition of nature. The reason of this is, because sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that rectitude which an act ought to have; whether we speak of sin in nature, art, or morals. That act alone, the rule of which is the very virtue of the agent, can never fall short of rectitude. Were the craftsman's hand the rule itself engraving, he could not engrave the wood otherwise than rightly; but if the rightness of engraving be judged by another rule, then the engraving may be right or faulty." Is this quote merely too long or too unprecisely-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)?
Greetings, apart from formatting the sources, is there anything important missing? -- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: I think the lead-section might be expanded though. Summarizing more of the article, than just the most important points of the devil.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
How is it about Captions? Is the devil captalized? Per MOS:ISMCAPS titles such as Messiah or God should be. Does the same apply to the Devil/devil? I was quite inconsistence with captilazation before.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I would further list a section about theological disputes: There could be a section about disputing Lucifer's affilation too. (Cherub, Seraph or neither).-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle: Many religions contrast light and darkness, but I don't know of any that view the lower air as dark. On a clear night, the stars are visible; dark air doesn't block our view. Is there some religious tradition in the early middle ages that considers the air close to the ground as being dark? The ninth of the plagues of Egypt is recorded as darkness so thick that people could not see each other, but there is no suggestion that it was limited to the lower atmosphere and anyhow it only lasted three days. Peter Brown ( talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I must have erred in copy-editing. I attribute to Aquinas the view that "the higher an angel stood the more likely he was to become guilty of pride", which implies that the seraphim, who rank the highest, are the most vulnerable, but also the view that "the seraphs' characteristic love for God makes them unable to sin". These views are surely incompatible; Aquinas could not have held them both. Somebody please straighten things out. Peter Brown ( talk) 17:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the word בְּלִיַעַל anywhere in this word-by-word discussion of Psalm 41:9. Perhaps another verse is intended? Peter Brown ( talk) 00:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if this might be too much for a Devil in Christianity article and should be moved into the main article instead? "After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there are still remaining parts of Bogomil Dualism in Balkan folklore. Before God created the world, he meets a goose on the eternal ocean. The name of the Goose is reportedly named Satanael and claims to be a god. When God asks Satanael, who he himself is, the devil answers "the god of gods". God requests the devil to dive to the bottom of the sea to carry some mud then. From this mud, they fashioned the world; God created his angels and the devil his demons. Later, the devil tries to assault god but is thrown into the abyss, lurking on the creation of God and planning another attack on heaven. This myth shares same resemblance with Pre-Islamic Turkic creation myths, as well as Bogomilite thoughts."-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@ VenusFeuerFalle: I see problems with the final paragraph of the lede as written. You have written it as the following:
Scholars considered heretical by Catholics, Christian Orthodoxy and Protestantism repeatedly asserted that the devil was partaking in the creation of the world or even the creator deity himself. Marcion, Valentinus, and later the Cathars and Bogomiles adhered to this belief. This view is rejected by all established Christian denominations.
First of all, the structure of this paragraph is like this: 1. scholars assert thing, 2. the big boys of Christianity reject it as heresy. 3. assert 4. reject. This sets up the impression that there are these rogue scholars out there who are "repeatedly" trying to push some kind of false belief. There are countless millions of Christians who are familiar with that exact structure: it's the religious diatribe. Thus they may be given the impression that the scholars are obnoxiously wrong, and that Wikipedia is subtly trying to push this view. You might say "well I didn't really say that the scholars were wrong, maybe all these mainline authority figures were wrong." This is true, you didn't write that. But no matter how unintentional, readers may be given that impression anyway, especially given the charged nature of words like "heresy" and the subject of the devil in general.
Secondly I take issue with just opening with "scholars". Which scholars, really? I'd reckon that most readers will assume that "scholars" means "modern scholars", because that's how the word is normally used throughout Wikipedia. Further, I'd reckon that most readers will assume that scholars means specifically "scholars of Religious studies" and not theologians trying to advance a particular theological point of view. Finally, the flow of the paragraph implies that the Cathars and Bogomiles are scholars, which is a bad implication because they were not generally scholars. BirdValiant ( talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Peter M. Brown: I don't what the ciation tag for Brüggman is asking for. I have never seen a citation needed to verify an author's opinion or a scholar, who needs to be verified by another scholars claim. I am wondering if there is a confusion. This is not Brüggman's view ont he devil, it is their evaluation/analysis of Protestants' works.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
{{cn}}
, available as a
tooltip? It reads "Source needed for the claim that Brüggemann represents a majority view." I am not seeking verification that
Brüggemann actually held the view attributed to him concerning Luther's practice or that it was correct but rather thatThis is not to dispute Brüggemann's claims but this unreferenced assertion concerning "most protestant preachers"....most protestant preachers ... merged the anthropomorphic devils into only one unit of evil [and] argue that Luther himself merely used these anthropomorphic devils as stylistic devices for his audience ...
Okay the bible often makes reference to Lucifer and Satan. And during these references they make them the same being. But in truth they are not. There are 7 princes of hell and both Satan and Lucifer are in the seven. So that being said they are 2 different beings it states it clearly. So with that in mind in the bible those are 2 different conversations with 2 very different beings. So what the Christian god can't tell the difference or is this misinformation purposely spread by the Catholic church? SlayerofGods ( talk) 07:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jenhawk777 ( talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am excited to review this GA nomination.
Good Article review progress box
|
Looking forward to your feedback and as long as you're actively working on it, happy to wait a bit longer before deciding. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi VenusFeuerFalle I understand you have asked for a second opinion. I am Jenhawk777. I write exclusively on religion and philosophy as those are my undergrad degrees, and I have some grad school in philosophy in the field of ethics. A glance at this article tells me a lot of quality work has gone into this. It's both impressive and quite fascinating. I will do a section at a time, if that works for you. I'll focus primarily on prose but I will also check content and do the occasional reference check as I go through.
While the devil played for most scholars no significant role in the Modern Era, he became more important in contemporary Christianity again.
Sentence structure is awkward. I'd put 'For most scholars' at the front, and the second half needs explaining.
The lead should be a summary of the content of the article, and this one's a little thin, especially for such a long article with so much substantive content. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
accuser" or "adversary", which is used...This sentence is too long. Divide it. I suggest ending the first sentence after adversary and beginning the second sentence with "The term is used... That makes the third sentence begin with a repetition, so just change "The word" to It.
When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser,[7] but when it is used with the definite article (Ha-Satan), it usually refers specifically to the heavenly accuser: "The Satan. Try: "When satan is used without a definite article, it refers to any accuser, but "the Satan" (Ha-Satan), with a definite article, usually refers to the heavenly accuser. (Pick usually or specifically, both aren't necessary.) Done
The word with the definite article...Just use the word: "Satan with the definite article ... Done
The word without the definite article is .. Book of Numbers, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 Kings).The trouble here is that there are two other words also used for "devils" and demons – sâ'îr and shêd – in Zechariah, Isaiah, Job, Habakuk, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Psalms.
God asks one of them, Satan, where he has been, to which he replies that he has been roaming..."God asks Satan where he has been. Satan replies, roaming the earth." Keep it simple when you can. Done
Satan replies by urging God to let him torture Job, promising that Job will abandon his faith at the first tribulationNot exactly. Satan replies by pointing out how God has blessed Job – “Does Job fear God for nothing?" – take that away and he will curse you. Done
urging God to let him torture Jobis technically inaccurate. Satan never asks to torture Job. He asks to test his faith, to prove that Job is only a "fair-weather-friend". God consents to temporarily removing his blessing and protection, and the implication is that God has faith in Job. Interesting huh? Torture is never mentioned. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
God consents; Satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn God.[12]Add in that all his sons and daughters were also killed, and then Job's health, but that the story says he got back double what he had lost in the end. Done
Satan requests God to test him and to let him torture Job, so Job would abandon his faith. Do you have a reference that says 'torture'? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Since the satan is sent by the will of God, his function resembles less the devilish enemy of God, and even if it is accepted that this satan refers to a supernatural agent, it is not necessarily implied this is the Satan.I would divide it. Done
Some parts of the Bible, which do not originally refer to an evil spirit or Satan, have been retrospectively interpreted as references to the devil.[22]We'll discuss this one when I come back. :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Done
for example Hieronymus, in his Vulgate —this will be confusing for the average reader. If you want to give his name in the original languages, begin with the common name first: "Jerome, or Saint Jerome, (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος)"... Done
only the mystified end of a Babylonian king.did you mean mysterious? or maybe mystifying? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Done
However, the role of Belial is in opposition to that of Satan: while Belial, representing chaos and death, stands outside of God's cosmos, Satan roams the earth, fighting for the maintenance of the divine order and punishing precisely everything Belial stands for.You'll have to offer some real defense for this one. My Deutsch isn't good enough to decipher the full meaning of the text in the book you reference, but in any case, this claim is seemingly contradicted by your other source. Kelly's Satan: A Biography on page 41 in the footnote about Watson, and on pages 19, 36, 44, 50-51. There's also this
One of the most salient figures to emerge from the Qumran scrolls is the archdemon Belial, leader of the forces of darkness.from
Dimant, Devorah. "Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema." The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture. Brill, 2011. 235-256.And this one
Tucker, Paavo. "Reconsidering Bελιάρ: 2 Corinthians 6: 15 in Its Anti-imperial Jewish Apocalyptic Context." Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 4.2 (2014): 169-185.which says
Belial, who epitomizes power hostile to God. I'm thinking Theobald may not be the best source. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
If I didn't comment on something, that means I thought it was good. :-) I'll be back tomorrow. With a little diligence we should be able to finish this in a week easy peasy.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
... Satan and his angels are clearly in the service of God, akin to Satan in the Book of Job. Satan and his lesser satans act as God's executioners:In the first place, this is uncited, and in the second place, it is decidedly confused. The only source I can find that in any way comes even a little bit close is [1] and Pagels explains it quite differently than you have here.
This is not The Satan with a definite article as you have it here. This is a satan meaning only an adversary. This applies to your discussion of When it is used without the definite article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser
and is part of the history of the development of the concept, but it isn't about intertestimental texts, it's about the early Hebrew. If you want to keep this, it should be moved up to Satan in the OT.
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I made a few small grammar corrections, otherwise this section is good.
I corrected some grammar and content on the problem of evil.
creatures first, then the
no comma Done
to this view, which was borrowed
no comma Done
and the existence of the material world is a result
remove "the existence of" Done
destruction and suffering, too.
no comma, no too Done
grasp and the
add a comma after grasp' Done
followed by those who adhere to his will.
is a sentence fragment, it needs fixing
his will
whose? God's or the devils? clarify Done
restored, after
no comma Done
{od}} VenusFeuerFalle I think we have resolved all issues so far and are both caught up to the same place now, (Augustine) so if you are interested in having me finish this, I will. I will tell you that in RL right now, I am under some stress. My mother is in the hospital and not doing well. I should be able to work on this once a day or so - it will provide a good distraction - but it is also possible I may miss a day or two. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I ended up rewording some of the theology myself, w/citation. Augustine can be difficult. I hope that's okay. If you don't like it, feel free to rephrase yourself. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This is good; I added a 'that' and a comma, that's all. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
at some point, freely chosen evil
add 'had' after the comma
I moved names in one sentence. This section is good.
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Done
No comments at all on this section except that it's very well done. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This section is also excellent. All I did was correct one typo. Well done. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, just two minor citation issues, the refs for Holden (176) and Campo (6) to not correspond to any items in the bibliography—I'm assuming the full citations are missing. Bravo on the article thus far! Best – Aza24 ( talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I made some very minor changes, and there is one citation issue here as well. I know that what you have written is correct, but it does need a citation anyway, especially since it is in wiki-voice. This section is also excellent. The changes I made were very minor, and since I know you are busy in real life, I didn't even think them worth mentioning and just did them. If that's not okay, again, there will be no problems if you go back and do something else. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I am finally home after over a month of clearing out my mother's house. It's been sad and exhausting and I am glad to be home and back at work on WP. It is late, so I will begin tomorrow. Thank you for being so understanding. Hopefully this will finish up quickly. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have gone through it all at least once, some of it twice, and will go through the rest a second time, but I am not finding much to trouble with. I have made a few minor changes to grammar, but otherwise, there is nothing much left. I'll take another day or two to finish up and will then give the okay. It is good, and I have enjoyed working with you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I am removing the unsourced statement in Devil in Christianity § Gospels that "The New Testament records several accounts of the devil working against God and his plan." No examples are provided, and instances are hard to find.
At Luke 13:16, in connection with his healing of a crippled woman, Jesus calls her "a daughter of Abraham whom Satan had bound eighteen long years." At 1 Thessalonians 2:18, Paul wrote "... we wanted to come to you ... but Satan hindered us." Are there enough other examples that we can say that there are "several" of them? I doubt it.
Luke 22:3 and John 13:2 say that Satan inspired Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus, but this is not a case of Satan acting "against God and his plan" as it facilitated Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection which were very much in accordance with God's plan.
The Bible quotes above are from the World English Bible, which is in the public domain,
Peter Brown ( talk) 17:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Please change the nomination template to GA! Right now you are the only one who can. Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by VenusFeuerFalle ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC).
Right, I should correct this. A link is much better. Sorry for the delay, I haven't seen any notification of a reply to the nomination and just checked it today.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 22:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth I have reverted your revert of the images added by RileyXeon because the reasoning used for those reverts is incorrect. These images are indeed specifically designated as images of Satan. [2] is an article on the painting "Fallen Angel" describing it as a picture of Satan, while this one [3] explains the Doré is one of 50 such illustrations he did of Satan falling. While it might be good to distribute them more in the article, there is no reason to claim they have no place in it. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Some user(s) recently added repeatedly the Gospel of Bartholomew. Unfortunately, it was added under the "intertestamental"-header. As a New Testament apocrypha, it is not part of the formation stage. Next, it adds nothing to the article, since it is not important for the formation of the Christian devil. If it is, it must be shown and confirm to WP:GA (especially 3.b. stating: " it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"), since this is a GA article. It can't accept unnecesarily trivia. (see also: WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:1S) VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
References
I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to go back on the “thank” I received for providing this with a citation initially. What is in dispute is its time period, not the content. Twillisjr ( talk) 18:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
apocryph doesn't equal intertestamentalwhich is correct. Here is you putting it back again, with no explanation, no response, and no edit summary - again. [10] In the next edit, it is reverted, again, and your participation on the Talk page to discuss this is requested.
Would this article also meet the FA ( WP:FA?) criteria? If not, waht should be done to improve it further? VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)