I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diversity in early Christian theology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
... is trinitarism, just one branch in this diversity. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diversity in early Christian theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
According to Bart Ehrman himself, scholars have shred to pieces every argument made by Bauer in support of his thesis, nevertheless, Bauer's thesis still stands and it is broadly accepted at mainstream universities. Same applies to the apocalyptic Jesus from Albert Schweitzer's study. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
claim to the apostolic tradition of the 1st centuryis rhetoric and propaganda rather than real history. It seems that the paupers who were chosen by Jesus to represent him (i.e. the Petrine Christianity) were defeated by the apostle Paul. So almost all we know about Jesus was censored by the Pauline Christianity, and represent Pauline views rather than the views of Jesus and his chosen apostles. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Mosesheron: As for the comparison with Jesus, we are actually treating both in the same way, by giving the academic view rather than faith. Christians believe Jesus founded Christianity; we don't say that because many scholars argue that Jesus never saw himself as God or intended to break away from Judaism. Scholarship holds that a claim can be made that it was Paul who founded Christianity after Jesus's death. There is no such scholarly debate over Muhammad; no scholar AFAIK argues that Islam what founded after Muhammad's death by someone else. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
His pushback against Petrine primacy could readily perpetuate a feud for decades between these early streams of Christian community.
@
Potatín5: Ask anyone who has recently studied
Biblical studies at any mainstream university, and they will tell you that the notion that 1st century Christians believed in the Nicene Holy Trinity is
pseudohistory. It is very easy to attack it as Ehrman's view
until it suddenly dawns upon you that it is the view of every university from the Ivy League and the view of every US state university. It is the consensus view of Bible professors from the mainstream academia, including Christian professors (Protestants, Catholics, and so on).
Drawing the necessary conclusion: you're WP:SOAPBOXING for WP:FRINGE views. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
According to Badcock virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent [1] This also applies to Irenaeus and Tertullian and to Origen. [2] [3] The doctrine was also taught by Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian. [4] [5] [6] Also being found in the Ascension of Isaiah. [7] However Subordinationism wasn't taught by every single one of the early theologians, no indications of subordination of the Son to the Father exist in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch or in the early Odes of Solomon. [8] [9] [10]
References
The phrase “ The sect's ecstasy, speaking in tongues, and other details are similar to those found in modern Pentecostalism.” has no citation and seems to be opinion. 173.17.232.242 ( talk) 22:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diversity in early Christian theology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
... is trinitarism, just one branch in this diversity. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diversity in early Christian theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
According to Bart Ehrman himself, scholars have shred to pieces every argument made by Bauer in support of his thesis, nevertheless, Bauer's thesis still stands and it is broadly accepted at mainstream universities. Same applies to the apocalyptic Jesus from Albert Schweitzer's study. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
claim to the apostolic tradition of the 1st centuryis rhetoric and propaganda rather than real history. It seems that the paupers who were chosen by Jesus to represent him (i.e. the Petrine Christianity) were defeated by the apostle Paul. So almost all we know about Jesus was censored by the Pauline Christianity, and represent Pauline views rather than the views of Jesus and his chosen apostles. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Mosesheron: As for the comparison with Jesus, we are actually treating both in the same way, by giving the academic view rather than faith. Christians believe Jesus founded Christianity; we don't say that because many scholars argue that Jesus never saw himself as God or intended to break away from Judaism. Scholarship holds that a claim can be made that it was Paul who founded Christianity after Jesus's death. There is no such scholarly debate over Muhammad; no scholar AFAIK argues that Islam what founded after Muhammad's death by someone else. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
His pushback against Petrine primacy could readily perpetuate a feud for decades between these early streams of Christian community.
@
Potatín5: Ask anyone who has recently studied
Biblical studies at any mainstream university, and they will tell you that the notion that 1st century Christians believed in the Nicene Holy Trinity is
pseudohistory. It is very easy to attack it as Ehrman's view
until it suddenly dawns upon you that it is the view of every university from the Ivy League and the view of every US state university. It is the consensus view of Bible professors from the mainstream academia, including Christian professors (Protestants, Catholics, and so on).
Drawing the necessary conclusion: you're WP:SOAPBOXING for WP:FRINGE views. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
According to Badcock virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent [1] This also applies to Irenaeus and Tertullian and to Origen. [2] [3] The doctrine was also taught by Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian. [4] [5] [6] Also being found in the Ascension of Isaiah. [7] However Subordinationism wasn't taught by every single one of the early theologians, no indications of subordination of the Son to the Father exist in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch or in the early Odes of Solomon. [8] [9] [10]
References
The phrase “ The sect's ecstasy, speaking in tongues, and other details are similar to those found in modern Pentecostalism.” has no citation and seems to be opinion. 173.17.232.242 ( talk) 22:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)