![]() | This page 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. |
Previous Discussion: Archive 1
Tabled from Talk:Jesus/Archive 36:
Oh, and when I updated the Christian Views subpages, I noticed that several of the recent archives overlapped (same content in more than one archive). Why? Arch O. La 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Modern Trinitarian Christianity, based on the
historicNicene Creed, affirms that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity; that Jesus was born of a virgin; and that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where He resides with God the Father until the Second Coming.Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism.A minority of Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy.Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16.Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16.
Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden's version below.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Most Christians also believe that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin (see John 3:16). Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy.
Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden/Archola's Compromise (Revision 2) below.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture (see nontrinitarianism). Most Christians also believe that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin (see John 3:16). Most Christians further believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy.
Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden/Archola's Compromise (Revision 2) below.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was [ born of a virgin,]-? crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, [and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation (see John 3:16).]-?
Disputed clauses in brackets. This includes virgin birth, salvation, and John 3:16. Tabled in favor of revision 3.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation (see John 3:16).
Tabled in favor of revision 4.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, [and that the most direct path to salvation is through Jesus [(see John 3:16)--?].]--?
Disputed clauses in brackets. This includes salvation and John 3:16. Tabled in favor of revision 2.
Any comments or concerns? Arch O. La 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
First and foremost we should summarize the beliefs of the majority of Christians, using concepts such as the Creed to reference those beliefs. Just outright saying "x Christianity believes y" does not relate to the reader that this belief is held by the majority of Christians, and seems too mechanical. Secondly, Arch's revision has extremely awkward structure. — Aiden 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to Aiden's version: 1) Placing John 3:16 within the Nicene formula is syntactically awkward and confusing, and for that matter narrows "Most Christians" to one particular interpretation of the relationship between the Creed and John 3:16. (I'm not sure if this interpretation still is "Most Christians" or just one particular branch of Protestantism). That's why I moved John 3:16 to the end of the paragraph. 2). See above why I mention both "Modern Trinitarian" and "nontrinitarian" (for one thing, there are historic non-Nicenean trinitarian formulas. I believe that Arianism is an example. ) Also, stylistically it's more balanced to have a split between Modern Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian than to have a split between the Nicene Creed and Nontrinitarianism. 3) Nontrinitatrians by definition do not adhere to the Nicene Creed, which is one particular Trinitarian formula. So saying "Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism and may not recognize the Nicene Creed" is redundant. Arch O. La 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your update better. However, I still see three issues:
Good points. Please see proposed compromise. I've organized the sentence as per your recommendations but avoided the debate over how salvation is attained by simply stating acceptance of Jesus as Savior is neccessary to achieve it. — Aiden 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now let's see how it holds up. That is how the process should work! Good job. — Aiden 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please place any further comments, concerns or suggestions about paragraph 3 here. Arch O. La 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
So the issues are:
This proposal can be found here.
As I said above, I feel this version bypasses the need for debate on "other paths" to salvation. By simply stating that acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is a way to save one from the penalties of sin, we allow for the existence of "other paths" and we do not make it a requirement for salvation of this belief. We simply explain that it is the most commonly held belief concerning salvation. — Aiden 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But that's just my point. If we don't have any statistics on who believes in "other paths," why not simply avoid mentioning "other paths" as well as mentioning acceptance of Jesus as the only path. We could simply state that acceptance of Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin. This could mean to some that it is the only path, while to others it may be one path in a wide assortment of paths. — Aiden 01:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There's also the whole issue about the divine parthenogenesis...which might require deeper discussion later in the article. Also, CTSWyneken and I have talked and we're a little uncomfortable with the "accept Jesus" phrase. To a Lutheran, faith and salvation are acts of divine will; we only "accept" afterwards. "Accept Jesus" places too much emphasis on human will. Arch O. La Talk TCF 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus was the one who proclaimed those views on how to be saved in the first place, I think that's worth some mention in the intro, considering the importance of what He was saying. And I see no reason to believe that most Christians do not think that belief in Jesus saves one from sin. Homestarmy 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Aiden and Archola have presented an alternate sentence, which to me should work just fine if "acceptance" is changed to "belief in", because that would make it far more accurate and way less open-ended (I.E. what does it mean to "Accept" in this case), and after that, well, it looks fairly good to me. Homestarmy 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Which was the main message of Jesus?
But "Jesus provides salvation" is ambiguous at best. Does that mean everyone is provided with salvation, whether they accept Jesus as Lord or not? Does it mean salvation is provided in return for faith or for works? Sure salvation may be provided, but is it attainable? Simply stating that acceptance of "Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin" accommodates both the works view and faith alone view. Those who believe that faith and works are necessary would definitely agree that salvation would not be possible without acceptance of Jesus. That said, most Christians--I would assume--consider grace a gift, not something earned. I think we are being too farfetched and politically correct in attempting to whitewash something as fundamental in Christianity as belief in Jesus as Lord and Savoir. Passing it off as only "one of many paths" and not the path or in the least a necessity of a path seems to represent more accommodationist religions such as Baha’i.
So I think it comes down to two sticking points:
I personally think most Christians would agree with both variations. In my opinion, those who consider works or a righteous life as necessary to attain salvation would also likewise consider belief in Jesus necessary. Those who choose to believe in "other paths," some of which may not even involve Jesus--if even by definition Christian--would also agree that of those "many paths," belief in Jesus is certainly one of them.
So by rejecting both of these variations, we are indeed representing as the majority view the belief that: acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is not necessary to attain salvation--that there are many paths to salvation; and that belief is Jesus alone does not garantuee salvation. Thus we are in my mind minimalizing the belief in Jesus as only a minor part in one's acheiving salvation.
Forgive me but I do not think this represents the majority Christian view. — Aiden 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can speak with CTSWyneken about "acceptance of Jesus." I have. This touches on the Lutheran doctrine of single predestination; I'm sure Calvinists, with their stronger doctrine of predestination, would also disagree. Yes, "Jesus provides salvation" is ambigious, but this is, of course, the intro. We can discuss different doctrines of salvation in more detail in the article itself. Arch O. La Talk TCF 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) PS: See Types_of_religious_predestination#Examples_of_non-Calvinistic_predestination. To a Lutheran, God chooses whom to save. Acceptance comes after salvation, not before. That's my objection. Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
See my discussion with CTSWyneken. Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, heck, I'll just post it myself. We're uncomfortable with the assertion that salvation relies on acceptance. Rather, acceptance relies on salvation, and I don't think it's just Lutherans who say this! Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Archola's conversation with CTSWYneken
Copied from CTSWyneken's talk page:
Our discussion on paragraph 3 is stuck on a debate on John 3:16 (JimWae has raised objections). See Talk:Jesus#Comments_on_Aiden.2FArchola.2FJimWae_version Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. As I understand it, the Greek work parthenos could mean either "young woman" or "virgin," and the Hebrew word in the OT prophecy it fulfilled simply means "young woman" Jim--our Jim, Jim62sch--and I have discussed this. But, we're getting nowhere with the Gospel of John.
Isn't it ironic that we waited until Lent to discuss the Christian views paragraph? Arch O. La Talk TCF 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
... and there's endless discussion in scholarship about that. The big point missed in all this is that Jewish women of the first century were married at puberty. The only non-virgin young women were called something different -- wives, or women! But I'm not going there! Clean up last mess first, finish citation second, think about adminship third... -- CTSWyneken 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested "Christians believe that Jesus provides salvation." That's simple enough for the intro, and broad enough to cover everybody (I hope.) I also raised your point about "accept Jesus." Arch O. La Talk TCF 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That works, I think. I'll not get into the "where" int should go. Enough for now. -- CTSWyneken 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, that John 3:16 is very important to Christians is a reason for including it in an article on Christianity - not Jesus. I am not saying it cannot or should not be mentioned in this article, only that the reason you provide is not in and of itself sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
re: Alternative Salvation Sentences: 1). It is redundant to say both "Savior" and "salvation." Pick one or the other. Other than that, I like the sentences. 2) Doctrines of salvation rest on more verses than John 3:16. It's not that this verse isn't a majority belief; it's that it's incomplete to rely on only one verse. To put it another way, it's only a partial citation. Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The NIV says "whoever", along with the NASB, the KJV says "whosoever", how is that not the same as "those"? Besides, I just talked with a Catholic yesterday on this very subject, he had a rather colorful word against your opinion Jim, it certainly cannot be said that no Catholic believes acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation. Besides, i've reaserched plenty of apologetics sites since, you know, im a total fundamentalist, a couple had quite a few words to say against Catholoicism, while they generally go along the line of "The Church requires both faith and works" I haven't seen anything about the Church not requiring belief at all. A survey of the Church of England isn't exactly representative of all Christians or Catholics, and especially has nothing to do with whether faith in Jesus is required for salvation when your poll doesn't even have such a category. Homestarmy 14:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. It's Greek to me, so I'll let translators argue about what it means. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Are there many other proposed examples of Jesus speaking repeatedly of himself in the 3rd person? -- JimWae 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus often talks about the Son of God and the Son of Man in the third person. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that depends on if we look at only the 20-25% that can really be attributed to Jesus. The quote in John 3:16 is clearly Greek-influenced. Jim62sch 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Are we back to the Jesus Seminar? They aren't the majority of Christians, but are appropriate to the historicity debate. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Anywhere else he does so for a whole paragraph? -- JimWae 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Going back to the original discussion, I think the point is, Catholicism does not openly teach that trust in Christ is not necessary at all for salvation in all cases. If we start getting bogged down with Catholic beliefs and whatnot over who needs to believe when and why, at the end of the day, we're just going to get into yet another fight, and to tell you the truth, I don't relish the idea of it being over Catholicism, it can turn into a really ugly subject to start debating. Even if Catholicism might teach that it's not necessary in some instances, (Which considering the size of the church, there may be large sections which disagree with the Vatican for whatever reasons) it certainly does not try to say that John 3:16 is just pointless, both Catholicism and protestant denominations should agree on John 3:16 as being the truth as a clear majority, while Catholicism might dispute it is the only answer under certain circumstances, they are not part of some increadible majority that says it is not the only way. A majority is not necessarily an increadibly large one, but in this case, the majority of Christians seem to affirm to John 3:16, whether they may believe there are other answers or not. Homestarmy 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To quickly sum up Catholic doctrine:
Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
-- and it is not up to the editors of this article to do original research and decide what counts and does not count as baptism by implicit intent. Catholic teaching is that there need not be explicit "acceptance of Jesus" -- JimWae 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The RCs teach that unbaptized babies go to heaven - all of them -- JimWae 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the Limbo article, it appears that Limbo was not originally a metaphysical location. Rather, it was Roman Catholics being agnostic—they couldn't say whether unbaptized babies and those who died before Jesus' incarnation would go to Heaven or Hell, so they just left it up to God. Limbo was the borderline between Heaven and Hell, and only later came to be regarded as a separate place. As for Purgatory, that's usually presented as sort of a temporary Hell (Hell itself being eternal) to punish and/or purify minor sins. Kind of like Dilbert's Heck, ruled by Phil the Prince of Insuffienct Light, only meaner.
As for John 3:16, the reference was originally Aiden's idea, so I suggest we wait for him to respond further before discussing it further. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
For those of you who thought that my Greek was square earlier, here's a screenshot:
Arch O. La | TCF member 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, IF one takes (just) John 3:16 literally, faith is a sufficient condition - NOT a necessary condition -- JimWae 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
"All who believe in Jesus are saved" has no implications for the status of those who do not believe in Jesus. See Venn diagrams. John 3:16 is about the fate of those who believe and, taken literally, is about sufficient conditions - something about which Catholics and Protestants have had a clear and sharp disagreement since Protestantism began. As the sentence in the article stands, it is an utter misunderstanding of the scripture. Any statement about necessity would be original research on what is in fact the (bare) majority view. -- JimWae 05:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The sentence needs to be dropped from the intro - it cannot be supported at all. Part of it is logically flawed, the other part is statistically flawed - no decision on majority view is possible regarding necessity -- JimWae 05:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Are we discussing faith and reason again? Because I recently helped to talk KHM03 out of that debate... Arch O. La Talk TCF 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And here is where an excellent debate has the possiblity to start over how the "you must be born again" line relates to John 3:16 in terms of necessesary conditions, however, I don't see how such an argument is absolutly necessary, it could take awhile really. But the point is, we don't have statistics on the trinitarian part either, which im a bit surprised we haven't even gone over yet recently as far as I can tell, yet that's still there. Why must John 3:16 be deleted because we have differences in theological understanding of John 3:16 and what it means in the Bible and how we can best generalize all Christians, if we haven't deleted everything else in the article that isn't cited clearly? Homestarmy 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- redirects to Christian eschatology - which seems to be entirely about the "last things". I doubt Jesus has already fulfilled that. What's a better link? -- JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a much better link here. — Aiden 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Trinity article says the 3 persons have one will. How is it that one person could send another to do something if they all have the same will? Would it not be more consistent to say Jesus came to Earth of his own will? -- JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! Our still unchanged 3rd paragraph says: "Jesus was... sent to provide reconciliation with God" -- JimWae 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Me too - and I've got work again in the am. Until next time. Btw, the only iota of sense persona makes to me are the roles in a play - but I hear that's some kind of heresy - but it seems every explanation that even starts to make sense of it gets that label -- JimWae 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Um ... guys? This entire discussion relates to the Trinity as a doctrine, but only tangentally to Jesus as a person. Is there any particular reason we're arguing this here? Justin Eiler 15:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... Matthew 28:18-19
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 1 John 1:1&14
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9
One can show evidence for both sides but this isn't an article on the debate of the Trinity. Our only job is to simply report the majority and some minority views of Jesus. — Aiden 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Previous Discussion: Archive 1
Tabled from Talk:Jesus/Archive 36:
Oh, and when I updated the Christian Views subpages, I noticed that several of the recent archives overlapped (same content in more than one archive). Why? Arch O. La 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Modern Trinitarian Christianity, based on the
historicNicene Creed, affirms that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity; that Jesus was born of a virgin; and that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where He resides with God the Father until the Second Coming.Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism.A minority of Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy.Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16.Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16.
Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden's version below.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Most Christians also believe that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin (see John 3:16). Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy.
Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden/Archola's Compromise (Revision 2) below.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture (see nontrinitarianism). Most Christians also believe that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin (see John 3:16). Most Christians further believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy.
Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden/Archola's Compromise (Revision 2) below.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was [ born of a virgin,]-? crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, [and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation (see John 3:16).]-?
Disputed clauses in brackets. This includes virgin birth, salvation, and John 3:16. Tabled in favor of revision 3.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation (see John 3:16).
Tabled in favor of revision 4.
Most Christians are Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, [and that the most direct path to salvation is through Jesus [(see John 3:16)--?].]--?
Disputed clauses in brackets. This includes salvation and John 3:16. Tabled in favor of revision 2.
Any comments or concerns? Arch O. La 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
First and foremost we should summarize the beliefs of the majority of Christians, using concepts such as the Creed to reference those beliefs. Just outright saying "x Christianity believes y" does not relate to the reader that this belief is held by the majority of Christians, and seems too mechanical. Secondly, Arch's revision has extremely awkward structure. — Aiden 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to Aiden's version: 1) Placing John 3:16 within the Nicene formula is syntactically awkward and confusing, and for that matter narrows "Most Christians" to one particular interpretation of the relationship between the Creed and John 3:16. (I'm not sure if this interpretation still is "Most Christians" or just one particular branch of Protestantism). That's why I moved John 3:16 to the end of the paragraph. 2). See above why I mention both "Modern Trinitarian" and "nontrinitarian" (for one thing, there are historic non-Nicenean trinitarian formulas. I believe that Arianism is an example. ) Also, stylistically it's more balanced to have a split between Modern Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian than to have a split between the Nicene Creed and Nontrinitarianism. 3) Nontrinitatrians by definition do not adhere to the Nicene Creed, which is one particular Trinitarian formula. So saying "Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism and may not recognize the Nicene Creed" is redundant. Arch O. La 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your update better. However, I still see three issues:
Good points. Please see proposed compromise. I've organized the sentence as per your recommendations but avoided the debate over how salvation is attained by simply stating acceptance of Jesus as Savior is neccessary to achieve it. — Aiden 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now let's see how it holds up. That is how the process should work! Good job. — Aiden 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please place any further comments, concerns or suggestions about paragraph 3 here. Arch O. La 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
So the issues are:
This proposal can be found here.
As I said above, I feel this version bypasses the need for debate on "other paths" to salvation. By simply stating that acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is a way to save one from the penalties of sin, we allow for the existence of "other paths" and we do not make it a requirement for salvation of this belief. We simply explain that it is the most commonly held belief concerning salvation. — Aiden 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But that's just my point. If we don't have any statistics on who believes in "other paths," why not simply avoid mentioning "other paths" as well as mentioning acceptance of Jesus as the only path. We could simply state that acceptance of Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin. This could mean to some that it is the only path, while to others it may be one path in a wide assortment of paths. — Aiden 01:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There's also the whole issue about the divine parthenogenesis...which might require deeper discussion later in the article. Also, CTSWyneken and I have talked and we're a little uncomfortable with the "accept Jesus" phrase. To a Lutheran, faith and salvation are acts of divine will; we only "accept" afterwards. "Accept Jesus" places too much emphasis on human will. Arch O. La Talk TCF 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus was the one who proclaimed those views on how to be saved in the first place, I think that's worth some mention in the intro, considering the importance of what He was saying. And I see no reason to believe that most Christians do not think that belief in Jesus saves one from sin. Homestarmy 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Aiden and Archola have presented an alternate sentence, which to me should work just fine if "acceptance" is changed to "belief in", because that would make it far more accurate and way less open-ended (I.E. what does it mean to "Accept" in this case), and after that, well, it looks fairly good to me. Homestarmy 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Which was the main message of Jesus?
But "Jesus provides salvation" is ambiguous at best. Does that mean everyone is provided with salvation, whether they accept Jesus as Lord or not? Does it mean salvation is provided in return for faith or for works? Sure salvation may be provided, but is it attainable? Simply stating that acceptance of "Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin" accommodates both the works view and faith alone view. Those who believe that faith and works are necessary would definitely agree that salvation would not be possible without acceptance of Jesus. That said, most Christians--I would assume--consider grace a gift, not something earned. I think we are being too farfetched and politically correct in attempting to whitewash something as fundamental in Christianity as belief in Jesus as Lord and Savoir. Passing it off as only "one of many paths" and not the path or in the least a necessity of a path seems to represent more accommodationist religions such as Baha’i.
So I think it comes down to two sticking points:
I personally think most Christians would agree with both variations. In my opinion, those who consider works or a righteous life as necessary to attain salvation would also likewise consider belief in Jesus necessary. Those who choose to believe in "other paths," some of which may not even involve Jesus--if even by definition Christian--would also agree that of those "many paths," belief in Jesus is certainly one of them.
So by rejecting both of these variations, we are indeed representing as the majority view the belief that: acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is not necessary to attain salvation--that there are many paths to salvation; and that belief is Jesus alone does not garantuee salvation. Thus we are in my mind minimalizing the belief in Jesus as only a minor part in one's acheiving salvation.
Forgive me but I do not think this represents the majority Christian view. — Aiden 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can speak with CTSWyneken about "acceptance of Jesus." I have. This touches on the Lutheran doctrine of single predestination; I'm sure Calvinists, with their stronger doctrine of predestination, would also disagree. Yes, "Jesus provides salvation" is ambigious, but this is, of course, the intro. We can discuss different doctrines of salvation in more detail in the article itself. Arch O. La Talk TCF 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) PS: See Types_of_religious_predestination#Examples_of_non-Calvinistic_predestination. To a Lutheran, God chooses whom to save. Acceptance comes after salvation, not before. That's my objection. Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
See my discussion with CTSWyneken. Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, heck, I'll just post it myself. We're uncomfortable with the assertion that salvation relies on acceptance. Rather, acceptance relies on salvation, and I don't think it's just Lutherans who say this! Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Archola's conversation with CTSWYneken
Copied from CTSWyneken's talk page:
Our discussion on paragraph 3 is stuck on a debate on John 3:16 (JimWae has raised objections). See Talk:Jesus#Comments_on_Aiden.2FArchola.2FJimWae_version Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. As I understand it, the Greek work parthenos could mean either "young woman" or "virgin," and the Hebrew word in the OT prophecy it fulfilled simply means "young woman" Jim--our Jim, Jim62sch--and I have discussed this. But, we're getting nowhere with the Gospel of John.
Isn't it ironic that we waited until Lent to discuss the Christian views paragraph? Arch O. La Talk TCF 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
... and there's endless discussion in scholarship about that. The big point missed in all this is that Jewish women of the first century were married at puberty. The only non-virgin young women were called something different -- wives, or women! But I'm not going there! Clean up last mess first, finish citation second, think about adminship third... -- CTSWyneken 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested "Christians believe that Jesus provides salvation." That's simple enough for the intro, and broad enough to cover everybody (I hope.) I also raised your point about "accept Jesus." Arch O. La Talk TCF 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That works, I think. I'll not get into the "where" int should go. Enough for now. -- CTSWyneken 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, that John 3:16 is very important to Christians is a reason for including it in an article on Christianity - not Jesus. I am not saying it cannot or should not be mentioned in this article, only that the reason you provide is not in and of itself sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
re: Alternative Salvation Sentences: 1). It is redundant to say both "Savior" and "salvation." Pick one or the other. Other than that, I like the sentences. 2) Doctrines of salvation rest on more verses than John 3:16. It's not that this verse isn't a majority belief; it's that it's incomplete to rely on only one verse. To put it another way, it's only a partial citation. Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The NIV says "whoever", along with the NASB, the KJV says "whosoever", how is that not the same as "those"? Besides, I just talked with a Catholic yesterday on this very subject, he had a rather colorful word against your opinion Jim, it certainly cannot be said that no Catholic believes acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation. Besides, i've reaserched plenty of apologetics sites since, you know, im a total fundamentalist, a couple had quite a few words to say against Catholoicism, while they generally go along the line of "The Church requires both faith and works" I haven't seen anything about the Church not requiring belief at all. A survey of the Church of England isn't exactly representative of all Christians or Catholics, and especially has nothing to do with whether faith in Jesus is required for salvation when your poll doesn't even have such a category. Homestarmy 14:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. It's Greek to me, so I'll let translators argue about what it means. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Are there many other proposed examples of Jesus speaking repeatedly of himself in the 3rd person? -- JimWae 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus often talks about the Son of God and the Son of Man in the third person. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that depends on if we look at only the 20-25% that can really be attributed to Jesus. The quote in John 3:16 is clearly Greek-influenced. Jim62sch 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Are we back to the Jesus Seminar? They aren't the majority of Christians, but are appropriate to the historicity debate. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Anywhere else he does so for a whole paragraph? -- JimWae 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Going back to the original discussion, I think the point is, Catholicism does not openly teach that trust in Christ is not necessary at all for salvation in all cases. If we start getting bogged down with Catholic beliefs and whatnot over who needs to believe when and why, at the end of the day, we're just going to get into yet another fight, and to tell you the truth, I don't relish the idea of it being over Catholicism, it can turn into a really ugly subject to start debating. Even if Catholicism might teach that it's not necessary in some instances, (Which considering the size of the church, there may be large sections which disagree with the Vatican for whatever reasons) it certainly does not try to say that John 3:16 is just pointless, both Catholicism and protestant denominations should agree on John 3:16 as being the truth as a clear majority, while Catholicism might dispute it is the only answer under certain circumstances, they are not part of some increadible majority that says it is not the only way. A majority is not necessarily an increadibly large one, but in this case, the majority of Christians seem to affirm to John 3:16, whether they may believe there are other answers or not. Homestarmy 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To quickly sum up Catholic doctrine:
Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
-- and it is not up to the editors of this article to do original research and decide what counts and does not count as baptism by implicit intent. Catholic teaching is that there need not be explicit "acceptance of Jesus" -- JimWae 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The RCs teach that unbaptized babies go to heaven - all of them -- JimWae 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the Limbo article, it appears that Limbo was not originally a metaphysical location. Rather, it was Roman Catholics being agnostic—they couldn't say whether unbaptized babies and those who died before Jesus' incarnation would go to Heaven or Hell, so they just left it up to God. Limbo was the borderline between Heaven and Hell, and only later came to be regarded as a separate place. As for Purgatory, that's usually presented as sort of a temporary Hell (Hell itself being eternal) to punish and/or purify minor sins. Kind of like Dilbert's Heck, ruled by Phil the Prince of Insuffienct Light, only meaner.
As for John 3:16, the reference was originally Aiden's idea, so I suggest we wait for him to respond further before discussing it further. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
For those of you who thought that my Greek was square earlier, here's a screenshot:
Arch O. La | TCF member 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, IF one takes (just) John 3:16 literally, faith is a sufficient condition - NOT a necessary condition -- JimWae 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
"All who believe in Jesus are saved" has no implications for the status of those who do not believe in Jesus. See Venn diagrams. John 3:16 is about the fate of those who believe and, taken literally, is about sufficient conditions - something about which Catholics and Protestants have had a clear and sharp disagreement since Protestantism began. As the sentence in the article stands, it is an utter misunderstanding of the scripture. Any statement about necessity would be original research on what is in fact the (bare) majority view. -- JimWae 05:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The sentence needs to be dropped from the intro - it cannot be supported at all. Part of it is logically flawed, the other part is statistically flawed - no decision on majority view is possible regarding necessity -- JimWae 05:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Are we discussing faith and reason again? Because I recently helped to talk KHM03 out of that debate... Arch O. La Talk TCF 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And here is where an excellent debate has the possiblity to start over how the "you must be born again" line relates to John 3:16 in terms of necessesary conditions, however, I don't see how such an argument is absolutly necessary, it could take awhile really. But the point is, we don't have statistics on the trinitarian part either, which im a bit surprised we haven't even gone over yet recently as far as I can tell, yet that's still there. Why must John 3:16 be deleted because we have differences in theological understanding of John 3:16 and what it means in the Bible and how we can best generalize all Christians, if we haven't deleted everything else in the article that isn't cited clearly? Homestarmy 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- redirects to Christian eschatology - which seems to be entirely about the "last things". I doubt Jesus has already fulfilled that. What's a better link? -- JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a much better link here. — Aiden 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Trinity article says the 3 persons have one will. How is it that one person could send another to do something if they all have the same will? Would it not be more consistent to say Jesus came to Earth of his own will? -- JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! Our still unchanged 3rd paragraph says: "Jesus was... sent to provide reconciliation with God" -- JimWae 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Me too - and I've got work again in the am. Until next time. Btw, the only iota of sense persona makes to me are the roles in a play - but I hear that's some kind of heresy - but it seems every explanation that even starts to make sense of it gets that label -- JimWae 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Um ... guys? This entire discussion relates to the Trinity as a doctrine, but only tangentally to Jesus as a person. Is there any particular reason we're arguing this here? Justin Eiler 15:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... Matthew 28:18-19
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 1 John 1:1&14
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9
One can show evidence for both sides but this isn't an article on the debate of the Trinity. Our only job is to simply report the majority and some minority views of Jesus. — Aiden 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)