![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com > Subject: Request for permission To: "pieter du toit" <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com>
I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity" from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M.
Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.
David Pentrack
pieter du toit <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com> wrote:
David Pentrack,
I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.
Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.
I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity; . To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.
We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)
The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/
Thank you for your time.
Kindly,
P Du Toit
I guess you haven't read this then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 The reason there are so many extant endings is that the original did not have the resurrection account. Extreme bias can really blind people. The Bible manuscripts are notorious for being edited and expanded by early copyists. In fact, the gospel of Matthew reproduces Mark word for word in a huge percentage and even changes the stories to remove unsightly characteristics of Jesus' power (or lack thereof). The only independent gospel we have is Mark since the other 3 are merely literary copies except for the passion accounts which contradict each other and Mark is fictional based on Homer, the Old Testament, the messiah belief and a smidgeon of inaccurate history of 1st century Palestine.
Plus, this article relies on Acts which is known to contradict the letters of Paul. It was also written probably 60 to 100 years (depending on your view) after Paul's letters and contains fictional accounts of Paul (ch 20). A historical timeline should not rely on fictional accounts. Acts is not giving us history of the early church but a glimpse at what it looked like when Acts was written.
I love the "written in Rome?" for Mark. If you aren't sure, why include that? It's total speculation but after reading this article, I suppose that is par. My name is Tim Simmons and I have no idea what my user/pass is.
I noticed that no dates from the Eastern Orthodox history were present in the timeline, and added some landmark dates from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some obscure popes are mentioned, but Cadaver Synod and Francis Xavier are not.
This blank is all the more appaling, as there are such weird entries as:
What do Abu Bekr, English language, 18th-century earthquake in Lisbon, and Queen Victoria have to do with Christianity???? -- Ghirlandajo 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This time line is wrong and I suggest you do not take it seriously. There are missing years and Im sorry but exodus happened more around 2668 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.152.6 ( talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I listed the 16th -17th centuries as the Reformation era; an anonymous user changed to "modern era". It certainly isn't NPOV to say that the Reformation was the dominant event in Christianity for those centuries...just simple fact. KHM03 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
"Met" doesn't seem quite adequate to me...but I will defer. KHM03 14:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Both are featured at later, more appropriate places. People's birtdates aren't necessary, I think, with the exception of 2 or 3 GIANTS in history (Jesus; Paul; Augustine & Luther stand out as pre-eminent, I think). KHM03 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Did I delete Ignatius and the Jesuits? That was an error on my part; I didn't mean to do that...they are certainly worthy of mention. Sorry. KHM03 21:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
What is it that you object to?
110? Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, martyred in Rome, advocated the bishop, rejected Sabbath, his letters were subjected to heavy Christian forgery esp. 4th cent. (Apostolic Fathers)
I would change this to:
68-107? Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, martyred in Rome, advocated the Bishop, rejected Sabbath, his letters were subjected to heavy Christian forgery especially 4th century (Apostolic Fathers)
The "Rock" is significant to Christianity, doesn't that make the Dome of the Rock significant?
Is there a policy for including fictional characters, such as John the Baptist and Jesus, in an purportedly historical timeline? If this timeline is not historical, should that not be mentioned somewhere?-- 82.92.181.129 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
We need some sources here, methinks, because the only factually verifiable evidence we have (i.e., the existence of early manuscripts) starts around 120-150 (for both canonical and noncanonical works), and the prior dating is speculative; moreover, the various speculative datings are not uncontroversial. So we need to attribute rather than assert. » MonkeeSage « 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what I added to the article:
70(+/-10)? Gospel of Mark
80(+/-20)? Gospel of Matthew
80(+/-20)? Gospel of Luke
95(+/-30)? Gospel of John
It's just a first guess, so feel free to modify if you think these dates don't accurately represent the reasonable terminals. 209.78.18.31 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Galatians is listed under: 45-49? Paul's 1st mission
1 Thess is listed under: 50-53? Paul's 2nd mission
Romans, 1-2Cor, Phil are listed under: 53-57? Paul's 3rd mission
I like the idea of listing the letters under Paul's missions. I think this is fairly standard, that these letters were written during these missions and the missions are dated correctly, but let us know if you disagree.
81-96? Revelation
I'll add: 70-100?: additional Pauline Epistles 80-95?: 1 Peter 75-125?: Epistle of James 95-130?: Epistles of John 90-115?: Epistle to the Hebrews 90-110?: Jude 120-130?: 2 Peter 120-130?: Pastoral Epistles
I moved Galatians to Paul's second mission, seems more likely it belongs there.
While I haven't examined each of the dates listed, several of the dates for the canonical books stood out right away as being from a liberal scholarship viewpoint. From most of my studies, conservative scholarship places all of the New Testament books as being written between 45 AD to 95 AD. For instance, conservative scholarship dates the writing of Jude to be 67-80 AD while liberal scholarship dates the writing in the 2nd century. James is listed as 100(+/-25)?, but every conservative source I've ever encountered considers it to be one of the very first New Testament canonical books written, dating it as early as 45 AD. Of course, it might be a little awkward to have such entries as "85(+/-40) James" within a time line. I am a firm believer in being fair and balanced, so I think both the correct consecrative scholarship ;) and the incorrect liberal scholarship views should be represented side by side, but a time line isn't probably the best format for this. It's kinda like having two witnesses describing a robber in radically different ways (tall/short, skinny/fat, black/white, male/female) and having the sketch artist combine the two into an image of someone with a good tan, medium build and height, and of ambiguous sexual facial features. The resulting image will be objected to by both witnesses and you probably will never catch the person based on the artist's sketch. As such, I recommend that this site be broken up into two sections representing a conservative time line and one representing a liberal time line. If one time line is insisted upon, it should factor in conservative dates as well (i.e. "85(+/-40) James" and "89(+/-22) Jude" for example). -- derekgreer Thu Oct 26 20:55:21 CDT 2006
An anonymous editor keeps removing the point about the founding of the LDS church (possibly because they are LDS and want to push the POV that Mormonism was the original form of Christianity and Joseph Smith Jr. just "recovered" it, rather than founded it). I don't want to break WP:3RR, but I think this is blatent vandalism so it wouldn't count — can I get some input about this matter? Should we qualify the point and say, e.g., "modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. . .", or leave it as it is and restore it after it is vandalized, or what? » MonkeeSage « 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting in highly POV anti-mormon comments in the article, and changes every fix that is made to the mormon entry. User:214.3.11.2 <--- can we block this IP for vandalism?
This is a very controversial subject and will likely run and run with this. Truth is "most" christian denominations do not consider LDS Christian. Certainly vast majority of protestant take this view. We need to carefully word this statement to be a NPOV as possible, whilst being as accurate as possible. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Repeated entries from IP 69.221.217.65 also committing vandalism, suggest it be blocked to avoid the continual need to revert.
Same with 65.81.154.37 also a vandal
Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the cross black in all the Christian articles? Dot Bitch
Call me crazy but isn't Christianity an Extension of Judaism and shouldn't some mentions of important moments of Judaism go into this as well?
was reverted with the comment: "The murder of 2 relatively insignificant figures is not notable on this list" I disagree, however, that this is an insignificant event. In essence this is like saying the Pope has been assassinated. Certainly it is more notable than other things on this list such as:
Or
To name a few. Just my 2 cents
Seems to me "historically significant" is a good enough reason. Would you exclude the death of Jesus? James? Peter? Paul? Ignatius? ... The dealings of Pope Vigilius are certainly significant, along with his involvement in the death of Pope Silverius. Mother Teresa is significant, seems like she should be there somewhere, not necessarily her death. Likewise for Raymond Brown. 64.169.3.135 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be some distinction when years are given as to whether 46-49 means that the event happened sometime between 46 and 49 AD, or whether the event happened from 46 to 49. For example,
48-100 Herod Agrippa II appointed King of the Jews by Claudius, seventh and last of the Herodians
Does this mean he was appointed King sometime between 48 and 100, or he was appointed in 48, and remained king until 100? (The later is probably unreasonable, but it is still not clear which is what was intended) Rob 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but over on the side of the page, there is a list of related links. One of them is called "Christian Church" and goes to a link on the Catholic Church. Either the link name needs to be changed or the destination of the link does. I find it offensive to claim that the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. I'm not saying Catholics dont claim to be christians, but I am a protestant but I am not catholic. For those who don't understand Christianity, the link to Catholicism as the Christian Church will confuse them, and it could offend Eastern Orthodox churches aswell seeing as they are not being counted under the "Christian Church". Hodijah 15:02, 4 October 2006
OK, I agree with you to a certain degree. However, given that most of the Christians worldwide are Catholic (not to mention that it is the single largest religion on earth); it would seem fitting that Christianity would be defined by the faith followed by the majority of Christians - which happens to be Catholicism.
75.59.252.18 20:50, 18 October 2007
While there are definite indications that some sort of changes are in process in the Anglican Communion and eventually the Jerusalem Declaration may be seen as the defining moment, I think we are too close to the events to declare definitively what will happen. Dabbler ( talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Incense starts in 5th century? That may be when there is first written record of it, but that doesn't mean that's when it's introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.179.164 ( talk) 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This timeline virtually excludes most events of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I recommend major improvemements and additions-- Thomaq ( talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the reference to Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code as not of great note in the general history of Christianity. If you can come up with reasons for it remaining I would like to hear them. -- 81.101.46.102 ( talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I (not rossnixon) would suggest removing the Passion of the Christ as being important. It's about as important as JC Superstar, so why isn't that on there? I would like to hear defense of this, too.
May be helpful, and would clear up some clutter, if a separate "Timeline of Christian Documents" was created. Much of the early Timeline of Christianity (Apostolic Age, Ante-Nicene Period) references the formation and creation of the Bibilical Canon and other documents. The Timeline of Christianity should record major shifts, changes, and developments in Christian thought and practice, and documents, while relevant, do not necessarily reflect these changes without further clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChancellorBen ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not fact, not proved, just is a legend. As well Linus in Rome as 2nd pope. We don't know anything sure about Thomas and Linus's life because there are no authentic documents left. -- Milei.vencel ( talk) 06:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com > Subject: Request for permission To: "pieter du toit" <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com>
I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity" from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M.
Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.
David Pentrack
pieter du toit <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com> wrote:
David Pentrack,
I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.
Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.
I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity; . To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.
We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)
The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/
Thank you for your time.
Kindly,
P Du Toit
I guess you haven't read this then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 The reason there are so many extant endings is that the original did not have the resurrection account. Extreme bias can really blind people. The Bible manuscripts are notorious for being edited and expanded by early copyists. In fact, the gospel of Matthew reproduces Mark word for word in a huge percentage and even changes the stories to remove unsightly characteristics of Jesus' power (or lack thereof). The only independent gospel we have is Mark since the other 3 are merely literary copies except for the passion accounts which contradict each other and Mark is fictional based on Homer, the Old Testament, the messiah belief and a smidgeon of inaccurate history of 1st century Palestine.
Plus, this article relies on Acts which is known to contradict the letters of Paul. It was also written probably 60 to 100 years (depending on your view) after Paul's letters and contains fictional accounts of Paul (ch 20). A historical timeline should not rely on fictional accounts. Acts is not giving us history of the early church but a glimpse at what it looked like when Acts was written.
I love the "written in Rome?" for Mark. If you aren't sure, why include that? It's total speculation but after reading this article, I suppose that is par. My name is Tim Simmons and I have no idea what my user/pass is.
I noticed that no dates from the Eastern Orthodox history were present in the timeline, and added some landmark dates from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some obscure popes are mentioned, but Cadaver Synod and Francis Xavier are not.
This blank is all the more appaling, as there are such weird entries as:
What do Abu Bekr, English language, 18th-century earthquake in Lisbon, and Queen Victoria have to do with Christianity???? -- Ghirlandajo 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This time line is wrong and I suggest you do not take it seriously. There are missing years and Im sorry but exodus happened more around 2668 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.152.6 ( talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I listed the 16th -17th centuries as the Reformation era; an anonymous user changed to "modern era". It certainly isn't NPOV to say that the Reformation was the dominant event in Christianity for those centuries...just simple fact. KHM03 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
"Met" doesn't seem quite adequate to me...but I will defer. KHM03 14:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Both are featured at later, more appropriate places. People's birtdates aren't necessary, I think, with the exception of 2 or 3 GIANTS in history (Jesus; Paul; Augustine & Luther stand out as pre-eminent, I think). KHM03 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Did I delete Ignatius and the Jesuits? That was an error on my part; I didn't mean to do that...they are certainly worthy of mention. Sorry. KHM03 21:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
What is it that you object to?
110? Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, martyred in Rome, advocated the bishop, rejected Sabbath, his letters were subjected to heavy Christian forgery esp. 4th cent. (Apostolic Fathers)
I would change this to:
68-107? Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, martyred in Rome, advocated the Bishop, rejected Sabbath, his letters were subjected to heavy Christian forgery especially 4th century (Apostolic Fathers)
The "Rock" is significant to Christianity, doesn't that make the Dome of the Rock significant?
Is there a policy for including fictional characters, such as John the Baptist and Jesus, in an purportedly historical timeline? If this timeline is not historical, should that not be mentioned somewhere?-- 82.92.181.129 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
We need some sources here, methinks, because the only factually verifiable evidence we have (i.e., the existence of early manuscripts) starts around 120-150 (for both canonical and noncanonical works), and the prior dating is speculative; moreover, the various speculative datings are not uncontroversial. So we need to attribute rather than assert. » MonkeeSage « 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what I added to the article:
70(+/-10)? Gospel of Mark
80(+/-20)? Gospel of Matthew
80(+/-20)? Gospel of Luke
95(+/-30)? Gospel of John
It's just a first guess, so feel free to modify if you think these dates don't accurately represent the reasonable terminals. 209.78.18.31 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Galatians is listed under: 45-49? Paul's 1st mission
1 Thess is listed under: 50-53? Paul's 2nd mission
Romans, 1-2Cor, Phil are listed under: 53-57? Paul's 3rd mission
I like the idea of listing the letters under Paul's missions. I think this is fairly standard, that these letters were written during these missions and the missions are dated correctly, but let us know if you disagree.
81-96? Revelation
I'll add: 70-100?: additional Pauline Epistles 80-95?: 1 Peter 75-125?: Epistle of James 95-130?: Epistles of John 90-115?: Epistle to the Hebrews 90-110?: Jude 120-130?: 2 Peter 120-130?: Pastoral Epistles
I moved Galatians to Paul's second mission, seems more likely it belongs there.
While I haven't examined each of the dates listed, several of the dates for the canonical books stood out right away as being from a liberal scholarship viewpoint. From most of my studies, conservative scholarship places all of the New Testament books as being written between 45 AD to 95 AD. For instance, conservative scholarship dates the writing of Jude to be 67-80 AD while liberal scholarship dates the writing in the 2nd century. James is listed as 100(+/-25)?, but every conservative source I've ever encountered considers it to be one of the very first New Testament canonical books written, dating it as early as 45 AD. Of course, it might be a little awkward to have such entries as "85(+/-40) James" within a time line. I am a firm believer in being fair and balanced, so I think both the correct consecrative scholarship ;) and the incorrect liberal scholarship views should be represented side by side, but a time line isn't probably the best format for this. It's kinda like having two witnesses describing a robber in radically different ways (tall/short, skinny/fat, black/white, male/female) and having the sketch artist combine the two into an image of someone with a good tan, medium build and height, and of ambiguous sexual facial features. The resulting image will be objected to by both witnesses and you probably will never catch the person based on the artist's sketch. As such, I recommend that this site be broken up into two sections representing a conservative time line and one representing a liberal time line. If one time line is insisted upon, it should factor in conservative dates as well (i.e. "85(+/-40) James" and "89(+/-22) Jude" for example). -- derekgreer Thu Oct 26 20:55:21 CDT 2006
An anonymous editor keeps removing the point about the founding of the LDS church (possibly because they are LDS and want to push the POV that Mormonism was the original form of Christianity and Joseph Smith Jr. just "recovered" it, rather than founded it). I don't want to break WP:3RR, but I think this is blatent vandalism so it wouldn't count — can I get some input about this matter? Should we qualify the point and say, e.g., "modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. . .", or leave it as it is and restore it after it is vandalized, or what? » MonkeeSage « 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting in highly POV anti-mormon comments in the article, and changes every fix that is made to the mormon entry. User:214.3.11.2 <--- can we block this IP for vandalism?
This is a very controversial subject and will likely run and run with this. Truth is "most" christian denominations do not consider LDS Christian. Certainly vast majority of protestant take this view. We need to carefully word this statement to be a NPOV as possible, whilst being as accurate as possible. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 15:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Repeated entries from IP 69.221.217.65 also committing vandalism, suggest it be blocked to avoid the continual need to revert.
Same with 65.81.154.37 also a vandal
Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the cross black in all the Christian articles? Dot Bitch
Call me crazy but isn't Christianity an Extension of Judaism and shouldn't some mentions of important moments of Judaism go into this as well?
was reverted with the comment: "The murder of 2 relatively insignificant figures is not notable on this list" I disagree, however, that this is an insignificant event. In essence this is like saying the Pope has been assassinated. Certainly it is more notable than other things on this list such as:
Or
To name a few. Just my 2 cents
Seems to me "historically significant" is a good enough reason. Would you exclude the death of Jesus? James? Peter? Paul? Ignatius? ... The dealings of Pope Vigilius are certainly significant, along with his involvement in the death of Pope Silverius. Mother Teresa is significant, seems like she should be there somewhere, not necessarily her death. Likewise for Raymond Brown. 64.169.3.135 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be some distinction when years are given as to whether 46-49 means that the event happened sometime between 46 and 49 AD, or whether the event happened from 46 to 49. For example,
48-100 Herod Agrippa II appointed King of the Jews by Claudius, seventh and last of the Herodians
Does this mean he was appointed King sometime between 48 and 100, or he was appointed in 48, and remained king until 100? (The later is probably unreasonable, but it is still not clear which is what was intended) Rob 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but over on the side of the page, there is a list of related links. One of them is called "Christian Church" and goes to a link on the Catholic Church. Either the link name needs to be changed or the destination of the link does. I find it offensive to claim that the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. I'm not saying Catholics dont claim to be christians, but I am a protestant but I am not catholic. For those who don't understand Christianity, the link to Catholicism as the Christian Church will confuse them, and it could offend Eastern Orthodox churches aswell seeing as they are not being counted under the "Christian Church". Hodijah 15:02, 4 October 2006
OK, I agree with you to a certain degree. However, given that most of the Christians worldwide are Catholic (not to mention that it is the single largest religion on earth); it would seem fitting that Christianity would be defined by the faith followed by the majority of Christians - which happens to be Catholicism.
75.59.252.18 20:50, 18 October 2007
While there are definite indications that some sort of changes are in process in the Anglican Communion and eventually the Jerusalem Declaration may be seen as the defining moment, I think we are too close to the events to declare definitively what will happen. Dabbler ( talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Incense starts in 5th century? That may be when there is first written record of it, but that doesn't mean that's when it's introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.179.164 ( talk) 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This timeline virtually excludes most events of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I recommend major improvemements and additions-- Thomaq ( talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the reference to Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code as not of great note in the general history of Christianity. If you can come up with reasons for it remaining I would like to hear them. -- 81.101.46.102 ( talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I (not rossnixon) would suggest removing the Passion of the Christ as being important. It's about as important as JC Superstar, so why isn't that on there? I would like to hear defense of this, too.
May be helpful, and would clear up some clutter, if a separate "Timeline of Christian Documents" was created. Much of the early Timeline of Christianity (Apostolic Age, Ante-Nicene Period) references the formation and creation of the Bibilical Canon and other documents. The Timeline of Christianity should record major shifts, changes, and developments in Christian thought and practice, and documents, while relevant, do not necessarily reflect these changes without further clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChancellorBen ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not fact, not proved, just is a legend. As well Linus in Rome as 2nd pope. We don't know anything sure about Thomas and Linus's life because there are no authentic documents left. -- Milei.vencel ( talk) 06:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)