This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternal life (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 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from Eternal life (Christianity) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 October 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is confusing to me. It is exactly the opposite of what my parents (very devout Catholics) taught me. They said that we will all live for ever after we die, that no matter what we do, that's what will happen, we have no control over that. However, depending on our behaviour here "on Earth", we (as in our souls) will live ["forever"] either in Heaven or Hell. That is the choice we make by our actions in this life.
Is this no longer the current viewpoint? Have I misunderstood something? Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel totally under-qualified to edit this main page. I came looking for answers, ie, answers from others more qualified than I. But to get back to the topic, the two answers above have given me the info that I want. Thanx to everyone. Old_Wombat ( talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Collapse thread in line with
WP:TALKNO as it was started by user now indefblocked.
|
---|
Rudolph Bultmann interprets John 12:31 in this manner "the turn of the ages results now. No future in this world's history can bring anything new, and all apocalyptic pictures of the future are empty dreams". Now is the judgment of this world, now the prince of this world shall be thrown out and |I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself (John 12:31). Beasley Murray interprets John 2:36 in this manner "This phenomenon characterizes the time of the Church as an eschatological hour, wherein the realities of the end are perpetually present." " Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever disobeys the Son wilkl not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him". The already but not yet must be maintained in the article. In Christianity, Eternal life starts from now.
|
I recently attempted to move the page to Eternal life in Christianity based on this guideline from WP:TITLEFORMAT
Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: Even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transportation in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" – use Transportation in Azerbaijan.
(Bold in the original.)
Can anyone provide a reason this is incorrect? Editor2020 ( talk) 02:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
IP 69.91.87.215 is editing the lede with less than logical content and sources, e.g. attempts to define "general Christian belief" then adds a source from the Vatican website on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Someone should explain to this fellow that the Catholic Catechism is not recognized by Protestants, etc... And the IP has breached WP:LEDE by adding material not in the article body, and exceeded the 4 parag limit etc. I do not want to edit war him, although he is on the 3RR line and I am not, but these edits are unconstructive. Will leave a message again. History2007 ( talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you think citing the Catholic Church, an prominent Anglican Bishop and the early church's belief in what eternal life means represents original research? The opening sentence you had in the article in no way represents the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Historic Christian belief in any way whatsoever. THAT'S original research. The article is Eternal Life (Christianity) not Eternal Life (History2007's personal take). -69.91.87.215 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 ( talk) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm that other guy. Look, I find it very strange that someone would think this isn't standard Christian belief about eternal life. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're opposing here. Is it belief in the resurrection of the body as a general Christian belief? Do you really not believe that is a standard, basic historic Christian belief? The Catholic Church officially teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. I provided a source - their own catechism from the Vatican's own website. The debate is over and settled as far as Catholicism goes. Now onto to Protestantism. N.T. Wright isn't representing a particularly novel belief here in his belief in the resurrection of the body. If you want, I can add Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as a source - his book is, of course, highly influential in Evangelical circles. I can add Calvin's Institutes as a source. I can add sources from Arminians and Calvinists who both believe in the resurrection of the body. I can add sources from dispensationalists. I can add a million sources. The fact is, your original sentence had no sources at all. I provided sources and I can provide more if you want. The fact that this page wasn't in harmony with the rest of the pages on Christian eschatology should tell you something was wrong over here - i.e. original research which doesn't represent what the vast majority of Christians of every tradition believe. I even provided sources from the early church, in the form of the Apostle's Creed. Your opposition here is frankly just bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not enthused about fixing things up, but I'll try to help. "Spiritual kind of immortality" was probably not a good phrase to use. One of the problems we have here is the difference between official Christian theology and what most Christians believe - Wright has been reacting against the Christian hope expressed as "going to heaven when you die", and has been emphasizing the resurrection of the body. This has obviously been a core doctrine among all Christians everywhere, but perhaps Wright is correct in saying most Christians don't think very much about it. The lead is far too long, but it needs to have (a) something about the second coming and resurrection, (b) something about the intermediate state and going to heaven when you die (though not all Christians believe this), and (c) something about the "eternal life starts now" theme, found especially in John's gospel. Perhaps the Leith/Carson paragraph can be moved into "overview". St Anselm ( talk) 21:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the categorization goes as follows, from immediate category to great-grandparent: Afterlife in Christianity -> Christian eschatology -> Christian cosmology -> Christian theology.
This article has been classified both in Afterlife in Christianity and in Christian theology.
Let's please not have all articles that are in (great)(grand)child categories of Christian theology also classified in Christian theology directly, because if we would do that the amount of articles in Christian theology would run into the thousands and nobody would benefit from that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternal life (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 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from Eternal life (Christianity) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 October 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is confusing to me. It is exactly the opposite of what my parents (very devout Catholics) taught me. They said that we will all live for ever after we die, that no matter what we do, that's what will happen, we have no control over that. However, depending on our behaviour here "on Earth", we (as in our souls) will live ["forever"] either in Heaven or Hell. That is the choice we make by our actions in this life.
Is this no longer the current viewpoint? Have I misunderstood something? Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I feel totally under-qualified to edit this main page. I came looking for answers, ie, answers from others more qualified than I. But to get back to the topic, the two answers above have given me the info that I want. Thanx to everyone. Old_Wombat ( talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Collapse thread in line with
WP:TALKNO as it was started by user now indefblocked.
|
---|
Rudolph Bultmann interprets John 12:31 in this manner "the turn of the ages results now. No future in this world's history can bring anything new, and all apocalyptic pictures of the future are empty dreams". Now is the judgment of this world, now the prince of this world shall be thrown out and |I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself (John 12:31). Beasley Murray interprets John 2:36 in this manner "This phenomenon characterizes the time of the Church as an eschatological hour, wherein the realities of the end are perpetually present." " Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever disobeys the Son wilkl not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him". The already but not yet must be maintained in the article. In Christianity, Eternal life starts from now.
|
I recently attempted to move the page to Eternal life in Christianity based on this guideline from WP:TITLEFORMAT
Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: Even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transportation in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" – use Transportation in Azerbaijan.
(Bold in the original.)
Can anyone provide a reason this is incorrect? Editor2020 ( talk) 02:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
IP 69.91.87.215 is editing the lede with less than logical content and sources, e.g. attempts to define "general Christian belief" then adds a source from the Vatican website on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Someone should explain to this fellow that the Catholic Catechism is not recognized by Protestants, etc... And the IP has breached WP:LEDE by adding material not in the article body, and exceeded the 4 parag limit etc. I do not want to edit war him, although he is on the 3RR line and I am not, but these edits are unconstructive. Will leave a message again. History2007 ( talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you think citing the Catholic Church, an prominent Anglican Bishop and the early church's belief in what eternal life means represents original research? The opening sentence you had in the article in no way represents the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Historic Christian belief in any way whatsoever. THAT'S original research. The article is Eternal Life (Christianity) not Eternal Life (History2007's personal take). -69.91.87.215 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 ( talk) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm that other guy. Look, I find it very strange that someone would think this isn't standard Christian belief about eternal life. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're opposing here. Is it belief in the resurrection of the body as a general Christian belief? Do you really not believe that is a standard, basic historic Christian belief? The Catholic Church officially teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. I provided a source - their own catechism from the Vatican's own website. The debate is over and settled as far as Catholicism goes. Now onto to Protestantism. N.T. Wright isn't representing a particularly novel belief here in his belief in the resurrection of the body. If you want, I can add Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as a source - his book is, of course, highly influential in Evangelical circles. I can add Calvin's Institutes as a source. I can add sources from Arminians and Calvinists who both believe in the resurrection of the body. I can add sources from dispensationalists. I can add a million sources. The fact is, your original sentence had no sources at all. I provided sources and I can provide more if you want. The fact that this page wasn't in harmony with the rest of the pages on Christian eschatology should tell you something was wrong over here - i.e. original research which doesn't represent what the vast majority of Christians of every tradition believe. I even provided sources from the early church, in the form of the Apostle's Creed. Your opposition here is frankly just bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not enthused about fixing things up, but I'll try to help. "Spiritual kind of immortality" was probably not a good phrase to use. One of the problems we have here is the difference between official Christian theology and what most Christians believe - Wright has been reacting against the Christian hope expressed as "going to heaven when you die", and has been emphasizing the resurrection of the body. This has obviously been a core doctrine among all Christians everywhere, but perhaps Wright is correct in saying most Christians don't think very much about it. The lead is far too long, but it needs to have (a) something about the second coming and resurrection, (b) something about the intermediate state and going to heaven when you die (though not all Christians believe this), and (c) something about the "eternal life starts now" theme, found especially in John's gospel. Perhaps the Leith/Carson paragraph can be moved into "overview". St Anselm ( talk) 21:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the categorization goes as follows, from immediate category to great-grandparent: Afterlife in Christianity -> Christian eschatology -> Christian cosmology -> Christian theology.
This article has been classified both in Afterlife in Christianity and in Christian theology.
Let's please not have all articles that are in (great)(grand)child categories of Christian theology also classified in Christian theology directly, because if we would do that the amount of articles in Christian theology would run into the thousands and nobody would benefit from that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)