Ah yes, the one thing that I could use help on is the question of sourcing in this dispute. Str doesn't seem to want to source stuff that is "common sense" because the article is a review (high-level) article, and the other person (KV) is providing sourced information. Also, I could use help pulling out all the pieces of the dispute and defining parameters within which we can get a solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The first dispute and a key dispute is what was the Catholic Church prior to the 4th century
- So you say. But which denominations are you talking about at the time. I grant you that by the year 320 there were the Catholic Church, the Marcionite church, the Novatian church, the Donatist church, the [[Meletius of Lycopolis|Melitian Church (the last three all regional versions of rigorist thinking flaring up after a persecution, so no actual theological dispute here). There were also Jewish-Christian sects, and various Gnostic sects. The former are already covered and both can hardly be described as different churches, as they were really divided among each other as well. All these groups however only split from the Catholic Church after the dispute had flared up. So, we don't have dispute between different churches but dispute within these churches which lead to the condemnation and break-away of those deemed heretical. All in all, your description is inaccurate. (STR)
STR here is utilizing a point of view which can only be considered religious and may even be so strong as to contradict Catholic history. At any point in history we look there are a cluster of movements which with a variety of philosophical positions. Some are so far away from the "catholic" position that we consider them to be different religions. Others are closely related and become "weird sects", finally others are clearly "close enough" and those become part of the "church". As time passes the doctrines narrow further and further and ideas that were inside become labeled as "outside" i.e. heretical.
For example the "gnostic sects" most evidence points to the fact that gnosticism developed independently of Christianity and the Christian Gnosticism of the 2nd and 3rd century were hybrids. For example the children of Koreth show evidence of Jewish doctrines that never made it over to Christianity something very unlikely to STR's version of history hold true.
I would argue here that SRT can't be sourced because every historical source indicates the opposite. There is absolutely no evidence for a series of breaks. All existent evidence points to consolidation being the primary driver. I'd ask for sources which defend this POV starting with the hard core gnostic sects and working inward. jbolden1517 Talk 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
KV's version of the article gives a great deal of importance to Nicea. Basically it has a bunch of small councils leading up to Nicea where something dramatic happens in terms of doctrinal shift and political power. Arianism is declared a heresy and then a bunch of other sects get persecuted. STR is arguing this was a gradual process and while Nicea is an important event it is not the key event in the way this paragraph reads.
Sources are divided here. By in large the best and most reputable sources agree with STR that Nicea is important not key.
I'd push for KV having to state precisely what he believes happened at Nicea that makes it the center of the article regarding heresy. jbolden1517 Talk 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with rewording it to make it seem important and not key, it is stressed in the book, but they don't say that it is specifically key, just really important. Either way, it deserves the article space. I pointed out recently that the actual article size without wiki formatting is 35 kb, leaving another 15 kb for other information. Str has denied this and claimed that it was 132, then retracted and went down to 52, which includes all wiki formatting, which isn't read by the reader. Stylistic concern only at this point, that's why you leave out wiki formatting which varies from article to article of the same size.
- KV 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
KV is throwing out a lot of sects
- Arianism -- 4th century
- Gnosticism -- -3 to 3rd century
- Simonianism -- If it existed at all 1st century dead by 2nd century
- Marcionism -- 2nd century
- Ebionitism -- Hard to know exactly. But potentially -2nd century to 11th century
- Montanism. -- 2nd century (and obscure)
STR is objecting to this. I'd agree as written its misleading. I had asked before what evidence of any persecution of the Siminians and the Ebionites exists.
- Those were already in, I merely editted the beginning of the article. I'm fine with some cleanup there if it's wrong, I didn't do research on that part.
- KV 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear cut issue.
- One, I conceded to using AD, and two, what is the clearcut answer?
- KV 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- No clearcut answer just not a complex issue. jbolden1517 Talk 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, the one thing that I could use help on is the question of sourcing in this dispute. Str doesn't seem to want to source stuff that is "common sense" because the article is a review (high-level) article, and the other person (KV) is providing sourced information. Also, I could use help pulling out all the pieces of the dispute and defining parameters within which we can get a solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The first dispute and a key dispute is what was the Catholic Church prior to the 4th century
- So you say. But which denominations are you talking about at the time. I grant you that by the year 320 there were the Catholic Church, the Marcionite church, the Novatian church, the Donatist church, the [[Meletius of Lycopolis|Melitian Church (the last three all regional versions of rigorist thinking flaring up after a persecution, so no actual theological dispute here). There were also Jewish-Christian sects, and various Gnostic sects. The former are already covered and both can hardly be described as different churches, as they were really divided among each other as well. All these groups however only split from the Catholic Church after the dispute had flared up. So, we don't have dispute between different churches but dispute within these churches which lead to the condemnation and break-away of those deemed heretical. All in all, your description is inaccurate. (STR)
STR here is utilizing a point of view which can only be considered religious and may even be so strong as to contradict Catholic history. At any point in history we look there are a cluster of movements which with a variety of philosophical positions. Some are so far away from the "catholic" position that we consider them to be different religions. Others are closely related and become "weird sects", finally others are clearly "close enough" and those become part of the "church". As time passes the doctrines narrow further and further and ideas that were inside become labeled as "outside" i.e. heretical.
For example the "gnostic sects" most evidence points to the fact that gnosticism developed independently of Christianity and the Christian Gnosticism of the 2nd and 3rd century were hybrids. For example the children of Koreth show evidence of Jewish doctrines that never made it over to Christianity something very unlikely to STR's version of history hold true.
I would argue here that SRT can't be sourced because every historical source indicates the opposite. There is absolutely no evidence for a series of breaks. All existent evidence points to consolidation being the primary driver. I'd ask for sources which defend this POV starting with the hard core gnostic sects and working inward. jbolden1517 Talk 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
KV's version of the article gives a great deal of importance to Nicea. Basically it has a bunch of small councils leading up to Nicea where something dramatic happens in terms of doctrinal shift and political power. Arianism is declared a heresy and then a bunch of other sects get persecuted. STR is arguing this was a gradual process and while Nicea is an important event it is not the key event in the way this paragraph reads.
Sources are divided here. By in large the best and most reputable sources agree with STR that Nicea is important not key.
I'd push for KV having to state precisely what he believes happened at Nicea that makes it the center of the article regarding heresy. jbolden1517 Talk 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with rewording it to make it seem important and not key, it is stressed in the book, but they don't say that it is specifically key, just really important. Either way, it deserves the article space. I pointed out recently that the actual article size without wiki formatting is 35 kb, leaving another 15 kb for other information. Str has denied this and claimed that it was 132, then retracted and went down to 52, which includes all wiki formatting, which isn't read by the reader. Stylistic concern only at this point, that's why you leave out wiki formatting which varies from article to article of the same size.
- KV 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
KV is throwing out a lot of sects
- Arianism -- 4th century
- Gnosticism -- -3 to 3rd century
- Simonianism -- If it existed at all 1st century dead by 2nd century
- Marcionism -- 2nd century
- Ebionitism -- Hard to know exactly. But potentially -2nd century to 11th century
- Montanism. -- 2nd century (and obscure)
STR is objecting to this. I'd agree as written its misleading. I had asked before what evidence of any persecution of the Siminians and the Ebionites exists.
- Those were already in, I merely editted the beginning of the article. I'm fine with some cleanup there if it's wrong, I didn't do research on that part.
- KV 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear cut issue.
- One, I conceded to using AD, and two, what is the clearcut answer?
- KV 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- No clearcut answer just not a complex issue. jbolden1517 Talk 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)