Talk:Christianity/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Western Culture?

Maybe I can be proved wrong on this one but I think it is unfair to say christianity is Western Culture as it is not true, as Arabs were the first christians and even ethiopians.

Secondly, Eastern Christianity was started in the first century and Roman Catholicism (the beginning of Western christianity) was founded as a religion in the fourth century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.140.99 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally, looking at your statement, I became a bit alarmed, as I would agree with you. However, the only thing said about Western culture is a category, that is, Christianity is part of the category on Western culture, which is true. But nowhere in the article does it claim that Christianity is a solely western phenomenon; in fact, the section History and origins makes quite clear that this is not the case.

Secondly, I think your facts are a little confused, as claiming that Catholicism started in the 4th century and Eastern Orthodoxy in the 1st century is not true. They both evolved into separate entities from the original church, slowly becoming more formal as the yeares progressed. Also, the area encompassed in the modern day by Arabs had the first believers, but Jews, the first believers did not offiliate themselves with Arabs; it would be more accurate to say Middle Easterns and Ethiopians were the first Christians. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is definitely not western culture, and should not be mentioned as a part of it [though I have no opinion at this time on the article itself], though it is a hugely popular religion in the west. Secularism seems western culture. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Messiah

Does Messiah mean prophet or a god (or form thereof)? It is not clear in the intorduction. Can a person be a Christian and not believe Jesus is a god or one of god's forms? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good questions! Messiah means "anointed one", a Jewish term that meant basically the one to be the savior of the people; originally, this meant the Jewish people, but Christians believe that any believer is the "true Jew." The term Messiah did not originally mean God.

As for the deity question, you've stumbled onto a real ugly one; I've debated for inclusion of this, and it is included in the article, but you'll have to hunt for it. Almost all Christians do believe in the trinity, and trinitarian Christians nearly always believe that non-trinian Christians are not real Christians. However, members of the two main non-trinitarian Christian groups, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, fiercely contest this categorization, so I guess it's left to you to decide. ;) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the literal translation is "dripped upon." MerricMaker 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I believe that I made a comment here yesterday, and it was mysteriously erased, and frankly I am disgusted. Now I will once again comment on this discussion. Hm Hm...Jehova's witnesses believe that Jesus was merely a good man. Here we need to ask ourselves "Was he a good man, or was he the Son of God?"User:youngscholar10:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus never identified a "test" or "measure" for being a Christian. The closest I know of is in Matthew[1]. On the other hand, we have examples of what it takes to be saved[2] among many others. Pat speaks true, as I Latter-day Saint I firmly reject all definitions of a Christian that would not have been recognized by Jesus or Peter in their day. When the topic is limited to the words of the Savior, Redeemer, and Messiah, these little distinctions become meaningless divisions that men create to feel good about themselves and the uniqueness of "their church". I would also propose it is not for you to decide; put that judgement in the hands of the King; as for you and me, let us follow the two great commandments and be at peace. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And why would we limit the discussion to the words of Jesus? I thought Mormons made the Canon larger, not smaller. A.J.A. 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar to Catholics, Mormons do indeed have a larger canon; significantly larger. Then again, Sola Scriptura is not a policy of either church. However, I am not sure the conversation of canon has much to do with defining a Christian. A.J.A., you are a committed Christian, do you think that Christ is an inadequate source for defining who his a disciple, follower, or as we say today, a Christian?

This topic of who is Christian has been on my mind lately...of course the numerous times this topic comes up on this article focuses one's mind. I would say that I have changed my mind and I do not possess as narrow a definition as I once did. My conclusion is that a Christian is one who professes to follow the teachings of Christ. I have become progressively more unwilling to draw the line based upon beliefs. I have this quote from a Protestant theologian on my page; it seems appropriate:

"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." - J. Kenneth Grider

I think Grider was a very wise man. 10:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Grider's statement does seem accurate, but in my experience, all discussions related to most of Christianity vs. smaller groups tend to surround the part where Grider says "if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death......" ultimatly. Homestarmy 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholics use the LXX canon, Protestants the Hebrew canon. In both cases, we simply retain a pre-existing canon and add the New Testament.

The canon is relevant because it answers the pseudo-piety of restricting the discussion to Jesus' words. God did not give us Scriptures that consist only of Gospels. He gave us the whole Bible. Did He make a mistake? A.J.A. 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-piety?!? methinks you seek to offend, but that would assume you are not operating in good-faith.

In the hopes of not feeding the possibly troll-like behavior, I'll bite; use the entire canon (though it is disputed which is the "real" canon). Your logic would seem to propose that using the canon of your choice (take your choice which one) you will come up with a definitive description of a Christain. Of course there should be no ability to interpret your chosen verses differently because it will be crystal clear to all who read them. A.J.A., sometimes I perceive your actions as being combatitive rather than constructive. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It still surprises me that Jesus would not have been more clear about something that seems so important. If defining being a Christian is so important, would not have Jesus sought to clarify? This get rather comical to me because you can not produce a definition of Christain using the Bible. To obtain the definition you seek you will have to go to post 4th century theologies. It is interesting in acknowledging who thinks this definition has real value and import. Self-profession is inadequate, but one must support a specfic set beliefs, not stated in the Bible, to be recognized a Christian. Not even the Son of God chose that path, what makes you greater than he to play judge? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm, you do realize, when people often say that so and so church isn't Christian, its not always because of lack of adherance to a mere "specific set of beliefs" formed after 400 AD, but often because of radically different beliefs concerning the nature of whom the characters in the Bible actually are. The Son of God chose a path in which He told the world whom He was specifically, so it stands to reason if somebody decides to believe in a "Jesus" whom the Bible doesn't actually talk about, then said person may as well not believe in anybody at all. The same sort of situation can be expanded to God, often resulting in more conflict between church's that leads to mainstream Christianity labelling certain groups as non-Christian. I do believe the person you quote above says "We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins", and you seemed to agree with him, so was he really a "wise man", or did he consider himself "greater than He to play judge"? Homestarmy 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A Christian is a (validly) baptized person; baptism comes in three forms: water, blood, and desire. Bad behavior makes someone a sinner, but still a Christian. Bad beliefs make someone a heretic, but still a Christian. Renouncing the faith makes someone an apostate, and that person is still baptized (and hence this is worse that merely being an infidel in the first place). Lostcaesar 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant more in terms of people who started with "Bad beliefs" rather than being saved beforehand :/. Homestarmy 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Homestar, let's stop the logical shenanigans and backflips. I do not play word games with a subject of this magnitude; it is serious to me. The issue you bring up is what the Bible says. I don't know of a church that claims to be Christian that does not base its beliefs upon the Bible. Mormons may have the Book of Mormon, but the only belief that comes immediately to mind not taught in the Bible is the lack of need for infant baptism due to the Atonement of Christ. All of LDS/Mormon doctrine on Jesus Christ and God the Father comes straight from the Bible. As always these conversations eventually turn to mush; this one is no different and we appear to have exhausted any real benefit to the intial editor that posed a question. I see no further need to contribute on this topic at this time. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing about the definition of "foo" is always a word game. In this case it's an indirect argument about who's really saved, which is why insisting Mormons are too Christian is a hobbyhorse of yours. You still think Wikipedia will somehow make Christians all say "peace, peace". A.J.A. 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Storm that if you really wish me to not use logic when talking about Christianity, then i'm afraid we have reached an impasse, I will certainly not forsake the use of my brain when talking about who is Christian and who is not. The subject is too important to me. If having logical analysis enter the debate turns it into "Mush", I sure hope we have much more mush in the future, I certainly wouldn't want to participate in a debate where no side is allowed to think lest they be accused of being an overactive gymnist. (What with excessive "backflipping" and whatnot). Words have meaning, and using their definitions is no game. If determining the definition of words in the Bible counts as a word game, your church along with all others are just as guilty of playing as everyone else, since we use a Bible which has been translated into another language by looking at the definitions of words. Homestarmy 15:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Too true. Heck, some of us don't even go in for the whole Messiah thing. Instead interpreting it as a byproduct of the Gospel writers' need to keep their movement from dying out by saying that Jesus was the Messiah. Such notions haven't gone away in the last 2,000 years, they ain't going away here. MerricMaker 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Merric, they did go away in the last 2,000 years. They just came back, recently, that's all. And one day they will go away again. Until then, said view gets a few pages on wikipedia =D / Lostcaesar 08:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Jesus wasn't a theologian and the Gospels are not theological treatises. For Jesus, God is as God does. That having been said "Before Abraham was, I AM", seems to put a pretty clear perspective on the matter.

Secondly, it's arguable whether the Christian conception of Messiah necessitates being God (I would say yes, since the death of Christ is necessary for human salvation). But the Jewish idea certainly doesn't. Slac speak up! 21:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

About the Messiah question: yes, Jesus was, and still is, the Messiah. The Bible refers to Him as the Messiah many times. But what bothers me is that the question of what a Christian really is has come up. The answer to that question is simple! The word Christian means "little Christ", just like Jesus tells us to do, to be like Him. We were created in His image, after all. However, we have sinned, whereas Christ did not. So we must ask Him for forgivness for those sins, and delete them, so to speak. It says in Romans 10 that if you confess with your mouth that you believe in Him as the one true God, your place in heaven is reserved. Being a Christian is plainly: believing in Christ and the sacrifice He made for us, and striving to be like Him. It's sin corrupting peoples' minds that has brought up all this confusion and whatnot that makes Christianity seem so complicated. I think that, sometimes, we try too hard to understand what God wants to see in us; but we need to remember: His ways are not our ways. --Christknight 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the question of who is a Christian is not what this section was about in the beginning. However, it is not that simple as you make it and Christian doesn't mean "little Christ". It means someone in some way connected to Christos - just like e.g. a Blairite is connected to Tony Blair. A Christian is a follower of Christ - the problem is that there is disagreement about what that means, as there is disagreement about what he said and did. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction about the meaning of the word Christian. But what Christ said and did is all in the Bible. --Christknight 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about John 21:25: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" Perhaps not "all", no?

Lostcaesar 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LC, for that point, which I think boils down to "Is the Bible all that Jesus taught and did?" On another level, what do these words spoken by Jesus and recorded in the Bible mean? How are they to be understood? (down sometimes to the actual meaning of a word.) Of course, we can brook and come to terms with some diversity but there is a point where essentials are violated. Of course, there is also disagreement about what these are and what not. In the end, it is not WP's job to define what is and is not Christian. It simply reports on others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but at what point do we say, "but that's too minor to consider" or "that's not Christian enough for our consideration"? Further, who makes that determination? MerricMaker 22:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true; who says? LC, about what Jesus did that the Bible doesn't mention: it doesn't mention them because we don't need to know them to get the point. I mean sure, the Bible doesn't tell us every last thing Jesus did, but it summarizes them. He lived on earth for thirty some years! Not even biographies on people tell every last little thing the person did in their life, only the things needed to get the point across. Str, when the Bible says something, it means what it says. It was writen by God, and I'm sure He wants us to understand, not misinterpret it. Like I said above, we let our sin get in the way of how God wants us to understand what the Bible is saying. --Christknight 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's a "real" Christian? Can an atheist join this dogpile? On second thought, courtesy suggests I withhold my personal opinion, but how's this for policy: Since Christians fight all the time about who's a "real" Christian, it's our policy to let folks self-identify as Christians and take them seriously. Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I find that most of the best theological discussions occur with atheists. If we (Christians, that is) recognize that "God" is a projection of our particular psychology, culture, and history, then wilfully set this aside, what remains? An atheist would say that this indicates an absence, the adventurous Christian would say that this is a perfect place from which to start. So don't worry, there are theistic people out there who are well-aware that "religion" is an advanced coping mechanism. The difference is that we still think there's something in that void, we're just comfortable with a certain degree self-delusion when it comes to our faith. MerricMaker 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to what you said there, Merric, and I don't want to start another dispute. It's perfectly okay for atheists to speak out; however, the part about "'religion' is an advanced coping mechanism", I'd say, is way off. --Christknight 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

non-Trinitarians

I'm trying to distinguish between two closely related concepts: the Trinity and "Jesus as God." Since the Trinity treats Jesus as God, the concept that Jesus is God is often regarded as identical to trinitarianism. But heresies such as modalism square with "Jesus is God" while not being Trinitarian. Jonathan Tweet 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Beside the redundancy I mentioned in my edit summary, your additions were not accurate. Tertullian articulated an explicitly Trinitarian theology before Nicea. A.J.A. 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Tertullian is the first to use the (Latin) word; the concept exists in earlier forms in Greek thinkers. Lostcaesar 21:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, you schooled me good on Nicea. I follow Luther's advice and "Edit boldly," and I trust I'll be forgiven when I make mistakes. LC, please favor me with a reference for the trinity earlier than Tertullian. Also, anyone know if it's the case that Tertullian's trinity left room for Arianism? Finally, you're probably going to object when I try to add something like "Secular scholars consider the trinity to be an invention of the early Christian church not present in Jesus' own teaching. By this account, all early followers of Jesus were nontrinitarians by default." So I'm just giving you a heads-up now out of courtesy. Jonathan Tweet 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This addition to the Nontrinitarian section got deleted pretty quick.

Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries[3]. By this account, the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity, at least not as it has come to be understood.

Comments?

It depends on what you'll accept as "the doctrine of the Trinity". I singled out Tertullian because he used (in fact, coined) exactly the same terminology used by all later Trinitarians who spoke any language influenced by Latin. But neither Tertullian nor the Nicene Fathers nor Athanasius nor the Capodocians called previous Christian theology error. Quite the contrary, they percieved themselves as defending the same body of doctrine against new challenges. And the church down through the ages (including those who don't formally accept the Creeds) has agreed with them. Now, if "secular" (secular how?) historians say otherwise, and the early Christians didn't adhere to the Trinity, we're left wondering what exactly they did adhere to. A proto-Trinitarian doctrine? I don't see that that's interestingly different from saying they were Trinitarians who hadn't needed to formulate a precise reply to Arianism yet. If not that, what? A.J.A. 06:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was deleted. It was obviously referenced and would seem to be a reference from a reputable web site. I suspect that someone is be overzealous. Whoever deleted should explain themselves. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote from your reference to support your statement was: "The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century." Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was the one who deleted it, but as per the citation, I think it could use to be reworded. I don't want to get into a 15 page discussion like before on other issues, but it should be carefully worded; it's the part of many Christians' faith (myself included) that the church fathers believed in a form of the trinity, even if they didn't use the word. I personally believe that biblical evidence backs me up, though I haven't the time to prove it. Yes, there were awful debates about its nature in the following centuries, but that by no means they didn't believe in it. Perhaps something like

Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries[4]. By this account, the earliest views of Jesus varied widely among groups, and were not as strongly expressed as they are today.

You'll have to pardon my poor use of English; that didn't sound right at all, but I was trying to get more of the POV influence across. I hope you get the point. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For me I prefer referencing to be more clear. If the site says: " The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century", then say "According to religionfacts.com, the doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop." To say "secular historians…" is a misrepresentation of the source (can the source speak for secular historians?). To say: "the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity" is again unsupported by the source (though the following clause did help). Ultimately, for me, it is an inappropriate handling of the sources. I don't like sweeping claims that divide and define scholarship based on faction either. I prefer to say X scholar argued Y in his work Z – and that's it. JT, there are many history books that discuss this matter, and you seem interested. I would suggest getting one, reading through it, and contributing useful information from it, properly attributed, to the site. To want the article to say that the Trinity was an invention (by all "secular" historians, because they are the only "real" scholars since faith constitutes "bias", which is what I think lies behind your edits), and thus doing a quick internet search to find what you want to say, is a method that risks exactly what happened above: stretching a source that probably ought not be used by itself anyway.

JT, to answer your question, the earliest evidence constitutes baptismal formulae and doxologies, some included in the NT. Lostcaesar 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, I have no doubt that you would prefer that secular challenges to Christian doctrine be portrayed narrowly (that particular scholars or web sites say something, rather than "many secular scholars" or what have you). I prefer the reverse. If it's true that secular scholars commonly say this or that, then it's a disservice to the reader to state the case so narrowly. So my question is: Is it the case that secular scholars commonly contend that the doctrine of the trinity developed over centuries? If so, why state this information more narrowly? And you're being unfair when you characterize me as saying that "all" secular scholars say this or that. As a materialist who considers human knowledge to be limited and provisional (proven every minute of every day on Wikipedia), I'd be a fool to say that "all" secular scholars held any particular POV on this issue. As for baptismal formulae and doxologies, these are compatible with Arianism, which also taught the "trinity" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So they hardly count as hard evidence for the trinity as it is currently understood. I'd be happy to state that he version of the trinity popular among its earliest adherents did not include the defining features of the Nicene Trinity and were compatible with ideas that would later be denounced as heresy. Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, You say "A proto-Trinitarian doctrine? I don't see that that's interestingly different from saying they were Trinitarians who hadn't needed to formulate a precise reply to Arianism yet. If not that, what?" I say it was a proto-Trinitarian doctrine that was compatible with Arianism (and with LDS) because it did not specify the equality, co-eternity, same-substance-ness, or three-in-one nature of the Trinity. The proto-trinitarianism of the first followers of Jesus (and maybe not the very first, since the historical Jesus never mentioned the trinity as far as seculars historians can demonstrate) acknowledged the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but did not spell out their triune nature as later defined. In fact, some early Christian writing depicts Jesus as lesser than the Father and as created (the firstborn of all creation). Thus, the proto-Trinity is sometimes so different from the Nicean Trinity that it would have been denounced as heresy in the 4th century. Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, thanks for working with me here despite our fundamental differences in worldview. I understand that your faith tells you that the earliest followers of Jesus were trinitarians, but we're sharing Wikipedia with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, whose faith tells them the opposite. I can accept the idea that beliefs varied widely, but in a section on nontrinitarianism I want to treat nontrinitarianism more directly. We could say, "By this account, the earliest views of Jesus varied widely among groups, were not as strongly expressed as they are today, and included views that would not pass muster as properly Trinitarian by the standards of the Nicene Creed." Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All, I might also be happy with something like this, "Secular scholars commonly assert that Jesus did not teach the Trinity. By this account, his earliest followers were nontrinitarians by default." Jonathan Tweet 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to say the doctrine (or maybe "understanding" or "articulation") of the trinity developed over centuries. It is another to say "the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity". That is unsupported by the source cited. The historical development of the doctrine of the trinity as understood by different schools I think is a level of detail that belongs on some other page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, we have been through this before but for the newcomers: there is no such thing as a "secular scholar" as opposed to a religious/believing/etc. scholar. A historian is a historian, regardless of the fact that every one has certain beliefs.

Regarding the sentence: "Secular historians commonly consider the doctrine of the trinity to have developed over centuries [5]. By this account, the earliest followers of Jesus did not adhere to the trinity, at least not as it has come to be understood." is clearly OR and POV pushing. Though the first part is indeed referenced, the second part (unreferenced and a certain POV) is an unwarranted inference from the first, even if we didn't knew about the addition: "but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century.", which clearly contradicts the inference.

The Trinity as such is already included in the Trinitarian formula at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew, which makes it at least as old as the year 90. The idea of Jesus being one with the father and of being divine is included in the Gospel according to John, which makes it at least as old as the year 100. Now, the "fineprint" of the relationship between God's oneness and the Jesus' being one with the father is the issue debated and developed throughout the first centuries. Nicaea was a decisive step in that development but it did only conform something in agreement with the the mainstream view (e.g. Tertullian) of the preceding centuries.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Str, I really do enjoy your comments; it helps greatly to point out that there are only historians. Yes, they may come with a POV, but a good historian writes from as objective a position as possible.

Jonathan, as you can see, writing from a minority position is not the easiest thing to do, particularly when the topic is religious in nature. I support the direction you are going and it should be mentioned in the article. These editors are all good and have a deep understanding of religion; some are certainly more...dogmatic than others. However, they all have demonstrated an ability to work cooperatively. You did well to come to the discussion page first and it is appropriate to be bold. As you continue to edit, I strongly recommend you only edit while providing excellent references for every statement that could be interpreted as unorthodox. Upon doing so, continue to seek input from them. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think challenges to Christianity should be protrayed accurately and charitably, and this means being specific in regards to references. As per your second comment, my view is that the doctrine of the Trinity developed as it became necessary to respond to heretical teachings with increased percision in articularing the dogma — the doxologies and baptismal formulae are more simple because there was no need to employ highly techincal language until someone (like Arius) came along and tried to provide an interpretation of said beliefs inconsitent with what Jesus had taught to his apostles and what they passed on to their sucessors, the bishops. Lostcaesar 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Jonathan Tweet down here: whether their "proto-Trinitarian" doctrine was compatible with Arianism was precisely the point of the controversies, and the church decided (rightly) that Arianism was not compatible with Scripture or the faith of the church. For example, union with an exalted creature would grant participation in an exalted creaturely nature, but 2 Peter 1:4 says believers partake of the Divine nature. Arianism therefore does not and cannot go as far as Scripture goes. If you want to imply early Trinitarianism was compatible with Arianism, you'll have to show something wrong with this reasoning, not merely mention technical expressions which hadn't been coined yet. That implication, as Str1977 pointed out, is not merely a description of what the source says -- it's your opinion that less articulated forms must be compatible with Arianism, and you must address Athanasius's arguments for why this is not the case. (And even if it were, a failure on the part of a sources to interact with the arguments used against Arianism seriously impeaches that source.)

Reference to Mormonism here is merely anachronistic.

Origen, while influential in many ways, is not a typical representative of early Christian faith. A.J.A. 21:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this: "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers." It's just two little sentences, it's narrowly construed, and Christians can readily dismiss this information as a sad reflection of our ungodly times and the depths to which Satan had brought academia. Jonathan Tweet 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not good, because many many people don't believe that, in particular a good chunk (if not most) of Christendom. Inserting a doctrine according to what some people decided at a seminar is not good, especially if it doesn't have secular or non-secular consensus. I could just as easily say, "According to Focus on the Family, the trinity was a concept clearly taught by Jesus, and non-trinitarian groups are therefore non-Christians." LC's proposal way up there was the best: "The doctrine of the Trinity took centuries to develop, but the roots of the doctrine can be seen from the first century". -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The section that is being proposed for the edit is nontrinitarians. Why is there any issue with the edit? Most of you feel that nontrinits are not even Christian! Further, the Jesus Seminar was not just any old seminar, but a group of 200 academics skilled in the New Testament. If the references support the statement we do not just willy-nilly throw it out because we "believe" the statement to be false. This falls under WP:NPOV and should be added without further conflict. Is the statement an accurate reference? Does the statement enhance the section? Is it a view that is held by a significant academic group that are also nontrinits? Please let's just forget our personal doctrinal sacred cows and approach this topic from an objective position. This one section is not about making orthodox Christians happy and written in a manner that maintains their comfort.

Jonathan, could you possibly pull back the "Jesus and his disciples were not T's" statement, unless it is a direct quote? If it is a direct quote, it should be allowed; if not, strive to not make it as offensive to those on the other side. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I don't have a quote of the Jesus Seminar saying that Jesus was not a trinitarian. The JS's first big book, The Five Gospels, is about what (they think) Jesus said, not how that squares with certain doctrines that may or may not have developed after the Great Apostasy. I've got the JS's book that describes Jesus' claims to be God or the Messiah as inauthentic, and a web site [6] that summarizes the findings, including that Jesus didn't claim to be God. I think it's fair to say that if Jesus teach his followers that he was God, then that discounts him (and his very first followers) as a trinitarians. (I won't bring up here the nontrinitarian Bible verses that also demonstrate that NT writers didn't equate Jesus with Elohim.) I don't understand why trinitarians would find this statement offensive. It's terse, but I'm trying to be concise so that the concept doesn't get more space than it deserves. I'm not offended when an article says "Christians think atheists are going to Hell" because it's a plain fact (that Christians believe it). Christians shouldn't be offended if I write that certain scholars says Jesus wasn't a trinitarian. That's also a plain fact. There's current scholarship that depicts Jesus and his first followers as not trinitarian. I'm trying to state it without overstating it or rubbing it in. If you feel as though you can rewrite it so that it has the same content but doesn't rile people as much, that would be a big service all around. Jonathan Tweet 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Skilled New Testament scholar Paul Verhoeven

It appears that Jonathan Tweet is grasping at straws to get Jesus/the Apostles/early Christian somehow listed as non-Trinitarians. No, that's not okay, length and dissmissibility notwithstanding.

We're not required to include everything that can be referenced.

Storm, from now on I'll call you a Morm. A.J.A. 06:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, I thought that I had been very clear about my convictions. If not, I will be perfectly clear. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; a Mormon. I have been a life long student of religion, both Christian and many, many others. As an editor of WIKI I strive to promote articles that are not written from a position of "truth", but rather NPOV and balance. Having said that, I acknowledge that I have an opinion and my views can be colored by them. I also can be short of patience with others. I particularly have a problem with other editors when I feel they are not being fair about acknowledging their own convictions and how it affects their editing. You, more than others, have seen my shortcomings because they have been directed at you in the past. Sometimes I think you confuse what you view as truth and the purpose of WIKI. It is okay for WIKI to "say" things that are not within your parameters of truth. It will not change the reality of your truth, but it will allow others to share the reality of their truth. This topic is not "owned" by any Christian or group. I digress. If you want to call me Mormon; feel free, but I would prefer Latter-day Saint or LDS for short.

You are correct, just because it is referenced we are not forced to use it. However, if it adds and improves the article we certainly have a good reason other than our own convictions for rejecting it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to call you a Mormon, I want to call you a Morm. If I can be a Trinit, you can be a Morm.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion forum. It is therefore not a place to for people to "share the reality of their truth". Nor a place for people to try slipping in memes about Jesus not being Trinitarian, whether for secular reasons or Morm ones. Categorizing Jesus as a non-Trinitarian, even with attribution, is POV. I'd rather delete the section altogether than include Jesus in it. A.J.A. 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can bridge this thing. The birth of the term Trinity rests with Tertullian. The concept of the Trinity reached its earliest form through the work of the Cappadocian fathers. However, the Bible canon exists as it does today because it was found over time to be a good collection of texts. Similarly, the Trinity developed over time and Christian theology grew around it over time. While we can be aware that Trinity is an organizational framework, we must also remember that it is the apparatus through which most Christians experience their faith and attempt to understand God. It is not the only way in which one might approach God, it is a method. To say that God exists as Trinity is not unlike the ancient Jews saying God lives in the holy of holies. It is, like all frameworks, an attempt to encompass something which far too expansive to be contained in a theory. But we try anyway, and should continue to do so. To say "God is Trinity" limits God, to say that God is anything limits God. In applying these frameworks, the framework must never become greater than the reality it is designed to highlight. It is then that you have an idol on your hands. MerricMaker 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AJA, I am not categorizing Jesus as a nontrinitarian. I am merely reporting that the Jesus Seminar portrays him as a nontrinitarian. It is a fact that the Jesus Seminar so reports him, and it is relevant to the history of nontrinitarianism. So far no one has pointed out an error in this formulation: "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers." Since no one's pointed out an error (other than that they disagree with the Jesus Seminar), let's put it in the text. Alternatively, I'd also be happy with "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was a mortal who did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian." As an attempt to accommodate trinitarians, I'd even settle for something like "According to the controversial Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. This account, viable only after rejecting much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, portrays Jesus as a nontrinitarian himself." That's a spin job, but I can live with it. Jonathan Tweet 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that the opinions of the Jesus Seminar are notable enough to include on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, then let's keep the reference short, like maybe two sentences. Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it somewhere else, like Trinity or Nontrinitarianism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "According to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trinity" seems like an accurate representation of the source. The phrase, "By this account, Jesus was a nontrinitarian, as were his first followers" is a non sequitur (why couldn't his first followers be Trinitarians?). The phrase is relevant to the section on non-Trinitarians. If we deem the JS a scholarly and notable source, then there is no obstacle to the first sentence's inclusion. It seems clear that the JS is notable. The standard of scholarship, however, is I think worthy of discussion, and this would be a good discussion to have all across the board since it affects certain other articles. The notability of the JS, to my knowledge, is more like "infamy" in that they are despised by "Conservative Christians" and, in my opinion, relish in that fact and take it as a badge of honor. None of the history books I have read have referenced the JS. However, other than this observation I must admit my ignorance concerning the JS in general, and do not at present consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate their level of scholarship (though the fact that they consider the Gospel of Thomas on par with the canonical Gospels insofar as historical sources are concerned is a sign of poor scholarship to me). Lostcaesar 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, let's drop the reference to Jesus' first followers since it's hypothetically possible that they believed in the Trinity even though Jesus never preached it. My latest stab: "According to the controversial Jesus Seminar, Jesus did not claim to be God and did not teach the trintiy[insert references here]. This account, viable only after rejecting much of what the Gospels record Jesus as saying, portrays Jesus as a nontrinitarian himself." FTR, the JS doesn't consider Thomas to be equal to the four gospels, It considers Thomas to be superior to the mostly ahistorical Gospel of John. The historical inferiority of John is a common theme in Biblical scholarship. Jonathan Tweet 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if any reference to the Jesus Seminar is included it should go in the criticism and controversy section.

JT: Your claim that it's relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism is exactly the problem: that claim is implicitly made simply by including it. The Jesus Seminary itself is notable only for the attention the media gave them in the late 20th century, hardly relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism. So if it's relevant to the history of non-Trinitarianism, it's because you're classifying Jesus as part of that history. Even stating the attribution, you're just implicitly endorsing the source as an accurate description.

LC: Their procedure involves dropping colored balls into a tub. A.J.A. 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That procedure is no different from the conferences which brought us most of the texts and prayers of the tradition. A bunch of scholars get together, make proposals, then vote. The method used by the Jesus Seminar is much the same as that used to create the Bible canon, write the Nicene creed, and produce the documents that came out of Vatican II. Most faith traditions have annual meetings that produce documents and political positions, they arrive at those decisions in the same manner. Don't be dismissive of the method just because the group using it is "fringe." MerricMaker 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Below, per the request of JT, this is my attempted rewrite of this section. Hope everyone likes.

<begin>

Non-Trinitarians

Main article: Nontrinitarianism

In antiquity, and again following the Reformation until today, differing views existed concerning the Godhead from those of Trinitarians and the related traditional Christology. Though diverse, these views may be generally classified into those which hold Christ to be only divine and not differing from the Father hypostatically, and those which hold Christ to be less fully God than the Father, in the most extreme form being a mere human prophet. Ancient examples include the Gnostics, most of whom were for the divine and not human redeemer, generally disbelieving the reality of Christ's human flesh. An example of the opposite view, the Arians considered Jesus a creature and thus substantially different from, and lower than the Father. The antiquity of these views is witnessed by the early date to which they met condemnation. For example, the first epistle of John, in effect the earliest document to insist that the redeemer must be both human and divine, contains a sharp polemic against deniers of the flesh of Jesus.

These views were rejected in antiquity by bishops such as Irenaeus and subsequently from the fourth century onwards condemned by various Ecumenical Councils. During the Reformation, though Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants alike accepted the value of the first four great Councils of the Church, certain more radical groups viewed the era of Constantine and these councils as spiritually tainted, preferring alternative pre-conciliar views about the Godhead and considering the Trinity to be an unbiblical sham conjured during the years of the Church's decay. Both of the differing views present in antiquity reappeared in Strassburg c. 1530. The view that Christ was only divine was first advanced by Clement Ziegler and expanded upon by Casper Schwenckfeld and the apocalyptic Melchior Hoffman. The view that Jesus was not God, but only a human prophet of God, was developed by Michael Servetus, though it appears just previously in trials of radicals at Augsburg in 1527.

Present day views that Jesus is a created being include those of Jehovah's Witnesses. Unitarians, descendants of Reformation era Socinians, view Jesus as never more than human. Latter-day Saints accept the divinity of all the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but deny they have a common essence, believing them to be united only by a shared purpose. Modalists such as Oneness Pentecostals regard God as a single person, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit considered modes or roles by which the unipersonal God expresses himself.

<end> Lostcaesar 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I'd have put the reference to Jesus as a nontrinitarian at the beginning because I think it's about Jesus. You put it at the end because you think it's about the Jesus Seminar. Jonathan Tweet 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

When the historical Jesus of Nazareth lived the doctirne of Trinity did not yet exists. Jesus was never asked to describe God's being or actions toward creation in terms of Greek philosphical categories of 'person' and 'essence' and 'substance'. It was only later when mediteranean Christians tried to explain what was and wasn't true into their Roman/Hellenic culture that they found the Trinity as the best way to describe how God had been revealed to them. Mainstream churches continue to teach this doctrine as orthodox and today the majority of Christians are members of these churches. You can disagree with their conclusions as some - including others who identify themselves as Christian - do. But to say 'Jesus was a nontrinitarian' is anacranistic. It would be more correct to say 'Jesus was pretrinitarian' but that would add little to the article.

The point about the Jesus seminar probably doesn't belong here anyway. The Jesus seminar were investigating how sure they could be that words ascribed to Jesus in the Bible where uttered by the historical Jesus or the authors (who remember had faith that Jesus was alive) had heard Chirst speak to them in some other way see John 3:16, Acts 9:4 and 2Corinthians12 9. They were not saying anything for or against the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity does not depend upon how emphaticly the historical Jesus did or didn't describe his divinity. The Jesus seminar weren't even saying anything about the Chiristian faith - the subject of this article. The focus of their enquirey was Jesus and it should be well covered in the article about Jesus to which this article prominatly points. --Just nigel 04:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More from Aminz

Aminz has made some additions and though I think that these are much too detailed for this overview article on all of Christianity, I can live with them on grounds of factual accuracy and NPOV. However, the following I excised:

The position of unorthodox Christians and heretical Christians under Muslim rule was in most respects better than that under the Christian rule.

Apart from using the unword "unorthodox" at all and also side by side by the synonymous "heretical", this information is completely irrelevant as

• this sentence deals with the situation under Islamic rule and not with Roman rule
• we cannot and should not single out this one for comparison (some notes on non-Christian persecution of Jews would certainly be in order then, wouldn't it)
• if we did we would also have to say something about the orthodox Christians
• intra-Christian persecution for heresy is not the topic of this section but dealt with later in the "by Christians" section. Heretics were not persecuted for being Christian but for being heretics (and, contrary to Aminz' view, being a heretic means being a Christian, albeit one with the wrong doctrine)

All these considerations of course fall apart once we set our sights at making Islam look better for apologetic reasons. But this is not what WP is supposed to do.

Finally, the version completely erradicates any mentioning of active persecution of Christians under Islam. This must and will be rectified. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Str1977. I'm a bit unsure why you removed a referenced statement, while saying "why this material which is referenced after all was removed is beyond me." Were you referring to an earlier edit that I missed in the history? Justin Eiler 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, okay. I will start another paragraph and explain the blood thirsty-ness, exclusiveness, and savage behaviour of orthodox Christians in power towards non-orthodox christians (call them heretics if you wish). --Aminz 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already covered. Conciseness is a foreign word to you, isn't it! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "There was some persecution of Christians after the French Revolution during the attempted". Huh. It wasn't *some* persecution and it wasn't only after French Revolution. --Aminz 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, in your latest edit, you deleted a reference to Muslim violence against Christians being rare, an assertion that was referenced. Do you take issue with the reference? Jonathan Tweet 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, good luck, and keep your head down. The folks watching over this page are good at what they do. For my part, a section on "persecution" on the Christianity page ought to cover persecution of Christians by Christians. There's a fair bit of material there. Maybe you can get the Protestants to help you with persecution of Protestants by Catholics and the Catholics to help you with the reverse. Jonathan Tweet 02:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is of course a whole page on Persecution of Christians. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Christians persecuting heretics is irrelevant to this section. Neither is this section about making one group look good or bad. It doesn't even need to say whether persection itself is bad. I myself think we might be better to drop the whole section. If it is too specific to be included in the gloss on the history of Christianity then it doesn't need to be said here. Lostcaesar 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, this issue is already covered in the section, in another subsection (though originally there were no subsections). One can see it this way or that way, but that is the way the editors of this article structured it a long time ago and I think it the better choice, as those persecuted heretics (I use that term, Aminz, because it is concise .. in the article we may have to look for ways to dePOV it) were not persecuted because of their Christianity but because of intra-Christian disputes.

Justin, we can look for ways to include the "rareness", in which there is some truth though the wording downplays the persecutions that did occur, but certainly not in a sentence that is more concerned with the rareness than with the actual persecutions.

I also restored the logical sequence: we first talk about social and legal disabilities, about restrictions on religious practice, then on the symbolic nature of some disablities and then about the (however rare) persecution. We must not jump around talking about this and that and then about this again.

Aminz, I don't understand your remarks about the French Revolution. This sentence talks about the FR and the persecution associated with it (and the some was a compromise) and not about later events. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Christians persecuting heretics doesn't belong in "persecution of Christians." It belongs in "Persecution by Christians." Given that the topic of this article is long, and the issue of persecution is narrow (though important), I'd like the Persecution section to contain more material with fewer words. One paragraph or list for "of" and another for "by." Currently, this section doesn't point out the formative nature of martyrdom in early Christianity and doesn't mention the expulsion of Jews from Spain or the Inquisition. I'd like to trim the section down, hit more topics, and let the reader explore details on other pages. Jonathan Tweet 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JT; Lostcaesar 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JT, I am all for "more material with fewer words", which is actually why I opposed Aminz' edits in the first place. Increasing downtoning and downplaying passages for Islam requires some corrective passages as well to keep the whole thing balanced and accurate and suddenly the section is bloated.

A treatment of "the formative of martyrdom" is more than welcome. However, the expulsion of the Jews is too singular an event to deserve a mentioning, while the "anti-Jewish violence" in general is already mentioned. As for the Inquisition, it is also already addressed implicitely via the surpression of heretical groups, but if you wish the Inquisition can be named explicitely.

As for trimming the section down, my first idea would be to throw out the Hypatia example, which is really overkill but unfortunately is dear to many editors of an atheist bent.

LC, some explanations for my corrections:

• The Jewish exception might not be relevant (either here or in the Theodosius sentence in the history section) but without it the sentence is factually wrong.
• I removed the reference to Roman law as in general Roman did not actually do that.
• I restated that Christianity was declared illegal, possibly by Nero and definitely by Trajan, to include all these persecutions prior to Decius, who started a whole new kind of persecution.
• I removed the term "sporadic" as it is inaccurate: apart from the several big waves of persecution, Christians had to deal with the threat all the time. Also inaccurate was that the persecution of Diocletian was the big exception to only local persecution. Decius and Valerian's persecutions were just as universal.
• The part of treason I took out because it onsidedly took the Emperor's position that this actually was treason. Those persecuted would have different things to say. I don't think that this was your intention, LC.

It is unfortunate that lately, on many occasions and various sides an apologetical note has entered WP. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure the sentence is factually wrong without the clause about the Jews. The Jews only got this exemption after being persecuted themselves. I remember Philo's little story about the treatment of Jews at Caligula's court.

As per Roman law, I suppose it depends what you count as constituting Roman law, but I would think Trajan's reply to Pliny would constitute legal precedent since at this time imperial fiat was akin to law. Here I think we are saying the same thing, but you prefer "declared illegal" — any difference there is splitting hairs.

Were persecutions sporadic? There is evidence that Christians worshiped publicly without much harassment at times, depending on local circumstances, but I suppose we need not get into that here. As for treason, all I meant to say was that those put to death were done so under the charge of treason, i.e. disloyalty to the State. This is merely the reverse of refusing to worship the emperor, which as you know was a social mechanism of cohesion and unity in a very sprawling and diverse empire. In other words, failure to worship the gods entailed calamities like earthquakes and plagues, and thus such an act was a public threat — understood in terms of the imperial cult it was treason.

All that said, I don't mind any of your edits. I was just trying to make it a little more readable, and none of your changes affected that. Really I wanted to comment here to make sure that there was not some historical fact that I was unaware of (and if there is, please call it to my attention; and I thank you for reminding me other the universal persecutions pre-Diocletian).

However, in close I do want to raise the point that I feel the sentence on the Edict of Milan is a dated treatment of the material. There was a decree prior to that edict which also made Christianity legal, if I am not mistaken, and in my understanding of the secondary sources the edit is no longer given that sort of watershed status as it once was. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Jews were exempt because they were not Romans (until Caracalla). This exemption was threatened at times but it was accepted when the Jews like all other free inhabitants of the Empire received citizenship. However, the illegal status of Christianity was law at least since Trajan (who actually only confirmed an earlier practice in his rescript to Pliny).
• With Roman law, I meant that the duty for every subject to sacrifice to the Emperor or the gods was non-existent in traditional Roman law. Of course, Trajan's rescript made Christianity illegal (> Roman Law) and Decius' edict made sacrifices compulsory (> Roman Law).
• "sporadic" in my opinion means very rare and scattered and I don't think that is accurate.

I also want to say that I agree with your aiming at readibility and once in a while such clean ups are needed, after all this back and forth between different editors. My corrections were indeed just that: corrections to an otherwise valuable edit.

As for the "Edict" of Milan, I think it is accurate to say that it ended the persecution (with the exception of that under Licinius 324), which puts it contrast to the edict of Galerius, which issued toleration but was later disregarded by Galerius' sucessor. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I was referring to Jews not merely in Palestine, e.g. those in Alexandria (like Philo) who were persecuted before the exception was given — I don't know how this relates to the Constitutio Antoniniana. Lostcaesar 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about them too. The Exception is a matter of practice based on the Jews being a different people with different customs. But of course the issue of whether this extended to Jews outside their homeland was controversial. As for the Constitutio it made all free inhabitants of the Empire Roman citizens. After that no one could say the Jews are a different people from the Romans - however, at that time, the exception was well accepted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to say, "...especially in the 3rd century, the Emperors demanded that all Roman citizens participate in the imperial cult, where ritual sacrifices were made..."? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be accurate, but it might be misleading to those who are not aware that in the 3rd century everyone but slaves were citizens. It must be noted that the illegaltiy of Christianity (as distinct from the sacrifice edict) was not bound to citizenship. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another issue is that originally Christians were Jews a practice that continued for some time. The Book of Acts can be read as an appology explaining why Christianity should continue to receive the same exemption that Judaism did.--Just nigel 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Recently there have been additions to the persecution section:

• "On Christian persecution of Christians for their beliefs, Gillian Clark, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Bristol states:"Christians were more likely to use violence against Christian than against pagans, in disputes about the expression of faith and about rival claims of religious office. It has been said that more Christians were persecuted for their beliefs after 'edict of Milan' than before it." "

We have discussed this before and it is still not relevant to this section, quite apart from the questionable nature of the statement (which statistic sources is this based on, what about the open-ended nature of the time after the edict of Milan). Again, this is used as an apologetical ploy for you know who to paint Christians as black as possible.

• "The degree to which these acts were supported by formal Christian doctrine and scripture is a topic of much debate."

That might be a valuable addition but nothing about this debate follows. Maybe there isn't so much debate after all?

• "Michael Sells, Professor of Islamic History and Literature at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, states that "scriptures relate to violence in complex ways. During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews." "

He states that scriptures related in complex ways but then gives no examples and moves on to a statement about "during the Inquisition", which twists the rationale behind the Inquisition (which is the same rationale that lies behind any form of justice system, if one accepts that heresy was seen as a crime) quite apart from using the horrid "during the Inquisition" as if it were a time. The last passage is completely void of any evidence. What are these passages? They would be very peculiar if they can serve for both ends.

All in all, this is again stuffing the overview article with information (sometimes questionable), causing it to lose focus on its topic, the overall presentation of Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are various problems with the above claims. Though referenced, without the proper context they are clearly misleading.

That more Christians were persecuted after the edict of Milan than before it ignores that fact that there are three hundred years on one side and seventeen hundred years on the other, and that the population of Europe was significantly higher on the latter side as well. One could just as well say "the percentage of the population persecuted per year after Milan was infinitesimally smaller than before".

The passage about the Inquisition I find an example of hypocrisy on behalf of a certain editor insofar as it is supported by a reference to a column in a newspaper, written by someone who is apparently discussing material well beyond his field (I will explain below), unless perhaps he is discussing the Spanish Inquisition's handling of Muslims, but the utter vagueness of "during the Inquisition" makes this undeterminable, and since he talks about "killing a heretic", I doubt this applies (Muslims are not heretics). I remember a conversation here earlier where certain editors were very critical of some sources being used, and I myself found this objection to be at least partially substantiated, so I am amazed that said editor would then commit the very offense he found so objectionable earlier. Lostcaesar 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing ignored is the specific procedure of the Inquisition that did not simply kill all heretics but only those obstinate or relapsed. Not that it wasn't gruesome but it is a detail often overlooked.

The Spanish Inquisition BTW was not concerned with Muslims but only with baptized Christians. Some of these were Jews who had converted under duress but I haven't heard of Muslims. These were expelled by the Spanish government quite independently of the Spa nish Inquisition, which anyway was a state institution. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The Primitive orthodox article is a "type" of Christianity, or a common description of Christians. It should go in the article Christianity. Diez2 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

....Which may not even exist in reality, as it has no verification. There isn't much to work with there. Homestarmy 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was created today by Petrous. There have been many churches that profess to harken back to the primitive church, but I have never heard of any movement or group that unites under the banner of Primitieve orthodox. Has anyone else heard the term? Incidentally, it also happens to be the only edit of Petrous. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone wants to shoot him a message. If it's valid, I say don't merge; but if it's not valid, I say nuke the article altogether. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I say junk it; Lostcaesar 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pat - if it's valid merge it. It's tiny anyway. And I agree with Storm - I, too, have never heard of an official primitive orthodox before. I think it is a good idea to send Petrous a message if it gets merged, though; he's probably a new user, and we don't want to make him think we completely destroyed his first article. --Christknight 20:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it. According to the paragraph, it sounds "non-denominational," but it's too vague to know for sure. Sounds concocted, if you ask me. LotR 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note on his page and will let everyone know when he responds. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did find this possible references[7]

That would explain why we never heard of it. So I guess it's valid? --Christknight 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to redirecting it to here, but I would be reluctant to add material about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be merged into Restorationism instead? —Aiden 12:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, just delete the unsourced content and redirect to Restorationism. —Aiden 12:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that last suggestion. As for the other thing, Aiden: never mind. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Aiden 09:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Common to all Restorationism is the belief that the Church Fathers or post-apostolic church leadership had no authorization to change the church's beliefs and practices, but did so nevertheless." (from "Restorationism" page) From what I have read of their websites and books so far that doesn't seem to fit. Deleting specific information and references that are being accumulated in favor of generalized and sometimes inaccurate information is certainly one way to make Wikipedia less useful and informative. Petrous 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Collaboration

As this is now the GA collaboration I believe our first job would be to cleanup the merge thing and then perhaps fix the problems that the article had that granted its removal from the FA list. Tarret 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the article has changed quite a good deal since that FA nom, and apparently somebody added in content in the Primite Christianity article, I don't think we were planning to seriously merge that into this article anyway. (It's really way too small a group in my opinion to warrent inclusion.) Homestarmy 04:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree; I almost put the article up for a prod, because I can't find many references. It needs to get merged to something else. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that after this collaboration we should get a Peer Review, because as far as I can tell, pretty much everything in this article is referenced except for some thing about motivations of monasteries. Homestarmy 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sending it for peer review, hopefully well get more critique on how we can improving the article. Tarret 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That bot is pretty convienent, we should have one of those to use on every GA collaboration.... :D Homestarmy 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of some text

Hey guys, I know removing text in these articles can upset people, but the article flows quite well except for in three places: 1) Reformation under Christianity. It seems tangential to the subject of Christianity itself. We are reading the article to find out about the religion, not the changes it made in the 4th century. That could be another article. 2) Persecution of/by Christians - this might work better under the article Christian. This article is about the belief system, not the practice that some people have used it for. Persecution of early Christianity is relevant - I'm uncomfortable with mentioning modern persecution in places like Cuba, Saudi Arabi because it seems tangential. The same goes for persecution by Christians. These already have their own article; perhaps they should just be linked to. 3) The non-trinitarian = controversial at the top, that we agreed to, looks ugly, and should probably be placed in the "non-trinitarian" part of the article, IMHO. Thanks. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We should explain how Christianity served humanity. That "reformation" section is just an start. --Aminz 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pat, you say, " This article is about the belief system, not the practice that some people have used it for." Is that right? The lead paragraph treats the topic as a religion: population, geography, history, etc. You're saying that the proper topic for this article is "the belief system," in which case the lead paragraphs are off-topic. I like "Christianity" as the catch-all article about the religion: its beliefs (of course) but also its history and identity as an institution. An article about the Christian belief system(s) would be "Christian theology," or something. Can the text be improved? Sure. Should it be removed because it's not about the belief system? No. Jonathan Tweet 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I too think it would be reductionist to reduce Christianity (or any religion for that matter) to just its beliefs. This is one of the problems with the Christianity article on the Simple English wikipedia. (hint hint some of you could move over and help with that one too.) --Just nigel 20:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Project on Reforms under Christianity

This article is far from being a Good One. As I've explained here [8], I want to see these articles in a situation that when someone reads it, he becomes filled with esteem and respect for Jesus and Christianity; but not through viewing Jesus as a cosmic figure; through his teachings. It is shameful to see people consider this article a good one while it doesn't explain how Christianity changed the world. --Aminz 08:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While an inclusion of such "impact" of Christianity (reforms is a bit dodgy unless placed in a certain context of before and after), it should be concise and not a quotefest. And of course "not through viewing Jesus as a cosmic figure [but] through his teachings" is a certain POV based on a dichotomy that has very little to do with Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's what can be checked. That's what people in academia do. This doesn't contradict religous aspects. --Aminz 10:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My last concern was more directed against your comment here. You may still do the right thing for the wrong reasons. References are fine but a section consisting of one big quote or two is narrow. As it widens it will bloat by all these quotations. Hence it is better to simply present the thoughts instead of quoting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ps.It might be better to first create this section outside of the article and work on it until it has some sufficient stature and then include it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Aminz you should make a project page and get people to contribute there, rather than make this page a work in progress. Lostcaesar 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Material of this length and detail belongs on a spin-off page, not the main Christianity article. Asserting only the positive side is to invite people to add the negative side, which is going to make these new sections even longer. This main article can summarize and reference the spin-off page. Jonathan Tweet 15:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All comments are relevant and welcome. Maybe we can summarize each section in a sentence or two, for now. --Aminz 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks

1. "mainstream theology contains core core doctrines essential to orthodoxy" - can be considered a POV statement. Mainstream theology rather considers these essential to Christianity. And yes, a field of scholarship can indeed have an opinion.

2. What is wrong about a statement that persecution "intensified" in some places. It did so in our first example, the Sassanid Empire.

3. As for the Jews, this all depends on what Jews means here. It could mean a member of the Jewish people and in this case the objection would hold true, as there are many Jews that are atheists or Christians or whatever. However, the link is to Judaism and hence Jews here denotes the adherents to the religion of rabbinical-talmudic Judaism and its modern offshoots (progressive/liberal Judaism mainly) and in this case the statement is correct, as this religion requires its adherents to reject at least some Christian interpretations and to reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

/agree Lostcaesar 12:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid i'm the culprit on the first one, but as far as I know, properly speaking, "Mainstream theology" cannot actually do something on its own, only "Mainstream theologians" would be able to consider something. It's a grammer sort of thing, a concept alone cannot in and of itself consider something. There were several ways I could think of to fix it but I chose the one above, while a field of scholarship can have an opinion, an opinion there can only exist by the actions of scholars. Oh, and on the Judaism one, surely some Jews see the prophecy in question as incorrectly interpreted in perhaps another fashion, or might see this particular one interpreted correctly, but hold that all the others were still not interpreted correctly? It read before as if all Jews object to the Christian interpretation of this verse in exactly the same manner, it sounds extremely limiting and unlikely to me,Homestarmy 19:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mmh, theology is not only the subject of study but also the whole field and as such can have opinions. But maybe "mainstream Christianity" would be more fitting as it is actually not theologians but individual churches, denominations, groups and persons that make that observation.
• Sure not all Jews (in the denominational sense) consider all Christian interpretations wrong and in the case of Orthodox Jews often the disagreement is merely the identification with Jesus as the Messiah (progressives being far off, sometimes even setting the Messiah aside completely) but I think we can safely say in general that Jews (i.t.d.s.) tend to regard Christian interpretations as wrong. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything really major left unreferenced?

Since there's such an overwhelming number of general references at the bottom, it doesn't look to me like anything's been overlooked. The only thing I see clearly is the thing about whether monasteries were first founded because some people felt Christianities successes were making us less Christian, but other than that, i'd say everything else seems like it'd either be referenced in its parent article or by something at the bottom. Anyone else know about anything unreferenced in this article, or is this article basically referenced fully now?Homestarmy 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Block

Could somebody please block Wikih8lulz from editing? The vandalism he made to this article has to be the worst I've ever seen. And you can tell by his name that he's not a Wikipedia user to do any kind of good for the encyclopedia. --Christknight 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard vandalism for dealing with vandalism are at WP:VAND. If this is the worst you've seen, then apparently you haven't seen some of the schoolboy stuff we get around 1PM on weekdays. ;). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I'm reporting him for his username anyway; people can be banned for bad usernames. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The username is acceptable, this admin's opinion. Vandalism should as Pat mentioned, be reported at WP:VIP for fastest response. Be sure to warn prior to listing, as explained on WP:VAND. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I see lots and lots of vandalism on my other watched pages, and it's extremely sad to see how many people want to defile an encyclopedia as great as this one - and for no reason. --Christknight 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is rampant almost everywhere on this site. And I agree with Christknight in the fact that it sad that people in today's society have nothing better to do than vandalize a widely used information powerhouse.youngscholar 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There are people who are jackasses, there is no remedy. But there is a positive side to this, as we edit around and see to it that nothing is amiss, we find and fix oversights or errors that don't have anything to do with vandalism. MerricMaker 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Groups in Christiantiy

I have tried to imporve this section two ways:

• Describe on the role unions as well as divisions have contributed to the shape of Christianity today.

• Better distinguish between restoration movements that share ecumenically with other Christians and those that say they exclusively represent true Christianity. On this point I wonder if the illustration should show two different restorationist groups - one with both a dotted line to the past and a solid line to their neighboring Protestant siblings (as is there now) and one that only has the dotted line back (to represent groups like the Latter Day Saints) who reject a continuity with mainline forms of Christianity.--Just nigel 05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nigel I think you might be confusing United Church of Christ with Church of Church, the latter is a fundamentalist group that sees itself as the only true Church and other groups as heretical. The former is a liberal body with a totaly different nature (their idea of a "Church", if it exists, is far more vague and emptied of visible content). As for the new title, it might be a problem in the sense that it positively states the groups therein are Christian, and may even imply that they are all equally Christian (a big problem in that case) whereas the older title was a bit more vague. I will think on it might considering changing it back. The new information is really good, though incomplete, but it is itsown group so I added a subtitle and it might need to be moved to another place in the article. The section on Christian divisions was meant only as a lead paragraph to introduce to readers the groups that would be discussed below, so when someone read "catholics do this orthodox do that" they would have an idea what the article was talking about. Its not really suppose to get into ecumenism and the historical reasons for the divisions and so forth. Lastly, the section on ecumenism needs balance, because it (1) treats protestant ecumenical movements and the Catholic-Orthodox movement as the same, and they are very different, and (2) it doesn't give the negative view of ecumenism. Still, I think its a good addition. Lostcaesar 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the statement "Restorationists ... do not describe themselves as "reforming" a Christian Church continuously existing from the time of Jesus, but as restoring the Church that was historically lost at some point" is that it is not true. Only restorationists claiming no other Church is true (often non-trinitarian) beleive this. The Stone-Campbell type churches like Disciples of Christ Churches of Christ in Australia etc were not trying to start a new separate religious denomination but had a strong plea for Christian unity long before it became popular amon other protestants in the 20th century. They do beleive the Christian Church has continuously existing from the time of Jesus and do not beleive the church was lost, just needing simplification - hence primitve christianity. --Just nigel 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nigel I think you are right on several points. I think the talk of Christian division does need to be tempered with discussion of moments of unity. I also think you are right to point to the complexities of relations between groups, especially small and independent groups (as restorationists tend to be), and lastly because the graphic is a simplification it is going to inherently fall short of accurately representing the reality of Christianity's history. I think your edits are in the right direction. Where I disagree I have already stated. As for this bit about Stone-Campbell restorationism, I think we need to better explore the matter. The very nature of restorationism is that the groups see themselves as restoring something, and hence something was lost. Indeed, the difference between Reformation and Restoration Christianity is one of degree: reformers see a continuously existing Church that needs (doctrinal) reform, whilst restorationists think that something essential to the nature of the Church was totally lost (if not the entire Church itself, into a "Great Apostasy"), and must be rediscovered. Often these groups have a modern day prophet who does the restoring. Yes, the lines are blurred. Some reformation texts see Luther as a prophet, quite explicitly, whilst some restorationists perhaps see themselves as cutting away non-Biblical pomp more than starting from scratch, though the fact remains that their method of building a Christian church is to sit down with a copy of Acts and, by careful analysis, determine what is acceptable to God and what is not. I will say that in my experience with Restorationists, the talk of unity is markedly anti-denominational, i.e. they see denominationalism as either fragmenting or watering down the teachings of Christ. Perhaps you could just explain more where you are coming from and what you want the article to say. I need to listen more to your view before I can really say that I understand. Lostcaesar 11:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try another edit that better describes these differences. The difficulty is 'Restorationist' describes a methodology and not the (sometimes mutually exclusive) conclussions about doctrine or practice that people who have used this method reach.--Just nigel 04:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain it here first please? Lostcaesar 08:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How to unprotect this page?

How can we unprotect this page for editing information here? Something Wrong 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

An admin would need to do it, I presume it was protected after more vandalism yet again. Homestarmy 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's an unprotect section at WP:RPP. You can apply there; however, due to high vandalism rates, it will probably be reprotected, at most, within a few weeks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chart in the Ecumenism section

In at least one point the chart in the Ecumenism subsection is inaccurate; but I think the problem cannot be remedied. It indicates that the Eastern Rites of Roman Catholicism derive from Eastern Orthodoxy. This ignores the fact that the Malabar Church (one of the largest Eastern Catholic Churches) comes from the "Nestorians" tradition (as do the Chaldaeans) and the Catholic of Armenian, Copt, Ethiopic, Malankara and Syrian tradition derive from the Oriental Orthodoxy line. As I said, I think this cannot be remedied without making the chart hopelessly complicated. However, it might - note that I only say "might" - be better to change "Eastern Rites" to "Byzantine Eastern Rites", corresponding to what the chart presents as the origin of these Churches. I would suggest more strongly that "Western Rite" (singular) be used instead of "Western Rites" (see the distinction indicated in the "Latin rite" disambiguation page). Lima 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

• I agree that the problem cannot be remedied but I don't think that your proposal is tenable either, as it leaves out the non-"byzantine" eastern rites.
• There are different Western/latin rites - the Roman rite (by far the most common), the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarab Rite, the Gallic Rite.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was complaining about another detailed specific issue with the chart above - although I too think it is generally OK. So my solution is to just change the caption to point out it is a generalisation.--Just nigel 09:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

JN, I am really pleased with that change. Lostcaesar 10:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Eschaton and afterlife" - needs expanding!

The first page of the Christianity article is pretty darn good - very good coverage of all the major (and many of the minor) traditions and denominations. But the section entitled "Eschaton and the afterlife" is a bit brief and assumes universal agreement on issues that are controversial. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist (thank you for correctly including us under Restorationists - I think this is probably accurate).

I've pasted the section for you to look at...

Eschaton and afterlife Main article: Eschatology Christians believe that the soul is eternal, and consciousness continues after death. In the General Resurrection, all who have died will bodily rise from the dead at the end of time to be judged by Jesus when he returns in fulfilment of scriptural prophecies.[63]

The Christian view of the afterlife includes the eternal realms of heaven and hell; in Catholicism those who die in a state of grace undergo purification in order to achieve the holiness necessary to enter Heaven in what is known as purgatory.

Firstly, not all Christians believe the soul is eternal. An alternative view (held by Seventh-day Adventists, for example) is that death is a state of oblivion that the Bible compares to an unconscious sleep. At the second coming, the bodies of believers are raised to life again, but this time in an "incorruptible" (ie, immortal) state.

There are basic conflicts between this alternative view and the mainstream view. The alternative view refutes as dualistic the notion of a separate body and spirit. The alternative view states that immortality is a gift from God, not the natural state of all human beings. The mainstream view can be seen as internally contradictory, in the logistical difficulty of the unconscious, sleeping "dead in Christ" being raised from their graves when their conscious souls are already in heaven.

Secondly, the writer has made no mention of the doctrine of the secret rapture (as popularised in the "Left Behind" series of books and movies). This is a fairly widespread view amongst evangelical/Pentecostal Protestants and deserves some attention.

Also there are differing views on hell. Seventh-day Adventists see hell as synonymous for eternal death/oblivion rather than eternal suffering of uncoverted sinners. This follows from a belief that humans do not naturally have immortal souls.

Sorry I've focused on my own denomination a bit here, but I can only talk about what I know (the secret rapture is not my denomination's theology, btw, but I thought it should be included in the interests of comprehensiveness).

I'm not really sure how this Wiki thing works, but if anyone wants to email me, they can at kahnakuhlAThotmail.com (I used AT to discourage spam - pls replace with @ of course).

I think you are right to say that the section needs improvement and expanding. It should be observed, however, that it is only a gloss of the topic, which is covered more throughly in the main article. Minority views are sometimes difficult to work into a gloss, but it is something that can be worked on at least. In my experience there are basically two views of the afterlife, one in which includes a particular judgement, and saints actively doing things in heaven, and the other which could be called roughly a "soul sleep", where the dead just sort of linger until the genral judgement and the end of time. This might be a worthy distinction to make in the article. As for the rapture, I don't know anything much about it. Where I think you are wrong, however, is that I think we ought to avoid phrasing things like "the mainstream view can be seen as internally contradictory" — it sounds pov pushing. But that aside, I think we should have a better section on the afterlife. The essential doctrines seem to be, first, judgement, then the eschaton, and secondarily the structure of the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo, sheol, &c.). What you need now is to find sourcs, and editors willing to colaborate with you, and perhaps start up a project page, or just make small changes to the page here. Lostcaesar 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it as a stub, though its not really a stub since there is a main article, but I guess it gets the point across, and I added some hidden text to see where the section can be expanded. Lostcaesar 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the footnotes?

I thought it was that User:Illiterate person, but now it seems I can't find a recent version of the page where the footnotes section doesn't look like a formatting bomb went off. Does anyone else see this on their screen? Homestarmy 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it was a random ref tag thrown in near reference twelve I think. Homestarmy 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone named superdave mutilated the page, removing some footnotes and adding anti-catholic things; I tried to fix it. I spent a good while on those notes, so its a bit disheartening. Lostcaesar 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything else missing do you think? Homestarmy 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim beleifs about Trinity and momtheism

I am new to wikipedia and quite unaware of not only the techniques but the etiquettes and protocols of editing a page. So, please help me out with this one. What I have trouble with is the line about Muslims in Controversies and criticisms and I quote: Many Muslims believe that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism.[91] This is based in part on the mistaken belief held by many Muslims that Christianity teaches a sexual Trinity — that God had sexual intercourse with Mary in order to have Jesus.[citation needed].

The trouble is Muslims do not beleive that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with monotheism because they think that christians beleive in a sexual trinity. Islam teaches that monotheism means that God is one and unique in his person, in his entity, traits, personality and being. There is nothing like him. He has no partners or Sons. He does not manifest Himself in any other form. He is too pure for that. I have tried to correct it anumber of times. Now if somebody has any objection to this please let me know bcz someone always reverts it to the older version.

The best thing to do, and I think you right to correct this (since it just sounds wrong to me) is to get a good source that explains the Muslim view of [the errors contained in] the doctrine of the Trinity, and add the material from it, with citation. I can just say, from looking at your edit, you have changed the text of a sentence that is referenced, and this is a problem because a reference must properly attribute the text to its source, so this is to be avoided. I think your line, that Mulsims dispute the crucifixion, is a step in the right direction, since it is a factual claim supported by a reference, though we must be careful about using the right source. I think there is a way to say what you want to say, but sentences like "Crucifixion is a lie according to several of the Disciples' early writings" is problematic because, though referenced, it is (1) vauge: what disciples and what writings? (2) websites as sources, though certainly permissible, can be problematic and require more caution, and (3) should probably be articluated as a more narrow view, e.g. "According to answering-christianity.com, the crucifixion... [add details] [ref]". Lostcaesar 11:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the thing about "sexual trinity" was mistaken. The last time I checked this part it wasn't there yet. Though the Quran has a mistaken view on the trinity (God, Jesus, Mary), this mistake is not the basis of the doctrine's rejection. The problem does not start with the third person but with the second person, Jesus.

However, there were some things that needed changing:

Some of my edits are merely stylistic in nature or try avoid repetition. However, I removed the bit about "accept him as Christ", as this is misleading as Islam uses the Arabic version of that title but without filling it with meaning.

I don't object to using an Islamic apologetics site, but the link to "Crucifixion is a lie according to several of the Disciples' early writings" is unacceptable, as it is basically a false statement making use of apocrypha, including of course the 15th century "gospel of Barnabas". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Too much vandalism

Hey, could someone please lock this article? Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia for letting just anyone go in and add what they know to articles, but I never see anyone who isn't a user add anything relevant. It's all just pointless vandalism that doesn't need to be seen on this article. It's extremely sad how many people want to defile, not just the Christianity article, but the encyclopedia at all. And even though it always gets corrected, thousands of people read Wikipedia every minute. Just think about how many people might go to this article looking for real information, and find immature, usually offensive, vandalism. --Christknight 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be permanently semi protected, like the main page, because it is a perpetual site of vandalism. Lostcaesar 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)