Talk:Christianity/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

"History and origins" section

First of all, I will comment that "History and origins" seems like an awkward section title. Since the origins obviously predate the rest of Christianity's history, the title should be something like "Origins and subsequent history". Or it should be just "History". After all, when would a "History" section ever leave out the "origins" of anything? Secondly, I noticed that there is an "Unbalanced section" template that has been in place since November 2008. I don't see any discussion on this Talk Page. If there is ongoing discussion about the problems of imbalance in this section, then the template should stay. If not, then it should be removed. I propose to remove it if no one specifies what the imbalance problems are.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and switch the section title to "History", that's straightforward enough.

As for the tag: On archive page 50, thread #7 could be related to its posting. However, I think that is sufficiently outmoded, and dealt with at the time, to be taken down. I skimmed the section and don't find it to be unbalanced; it's just a quick overview of Christian history (big surprise there). carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the tag, since no one seems to object. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, sounds good to me.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Descriptions of Christianity's beliefs

Under the "Christianity" section, this is the given description of the beliefs of Christianity "Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, God having become human and the saviour of humanity.", while I agree this is a solid description, I would wonder if perhaps adding "Most Christianity teaches...". There are a number of branches of (admittedly, less mainstream) Christian sects. For example, Christian Atheism believe in no God, but believe in the value of scriptural teachings and most centrally the figure of Jesus himself. These people view themselves wholly as being as much Christian as others in the faith. As such, it seemed that adding something to convey the fact that not all Christians adhere to the belief in God would give the statement a more unbiased view on the variations so common within religions. Charos (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not oppose this change. Outside the big three Trinitarian branches there are a lot of Christians that would have a problem with this statement, including the many who would deny that Jesus is God. Come to think of it, while I know that Trinitarians sometimes speak this way, someone with only a little knowledge of Christianity might read the statement and come away with the idea that all Christians subscribe to Oneness theology a/k/a modalism. This is, of course, not the case. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

this is one of the big problems with dealing in religious pages, the simple reality is that there are almost as many "versions" of any belief as there are believers. That's why it seems such an important thing to avoid umbrella terms, any time I see "Christianity is..." or "Paganism is..." it's usually a short time before I can think of clear examples this isn't the case...Christianity is Christianity but within that framework there's Ignostic Christians, Agnostic Christians, Atheist Christians and so on and so forth. There are even groups like Christian Theological Noncognitivists who don't so much "not believe in god" as much as think discussions or conceptions of God are meaningless given our current frame of reference. I hadn't noticed it earlier until I wound up in a debate with a guy who used the quote as it is now to back the assertion that Christian Atheism simply didn't exist. The subject of metaphysics and religion is tough enough to wrap ones head around, broadening the statement I mentioned just seems like an option that could help remove some of the confusion surrounding a subject that's (already) somewhat prone to confusion. Unfortunately I'm rather inexperienced in terms of editing these pages and so I leave the final decision in more experienced users capable hands. :) Charos (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides notoriety to ideas in accordance with the amount of attention/acceptance that it gets. This was vividly explained to me in the Evolution talk page. Since, as you mentioned, these "Christians" are in such small number, it does not merit changing the lead section. --Jacksoncw (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Would there be no distinction between a scientific page and one dealing more with issues of metaphysics and philosophy? I have difficulty dichotomizing what specifically would actually constitute acceptable as opposed to unacceptable "attention/acceptance". The numbers within specific branches are small of course, but as a whole the group that the aforementioned "Most..." would cover would be a far larger one, arguably worth the minor edit it would entail. I'll see if I can find any actual numbers in terms of a comparison between the viewpoints. Does anyone have an idea what would be viewed as an acceptable number, or how such things would be judged? I'm honestly not looking to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious :)Charos (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would move to question whether or not these fringe groups can actually be considered Christians. There is a difference between Christianity and belief in Christian Philosophy and morals. The current description of Christianity has been question inumerable times but has mostly stayed the same and I don't see how this merits a change or that this even makes sense. If we changed the lead every time a new subculture was introduced into Christianity it would constantly be in debate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it HAS been essentially constantly in debate...the Catholic Church proclaimed the Protestant reformation a fringe group, the Protestant's of the time considered the Catholic's borderline idolaters...I still see people today playing up this distinction, Catholics aren't "real" Christians, or Protestant's aren't the "real" Christians...this sort of back and forth debate has been a virtual constant since the upsurge in early gnostic sects...what has defined "Christian" seems to have, through history, been one of the single most debated aspects of the last two millennium's...Charos (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let us ask ourselves this question, is there any kind of substantial Christianity that doesn't fit this description? Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, they all fit under this description, even Mormons. What defines Christianity hasn't really been in debate, it's more or less details within the belief that have been in constant debate, but all Christians confess a belief that Jesus is the Messiah and they mostly follow the Canonical Gospels. The description is descriptive, yet broad enough so that it doesn't contradict forms of major Christianity defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Major_groupings_within_Christianity. --Jacksoncw (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

this also raises another, related issue...what constituted "canonical gospel" as a broad term? The books we find in Eastern Orthodoxy often differ from those we find in Protestant moderatism or Catholic Orthodoxy. What some churches would refer to as "apocrypha" others accept as canonical truth to the same degree a protestant would accept Luke as in Canon...though the protestant may hold issue with the concept of (for example) Lilith being Adam's first wife, other branches hold that book to be as much in canon as any other. So ultimately, what constitutes "canon" varies from region to region, age to age, even person to person. This goes so far as to include early interpretations of Jude, the Apocalypse of John or the Acts of Paul to be Antilegomena where the Ethiopian Orthodoxy holds Didache to be in Canon. Charos (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with that specific a definition is that it doesn't include a lot of people who describe themselves as Christian on census forms. In my country, Australia, such a self declaration clearly includes a lot of "cultural" Christians, who might generally follow the morals of Christianity, but wouldn't know a Canonical Gospel if one hit them on the head. Are such people Christians? (If not, we'd better stop using such census information in Wikipedia articles telling us how many Christians there are.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, there is a difference between Christianity and Christian Philosophy. Simply thinking that Jesus had good morals and/or that the Ten Commandments are a good guideline etc. don't make you a Christian. These people aren't Christians, just moralists.--Jacksoncw (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes the various claims in Wikipedia for how many Christians there are extremely doubtful, being largely based on peoples' self declaration in national censuses. Shall we start addressing that problem? HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Many people answer "yes" to the question: "Are you a Christian?" because they believe that there is a God or because they think Jesus was a good man. If we asked people: "Do you think Jesus is the Messiah?", we would get a much more accurate censuses.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm pretty certain they can be both...look at the death of God movement (distinct from the Nietzsche concept of "god is dead" which was cultural, I'm talking more of the literal death of God movement) who believe that Jesus was indeed the son of God, but that in the interim, God as "the holy spirit" or "father" is quite literally dead and that salvation through Christ is no longer a reality. They adhere to Christ's teaching, view Christ as messianic IN that age, but no longer accept that the teachings and belief will offer salvation to anyone. I don't know if I'd say a major overhaul is necessary, but it would seem reasonable to make some mention of such sub-groups somewhere in the article, at least in the interest of thoroughness. :) Charos (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't say we shouldn't discuss these beliefs within the article, I am saying that it doesn't merit a change of the lead or of the description of Christianity both of which would violate WP:RSUW--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppression

In the 'Early middle ages' stands that the Muslims opressed the Christians; resulting struggles. As we know, The Christians and Jews enjoyed religious freedom under the Caliphate. Thus this must be eddited.86.80.208.136 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"As we know" the Christians and Jews enjoyed no such freedom. When the Muslim Sultanate conquered a territory they claimed that they provided religious freedom, but what your text book probably didn't tell you is that anyone who lived in a Muslim territory and wasn't Muslim was forced to pay at least 3 times more taxes than the Muslims. This essentially forced everyone else out. Let's get the facts straight.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to confuse your world view, but this would still be better than in most other places in the world, and, more importantly, muslims were expected to pay Zakāt, from which non-muslims were excused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only is that claim very debatable, but Christians were expected to pay tithes, just like Muslims were expected to pay Zakāt. Taxing a certain people more than every else for no reason would be considered oppression.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are somewhat confused. Christians in Muslim lands were certainly not required to pay tithes. Also, tithes were, to a large part, used to keep up the organisation of the church. Zakāt is a redistributive tax. Anyways, in the "early middle ages" we are talking about, the islamic state was much more tolerant of book religions than most competing states - in particular compared to the Byzantine and Frankish empires. Charlemagne nearly exterminated the Saxons bringing them the bliss of Christianity. Of course the Caliphs did not have Thomas Jefferson dictating them the first amendment... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say required to pay tithes, I said expected to pay it, meaning the church expected Christians to pay tithes and those that didn't were looked down upon and many times shunned. I find you claim that the Islamic state was more tolerant very hard to believe. Especially since the Qu'ran directly contradicts such tolerance. Families shun family members for not being Muslims and many people go out in groups to kill Christians, this happens today just as it did then. Muslims have never been tolerant of other religions. I noticed that your tone is reminiscent of someone who has a vendetta against Christians and I am not certain how to interpret that comment about Thomas Jefferson..--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it a grammatical error?

“Only 0.9% off all Christians live in the Middle East.” I believe that the off should be changed to of. 62.221.41.242 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've fixed it. Thanks for noticing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Baptism

Catholics have a whole different thought process on baptism. A infant has to be baptised and then later get CONFERMED into the Catholic church. Shall we bring this onto this page or leave it to the Catholic page? Alliereborn (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Alliereborn

Please elaborate. This is too incoherent.--Jacksoncw (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the right section for this :) The baptism section needs a major change. It's not about membership of a church, that's a seperate stage, though you may need to have undergone baptism to be a member depending on denomination\sect. Baptism is a public declaration of faith and the submersion in water symbolically parallels the transition from old life-death-new life. Clear? As Allierborn notes though Catholics do have a different view on baptism which I think is the same thing as christening, maybe.

118.208.168.232 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of recognition by other Christians

I'm not a frequent editor at this page, as I'm not very interested in religion, but reading over the article, I did note a fairly common sociological phenomenon in Christianity that is not discussed. It's fairly common for specific sects to take doctrines as recognizing specific other sects as not Christian. In particular, in the United States, several churches do not recognize catholicism as Christianity, and even more do not recognize LDS or UU churches as such. I brief google book search seems to suggest there is plenty of sources that discuss the phenomenon without mincing words. Is this topic appropriate for this article? I'm well aware of the fact that the Christianity article already has a lot of ground to cover, but inter-denominational divisions are a historically very important trend. i kan reed (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, no responses? I'd like at least a hint of whether this is appropriate material for this article or not. There is at least a fair ammount of scholarly material on the subject. i kan reed (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See a debate about Mormons and such on Talk:Persecution_of_Christians#Are_Mormons_Christians.3F. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And vice versa I think. Catholics view Protestants as heretics. While I disagree I can appreciate the honesty. Islam's similar. Didn't Mohammed say something like only 1 of the 99 sects that would crop up after his death would be the true Islam. Basically each groups defines their own standards of core and non-core Biblical (or the equivalent in the case of Islam) beliefs. Other groups who share similar positions are seen as equals those who reject\oppose those values are out. That being said individuals within a group may not conform to their official group which tends to complicate things a bit e.g. (genuine) Christian Catholics. LDS is obviously no more Christian than Islam, however it hasn't had the same amount of time to be recognised as its own spinoff. What's the UU inn reference to? 118.208.168.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC).

Christianity (as a concept of political governing tool)?

The historical section under "Early Church and Christological Councils" should be split into a new section (own title "Christianity as a Roman state religion" from the text "State persecution ceased in the 4th century, when Constantine I issued " and on. BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJOR SHIFT IN CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND CHURCH.

It might be useful to introduce a new wikipedia topic Christianity (a concept of political governing tool)

One of the problem of this article is that there is no historical political view of Christianity as a "as a concept of political tool" something that must be credited to Constantine I. The basic idea of governing the Roman Empire with the Christian religion as a political tool of governing. It was tried before with some elder religions and with the emperor as a god, but the Christian religion was found better suitable.

The basic idea/concept is to make the religion stated by the definitions formulated in creeds at start with the Nicene Creed, stating everyone that do not comply is not Christian and is at the same time a public enemy of the state/the empire. In reverse it means that if you are seeing yourself as a Christian person, you must also commit to the empire and the emperors sole governing power. And the concept in Roman imperial terms showed to be working for at least 1000-1100 years. And that is remarkable. It is the basis of the European, American and Middle East (outside Iran) political history.

The political foundation is still today the actual foundation of all political governing in "Christian" and "Muslim" states and in many respect more or less globally. The only basic exception is most likely Iran (see below).

The fragmentation of Christianity

---

The concept is also the basis of the fragmentation of Christianity of two reasons. The minor is isolation from the central political power in Constantinople, the Popes power in Rome and protestant state churches as POWs mainly in Siberia in the 18th century and the turmoil of British domestic politics in the 17th century. And the other major is repulsion of the central political power of Constantinople and later also the Pope in Rome. To make the political rift, there must be a religious rift in the terms of the creeds. To non-fundamentalists many of the religious rifts seems to be rather ridiculous but politically explosive. It is actually the explanation of the odd circumstances of most fragmentation of the Christianity as a communion.

There are a few very strong such rifts and the first is the Muslim rift that created Islam, where they really recreated the major religious foundations not making the rift looking that ridiculous. But still based on politics, repulsing the reign of the Caesar in Constantinople, mandatory rejecting the patriarch of Constantinople and the creeds. But still on the same religious basic foundation intermingled with local traditions and Sunni was born. Iran and the Shiites had no Christian traditions and hundreds of years of repulsion to the Roman culture created something else on the framework of Islam and is a very good explanation why still Iran makes the major resistance to western (Christian) culture today, while the Sunnis seems not to care that much. Looking into the history of Byzans it is amazing that so much of the loosing standpoints in previous political/religious battles (where the Eastern part of the empire normally was the losing side) in woven into Islam. A huge set of repulsion and a huge rift, but still the same major roots. But noticeable much better streamlined to keep conservative local power in reign (there are hardly any Muslim riots or revolutions in the past) and the lacking of central creed and central religious institution like the patriarchy or Papal power. Certainly a result of "local needs of its time".

The rift between the Pope and the Patriarch was certainly based on support from the kings and rulers of the medieval Western Europe and Charlemagne indeed (that was even declared emperor by the Pope in contrast to Byzans. But here the basic rift in the creed was at start minor points of the trinity and to most of us looks like religious bullocks, but dead political serious. Minor rifts not risking on a fragile political game making the rift. The basic and only matter was who is in political power where, and the repulse the Caesar in Constantinople there must be differences in creed. The major differences as emerged later by development of the Western churches making them, able to survive Western political demands and very different from the united Rome-Constantinople church of a 1000 years ago.

The political fight about power in the 14th-15th century in Western Europe between Pope and Kings is certainly the basis of the Protestantism. There has always been criticism and views of religious nature. And sometimes there is a political need for them. In the beginning of the 16th century there was a political need among kings in Northern Europe (where it was possible) to terminate the domestic Papal political power. Most remarkable is Henry VIII in England that at start did not realise this need writing a book criticising Luther & co and then just a few years later find he got to remove the Papal power in Britain. The talks about divorces as the main need of most likely not true, rather political as in his colleagues other northern European monarchies. So Henry could not be Lutheran, and Luther was sent as a gift from God in Northern Europe, stating the power of the king as the head of the national church.

The free religious protestants

---

In the political turmoil of 17th century Britain and the Swedish POWs in Siberia in the early 18th century had to live without Clergy and had to improvise just having the Bibles. And to many they read the Bible as amateurs and with no sense for the basic concept (both Jesus original mission (if statement informality and focus on the personal actions and thoughts) but also the national Church creeds). Coming home or/and solving the problem going to America many was happy getting them out of the way to the end of the world, what America was to a large extent at that time.

Fundamentalism has its roots in politics and survival

---

This syndrome is also the explanation of the religious fundamentalism in Christian, Muslim and also Jewish groups. The basic features that applied to Constantine were the Jewish roots of survival in harsh political and religious conditions. Features of the Jews surviving times like in Babylon and the later Jewish Diaspora of Rome was good in keeping an empire based on fundamentalist creed and so in repulsing that political power. The same made small fractions of super-fundamentalists kept alive as groups.

The slightly noticeable perspective of this is Jesus major non-formalistic and focus on acts and thoughts of the individual actually arguing against this Jewish fundamentalist tradition meeting the rabbis of the temple. But also the quite relaxed approach to life (and the has God shown another way of living you should respect it approach in the Quran )of Muhammad makes should in a fundamentalistic view also make fundamentalism impossible without rejecting Jesus or Muhammad.

It is also very odd to listen to Darwinists claiming one must be atheist to be scientifically and accept Darwin’s scientifically statements. Rather many fundamentalistic groups and national churches has confused themselves into remains from earlier fundamentalistic political turmoil that has nothing to do with Jesus of Muhammad, rather the political religious need of creeds.

This thread I would think should be developed with scientific references, because there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.188.34 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Grouping

Shouldn't subjects like what baptism does be grouped by what each sect of Christianity believes it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.170.144 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

proof that jesus died and rose

Christians have proof that jesus died by the shroud of Turin.The shroud has the image of jesus on it and blood. Also christians have proof that jesus rose from the dead is by him doing miracles and appearing to a lot of people. Christians have tons and tons of proof that Jesus was alive crucified and died and was buried on the third day he rose from the dead.If you don't believe in this than go search this up about miracles he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.70.147 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you want something in the article changed? As written is does mention some of the same points you mention, and the others are covered in their respective articles. LWG ^talk 02:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I searched and found no such proof that "Is by him doing miracles and appearing to a lot of people". So before you include any of this as fact or make changes based on this "proof", I urge you to find ANY reliable sources to cite. And the shroud of turin is controversial and already included in the article, as are the biblical accounts of miracles. There is also mention of the claims that he appears to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.40.59 (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Normandy cemetary is not a "Christian cemetery".

I really don't believe the unqualified title "Christian cemetery" is accurate. There are very well graves with Star of David in that cemetery not visible in the particular view of the photo. Soldiers buried there may have been assumed "christian" in an ethnic or cultural sense and have crosses at their grave by default. The photo looks nice, but is misleading and should not be in the article. At least, if it's included, there should be an explanation and qualification of the photo meaning in the caption. 70.109.189.90 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if this photo is of Normandy cemetery (unknown since the source has been deleted, but we can assume in good faith that it is) it is not Christian. There are plenty of congregations with attached cemeteries that would do better to represent what the caption claims. However I think the point of the picture is to show the Cross' use as a symbol of Christianity, therefor the caption should be changed to read something to the effect of: "Crosses marking the graves of soldiers at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial". Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Over-Moderation

Jesus Christ guys, why have we let this article get dumbed down and turned into speculation by the PC brigade, seriously, how can a man who fed FIVE THOUSAND, yes, that's 5 THOUSAnd, be desecrated like this. My God, we cannot allow this to happen. This article is something that everyone should be able to saviour, yet it has turned into little more than a graveyard of dead ideas promoted by the aforementioned "pC constabulary" and the "health and" safety freaks. The establishment shoould be ashammed of itsolf. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwweeeccc (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comments show that you have not understood yet what Wikipedia is about. The feeding of five thousand men is not an objective fact, but it is assumed by some believers to be true, even if there is no historical proof of such a presumed fact. As Bart Ehrman said, historians can only establish what has probably happened and by definition miracles are the most improbable event, therefore a historian could never claim that a miracle has happened. Wikipedia renders the scholarly consensus, it is not a blog wherein people play faithful. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wwweeeccc, if you would like to help us improve wikipedia, you have much more success if you offer specific changes you would like to see in the article, and if you remain courteous as you do so. Christianity is, obviously, a controversial topic, and it is true that the community generally has an unfavorable attitude towards Christian viewpoints, however, most wikipedians are also fairly reasonable. If you could post specific examples from the article where unnecessary viewpoint spam takes place, and suggestions for how to reword it (remembering that on such topics wikipedia only records beliefs, and does not state facts), there is a good chance that you will at least be heard and not just Bart Ehrmaned. LWG ^talk 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the community has a generally unfavorable attitude towards Christian viewpoints? That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. i kan reed (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "in this wikipedian's limited experience as an observer of Christianity-related articles". As I said above, though, in my experience most wikipedians are fairly reasonable, whatever their personal views may be. LWG ^talk 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I should say I have no problems with "many Christians believe that Jesus fed 5000 men", it is just that it is not an objective fact, even if you happen to be Christian. I believe that the world was created by God (or out of God), but I had to oppose another Wikipedian who considered it an objective fact and he restored an edit which treated it as objective, historical fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, there is lack of consensus in WP:Reliable sources on the objectivity of that fact, and wikipedia must reflect the sources, rather than Truth™. LWG ^talk 14:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian descent

Should there not be an entry for those of 'Christian descent', as I do find it a bit odd that there's no such entry on Wikipedia. --Bartallen2 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how one can be of "Christian descent." "Jewish descent" yes, since one can be racially as well as culturally Jewish, but since there is no "Christian race", how can anyone claim to be descended or not descended from it? If my parents are Christians, and I am an atheist, does that mean I'm of Christian descent? What about if my grandparents were Wiccan, am I then of Wiccan and Christian descent? The concept doesn't hold water (which, I'd hazard a guess, is why it doesn't have an article).

But hey, WP:BOLD, so feel free to go ahead and create the article yourself - just expect a fight at AfD to keep it. Yunshui (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah well Judiasm is a religion, not a race, as I'm sure that you're well aware of given that such a religion is bound to many continents and peoples and thusly not to one's race or ethnicity, and I meant descent in terms of one's origin or background. Yeah, I know that there'd be a fight to keep it lol :D --Bartallen2 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you gave us an explicit explanation of exactly what you mean by "Christian descent". HiLo48 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Jesus in the Old Testament

See [1] and [2]. If you think that Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament you should find a reliable source which affirms it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean the Old Testament is not a historical document about the life of Jesus, otherwise I could write an inspired document which maintains that in 2216 the Pope will be a lesbian and she will be elected President of the USA and claim that it is a historical document about the future Pope. Besides, there is absolutely no mention of Jesus in the Old Testament and all the claimed messianic prophecies about Jesus never use the word Messiah nor make sort of any claim of speaking about the Messiah. This is confirmed by Bart Ehrman: "The typical response of Jews to the Christian claims that Jesus fulfilled prophecy is that the scriptural passages that Christians cite are either not speaking of a future messiah or are not making predictions at all." Forged, e-book, p. 163. So, there is no way historians could consider that the Old Testament contains any evidence of the life of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

. Only 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East. Contents

This should be changed to be included in the rest of the list, this is biased and "Only" is not necessary.

Please change "Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania. Only 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East." To "Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania, and 0.9% of all Christians live in the Middle East."

99.107.146.138 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; there's no reason to segregate the lowest value like this. Article edited accordingly. Yunshui (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

United States-centric in the intro

"Among all Christians, 37.5% live in the Americas (11.4% in the United States), 25.7% live in Europe, 22.5% live in Africa, 13.1% live in Asia, 1.2% live in Oceania and 0.9% live in the Middle East."

Is it really necessary to include the percentage of Christians living in the United states? Why not also say the percentage of Christians living in Australia or Canada or the United Kingdom; I mean, they're English-speaking countries too!

I propose removing the "(11.4% in the United States)" statistic. Peter (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Doesn't seem controversial, and there's some support already. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant Subsection of various interpretation of Bible under the Section 'Scriptures'

The sections contains the differing interpretation of Bible by the three main christian denominations. I think this subsection is irrelevant here, as the article is about Christianity and describes its main beliefs. I think this sub-section should be deleted or moved to the Article on Bible it self. Sajjad Arif (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction to Sacraments section of this article suggested

Currently this section includes the sentence: Taken together, these are the Seven Sacraments as recognised by churches in the High church tradition—notably Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Independent Catholic, Old Catholic most Anglicans, and some Lutherans.

The phrase: ", Old Catholic most Anglicans, and some Lutherans." should be changed to: "and Old Catholic."

The Anglican and Lutheran churches overwhelmingly teach that there are two sacraments. The various Wikipedia articles on Anglicans, Lutherans and Sacraments all echo the two sacrament belief.

Phgeyer (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're right. In addition, many if not most Orthodox Christians hold that there also exist additional sacraments. Wesley (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

>:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.43 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberal denominations

Which denominations of Christianity have no problem with pre-marital sex + gay marriage? Pass a Method talk 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any denomination which "have no problem" with gay marriage and pre-martial sex, because those practices are generally forbidden in Christianity. Regards. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of Christianity

Should there be a section on criticism of Christianity? That it attracts criticism is a notable feature of the topic. DHooke1973 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Where would you stop? There are a lot of other articles mentioning Christianity in negative ways, where it's validly part of the article. I don't think it's needed here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to stop? Well if there's too much for one page, that's not a reason not to put it in. I've added a link to Criticism of Christianity for now. DHooke1973 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

People have been criticising Christianity for 2000 years. Definitely more than a page. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, Christians all over the world are trying to pull another "crusade" by voting down recognition of wiccan as a religion, making speech on how "wiccan is evil" and they are even attacking through Youtube! For all that is holy, they are bringing the blood stains to surface into their bible once again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.126.126.62 (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but have you cleared this with Wikipedia policy? It will be the first encyclopedia I have ever heard of to venture into debate. Even from a purely neutral standpoint I can see that a shift towards debate will result in a loss of objectivity.58.161.50.116 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012

The opening paragraph should have an additional line that - following "Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.[3]" - says "By definition, this means that - as far as the world is concerned - you accept the commandment to love all other members of the Christian faith [4]

[4]Joh 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." Joh 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

This is a non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith, as far as its definition - in whichever way being relative to the world - is concerned. No love for other members, no Christianity. It is therefore paramount that this be stated in the opening paragraph, by way of definition, as an article to be read by the world.

It is not an attempt to prosletyze. It is not subject to the interpretation of particular denominations. It is not an irrelevant subtext to the faith. It must be understood in the context of the faith, which is of the Jews, as being a commandment, like unto the ten commandments given to Moses on Mt Sinai (and therefore gravely serious).

I stress that you cannot define Christianity (for the world) without this commandment. Thanks in advance for your time, consideration and care.

Gottservant (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done We only provide an objective definition of Christianity, that's it. We don't accept the Christian's viewpoint of what defines a "Christian." In this article, a Christian is simply anyone who adheres to or claims to adhere to the religion of Christianity. There is a whole discussion within Christianity of what a "true Christian" is, but that has no place in an objective encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadiomals (talk • contribs)

Impact Of Christianity On Civilization

Suggested paragraph

The role of the Christianity in Western civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of history and formation of Western society. Through its long history, the church has been a major source of social services like schooling, several universities in the world was founded by the Church, some historians of science J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of science, and the Church's priest-scientists, many of whom were Jesuits, have been among the leading lights in astronomy, genetics, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, becoming some of the "fathers" of these sciences,. Church encourage medical care and welfare services and had influnce in economic; inspiration for culture and philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. And engineering and mathematics was highly advanced and its reflected through the evolution of architecture in the Middle Ages. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western World and remains a source of continuity linking modern Western culture to classical Western culture. The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. Long held Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage have also been influential in family life. Christianity played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy.Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity. While official Church teaching considers women and men to be complementary Influence of Christianity does not stop the on Western civilization, Christians also have played a prominent role in the development and pioneering features of the Islamic civilization. The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked universally as public holidays; Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and time itself is measured by the West from the assumed date of the birth of the Church's founder, Jesus of Nazareth: the Year One AD (Anno Domini). In the list of the 100 Most Influential People in Human history, Percent 65 Christian figures from various fields.

I will add this Paragraph it's with many Sources.Jobas (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is basically cherrypicking, synthesis and POV editing, based on what is mostly unreliable, primary or tertiary sources. The question of the influence of Christianity on Western culture is in itself notable and relevant, however it is also a big and important subject that requires many weighty sources. This means you need to use the academic literature on this subject, basically making a summary of the historiography of it, since there is not a consensus among scholars about this and it has been disputed since the beginning of Christianity.

One example (although basically all your examples are very problematic in several ways): You write that Christianity and specifically the parable of the Good Samaritan was the originator of human rights. I have never seen such a claim made before by any scholar on human rights, most of which argue they were a product of the secularisation, tolerance and universalism that came out of the Age of Enlightenment, and whether this period in Western history is a product of or appeared in spite of Christianity is equally disputed. Also you do not source that claim with anything but an entry in a dictionary which mentions nothing about human rights at all. This problem with your usage of sources to cite claims that they do not support or usage of questionable sources like adherents.com, christiansofiraq.com seems systematic and combined with a non-neutral language and systematic bias makes your whole paragraph unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

how about this Paragraph Christianity has been an important part of the shaping of Western civilization, at least since the 4th century. beside secularisation. several universities in the world was founded by the Church, . and The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and the ensuing Counter-Reformation affected the universities of Europe in different ways. some historians of science J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, and Ted Davis, have argued that the Church had a significant influence on the development of science, and had a imapct on arts, iterature, philosophy ,cultural tradition, law and politics. and during middle age period church building and ecclesiastical architecture reached new heights, Christians also have played a prominent role in the Islamic civilization. .Jobas (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The points about architecture and science are already made in the article. If you put in a paragraph like this, it will be a lighting rod for conter-arguments as you've already had here on the talk page. Better to leave such facts spread throughout this and other articles and let the reader come to their own conclusions. Perhaps a new article regarding the influence of christianity on western civilization, but be prepaired for opposing views to be added to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

since wikipedia is free encyclopdia it's mean i can write what i want, but it;s should be with verifiability sources, and this paragrah is achieved this i puted sources from britannica and academic literature and studies for historian of science. i will add it and in the paragrah of Criticism of Christianity it can added that there are criticism about christainty role on civilization. I tried befor to write new article about the influence of christianity on western civilization but they deleted and saied that it's redirected to christianity article: "covers a topic on which we already have a page - Christianity", so since it's not mention here i think it's should be add.Jobas (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't write what you want. Wikipedia contributions has to adhere to a number of policies, of which WP:Verifiability is only one. And I do question your claim that you are adhering to that with the above proposal. "christiansofiraq.com" is still not a reliable source, and the claim that "Christians have played a prominent role in the Islamic civilization" is dubious at best. Furthermore there is still a question of cherrypicking sources and claims in order to make them fit the various claims you are setting forth. Encyclopedia Britannica, while a reliable source, is a tertiary source and is not adequate for the claims in your text either. Furthermore there are a lot of other policies that are relevant in connnection with your suggestion, like WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG. Lastly there are sentences in your proposal that just doesn't make any sense like "beside secularisation. several universities in the world was founded by the Church". What is that supposed to mean? The following section "The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and the ensuing Counter-Reformation affected the universities of Europe in different ways" and "some historians of science [...] have argued that the Church [...] had a imapct on arts, iterature, philosophy ,cultural tradition, law and politics" is stating the obvious without really saying anything, and is already covered better in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• i changed the paragraph rigth? so we talk about the new paragraph in the new one i didn't add the christiansofiraq.com, and yes dear christian played role in the Islamic civilization if heared befor about assyrian and thier role in house od wisdome which saied:" Nestorian scholars scholars played a prominent role in the formation of Arab culture, and patriarchs occasionally gained influence with rulers.", or maronite role during the nahda, anyway look here it's saied about the influnce in lterature or what about here "Christian monks who quickly began the process of translating ancient works into Latin. By the end of the 12th century much of the ancient heritage was again available to the Latin West" (role in keeping old knowlage) or about the role in eduction and sience -positve and nagative- :"The principles of Galileo’s scientific research, however, were themselves the result of a Christian idea of science and truth" and in the last source you look at paragraph of church and sick welafre or the art ... to know that i don't bring these inforamtion from my mind it's written and as you saied brtitannica a reliable source, and is a tertiary source. so these one from brtitannica. when i wrote:" several universities in the world was founded by the Church". The following section "The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and the ensuing Counter-Reformation affected the universities of Europe in different ways it's mean christianity, and prostestant had affectec in unvirsities i think the source meantion that "about protestant" so it's prove that church have an influnce in "univirsities". if there is problem about the way of writting i can write it again. Jobas (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The last citation in your modified suggestion above is to christiansofiraq.com. Regarding the second point, as you yourself quote it reads: "Nestorian scholars scholars played a prominent role in the formation of Arab culture", not "Christians also have played a prominent role in the Islamic civilization", which is quite a different thing. And again, with that citation and the following you are just reiterating Encyclopedia Britannica on a subject that according to WP:REDFLAG should be sourced by qualified scholarly secondary sources. The generalised summary of a tertiary source just won't do for such broad and disputed claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • puting here about nestorian - which are christian rigth? - it's just one example to show that christian from different sect have palyed a prominent role in islamic culther, since you questioned about it, so if i put also a another source about the role of eastern orthodox on politice and econimic or catholic maronite role in literature so we can say that christian sects have paly a prominent role in islamic civilization since they have impact on seince literatue and ploitice. I really don't understand you when i puted Encyclopedia Britannica you saied it;s not enough when i puted studies for historian as John L. Heilbron who is Professor of History University of California, Berkeley or David C. Lindberg who is President of the History of Science Society which mean thier studies are an academic literature and studies, it's enoungh, also so all these sourcs are not "qualified scholarly secondary sources" and, i don't know why you still focus in christiansofiraq.com and forget the other sourcese. i would ask that if the scourses in this articale is more verifiability. and for your information most of the other wikipdia copy of christianity even the Featured articles they meantion that christianity had an impact on western civilization so i understand from you that it's Unreliable. Jobas (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never denied that Christianity has had an impact on Western culture, and I would be foolish to do so, but it really doesn't matter what you or I think, it is all down to the sources. Regarding the three remaining cites, the works of three academics, and which I have not covered so far in my objection, that is because you have failed to present any specific pages citing the exact claims you propose. Since their works are pretty standard and are present in the faculty library I frequent, I have looked through the books you cited, I admit that I only skimmed through them, looking for anything resembling your claims. But I have failed to find the exact phrasing where they voice claims that can be said to be similar to the interpretation you have presented. Since I can have missed it during my browsing, I would very much like to see references to the exact pages that supports your claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• ok i understand here that book when seince and christianity meet . Well pages 7-10 State that it is unfair to say that Christianity and Science were at odds during The Middle Ages It states that the relationship was complex, with each side existing in a tolerant state.It says that St.Augustine, and Sir Francis Bacon's ideologies are the one's that shape The Medieval Era. in the intrdouction he begans with the idea that christianity relation with seince is"conflic" after that argued about the oponion that christianity has aided min many spefice way. i found onther sourcese Thomas Cahill, in his 1995 book How the Irish Saved Civilization, credited Irish Monks with having "saved" Western Civilization during this period and the period of the Hiberno-Scottish mission and onther book for Thomas Woods How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization i will put the pages to prove my claims soon,. and i will added the pages for all my sourcese soon.Jobas (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the Crusades didn't help Islamic civilisation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Islam gains access to those works via Syriac, and Coptic Christians who had those Greek, and other classical works at their disposal.It was Christian monks of The Oriental Churches that translated those works into Arabic.If anything, Islam would have been unable to synthesize those ancient philosophers, if it weren't for Christian monks who still had knowledge of Greek.It is true that in The West, knowledge of Greek had died out, with Latin taking it's place, but knowledge of Greek works survived because of Christians (mainly in The East). look at the bratinnaica my source. and for you information eastern christian had nothing with Crusades.Jobas (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove a bad source

In the section "Protestant Interpretations" the following reference is made: "The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith". Mb-soft.com. Retrieved 2010-11-19.. mb-soft.com is not a reliable source, a reliable publisher, and essentially serves as a kind of "geocities" for self-created content. Please remove this reference which is essentially, as far as I can tell, serving as WP:LINKSPAM. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. The reference appeared to be in there to back up Helvetic meaning Swiss in Latin -- I instead linked the word Helvetic to the Helvetic Republic page. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Founder of

If the Islam and Muhammad articles (prominently) state that Muhammad is the founder of Islam shouldn't the same principle (of NPOV) apply to the Jesus and Christianity articles? 175.107.232.114 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine to add. Cite Hebrews 12:2 ("founder and perfecter of our faith") --75.65.161.214 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that if we start using the Bible as a reliable source, all sorts of weird stuff will appear in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of the Bible, it is an accurate source for Christian perspectives on things. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Since Christianity consists of countless different denominations with various interpretations of the Bible, it is better to use the writings of theologians and clergymen to get the "Christian perspective on things". Also, using the Bible as a citation for the claim in the thread could be regarded as WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH depending on the wording). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If the Bible is accepted as a reliable source, we should delete our Evolution article immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly lead to weird stuff like "According to the Bible, Nicolae Ceaușescu was the Son of God (Psalms 82:6 and Acts 17:28), being himself God (Psalms 82:6 and John 10:33–36)." If it worked for Jesus, in his quarrel with the Jews described in the Gospel of John, it certainly works for Nicolae, since those Jews were not assuming that Jesus were more divine than anyone else. Of course, this assumes that John did not make that up. So, if the Bible were a reliable source, it would be reliably sourced that Nicolae was God and the Son of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Historically, there is little doubt that Muhammad is the founder of Islam, both the creed and the organization. Jesus, on the other hand, was, as far as we know, an apocalyptic Jewish preacher. "Christianity" as such only slowly coalesced in the generations after his death. The first gospels are maybe written around the year 70, there is a strong influence of neo-platonic thought (especially in John), and the Nicene Creed, which more or less represents the beginning of what is modern mainstream Christianity, was only accepted in 325. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Tal Ilan considers that Mary Magdalene was the founder of Christianity, she being the first person who had the idea that Jesus was resurrected. Source: BBC Bible Mysteries ep. 4, "The Real Mary Magdalene", 2003. Bart Ehrman agrees, saying that she was the first apostle and mentioning her medieval title apostola apostolorum. Source: Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). "18. Mary: The Residual Questions. Question Two: Was Mary the First Apostle?". Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 253. ISBN 0-19-530013-0. Were there other women apostles? Other women who understood themselves, and were understood by others, to be commissioned by Christ in order to spread the word of his death and resurrection? We know of at least one other, one who could be thought of, in fact, as the original apostle: Mary Magdalene. Mary is called an apostle by some early Christian writers. ... Mary and the others, therefore, could be thought of as "apostles sent to the apostles," a title that Mary herself came to bear in the Middle Ages (Latin: apostola apostolorum). {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be hasty in adding such information. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have already edited the article before reading your message. I understand that you find the Ilan reference not reliable, but Ehrman is a world-known authority in these matters and the reference is properly sourced. Besides, already quoted in the article was N.T. Wright, who considers the question if Paul was the founder of Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This way anyone could claim that history is speculative, especially in respect to the historical Jesus. How else could it be? But the canonical Gospels do confirm Ilan's and Ehrman's view that Mary Magdalene was the first person who came up with the idea that Jesus was resurrected, or at least a member of such a group of persons who started the story of a resurrected Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a very significant difference between being the first one to (apparently) see the resurrected Jesus and being the founder of Christianity. One does not even remotely mean the other. Theoretically, I suppose, we could have any number of arguments about who the "founder" of Christianity is, based on one detail of rite, theology, pratice, or another. However, it does seem reasonable to me that, regardless of who is described as being the "founder" of the religion (whatever that means), Jesus was the person around whom the possible founders assembled, and was the first leader of their movement, prior to his death. That being the case, it does seem reasonable to me to say Jesus was the founder/originator. While there are academic arguments about who the true "founder" is, the common sense answer would seem to be Jesus. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As Heidegger said, "philosophy is the outright denial of common sense". I guess that the same applies to science. If we would write common sense stuff, we would not need reliable sources, we could just come up with our best guess. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, Ilan defines Christianity as "the belief in the resurrected Christ" and maintains that the first person to have and proclaim such belief was Mary Magdalene, as far as the canonical gospels can be trusted as historically accurate. Ilan maintains that Mary Magdalene convinced others that Jesus has resurrected, and so she started the religion of Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the first point, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a philosophy text. Regarding the second, by your own comment, that seems to be based on the opinion of one and only one scholar. I very seriously question whether that one individual's opinion is of such staggering importance that it meets WP:WEIGHT. One scholar is just one RS - there are others. Honestly, you seem to be taking that one individual's opinions as being the sole possible source of information on this topic. I cannot see how that is even remotely reasonable, particularly as you have not provided a clear definition of exactly what the "Christianity" that was founded was, and that would seem to be at least as important. Also, I would suggest that you perhaps look at some of the other possibile choices here. Others say Paul was the founder, and others point at others. I note that Encyclopedia Britannica, at least in the lead here, steers clear of the issue entirely, and indicates that Christianity "stems from" the teachings of Jesus. I can see, perhaps, a separate article on Founder of Christianity controversy, if that topic clearly in and of itself meets WP:N requirements, but I do have to very seriously question whether there is need in this article to even directly refer to the matter. At least, until and unless other sources which actively support that one individual scholars' assertion are produced, which would seemingly be required regarding what seem to be contentious subjects such as the possible "founder" of Christianity as a religion. There are so many unanswered variables regarding both the definition of "religion" and "founder" in this instance, that, honestly, I think the best bet would be to not directly address it in this article. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Going by the oldest surviving texts we have -- the Gospels in the New Testament, the non-canonical book of 2nd Clement and the non-canonical Greek and Ethopian versions of the Apocalypse of Peter -- although the texts differ in many ways, they're pretty clear that Jesus is aware that the religious movement which he is founding will continue on after his death. A succinct version is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says "upon this rock I will build my church" (emphasis added). Whether you go with the Catholic interpretation that the "rock" is Peter himself, or the Protestant interpretation that the "rock" is Peter's statement of faith, Jesus clearly is stating that he plans for his religious movement to continue on. Whatever you believe Jesus to be or to have been (human preacher, son of God, incarnation of God, a dual persona, etc.), and despite scholarly demarcations of various Biblical sources as "non-original" (such as the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" parable), Christian churches and scholars are generally in agreement that Jesus was the founder. See for instance the book "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend" by Bart D. Ehrman. Banaticus (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All WP:OR (or WP:SYNTH depending on how you spin it). You will need secondary reliable sources. I can't really see the problem here. There is an abundance of reliable secondary sources to back this up without having to resort to primary sources like that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Boring - no mention of popular culture or major works

This has to be one of the most dry encyclopedic articles I have ever browsed over.

There are no culture specific mentions of Christianity in popular culture, movies, plays, songs, games. There is only a tiny mention of Christian festivals, Christmas, Easter, with no details. There is no mention of the charitable works being undertaken by Christians worldwide - poverty, hunger, thirst, first aid.

Where are you? This is an advanced encyclopedia! An encyclopedia captures nothing if it does not reflect the lives of those whom it discusses. Gottservant (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should answer the question "what is". That is our goal here. Telling people who charitable it is, or providing pop culture references doesn't really answer that question. Encyclopedias typically do not include these things.- Unsigned comment

Really? Then why does the Islam article have sections for architecture and art? Why does the Scientology article have sections for their social reform works and their celebrity support? Gottservant, I support the addition of details for Christian holidays as well as information about the myriad of charitable work Christians do for people world-wide as it is well-documented and very notable.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, your knowledge of other articles has definitely bolstered the move to put pop culture references and references to major works in this article. I concur with your reasoning.58.161.50.116 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia should answer the question "what is"" when the subject is an "object". Christianity is not an object. Christianity is a "mystery" - an encyclopedia dealing with that should therefore answer the question "how is"58.161.50.116 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For coherence with the Islam page there should in fact be a Culture section. By comparing the page structure of the two pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) it appears to be the only difference. Depending on the ideal goal of Wikipedia, we should either add a Culture section to the Christianity page, or remove it from Islam. As space is given to criticism, a mention to the positive impact of charitable work and missions should also be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggot (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statistics

There is a map of the world where every nation with a population of 50% or more christians is colored purple. According to it more than 50% of Swedens population are christians. I don't know where those numbers came from, but it is just plain wrong. Denmark and Finland shouldn't be colored purple either. Those errors make me question the rest of the map too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.81.254 (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Idem for Netherlands: much less then 50 percent are churchgoing, and less then 10 percent literally believe in trinity and resurrection. So depending on how strict you define 'Christians', Netherlands should either be pink or grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole concept of claiming such high levels of Christianity is nonsense. The figures come from diverse sources, with no accurate nor consistent definition of what a Christian is. My country, Australia, is coloured purple on that map. Weekly church attendance is around 7% of the population. I cannot comprehend how such inaccurate rubbish is permitted to remain in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You should define a Christian based on what the Bible says, I do know that whether or not you go to church doesn't define a Christian. If you can find reliable mainstream sources that contradict evidence in the map, please notify editors so we can have consensus on the map.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Defining 'Christian', 'Muslim' etc. is a difficult task. Do you think all people with 'Muslim' written on their ID is actually a Muslim? Or that the son of (say) Turkish parents in Europe is a Muslim? I personally know several counterexamples if you believe so. More reliable statistics are required, or at least clearer definitions (e.g. Christian = person that goes to church at least 1 time per year, or people who defined themselves as such). For coherence, such clear distinction/definition should be applied homogeneously for every religion on the website.

If I can find time I will update the image according to the statistics listed in the CIA Factbook, which states that indeed Russia is worng but Australia is in fact still about 60% Christian, as of a 2006 census. Any objections to using those figures? We are unlikely to find anything more reliable. -- LWG ^talk 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remove a bad source (II)

In the section entitled Protestant, the following text is offered:

The oldest Protestant groups separated from the Catholic Church in the 16th century Protestant Reformation, followed in many cases by further divisions. For example, the Methodist Church grew out of Anglican minister John Wesley's evangelical and revival movement in the Anglican Church.

The last source listed is the following: "American Holiness Movement". Finding Your Way, Inc. Retrieved 2007-12-31.

As discussed above, this is source to a poor-quality, self-published website (mb-soft.com). Please remove it.

69.86.225.27 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Celestra (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Christianity symbol

File:Christianity symbol.png

Can the image on the right be used as the main christianity symbol, read the file description. The cross can be kept for roman christianity, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church 91.182.147.92 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

However, the simplest common denominator of Christian symbolism over the last more than 1600 years would be a plain Latin cross -- and groups which actively object to Cross symbolism are rather marginal with respect to Christianity as a whole (both in number of adherents and in diverging in significant respects from traditional historical mainstream "orthodox" Christianity). The ichthys might perhaps be considered "older" in some ways than the cross as a symbol, but the ichthys currently doesn't really have the instant broad public recognition that the cross does. In any case, some would say that Catharism has a lot more to do with neo-Manicheanism than with Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any symbol that is accepted by more Christians than the cross. Some minority groups might not use a cross, but they still respect the cross. The fish symbol does not come close to the broad recognition of the cross. --^StormRider 14:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Understated Significance of Nontrinitarian Sects

In the "Beliefs" section of the article, I feel that the sub-section devoted to Nontrinitarian theology effectively presents a bias; namely, on account of its omissions. The sub-section is four sentences, with the main two statements being: "Nontrinitarianism refers to beliefs systems that reject the doctrine of the Trinity." And, "They are a small minority of Christians." I also expect that the second statement is only true if it is read as "they are a minority of Christians," and as set against the entirety of the global Christian population. To say that they are a "small minority" seems to suggest that among minorities, they are minorities. This seems a little absurd to me considering that some professed-Christian Nontrinitarian belief systems include the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church, all Oneness Pentecostal churches (being at least 13 formal denominations), and the Christian Science churches. I hardly expect that these three, even, could cumulatively be called a "small minority" of either historical or modern Christian influence.

I am personally not a Nontrinitarian, which I mention only to argue for my non-bias on the topic; nonetheless, I feel that the significance of the Nontrinitarian model of Christian thinking has been greatly understated, again, by omission. To this point, I would especially ask the editors to consider the great controversy in Christian history between John Calvin and Michael Servetus. If John Calvin is not considered to be a person of trivial influence, then neither should it be thought trivial how significant the issue of Nontrinitarianism was in his government. Michael Servetus was burned alive on a pyre that consisted of one of his Nontrinitarian books, and, John Calvin, although considering the exact means of execution "harsh," approved of his being put to death for heresy. This ought to solidify that today's Nontrinitarian sects, being significant in population, represent a very serious division of Christian thought. The topic deserves more than four sentences.

I believe that these main ideas should be added (however worded):

"Nontrinitarians reject the teaching that God exists in three distinct persons; however, a Nontrinitarian theology does not necessarily imply rejection of the divinity of Jesus, or of the divinity of the Trinitarian person of the Holy Spirit: A Nontrinitarian viewpoint asserts only that God, however named, is absolutely singular in identity."

I will not make a great fuss about it, but I would also be thrilled if a little more respect were given the weight of this theological division in Christian history. Men killed each other and died over the topic. I would like to see a few words to respect the weight that such a fact carries. Daniel.sparks (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

White Space

There is a lot of white space in this article in the following sections: Creeds, Trinity, Worship and Baptism. I've tried moving a few things around but can't figure out what is causing it. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? Jainsworth16 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've sized it at 100%, 125%, and 150%, and don't see a problem, so perhaps it's your browser or preference settings. Leaving this open. Dru of Id (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also am not seeing these white spaces. I agree with Dru of Id, sounds like a browser issue. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Cadiomals fixed it but must have forgot to change the help box to helped. I still don't understand what causes it and how you guys get rid of it. Jainsworth16 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental tenet missing from first paragraph

If you know anything at all about Christianity, it is that its founder, Jesus Christ, instituted most famously of all that the body of believers that came to be known as "Christians" would be defined by their commandment to love one another.

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. Joh 13:35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

This is the Zenith of the Christian faith and you have not for even a moment mentioned this fundamental tenet in the first paragraph. It is not subject to wavering interpretation, it is universal to the Christian faith. It originated with the founder of the faith and was carried to the death by martyrs of all denominations.

I will be checking to see that this is addressed some time in the near future. I am not just picking out a random verse here. It SAYS "All will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another". It is the only time Jesus ever talks about the appearance of the believers to the world. Even if it is that you are only concerned with the appearance of Christianity in this article, mentioning this commandment is crucial to doing that with any kind of integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, if no one is going to add the "New Commandment" to the first paragraph, I will just do it. I don't want complaints though - I have already spellled out more than enough reason to add it. 58.161.50.116 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is ABSOLUTELY 100% correct, "Love one another" is essential to the definitionof what it is to be a Christian. A L S O THE BIBLE SAYS: in Matthew 7:15-16, 20 to WATCH OUT for false prophets,.. and that we will know them by thier fruit,.. by the way they act. New Living Translation (©2007) 15 Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?...20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. ByStander2 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that this would be more appropriate under the article for #REDIRECT Jesus. It does not help a reader understand "what is Christianity" though would help a reader understand "who was Jesus" Diraphe (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Important though it is, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article atleast. Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Scripture

Jainsworth16, thank you for all the recent work you have done to keep "Christianity" a quality Wikipedia article. I welcome most of the changes you have made to the "Scripture" section. I just have two issues with them. First, I think it is problematic to say that the traditional Christian view is that the Scriptures "literally 'God-breathed'", as this is not the case unless Christians have traditionally believed that God expelled the Bible from his lungs. I understand that this was a good faith edit: I believe that what you meant was that the wording in 2 Timothy literally translates to "God-breathed". If you want to in some way work the phrase "God-breathed" back into the section, I will not be contentious about it, so long as the meaning is clear.

My other problem is that while it is certainly the view of (many) modern fundamentalist/evangelical Christians that God inspired the Scriptures but not word-for-word, I do not see what makes this a traditional view. It was not all that long ago that Christians believed that the Bible was given by word-for-word inspiration (and that the dialect of Greek it was written in was a Holy Ghost language, as opposed to being the common dialect of its time).

Marie Paradox (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments of appreciation Marie. Agree with you completely on the first point, I'll fix it. On the second point I think we need to discuss further what the appropriate wording should be. This is what the book I referenced says on the traditional view p21:

"The third view of inspiration held by historic Christianity, is that God worked through the personalities of the biblical writers in such a way that, without suspending their personal styles of expression or freedom, what they produced was literally "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16; Greek: theopneustos). The emphasis of the 2 Timothy text is that scripture itself, not the writers only, was inspired ("All Scripture is inspired by God," NASB). If it were only the writers themselves who were inspired, then one might argue that their writings were contaminated by the interaction of the message with their own primitive and idiosyncratic conceptions. The teaching in 2 Timothy 3:16, however, is that God guided the scriptural authors in such a way that their writings bear the impress of divine "inspiration." Based on such verses as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21, the traditional Christian view is that the Bible communicates objective, propositional truth. Unlike the neoorthodox position, which conceives Scripture as becoming the Word of God when it acquires personal existential significance, the traditional position is that Scripture is and always will remain truth, whether or not we read and appropriate it personally. Jainsworth16 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, the wording of your most recent edit looks great. As for the second point, if my memory serves correctly, this is, for certain values of traditional, wrong. However, you have given a citation, which is more than I have at the moment, so until I can come up with more I will rescind my objection. Thank you for once again working to improve the entry. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cite that reference as a knock down argument, but more to help discussion on an alternate wording. I'm not that desperate to use the word "traditional" to describe that view, if you feel strongly about it. I would be happy to use your words: "a view of many modern fundamentalist evangelical Christians is..." But, I do think it would be helpful if we give an indication of which view is dominant and maybe the word "traditional" would help convey that. Jainsworth16 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of compromise; the problem is that the citation does not support my wording. How would you feel about retaining the word "traditional" and omitting the phrase "without suspending their particular style or freedom"? I would have no disagreements with the text that would result. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I would be happy with that too. It also makes the sentence more direct and to the point. I will remove that now. Jainsworth16 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede

A passage in the lede says: "The saving work of Christ on the cross is often referred to as the Gospel message, or good news."

1. The Gospel message is not that Jesus died on the cross, but that he was resurrected. The gospel is that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jacob is the one true God of all, and that all people (ie. Gentiles), not just Jews, can know Him and receive his grace and salvation.
2. The "saving work" (of Christ) seems to need a link to salvation, but even this is bit crude, as this is a purely Christian definition. Whatever it links to, the "saving work" needs linkage and explanation.

-Stevertigo (t | c) 09:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that wording could be improved/expanded. On point 1: The gospel is, that the death, burial and reserection of Jesus means that all people who have faith in him have eternal life. No? On point 2: Maybe it should have a link, but I thought a "purely Christian definition" is exactly what we want here. Also there is a salvation section further down in the article so we should keep the details for the main article. Jainsworth16 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Most Christian theologians would argue that the Gospel is much broader than just a "get out of hell free card."ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So what can we change in that sentence to make it more informative but still keep it short? Jainsworth16 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well for starters, we can change "The saving work of Christ on the cross" because the cross is only part of the story. How about the saving work of Jesus' ministry? The Gospel itself is what Jesus actually preached, and the death and resurrection only validated the Gospel. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of William Lane Craig, I think he makes this point. I agree that the resurrection does validate the gospel. But I think the death does something more than just validate. "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Heb 9:22. "for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many." Matt 26:28 Jainsworth16 (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. All I mean though was that when we say "The Gospel" we mean Jesus' mission - his ministry - which primarily means his message of God's love, which included all peoples, not just Jews as was before, but Gentiles. I agree we do regard the crucifixion with symbolism. But the crucifixion is not the whole Gospel. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're in agreement, we just need to find the correct wording. How can we summarise the gospel in a sentence or two? Jainsworth16 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW various summaries of the gospel as given by N. T. Wright can be found here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2008/09/04/gospel-definitions-nt-wright/. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice. (NT Wright, from the above link)

"First, with roots in Isaiah, it mean the news of YHWH’s long-awaited victory over evil and rescue of his people. Second, it was used in the Roman world of the accession, or birthday, of the emperor. Since for Jesus and Paul the announcement of God’s inbreaking kingdom was both the fulfillment of prophecy and a challenge to the world’s present rulers, ‘gospel’ became an important shorthand for both the message of Jesus himself, and the apostolic message about him. Paul saw this message as itself the vehicle of God’s saving power (Romans 1:16, 1 Thessalonians 2:13)."

Underline mine.

N.T. Wright also offers up a concise definition:

"I could try taking a Pauline angle. When Paul talks about “the gospel,” he means “the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.” Now, that’s about as brief as you can do it."

Though very concise, the problem with this is that it doesn't quite get to the Good News: that Jesus' kingship means faith, peace, and justice throughout the whole world. It wouldn't happen overnight, and its still not completely fulfilled, but thats the promise of the Gospel. -Stevertigo (t | c)

I tinkered with the lede a bit:

"Jesus' ministry and resurrection after death on the cross are often referred to as the Gospel message, or good news. In short, the Gospel means news of God's eternal victory over evil, and the promise of salvation and eternal life for all people in faith."

I think this works well. The only issue is the usage of "in faith" instead of the natural "of faith." If we say "of faith" that gets into sticky territory of 'who gets saved' etc. and I want to avoid that somehow. It may be that an explanatory footnote is warranted. I come from a universalist perspective, which tends to dislike talk of special conditions (such as proper theology) on salvation and eternal life. The universalist perspective is that there is plenty of room in Heaven, even for atheists. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Ive made a number of changes, and the passage now states:

"Jesus' ministry and resurrection after death on the cross are often referred to as the Gospel message, or good news. In short, the Gospel means news of God the Father's eternal victory over evil[5], and the promise of salvation and eternal life for all people through faith and divine grace."

I think this way properly expresses the Universalism aspect of Christianity, and by referencing both faith and grace, covers all bases. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job sorting out the wording here. I was away for the bank holiday weekend so it was difficult for me to join in. Can I suggest some minor changes?

"Jesus' ministry, including his sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection are often referred to as the Gospel message, or good news. In short, the Gospel denotes God's victory over evil[5], and the promise of salvation and eternal life for all people by divine grace through faith." Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Dont know about the word "denotes" though. I'll add your suggestions to the text. BTW, by adding "by divine grace through faith" would seem to suggest a kind of conditionalism on salvation (conditional on faith). Doing so would give undue weight to faith as a salvatory paradigm, which would be incorrect given the idea that God's grace and man's faith are sort of independent of each other (cf. Five solas) Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should find a synonym for "denotes". Actually I wanted to quote Ephesians 2:8."For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith". I don't think it gives undue weight to faith. Without God's grace, faith in Him would be pointless. Without human faith, grace cannot be recieved. But, I don't think we should use too much Bible language. How about "by divine grace and human faith" Jainsworth16 (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We should remove the phrase "after death on the cross" It's repeated and unnecessary. Instead of "means", can we use "In short, the Gospel IS news of God..." Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am about to make your your proposed edit along with removing some italic emphasis to conform to the manual of style. I am also about to remove a phrase added in good faith (heh) -- namely, "faith and". While I understand that Soli Fide is an important part of many a Christian's worldview, we need to be careful about presenting it as normative Christianity, when the majority of Christians do not have it as part of their creeds and, more importantly, a significant number of qualified authorities would say that Paul never taught salvation by faith. (For example, a number of New Perspective scholars argue that the phrase traditionally translated "faith in Christ" should be rendered "faithfulness of Christ".)

I also question the inclusion of the phrase "for all people". While phrases like this do appear in the epistles, its use here obscures the fact that theologians have spilled a lot of ink over what they mean. However, I will wait for clarification before changing this. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Marie, the for all people is necessary. Christianity is a universal religion, as opposed to an ethnic religion. One of the Gospel's cornerstones is that Jesus came to save not just Jews but Gentiles as well. It is through Jesus that the God of Abraham becomes known to all peoples everywhere. The target audience for the Gospel is everyone. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jainsworth, I wrote it in a way which is theologically inclusive, rather than exclusive. You say "Without human faith, grace cannot be recieved" - which may in fact not be true - it may be that God's grace exists for people even when they have no "faith." So its written in a general way, to include both the faith of people and the grace of God. We can define later how these interrelate and so forth, but for the lede its important to touch upon the relevant concepts without too much detail. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Marie, I actually think we do need to include "faith" in there, until today I was 100% sure this was the normative position after the reformation. Also, I agree with Stevertigo, we need to include all people. Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am confused by this comment. Are you aware that there are still Catholic and Orthodox Christians, that they comprise the majority of Christians, and that their churches do not teach Soli Fide?

Anyway, I do not dispute that faith plays an important role in all three major branches of modern Christianity. However, as I have said before, many authorities would dispute that Paul had anything like this in mind when he wrote about pistis (which can be translated as "faith" or "faithfulness"). (See, for example, Chapter 4 of Caroline Johnson Hodge's If Sons, Then Heirs.) I think the way forward would be to find a citation outside of the Christian Scriptures that indicates that faith plays an important role in the three big branches, if not others.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I agree with the meaning of your wording for "faith" and "grace" phrase, I just want the sentence to sound nice. Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated. Marie removed it though. I did not mean to include "faith" itself as a representation of sola fide. I don't know where you are getting that from, Marie. I simply mentioned sola fide as an example of where conditionism does not apply. I used it, together with grace, in way which should appease both conditionalists and universalists. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If I misunderstood what you were saying about the solas earlier, I apologize. Perhaps it would help if I enumerated what I currently see as the problems with the old wording:

1. The only reference for the claim about faith was Romans 6:23 even though no English translation uses the word faith in this verse.
2. When Paul does talk about pistis in Romans, he arguably does not have in mind what modern Christians mean by faith. (The Bible is a primary source. We should take care not to make it our sole reference for any given claim in the article.)

I am not saying that pistis was unimportant to Paul. I am not saying that faith is unimportant to mainstream Christians. I am not saying that faith has no place in the lede. What I am saying is that if we are going to include something about faith, we need to back it up with a secondary or tertiary source that actually says something about faith. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Marie, I think you're right. I've done some reading on the salvation page and realised that I am biased towards the "penal substitution and faith" paradigm of salvation. New Perspective on Paul is also really interesting. I don't feel like i know enough on this so I'm willing to take your word on it. I'm happy with the current wording, let’s fix something else. Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. Marie, I agree we should find a source linking the Gospel to faith, and then we can restore "faith" to the text. Jainsworth, FWIW, I find myself biased toward universalism. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Double Standard Criticism

I have been watching the Criticism developement of wikipedia for a long time(years). I have read the archive however, this needs to brought up again. There is no criticism in the atheism or evolution article and before you say there is no valid criticism there is even no in the NAZISM article yet we seem to allow a criticism section here not because wiki policy permits(it does)it or because of validation but seemingly to accommodate people's politics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and if I were to read an encyclopedia I would expect consistency. I am not saying we need to add a criticism section to those articles but remove the one here leaving a link to it. For the record, I know wikipedia policy of criticism.69.145.24.3 (talk)

You're welcome to add criticism to those ideologies.ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the criticism section here is deleted, chaos will ensue. Per WP:NPOV every article that can have a criticism section should get one - but the criticism must be sourced to WP:RS items, and not personal opinion. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh...criticism sections are actually discouraged. It is preferable to disperse criticism throughout the article, each bit in it's pertinent section, not in a separate section all its own.Farsight001 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a policy discouraging them? History2007 (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an essay, Criticism which is an interpretation of the policy Neutral point of view. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I stopped reading essays long ago. Anyone can type an essay and I often refer to the situation based on the as yet to be written essay WP:Invitation to confusion. There are even essays that contradict each other. I really think essays should be ignored until they are guidelines or policy. History2007 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, though recognize that some essays are a useful explanation of policy and consensus even though others are nonsense. The part of NPOV (as referenced above) you want is then Undue weight which specifically discusses criticism and is policy. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, essays do present the Wanamaker quandary: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." in that one does not know which half to call nonsense at first - so I generally ignore them all unless they become guidelines or policy. The Undue policy does not refer to sections, however. Does it? History2007 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, and the fact that we waste a lot of time arguing the case from first principles on pages such as this, is a good reason to reflect on the reasonable essay that represents the most common view. Some articles may benefit from such a section. For a generic topic like "Christianity", a "Criticism" section can be indefinitely long and failing to integrate any points it makes by balancing them with counter-views in the rest of the article is a poor way of structuring the article and almost certain to keep failing UNDUE as it grows (the key word being "disproportionate" in that section of NPOV). If you wish to establish a consensus on whether such a section is worth the indefinite drama, you may find an RFC helpful. I certainly would not be interested in arguing the case. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree actually. Far be it for me to do an Rfc here (or almost anywhere in fact) for it is generally the process of throwing away 30 days of one's life... Anyway, I was just making a passing comment here, for I saw the deletion of that section as an invitation to debate. But as you said a long discussion on that is not going to help. So I will stop as well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, atheism does have its own dedicated criticism of atheism article, but the main atheism article might do well with a summary section. And the Nazism article is generally written with a historical and critical tone, plus there's the consequences of Nazism and denazification articles. But perhaps that article too needs a summary section, one which spells out for the naive reader that Nazism was bad. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, there is also Islam#Criticism_of_Islam but Buddhism and Judaism do not have it, although there are 2 articles for those too. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad style. I suggest criticisms be inserted throughout the article where relevant. See Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_.22criticisms.22_or_.22controversies.22. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an essay. It means very little in terms of policy, if anything at all. Generally speaking, focused material helps deal with the issues in my view. And given that there is a clear article on "Criticism of X" summarizing it and putting a link to it is the way Mains are usually handled. History2007 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty poor style, especially considering that the current criticism section doesn't actually list any specific criticisms except for stating their existence. If their is specific critiques of aspects of Christianity they should not be ghettoized to a single section. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That section has no sources. But I will touch it up with sources in a day or so. There are plenty of sources. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How many reputable tertiary sources include criticism sections in their articles on religions? I can think of none. FWIW the idea strikes me as odd. This article in particular ought to be about all that Christianity is and was. Criticizing Christianity will almost certainly give priority to modern Christianity over historical Christianity (unless we also plan on criticizing the Ophite belief that the Edenic snake was Jesus or the medieval Catholic practice of selling indulgences) and privilege certain Christian sects over others. There are ways that the current article seems whitewashed (why is there no mention of anti-Semitism, for example?), but this can be fixed by making sourced additions to the appropriate sections. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by tertiary articles on religion? And by the way there was a mile long discussion here about the inclusion of criticism in religious articles, etc. And some MOS on religion somewhere else with even a longer discussion. What did they say? I have no idea, it is way too long to read. I think that discussion just died of boredom. Now regarding "why is there no criticism of criticism X" in this article, it is because this article is about Christianity, and there is a separate article called Criticism of Christianity. Unless the two articles get merged (highly unlikely) the criticism is presented in that article with a Main link here. If topic X is missing in that article, it should be mentioned there. The question of how a summary of that article is presented here is only settled by WP:Due, but this article can not be a clone of the criticism article, but should just refer to it via a Main. History2007 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, since you mentioned antisemitism, let me mention why one can not pay any attention whatsoever to these essays that float around and get linked right and left. I just clicked on the history of the essay WP:Criticism to see who had written it, and saw that it was mostly edited by an editor called Noleander - and I do not know him/her. But I recalled that on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-18/Arbitration_report he was topic banned. So we have an editor who is topic banned writing an essay which other people follow as an example... One of these days someone needs to mention that on WP:Invitation to confusion after all. History2007 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW the debate over criticism sections and articles is an old one, and there have been times when debate has flared up. In my view criticism sections are a inelegant but functional compromise - a way to segregate material that often doesn't fit into other parts of the article, and more to the point, material which article proponents often want to censor. The idea that criticism sections and articles violate POV or FORK has largely been defeated, as such sections and articles are often well monitored. These sections are containers for a certain valid kind of information, and removing the container seems to often lead to a removal of the information. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

They lead to disjointed articles, criticisms are responding to specific concerns and it only makes sense to mention them when discussing the issue in the first place. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase I used was "reputable tertiary sources". By that I meant Encyclopedia Britannica and the like. (For anyone who is interested see Wikipedia's guidelines on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

/* Christianity */

Christos,should be "From Hebrew:משיח.Moshiach,from Greek: Χριστός anointed as was the custom for the Jews of the 1st century to use Hebrew first, then to talk to gentiles Christos was used to use as the adjective.Cesparza1969 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Jesus' Commandment

I think this section could be included if it is improved to include more than just a catholic reference. Jesus' command is To love God like you love yourself and to love your neighbor like you love yourself. The two are joined in that God is love. His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments. -Catechism of the Catholic Church 202, 2196, 214- Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The statement that "His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments." consitutes original research. I am not an expert in CCC, nor do I know what the consensus is regarding it as a reliable source (for anything other than as a primary source on itself), but my search of the available texts does not produce any results for that phrase. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Section 2 Chapter 2 CCC 2196.Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording needs to be changed to avoid original research. This is a link to the ref http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2.htm being quoted. It doesn't say "love God as you love yourself" at all. It says "love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself". These two cover the entire law, including the decalogue. I think it makes sense to include it in this article and it makes sense to include it near the 10 commandments section, but I'm not that desperate to include it and open to other suggestions. If the source is considered primary research (i don't know why it would be), we can probably find simlar statements in Barnes, Clark, Gill, MHWBC etc. Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a primary source for the tenets of the Catholic Church. As such it can be used to source the Catholic interpretation of certain aspects, but cannot be used for generalised statements about Christianity as a whole. I don't know what "Barnes, Clark, Gill, MHWBC etc." refers to, but you do need a reliable secondary source for general statements about Christianity like the one Ghostprotocol888 tried to add. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Barnes, Clark, Gill and MHWBC are a few of the most well known commentaries on the bible. They interpret the text and give thier opinion, but also have their own bias e.g. Barnes and Clark tend to have arminian views, Gill is more calvanistic. I guess these would be secondary sources?? Jainsworth16 (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Allegations that are being made against the posting of Jesus' Command are non fact based. They are not based on valid policy, due to the misinterpretation of wikipedia policies by other(s) opposing. In compliance with all wikipedia policy, an addition to the Christianity article was made -WP:CON-WP:VERIFY-. Blanking, illegitamate Vandalism has occured, where significant parts of a page's content is removed without any valid reason -WP:VAND-. View Article's history, the orginal edit by Ghostprotocol888 was removed without valid reasoning; there is a not valid claim of WP:OR on the first reversion; the original edit by Ghostprotocol888 meets wikipedia's verifiability requirements: At the time of the original edit, it was previously unchallenged and attributable to the article -WP:OR-WP:VERIFY-. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute" -WP:CON-. After the original edit by Ghostprotocol888, a reversion was made claiming WP:OR invalidly. Technically, this inavalid reversion and all further invalid reversions is Vandalism. The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-. The actual course of action taken was making invalid reversion claiming WP:OR, a form of Vandalsim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.51 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IP 75.164.216.51 states that "the orginal edit by Ghostprotocol888 was removed without valid reasoning". Since I was the one that reverted the original edit I would like to dispute that claim. Ghostprotocol888s original edit stated: "Jesus' command is To love God like you love yourself and to love your neighbor like you love yourself. The two are joined in that God is inside every person. His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments.", and this without any source at all provided. This is an edit that makes numerous claims: 1. That Jesus' command [sic] is To love God like you love yourself and to love your neighbor like you love yourself. 2. The two are joined in that God is inside every person. 3. His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments. So I count at least 3 claims made, all of them unsourced. And no, a reversion made in good faith and in a content dispute does not constitute vandalism. I would advise you to read up on those policies that you so eagerly try to cite. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternate wording suggestion

According to the synoptic gospels, Christ generalised the law into two underlying principles; 1)'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' and 2)'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Matthew 22:34-40. These are in fact quotes from Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament says "These comprehend the substance of what Moses in the law, and what the prophets have spoken. What they have said has been to endeavour to win men to the love of God and each other. Love to God and man comprehends the whole [of] religion; and to produce this has been the design of Moses, the prophets, the Saviour, and the apostles." [Notes on the New Testament, Matthew chapter 22, verse 40] Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I do prefer the first part of your alternate wording, although I am in no position to judge whether so much detail is warranted for those particular sayings. But I would advise against using that last part with that site as a source. It would be much better if you could directly cite a scholarly source interpreting this, since we still have a denomination problem concerning sites like studylight.org, which makes their reliability dubious in a Wikipedia context (even if they are themselves citing a scholarly source). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It says on the website that they are 'not apart of any one church group or denomination' http://www.studylight.org/info/statementoffaith.html Jainsworth16 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is another website which also has Barnes Notes available. Seems more scholarly. http://www.ccel.org/about/mission.html Jainsworth16 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing Jesus' Command on the Christianity page is the epitome of bad faith. Vandalism occured -WP:VAND-. As already mentioned, a good faith edit would have been a revision and not a reversion, especially one not claimed invalidly -WP:CON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.51 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was actually a good thing that it was removed. The whole section was just bad. It needs to be written well otherwise it will bring the quality of the whole article down. You should try to learn from others rather than getting offended and angry. Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-.

Yes, and this is where you have to agree the wording before putting it into the article. It doesn't seem like Saddhiyama wants to spend time correcting your edit. It's up to you to have it up to standard in order to avoid having it deleted. I have suggested alternate wording above, but I can't be sure its good enough. Thats why i've posted it here so others like you can comment on it and point out where to improve it, whether it is appropriate etc. I've read the article in primary sources, it says you can use a primary source to show what the text says, but you can't interprete it yourself, you need to quote a secondary source to do that. Also, what you're writting is not even biblical, the text doesn't say "love God like you love yourself" anywhere. Jainsworth16 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy stating that, Jainsworth, agreement does not have to be majority. "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]" WP:NOR "...Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy — so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.[1]" The edit does show proof of, "love God like you love yourself" in, "The Son of God commands." -1 John 13:34- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostprotocol888 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put the words in the 10 commandments section. Jainsworth16 (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

If edit warring starts up again, for whatever reason, please do not hesitate to raise at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Bible enthusiasts could benefit from seeking advice from the community at WikiProject Bible, before behaving in a way that may be interpreted as using Wikipedia for evangelizing. Please take careful note of Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (the Bible is most often considered a primary source) and Religion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

These reversions were never a matter of "edit warring." Consensus had already been reached on the talk page under "Fundamental tenet missing from first paragraph." This is a matter of Vandalism; revert only when necessary; please determine gravity before posting invalid opposition. WP:ROWN WP:WAR WP:VAND Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems Ghostprotocol is right back to edit warring after the expiry of their block. Also citing a lot of policies at random doesn't exactly improve your case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghostprotocol, I can't see a solid consensus above for the edits you have been edit warring over. Have a look at Dispute resolution and consider a process such as Requests for comment to make a proposal here and establish a credible consensus first. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Solid" is not a modifier of "consensus" using valid Wikipedia policy; there is obviously consensus for The New Commandment when it is in the actual article. WP:CON I agree with Ghostprotocol888. Vandalism occurred, not Edit Warring. "Revert only when necessary; please determine gravity before posting invalid opposition."Promontorylink (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's in the article because you put it in after. It was an edit war. I would like to discuss the changes you have made. The New Commandment in John 13:34-35 does not refer to the Shema but only the second one. Only the synoptic gospels put these two together. So it would be incorrect to use the words "New Commandment" to refer to quotes from the synoptic gospels which list both.Jainsworth16 (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jainsworth16, first there is a colon to the John quote in the new commandment article. Second, Christ does not "generalised" that information; Christ is alive in the present, and in the past tense. You have to determine gravity, singularity, and tense; in Christianity, Jesus is God. When He says "I" He is speaking as God. You're interpretation is skewed with error. Why are you only wanting to use the synoptic Gospels? In the bible sources you cite, the information is listed under The Great Commandment, singular not plural. Pointing out a word you may have missed, "unto" in The New Commandment article. That word changes the meaning of "like." I have seen many different versions of the bible. In some of them, the word "equal" is used to relate the two principles instead of "like." Promontorylink (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ genralised in the first century, therefore we use past tense. I want to use the synoptic gospels for this sentence because they all group the two commandmends together 1 love God, 2 love neighbours, in the same story. John doesn't have this story, I think its slightly misleading to suggest all the gospels have this story. John 13:45-35 is also a good text but is a different story so I think its unnecesarry to use it here. Jainsworth16 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to determine the two principles being one commandment is that both of those principles were already commandments, in Jewish Law. So they are not new, but the combo of them both together was new.-Maybe check this for accuracy. Addressing your desire to use only synoptic gospels, the information you have presented is, according to the new commandment article, given two days prior to the new commandment before the last supper.Promontorylink (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree Jainsworth. It seems like excluding John's Gospel would be more misleading, one-sided, and incomplete. Before you undid my edit, both stories were represented via Promontorylink (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. But, quoting even one gospel would be enough to make the point being made. If you want to include the gospel of John, you would have to explain that it doesn't have the exact same wording as the other gospels as it leaves out the first commandment and focuses on the second. It is the same principle yes, but the sentence would get too messy and lose its thrust.Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jainsworth here. There is an additional question regarding how reliable the language of existing versions of the Gospels are as sources, given the number of times that we know of that changes in the texts have been made, and other issues. All in all, I have to agree that going into detail would require substantially longer material, and that the coverage would get rather seriously messy. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll clarify it for you concisely. Don't you worry about it being messy.Promontorylink (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Achieving Neutrality

POV To raise issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. Please do not override the consensus of the Christianity page by making reversions invalidly. "World" and "Science" are the location of the reliable third-party sources used in the citation for this section edit.Promontorylink (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to engage me here. FWIW I am not a new editor to this article, and I have been following the Talk page for some time.

"World" and "Science" are the location of the reliable third-party sources used in the citation for this section edit.

Science is not a literal location. Could you clarify what you mean by this? I do not believe your most recent edits belong on Wikipedia, but I would like to understand your position better.

Marie Paradox (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, reliable third-party sources are usually written however they are and the example given in WP is a newspaper article WP:THIRDPARTY. World and Science are categories of News. Their location is not "Opinion." So, the sources are located in the "World" and "Science" of News Categories. I do care as to why you don't believe my most recent edits belong on Wikipedia, but belief is a form of truth which does not adhere to WP:VERIFY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am still not sure I follow. The most recent edit you reverted had a citation (in accordance with WP:VERIFY), but you eliminated this in your edit anyway. Why?

Also, please note that you reverted the page three times within a 24-hour period. This is a violation of the Three Revert Rule except under exceptional circumstances, which are listed on the appropriate page. Does your revert qualify as an exception?

Marie Paradox (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really simple to determine. If you view the article history page, you will see that I did not make a reversion. I undid your revision which was a reversion. Please do not submit paradoxical information to the Christianity page;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink (talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the page, "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" (emphasis mine).

Anyway, saying, "The Son of God commands," is reflective of a non-neutral point of view; it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Because the wording as it currently stands is rather obviously problematic and you have not engaged my points, I am reverting your edit. I was mistaken in what I said before: You have not yet violated 3RR, but you will do so, if you revert the page again. I hope that you will instead think about what you are doing and seek consensus with your fellow editors before making more edits.

Marie Paradox (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, I made a mistake, whoops. "The Son of God commands," is an in-text attribution form inline citation. As already mentioned, To raise issues with specific articles regarding POV, see the NPOV noticeboard. Consensus was made. You are the one edit warring by making invalid reversions. Even one invalid reversion is edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promontorylink (talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want me to report you? Couldn't we do as the page you have linked to suggests and try to reach a mutually satisfying solution here?

As I have said, I have followed this Talk page for some time, and I have not seen anything resembling consensus for the edits you continue to make. (The only person who seemed to be in favor of it was Ghostprotocol888. Is that you?)

Marie Paradox (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before editing.Promontorylink (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

you don't detect some irony in that comment? Nasnema  Chat  06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did think it was Ghostprotocol888 too. Is there any way of checking? Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The timing (Promontorylink made their first edit the day after Ghostprotocol was blocked) and edit pattern are very suspicious. I think an SPI might be worthwhile, off to file one now. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI filed. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

He was a sockpuppet Jainsworth16 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghostprotocol888/Promontorylink is back with a new sockpuppet: Tyler.Douche. Someone has already blocked it. Jainsworth16 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

STOP EDIT WARRING CHRISTIANITY PAGE

Response#1-"imo" is irrelevant. Your opinion is a form of truth and does not meet WP:VERIFY requirements. Sources must be cited. POV To raise issues with specific articles regarding POV, see the NPOV noticeboard. 5 WP:BLP Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 7 Jainsworth16's sources are not third party; Albert Barnes (thoelogian) is a secondary source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian). WP:THIRDPARTY Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 9 WP:BLP The rule is that I'm supposed to revert your reversion. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute," not an invalid reversion. 11 WP:CON Please learn to read before editing on Wikipedia.Promontorylink (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In my view Promontorylink (talk · contribs) is trying to mount a WP:SOAPBOX and should stop editing this page. Nasnema  Chat  07:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First, "your view" is a form of truth and does not meet WP:VERIFY requirements. Second, "your view" is opinion, #2 in WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please refer to Response#1, sent. 5-11. The information I add is properly sourced. There was a very minor error in Jainsworth16's edition. All I did was correct it. And now am dealing with a buncha edit warriors.Promontorylink (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Invoking WP:BLP on Jesus is extremely pointy. Such behaviour does seem to suggest that Promontorylink is not capable of maintaining a neutral viewpoint when editing this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Promontorylink, I don't want to be offensive but can't you see that your version conatins less information and is poory articulated. Don't you want to see this article improve? It seems like the only thing you want to do is quote John 13:34-35. Is that your only goal? Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently an Error, the Commandments Section, in the Article

According to all valid sourcing, Christ generalizes all of the law into one underlying principle.

According to the Gospels, Jesus requires you to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Generally, two of the Gospels have these principles separated and in the other two combined, but that doesn't matter because of their Logos, which is supported by reliable third-party sources:

"There are divine laws which govern and maintain us - the science of perfect God, perfect man."-1 If you are loving God completely, when you love your neighbor as yourself you are also loving God completely. You cannot love God completely and love your neighbor as yourself without relating your neighbor and yourself to God, because you are already completely loving God. And when you are loving God completely you are loving; so you are loving as yourself completely.

It is impossible, in Natural terms, to be doing something 100% to one thing, using 100% as 1, and simultaneously exist doing that same act to another thing, let's say for perfection 100% or 1, unless those two "things" are equal. So, in mathematical terms, if x=1 and y=1, y = x.

Equally, Jesus commands us to love God completely as to love your neighbor as yourself. Now, knowing that Jesus is a Neighbor-2 and understanding the logical connection of when you are loving God completely then you are loving so you are loving as yourself completely, you will know that Jesus is indirectly saying that He is God and to Love him completely as yourself.

Additionally, The Commandment that Jesus made is that He is God, without saying it because He is supposed to be called God the Son by others us humanity, simply God.

"Christ Jesus transformed the Mosaic law by understanding God as Love."-3 "And [the Lord] passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness”, Exodus 34:6" "This true light is the light of the Christ that Jesus exemplified, the spiritual illumination revealing God as all-powerful Love and each of us as the expression of this Love."-3

Jesus' Commandment is one New Commandment from God, singular. Please do not waste, yours and my time further.

1http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Exploring+healing+prayer/6424493/story.html 2http://atheism.about.com/od/bibledictionaryonline/p/NeighborBible.htm 3http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/22464 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.77.100 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you have yourself unblocked first? Jainsworth16 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction Length

The introduction for this article has reached an absurd length. It no longer serves to 'introduce' a reader to the topic and has become unwieldy. I suggest moving information into their appropriate categories within the article and summarizing the introduction to include the most important information. Diraphe (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not just the length that is a problem, but that although WP:LEDE says up to 4 paragraphs and summarize the content that is not happening here with space devoted to the 1054 schism etc. And no, I am not going to edit the lede now. But the regulars here should really fix it. On that note, I will make a drive-by comment below. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing the boat on Christianity?

I eventually managed to read through the lede here and I think it really misses the boat. Let me put it this way:

• As in Acts, Christians are the followers of Jesus - as the first sentence of the article lede mentions, albeit in a less than obvious way in a footnote.

• The New Commandment state: "... by this all men know that ye are my disciples".

Now, how many times does the word love appear in this article? Just 5 and 4 of those are in the context of the Old Testament. In a sense the basis of Christian teachings are not presented in the lede, or elsewhere in this article, while various charts show the schisms. Far be it for me to work on this article now to fix these, but those who edit here may want to consider The New Commandment relevant to this page. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Its a valid point. In addition there is also Matthew 22:

"37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

And Luke 10:27, where Jesus said:

"..Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

And of course there is also John 4:16:

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him."

So yes, you are correct, and the oversight should be corrected promptly. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree, except the "promptly" part. I am not going to work on it, but I do suggest that if you are to do it, stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, then working this theme into it would be a good idea. The article should have some charts and numbers on demographics and history of schisms, but they should probably not trump the basic message. Anyway, I think you know what I mean. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note:History2007 also suggests correlating this article with Love of Christ and Imitation of Christ. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to be able to work on this now. I just made a suggestion. But I do think the article does need to reflect those aspects. History2007 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying is right but I think the lede is in better condition than some other sections of the article e.g. eschaton. What should we prioritise? Badly written sections of low importance in the article or fairly well written sections (Lede) of more imprtance? Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My felling about wiki-ledes in general is: "if you don't like the lede, wait a few days, it will change by itself".... And in any case, per WP:LEDE it needs to be done "after the fact" so it can reflect the body. So my suggestion would be to figure out what changes you want to make to the body, then the lede can mosly take care of itself via summarization. History2007 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My feeling about wiki ledes is that they must be as good as can be made. In articles like this it takes collaborative and consensus based work on the talk page. Article editing also works top down - good ledes make for better articles overall. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries if you want to do it that way. I am touching up the New Commandment page which had some errors (of commission and omission) for long. I guess this article also needs to be checked for errors, as you go along. By the way, I only look at this page once a week to make some comments, so you guys please feel free to proceed with fixes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012

A simplified chart of historical developments of major groups within Christianity. Suggested change relates to section of "Christianity" article about Major Divisions. Perhaps a second simplified chart to illustrate the suggested change might be considered.

Catholic Main article: Catholic Church Christian Denominations in English-speaking countries [show]Australia [show]Canada [show]United Kingdom [show]United States [show]International Associations This box: view talk edit The Catholic Church comprises those particular churches, headed by bishops, in communion with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as its highest authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[215][216] Like the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church through Apostolic succession traces its origins to the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ.[217][218] Catholics maintain that the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" founded by Jesus subsists fully in the Roman Catholic Church." This would lead Catholics to understand that the simplified chart above should not show a separate "Early Christianity" in grey but that the same red used for Catholicism should extend back to the beginning of the Christian Church's life; there is no time after that which can be pointed to as marking the birth of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church acknowledges other Christian churches and communities[219][220],and the goodness of the members of those other groups. The Catholic Church admits that it was not always blameless at those times in history when splits occurred within the Church. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)the Catholic Church has become a strong proponent of ecumenism, the movement to restore visible unity among Christians, that had begun among some Protestant Churches early in the twentieth century. The Catholic faith is detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[221][222]

Gerard Hore (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, your proposed edit (which incidentally is incoherent unless source viewed; I'm not sure if I'm allowed to refactor your comments so I haven't done) would be both controversial and lengthy. Please start a new topic to discuss this (if you're unclear why I'm refusing this it's because the procedure you used is for (fairly) uncontroversial edits that you are unable to make - it's not for proposing any edit whatsoever). Egg Centric 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Revert

User:Pass a Method made an edit which moved a substantial portion of the lede to a place several sections down in the article. In the summary he called his edit a "copyedit". I reverted (diff) and brought it here for discussion. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It says Christianity is based on Jesus and the Gospels and other New Testament writings, but it is also based on Old Testament writings, I think that should be added.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. As it stands, all the definition in the lead is doing is differentiating Christianity from Judaism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and made the edit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition, but I beleive it should be phrased differently. I think Christianity more thaan heavily draws form the old testament, the entire creation story is there as well as the ten commandments, Jesus' bloodline and many prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah and the like. Also, that phrase implies that only part of the torah is used, when the entire old testament is within the Christian bible.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

About non-trinitarianism

Actually, this violates the very essence of God's nature and has been declared a heresy by counter-cult movements such as the CRI (Christian Resource Institute). Hence, I deleted the parts about non-trinitarianism due to my knowledge about these cults claiming to be Christian, but alas, I was accused of vandalism. Most of these non-trinitarian cults have different bibles or very wrong doctrine, such as the Jehovah's Witness cult. It appears that the administrators are quick to accuse and they reverted all my hard work trying to fix the inaccuracies on this page. Mirianth (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In part because you're very very wrong, and the other part in that your edits are against WP:CONSENSUS. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Referring to someone's recognized faith as a "cult" can be seen as problematic as well, so you would do best to be a little more polite (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mirinath, while I agree with you about the theological statements your making, Wikipedia is not a place to assert theological stances. These people consider themselves to be a part of Christianity, so they need to be included in an encyclopedia article regarding Christianity. You will see that the section on nontrinitarianism links to the article on Nontrinitarianism. If you want, provided it is written well and properly supported, you could add a critique to that article that states that some members within Trinitarian Christianity that question the validity of this group's claim to be Christian. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacing 'paganism'

I'm concerned about the following sentence in the intro: It grew in size and influence over a few decades, and by the 4th century replaced paganism as the dominant religion within the Roman Empire.

Could I propose an alternative? How about: and by the end of the 4th century had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, replacing other forms of religion practiced under Roman rule.

Would there be objections if I made this change? I'm chiefly concerned about the link to paganism, which mostly explains the history of the terminology, instead of linking to Religion in ancient Rome, which provides an overview of religion as practiced throughout the Roman Empire. Also, I think it would be good from a historical perspective to specify that Christianity actually became the official religion of Rome at this point. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe your proposed edit would bring more precision, if not accuracy, to the article. You have my support. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Good reasoning! Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the change (lest I forget), but continue watching this page in case someone later does object. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As you know you have modern scholarship on your side so clear support. You of course also know how paganism was suppressed when it was the majoriy religion (in diverse forms) of the empire. Yt95 (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Christianity in brief" section

I just edited the "Christianity in brief" section, improving it slightly. However the section is only a few sentences long and seems rather redundant, so I believe that it should be deleted since all the information it contains is included in the article. I am a beginner Wikipedia editor however, so I would prefer if someone more experienced examine the section and decide what to do with it.

Vgp0012 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It was badly written as well as unnecessary. Deleted Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The social context of the foundations of Christianity.

There does not seem to be any reference on this Christianity page to the social and historical context of the beginnings of Christianity. The oppression of Roman slavery and the creation of numerous religious cults, including Christianity, as defences against this oppression, are not mentioned.

I think the Christianity page would benefit from a section on the social context of the beginnings of Christianity. There's an excellent book by the marxist historian Karl Kautsky called "The Foundations of Christianity" which is, in my view, the most thorough explanation of the subject, yet there is no mention of it on the Christianity page. It is not even referenced for "further reading".

Without a philosophical aspect to this page, there is a danger that it comes across as being one of religious propaganda rather than a more "objective" account of Christianity. John Rogan (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)John Rogan 8.9.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rogan (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Error in Criticism of Christianity section

Under the subtitle "Criticism of Christianity" it is claimed:

"Karl Marx was also highly critical of Christianity and argued that it is detrimental to progress because it "protects the weak", while society needs strong people to flourish." Citation number 297.

Firstly, this is a false statement. Secondly, it misrepresents the cited text. If you actually read the cited text it says this was the position of Nietzsche — a different German philosopher (already mentioned in the same paragraph) — not Marx.

To make accurate, the line should be changed to "Karl Marx was also highly critical of Christianity and argued that religion acted as an opium to keep the working class oppressed" (or something similar).

82.32.4.244 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree- characterising Marx's criticism of Christianity as being rooted in it's "protection of the weak" is insufficient, and fits in much more closely with Nietzsche. Some kind of reference to Christianity being the handmaiden of feudalism or the opium of the people would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.206 (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Those mentioned people are not the only critics of Christianity, there are far more, and there are more and more of them as time passes. They mostly state out contradictions within the Bible or stolen material from other centuries or thousands of years older religions. Such author is T.W. Doane in his book: "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions". Far more examples can be seen on the page Exposing Christianity: http://see_the_truth.webs.com/ It can all be added in criticism section and this last link can be added to external links or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubt Instigator (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged, so ideally, the section would be phased out, not expanded on.

Also, if you have a reliable source (which Doane is not), then we can talk, but truth be told, much of what you espouse here is not in the article because they are extremely fringe ideas with, frankly, no basis in fact whatsoever.Farsight001 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Karl Marx sentence because it is obviously a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Editors are welcome to reinsert mentioning of Karl Marx's criticism of Christianity, it is certainly noteworthy, but please make sure it corresponds to the sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"an [important?] role in shaping of Western civilization"

The text above in its present form can be found in the lead. However, previous revisions of this article read "Christianity has been an important part of the shaping of Western civilization, at least since the 4th century."[3]

I believe the former revision is more appropriate. Simply stating that Christianity has played "a role" diminishes this importance and the sentence might as well be removed; many things can be played "a role" in shaping Western civilizations, but Christianity played perhaps the most important role. The citations referenced clearly stress the importance of the role of Christianity, e.g. '"Western civilization is also sometimes described as "Christian" or "Judaeo- Christian" civilization."'

I'm not proposing that the former text should be reinstated entirely, but just that the word "important" should be inserted. To me this edit seems fairly uncontroversial, but with an article as important and heavily-edited as this one I thought I should explain first and see if anybody objects for whatever reason. --Peter ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply, I'd gone ahead and made the small change of adding "prominent", rather than important.--Peter ^{Talk to me} 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The above messages were posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk

christanity is a religon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.228.249 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2012

Jesus is not fully human, he is also the Holy Spirit, along with his Father, Jehovah. I know this because i am christian, and it is worldwide known. Tobybriant (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really a coherent request. Also, 99.999% of Christians in fact do believe that Jesus is fully human, AND fully God, so it really would be incorrect to say otherwise. Don't worry about it. A lot of the editors here are Christians. They know what they're doing.Farsight001 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll need consensus for that - which is unlikely in this case, given that so many people have so many different opinions. Closing. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm christian, and what I believe is Jesus is the soul and spirit of God in human fleshMcBenjamin (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Redirect

I suggest we have this page redirect to "mythology" to fit with encyclopaedic conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.93.170 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Show me an encyclopedia that classifies Christianity as mythology and we can talk. Also, be brave enough to sign your name instead of an anonymous IP and you might get some traction.ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Caption under a picture

Hi, There is a picture on this page (Christianity) which has the following caption: "Christian cemetery" In fact, the picture is not of a graveyard but of a memorial site for (American) soldiers in World War 2, these sites are very common across Europe, France in particular. Just a small point.

Hedels (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Right this shows other headstones there, redacted. Also it is in fact a graveyard. Every such is also a "memorial", the site in question is explicitly both. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

American Christianity = "Family Values" based on Monogamous "Christian Marriage"

You would have no trouble finding sources to support the above statement, it is the first thing Americans mention if asked about their Christian beliefs. Many only go to church for marriages. But marriage is not mentioned in this article. It is bizarre that an article that purports to be "encyclopaedic" ignores central beliefs and practises of a large segment of contemporary Christians.

There is a link to Christian views on marriage - is this not part of Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "Christianity" used to be, in the times of Paul, opposed to all forms of procreation. Marriage was a very poor second-best to celibacy, only for those who cannot manage the later. After all, the apocalypse is coming any moment now, it's no use to make more humans. How things have changed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous drivel I've heard on this site in a long time. Paul has an extremely high view of Marriage, the passage in 1st Corinthians is the only think that even remotely matches what you're saying (Everywhere else there is only positive commands regarding marriage), and it is highly contextual. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephan was just trying to get his two cents in about how silly he thinks Christianity and probably all religions is(are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncw (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2013

The "Scriptures" section 3rd paragraph speaks of issues being brought up with the bible due to modern research. To be more even handed in the point of views concerning the Bible, the problems and issue brought up in this paragraph should belong in a separate section with both points of view described with the information and references attached. As it is now only one side of the issues are being raised and counter views and information is either not sufficient completely lacking.

the Following are examples of such point of views and information which should be included in the new section.

On the Subject talking about certain parts of Paul's letters being added in by a follower/copyist. My issue is that the opposite view that the biblical texts are accurate to the originals are not being shown with their supporting documents. I understand that the idea exists and perhaps some evidence exists to support it in the referenced book, and have no problem with that view being expressed, however there is also evidence that says what is recorded in the New testament including Paul's letters are reliably close to the original. Much more so than other secular ancient writing's that no one would even begin to question (Bruce, F., Are the New Testament documents reliable? The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, London, UK, p. 19, 1956.) A good place to get a general idea of this is (http://creation.com/trust-the-bible) that includes 14 supporting References of its own.

In honesty, the verses used as examples of forgeries (1 Timothy 12[which should be 1 Timothy 2:12] & 1 Corinthians 14), if taken out would obscure the surrounding verses. In both instances Paul is using the differences between men and women as reasons for the different roles(not status) in the church . IN the church Women were allowed to prophesy but men were supposed to teach while women "remained silent" and learned. If a women had an issue with the teaching she could bring it up outside of the church in order to maintain order during the meeting. Also Outside of the church women were permitted to teach, in fact 2 Tim 1:5 shows Paul encouraging women to teach other women and their children. (http://creation.com/biblical-view-women)

Also, the sentence "Other verses in 1 Corinthians contradict this verse such as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where women are instructed to wear a covering over their hair 'when they pray or prophesies'.[79] Clearly when they are not silent!" I don't mind the mention of the apparent contradiction but as above, an explanations or alternative view should be given an opportunity to be viewed and its evidence weighed. Looking at the context of the verse cited, Paul is again discussing order in the meetings of the early Christians not status in the church. It is argued that although allowed to "prophesy" in the church, which is made note of already, they were not allowed to discuss the interpretation of the prophesy in the church (Carson, D.A., “Silent in the churches”: on the role of women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36, Chapter 10; in: Piper and Grudem, ref. 10, pp. 142–144.)

Finally, the Topic of the "selected" books of the bible. "The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired" (A phrase used by historian Dr Ronald Higgins in his ‘Cracks in the Da Vinci Code’, <www.irr.org/da-vinci-code.html>, 23 December 2004.). Mentioning the Gnostic writings as something that is connected to the new testament canon is misplaced in this regard. The Very fact that they were Gnostic is why they aren't Christian writings. The fact that evidence exists that support gnostic ideas around the time of the writings of the new testament does not make them linked to them. That is like saying Harrison Ford (Star Wars Episode 4, 1977) was the Alien in the space ship from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) because both movies came out at the same time and involve space travel. The argument is not valid because the conclusion does not follow the premise.

To further my point, concerning the referenced Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas does reference New Testament verses but teaches such a different lesson to the actual New Testament writings it is laughable to think it should be included in the New Testament cannon. Compare these two passages:

Gospel of Thomas (114)Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Galatians 3:26-28 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gospel of Thomas clearly teaches that Man is superior to woman, where Galatians is teaching that Man is equal to Woman in status, both being one in Christ Jesus. The Gnostic writings were not recognized by the church, not because some council voted not to include it, but because of this type of contrary teaching. This also irregardless of when the gnostic writings were penned.

Justsayingediting (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to editors reviewing this request: Before you dismiss this as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, take a look at the section mentioned. Even if the content can be argued to be accurate, it is full of WP:WEASEL in its current form. -- LWG ^talk 12:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'd also suggest being very specific about the exact change you'd like made (i.e., use a "before and after" approach). Needless to say, any new content introduced should be reliably sourced, and creation.com doesn't fit the bill. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Weasel Wording in Scriptures Section

The edit request above drew my attention to the third paragraph of this section. While most of the issues the requester raised and the references they provided probably won't hold up to wiki content standards, it cannot be denied that the paragraph has serious issues. I collected this list of WP:WEASEL statements. Does anyone have suggestions for how to resolve them? I may attempt to do so myself, but it will be rather time consuming as I am not an expert on the subject and don't have access to all the sources given. -- LWG ^talk 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Instances of WP:WEASEL wording:

1. "Modern scholarship has raised many issues with the Bible." (many issues by whose definition of many?)
2. "While the Authorized King James Version is held to by many" (who holds on to it?)
3. "[the source text for the KJV] is one of the worst manuscripts we have available to us" (this quote should be better attributed to Ehrman, who while respected is not the sole authority on source quality)
4. "Much scholarship in the past several hundred years has gone into comparing different manuscripts in order to reconstruct the original text." (and of that scholarship, how much supported each of the other assertions made in this paragraph?)
5. "Another issue is that several books are considered to be forgeries." (A double-doozy: it's unclear what prior issue "another". Also, which several books?)
6. "[the controversial women-be-silent verse] is thought by many to be a forgery" (thought by who?)
7. "a similar phrase in 1 Corinthians 14, which is thought to be by Paul" (thought by who to be by Paul?)
8. "is thought to originally be a margin note by a copyist." (Clearly not the same thinkers mentioned above, but who?)
9. "Other verses in 1 Corinthians contradict this verse" (One example is given, whence the plural?)
10. "Clearly when they are not silent!" (Not to mention the very non-encyclopediac tone, clear to who?)
11. "Other texts have been recovered, such as" ("such as" implies others not mentioned, mention them.)
12. "While some of these texts are quite different to what modern Christians are used to" (which ones and how many are?)
13. "is believed to have been a response to the Gospel of Thomas" (believed by who?)

Thank you for bringing this up. I agree that these are serious issues and I will begin working on them as soon as possible; either today or tomorrow.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed that specific paragraph, The only source actually used is: Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why. The entire paragraph, except for the very last sentence which uses some obscure site called www.montimedia.com.au, uses this source exclusively with no specific page numbers given. I'm not sure what the standards or guidelines are for using books as sources but it seems a little fishy to me. I went to the .com site and don't believe it fits WP:RS standards. Plus, the material on that site is copyrighted and I'm not sure it's allowed to be on Wikipedia.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

AD 70

The lack of mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem Church (and Jerusalem) seems an oversight. Especially, given the rising discussion of the effect on the putative rise of Pauline Christianity at the expense of the Jerusalem branch. But thanksWblakesx (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Monotheistic or polytheistic?

In an encyclopedia, as opposed to clergical situations, I doubt if Christianity actually passes the "monotheistic" definition. A god set up in a trinity of identity, cannot be strictly called "monotheistic" no matter how intimate the Trinity. This is accepted within the Hindu tradition but in the West, there has always been an attempt to shoehorn a three-tiered deity into monotheistic descriptions. In the Catholic tradition, several "saints" are worshipped or called upon for help, although it is "in Jesus' name" but the aid is sought nonetheless. In Hebraic\Islamic traditions, nothing else or no one else is called upon except God who has many attributes (names\titles) but there is no doubt as to Who is being called upon--not angels, prophets nor holy "mothers" or "children". (Although in both traditions, it is implied that the "forces" or "angels" of God are deployed, they are not called upon by the believer.) Within the Baptist tradition, the divinity is shared between "Father" and "Son" and each is called upon, one in the name of the other or even interchangeably; indeed, in many cases, Jesus has taken the place of God in terms of prayer and thanks.MARK VENTURE (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholics are quick to point out that the veneration of saints is not worshiping saints. More importantly, it is very clear in any Catholic's mind that God is the source of all blessings; a saint, in and of themselves, has no power or authority to grant a blessing alone.

The argument of true monotheism of Christianity is an old one and Christianity, at least orthodox Christianity, is clear that it is monotheistic. The doctrine of the Trinity remains a mystery, but it is clear there is one God. I don't think you will gain much support for changing the article; however, if you have reliable sources for your position then additional information may be added after discussion and consensus is obtained. Cheers, ^StormRider 07:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The "argument" is an old one that Christian clegymen have never been able to defend other than to say it's "mysterious": only to those who belong to said church. The "Trinity" is a doctrine of compromise to allow for the worship of "Christ" (to distinguish him from the historical Jesus or Yeshua) and not run afoul of the First Commandment. I am not looking for "support" I just think encyclopedias should be neutral. There is already a lot of info in the article which details how the compromise was reached (including the Nicene Creed) but clearly, it's not "monotheistic" if Jesus is The Judge to whom God deferred His authority. Christianity, has more in common with Egyptian and Greco-Roman Paganism--which were non-monotheistic, than it has with either Judaism or Islam. If documentation you need, I can provide themMARK VENTURE (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, just to be clear, I am not a believer in the Trinitarian doctrine. It has been a while since I have read the article in full and I get the articles mixed up over the last several years of participation; however, I recall that there was a mention of this criticism, that the Trinity is not viewed as truly monotheistic by others. Other Abrahamic religions are particularly strident in their accusation as well as a small minority of Christians. If this article does not address this, it should be added.

The vast majority if Christians are firm in their belief that there is one God. I hear, more often than not, from the common believer what could more accurately be understood to be Modalism. However, churches and apologists are clear in their declaration that the Trinity is One God. They state that one may not comprehend it, but one can apprehend it.

If you have a specific proposal I am sure others will provide more feedback also. Cheers, -^StormRider 12:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

These links may be helpful. While it is true that from a pedantic point of view belief in a Trinity is slightly different from belief in a completely singular nature of god, the generally understood meaning of monotheism encompasses trinitarian monotheism, and virtually all Christian sects actually do conceive of God as one being (confusing as that may be to outside observers). In other words, yes, it's a bit confusing, but that's how it is. -- LWG ^talk 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary sources that say the monotheism of Christianity is disputed you are welcome to add that information into the appropriate spot on the article. However, if it's just your opinion then there is nothing we can do.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If this phrase from the article:

"The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early ecumenical creeds which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was subsequently resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins. They further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven where he rules and reigns with God the Father"

That is from your own article, not just my opinion alone. If God is sharing His authority with anyone, then it's clearly not "monotheism". If logic and semantics are insufficient to say nothing of a rival movement within Christianity herself, as well as other faiths which directly challenge this doctrine, then there is nothing I can do except continue to be puzzled and amused by it.MARK VENTURE (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It is completely OK for you or anyone else to read the information in the article, apply semantics, and conclude that Christianity is not "monotheistic" in your understanding. It is not OK for us to state that it is not monotheistic in the article, because the available sources overwhelmingly agree that it is. If you feel that the sources are wrong, you should go to them and try to get them changed. If you do, we will change wikipedia to reflect the new consensus among the sources. In the meantime we will continue to prefer what reliable sources state over the arguments of editors here, no matter how valid and correct those arguments may be, because our mission here is to build an encyclopedia, not to seek the truth. This may puzzle you, but think about what our goal is: we want readers of this encyclopedia to be empowered to draw their own conclusions. If everything we say is cited, readers are free to look at the sources themselves, and are not forced to trust the logic and standards of whoever wrote the article. Since the editors here are mostly anonymous internet users, it's important to maintain that transparency is we want people to trust wikipedia as an information source. -- LWG ^talk 14:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark, a great place for you to talk about how amusing Christianity is to you in the typical wikipedian snobby fashion would be the watering hole. Otherwise, this is not a forum for general discussion about Christianity.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

On some level, I take issue with the claim of Christianity being an Abrahamic religion. I thought it was a Christ religion - "CHRISTian". I also have to ask why this reference continues, knowing that any version of the Holy Bible says that God weighs and knows the heart of all men; begging the question of why "God" referenced in Genesis 22 would test Abraham. Not intending to start a war, but the question is not rhetorical, and is begged based on the statements clearly seen in other places in the Bible.70.184.248.6 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request ##

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead states: "The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the saviour of humanity." I would like to request two changes. First, I think it is unnecessary and wordy to include the phrase "mainstream christian belief", and instead I believe we should put "Christians believe". The bible (Jesus himself) states that he is fully human and fully divine. Anyone who doesn't believe this would be selectively ignoring things that Jesus said about himself and entire portions of the bible, inherently making them not Christians; so it would be a fallacy to say it is "mainstream" as if there can be Christians that don't believe that. Secondly, it should be spelled savior, not saviour. --Jacksoncw (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: We have to be entirely neutral. There are many nominally "Christian" groups who do not subscribe to those 'mainstream' Christian beliefs; Oneness Pentecostalism, the Oriental Orthodox Church and Jehovah's Witnesses. -- Peter ^{Talk to me} 11:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk

 Done I fixed the British English Saviour since the majority of cited quotes actually use American English. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, groups that ignore what Jesus said about himself as well as numerous verses of the bible outside of the Gospels are not Christians. To say that people can do that and still be considered Christian is ludicrous. I can believe that Mohammad is the prophet and allah is God but if I don't adhere to the 6 pillars of the muslim faith then I'm still not a muslim, whether I claim to be or not. Same with Christianity.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The nature of Christ and his relation to God has long been a major point of dispute in the early churches. Indeed, the 4 gospels have different christologies (with John being a particular outlier). This is in no way trivially obvious from the Bible. The orthodox position for Trinitarians was mostly hashed out (using fairly dirty politics) during the Council of Nicaea. Also see filioque, Homoousian. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The scripture clearly states that Jesus was both God and Man. John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'". Luke 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Mark 15:39 "When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, 'Truly this man was the Son of God!'" Philippians 2:5-8 “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be the interpretation you are used to, but it is in no way the only interpretation. As an example, in John 20:28, it's Thomas, who makes this statement, not Jesus. Tomas is a very fallible human. Similar for Mark 15:39, which reports on a Roman centurion. I don't know any Greek, but the translations of Philippians 2:5-8 are all over the place, and none of them makes particular sense to me. This is why we don't use primary sources if they need interpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to find a copy of the bible in original Greek, and then translate it and renew this request. Although I think you are just being facetious.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Any Bible version is a primary source on this issue. Maybe the annotations in a modern scholarly edition could be used as source, but not the Bible itself. Note that many different strains of Christianity, even trinitarian ones, do interpret different parts of the Bible differently. Per WP:NPOV, we must reflect all significant point of views, and there are significant religious groups who consider themselves to be Christian, who are considered by mainstream academia as Christians, and who have non-trinitarian Christologies. If you don't want the article to reflect your view, you would need very strong secondary sources making that point. I honestly doubt that sources sufficient to accept your narrow definition of Christianity as the only notable point of view exist. Remember Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To explain in a way that may make more sense to Jacksoncw: while your interpretation of the Bible may be reasonable or even the only reasonable one, many other people believe different things, and wikipedia documents what people believe. It's not our job to figure out if the people who call themselves Christians have beliefs that fit Christian scriptures, it's our job to document what people who call themselves Christians believe, whether those beliefs are reasonable or not. This cuts both way: just as we don't ignore Christians whose views we consider unreasonable, atheists on the wiki cannot ignore Christians whose views they consider unreasonable. We document what the sources say, whether we agree with the sources or not. Where the sources are in conflict, we document both sides, keeping very carefully to NPOV and Due Weight. -- LWG ^talk 13:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am divided on this issue, simply because, the opening sentence states "based on the life and teachings of Jesus". Jesus taught that he was fully God and fully human, and therefore, to be a Christian (based on this sentence), one must also hold to this belief. However, unfortunately there are many people who call themselves Christians, yet change much of the original teaching (even central teaching). Therefore, as is Wikipedia's purpose, these must be documented also. ★Thorentis★ 10:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am always amused by these discussions. The counterbalance to "He's not a real Christian" in several of the above posts is that Wikipedia articles on how many Christians there are in various countries and in the whole world always seem to include anybody who has ever self declared to be a Christian. It makes the numbers look good, of course, but it's pure hypocrisy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we don't include them, people may well complain and/or just add themselves in. Personally, I would rather just have the main beliefs that the majority of Christians (both historically and currently), believe makes a Christian - and lump everybody in the "cults and sects" part, but hey, its a politically correct world that we live in. 122.105.129.71 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see you find it amusing hilo, but why don't you talk about how amusing Christianity is at the watering hole.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that post is telling me to piss off, but it unfortunately fails to address the article content problem I have raised, which is what Talk pages are for. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You can interpret that however you want to; I'm simply asking you to keep posts on topic. You didn't raise any article content problem in that post, but rather mused on how you don't like the way Christians are counted.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it's totally relevant. This discussion had begun degenerate into one of the common "But they're not real Christians" discussions. It's surely valid to mention how Wikipedia identifies Christians for other articles. Maybe I was a little sarcastic, but hypocrisy deserves sarcasm. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it is hypocrisy but that is beside the point and also off-topic. My original point was that it is unnecessary to point out that it is the mainstream belief because it is the only belief. Jesus said he was both fully man and fully God. No translation of the bible says otherwise. Therefore you either believe that or are not in fact a Christian regardless of whether or not you say you are christian. I could follow Buddha and call myself a Muslim but that wouldn't make me a Muslim and certainly wouldn't merit any mention on wikipedia. I think it gives it undue weight.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

When put that way - fair enough.★Thorentis★ 01:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to get consensus before making the change. Does anyone have any objections?--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting a change. I'm not sure that any form of Christianity has the belief that Christ "descended into hell" as only sinners go to hell. If this is wrong, please let me know which type of Christianity that is. Thanks, Ronster21 (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Ronster21

This varies from branch to branch, the "descent into hell" is a pretty common belief in some major branches such as Catholocism, from my understanding it was a response to the common belief at the time that all dead went to the same place, as such figures such as Adam, Noah, and so forth were still tainted by original sin when they died and therefore couldn't enter into the presence of the father. As such the Harrowing of Hell is frequently brought up in which Jesus descends into Hell in the days between the death and the anastasis, throws down the gates and leads the church forefathers out, freeing them of that original sin. Seems more an issue as to what people would specifically consider "mainstream" more than anything. Anyone else have any ideas on that? Charos (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopia

During the Middle Ages, most of the remainder of Europe was Christianized, with Christians also being a sometimes large religious minority in the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia and parts of India.[12][13]

Ethiopia is majority Christian: in the region of two-thirds. Indeed, it was the first officially Christian country in the world. Can anyone think of a simple and eloquent way to reword this to reflect that?FrFintonStack (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it says during the middle ages. Ethiopia is majority Christian now but I don't think it was during the middle ages. But I'm not sure; you may be right.--96.60.153.219 (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Socio-Political Atmosphere and Economic Situation of Romans during The Process of Christianity to become state religion

I think it's one of the main thing to understand 'the thing' and there is no information about it in this article. How deep was the fear against Huns and Turkic tribes at that times for example? Huns and Turkic tribes were Buddhist plus Tengriist and how did they affect the culture of Europe at that times, since they had almost ultimate power over original simple Germanic villagers and Romans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Population

Officially, it's 2.1 billion or 2.2 billion? Normally it's written 2.1 billion though.[4] Thus leading paragraph should be changed. Capitals00 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's such an imprecise, artificially inflated figure, it hardly matters. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Major 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or Major 4 ?

We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page Abrahamic-Religions --Wiki hamze (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-categorization request (religion).:

While it’s beliefs include “monotheism”. I hereby request the removal of Christianity from the category of “religion”…

Real Christianity is NOT a religion, but is technically anti-religious. The standard, accepted definition of a “religion” is a set of beliefs which always contain specific statutes, edicts, rules, or “laws” that MUST be applied to the daily lives of its believers. This would be the direct opposite of Christianity. Although Christianity acknowledges the existence of a specific set of rules / laws, they are not applied to the daily life of a Christian, accept as a reminder that due to the fallen or “sinful” state of humanity, said laws cannot be kept, attained, or applied. It is this specific understanding of the Judaic Law as “God’s unattainable measure of perfection”, which sets Christianity apart from any and all religions, and in its practice makes it irreligious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.32.242 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks! 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)86.178.77.235 (talk)

It's good that this editor has had his say, but can we please take it no further on the basis of our WP:SNOWBALL policy. Any further discussion will be a waste of time and energy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a forum for general discussion of Christianity which is clearly what this person is trying to do.--Jacksoncw (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Further Reading

I would like to include the book "The Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 4 (1794-1796): The Age of Reason" in further reading. It is available free and legally from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3743 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.66.186 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

You write: Some of the churches originating during this period are historically connected to early 19th-century camp meetings in the Midwest and Upstate New York. American Millennialism and Adventism, which arose from Evangelical Protestantism, influenced the Jehovah's Witnesses movement and, as a reaction specifically to William Miller, the Seventh-day Adventists. Others, including the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Evangelical Christian Church in Canada,[268][269] Churches of Christ, and the Christian churches and churches of Christ, have their roots in the contemporaneous Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, which was centered in Kentucky and Tennessee. Other groups originating in this time period include the Christadelphians and Latter Day Saint movement. While the churches originating in the Second Great Awakening have some superficial similarities, their doctrine and practices vary significantly.

Yet, it's important not to confuse the reader. Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Latter Day Saints are considered true to the basic Christian essentials of the faith. They may have been established as you report, but their beliefs have departed enough from the essentials of the Christian faith that they are considered cults. Dr. Walter Martin http://www.waltermartin.com/cults.html did an extensive series about Jehovah's Witttnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses themselves identify their distinctions away from the essentials, http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/ Patheos does an good job describing Mormons http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2012/09/are-mormons-christians-yesnoand-yes/ Both these cults are only "Christian" in the sense that they claim to be Christian. I could claim I'm an apple and it wouldn't make it so.

I actually came to this article expecting to find information about Calvanism, Arminianism and Molinism, but found nothing. Perhaps you can add this in the future? Thank you for your work, I really apreciate it.

Pamela Christian Speaker, Author and Media Personality

2602:306:C5F3:53F9:3CE0:6452:8583:AA46 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Thanks for the comments and suggestions. The {{edit semi-protected}} is meant to provide editors who are unable to directly modify an article a mechanism to make reasonable changes. It requires the request be detailed to a "please change X to Y" degree, have relaible sources for factual changes and have implied or explicit consensus. This request does not fulfill those requirements. Regards, Celestra (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was a general request to add what I see are pretty significant parts of Christianity. I haven't read the entire article and am shocked that there is nothing on Calvanism, Arminianism and Molonism, as the author points out. I agree that this information should be added.--99.98.180.79 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

== Bibliography ==

• Some books in Bibliography, don't appear as reference in article it self. Is it normal?--31.9.5.139 (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to the Oral Gospel tradition

Dunn, and Ehrman have taken the position that Since the Oral Tradition was reliable, then the Synoptic Gospels (which were based on the oral tradition) are accurate. Then "Jesus did exist" and we have an historically "accurate picture" of this Jewish Rabbi from the line of Judah. Dunn 2013 p 360, Casey 2010 p 12 & Ehrman 2012 p 22, p 25, & p 21 p 117

Please see Talk:Oral gospel traditions. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to Kingdom of Aksum in the lead

User:Pass a Method wishes to add a mention of Kingdom of Aksum to the lead. I reverted it, so it should be discussed here. The factoid wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so that would indicate it shouldn't be in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand wp:lead which gives other criteria for inclusion such as "prominent controversies", facts which are "trivial", or other info relevant to a particular paragraph or an important event. The keyword in the last sentence I will highlight: "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Note the word "significant" there? The info i added was merely a couple of words; this clearly means it does not qualify as being significant. It qualifies as being notable enough for the lead because its the first major empire in history to adopt Christianity. Pass a Method talk 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If this fact is apparently worthy of being deemed notable enough for the lead, why isn't it already mentioned/linked in the main body of the article? Not even a few words. It should be noted first in the History section of the article. Otherwise the lead becomes clogged up with teeny tiny mentions of "notable" facts which don't have any place in the main article. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 23:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was planning to add content to the body but StAnselm keeps me preoccupied with this though. Pass a Method talk 23:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Before I saw the reply I added information to the appropriate section. It might benefit from a slight rewording and expansion. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, it contradicts the statement in the previous section, which says "Armenia is considered the first nation to accept Christianity in 301 AD". StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In any case, Pass a Method, you should not keep adding content after it has been reverted. Instead, per WP:BRD, you should discuss it here first. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's merely "trivia", then it shouldn't be in the lead anyway. If the Kingdom of Aksum is mentioned in the lead, then Armenia should be mentioned too, since (according to the body of the article) it is recognised as the first Christian nation. StAnselm (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added Armenia to the lead. We still have the issue to sort out about the first Christian nation, and it is a matter of some dispute. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, that sort of discussion doesn't belong in this article, but in History of early Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I also note that History of Christianity mentions Georgia in the lead as adopting Christianity in 319 - i.e. before Ethiopia. That means it should either be in the lead in this article, or this article's lead should omit the list of early Christian nations entirely, reverting back to the previous wording. I lean towards the latter option. StAnselm (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's helpful to name the first christian country in the lede, given the broader sweep of history; the lack of good evidence (although each country has had its own scribes carefully rewriting history); and the fact that "Armenia" then was a very different territory then to Armenia now (and then there's Osroene). Save it for a section further down in the article where complex issues can be discussed in more depth. bobrayner (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if we mention Armenia, we need to be clear it's the "Kingdom of Armenia". StAnselm (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the use of words like "Nation"; we must be careful. Contemporary Armenia was not a nation-state in the modern sense (few kingdoms were), and christianity wasn't adopted by referendum. Before the age of mass media, efficient government, and mass education, popular religious activity in the provinces would lag a long way behind any proclamation from the palace... bobrayner (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#First Christian nation. StAnselm (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Similar to the discussion above, I also disagree with this edit. This is undue weight for the lead: Christianity has certainly not influenced Sub-Saharan Africa in the same way and to the same extent it has influenced Western civilization. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you revert two editors, it means you are editing against consensus. Pass a Method talk 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Anselm makes a good point. Two editors is not a consensus.--Rbreen (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of weight. Christianity certainly has shaped sub-Saharan Africa; we just need to find the best way to phrase that, relative to the influence on Western civilisation (where it has had much more time to put down deep roots). bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Who was the other editor, Pass a Method? StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of the content you deleted from the body was added by Hazkh, and i slightly tweaked it. Pass a Method talk 19:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the Kingdom of Aksum discussion in the previous section. In any case, as that discussion demonstrates, that claim is disputed. StAnselm (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a sentence about Sub-Saharan Africa can go at the end of the "Christian culture" section. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Please change the sentence "The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father." in the second paragraph of the abstract to "Christian doctrine maintains that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh before ascending to heaven, where he shares dominion over all creation with God the Father." For the following reasons: a) the current sentence is poorly phrased and is inaccessible to many readers–the definition of 'creed' as pertaining directly to Christian beliefs is not in keeping with the more common use of the word, which simply denotes belief in X. b) the wording of the phrase 'Jesus bodily ascended to heaven' is both awkward and communicates a potentially erroneous message: there is no consensus that Jesus ascended to heaven in the flesh after his resurrection, rather, scholars tend to agree that the body of Jesus was resurrected and visited with disciples on earth for a period of time before Jesus left earth for heaven. DCBlumenthal (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC) -- Diannaa (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2014

99.138.144.251 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Demographics update

Hi, I came across a couple of resources that look like they may be useful in updating the Demographics section of this article:

• Religious Projections for the Next 200 Years
• The Encyclopaedia Britannica's "Britannica Book of the Year" has detailed table of religions by United Nations regions: page 324 – The first table summarizes adherents worldwide by religion, while the second goes into more detail for the United States. Table caption: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2013.
  HTH (Hope This Helps :) —Telpardec  TALK  13:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous scaremongering claims should be removed

I noticed this section under demographics
"A leading Saudi Arabian Muslim leader Sheikh Ahmad al Qatanni reported on Aljazeera that every day 16,000 African Muslims convert to Christianity. He claimed that Islam was losing 6 million African Muslims a year to becoming Christians,[200][201][202][203][204] including Muslims in Algeria,[205] France,[205] Iran,[206] India,[205] Morocco,[205] Russia,[205] and Turkey,[205][207] and Central Asia.[208][209]"
This should be removed for multiple reasons:
(1) It quotes a Saudi whose notability and qualifications are not specified. (2) His claim is not backed-up by scientific methods of data collection. It seems like those typical wild statements one hears from religious leaders every-now-and-then that seek to scare their religious followers and increase their wariness of the encroaching other. I mean 6 million annually sounds a little far-fetched and certainly if the numbers were that huge then we would of heard of a correspondingly huge Muslim uproar. (3) After mentioning his statement and the references that back this up, it quotes several conutries as if they are part of that Sheikhs statement when in fact they are seperate with unrelated references. (4) No doubt there are Muslims that convert to Christianity, but mentioning this one Sheikhs statement seems more like Christian grand-standing against its biggest competitor than adding appropriately scholarly and relevant content to Wikipedia. If Muslim converts to Christianity is to be mentioned, i think the 2nd part without the Sheikhs statement is more than enough i.e. it could read as "Muslims have also been reported to convert to Christianity, including in Algeria,[205] France,[205] Iran,[206] India,[205] Morocco,[205] Russia,[205] and Turkey,[205][207] and Central Asia.[208][209]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.235.46 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Influences on religion

I'm not on Wikipedia much anymore, so missed much of the back and forth about the Bowker quote. The passage is as follows on page 13 of the referenced book with some previous wording for context:

When Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire in the 6th century [BC], Zoroastrianism became the official state religion and was thus practiced from Greece to Egypt to north India. Zoroastrians are tolerant of other religions because judgment rests on works, not beliefs. As a result, the teaching was influential on other religions, not least on Judaism, when the Jews were in exile in Babylon at the time when Cyrus was coming to power, and on Christianity: angels, the end of the world, a final judgment, the resurrection, and heaven and hell received form and substance from the Zoroastrian beliefs.

In any case, it should not be controversial (except perhaps through a purely theological stance) that other religions influenced Christianity. There is no paucity of reliable sources to support this; Bowker simply highlights one and provides some specific details. I hope that helps. Airborne84 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Except for Marcionites, the influence of Judaism on Christianity cannot be denied by any Christian who knows anything about their religion. As for Zoroastrianism, that shouldn't be a problem either if one bothers to bothers to check the Greek word used to describe the wisemen who visited the Christchild, or what Israelite opinion of the Persians was before then. Heck, even if we weren't talking about any particular religion, if one considers their religion's teachings (whatever they are, even a lack of religion) to be some sort of cosmic truth, someone else would be bound to figure it out at least some portion of it at some point.

Sorry to get off on a tangent, but that's why I can't imagine any reason to dispute the Bowker quote except some sort of shoot-oneself-in-the-foot sectarianism. I've listed several sources at Talk:Zoroastrianism, some of which may be good to cite if it gets to a point where we have to add a string of refs to treat further attempts at redaction as bad-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Offensive image of Jesus!!!

Just like how on the Muhammad page you wouldn't intentionally put an image of Muhammad as this offends Muslims, it is offensive to put an image of Jesus on the page, as no one really knows what he looks like, and this is all just speculation.

"We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." (Acts 17:29) 129.180.136.213 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Since no one ever bothered to reply to this, I will. Let me point out that the Muhammad page DOES intentionally have images of Muhammad on it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. No, no one really knows what he looks like. So what?Farsight001 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed: Rewording first sentence of the Jesus article

Over on the Talk:Jesus page, we are having a discussion regarding the first sentence of the Jesus article. Currently, it reads Jesus ... is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. We are trying to find wording that would fit all sects, denominations and traditions of Christians worldwide, and in so doing, state as clearly as possible the central tenet upon which all Christians can agree. The primary problem with the current statement is the "...most Christian denominations..." phrase. This wording was chosen since Nontrinitarianists do not hold that Christ is the Son of God, or more precisely, they do not hold that God exists in three Persons. I am therefore proposing the following rewording: Jesus ... is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of all Christian denominations hold to be God incarnate. Would this adequately encompass both Trinitarian and Nontrinitarian views without diminishing either? Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with this one. It is so difficult to find one thing that all "Christians" agree on that trying to use the words "all Christians" in an attempt to define the term is extremely problematic. You have to back off quite a bit into the abstract to do that, and I've been looking for a long time. The closest I've seen is a passage by Linda Woodhead in Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, where she states that "Christians believe that Jesus has a 'unique significance' in the world."

Agreed. It certainly is difficult, but I'd like to make the attempt, without getting into dogma or semantics. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

People can certainly make arguments—similar to that you propose—that "one must have x belief to be a Christian" but we are an encyclopedia here, so these various sectarian positions can only be maintained outside of Wikipedia. It is similar to the English language in that there is no single authority which makes the rules or defines the terms in English. We can note here that Denomination A says that "all Christians must have X criterion" and state that Sect B of Denomination C says that "all Christians must have Y criterion". But we at Wikipidia cannot choose one in particular and put it in the first sentence as a definition. That is choosing a point of view and is a violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies. Airborne84 (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I find this position inherently flawed, and posted an argument against it on the Talk:Jesus page already. Here's a copy: There are undoubtedly certain, minimal characteristics that are required of a person before they can be declared a Christian. Self-declaration is not necessarily one of those. If I declare myself to be a beach ball, that does not mean I am one, as I lack the characteristics of one. Several Christian writers throughout antiquity - Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinus, and for that matter Paul - have declared a belief that Jesus was/is God, or equal to God as a minimal requirement to be called a Christian, regardless of sect or denomination. To deny this as the most critical aspect of Christianity would be to deny that there is anything at all that holds Christians together. In other words, there are only two possible approaches that I see: attempting to find an all-encompassing, unbiased definition to which all Christians would ascribe, or relying upon self-definition, which, in turn, requires multiple mutually exclusive definitions. I would like to try for the former. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem: Many non-Trinitarians do not believe Jesus was God incarnate. Jehovah's Witness believe Jesus was God's first creation, while Mormons believe Jesus was the literal (almost biological) son of God the Father, while traditional Unitarians usually held views either similar to the JWs, or teaching that Jesus was a Greek-style demigod born 2000 years ago. "Son of God" better describes these beliefs that "God incarnate," since in all of them Jesus remains more distinct from God than in Trinitarianism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions then. What statement do you see that would fit the "All Christians believe that..." phraseology? We have already seen that "Son of God", the current phrasing, does not work for everyone. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

One of my biggest concerns about Christianity articles is the boastful line that appears near the start of many of them telling us how many Christians there are. Who wants to update those numbers if we tighten the definition? HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it's intended to be boastful, any more than the numbers reported on the Muslim, Buddhist, or other pages are meant to be. Please note also that we are not trying to redefine Christianity here; we're trying to find an all-encompassing statement on Christ's position in Christianity. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The current phrasing, "Son of God," describes the positions of Trinitarians, JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Christadelphians, the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Members Church of God International, Oneness Pentecostalism, and Swedenborgianism (their difference being that they also affirm that Jesus also is the Father and the Holy Spirit). It even kinda covers certain historical groups such as the Ebionites who would have considered it a title while otherwise considering Jesus to be no more divine than Moses. I'm not aware of any contemporary groups that doesn't cover (and the historical groups that come to my mind are often not classified as Christian but Christianized forms of other religions), the only issue is that some Christian groups interpret it differently from Trinitarian Christianity.

As for a changing definition changing the numbers, the majority of at least nominally fall under Trinitarian Christianity (since JWs and Mormons, the two largest non-Trinitarian groups, still aren't all that large in the grand scheme of things), so I don't see it changing too much. If it became necessary to change the numbers, it would probably be worthwhile to say simply "over two billion," and follow suit with other religion articles slapping "over" in front of rounded down figures (satisfying certain Muslims who don't believe groups such as Alevis or Ahmaddiyas are Muslim without actually denying the latter's self-designation). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to change the number of Christians. Catholic (1.2 billion), Protestant (800 millions) and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christian (260-300 million), are the majority of world christians and they all fall under Trinitarian Christianity (their percentage of world christian population is 98.7%). These Trinitarian Christian Denominations are around 2.2-2.3 billion. While the Other Christian Traditions which include Non-Trinitarian Christian Denominations as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church and Unitarians their numbers around 28 million (their percentage of world christian population is 1.3%), So if we exclude them the number of christian will not changed since the of the Non-Trinitarian Christians is very small in comparison with the world christians numbers and the numbers of the Trinitarian Christians.

PS- Members of other Christian groups as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church and Unitarians are self-identify as Christian although older Christian traditions may view them as distinct from mainstream Christianit. So if these Christian groups are self-identify as Christian, We don't have the rigth to exclude them from the article and not consider them as christians.--Jobas (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jtrevor99, regarding your statement that you are open to another way to providing a minimal definition for Christians, I propose Linda Woodhead's wording in the OUP book Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, where she states that "Whatever else they might disagree about, Christians are at least united in believing that Jesus has a unique significance." This is paraphrased in the third paragraph of the lede of the article on Jesus. There is no need to argue about self-definition or trinitarianism vs nontrinitarianism because these ideas cannot be reconciled on Wikipedia where all notable definitions must be considered. As unfortunate as some may find it, you have to step back further into the abstract in order to find something that might be acceptable to all "Christians". Woodhead has come the closest in all the writing I have seen. Airborne84 (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right. Perhaps that's why the current phraseology was chosen to begin with! Unfortunately, while Woodhead's statement certainly is true, it is (in my opinion) vague enough to not be particularly helpful for the introductory paragraph of this article. If no one has other ideas then perhaps we should leave the statement alone. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

While we have concurrence that changing the sentence in the lede is problematic, there are challenges in the article itself. For example, in the "Jesus Christ" section there is an unsourced statement that "The central tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ)." This seems to take the same position that we have agreed is untenable give the disparity of beliefs within Christianity discussed above. Shouldn't this sentence also reflect the considered caveat that appears in the lede? Airborne84 (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion showed that "Son of God" applies to both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christianity, and no sects were raised for which "Son of God" does not apply in some fashion. The bits about the hypostasis and so on are what fall under "most." My main issue with "'unique significance'" is that it it is broad enough that one could mistakenly assume it includes Islam or Manichaeism. This could be fixed by bringing in additional sources:

• "Christianity", by Edward I. Bailey, p.82-83 in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, ed. William H. Swatos and Peter Kivisto, Rowman Altamira, 1 Jan 1998 - "the existential recognition that (in the New Testament phrase) 'Jesus is Lord,'"
• "Christianity," by J. Gordon Melton, p.633-646 in Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices [6 volumes: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices], ed. J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann, ABC-CLIO, 21 Sep 2010 - "traces its origins to the ministry of Jesus"
• "Christianity," p.84-88 in The Encyclopedia of World Religions, ed. Robert S. Ellwood and Gregory D. Alles, Infobase Publishing, 1 Jan 2009 - "religion centered on belief in Jesus as the Son of God."
• "Christianity," by Lester de Souza, p.208-216, in Encyclopedia of Global Religion, ed. Mark Juergensmeyer and Wade Clark Roof, SAGE Publications, 18 Oct 2011 - "obvious central and essential element in Christianity is Jesus Christ, the leading figure of the tradition." It also notes "self-definition may be a wholly inadequate basis to objectively determine who is a practicing Christian."

"'Unique significance'" is still supported, but also expanding it to "unique, foundational, and at least reverential centrality."

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful input. I see no issue with "unique significance" being mistaken for something else since the possibility of others joining in this view doesn't take away from Christians holding this view. But I also think it would also be fine to include "foundational and reverential centrality" as supported by your sources.

I've never really touched on comments here addressing self-identification as a criterion for being a Christian, mostly because I figured it's been addressed many times before and is probably lurking in the archives in multiple locations. I propose we omit discussion in the article or we'll need to include a paragraph outlining the various competing thoughts on this. Yes, various authors have suggested that self-identification is not adequate. However, C.S. Lewis asserts in Mere Christianity that "It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. ... When a man who accepts the Christian doctrines lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say that he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian." I do not say this is correct, only that this is a work that many Christians hold as notable and Lewis (and undoubtedly others) appears to be against person A saying person B is not a Christian even if person B self identifies as such.

For what it's worth, this seems to create a challenge to omitting self-identification in toto when defining Christianity. Thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)