Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Current and proposed revisions

Aiden/Archola/JimWae Version 2a

Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate. Christians generally believe that Jesus provides salvation through reconciliation with God, by atoning for the sins of humanity. Most Christians further believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, rose on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy.

Please leave responses to this version here.

Aiden/Archola/JimWae Version 2b

Since article is about Jesus & his nature, how does this look?

Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate. Christians generally believe that Jesus's life and death provide salvation by atoning for humanity's sins and thus effecting reconciliation with God. Most Christians further believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, rose on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not believe the Nicene Creed is the correct interpretation of the nature of Jesus. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy.

Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 4a

Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

Please leave responses to this version here.

Aiden/Archola Compromise Version 4b)

Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

Leave comments to this version here.

Storm Rider version

Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets Scripture. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

Leave comments to this version here.

Comments on proposed revisions

Comments to Aiden/Archola/JimWae version 2

This proposal can be found here.

Why don't we just say "Christians believe that Jesus provides salvation."? The linked article goes into detail about the various theories of salvation, from John 3 and other passages. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it to dispute one verse. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning in more detail:

1. Salvation is very important. To a Christian, the whole purpose of the incarnation, crucifiction, ressurection, et al was to provide salvation.
2. This is the intro, so we should keep it simple.
3. By keeping it simple, we get to avoid debates over various doctrines of salvation (Catholic and otherwise). We also get to avoid the whole messy argument over necessary and sufficient causes.
4. Doctrines of salvation rest on other verses besides John 3:16. If required, such verses can be listed in the footnotes.
5. I use "salvation" rather than "savior" because savior is a disambig page.
6. "Accept Jesus" places the emphasis on human will rather than divine will. It thus runs contrary to those who believe in some form of predestination.

Any questions/comments/concerns? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Like it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think we should include John 3:16. Scholars question its authenticity...and there are many possible words of Jesus we could include. It may belong at Christianity, where it has been widely embraced, but ndoesn't belong here. My two cents. KHM03 12:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer to discuss John 3:1-21, in either the Christian views or Life and Teachings sections. I'd like to hear what Aiden and Homestarmy have to say about all this. Not to mention JimWae, who has raised the most objections to date. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• While "Jesus provides salvation" is acceptable as it stands, it is misplaced as an "also" since it is already touched on earlier in the paragraph re Nicene Creed. --JimWae 18:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This a direct reference whereas the earlier reference is indirect. Perhaps salvation can be moved back into the Nicene Creed summary? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved it. I hope this doesn't step on any doctrinal toes ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit obscure to me, I mean, it seems to me it ought to answer the "how" in some manner. Honestly, from what you and I discussed Archola, if there's some big old debate between various denominations and groups over what it means, shouldn't it be added to the John 3:16 article or, if there is one, a John 3 article on just the whole thing? Then all we have to do here is mention that, like your saying, most Christians believe Jesus provides salvation, and then if there's some other article on the debate, (I don't actually know if there is one) just say something about "Though many Christian groups debate the specifics of this" or something, and link both John 3:16 and whatever article may be detailing the controversy? Then one way or another hopefully all ideas from Christians get represented, though I still don't personally see how this is a very debateable verse myself. Homestarmy 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep it simple for the intro! I'm sure this will all come up again when we move on to Jesus#Christian Views and Christian views of Jesus (or, as KHM03 suggested, Christianity). We can also take a look at John 3:16 and John 3.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying Jim's remark from elsewhere: Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

it is long past time to remove the contentious text from the intro. I have been patiently raising objections to the language in this paragraph for at least a month - and I see no counter-argument to my points other than people's personal preferences. Other editors have agreed with my points & proposed changes. Time to go with Talk:Jesus#Aiden.2FArchola.2FJimWae_Version_2 - which is still not perfect - and move on. -JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with Jim. Again, Jim's issues were:

1. Divine Parthenogenesis/Virgin Birth:

   Jim contends that this belief is not as widely accepted as the others. I see no problem with discussing this later in the article.

2. Salvation:

   I have proposed "Jesus provides salvation" and JimWae and CTSWyenekan have agreed. This is no different than saying Jesus is the Savior, which is exactly what Christianity teaches! We can get into the "how" of salvation in more detail later in the article, although as KHM03 has suggested, this may be better for the Christianity article. My objection to both "accept Jesus" and Aiden's comments is that these place emphasis on human will/activity rather than Divine will. This is contrary to many denomination's doctrines! To say any more only exposes more doctrinal differences. This is the introduction. Let's keep it simple!

3. John 3:16:

   This is not the only verse in the Bible! Nor is it the only one that describes salvation. As Storm Rider points out, to rely on only one verse is incomplete! Again, this and other relevant verses can be discussed later in the article.

4. Aiden's latest revision does not address JimWae's points.

   I agree with them because it helps to simplify the introduction. We can go into detail further down in the article. JimWae is also right that he has been patient, although on the other hand, our attention has been focused elsewhere.

To summarize: Anything removed from the introduction can be discussed in detail later in the article!

Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Wae and Arch: Parthenogenesis is not and has never been accepted by all Christians -- in fact its non-acceptance by several schools of thought (called heresies from the Greek "hairesis" ('αιρεςις) -- sect, choice, school of thought) is what led to the Council of Nicaea. (I would suggest that readers of this talk page check into the true history of the Nicene creed, not the Wiki-version which is sorely lacking in detail) [1], so leaving it out is a good idea.

The "Saviour saves" is like saying "The truck driver drives trucks" or "the housepainter paints houses" so it too needs to go.

As stated earlier, the fascination with John 3:16 is primarily among Fundamentalists (particulary those in America, where it has become a sort of shorthand method of saying, "I'm with you brother)-- there is far, far less emphasis on that quote among non-Fundamentalists. In fact, in running through random articles in various languages, I found that 23 did not mention John 3:16, and three did. So, it is not a prevalent verse overall, and would probably be best discussed elsewhere.

NOTE: At Arch's request, I am in the process of translating the German article -- the only Wiki article on Jesus that is a featured article -- and to me, that article is the epitome of a true scholarly work. When I get a bit further along, I'll add the link to this page.

Finally, I support, pro tem, the version found here [2] Jim62sch 11:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, check an earlier (now archived) post by User:Str1977 (a Catholic): John 3:16 is an important verse for Protestants and Catholics alike, it's just not the only important verse. As for why it is given so much emphasis, I blame the Gideons. Perhaps I should contact Midnite Critic so we can also get an Orthodox opinion? I haven't seen MC around this page must lately. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is all a nice antidote to the christian "cabal" accusations! SOPHIA 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I first became active on this page to settle an edit war between Aiden and Storm Rider, which is why the Nicene Creed is there. The Christians on this page were never as united as Robsteadman seemed to believe. I can't keep calling him "Rob," because CTSWyneken's first name is also "Robert." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what does Parthenogenisis have to do with belief in Jesus to save one from sin? And like Archola is saying, if we make a whole new little paragraph in the article about how Jesus saves to Christians, we can just leave it at "salvation" like Archola suggests and link to the corresponding section in the article and discuss it all at once in more detail, that seems like a fine suggestion. Homestarmy 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis IMHO is more about Mary than Jesus, although some say that Jesus was without sin because He was born of a virgin. The point, though, is that JimWae suggested removing "born of a virgin" from the intro—this version does that, but Aiden's latest revision does not. As CTSWyneken said, though, the virgin birth is important for other reasons, and we feel it should still be discussed in the body of the article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now it's about virgins. The virgin birth is possibly just as famous as John 3:16 because it's miraculous, I can't think of a single large group in the world that says it wasn't a virgin birth, it shouldn't be Catholicism because im pretty sure they specifically refer to her as the "virgin Mary", what's the problem? Homestarmy 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, Catholics have that whole immaculate conception thing. JimWae cited polls which stated that belief in the virgin birth, while still a large majority, wasn't as universal a belief as the rest of the items in the creed. The other Jim brought up lost Christianities that did not accept the virgin birth. Finally, if you look towards the end of the virgin birth article, ("Possible borrowing from Paganism"), you'll see the Jesus Myth nipping at our heels again! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that lost Christians kind of don't count because their obviously not representative of recent attitudes towared the virgin birth, but the only poll I saw him cite was on the Church of England, hardly representative of either Catholicism or anyone else besides the church of England :/. And a large majority counts as "most" I would think, what's the big deal? The paragraph doesn't try to say "All Christians think". Homestarmy 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All true. We're just not agreeing on where to discuss this: the introduction, or the "Life and teachings, based on the Gospels" section, or the "Christian views of Jesus" section. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there's not much to discuss because we don't have anything to cite besides our own common sense, there ought to be a reference in the intro because it's still all a big deal apparently and totally relates to what most Christians think of Jesus, we'll just need a paragraph down somewhere to talk about this debate, if there even is a real one. Homestarmy 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholics alone comprise the majority of Christians and strongly believe in the virgin birth and the belief is held by Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants alike. We are representing a majority view in Christianity and thus there's no reason why it should be removed. —Aiden 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

JimWae's point is that there is a difference between personal beliefs and church doctrine. Perhaps we should find some way to cite this...beyond our own common sense? CTSWyneken has said that he has some sources that may help. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have returned with a citation, but despite a good deal of searching, the most I could find was what American Christians believe, I couldn't find anything on European Christians or Catholicism, but disturbingly, a whole lot of reports that Europeans are, well, a bit on the more hopeless side.....Without polls on Catholicism's views, I dunno how we can get exact references, honestly, I don't think we really need them to assert the virgin birth's acceptance by "Most Christians" anyway. [Go american Christians! :D] Homestarmy 02:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First, To find the European views you'd need to look on European webpages, and a knowledge of the target language would be a must. Second, I significantly resent this comment as an NPA violation, "a bit on the more hopeless side" -- keep in mind that Americans are not the only people who read English and your accusation, with its smug righteous arrogance pisses me off (and I'm an American); third ee my comment below about this article never being featured -- the arguments on this page are unreal -- is it Christian dogma that Mary was a virgin? Yes. Do a majority of Christians believe that? Probably. In the long run is it more important that you believe that specific part of the mythos, or that you do good things and live a good life? Jim62sch 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, is that you? Yes, I've heard that much of Europe is a little on the unspiritual side (not to offend any European people here)! As for the parthenogenesis, I still think that's more about Mary than Jesus. However, last I knew, Aiden was still lobbying that it be included in the intro. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign my name there :/. Homestarmy 02:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this version, although I'd prefer "rose" to "was resurrected". As far as I know, the Greek in the New Testament uses a word that's kind of half way between the passive "was resurrected" and the active "rose". AnnH ♫ 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's called the middle voice. Greek was the last IE language to use it. However, by the time the Gospels were written in Koine Greek, the middle voice had more-or-less taken over for the passive. If I had access to the Greek NT here, I'd tell you what the word was, but, I don't so... Jim62sch 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, it appears that two Catholics (Str1977 and Musical Linguist/AnnH) have spoken in favor of the Aiden/Archola/JimWae Version 2. I'll cross-post this below. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments to Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 4

This proposal can be found here.

I've adapted the sentence from the Nicene Creed summarization on the Christianity article. I feel this does a good job of illustrating Jesus' importance to most Christians concerning salvation, while bypassing the debate on "other paths" or other requirements for salvation. —Aiden 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the importance of it to the Bible and Christianity, couldn't "salvation" be changed to "eternal salvation"? And the last sentence seems a bit...well...hard to understand, "salvation is attainable through the person, life and death of Jesus Christ (see John 3:16)." Is this trying to say that it is obtainable through Jesus and His life? What about "salvation is attainable through Jesus Christ's person, as a result of His life and death. {see John 3:16}"? Homestarmy 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well..

1. I still prefer "Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed," since modern trinitarianism is based on the creed.
2. I'd like a link to nontrinitarianism somewhere, perhaps linked to "do not recognize." It seems to me that it is odd to define a group by what they are not. In fact, that's why I added "Trinitarian" to the ¶ in the first place. The creed is there for historical reasons.
3. My own opinion is that John 3:16 is a good starting point, but a lousy stopping point. I can really see both sides. It's enough for me that j 3:16 is handled separately from the creed, but I know there are some who will still object to having it in the introduction.
4. The virgin birth is part of the creed and should remain in the intro until someone can produce evidence one way or the other on how widely accepted this docrine is. We can't just limit it to Catholics or Anglicans. OTOH, I know of at least 3 reasons why nonchristians dispute this doctrine—however, this paragraph is about Christian perspectives, so the virgin birth is appropriate here.

Any rebuttals? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's my mistake. I meant to include your changes in this version but it slipped my mind. I've implemented your suggestions concerning the Creed and Nontrinitarianism. I agree that the virgin bith is absolutely relevent and necessary in expressing mainstream Christianity's views of Jesus. And of course we just disagree on the John 3:16 reference. —Aiden 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this version puts in salvation there so I don't see much issue, is there a way we can make the link so that it goes straight to the Christianity section in that article? I mean, why settle for just John 3:16 when that article lists like everything :D. Homestarmy 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Aiden 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if we can figure out a way to maybe say that last sentence better, then this seems like a pretty good paragraph. I mean, i'd personally think "salvation" should become "eternal salvation" because, you know, that's what it is, but meh. Homestarmy 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Jesus provides eternal salvation through his person, life, death and ressurection." The ressurection is kind of important. ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, "eternal salvation" as opposed to, "Welcome to Heaven, my child"...5 minutes later "Get yer butt outta here, salvation revoked" ? This is really getting out of control. Why not just stuff the four gospels in here in place of the article. Jim62sch 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Good point, Jim62sch, but this is actually coming from a conversation Homestarmy and I had with Oscillate on Homestarmy's talkpage, about whether "one saved, always saved" really applies. By mentioning "eternal salvation" rather than just "salvation," we are explicitly including the "one saved, always saved" view. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the question multiple times and I have yet to get one answer...What is lost by simply deleting the reference to John 3:16? Yes, it is a wonderful scripture and it is enormously important to Evangelicals, but it is an incomplete understanding of the Gospel of Christ for the majority of Christians. Storm Rider 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think anything is lost, but Aiden has told me he feels it's a nonissue. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To a lay person not familair with Jesus in the context of Christianity (for whom informative articles like this are written), it is a great tool that conveys the great importance placed on Jesus. The question we should be asking ourselves is, "What is lost by keeping it?" There certainly is gain. —Aiden 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Added verbiage that can't even properly be sourced as no one -- not any scholars even -- are sure if it's meant to be commentary or a direct quote. How's that for an option? Jim62sch 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem that has been explained on multiple occaisions is that it is incomplete, it is not a full summary of the Gosepl of Christ. It does represent an incredibly important scripture, but the majority of Christians feel it is incomplete. Not that we desire to take anything from its importance, but there is more to Christ than belief. I understand your personal affinity for the scripture. I love the scripture, we all love the scripture...but it is not a complete representation of His Gospel. Yes, it appropirately puts forth the eternal value of Jesus that Christians hold for Him. But, I still submit that there is more to the Gospel of Christ. It is undoubtedly the first step, but there are other steps.

Further, I don't have a scripture that summarizes the full Gospel of Christ. I am not sure there is one. For this reason, I would just prefer not to quote scripture in the introduction. There is ample room in the body of the article. Storm Rider 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden has a point I never much thought about deeply in relation to wiki standards, one of the criterion at least for GA status is for the layman to be able to understand things. We don't need to go over everything about salvation in the intro, with the salvation article linked to the proper position, anyone interested can go see it, and if someone isn't, John 3:16 gives at least a quick understanding which, let's face it, is widely recognized by people. And Archola, the problem gramatically I think with that sentence is where "people" is placed, by saying "through his person" it's like some weird 3rd person paradox, unless we specified trinitarian stuff it's a bit odd to read, at least to me. Im thinking something along the lines of, "As a result of Jesus's life, death, and ressurection, most Christians agree that belief in Jesus provides eternal salvation (See John 3:16)." I think what looks odd about what's being proposed is just saying "person" right there, is there a way we can remove that and still convey the meaning? Homestarmy 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oookay, Aiden solved that problem, but shouldn't it be "is attained from belief in Jesus as saviour."? Homestarmy 01:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the sticking point. Catholics believe that belief alone is not enough to attain salvation, that works are also necessary. By simply stating that salvation is attainable through Jesus as Saviour, one can assume belief and possible other requirements (through and because of Jesus) are needed to attain salvation. Thus, we can represent a majority view, that Yes, acceptance is necessary, without necessarily disqualifying other requirements.

To tell you the truth, however, I prefer the current version (revision 3) as it specifically states that acceptance is a requirement--something Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants alike believe. —Aiden 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh :/. It's just it looks odd to say "Jesus as Savior" there because I can't see the connection well gramatically speaking between "attain" and "Jesus as Saviour". What about changing that to "Jesus Christ", I mean, it clearly specifies the Christian definition as Messiah and savior, but doesn't add that odd little "as". I don't think I like the acceptance ones, because accept to me means to accept Christ into your heart, but in layman's terms, it's possible to easily see that as "If im a hard-core satanist who hates God almost to the point of almost dying over it due to so much obsession, and accept that yea, sure Jesus died for our sins, i'll go to heaven, bwahahah!" And that's pretty wrong. Homestarmy 01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Reorganized sentence structure. —Aiden 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, it appears that two Catholics (Str1977 and Musical Linguist/AnnH) have spoken in favor of the Aiden/Archola/JimWae Version 2. I'll cross-post this above. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim's version also removes a key element of the Nicene Creed and Catholic dogma in its summary as well as removing the above-discussed John 3:16 reference. —Aiden 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We can always put the Virgin Birth back in, although I still think it's more about Mary than Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This version I like now :). Homestarmy 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on both versions

For the record, two catholics User:Str1977 and User:Musical Linguist have spoken in favor of Aiden/Archola/JimWae Version 2. On the second version, the main contention seems to be John 3:16. I hope we can settle this without having another vote. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this in compromise: I will agree to the removal of the John 3:16 reference so long as the currently published version (minus the reference, of course) remains. I think our Catholic friends will agree that central to Christian belief is the virgin birth and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is a necessary requirement for Salvation (among other things.) —Aiden 03:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you remove John 3:16 from your version, there is no reason to separate the salvation clause from the reconciliation with God clause. Put them back together, and put the Virgin Birth back into JimWae's version (JimWae's the only one who seriously objected to its inclusion), and they're basically the same paragraph. The only real difference is in the phrasing of the salvation clause: "Jesus provides salvation," is active voice, while "salvation is attainable" is passive voice. Active voice is friendlier to the readers. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If John 3:16 is removed, could the word "salvation" not be wikilinked and instead link at the end as a (see, Salvation in Christianity) sort of deal? It just doesn't seem like people would notice where the explanation is if it's just wikilinking a word there, or at least wouldn't figure out where to go to find the explanation if there isn't something referenced at the end of that sentence. Homestarmy 03:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is still no good reason to single out John 3:16 for inclusion in the intro. Xians do not agree on how to interpret it.
• It is patently false that Catholic teaching is that explicit acceptance of Jesus is necessary to go to heaven - we have already discussed this at length.
• It seems belief in the virgin birth was on the rise in 2003 (in the USA anyway) - even 1/4 of non-Xians believe both in it & the Resurrection according to http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359. However there may be some changes in 2005 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618. While I find astounding inconsistencies in these on-line polls, I now have less objection to having the virgin birth stay in the intro - as long as no claim is made that it is overwhelmingly believed by Xians world-wide - though I still find it a less inportant thing to include in an intro to a biography of Jesus. If the intro paragraph were talking about Xian doctrine or what the NT says, the intro would not be susceptible to change when perhaps the next poll comes out that includes Xians world-wide.
• I could accept inclusion of virgin birth back into "my" proposal. I could also agree with the other version IF John 3:16 were removed. With 3:16 removed from it, however, the other part of the sentence can go back into the Nicene Creed talk - and is redundant if it is not - thus making both proposals virtually identical --JimWae 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can go with either version. However, I don't think we should place JOhn 3:16 in the intro either. We need to keep the intro sweet and to the point. This paragraph is here to represent what most Christians believe are facts about the life of Jesus that go beyond the very basic scholarly views in the second paragraph. We should keep it as such.

Another note: Baptists do not believe in creeds at all, but do believe in the doctrines taught by the Nicene Creed. --CTSWyneken 09:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Midnite Critic brought this up as well: there are some groups who affirm the contents of the creed, but not the creed itself. I'm not sure how to clarify this. BTW I reference the creed because we had a comment from a scientologist (User:Ronabop) who mentioned several historical non-Nicenean trinitarian formulas, including Arianism. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we put the section of the salvation article discussing the issues with salvation through Christ in Christianity in parenthesis at the end if we remove John 3:16? It just seems to me it'll look better if we have a see:this sort of thing that people can notice since apparently everyone agrees there are issues, and if the salvation article is linked there straight to the Christianity section, it just seems more convienent and noticeable for anyone who wants to know more. Homestarmy 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we moved the salvation clause to the end of the paragraph to separate references to John 3:16 from references to the Nicene Creed. Without a John 3:16 citation, it doesn't really make sense to separate salvation from reconciliation and atonement. I'm not sure how to work in a see:also with that tight of a paragraph, but I'll bet Aiden can find a way ;)Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "thus" from "my" version - since it has been brought up that being Trinitarian does not automatically imply asserting the Nicene Creed. I believe I am seeing consensus on removing J 3:16, no? --JimWae 15:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, there is a growing concensus on removing John 3:16 from the introduction. AFAIK, I, Storm Rider, KHM03 and now CTSWyneken have all given reasons why the verse may not be appropriate to the introduction, and Aiden has offered the compromise. I suppose J 3:16 can work as a footnote (such as, "based on John 3:16 and other verses). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If we can somehow make the section of the salvation article about Christianity somehow go in place in the see:also section I don't see the problem with replacing John 3:16, I mean, that section of the salvation article actually has John 3:16 and, well, it seems most everything else in it :/. It's just without something at the end clearly directing the reader towared it, simply wikilinking salvation in the middle there might not be noticed as clearly. Homestarmy 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to acheive a compromise, I have removed the John 3:16 reference from the compromise version and included mention of salvation in the Nicene Creed sentence ("Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and became man.") I feel this sentence works a bit better than the other version and includes seperate mention of salvation and reconciliation (and versus through), as Catholics and others believe in past, present, and future salvation, where salvation granted allows for reconciliation with God. —Aiden 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The two versions are now so similiar that I have no preference. Either one will work. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way to make the salvation link more notable looking since its much more in depth than Jesus simply atoning for our sins and that's it? like maybe not wiki-linking it and putting a (see:Christian salvation) parenthesis thing next to "salvation"? Homestarmy 19:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Not quite sure how we'd do that. It would seem a bit redundant linking to the same content that 'salvation' links to. —Aiden 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that too, but like we've all noted, there is apparently a controversy over the issue of salvation concerning Jesus, and well, report the controversy and all :/. Or in this case, let another article report it for us. It just seems to me like with just an innocent looking wikilinked word it doesn't look as notable as it should be to reference this situation and therefore I dont know how many people who are curious would click on it, there's got to be some way to make it into a see:also of sorts at the end :/. Homestarmy 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• The only meaningful difference I see between the two versions now is that one has Jesus "sent", while the other takes no position on that.
  • Regarding atonement, I see nothing here nor in its own article that clearly discusses (Jesus as) making compensation or reparations in order for redemption to be possible - and I do not think that "atonement" & "reconciliation" are different enough in the way they are used in the paragraph for both to be included just a few words apart. But perhaps, since this is an article on Jesus, not on Xty, (and Xians may differ on just HOW this is atonement, I guess) such may be besides the point.
  • Since this is an article about Jesus, and some Xian faiths do not take scripture as the beginning AND end of all religious discussion, I think a link to Christology (nature of Jesus) is more meaningful in a biography article when mentioning Xians who are non-Nicene.--JimWae 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have inserted version 4a. Though I still think it can be improved in several ways, it is far better than what has sat there for far too long. Discussion can continue - I think "sent' is still an issue and that Christology is a more relevant link. I also think the "atonement" part needs less redundancy & more clarity --JimWae 05:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and "recognize" can too easily be construed as POV --JimWae 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, I did have a link to Christology in the paragraph at one point (coming off of Storm Rider's sentence that Christian views of Jesus are diverse and complex), but at some point it was removed. Is there any reason not to restore the link to Christology?

Also, version 2b seems seems to have duplicate references to life and death. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It still seems off to me with the salvation wikilink just sitting there all normal-looking when it's supposed to be able to lead the reader to more information on this issue :/. Homestarmy 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Aiden/Archola Compromise Version 4b

Discussion on this paragraph was swallowed up by /Archive 40. I moved it to its proper place in /Christian views in intro (which is now on its third archive.) For one thing, Aiden has been on a 48-hour block and thus unable to participate, so our discussion may not be over. Do we have anything further to discuss? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think it would be a good idea to make the salvation in Christianity link more prominent than simply a wikilink of "salvation" pointing to it, it just doesn't seem noticeable, and then nobody will get the whole message of how Christians see salvation through Jesus. Homestarmy 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We could perhaps expand on the concept in the Christian Views section of this article. The introduction itself should simply, well, introduce the subject. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it just seems to me like the (see:also) thing we had before was quick, to the point, and informative, even if people didn't like just having John 3:16. I mean, that section of the salvation article has John 3:16 and basically everything else. Homestarmy 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, JimWae and Aiden worked out a compromise for the introduction: keep the virgin birth, drop the reference to John 3:16. However, we might footnote "salvation" with something like, "Based on John 3:16 and other verses." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Aiden's block was just reduced to 24 hours, so he should be able to reply later today. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why was Aiden blocked? :( And I do really think a footnote would really improve the reference for this paragraph by making the references more front-and-center. Homestarmy 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR on an unrelated article. See User Talk:Aiden for details. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The wording of this one makes it seem like those who do not agree with all or part of the Nicene Creed do not agree with the basic principles of Christianity listed in the previous sentence, such as Jesus being the Son of God, providing salvation, born of a virgin, etc. The main sticking point is the belief that Jesus is God. And it seems to me that the wording "do not *affirm* the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation" sounds like they're not affirming something that *is* the correct interpretation. "do not believe the Nicene Creed correctly interprets the Bible" or something similar would be preferred, I'd say. It needs to be clear that these Christians believe all or most everything else listed in the previous sentence. Just a small change of wording, nothing elaborate, of course. --Oscillate 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the wording and update the version number ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. If my reading of "affirm..." is off-base to everyone else, then I can probably let it be. It's a little bit of semantics, but I was hoping it made sense to everyone. --Oscillate 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The change looks good for that part. I'm still wondering about that "however", the wording and placement of the sentence makes it appear that these other Christians don't support anything from the previous sentence, when really, the only big change is whether Jesus is God or not. --Oscillate 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, JimWae objected to "recognize" and I used "affirm" because it was the same word used earlier. "Believe" works for me; obviously nontrinitarians do not believe in the Nicene Creed or any other trinitarian formula. We tried to structure the paragraph to read "Some Christians are Trinitarian (mostly Nicenean)...however, others are not." Also, I'm not sure if divinity is the only issue; various nontrinitarian branches differ from each other as much as they do from Nicene Christianity and its decendants.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it throw things off too much if, after the sentence over salvation from sin, the word "salvation" stopped wikilinking directly to the Christianity section, and at the end we put (See:Salvation to Christians) and link directly to the Christianity section? that way, salvation in the general sense is there in the middle of the sentence, and the specific section is at the end after the sentence is done. Homestarmy 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Aiden deal with that after his block expires in an hour or two. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider's below point and support his version. —Aiden 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Storm Rider version

A harmonized version of this proposal can be found here.

The current 3rd paragraph reads as follows:

Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not affirm the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

I propose grouping the Trinitarian phrases as follows:

Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed is the correct interpretation of Scripture. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

The way the current paragraph reads one might assume that those who do not believe in the Trinity also don't believe in the virgin birth, crucifixtion, ressurection, ans ascension of Christ. I am sorry I did notice this sooner, but I do think it improves the paragraph. Anyone disagree with this change? Storm Rider 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically, just move the "other Christians" sentence up one? I don't see a problem with that. Homestarmy 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay to me; let's wait to hear what Aiden has to say. Also, Oscillate prefers "believe" to "affirm" when talking about nontrinitarians, which I added to version 4b. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem with wording, I just copied the paragraph from the article. The focus is only on moving the two sentences dealing with Trinitarians together. I am NOT recommending different wording. Storm Rider 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give me a moment to organize this section without causing an edit conflict. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done so and provided a link to the harmonized version. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks very nice to me, reads better too. --Oscillate 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm back! And I agree, very good realization, Storm Rider. I have no problem with this version. —Aiden 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Motion to insert. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I second. —Aiden 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Motion carried and revision inserted. I'll leave this thread here for a day or so to see if there are further comments. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the current version, but think that the sentence about other Christians is redundant. For a start we already know this because of the earlier sentence stating Most Christians. I would only support the extra text if it stated what they did believe, rather than what they don't believe. ^rossnixon 00:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I raised this myself a few times. The best answer we could come up with is to acknowledge that there are nontrinitarian Christians, and provide a link to nontrinitarianism. But Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentacostals, and others differ from each other enough to make a summary difficult. Storm Rider's suggestion (below) was to move the sentence, indicating that nontrinitarians agree with trinitarians on many issues, but simply deny the Trinity. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

May we archive this discussion? I also assume we will guard paragraph 3, pending agreement, say, on the paragraph 3 subpage? 8-) --CTSWyneken 12:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww, but nobody's told me if it's possible yet for the Christian salvation link to be changed for a (see:also) at the end of the reconciliation sentence :/. I mean, it just doesn't look noticeable like it is now. Homestarmy 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I'll wait... --CTSWyneken 14:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, Aiden and I have answered that we don't know how we can do that without messing up the tight format we've developed (with the help of JimWae, Storm Rider and others). Do you have a specific proposal? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What about simply changing the salvation link back to just the beginning of the article, and after that sentence, just say (See:Salvation in Christianity) and then link directly to the section? Homestarmy 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems redundant to me. I'll let others comment. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)