Talk:Christianity

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Older archives
Before July 2003 More old debate

Catechism

The Catholic Church has a book which goes over many of their doctrines, beliefs, and practices. This is what should be used when discussing anything that is Catholic. This book is called "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". With this book none of the silly beliefs of non-Catholics need to be even heard let alone be treated as true. Unfortunately the vast majority of Protestants don't have a catechism. To put both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches in the same article as the Catholic Church is an effort in futility. The Catholic Church, being 2000 years old with the oldest Protestant Church being at the most about 500 years old. They are both called Christian, however, there isn't much of a likeness except that they both believe that Jesus is God.Anathasius (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... Buddy, the Pope teaches us Catholics to follow Christ's command, "Love your enemies". (Matthew 5:43-48). The Protestants, who are Christians, and not our enemies, accept Christ as the Son of God, who suffered, bled, died and rose again for the forgiveness of our Sins. There are major doctrinal differences, but this encyclopedia is not the place to discus them; on wikipedia we present what there is to present, regardless of what I or you believe. Gabr-el 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of Christianity that always amazes me. What belief or doctrine is greater than following Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? To even imagine that there is a "greater" knowledge or something more important than following Jesus astounds me. Yet, we see this type of thing over and over again from each group/church/denomination, etc. within Christianity for the whole history of Christianity. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has a rich history filled with some of the most sublime examples of discipleship as can be found. However, we can find equally valuable examples within Protestantism or any other "ism" within Christianity. Be a zealot of humility or love, but leave the zealotry for doctrine or church outside of Wikipedia. Cheers. --^StormRider 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done Storm Rider, for your excellent and restraining response. My own response as you can see, is modelled by your own brilliant example of Christian unity. Gabr-el 05:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are all christianity article locked? can't I make corrections or additons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.187.96 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What belief or doctrine is greater than following Jesus Christ? What about there might be something I do not properly understand or maybe I missed something. Kazuba (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Denominations

Please note that the Assyrian Church of the East is nor Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Oriental Orthodox, nor Protestant nor Restoration. Because of its ancient history (separated from other bodis before the Council of Ephesus), Assyrian Church of the East should have own sub-paragraph in section Denominations.

The Chart is very clear (see yellow line), while the related text dont't mention such body (that includes also the Ancient Church of the East and perhaps other churches). A ntv (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can recall the sections on denominations to not claim that they cover every possible Christian group catagory-- nor is it needed for the article to cover every possible Christian group catagory.

Eastern Christianity is just a part of Christianity, and Syriac Christianity is just a small part of Eastern Christianity, and the Assyrian Church of the East is just a small part of Syriac Christianity. Christian theology]] is so very very small a group that it is to give it its own sub-paragraph would be undue weight.--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Article correctly distinguish between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Because the Orthodox Church of the East cannot at all be placed in one of the above group, nor in any other group, it needs to be distinguished. This also for relevant historical reasons (1600 years of separate history) and for theological reasons. Christianity->Eastern Christianity->Syriac Christianity is not a valid grouping. It is like to say Christianity->U.S. Christianity. A ntv (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrian Church of the East has not had any noteworthy impact on Christian theology. Likewise, his not an article on Christian history nor Christian theology.

While it does have some historical significance, it should be mentioned in the history section if that is why we are saying it is noteworthy. There are other, more important IMO, things left out of history section-- but since the whole section is too brief maybe that doesn't mater much.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East has not had any impact on Christian theology - then by this rather bold and ridiculous statement, the Assyrian Church borrows all of its theology from everyone else, despite being one of the first and most isolated Churches in history? Gabr-el 05:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I said rather, "The Assyrian Church of the East has not had any noteworthy impact on Christian theology"--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy is a POV in this case, which is self-aggravating. Not much is known about the ACOE. Consequently, it's theology is dismissed as "not noteworthy", as is so much by western academics, who try to make up for their lack of understanding by saying that there is nothing else to understand. The result? These "un-noteworthy" people remain out of the spotlight, so that they are not known and hence the vicious cycle of ignorance remains. One cannot deny the importance of the ACOE. Gabr-el 06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could say: The Assyrian Church of the East has not had any noteworthy impact on Western Christian theology: but this statment is at least false for the RCC. If at present the tradition of the Church of the East is limited (about 1-1.5 million people considering also the related Indian Churches and the Chaldean Church), in the early Middle-Age the ACoE spreaded as far as China being comparable in size with the Western Church. 151.96.3.241 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not to insert a sub-section, but simply to modify only the sentence: Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into five main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Restorationism in: ..as being divided into six main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of the East, Protestantism and Restorationism. 151.96.3.241 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been, in the past few years, many claims that various denominations to not fit into the broad categorisation of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. So far I've seen these from Baptists, Anglicans, Mormons, JWs, Ethiopians. We don't claim that the categorisation is rigid, but it's a widely used categorisation and we should talk about it. Most denominations that are claimed to lie outside it are either a) usually grouped into one of the three, despite claims that they lie outside or b) small enough not to be worth listing in an overview. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many or most of the groups in Category:Controversial Christian denominations and some in Category:Nontrinitarian denominations will claim to fall outside this system.

The Church of the East is not in Category:Controversial Christian denominations or in Category:Nontrinitarian denominations. Or we keep all the Eastern Christianity as one gruop, but if we want to divide it in Eastern Orthodoxy+Oriental Orthodoxy we cannot leave out the Church of the East. You can check article Eastern Christianity. PS: Baptists and Anglicans are borne after the Reformation, Mormons and JWs are not trinitarian, Ethiopians are Oriental Orthodoxy. But you cannot fit the Church of the East in any of those gruops. That because it separated form the others in a very ancient past (about 430 AC) and is still alive. I'm not a member of such a Church, but if our grouping has an historical base, as it has, it shall includes also the Church of the East. A ntv (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the Assyrian Church of the East is different, and I am not saying that you/it is Nontrinitarian, etc. I am saying that many other churches will not fit the "five main groups" summary system either. Yet, we cannot include them all.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The perceived age of a church has little value, but rather a congruence of beliefs is more important. When we think of orthodox/mainstream Christianity, we look at similarity of belief and not how long each church has existed. We should do the same thing with the Church of the East...what is it most like and that is the section in which it belongs. --^StormRider 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the Church of the East never accepted the third ecumenical council (Council of Ephesus), while it is accepted by the others bodies, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and most Protestants. Please note that the issue discussed at Ephesus was essentially a Christological controversy and so extremely relevant for a grouping based on belief. Also the sacraments of the Church of the East are different from EO, OO and RCC (that simply to list a few differences, but we could add the different veneration of Mary and so on). For these reasons it cannot be grouped with OO, EO, or RCC; Nor it can be grouped with Protestants because it doesn't accept the Sola Scriptura and it has a strict apostolic succession. I cannot say which is the section in which it belongs. A ntv (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that its very nature makes it a one of a kind Church, very distinct and unlike all others. Gabr-el 01:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have briefly mentioned the Assyrian Church in the first paragraph. I do believe that the age of a Church has historical noteworthiness. This does not mean that it is better or worse than all other Churches in Christianity; only that it became independent first. Gabr-el 03:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that including it in the first paragraph as you have constitutes undue weight. If it should be included, it should given its own sub-paragraph, as was originally suggested. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it less weight given if it were a small part of a paragraph and dealt with quickly, then have its own paragraph, in my opinion at least. Gabr-el 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no consensous on having it here, I have moved the Assyrian Church to the history section.

Please comment.--Carlaude ^(talk) 05:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to add this information in Denominations, but if you want to add it in history you shall underline also that the Oriental Orthodox broke out because they didn't accepted the 4th council. So the first split (still alive) was the Church of the East (3th council) and the second was the OO (4th council). More, you cannot include the Church of the East under a paragraph about Costantine, because ACoE was placed out of Costantine's Empire and so Costantine had no power on it, while he had power on all the other Christian world (apart perhaps the OO Armenians). So even the decisions of the first council (Nicaea 315) could not be enforced in Assyria till they were officially accepted by the ACoE in 410 (Seleucia-Ctesiphon synod). All these particularities make the ACoE unique. In other words, you cannot summarize the history of Christianity in the IV-V century in a few lines. So it is better to include ACoE in Denomination section with its own link. A ntv (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the Assyrian church does not belong in the lead. While I can see why Gabriel thinks it's a "one of a kind Church, very distinct and unlike all others", the same can be said about hundreds of other churches. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

If this is the opening sentence from the Buddhism article, Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices, considered by some to be a religion, but not by all., and this is the opening sentence from the Hinduism article Hinduism is a religious tradition that originated in the Indian subcontinent, then why isn't this article, which focuses on judeo-christian mythology, referred to in the same clinical way? This is the opening sentence of the Christianity article Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. The New Testament is an aggregate of myths, parables and proverbs assembled over a period of centuries, so why isn't it referred to here as a compendium of judeo-christian philosophies and codes of conduct? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all the New Testament is no a compendium of philosophies or codes of conduct. Another major difference is that the NT purports to be a record of people who are not mythological, but who actually lived. You are comparing apples and oranges. The opening statement is the most accurate statement developed to date. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

the issue is what is a Religion. The definition of Religion usually refers to a specific supernatural claim, that is considered by some to lack in Buddhism but not in Hinduism nor in Christianity. The supernatural claim differentiates religions as Christianity or Islam from philosophies and codes of conduct. We cannot leave out the term Religion. Check also the definition of Islam A ntv (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is how to give the best short, useful definition of a particular religion - in this case, Christianity. That must be shaped by the nature of the particular religion involved. Buddhism is characterized by the thinking and teaching of the Buddha. Hinduism is characterized less by a single, unified metaphysical world view, but rather by the various religious traditions that grew up on the Indian subcontinent. Christianity, in turn, is centered on Jesus of Nazareth - but in contrast to Buddhism, it isn't just his teachings that characterize Christianity, but also the Christian understanding of who he was, and what his life and death mean for his followers. The current sentence is perfectly clinical - it's just describing a religion that is defined differently than Buddhism. It is reasonably parallel to the first sentence for Islam - the difference arises because Christians understand the role of Jesus (son of God) to be central in a way that Muslims do not see for the role of Muhammad (prophet of God). EastTN (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:A ntv comments "Not all early Christians were Jews" [1]

Not all Jewish Christians were Jews, see also Proselyte and Godfearers. The sentence in question begins "Christianity began as a Jewish sect"; that "Jewish sect" is Jewish Christianity. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the point you are trying to make? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish sect, from which Christianity began, is Jewish Christianity. Seems like the article should mention that, even if some people are under the impression that Jewish Christians were only Jews. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You proposed to modify a sentence in the introduction to Christianity began as a Jewish sect, so-called Jewish Christianity . I reverted it deleting the addition so-called Jewish Christianity. Introduction of Article Christianity is a delicate issue. Jewish Christianity has two different meanings, a historical one and a contemporary one (see the link). It is not a unambiguous term. Even if we consider the historical meaning Jewish Christianity#Jewish origin of Christianity, we see a very early division between those who were circumcised and those who were not circumcised (from the above link). We cannot unanimously speak of "Jewish Christianity" as the name of the "Jewish sect" that is the early Christianity. "Jewish Christianity", when used as a name for early groups, usually refers to the early Christian groups like Ebionites. Moreover, Introduction is not the place for these detailed historical information. Article History of Christianity is the appropriate place, where anyway there is already the sub-section "Jewish continuity", with already a link to Jewish Christians. The aim of introduction is simply to explain to who dont know about Christianity, that Christianity cames from the Jewish religion. A ntv (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's link "as a Jewish sect" to Jewish_Christianity#Jewish_origin_of_Christianity. I'll be bold and do it. And, yes, an early division among Jewish Christians was those circumcised and those not circumcised, also a division among Proselytes and probably Godfearers as well. See Circumcision controversy in early Christianity for details. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to your new edit ([Jewish Christianity#Jewish origin of Christianity|Christianity began as a Jewish sect]). The issue here is simply to explain to who don't know about Christianity, that Christianity cames from the Jewish religion. You cannot delete the reference to "Jewish" as you did, linking a particular aspect of the Christian history. There are many different views on the early Christianity (discussed in History of Christianity). In the introduction we shall be very neutral, not overweighting only to one aspect (the Jewish continuity) over other aspects. I kindly ask you to revert you edits, to propose here in Talk the change you want to do, and wait for some Consensus, that is not only me and you. A ntv (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you disagree with the statement: "Christianity began as a Jewish sect". What would you propose in it's place? "Christianity began as a Jewish and Gentile sect"? "Christianity began as a Jewish sect but some [who?] propose other continuities"? 75.15.207.22 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentence "Christianity began as a Jewish sect". I don't agree with the new link under it, edited yesterday by 64.149.83.195 (Christianity began as a Jewish sect). I suggest to return to the situation before yesterday: Christianity began as a Jewish sect. A ntv (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Those links aren't useful, people know what Jewish means and they know what sect means. The appropriate link is a link to a discussion of the Jewish origin of Christianity. Jewish Christianity#Jewish origin of Christianity is one possibility, History of Christianity#Jewish continuity is another. 75.15.197.47 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Greek Jewish Canon" [2]

No such thing, clearly Original research. Wikipedia editors should know better. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with everything the anon is saying, but I agree in his outcome on this one. We have LXX linked, there's no sense in modifying it with "Greek Jewish Canon". Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with PaterMcFly that Greek Jewish Canon could be appropriate for the LXX (the pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism was only one Judaism in such a time, and the LXX is fully Jewish). But I agree with 64.149.83.195's outcome (without Greek Jewish Canon). Christianity is a general Article, more details and different views shall be find in the Septuagint Article. A ntv (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism, such as Philo, Josephus, Paul of Tarsus. They each claimed canons, but neither are identical, and neither match the modern canon of the Septuagint, however that is defined. The original Septuagint was only the Torah. See also Development of the Jewish Bible canon. 64.149.83.195 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE EXCUSE MY VANDALISM.

Where is proof? And Jesus so conveniently 'rose body and spirit' into Heaven?? John the prophet was considered to be mad during his time in Patmos, how can the Book of Revelations be relevant? Why are Christians hanging on to that 'God made a promise and soon he will keep it'? Where is official documentation God exists? We ask for miracles or at least a sign, if God wanted us to know He existed and loved us He WOULD NOT constantly keep us in uncertainty and denial. There is no proof. There is no real truth. Why can God enlighten a prophet in a way where he will preach so we understand? God is perfect, is he not? So why would He, and almighty Deity leave us to everlasting torture if we do not believe? Why would he separate us from Him for eternity because we didn't have faith? And so I ask you to not mindlessly praise one whom we haven't heard from in two millenia, and until you hear what YOU KNOW is real, do not say it exists. That is controlled faith. If God is real, someone living in a cabin in Alaska who had never heard of Christianity would have an epiphany and tell everyone he saw about Jesus, how he had no clue who God was but now knew everything, with the Bible describing everything he saw

Please check all above links, the main part is Wikipedia:MADEUP, there is also Agnosticism and Wikipedia:VERIFIABILITY. Maybe I shouldn't say CHRISTIANITY is not verifiable, for it is defined as something one believes in, but Jesus Himself is not, God is not either, and I propose their articles be taken down or described as it is BELIEVED to be by Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bieser (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)