Talk:Christianity/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

The Law or "Teachings of Jesus"

In response to the previous discussion at Talk:Christianity/Archive 34#Non-resistance_to_evil, I'd like to know what everyone thinks about including a section on Mosaic Law and Jesus' Expounding of the Law or perhaps a more general section entitled "Teachings of Jesus". As Str1977 and I had agreed, this article seems to cover well enough Christian beliefs about Jesus/God and various aspects of Salvation, but delves little into the fundamental day-to-day beliefs of Christians as based on Jesus' teachings, such as those taught in his sermons and parables. Perhaps a section on Christian views of the Law (maintaining the Ten Commandments, etc.) and their role in Christianity along with the teachings of Jesus would be a good place to discuss this. Or perhaps a recap of those things Christians are obligated to do under Jesus' teachings (such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself") would better explain Christian beliefs. —Aiden 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just looking back through the article, the Worship and practices section's last paragraph discusses some of what I'm talking about, defining daily Christian obligations in respect to Jesus' teachings. However, I think this content should form its on section in the Beliefs section; but it's a good start none-the-less. —Aiden 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how much further you can take it without getting into areas of significant divergence between Christian traditions. Beyond the Ten Commandments and the two great commandments (Love God, Love your neighbour as yourself), what else have you in mind? I suspect that, for many Christians, their overt daily obligations are little to do with Jesus' teachings and more to do with their particular church's (or society's) traditions. Myopic Bookworm 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True. Honestly I like what we have in the Worship and practices section, but I feel the latter paragraph should be given its own section and expanded just slightly to incorporate some of the views on the Law and Jesus' "two greatest" commandments. —Aiden 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunday worship services and Communion

Thanks to User:Myopic Bookworm for developing the 'Sunday worship services' section more. It occured to me though, that who receives Communion and who doesn't is a much bigger issue for Catholics than it is for most other denominations, given that for the former it's an essentially element of salvation, while in the latter it may only be a matter of preference/convenience. With this in mind, I'd like to rework the section in a way that encompasses succintly the differences between denominations in communion practices while still pointing out that Catholics place most importance on the sacrament. Slac speak up! 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be careful of "most" importance on the scarament. Maybe something like, "Catholics place a high importance on ..." or any derivative thereof. I don't like using absolute superlatives; it places us in the position of knowing something we don't. Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say "the central importance of the Eucharist is a distinctive element of Catholic theology". Slac speak up! 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that works. However, it is interesting to note that the sole purpose of Sunday Sacrament Meeting for Latter-day Saints is the partaking of the Sacrament. It is the one meeting that is viewed as a requirement for followers of Christ in the eyes of LDS. Though there are other Sunday meetings, they can be missed, but Sacrament Meeting is paramount. Having said this, I still think your statement above is good. Question: when you state Catholic theology does one interpret that to include Eastern Orthodoxy and is their also theology similar? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox churches do indeed give a high place to the Eucharist, since most public religious worship is Eucharistic. However, the partaking of communion by lay people is generally less frequent, and I'm not sure whether Eastern churches make the Eucharist an absolutely central feature of religion in quite the way that the Roman Church came to do. I also wonder whether the Eucharist is central to Catholic theology as such, or merely central to Catholic religious practice. I might suggest replacing distinctive element of Catholic theology with characteristic element of Catholic religious practice. Myopic Bookworm 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Shares in" versus "accepts"

Aiden, my choice of "shares in" over "accepts" is motivated by John 6:53-54: "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day". But I'm aware there may be other views at hand: what do you think? Slac speak up! 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

PBS external link

Im unwilling to revert more than once in this instance for now, User:Biblical1 inserts a link here: [1] to a PBS documentary purporting to be an "intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial blah blah blah" concerning Jesus, but the main problem is, you can't see it here. Or rather, you can't actually see the documentary for free, just the transcripts, for a video, feel free to shell out $59.98 -____-. I question the necessity of such a link, and if it's really a good idea, at least the link should go directly to the transcripts, you know? Reaserching the documentary itself to see whether it's actually useful would take too long, does anyone else see the need for this link? Homestarmy 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually, it seems there's more to this site, clicking on the links above leads to numerous articles written by various sources on many number of issues concerning Jesus. Their points of view are often conflicting, and some of the articles appear extremely speculative in nature, such as this one, and all in all, im not sure that listing the entire site as an external link would be helpful. I suspect some of these articles may actually be useful for citing our own article, but many of the articles seem to be making a ton of conjecture about the purposes of the gospels (Such as their version of the Q document thing here), and all in all, I just don't like the looks of the quality of all the material from this PBS thing as a whole. Homestarmy 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Old hats dressed as controversies

Please do not add old hats of scholarship from the 19th century as controversy. It is already a stretch that we have so much on that Egyptian issue. Please don't make it worse. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Euroheritage

From http://euroheritage.net:

I have added a member charting the dates of European conversion (major efforts or formal adoptions by ruling leaders) to help this article. I hope it will not be treated as spam. Its dating can be verified on the relevant Wikipedia national history articles, as I checked them to make sure this would be accepted here. Thank you. 14:31, 26 July 2006 EHA User:SwordofOdin

Paul controversy

Dear Biblical, the controversy section is for controversy. So by definition it contains POV statement. These mustn't be dressed up as factual statements. Your last one ("Paul's determination to accept uncircumcised gentiles prevailed over Peter's desire for Christianity it to remain a sect of Judaism.) was particularly awful, because

it misrepresents Peter (who in fact held the exactly opposite view)
it doesn't even bother to claim "scholarly consensus" (which it is not), instead stating it as if it were a fact
if it were a undisputed fact there wouldn't be a controversy

Also, you may have not noticed but a NPOV version of your point has already been included.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Str1977, I was not comfortable with that edit, but was not bold enough to revert it. Your action was the better action. Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Biblical has added his pet passage without discussing it here. He has even supplemented it with patent nonsense. I will not tell him what the nonsense is, but it should be obvious to anyone who knows a bit about Christianity. Maybe he will find out himself. This is the passage as added:

"Many of Christianity's first followers were recuited by Saint Paul because of his belief Jesus would rise from the dead and instill a new "Kingdom of God" on earth, it is even the topic of the New Testament's earliest writing First Thessalonians. ^[1] Paul's acceptance of uncircumcised gentiles also clashed with Saint Peter's desire for Christianity to remain a sect of Judaism although Paul never knew the historical Jesus. (see Paul of Tarsus#Scholarly Consensus)"

The objections mentioned in the first post of this section of course still stands. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The video I rented from the library was simply to back the claim relative to the PBS link, as it indeed is a documentary with historical information.

The link refers to a documentary done by scholars on the historical Jesus. It was not intended as the only source.

Peter's showdown with Paul at Antioch also does not misrepresent his position.

If you are to go to the scholarly consensus page, the quote from Bertrand's Russell book automatically disputes your claim.

It not even up for dispute in regards to Peter and Paul's clash. The letter Saint Paul writes about the clash, (where he classifies Peter as hypocritical) is what scholars believe OUGHT to have happened. Research done has shown that Paul actually LOST the battle between Peter and Jesus' brother James.

This is the essence of Paul's trip to Damascus.

This is also common information. It is imperative to only refute facts you know to be real. Unfortunately references to scripture and symbolic literature from the New Testament is not adequate nor objective. If you continue altering my statements while attempting to discredit the sources I will only reveal more sources and you will have to change your stance.

I simply want the truth, you cannot alter it because it does not suit your position. Please present your own research that counters this information, if you cannot, you have no grounds to invalidate the source nor the information, as the information is more important than your personal opinion on the Public Broad Casting Network. Regards, Biblical1 17:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither the link, nor the video are a basis for inclusion on WP.

The Antioch event does not misrepresent Peter's position but your post does. Peter was not against admitting Gentiles to the Church - in fact: he started it, go and read Acts.

Bertrand Russell has no expertise at all on history or theology, so don't bother quoting him.

And no, there is no basis for accusing Paul of misrepresenting Antioch - as he didn't say anything about emerging victorious. As you said, he accused Peter of hipocrisy at this moment, but not of heresy, or of Judaizing or of being anti-Gentile.

This has nothing to do with the trip to Damascus, which was very much earlier.

The NT is a historical source, to be treated as any historical source. No more, no less.

And please read WP:AGF and stop accusing me or all your opponents of acting out of dislike. And yes, PBS is no authority on history. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I am very glad many of you are interested in historical christianity.

However, you must set aside your biases in order to observe objective content. Dismissing scholars because it conflicts "acts" is not grounds for alteration. This is vandalism.

The following statement was debated by Str1977:

Paul's determination to accept uncircumcised gentiles prevailed over Peter's desire for Christianity it to remain a sect of Judaism

This is not an incorrect statement. Peter was fine with including uncircumcised gentiles until a jewish official stopped at a christian gathering involving food, he then refused to eat with the gentiles. It is not a controversy. Please research christian history other than from the bible, this is vandalization due to ignorance.

Str1977 said this:

Neither the link, nor the video are a basis for inclusion on WP.

The Antioch event does not misrepresent Peter's position but your post does. Peter was not against admitting Gentiles to the Church - in fact: he started it, go and read Acts.

Bertrand Russell has no expertise at all on history or theology, so don't bother quoting him.

And no, there is no basis for accusing Paul of misrepresenting Antioch - as he didn't say anything about emerging victorious. As you said, he accused Peter of hipocrisy at this moment, but not of heresy, or of Judaizing or of being anti-Gentile.

This has nothing to do with the trip to Damascus, which was very much earlier.

The NT is a historical source, to be treated as any historical source. No more, no less.

And please read WP:AGF and stop accusing me or all your opponents of acting out of dislike. And yes, PBS is no authority on history. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating "neither the link nor the video are basis for inclusion" does not make it true. These are historically accurate sources, most of which taken from ivy league school professors at american institutions. You have the audacity to challenge this and divert to the "PBS" network.

It is very difficult to debate with those who are unaware of christian history. Some will not look at sources and are more concerned about the religion of the author as opposed to the content. Bertrand Russell is indeed a reliable source to list critical content. It would do you well to research the information rather than attack the author.

More than likely Paul did NOT accuse Peter of hiposcrisy in real life, this is simply what he said in his letter. You are misreading christian literature.

The gospels were written symbolically to be interprated symbolically, the same can be said of Paul's letters. His showdown with Peter in his letter does not make it true. You have no grounds to object to accurate research.

If you continue the page will be locked and you will be barred from altering with christian articles. User:Biblical1

Biblical, spare me your comments on things you know nothing about. I know history - I'm a historian. I have read the sources. Bertrand Russell is a mathematician and philosopher and has no expertise on the matter. Your last edit also revealed a complete lack of understanding about the Christian religion (Let me ask you: when did Jesus rise from the dead?) It is interesting that you first call on me to read sources, and then you disregard a source (Galatians) yourself, based on ... nothing. You are also completely wrong about the Gospels. If I were you I would think twice before issuing such threats. And yes, lest I forget, thanks for finally posting on the talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I am a religious studies scholar, my only goal is to research objective information.

Bertrand Russell was indeed a philosopher, but one doesn't need be an expert in a topic to discuss it. If we are to apply this logic, we would not discuss the gospels at all because none of the authors knew Jesus, the gospel of John was written 100 years after Christ. Saint Paul also never knew Jesus.

And if you are to debate the symbolic interpration of Gospels, you must also conclude Matthew was unintelligent. This due to the fact that he blatantly altered the Gospel of Mark's resurrection story although it was his primary source. Biblical1 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think this was much of an issue, read Council_of_Jerusalem. It discusses the aforementioned Antioch council, the debates within, and the outcome. JPotter 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to stumble in on this, but the Gospel of John has been dated to be toward the end of the first century (at the latest, in fact). It was written by the Apostle John, "the beloved disciple whom Jesus loved." It includes his own eyewitness testimony of historical events surrounding Jesus. LotR 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Biblical, I as a historian am not able to discuss quantum mechanics. But I can analyse historical sources. Russell might be able in mathmatics and logic but he has no expertise in other fields. Sure he can have an opinion, sure he can voice them, but sure his opinion doesn't count for much. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

History

Look Codex,

Galerius issued an edict of toleration and died. Maximinus Daia continued the persecution. So, Galerius' edict was not very effective. Anyway, you are bloating a subclause - the sentence in question is not about who legalized Chr. when and where but what happened after the legalization.
Constantine did legalize Christianity (together with Licinius) and is rightfully known for it.
The pentarchy was not existant before Chalcedon. Nicaea mentioned three sees with primatial right: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. 1st Constantinople (381) added Constantinople, for which Chalcedon claimed equaliy with Rome. Chalcedon also elevated Jerusalem to a Patriarchate. The resulting pentarchy was first mentioned in the Codex Justinianus.
I will look up what you said about the Goths.

User:Str1977 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Galerius edict did legalize Christianity. Maximinus continued persecutions in the East, but then this happened also even after Milan. All the early contemporary Church fathers also credited Galerius with first legalizing the faith.

The Pentarchy had to have existed before Chalcedon. It couldn't have been set up afterward, with three of the five being ex communicated. The best sources I have say that the Pentarchy was agreed at Nicea, only with Edessa originally instead of Constantinople, where it soon transferred. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Codex,

I don't object to Galerius being mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph that starts with Constantine. But please don't bloat a sub clause. Also, it should be mentioned that Galerius' edict was only temporary. (As for the first: Gallienus also had legalized Christianity in the 3rd century).
Sorry, but you are wrong about Nicea - it merely mentions Rome, Alexandria, Antioch - not Edessa. Constantinople was still Byzantium, Jerusalem still Aelia. You can read the principle of the Pentarchy from the Acts of Nicea (only that there were only three), but note that Pentarchy is the result oif a deveopment and actually quite a Byzantine POV. Finally, the excommunications (actually four) did not happen immediately after 451 but under Emperor Zenon, who issued the Henoticon. This schism lasted until Emperor Justin. The next long-lasting schism was the Photian in the 10th century.
Finally, I have looked my notes on the Gothic persecution. We are talking about different things: Christians were persecuted by one Duke Arioch and Ulfilas had to flee into the Empire. (that was in the 340s). Please specify when you think the Goths made Christianity the state religion and which Goths you are talking about (Visigoths or Ostrogoths).

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If your only problem with mentioning Galerius is the grammar, try fixing it instead of reverting it. As for the Pentarchy, our sources seem to be in disagreement. I will try to find out about the Henoticon. My understanding is that the schism took place when the Council of Chalcedon excommunicated the three (not four) patriarchs. As for the Goths, I think Ulfilas officially converted the Visigoths some time around 350, possibly also the Ostrogoths, but I will look more into it. Whatever is correct. both the Pentarchy and the Goths deserve to be be mentioned in some form in the History section, not just deleted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. A quick addition re the Goths: Athanaric also persecuted Christians (which happened to be Arian) in 372. Both his and Arioch's persecution were motivated by anti-Roman policies. No persecution of Catholics by Arian Goths seems to have taken place, probably as there were few Catholic Goths. And it should be the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths living in what now is Ukraine.

2. I take it that I have your permission for including what I think to be a proper treatment of Galerius into the text?

3. Sorry if I failed to explain the Henoticon. In 451 there was a bit of a squibble between the sees of Rome and Constantinople, as the latter claimed equality by a last minute council vote. Rome never accepted that at that time and confirmed only the rest. There were no excommunications otherwise. Dioscuros, Patriarch of Alexandria, was deposed and excommunicated and someone else installed on the see of Marcus. However, Dioscuros had a large following especially in the countryside which in the end developed into the Coptic Church. They elected their own underground bishops. Emperors Marcian and Leo held fast to the Council, but Zenon tried to reconcile the Monophysites by issuing the Henoticon - rather having the then Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius issuing it. This document affirmed the faith of the Councils of Nicea, Cosntantinople and Ephesus but ommitted Chalcedon. Union of the eastern Church under the four eastern sees was the monophysites was (somewhat) achieve, but the move upset the defenders of the latter council and led to Acacius and those agreeing with him (including the three other patriarchs) being excommunicated. Athanasius, Zenon's successor, was even more sympathetical to the Monophysites, but Justin did resume union with Rome.

Yes, they deserve to be mentioned and I was wrong to flat out delete it. How is another question. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing on the Gothic situation: AFAI can gather, the Visigoths only adopted Christianity as the state religion (if one can speak of a state) when they entered the Roman Empire as foederati - in this they were led by the pro-Roman party under Fritigern and not by the Rome-haters responsible for the persecutions. Which raises the question of whether that is "Outside of Rome, neighbouring countries". No doubt, many Goths were converted earlier, but here we were talking about state religions in specific. Any thoughts? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that sounds like a very POV account of how the Coptic Church originated (from a "deposed" Patriarch of Alexandria)? Please research deeper. The Coptic Church is but one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and has never been out of communion with the other members of the Oriental Orthodox Communion, who come from those three Patriarchs excommunicated by Chalcedon. Besides Alexandria, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch were excommunicated at the same time and pro-Rome pretenders set up at the same time. That does not stop all the other Oriental Orthodox Churches under Jerusalem and Antioch from existing today and continuing to be in Communion with the Coptic Orthodox, or Alexandrine Church. We can't give such a anti-Coptic pov that is false on how they originated. The records kept by the Oriental Orthodox Churches maintain that the Pentarchy existed in full Communion until 451, not beginning in 451. For that matter, Jerusalem was always a Patriarchate.

As for the Goths, the baptism of their King is generally taken as the point of their official conversion to Arianism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a POV account - Copts will tell you the same, only take another side. Copts and Jacobites however are of no consequence for the Pentarchy, which always rested on the official patriarchs. And no, those whom you call "pro-Rome pretenders" were nothing of the kind - they were the legitimate bishops of their respective sees - Dioscorus for instance was legitimately excommunicated for heresy and misconduct by an Ecumenical Council. But again, that is irrelvant for the Pentarchy. Or are your suggesting that our article should take the Old-Oriental POV?

Jerusalem for that matter was not always a patriarchate - for roughly 200 years there was no Jerusalem but only Aelia - and even after Constantine restored Jerusalem the bishop was a suffragan of the bishop of Caesarea - an important suffragan because of the pilgrimages. In 451, the see was finally elevated to a patriarchate, albeit one without an actual jurisidiction, as Palestine was still presided over by the Metropolite, the Bishop of Caesarea.

As for the Goths, which "King" are you talking about? And no, just becaue a King is baptized doesn't make Christianity the state religion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Codex, let us look at what the Councils actually proclaimed:

First Nicaea, 325 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm)

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

First Constantinople, 381 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm)

Canon 3. The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Chalcedon, 451 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm)

SESSION VII - DECREE ON THE JURISDICTION OF JERUSALEM AND ANTIOCH

The most magnificent and glorious judges said: . . . The arrangement arrived at through the agreement of the most holy Maximus, the bishop of the city of Antioch, and of the most holy Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, as the attestation of each of them declares, shall remain firm for ever, through our decree and the sentence of the holy synod; to wit, that the most holy bishop Maximus, or rather the most holy church of Antioch, shall have under its own jurisdiction the two Phoenicias and Arabia; but the most holy Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy Church which is under him, shall have under his own power the three Palestines, all imperial pragmatics and letters and penalties being done away according to the bidding of our most sacred and pious prince.

Canon 28. Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

Canon 28 was not confirmed after the Council.

Having read these again, I must correct myself that Jerusalem indeed had patriarchal jurisdiction, but only after 451, not before (read what Nicaea said about Aelia). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the article take an Oriental pov, but it needs to take a neutral pov. At any rate, the view that the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were 'deposed' with any legitimate authority is an anti-Oriental pov, not a neutral one. Oriental tradition holds that the recognition of the five Patriarchs dates to 1st Nicea where as you have quoted all five Archbishops are named with special distinction. That is the Oriental interpretation of 1 Nicea which is still maintained. Chalcedon is not accepted in the Oriental Church anyway, but the tradition that Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are all patriarchates dates well before that 451 split.

Hopefully we, or someone here, can get the story straight on the Goths, let me see what I can look up here...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully.

As for the Pentarchy. I don't see where at "1st Nicea ... all five Archbishops are named with special distinction" - only Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are mentioned. The next canon on Aelia constitutes an early step towards the restoration of Jerusalem (remember there was no city of that name for 200 years). Constantinople wasn't even founded yet. The old-oriental interpretation must take a back seat to what the sources say, especially since Pentarchy wasn't an old-oriental reality anyway. And that these bishops were deposed at Chalcedon is a matter of fact (and note that I wrote that in my post here, not in the article), regardless of whether the old-oriental accept it. Also, I can't see where three bishops were affected: Dioscorus of Alexandria yes, but not Juvenal of Jerusalem (who was elevated to Patriarch and reigned until 458. Maximus II of Antioch was eventually deposed but not by the Council, which expressly confirmed him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you actually just wrote that the Oriental Orthodox viewpoint "must take a backseat to what the sources say" ie Roman Catholic sources like the Council of Chalcedon. And you call that "neutral?" So, the Oriental Orthodox Churches are now supposed to be taking a back seat to Chalcedon? That is the same crap that we have been hearing ever since 451, but it wasn't neutral or accepted then, and it isn't neutral or accepted now. Please do some deeper research. Despite what your sources say, the Pentarchy did not suddenly spring up into existence in 451 when the Monophysite Patriarchs were deposed and replaced with Roman lackeys. And Jerusalem was THE original Patriarchate since James the Just, it did not suddenly become a Patriarchate in 451 when a Vatican pretender was appointed alongside the real one. The city of Jerusalem was only called 'Aelia' as a Roman pagan insult against the God of Abraham, and this "name" was only used in the very same spirit that caused Longinus to impale the Lord on the cross. To the true Christians it was always Jerusalem. The original 325 Pentarchy took form after Nicea, and note that it gave equal jurisdiction to the patriarchs in each of their areas. It is the very same spirit that caused the Archbishop of Rome to assert his own authority over the other Patriarchs' jurisdictions, excommunicate them and "depose" them in 451 AD, simply because they couldn't sign his document stating that Jesus was schizophrenic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, man.

Facts are facts and we have to look to our sources for them. The interpretation, judging what happened is something different. All sides and their POVs have to take the back-seat to the sources. Period. Apparently knowledge is also lacking when you talk about "Vatican pretenders". Also, you seem to be unaware that there is no continuity between the lineage of James, Brother of the Lord, whose church was crushed at the hands of both BarKochba and the Romans. The latter founded a new, pagan city in Jerusalem called Aelia and there, in this pagan city a gentile christian congegration soon formed. That's historical reality. And no, it wasn't an original patriarchate as there were no such things in the first three centuries. You can see a Pentarchy in 325, only that there are no five members of it. Neither did the Pope (forgot about Mt 16,18) depose Dioscorus (the only one deposed) - it was the whole Council (the biggest until the 19th century) that did that. That is a fact. Rightfully so, that is opinion, based on what that man did at the robber synod and later. And no, Chalcedon did not declare Jesus to be "schizophrenic" - Copts and Jacobites by now accept the substance (though not the word) of Chalcedon and have always condemned Eutyches. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I highly dispute the last statement that Copts "by now" accept the substance of Chalcedon. They do not and never have accepted anything whatsoever about Chalcedon. If anything, it is the Chalcedonians who have in recent years come around to the Coptic position, that Jesus has one combined nature, not two. You are seriously under the wrong impression if you think any of that 'two natures' stuff will wash in the Oriental Churches now any more than it ever did.

I am trying to research and may have some of my facts wrong about when the various Patriarchs of Jerusalem were founded. It seems that the RC, EO, and OO each have their own claimants for nearly all of the Pentarchy seats, but perhaps not all of these date to the 451 and 1054 schisms. However the tradition of the Pentarchy is still found in the OO canons, which I can quote here if you like, and the split with the others occurred in 451, so that certainly suggests that the notion was around before then. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, each side will always say that the other one moved towards them. The way I see it, Copts and Orthodox were of one view back then in 451 but chose different words to express them, with the Copts insisting on a Cyril quote reigning supreme, while the Council drew up a new (in my view clearer and better) definition. These positions must be clearly distinguished from that of Eutyches, who was actually condemned at the council. And, to return the favour, you are seriously under the wrong impression if you think any of that 'one nature' stuff will wash in the Catholic Church or that she will disown any Ecumenical council.

If you say that the OO believe in a Pentarchy concept I believe you. But, 1. I did not claim that the Pentarchy just sprung up in 451, when only the number five was completed and that after a longer development since the restoration of Jerusalem, 2. the OO did not just separate from the rest in 451 - that was a longer development in which the later OO constituted a "Monophysite" party within the Church (see the split in lineages). Antioch anyway was far from being Monophysite for quite a while, in fact it was closer to Nestorianism. 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is a note about an edit which is unrelated to the current argument, but falls in this section of the article. I removed a sentence from the section where the conflict of Islam and Christianity were discussed. In the original, the second sentence of that graph was confusing to me and made the Reconquista sound like a Muslim offensive. --LawrenceTrevallion 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Denominational variations

I removed the comment about doctrinal differences arising from different cultures and places. Some doctrinal issues are simply opinion and may have no grounding in a clash of cultures. --LawrenceTrevallion 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pentarchy in Oriental Orthodox canons

This is from the main source on the Coptic canons, the Fetha Negest chapter 4... Hopefully we can work out what really happened and present it neutrally! --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Council of the Saintly Fathers of Nicaea commanded that there must be only four patriarchs in the world, like the four books of the Gospel, the four rivers, the four orders of the world, the four directions of the world, the four winds, and the four elements of creation. The chief and prince among them must be the one who occupies the see of Peter, that of Rome, in accordance with what the Apostles commanded. After him comes the one who occupies Alexandria, the great, which is the see of Mark. The third patriarch is the one who occupies Ephesus, the see of John the Theologian, and the fourth is the one who occupies the see of Antioch, which is also the see of Peter. The bishops [metropolitans] are spread out, each under the authority of one of these four patriarchs...

"The Patriarchate of Ephesus shall pass to the imperial city [of Constantinople], so that it may be a pride to the kings and the priests. The bishop of Ephesus shall be respected, and shall not be despised because the patriarchal dignity which he had has been taken away from him. He shall be honoured with the great name of Kotolika [Katholikos], which is a name given to chiefs. He who occupies the see of Thessalonica shall be honoured because he deserves it. The Bishop of Jerusalem shall not be subject to another bishop; rather, he shall be exalted and honoured, because he is appointed over the Holy City and because the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the place of His resurrection are in his hands.

"Honor is also due to the bishop who occupies the see of Baghdad, that is, Seleucia, which is in the east and is called the city of Medyam. He also shall be honoured with the name of chief, and, as of now, shall be permitted to consecrate metropolitans, just as the patriarchs do, to spare the Orientals the necessity of going to the Patriarch of Antioch and returning from him. The Patriarch of Antioch has indeed given his consent to this, as he was requested by the Council not to regret the fact that jurisdiction over the east was taken away from him. The Council requested this to bring peace to the Christians of Persia. If it becomes necessary for the bishops to hold a council in Roman territory, and if the titular of Seleucia, known as the city of Baghdad, which was originally called Sabur, and Medyam today, participates, he shall, during the session, be more exalted and honoured than all the other metropolitans of the Roman Empire, because he bears the title of patriarch in the East; his chair shall be the seventh in rank, next to the Bishop of Jerusalem... The great council may not assemble at Seleucia to promulgate laws without the permission of the patriarch of Antioch, because, although the Orientals' [ie those in Seleucia] chief has the rank of patriarch because he has asked to become their equal, the Orientals, however, do not have the power to loosen and bind the law of the Church, to add to it or to repeal of their own desire. In everything they are subject to their superiors and the assembly of the patriarchs.

[An insertion here adds: "After this session, the Patriarchate of Ephesus was given to the one who occupies the see of Constantinople, who was placed second in rank and third after the Patriarch of Alexandria."]

"As for the Ethiopians, a patriarch shall not be appointed from among their learned men, nor can they appoint one by their own will. Their metropolitan is subject to the holder of the see of Alexandria, who is entitled to appoint over them a chief who hails from his region and is under his jurisdiction. And when the said metropolitan is appointed, with the title given to the chief [Katholikos], he is not permitted to consecrate other metropolitans as the other patriarchs do. He shall only be honoured with the name of patriarch, without enjoying the power of a patriarch. And if it becomes necessary to hold a council in Roman territory and if the metropolitan of Ethiopia takes part, he shall be seated eighth, next to the titular of Seleucia, which is one of the cities within the boundaries in which Babylon, Iraq and the kingdom of Sabur are found; because the latter is permitted to consecrate bishops for his own country, but neither is permitted to be appointed by the will of his bishops."

Thanks, Codex, for that interesting text. Let me comment:

The text is quite apart from the events of 451, as it was written in the 13th cenrury. Already that the text spoke about Bagdad placed it in the Muslim period.
Strictly speaking, I cannot see a Pentarchy but a Tetrachy being presented. More loosely, I see that Jerusalem is mentioned according to its state between its restoration and the Council of Chalcedon, which gave the see full jurisdiction (over Palestine) and not just a place of independence.
The translatio from Ephesus to Constantinople is not historical (see the Acts of the First Counil of Nicea). Ephesus, an important Christian centre, saw Saint John the Evangelist as its founding apostle (notwithstanding the earlier presence of Timothy). The Patriarchy of Constantinople looked towards Saint Andrew, whose relics were translated from Patras, where he was martyred. Ephesus remained important after the ascendancy of Constantinople. It was and remained the Metropolis of Asia, though (and I guess this is the one fact behind the translation "legend") Constantinople became the highest auhtority in Thracia, Pontus and Asia.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed this argument in detail, however, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Patriarch and Patriarchate may be of some use (perhaps this is the Catholic POV against Orthodoxy):

The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what later ages called patriarchal rights -- the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

Before the Council of Nicæa (325) two bishops in the East had the same patriarchal authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position.

Later it became a popular idea to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles. St. Peter had also reigned at Antioch; he had founded the Church of Alexandria by his disciple St. Mark. At any rate the Council of Nicæa in 325 recognizes the supreme place of the bishops of these three cities as an "ancient custom" (can. vi). Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.

When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Cæsarea. The Council of Nicæa (325) gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the metropolitical rights of Cæsarea (can. vii). Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate. The Council of Chalcedon (451) cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Sess. VII and VIII). Since that time Jerusalem has always been counted among the patriarchal sees as the smallest and last (ibid., 25-28). But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium "New Rome", its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome. For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy. In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome" (can. iii). The popes (Damasus, Gregory the Great) refused to confirm this canon. Nevertheless Constantinople grew by favour of the emperor, whose centralizing policy found a ready help in the authority of his court bishop. Chalcedon (451) established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place after Rome (can. xxviii). Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople. It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch. Nevertheless in the East the emperor's wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate (ibid., 28-47). So we have the new order of five patriarchs -- Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem -- that seemed, to Eastern theologians especially, an essential element of the constitution of the Church [see (ibid., 46-47) the letter of Peter III of Antioch, c. 1054].

03:10, 2 August 2006 User:75.15.201.106]

Christian controversy

The follow section was deleted by user Str1977 due to "nonsense". What nonsense this is we shall see as he soon will allude to numerous scholarly sources and links. Nevertheless, here is the passage:

According Professor Michael L. White from Harvard in his From Jesus to Christianity, Saint Paul classified himself as a pious Jew. Paul in fact never used the term Christian as it wouldn't arise for another 70 years (112-115 CE). White also classifies Paul's First Thessalonians as the earliest of all Christian scripture where Paul consoles the people of Thessalonica over the death of some of its members. Paul then preaches the assurances of Jesus' judgment day (Thess.1:9-10) as Paul believed an imminent apocalypse was soon to come (1 Cor.7:29). Paul's view of an apocalypse was also not unique as this view was shared by many early Christians. ^[2] For further reading see Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, M. Himmelfarb, Oxford University Press, 1993

Yes, and I stand by it, thoug you misquote my reasons. I did not revert out of "ignorance" as I am well aware of the issues (note that it is quite uncivil to constantly tell others how ignorant they are), neither merely because it was "nonsense" - a part is nonsense, the other part is uncontroversial and hence doesn't belong there. Let me break it down for you:

"Saint Paul classified himself as a pious Jew." is really a no-brainer. So did all the other apostles and Jewish Christians too (unless their considered themselves not very pious out of humility).
"Paul in fact never used the term Christian" - correct (however, he uses Christ quite a lot)
"... as it wouldn't arise for another 70 years (112-115 CE)." - this is the nonsense part. The term is first used in Acts (ch. 11 and 26), written about 80 AD, and in 1 Peter (ch. 4), dated as early as the mid-sixties. Sure, it wasn't the preferred name by which Christians called themselves, as it was probably coined by non-Christians. But nothing justifies the claim about 70 years or 115 AD (and note that this has hitherto been an AD article, so don't use CE in the article.
"White also classifies Paul's First Thessalonians as the earliest of all Christian scripture where Paul consoles the people of Thessalonica over the death of some of its members." - uncontroversial, Thessalonians is the earliest part of the NT
"Paul then preaches the assurances of Jesus' judgment day (Thess.1:9-10)" - again uncontroversial
"... as Paul believed an imminent apocalypse was soon to come (1 Cor.7:29)." - sure he did, though he also admonishes to patience (2 Thessalonians)
"Paul's view of an apocalypse was also not unique as this view was shared by many early Christians." quite right, but again uncontroversial.

Hence, my removal will stand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it's misleading to say that Paul never used the term "Christian". All we can really say is that the word does not occur in the writings of his which survive. Luke uses the word in Acts, and Luke and Paul worked together, and the word was being used at the time, so it's quite likely that Paul did use it. As far as I know, if I go through all of Str1977's contributions to Wikipedia, I will not find the word dandelion, but I do not conclude from that that he has never used it. Also, I've changed the article where it said that the earliest use of "Christianity" is from St Ignatius of Antioch. The first surviving written record of a word is almost never the first actual use of a word. In more ancient times, words were often used orally for decades before they were codified by appearing in "print". AnnH ♫ 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a reference, but I think it's common among scholars to attribute "Christian" and "Christianity" to about 100 and Ignatius of Antioch. It's not controversial to date Acts to about 100, 80 is a bit early. The fact that there are two versions of Acts, Western and Alexandrian, indicates that it took awhile to reach final form. Note that Acts doesn't say when Christian was first used, it just says it started in Antioch. Plausibly with Ignatius. About the same goes for 1 Peter, which may contain some early material from the 60's, presumably "Christian" was a later addition. The other early reference is Tacitus' Annals XV.44, again possibly around 100. This later reference places the term in Rome, however Ignatius was martyred in Rome, c. 100. Did Ignatius bring "Christian" and "Christianity" to Rome or did he pick up the term from Rome? It is odd that it took awhile for the term to become widely accepted, perhaps it was originally too hot - as it basically means Messianic, which was probably unacceptable (seditious) to Roman ears.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.201.106 (talk • contribs)

If anything useful can be made from that addition, it should go at Paul of Tarsus, not under "Controversies" in this article. But it very much needs copyediting for clarity. Jkelly 04:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's not really relevant to an already-long article about Christianity. AnnH ♫ 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and yes, it is controversial and misrepresenting scholars' consensus to date Acts that late. "Plausibl with Ignatius" is, if I may be blunt, nonsense, as 1. the reference appears in a different context (persecuted Christians coming to Antioch) 2. it presupposes a (unscholarly) dating of Acts after Ignatius. The reasons given for the slow acceptance (which is not a solid fact) are also not very strong, as Christian doesn't sound seditious to Roman ears at all - they were looking out for basileus or rex but not for a Greek word meanign annointed, especially if it didn't appear in Judea. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is straight from White's book, from Jesus to Christianity

and scholars now think that this term [Christianismos]was coined, not by the Christians themselves, but rather by Roman officials in Greek cities like Antioch, who used it in a derogatory way. It was a slur hurled at the followers of Jesus by outsiders. So it remains unclear whether it initially was meant to label them as "the party of Jesus who is called the Christ" or simply as "the party that espouses messianism". Only much later would this slur be revalorized as badge of honor and internalized to become the new name of the movement. .. the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria, a thoroughly Greek city. Nor is it clear when this new title arose. It might easily have been forty to fifty years or more after the death of Jesus. The missionary Paul, who lived and worked in Antioch for quite some time (Gal. 1:21-2:14) never uses the term; nor does it appear in any source. Christian or otherwise, prior to the time Acts was written. Finally, the derived name "Christianity" (Christianismos), as a designation for the religious itself, does not appear before about 112-115, interestingly enough also with a connection to Antioch. (The source here is Ignatius, the Christian bishop of Antioch, who wrote letters to the churches in Asia Minor and Rome while en route to a martyr's death in Rome. For his use of the term Christianismos see Ign. Magn. 10-1-3, where it is specifically set alongside of "Judaism" (Ioudaismos)).....

Biblical1 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

B1, thanks for sharing that text but it doesn't change matters at all. We already have a note saying that the term "Christians" was coined in Antioch according to Acts. That Paul doesn't use it may be relevant for the question when Christians adopted the term and apparently Paul was not the forerunner on this (in Acts 22 it is Agrippa who uses it, not Paul). However, your statement is at least utterly misleading. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words my friend, I am also very glad we have come this far as it seems the refutation for my passages deletion was it was uncontroversial, in other words, you(St1977) assert it is true. It would seem then that this controversies section is for myths. As myths by definition are not disposed to falsehood or truth (as some believe they are simply all false) rather something that cannot be proven or disproven. However I think many would agree that Jesus' actual existence can be defended as numerous sources mention him. It would follow then that passages such as this..

Some claim that Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed, arguing a lack of sources outside the New Testament and sometimes alleged similarities with pre-Christian cult figures (see Jesus as myth). This view has not found general acceptance among historians or Bible scholars (see Historicity of Jesus).

..are not controversies according to our definition. Simply alluding to Josephus and the Gospels proclaims that a man named Jesus surely existed and this is adequate enough information. More importantly I would like to define controversy and revert back to my statement. Controversy according to the American Heritage Dictionary is a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. Now this definition does not err towards truth hood as it sways from it entirely. Let's allude now to my written section...

According to Professor Michael L. White from Harvard in his From Jesus to Christianity, Saint Paul classified himself as a pious Jew. Paul in fact never used the term Christian as it wouldn't arise for another 70 years (112-115 CE). White also classifies Paul's First Thessalonians as the earliest of all Christian scripture where Paul consoles the people of Thessalonica over the death of some of its members. Paul then preaches the assurances of Jesus' judgment day (Thess.1:9-10) as Paul believed an imminent apocalypse was soon to come (1 Cor.7:29). Paul's view of an apocalypse was also not unique as this view was shared by many early Christians. ^[3] For further reading see Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, M. Himmelfarb, Oxford University Press, 1993

Now Str1977's defense mind you, is this is common knowledge. I suppose so common that all Christians believe Jesus taught his followers of his apocalyptic return (thus my statement would not be controversial), the disciples knew Jesus would instill a political kingdom, and everyone supported such a view until the fall of Jerusalem's temple in 70. However I think you'll find this is not the case; most Christians would not support this view... If we are to think about it.. Who would adopt the beliefs of an agricultural society from 2,000 years ago, much less that of a society preaching a judgment day through the crucifixion of a Jewish man? Seems rather absurd at first glance and most Christians are not likely to open the gospel of Luke and come to this realization. In other words, such apocalyptic views are disputed. Christians even dispute amongst themselves, according to the Mormons the church was practically in apostasy for 1800 some odd years. It follows than that my point exudes the definition of controversy (less everyone would believe such a thing) and we are left looking for new reasons to edit again. I will reinstate the controversial material until new allegations await. I'm sure some one will think of another reason, Str has used unwiki-like and nonsense so readily. Fortunately there is no hurry and we can simply analyze his accusations here.

The controversy section is for controversy, meaning that there is some debate or that there was some debate which still remains notable for some reason. Sometimes the debate is not very serious, as in the case of the Jesus myth, but alas, we included it anyway. The section does not retell the controversy but gives only a sketch of claim (and possibly counter-claim).

Your post (apart from the "nonsense part") was not controversial in any way, though Mr White is not a very reliable scholar, judging from the quotes you provided over at Paul.

As for your explanations above, you are not saying the same things that your post is saying. It talked about Paul's and others' belief in Jesus' imminent parousia (and mind, the word political is a bit misleading) - it didn't talk about what Jesus tought. But that is what your post above argues. IMHO the return of Christ for Judgement Day is an integral part of Christianity - other Christians might disagree but there is no debate or controversy about that. And quoting the Mormons is hardly good in this context, thoug in case you haven't noticed, the restorianism POV is covered in the article.

And no, there won't be any new reasons ... the old ones are quite sufficient. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to realize or rather acknowledge is your vain desire to prove a point. Rather than actually digest your actions or the material presented you go out of your way to respond as soon as possible and to avoid reading logic. This is exemplified in your classifying mr white as not a very reliable scholar. It is rather humorous that you have attempted to create an authority aura about yourself by claiming to be a historian. This historian readily claims Paul's apocalypse is nonsense (simply read the history of the article), than goes out of his way to write numerous points on how it is already proven. If that is not its own paradox, you then go on to say the controversy section is for controversies ... subsequently affirming my prior post albeit not acknowledging it. This is the mark of a fool.

Please actually read each post. You are in no such position to appeal as an authority; one can simply dismiss your allegations by what is called reflection. This is something readily available to individuals who don take the sins of education and put them to bad use, in other words, a man who desire to be educated in order to boost his own ego. Such an educated man often goes on Wikipedia, edits articles, ignores the logic of others, and then spends his time editing out material due to his own bias evident in his common non sense accusations. I challenge you to reread what I wrote and your response. My point is by definition controversial unless you are the most ignorant of all historians, I do not think you lay claim to such a thing, as you are attempting to believe that ALL CHRISTIANS KNOW AND BELIEVE CHRIST PREACHED AN APOCALYPSE AND SO DID SAINT PAUL. Please take time reflecting before you exemplify your vain desire to prove a point again, it would do you well so i dont have to make you look childesh.

If you desire further elaboration, I am not going anywhere. A child is one who takes knowledge not at face value, rather, he professes. One wouldn’t think professing could have its own sins but it rather obvious in reading your posts, you go out of your way to generalize your interlocutors point as means to debate, and then you write numerous points affirming the original point of the person. In other words, you affirmed the belief that Paul did preach an apocalypse, yet you also come off ignorant when professing all christians know such a thing and therefore it is not a controversy.

Also it is not my intention to use my knowledge for ill gain, as I can easily point out the fallacies and fault in your logic. That is not my goal. A wise man can deem what is controversial by reflecting on the word rather than the material. A historian would not be privy to such a concept. User:Biblical1

First of all: please sign your post and stop including lines in the talk page.

Now, you could also stop your personal attacks ("fool") and speculations about my motives, my knowledge etc. And don't project your motives unto me - I try to protect the integrity of the article, not to prove a point. Also, please desist from misprepresenting my posts.

Since your last post doesn't contain anything of substance not already addressed, I cannot comment any further. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You in essence are assuming all christians know Paul and Jesus preached apocalyptic traditions. This in turn, means there is no views in opposition to this apocalyptic fact, therefore it is not a controversy. You will not elaborate on this because the logic falls through and is false, it follows it is a controversy. If you continue to edit without grounds you will be barred from the page. Do not test the integrity of the page. Biblical1 10:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never knew who could bar editors from pages. You apparently don't get it. Of course there are different views among Christians on eschatology (and about a load of other things) but there is no controversy and there is no debate about Paul's view. And note that again you are assuming bad faith when you claim to know reasons for my not responding (again) on the matter, when I have clearly stated that I cannot respond to the substantial points of your previous post when there are none. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's a Christian?

What exactly is the basic criteria for being considered a Christian? I noticed several groups listed who don't hold to orthodox views, but were nonetheless classified as Christian. If a group claims to be Christian, is it automatically regarded as such? If a broad scale is used to determine who's Christian, I foresee a mass of confusion.Jlujan69 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Christianity is a universalist religion, it expects all people to behave in a moral way and adhere to God's laws. Thus the question of who is a Christian versus who isn't is less important on a purely personal level than say, in Judaism. What is important is belief - what describes an "orthodox" (i.e. "teaching rightly") belief from an unorthodox and false belief? The question of authenticity of belief in Christian thought comes before the question of authenticity of personal adherence (not to say that personal adherence is not an important issue - far from it, of course; but a large part of Jesus' preaching emphasises that this authenticity can only be judged by God). So a better question to ask here rather than "who is a Christian?" is "what are the basic criteria for a belief to be considered Christian"? Slac speak up! 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The bare minimum IMHO would be the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ and Lord. Not that I personally would leave it at that, but WP's NPOV policy makes matters difficult. Hence the inclusion of some questionable group, about which we can only report that some/many Christians consider them non-Christian. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

El, or Elohim? (A Lord, or the Lord of Lords?) Ronabop 10:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Brush up your Hebrew: El and Elohim means God not Lord. Adonai/Kyrios (Greek) means Lord and stands in for the hallowed name of God, which I will not type here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i.e. YHWH or YHVH. Consonants only; vowels are missing from the Hebrew text. ^ross ^nixon 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope it was not in vain. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The tenets of orthodox (or "mainline") Christianity are summarised within the article. These would/should include the following: (1) Belief in God (theism); (2) Belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God; (3) Belief in God as three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Trinitarianism; (4) Belief in salvation from sin; and related to this, (5) belief in resurrection of the body and eternal life. But the question you ask is an important one, since many groups outside the mainstream - for example, those who reject Trinitarianism - consider themselves truly Christian, but this would be disputed by other Churches. Slac speak up! 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people use the word to exclude. As in, "we're Christian and everyone who doesn't follow our tenents is unchristian/subhuman." For the sake of this article, I would think that people for whom the teachings or life of Jesus is a primary revelatory event (whether of eschatalogical, salvific, or mythological dimensions) I think that pretty well defines the boundaries. If they don't quite fit, bear in mind that Christianity isn't really about exclusion, if it was there wouldn't be so many denominations. If they choose to define themselves as Christian, that should really be their business, so long as Jesus (however they choose to interpret him) retains primary importance. Remember that religion is messy stuff, if the article becomes "a mass of confusion" that just means it will be an accurate reflection of the reality it seeks to define. It will then be up to us to find some way to organize the article. As to whether it's orthodox or not, well, that's really up for debate and dependent on who you're talking with. Was orthodoxy pre or post Nicea? Was Constantine the best or worst thing to happen to Christianity? Arius or Athanasius? There are too many points at which we might split, and we recognize those more readily than we do our points of commonality. Be a mensch, let the wierdos stay. MerricMaker 01:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I must take exception to the last post. Considering someone non-Christian doesn't mean considering them "subhuman". Equations of that kind already blurr things and hinder any reasoning. The same goes for "Christianity isn't really about exclusion" - no it is not, but if Christianity has some substance and someone doesn't share that substance he excludes himself. The number of denominations is no real argument as it is based on the fallacy: because many denominations exist that it is a good thing. But it wasn't intented that way. Frankly, Jesus cannot retain "primary importance", if he is subject to individual interpretation. That might be a valid definition in WP, where we are bound by the NPOV policy but in "real life" where are supposed to have a view. "(I)f the article 'becomes a mass of confusion'" it will defeat its purpose of being informative and accurate. Str1977 ^Talk 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The "many denominations" piece does not suggest one way or another that it is a positive or negative thing. What it does suggest is that Christianity remains viable (in broad terms) across its assorted permutations. In short, that the faith is resilient. As for my subhuman statement, please bear in mind the context. "Some exclude," not Christians exclude, or Roman Catholics exclude, or you personally exclude, some. I refer to the unfortunate fact that some Christians use "Christian" as racists use "Pure." By the same token (and I am not suggesting that this is the trend in this article) we're talking about who is, "in" and who is "out." The argument for charity and inclusion must carry the day. Not what I'll call for lack of a better term, "Christian Exclusivism." There are some bright people working on this entry, please trust their ability to keep this article useful and objective, regardless of what information is added to it. MerricMaker 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not in the article, then why raise it. You may stick to your opinions but please don't go call around equating Christians that do insist on defining the term in a meaningful way (with the sad side-effect that some are excluded) with racists. Finally, the main theme of Jesus' ministry was certainly not "inclusivity" - it has some part in it but not in an unqualified way. Cheers anyway, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about Denominations

Greetings, this is my first jaunt over here, and I thought I would say hello before giving my question.

Now, I am sure an article like this has much precedent and archived discussion, but in case it hasn't been mentioned; many Christian groups do not call themselves "denominations" and would even be offended by such usage (some more than others, of course); I find this especially true in Reconstructionalist churches, as well as Catholic and probably Orthodox churches (I would even bet strict Reformed churches would reject this usage). Lostcaesar 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The term is simply shorthand intended to indicate a quantifiable difference. "Sect" or "Cult" might also be acceptable to some and insulting to others. When one is working with encyclopedia entries, however, it seems to be the only real way to express the difference without getting bogged down in sematics or dogma. MerricMaker 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to the point above, alternative terms such as "Church" quite easily get bogged down, since some might not credit a particular group as a valid "church". Slac speak up! 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but at least with "church" the problem concering what groups think about others, rather than themselves - anyway, its a thought; Lostcaesar 08:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

LC is right in a way but wrong in another.

If I may speak for myself, I as a Catholic do not consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination, strictly speaking. But I understand that the existence of many denominations beside her makes her a denomination too, at least in everyday parlance. And that is what counts.

The same goes for the word "church" - according to the document Dominus Iesus, non-sacramental bodies are not Churches in the strict sense of the word, but still the Holy See does itself not stick to that strict wording all the time and acknowledges a wider sense of the term. If the Pope can do it, so can others.

The term "sect" is, if I am not mistaken, neutral in the English language (in contrast to its usage in German) but it only applies to smaller groups, or groups mentioned in the context of being part of a larger entity.

The term "cult" is connoted negatively and hence should be used only with great care.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

little note on vampires

I noticed there was a little section on vampires in the page, that was removed, and gladly so as it was out of place. Just for information, though, vampires seem to have been a part of old Slavic paganism, which lingered after Christian conversion. Hence, old pagan wards (garlic, the sun, stakes through the heart, for example) are mixed with Christian wards (crucifixes, hallowed Church ground, submersion in running water) to create the legendary material. Of course, there are no mention of Vampires in the Bible; and its totally out of place with a Slavic origin. Lostcaesar 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, much of the same could be said of Christmas and Easter traditions, which borrow from the pagan rituals of different countries. -- Beland 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Precision and quotes

Many times this article will read “some say” or “many Anglicans…”; I think in these situations we ought to replace this wording with quotes from relevant materials. For Catholics we have the Catechism, for them and Orthodox we have Church Councils, for Lutherans we have Luther’s catechism and some Confessions like the Augsburg (unvariated), for the Reformed we have things like the Heidelberg catechism, for Anglicans we have the thirty nine articles, the book of common prayer, and so on. We should be more precise I think. Lostcaesar 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble here is that the 39 articles no longer accurately represents the views of most Anglicans. Which would hardly be surprising since they haven't been revised for many hundreds of years. DJ Clayworth 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Christian merger

I dont think its a good idea to merge. There is enough substantial information that pertains to a "christian" that would not be relevant to the whole of "christianity". There are things christains do and say that do not nesessarily have to do with christianity. Again, this is not a stub, and merging it to christianity would eventually mean breaking it off again when it gets too big. Somerset219 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the proposed merger on the Christian article into Christianity; if I am wrong the title of this section should be reverted with my apologies. Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is simply the collection of all Christians; pretty much everything that could be in "Christian" could also be in "Christianity". A lot of the history section of "Christian" article is duplicative of History of Christianity. "Christian" should probably only discuss the term itself, if anything, and defer the rest to "Christianity". -- Beland 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AID Drive

I noticed that this article is an AID Candidate. Shouldn't there be some items on the todo list? The only item listed was from April 2005; what do we need to do now? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thing you're back. —Aiden 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

any muslim converted to christianity???

has there been any case of a muslim converting to christianity, in the recorded history. i found many cases wherein christians become muslims, but could not seem to find out a case wherein a muslim person proselytized to christianity.nids 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids, please look up the meaning of the verb "to proselytize" [2] - it is not the same as "to convert". Then, look up this category [3] or this list. You will find Muslims listed, though of course that coverage is far from being anything more than fragmentary. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The most famous case I can think of was that fellow in Afghanistan who I think the Vatican took in just in time really recently, those Imam's in Afghanistan were pretty ticked off that somebody would leave Islam and wasn't going to die for it thanks to another nation. Homestarmy 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thousands, possibly millions, of moslems have converted to Christianity. ^ross ^nixon 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your answer Str1977, but i couldnt seem to understand the difference between to proselytize and to convert. wiktionary says, To convert someone to one's own faith or beliefs, for proselytize.nids 09:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"To proselytize" is to convert someone to one's faith and "convert" can be used in this meaning too (as my definition shows). However, you were talking about Muslims converting to Christianity, not Muslims converting others. A Muslim who becomes a Christian converts (himself), whereas a Muslim who proselytizes actually tries to win others for Islam. Hope you can understand me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman is the Afghan man (I think) Homestarmy is referring to above. This article by The Washington Times says around 20,000 Muslims convert to Christianity each year (and around 50,000 Christians a year convert to Islam). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, he's the one, Thanks sarah :) Homestarmy 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for these replies. i atleast found one.nids 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be hard to find people who acknowledge their conversion, because in a Muslim country their lives may be in danger if they are considered to be apostates from Islam. There is a testimony on the web from an Egyptian convert, and articles about an an Indian Lutheran pastor called Rev. K. K. Alavi and a Pakistani convert in Britain. I think the Anglican Bishop of Rochester is a convert from Islam to Christianity. Myopic Bookworm 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: according to the Wikipedia article he was born into a Muslim family, but went to a Christian school, so I do not know whether he ever personally considered himself a Muslim. Myopic Bookworm 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

Can someone explain to me why Christianity is not described as mythology on Wikipedia? 1) many things posted on the Christianity page seem to violate Wikipedia's policies on being verifiable. 2) Many things posted on the Christianity page are described as "history" when in fact they are merely the belief in myths. 3) How can stories based on mysticism; for example, a rod being turned into a snake, be described as fact? Michaelh2001 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but I see no reference in this article to a rod or to a snake. I suspect that this issue is more a reflection of your POV than reality of the article.

Christainity is appropriately termed a religion. I noticed your recent edits in the article proper, which were reverted attempted to only describe Christianity as a mythology. Again, this is a focus of a personal POV. Describing it as a religion falls fully within the policies of verifiability.

Further, within the article it clearly states what is believed by Christians and what is historical fact. In addition, when historical fact is questioned it is stated.

As the article is currently written, it meets the general and most important standards of WIKI. One of the most difficult things for all of us as editors is to put aside deeply held opinions and/or beliefs and write/edit from as objective position as possible. I understand your desire to label all religious thought as mythology, but that does not mean that all religious articles should be soley described from that POV; it is only one of many. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, could you then please explain to me why Zeus and Apollo are described on Wikipedia as coming from mythology? In the article on Apollo, there is a reference to "Etruscan mythology". Should that not read "Etruscan religion"? Please explain to me how belief in Zeus is belief in mythology and belief in Christianity is not. Michaelh2001 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know what you want from an encyclopaedia article. Christianity is not classified as a myth, but as a religion, because its present and historical form is that of religious practice, which the article describes. To use more simple terms, if 2 billion people do not think it is a myth, then the article would be inappropriately describing the event of Christianity to label it as such. Lostcaesar 10:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of a modern day belief in or followers of Zeus or the other gods of that era. I think, could be wrong, it is a dead religion. I did not disagree with you calling Christianity, from a solely secular viewpoint, a mythology. I disagreed with your replacement of the term religion with mythology. It is unnecessary; religion is an adequate term. Further, for those who consider all religion to be mythology, I am not sure we achieve anything unless we are striving to ensure that no one else looks upon it as anything else but mythology. That POV is offensive to those who believe.

The issue is that WIKI does not endorse a solely secular viewpoint; rather it strives to be neutral. To achieve that neutrality it allows all viewpoints. Also, this issue has been addressed several times in the past. I would encourage you to review the archives to gain a better understanding of the evolution of this page and the treatment of the term mythology specifically. I hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity per se is not a Mythology.

Mythology is the systemized collection of myths.

Myths are only a certain aspect of the field of religion and the three monotheistic religions are quite poor in that field. E.g. the creation account in Genesis is pretty straightforward without any chaos monsters slain to build the world out of it. The only myth, strictly speaking, in the Bible I can think of would be the account of the fall, involving the tree of knowledge and the snake.

And even for that, all religions encompasses more than mythology - the Greek religion also included a multitude of cultic centres and customs - but what has the survived is the myths involving Zeus or Apollo.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At this moment in time, there are ~2 billion believers in Christianity. Add another billion if you include the Abrahamic religion of Islam. The number of true believers in Zeus/Apollo/Athena/etc. is so vanishingly small that I cannot imagine that a reliable estimate even exists. LotR 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, LotR, but I don't think size has anything to do with it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythology is not confined to the field of Mount Olympus. There is Buddhist Mythology, Hindu Mythology, Etruscan Mythology and (yes) Christian Mythology. The Bible is not a book of pure history or of rules and regulations, it also contains mythology specific to Christianity. In addition, we find stories which are older than the any one portion of the Bible. There are bits and pieces in there with Babylonian and Assyrian origins. Those pieces are considered mythology if read outside of the Bible, they are also myth if read in the Bible, it's just that many people don't know that or take a "don't confuse me with the facts" viewpoint. Some theologians interpret the whole of the Christian tradition as founded upon myth, we must not dismiss the insight that this provides us. MerricMaker 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The mythic portion of the bible is very very very small - you are confusing myths with lengendary accounts. And please, MerricMaker, don't use that other people are plainly ignorant argument (again). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, what I'm talking about is that one might interpret the whole of scripture as well as Christianity itself as being founded on myth. I'm referring to the fact that the faith is built on belief and opinion rather than fact, and that this could easily be considered mythological in its foundations. Also, if I was going to suggest that others were ignorant, I would actually use the word ignorant. I was just contributing to the discussion, please stop assuming the worst because of how you choose to read what I say. MerricMaker 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, the only truly non-ignorant perspective to have on religion is to have a belief and opinions that beliefs and opinions concerning religions are all ignorant? Homestarmy 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, what I am suggesting is that a healthy amount of objectivity about faith (both one's own and that of others) is required when engaged in religious discussion. Further, by saying that, I don't mean to suggest that someone who reads this is deficient in that regard. There is a marked tendency among some when it comes to religious matters to only speak to one's own experience and marginalize the experience of others. That is what monolithic views of anything tend to do. When I contribute, I do so from a tradition, but by doing so, I do not intend to violate the views of any other tradition, merely to say that there is an alternate view of things which has a useful contribution to the overall discussion. MerricMaker 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if I may be so bold, is it not possible that these "alternate views" people espouse are simply interested in calling Christianity a myth because of it's most popular meaning, (And I use Wikipedia's take on Myth here) rather than the technical one? And, furthermore, considering the technical definition is not the common one, would it not be necessary to define this technical definition outside of the common one, rendering describing Christianity as "mythical" incorrect, since you seem to be concerned about the Bible rather than Christianity itself? Because, you know, Christianity is the religion, the Bible is the book that it is (supposed to) derive itself from, there's a bit of difference. Homestarmy 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference how many people believe a thing. It is still mythology. If there were 2 Christians and 2 billion believers in Zeus the same would be true. Someone said that the creation account in Genesis is pretty straight-forward. Actually it is. It is clearly a myth handed down through the ages. Setting aside for the moment the creation of the rest of the universe, lets look at the creation of humans as described in the book. The god of this mythology created a man. He then took a rib from the man and made the first woman. We are to believe that all of humanity sprang from these two, Adam and Eve. We would not be viable as a species if we all came from two specimens. (I'll keep this simple and not delve into the issue of who the other people are, who appear without explanation) Mythology requires that one set aside rational, scientific reason and "just believe". There are many examples of clear mythology in the bible. Jonah and the whale. Infliction of the plagues upon Egypt. A staff that is turned into a snake (and then eaten by another staff that was turned into a snake). Noah's ark. If these stories were merely written my men to tell tales to other men, then yes the defining of them as "legends" would suffice. But it is taught that they were handed down by a deity, and that makes them myths. Michaelh2001 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael, it is pretty straightforward ... and no myth at all. God spoke and there was is as unmythical as you can get. Unfortunately, you are mistaken about what a myth is, preferring to use it as a bat instead. Neither Jonah nor the ten plagues are myths - they might be legends (Jonah most probably), they might even be inaccurate, but doesn't make them myths. And the staff-snake is no big deal at all but a mere trick used by many people, including Egyptian priests. But the mere existence of a deity doesn't make an account mythical. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hold up, what definition of myth is everyone using here. Because im using the Wikipedia one at Myth which has a popular and technical one, (the popular one not being very quanitative, and the technical one being an uncommon thing to think when one sees the word) and while the Bible might fit inside the technical one since it posits that anything basically involving God or any account of a creation is a "myth" of sorts, Christianity definently does not. As a religion which can be proven to exist, (unless you go all New Age and crazy about it, and even then, Wikipedia wouldn't exist anyway to you as long as you don't look at the page so it wouldn't matter) it is not a mythological construct. After that, you need to name things inside the actual article, as long as you simply say "There are many things which are mythical", then how are either of us supposed to know what you're talking about Michael? Homestarmy 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, you are making my case for me. "Zeus spoke and there was..." "God spoke and there was..." No difference between these statements. As for legends, they are stories meant to tell incredible tales of men. For example, many elements of the life of Jesse James are legend. When deities are involved, they become myths because they are no longer just about men or women. Michaelh2001 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Homestarmy, you are trying to further confuse the issue. Who said Christianity itself is a myth??? Of course there are Christians. It is their beliefs which are myth. Michaelh2001 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to said Greek mythology, Zeus did not have the power to speak the universe into existence. LotR 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Mr 2001.

"Zeus spoke and there was" - whom are you quoting? Did Zeus, in the view of the ancient Greeks, create heaven and earth or was he a third generation deity whose lineage goes back to Gaia (which is earth)?

And no, your distinction between legend and myth is not accurate. A myth is an account trying to transport a profound truth about the world, nature, man etc., e.g. the myth of Pandora and her box. You have Parmenides explaining something by a myth in the Platonic dialogue of that name. The one story that fits into this box is the account of the fall, unless one takes the tree and the snake and the fruit literally. Just because a deity is involved doesn't make it a myth - or do you consider the Kamikaze storm that prevented the Mongolian invasion of Japan a myth, just because the Japenese ascribed these to gods? Or countless events in Greek and Roman history - are these myths just because the gods provide a resuce? No they are not. They might be legends, embellishing the facts but they are not myths.

And even if the Bible or Christianity (which is not the same thing) contained myths (and I granted you one single myth) that doesn't make Christianity or Judaism a mythology.

Mythology is the systematic study of a collection of myth. You see, "Bio-logy" is Greek "logos", meaning the structured, reasonable, logic word or speaking, of "bios", which is life. Along the same line we have Geology, Psychology and in the end Mythology, which is the "logos" of the Myth. (That it is an ancient branch of scholarship doesn't change anything). So if Christianity is a mythology and than you call it a science!

But Christianity is no science, no scholarly enterprise, but a religion.

And finally, could you please try to avoid the inflammatory word "stories". Thanks.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit-conflich with LotR above)

Hang on a minute, I think the definition of myth that we're playing with here is a little narrow. According to the definition refered to here in the wikipedia, "creation" and "myth" are synonomous. The definition assumes that if it doesn't have to do with celestial beings bringing the temporal world into existence, it's not a myth. According to most definitions of myth I know of, particularly those of Joseph Campbell, myth is much broader in its implications. "Myth" does not mean untrue, rather, it means "profoundly true story." That is to say, a story (typically an ancient one, but not always) which depicts truths of human existence in the form of allegory. Based on this definition, Uncle Remus stories are myth, Gilgamesh and Beowulf, Moby Dick is myth, Heart of Darkness is myth. Likewise, religious texts might be a mix of myth, history, literary art, and cultural reflection. I think this discussion would be better served if we moved our ideas of myth away from just the creation stories and more towards the stories which try an express deeper truths about being human. MerricMaker 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely this sort of discussion has come up before somewhere else on wikipedia, what definition of "Myth" does wikipedia use to refer to article subjects? Because there seem to be several. Homestarmy 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's simply hilarious how some people can't accept that Christianity is another form of myth. "But God TOLD us the truth, it cannot be a myth..." Bullshit, all religions are based on myths to further overexaggerate the importance of specific events, like a bastard son supposedly born of a virgin, plagues sent by god himself to punish the Egyptians, an Ark that held every species of animal on earth etc etc. All stories that naive people believe because it makes them feel better about their empty lives. Enjoy your "realistic" lives. Myth.

It's simply hilarious how some people have deep-seated urges to rave and foam on Wikipedia talk pages as a way of venting their spleens. Get on with your life, my friend. Slac speak up! 06:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Here I am with the numbers again. Of course, by "some people," you (unsigned) refer to some ~2,000,000,000 persons currently (add another 1,000,000,000 if you include Islam). I have an alternative myth: That The Universe with all Its irrational "laws," always was, is and shall be forevermore, created man and woman, destined for oblivion, in Its own prescribed, meaningless Image. BTW, numbers do count (pardon the pun), as they do provide one argument for the truthfullness (i.e., non-mythological nature) of something. Generally speaking, the more witnesses you have testifying to something, the higher confidence you can place in it. Indeed, this is even how Wikipedia itself operates. In light of this, the statement "All Religions are Mythology," is not only offensive, but it constitutes a minority viewpoint in the extreme. LotR 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "god spoke and there was is as unmythical as you can get" is both contradictory and specious. Contradictory because by its very nature it demonstrates mythology and specious because it sounds good to believers but really means nothing. The bible is a book of myth interlaced with philosophy. Primarily it is believers in it that are offended by that label, but the label fits as surely as it fits so many other books. I was also asked not to use the word "stories", because it is "inflammatory". So the word myth is bad, stories is bad. Well, calling them doctrine represents a POV, not a fact. "Scripture"? A little romantic but OK. (I question who the "scripture" came from though - man or a deity) Michaelh2001 08:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So then what's the problem now? :/ Homestarmy 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem. Christianity is a religion and "religion" is the term universally used for something like Christianity. Which settles the matter, even if we disagree about the definition of myth, mythology, the truthfulness of Christianity or whatever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a problem. Yes, its a religion. But its also mythology. At no point is the word mythology even used in the article. To correctly understand this topic, one must understand its founding in mythology. 65.74.48.115 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/missions.html
^ Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004. P. 156
^ Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004. P. 156

[1] ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/missions.html

[2] Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004. P. 156

[3] Michael L. White, From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollinsPublishers, 2004. P. 156

[1]

[2]

[3]