Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 12 February 2008

Christianity Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Talkheaderlong

	Christianity is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept December 26, 2005 Featured article review Demoted July 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 19, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 4, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 1, 2006. Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

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

Article sources

I've been looking at the footnotes and sourcing for this article and it needs a lot of work, both in terms of reliability and avoiding original research. Christianity is ridiculously well-covered with a mountain of highly reliable references available. There is no reason that any fact within this main article should be referenced to anything less but modern clearly reliable sources. I am starting off by auditing the lede and the first main section of the article.

Lede:

• Footnote 1. There's no reason we should be citing about.com and the 1913 EB, for example. Remove most of these questionable and outdated sources, and replace them with modern (preferably academic and highly reliable) sources.
• Footnote 2. There's no reason we need to rely on a media company for this fact. Replace them with modern sources, as above.
• Footnote 4. It's most certainly improper to cite the Bible regarding the Biblical canon, considering that the clear academic consensus is that the canon was finalized long after the writing of the New Testament. Replace with modern sources, as above.
• Footnote 9. Bauer's work, while central in "modernizing" the study of ancient Christianity, is quite controversial and largely not accepted in the particulars by the modern academic consensus (though his "broad strokes" are commonly accepted). To prevent any confusion about whether this particular point has endured, it should be referenced to a modern reliable source. Additionally, reference to the historical source noted should be clearly presented as the historical source in the footnote, rather than as simply another source of reference, to prevent any confusion or claims of original research.

Beliefs:

• Footnotes 11 and 12. The Bible cannot be used to references the names for "common Christian heritage of beliefs" as the historical perspective that implies occurred long after the writing of the Bible. The various names used by Christianity have been thoroughly discussed in academic and mass-market literature. Use the most reliable sources.
• Footnote 13. There's no reason to rely on unreliable web sources like jewfaq.org. (The owner of the site openly professes to not be an expert or rabbi.)
• Non-footnote. The ref to Romans 10:13 supports the "faith alone" or "calling on Christ" model of salvation, rather than supporting the preceding claim.
• Footnotes 14, 15 and 16. While these references support the pure claims of what the Bible states, their placement is most certainly a problematic synthesis as the statement concludes (unsupported) with "to fulfil the rest of Messianic prophecy such as the Resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and establishment of the physical Kingdom of God". Again, this is a very well-covered topic and there's no reason the assertions cannot be cited to modern reliable references.
• Footnote 17. Biblical reference supporting a claim about modern Christians. An obvious problem.
• Footnote 18. We shouldn't be using weak references like gospelcom.net and world-faiths.com.
• Footnotes 22 and 23. This should be presented as "The Bible states". If it's a matter of "Christians believe" it should be sourced to a modern reference outside of the Bible.
• Footnote 25. We shouldn't be referencing to book jackets.
• Footnote 28. It's most certainly not acceptable to reference the Bible directly regarding such complex, controversial and intricate concepts as justification. Justification is a huge point of contention between various Christian sects and as such we should depend on outside sources rather than direct interpretation of the Bible.
• Non-footnote (first sentence of Trinitarians). What "most Christians believe" should not be in-line referenced to the Bible.
• Footnote 33. There is an obvious direct quotation used, without any clear indication of the source of the quotation. Additionally, there appears to be a lonesome floating quotation mark indicating the quotation is not properly marked.
• Between footnotes 34 and 35. There are direct quotations without an indication of the source of those quotations.
• Footnote 36. Extremely controversial statement, because it implies that the verse references all scripture, including the New Testament.
• Footnote 37. Correlating a couple of belief statements is a bit problematic and almost certainly prohibited synthesis. This is especially problematic due to the citation of a statement supporting Biblical inerrancy, which is a controversial topic in and of itself.
• Footnote 41. It would be preferable if this assertion could be referenced to a source intended to share church doctrine, due to the multitudinous controversies over the statements of LDS president-prophets.
• Footnote 42. Reliable referencing would be highly desirable here. The UU is a non-Christian organization, though it may have its roots in "actual" Unitarianism. Surely there's a better source than sullivan-county.com.
• Footnote 45. Christianity as a whole is not unified in the belief of Biblical inerrancy. To assert otherwise is misleading.
• Footnote 46. The Westminster Catechism is not representative of the whole of Protestant faith.

With such referencing, this article shouldn't even been considered A-Class. Let's improve the referencing and get it up to par. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you took a look into this. I was appalled when I read the article recently and share the same concerns. This article should be on B class until the obvious problems are addressed. There is no reason why this article cannot be well written, and meticulously sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a perennial problem. We get an article knocked into shape, and then well-meaning and not so well-meaning people come along and faff with it until it contains great screeds of abject nonsense. I propose we revert back to the FA version and then review anything that was removed in the process to see if it genuinely merits inclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that version is any better. The article was grandfathered in as an FA due to the replacement of the "brilliant prose" category/project with the FA process. It passed a GA nomination, but that version is the article is largely unreferenced and not very good either. If you can find a solid version in the history, I'd be glad to see it, but I haven't been able to find an actual "clean" and "good" version of the article. Obviously though, with the level of activity this article sees, it can be very difficult to comb through the history. I'm not implying that there isn't a decent version to work from, but rather that I haven't been able to find one as of yet. It would be very helpful if there was a well-written and decently referenced version to revert to and work from, in order to bring this article up to par. Vassyana (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Above citations largely fixed. A few got lost due to renumbering and vague description. The lead needs work now. -- SECisek (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The citations are not "largely fixed". Citations have certainly been added and replaced. However, the replacement is no better than what came before. Many of them are missing page numbers, publisher info, etc etc. There are still OR citations. Many of the new citations are questionable at best. Some information which just needed to be properly referenced and rewritten accordingly was removed. This new set of referencing is just as beset with problems as that which came before. Replacing them with well-formatted citations to reliable references indicating the appropriate page numbers for verifiability is the solution. To be sure, some of the new referencing is certainly an improvement, but all-in-all there's little change in the quality of referencing. Vassyana (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the article being prepared for? GA or FA? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Either, neither, both. :-P My desire is to see the article improve to high standards. Which particular label is being sought is of little consequence, so long as the quality is improved and appropriate. As my comments relate to GA and FA, OR and deficient referencing is equally harmful to achieving either. Vassyana (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we all want to see great articles, but this particular one appears to be on a fast back-track to nowhere. And will struggle to keep even its GA listing I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately agree. When even a partial source audit reveals the kind of deep issues that were shown above, it's a long haul to improvement. I'm currently working on finding sources and working out rewrites per sources as appropriate. It's just going to take some time and vigilance to get the article up to standards. Reviewing the current sourcing and writing is only a first step in a long process. Vassyana (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a process that you'll hopefully find worth persevering with though, because this is clearly a very important article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly do my best. It's most certainly a core topic and deserves a well-written and properly referenced article. Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every citation I added today came out of an Oxford University Press book of one title or another - accepted and trusted sources. As for page numbers, they are largely there, as the books are right in front of me. The article is in progress and to say there is "little change" in the quality of the article is to discount an entire afternoon and evening of my work.

Vassyana, what have you done for this article today other then complain about it on the talk page? Please remove any sources you feel are poor and put {{fact}} tags next to the statements. We can find reputable source then. As for the ref templates, we can fill that all in later. I have 10+ GAs to my credit and I know what is expected of this article. It does not have that far to go to maintain a GA rating and I don't like the suggestion that the article is "on a fast back-track to nowhere". Pitch in and quit your complaining. -- SECisek (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the comment that I am in the process of reviewing sources and potential rewriting. I provided a source audit (partially), clearly indicating what is a problem and where. That's more that simple belly-aching and it took a good chunk of time and effort. There's no need for several references per statement. Please take some time and consideration to choose a few solid references and rewrite per those references as necessary. I appreciate that you put in a decent chunk of time adding references and the like. However, slapping on a bunch of poorly-formatted references is not very helpful. Vassyana (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That comment about being on a fast track to nowhere was mine, not Vassyana's but I believe it to be simply stating the obvious. I don't mean to imply by that that your efforts haven't improved the article, they clearly have, but it still remains a long way adrift of what is expected of a GA, at least in my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have conflicted each other some how. I will give it a rest for a while. Drop me a line on my talk page when you are through and I will return to adding the citation templates to my earlier citations. I agree that there was no need to have some points sourced 6 or 7 times. I think that was historic from some old edit wars. I am quite certain that this article will remain GA when we are all done with. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article delisting

Please see Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment. I for one contest that the article should be delisted without due process, so it must go GAR. Further more, you did not remove it from the actual list at Misplaced Pages:Good articles nor did you drop the offical GA count, you just changed the grades on the project banners which does nothing in the grand GA scheme of things. Send the article to GAR, rather then changing the grades on the banners of projects you do not belong to. --SECisek (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This process wonkery is just ridiculous. Take it to GAR if you dispute the delisting, but I implore you not to engage in process for the sake of process. Vassyana (talk)

Process wonkery? Did you read the policy on the GAR? Unless the subject is closed for debate, which it clearly isn't, GAR is the process for delisting - not bold action. If you feel the article should be delisted, you nominate it for GAR. As for "owning" the article, all I do is guard it against blatent vandalism. -- SECisek (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no vandalism occuring here, so please get off that high horse. The GA process is not a policy. I did read it. Did you? "If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, seek another delister, or ask other editors to reassess it here." Please note the initial assumption is a single editor delisting, just as single editors list GAs. Do you really think this article is still a GA? Please do not push process for the sake of process. Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

High horse? Not exactly good faith there. Again, I don't have much invested in this. An individual can't simply list or delist an article as GA, there is a process for both and it exists for a good reason. If you sent the article GAR one of two things would happen: 1. the article would be improved by the process and remain GA or 2. it would be properly delisted, which changing the grade on the wikiproject banners does not do. The talk page will look quite silly with an NPOV tag on it, so if you want avoid an edit war, humor me and send it GAR. We went the through this with Edmund the Martyr when someone disagreed with the GA tag and the process worked. Best --SECisek (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe this article is GA quality or within short striking distance? If so, could you please respond to my concerns about the referencing of this article, in the section above? If not, could you please explain why a reassessment is necessary? Vassyana (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a breath; each of you are too good to get involved in this type of petty dispute. If you misunderstand one another limit yourself to questions and avoid making statements until you are certain that mutual understanding has been achieved. --Storm Rider 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I will nominate it for GAR since there seems to be some demand for it. Let's work on the article and get off the talk page. Best to all. -- SECisek (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment from a GAR'Guy might be helpful here. First, individual editors can delist GAs, no problem; GAR is for controversial, borderline or contested cases. However, it is strongly recommended that editors wishing to delist an article follow the delisting guidelines, because that gives other editors the chance to respond and resolve disagreements before the delisting actually takes place. This reduces the likelihood that the delisting will be contested and brought to a time-consuming GAR. In the case of this article, the delisting has now been contested, and so a GAR is now the right way to proceed. Geometry guy 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Away we go...-- SECisek (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Other GAs include: Hinduism Raëlism Taoism Zoroastrianism How does this article stack up? Which article sections are superior/inferior to other GAs? -- SECisek (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it's always useful for editors to compare other, similar articles, each is of course judged on its own merits. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(edited to add) It would be a great sadness if this article was to lose its GA listing as well as having lost its FA status, so I hope that the editors can pull together to resolve the issues being raised at the GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth reading another encyclopedia article on Christianity because it is a difficult topic to actually write about. Oddly, the Encarta entry opens its article in this way. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Issue with Christian divisions

The section on Christian divisions currently lumps Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox together:

A 1992 agreement amongst American theologians resolved theological differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians – although this has yet to be universally recognized. Together with the "Church of the East", these can be considered a single large grouping.

The two groups are quite distinct. I'd recommend listing them separately.

See, for example, this article on the differences between the two. Majoreditor (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of wikiproject Oriental Orthodoxy and, yes, they are seperate groups. I'll correct this, although the Church of the East is often classed with the Oriental Churches. -- SECisek (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised lede

I've revised the lead of the article. I focused on replacing the OR and shotgun blast of references for a limited selection of highly regarded and reliable references, and rewriting per the sources. I believe it also provides a bit more context, for example explaining why the study of Christianity is important. Comments? Vassyana (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a massive improvement to me. Nice job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Builds off what I put up yesterday, a big improvement. The Worship section is the next trouble spot to my eye. -- SECisek (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amount of followers for Islam and Christianity

In the Islam page on Misplaced Pages it says that the religion has 1.8 billion followers which makes it the second largest religion behind christianity, yet on the christianity page it states that the christian religion has between 1.25-1.75 billion followers making it the largest religion in the world. Uhm, I dunno but if Islam has 1.8 billion followers, isn't it the largest religion? Or are the numbers wrong somewhere? Gwendly (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the source given in the Islam article for that 1.8 billion figure I think that you might agree it looks like original research at best. The generally accepted figure seems to be around 1.2 billion muslims. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity numbers maybe inflated by people being baptised as a child being part of the stats, while the same people may consider themselves no longer religious. This is very hard to prove, but some statistics agencies may report numbers based on different definitions; making the whole counting of Christians a difficult issue. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All we can use is reputable references. The questions of the quality of belief, degree of belief, or number of actual practitioners of any religion is impossible to identify. This issue is moot. --Storm Rider 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Identified

According to the watchlist an IP address 142.167.229.201 had vandalized this article and was reverted by VoABot II for possible vandalism. I've warned the IP address on his/her's talkpage. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Three main divisions

I do not have a problem with stating that there are four main divisions in Christianity, however we need a good citation to support the statement. I moved this from my talk page:

The source I cited for Christian divisions mentions the fact that "some include the Restorationist denominations as a fourth or fifth group." The Resotationist denominations hold a completely different theology than the other Christian groups mentioned in the article: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox: many are non-Trinitarian, hold other texts in the same reverence as the Bible, such as the Doctrine and Covenants.

The problem is the LDS citation does not seem to make any claim about the number of divisions. Perhaps I am missing it. The Virginia cite opens with:

"There are literally hundreds of distinct divisions (denominations) of Christianity, thousands of subdivisions and sects not to mention untold numbers of independent "non-denominational" churches. Suffice it to say: there are three main divisions of Christianity: Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic split from each other in the year 1054. Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic beginning in the 16th century."

...in full contradiction of the claim it purports to back. The almost universaly reliable Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church sadly has no entry for Restorationism. I will continue looking for a citation for this.

As a note to all, the article is under attack not for a lack of citations but for a lack of cites from published, independent, peer review sources. Let's all try and not muddy up the article further with citations to self-published, non-peer review websites - at least until we get the article through the GA review. -- SECisek (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Virginia citation mentions this initially. However, it later mentions that "American born churches" broke away from Protestanism. After mentioning the three traditional groupings of Christianity, it says "In addition there are a number of American born churches that seem to have started almost from scratch." The categories/headings given in the article also are four: The Eastern Orthodox Churches, The Catholic Church, The Protestant Churches, and American born churches. Under the American born churches, the article mentions "Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Science ." It says that these Churches "'wiped the slate clean' and 'started from scratch'." The Religious Tolerance citation says that "others define Protestantism as consisting of those faith group who trace their history back to the Protestant Reformation and Luther's 95 theses. Some include the Restorationist denominations as a fourth or fifth group. Within this classification, the Mormon churches would be considered part of the Restorationist group and not Protestant." Yes, there are three traditional divisions: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. However, the Restorationists can be considered a fourth group. With this understanding, I am restoring the deleted references. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a citation that does not require us to use to prove the point? Surely some major, independent published source states "Suffice it to say: there are four main divisions of Christianity".

There are other problems with the article to deal with now, but we should try to resolve this before the GA status get upheld or removed. Those citations will not hold up in a GA review as both require interpretation or some degree of WP:OR to back the claim. Neither states "there are four main divisions of Christianity" which is what our article claims right now. I am not going to revert your citations at the moment, but please don't stop looking for better ones. Also noted and corrected your point about Orthodoxy. -- SECisek (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. I have restored the references as a temporary provision (per your last comment). However, I will continue to look for better references. Also, thanks for fixing the issue with Orthodoxy in the article. With regards, Anupam 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Life Section

The section entitled 'Christian Life' has been marked as missing cites, and the editor concerned has suggested it may be original research. I agree, and would query its presentation. For example, I would question the statement that love "in the Christian and Jewish sense" was unknown in the pagan world. 'Love' as defined by this section would seem to equate to compassion (the basis of charity), and I have yet to be convinced that pagans had no such concept. Martin Goodman is cited as having said this, and so he may have done - but did he define 'charity' in his work as it is defined here?

Information on Christian lifestyle can be found throughout the article, and this section does not significantly expand on that information. In fact, it reads more like a sermon. It is difficult to provide proper citations for matters of belief and interpretation in Christianity since one must either rely on the Bible itself, which necessarily means advancing one's own interpretation of it; or one must defer to someone else's interpretation. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I see some support, I will be bold and kill the sermon. it is virtualy uncite-able. -- SECisek (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus The Christ?

My apologies if this has been covered already, and that it is a fairly minor point. I am still unsure as to whether the word 'the' needs to be added here. I know it's used a lot - particularly by US Christians (I see it on the net a lot, but don't remember hearing it used here in Britain) - but I wonder whether it's strictly correct. From my understanding - and I'm happy to be corrected; I'm no expert in ancient languages - the word Christ comes from the Latin christus and is rooted in the Greek 'khristos', which literally means 'the anointed one'. This would seem to imply the inclusion of 'the' in the title. We would therefore only need 'the' if we were to translate the name in full and refer to him as 'Jesus the Anointed'. 'Christ', as far as I'm aware, was considered a proper name in Old English. Anyone want to reeducate/flame me on this one? - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ should suffice. -- SECisek (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jesus the Christ" is an affectation. "Jesus Christ" is proper. (Personally, I think the origin of Jesus the Christ is Gen X'ers fascination with the Star Wars movies and the character 'Jabba the Hutt'. While sacrilegious, I think there is more truth in that than a philological explanation.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad it's not just me, then. :o) - Shrivenzale (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

KJV, Matthew16:20, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." It's not a common title in translations, but it's rooted in older English (if prevalent among Gen-Xers, then it's a revival of an old use, not an invention). Nonetheless, removing the title seems good to me. Signaj90 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. However, I disagree. From the linguistic standpoint, Christ is is a title, which if translated would require a definite article (Jesus Messiah and Jesus annointed one, verse Jesus the Messiah and Jesus the annointed one). The Greek is inconsistent on this point, occassionaly using the definite article and occassionally not. That said, consensus (at least on this talk page) seems to be leaning toward leaving out the definite article. Pastordavid (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rats. "Definite article". Yes, that was the term I was looking for... - Shrivenzale (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pastor David; they are both correct and we most often use Jesus Christ. I suspect that most proper form would be Jesus the Christ. The GenX thing is not an accurate portrayal of history. --Storm Rider 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the Jews were expecting a saviour for thousands of years. This was to be the 'Christ'. But they certainly weren't expecting God Himself! Most people only wanted a saviour from the Romans in Jesus' day, they weren't thinking of salvation from sin. So at the beginning, they called Jesus 'the' Christ, or the saviour, and it became more of a proper name over time as the notion of a local saviour of Israel became completely irrelevant to us Gentiles. Jesus is now seen as the Saviour of us all, not just Israel, and the Old Testament's fuller meaning is made clear. Granted, 'the' Christ is used sometimes in the writings of Paul, but I think it's okay that that usage eventually died out. So long as we remember what 'Christ' means, I think the definite articles will take care of themselves. Fledgeaaron (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See Also

The 'See Also' section could be eliminated. It is functioning as a list and should become a list. The "See Also" section should conform to WP policy: see Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout#See also and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also" section. The relevant bits of text are:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Misplaced Pages that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

and

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

• Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
• Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

From my understanding, the "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. But it is not a substitute 'List': however, a separate Christianity List at the FA level would be a good thing. There is already a Christianity Portal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discovered that the {{Christianityportal}} is FA and I added it to the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Suggest that the 'further reading' list be pruned down to about five or ten recently published popular works that are readily available. I'd say nothing older than 1995 and limit it to the big publishers that any public library would carry. Right now there are about 50 works dating back to 1961 and I suspect quite a few of them are not available at most city public libraries. What does everyone think? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. This morning, I pulled a few hundred titles and links from the list to get it where is now. Be bold, friend, be bold. -- SECisek (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid recentism, which is a perennial problem on wikipedia. Some of the most cogent resources are pre-1995. Pastordavid (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking through the trims you boldly made to the bibliography. We had a fully formatted (although admittedly bloated) bibliography. You "trimmed" a lot of necessary sources, and left in place an unformatted list. I was going to just undo, but I wanted to see what others thought. (The old bibliography is in this version). Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand about the problem of recentism. In our sources for the article, we should use all good and reliable texts. On Misplaced Pages, a further reading list / bibliography is not recognized as a 'source' list. The sources must be inserted into the body of the text. All 'sources' should be in the notes / references section. However, a 'further reading' list is not a list of sources. It is a resource for the Misplaced Pages reader who wants to go one-step further than this article. What is the next best text to read that covers Christianity? This is what 'further reading' lists are intended to do in print encyclopedia. Certainly, no one beginning their masters in theology course is going to be reading this article and locating a pertinent monograph from our 'further reading' list to flesh out their thesis. Our most likely reader is an adolescent: like many of our editors and admins :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Any 'necessary sources' should be in the Notes / References section and found as an in-line citation supporting the relevant bits of text. If not, then by definition the source is not necessary. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources

These are possible sources but they aren't 'further reading':

• Ahlstrom, Sydney E. Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

• Albanese, Catherine L. America, Religions and Religion. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth Pub., Co., 1981.

• Ariarajah, Wesley. The Bible and People of Other Faiths. New York: Orbis Press, 1990.

• Arinze, Cardinal Francis. "The Urgency of Dialogue with Non-Christians." Origins 14:39, 14 March, 1985.

• Arrington, Leonard J. and Davis Bitton's The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints New York: 1979.

• "Baptism." In Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.

• Bedell, Kenneth B. Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 1995. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1995.

• Burr, Nelson Rollin. A Critical Bibliography of Religion in America. 2 vols. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961.

• Castelli, Jim. "Vatican II: 30 Years on the Road From Road." U.S. Catholic, September 1995.

• Cox, Harvey. Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey, 1995.

• Dawe, Nancy Anne. "'Mysterious Pilgrimage' in Atlanta." Presbyterian Survey, October 1993.

• Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Nicholas Lossky, Jose Miguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Pauline Webb. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991.

• Dolan, Jay P. The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

• Eerdmans' Handbook to Christianity in America. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.

• Eliade, Mircea, Victor Turner, et al, eds. The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.

• Geisendorfer, James V. A Directory of Religious and Parareligious Bodies and Organizations in the United States. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

• George, Timothy. "What We Mean When We Say, It's True." Christianity Today, October 23, 1995.

• Gioia, Francesco. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (19633995). Boston: Pauline Books, 1995.

• Goldberger, Paul. "The Gospel of Church Architecture, Revised." New York Times, April 20, 1995.

• Gomes, Peter. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1996.

• Guerrero, Andres G. A Chicano Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.

• Guillermo, Artemio R. Churches Aflame: Asian Americans and United Methodism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

• Hackett, David G. Religion and American Culture, A Reader. New York: Routledge, 1995.

• Handy, Robert. A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities. 2nd ed. New York: University Press, 1984.

• Hutchison, William R. The Modernist impulse in American Protestantism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.

• Hutchison, William R., ed. Between the Times: the Travail of the Protestant Establishment in America 19003960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

• Keener, Craig S. "Kisses and Veils: Finding what the Bible means by knowing what it meant." Christianity Today, October 23, 1995.

• King, Martin Luther Jr. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968.

• Leone, Mark P. Roots of Modern Mormonism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.

• Limouris, Gennadios, ed. Icons: Windows on Eternity. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1990.

• Lippy, Charles H. And Peter W. Williams, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience: Studies of Traditions and Movements. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988.

• Lossky, Nicholas et. al., eds. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1991.

• Matsuoka, Fumitaka. Out of Silence: Emerging Themes in Asian American Churches. Cleveland, Ohio: United Church Press, 1995.

• Maxwell, Joe. "Black Southern Baptists." Christianity Today, May 15, 1995.

• MacMullen, Ramsay. Voting About God in Early Church Councils. Yale University Press, 2006. The history of how Jesus a son of God was elected to be Jesus the Only Begotten Son of the Only God by the early Christian Church by today's foremost ancient historian of the Roman Empire, Ramsay MacMullen

• Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of American Religions. 4th edition. Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1993.

• Murphy, Larry G., J. Gordon Melton, and Gary L. Ward, eds. Encyclopedia of African American Religions. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993.

• Noley, Homer. First White Frost: Native Americans and United Methodism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

• Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992.

• Noll, Mark A. et. al. The Search for Christian America. Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1989.

• Queen, Edward L. and Stephen R. Prothero and Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr. The Encyclopedia of American Religious History. New York: Facts on File, 1996.

• Reid, Daniel G., ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

• Shipps, Jan. Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984.

• Shulman, Albert M. The Religious Heritage of America. San Diego: A.S. Barnes & Co., Inc., 1981.

• Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1963.

• Williamson, William B., ed. An Encyclopedia of Religions in the United States: One Hundred Religious Groups Speak for Themselves. New York: Crossroads, 1992.

• Wind, James P. and James W. Lewis, American Congregations (2 Volumes). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference / citation formatting

I realize that editors are still trying to find good sources but the formatting of the citations is a problem and would not pass GA in its present state. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

There is a proposal to move Persecution of early Christians by the Jews to Persecution of Christians in the New Testament. Please express your opinion at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. --Richard (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An evangelistic faith?

Someone with a deeper grounding in theology than I do will be better suited to clear this up. The first statement in the lead paragraph currently calls Christianity an evangelistic faith, linking to the evangelism article. The evangelism article states that evangelism is a specifically Christian term, which means that at least this meaning of the word is no good in qualitatively defining Christianity. I know that evangelism has meanings on different levels though, so perhaps the word is acceptable. If so, should the link be changed to a wiktionary entry, or completely de-linked. Or is there a better word which is what the author of that lead paragraph meant? Hope someone can shed some light. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I presume that the use of "evangelistic" there is supposed to be more general than that of the evangelism article. The term has historically been used only of Christianity, but more recently (not in the OED til 1993) it has been expanded to mean advocacy of any cause, not just Christianity. I read it as using that meaning of the word. So I would maintain it, but either delink it or link it to wiktionary (which I don't know how to do). Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and de-linked it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have little idea of what exactly that word means. I would prefer it removed, (link to wiktionary:evangelize wiktionary:evangelism - but no evangelic in wiktionary... OED has many words and meanings which are known by a very small percentage of the reading population. Especially with a word that has multiple meanings, I would rather this be removed or changed to one that is uncontroversial. Proselytization seems to have the same meaning - and the article notes that it has been, more recently used to describe non-christian religions. It is better, but I would prefer to simplify that first sentence.--Kiyarrllston 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; will simplify it by removing the term now. --Storm Rider 18:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This first came into the article here using missionary rather than evangelistic. It was latter changed, but the edit was a relatively short term edit. I think the thrust of the edit is the response by Christians to fulfill the Great Commission, but I think this puts too much emphasis on the missionary part. --Storm Rider 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference describes it as a missionary/evangelistic faith. This is a common description in religious studies textbooks and the like. We should stick to the sources. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Evangelistic means missionary. The word is particular to Christianity because the gospel = evangelium is something particular to Christianity. Str1977 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

However, "missionary" does not belong in the first line. Str1977 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The image "Christianity percentage by country"

I think the image "Christianity percentage by country" is somewhat misleading (e.g., acording to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html around 90% of the people of Norway are Christian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the image "Christianity percentage by country" is very misleading I suggest we remove it or replace with better one

If you disagree, please provide a more detailed and reasoned argument - the CIA factbook is not an especially reliable source for this. --Rbreen (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On the webpage for the image in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Christianity_percentage_by_country.png), "CIA - The World Factbook - Religion" is listed as one of the sources; Furthermore, I'd guess that the CIA factbook is quite reliable for most european countries (at least the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland). Regarding the number of christians in Norway, the church of Norway claims 83% of the population (http://www.kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5276). A better source might be "Statistics Norway" (SSB for our Norwegian readers), the relevant information can be found at http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/SelectTable/MenuSel.asp?SubjectCode=07&PLanguage=1&Qid=0&st=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to be needing more than one country being misrepresented to ditch this graphic. It is helpful, clear, concise, and fulfills the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words." Norwegian church membership is debatable in very few 'members' attend church State Department Summary of Norway. Furthermore, one is considered to be a member of the State church unless one goes out of one's way to not be a member of it, so it is open to interpretation how many Norwegians are in fact Christian. --66.173.10.22 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (Sorry: --Signaj90 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

At least several countries are highly inaccurate according to the CIA World Factbook. Regardless of what any individual editors believes is the truth or most accurate information, we must rely on reliable sources for our information. Vassyana (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see your list of objectionable countries before any removal of the picture proceeds.
In response to your defense of the CIA World Factbook, I will concede to you that an overwhelming majority of the citizens of Norway are members of the state church; in that regard it is completely right. Nonetheless, approximately 3% of the country is in church on any given Sunday according to the ELCA as well as according to the Norwegian Lutheran Church itself. We could choose to regard one's identity as Christian on the basis of formal membership. We could also choose to regard one's identity as Christian on the basis of practice. That is a matter of interpretation. In either case, the map clearly represents an interpretation that says that church attendance counts more than church membership. It does not represent false information; if anything, it is giving Norway the benefit of a doubt by generously putting it in the 10-19% category. At best, you could disagree with their interpretation of the what constitutes Christian identity. If you were to do so, I would happily look up citations for the means by which American churches remove inactive members from their membership lists - a practice clearly not carried out in Norway. Such policies seem to make quite clear that there are a significant number of church organizations that believe that attendance counts for something that membership does not.
--Signaj90 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think church attendance is a good measure on the number of Christians in a country - if the image depicts chruch attenance a better caption would be "Church attendance percentage by country". Furthermore, if the information differs from what can be found on https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html, then "CIA - The World Factbook - Religion" should be removed from the sources of the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be more apropriate to do the discusison about this picture on "http://en.wikipedia.org/Image_talk:Christianity_percentage_by_country.png" (it is also worth mentioning that acording to "Special Eurobarometer - Social values, Science and Technology" (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) 32% of the norwegian population belives there is a God. Thus, at least 20% of the population of Norway are Christians.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.210.206 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - a dispute of the accuracy of this picture should be taken to the discussion for the picture. Thus far, we've only discussed Norway. More countries are being discussed there, and we're duplicating arguments needlessly.
However, I am still waiting for a satisfactory set of criteria for evaluating whether someone is a Christian or not. I'll suggest attendance of a worship service four times a year as a crude but effective measurement. Membership in a church and zero participation in a church for years at a time flies in the face of most of this article's assumption that the life of a Christian involves participation in the Church. --Signaj90 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A sentence in a paragraph for removal?

"Christianity is the largest world religion with 2.1 billion adherents, however, Church attendance has been declining in many places."

This seems completely irrelevant to me as Christianity is growing in numbers, not decline, and the later part of the above sentence would make one believe that it is the opposite. Christianity is growing in Africa and China, and in total numbers worldwide. The only unbiased way to phrase the above sentense would be;

"Christianity is the largest world religion with 2.1 billion adherents, however, Church attendance has been declining in many places, it is however increasing in others and in total numbers worldwide"

Which seems somewhat pointless to me.

There are two different things being counted here. Christianity has been roughly the same, percentagewise, over the past hundred years (if anything, it shows a slight decline overall, from 34 per cent to 33). A decline in Christians in the developed world has been matched by increases in the developing world. However, this is based on counting Christians as adherents, people who have been baptised or self-identify as Christian. Many of those still counted as Christians in the developed world never go to Church; in many countries attendance figures have been in freefall for the last 20 years. In the UK, 72 per cent of the population described their religion in the last census as 'Christian', but only 8 per cent go to Church. Even in the US, where a very high proportion of people describe themselves as Christians, less than 20 per cent go to church regularly. So the distinction between 'Christian' as an affiliation and as a description of religious practice is an important one. --Rbreen (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference does not support most of what you said above; it points to a website that supports the total number of Christian adherents. If the site supports the balance of what you have said, then it needs to be more clear where it says it. I deleted the phrase that stated particiaption was declining because the reference did not support it. Can you improve the reference; if not, your reversion was not appropriate. --Storm Rider 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a problem with citations in Misplaced Pages - I remember checking this citation out when it was first given, and at the time it seemed entirely appropriate. However, in the state it is now, I agree it is not an exact match for what is being said. However, other and better references are available, and I will add one shortly.--Rbreen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The context of the statement will be difficult to cover. I am sure that references will support a general lack of active participation in organized religion in western Europe, but we will also find references that will support increased attendence in other parts of the world. Regardless, let's make sure a reputable reference is used to support whatever statement is used. I find it difficult to believe that any research will be able to distinguish between participation in organized religion and lack of belief; they do not go hand in hand in today's world. --Storm Rider 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that the phrase needs to be in the introduction; it seems to overbalance the value of Christianity in some parts of the world and discount the others. More importantly, the introduction typically outlines what is being discussed in the article; this phrase regarding participation in church services is not addressed in the article. I recommend that we either add a section that addresses church attendance world wide or delete the phrase from the introduction. --Storm Rider 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Storm on this.

Also, the "however" is totally out of place. This reads like "Well, Christianity is growing in numbers but that is made up for by declining attendence". Also, it is not our job to intrude into the consciences of Christian believers and detract them for not attending church. Many denominations do not require church attendance. Str1977 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

God is Unknowable?

That's not what the Christian Bible teaches. In fact, it teaches quite the opposite (Matthew 11:27). Going by the Bible, this sentence should be removed. (ApostleJoe (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

The sentence is at least questionable. Str1977 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of Paul

From an objective standpoint, I would argue that Christianity is more based on the writings of Paul, even though Christians claim and/or believe that it centers on Jesus. And I've heard more than a few scholars suggest the same thing. Jesus plays the largest symbolic role in their mythology, but historically he didn't form a new religion in his lifetime, that came after his death, and Paul was the most prominent contributor to the New Testament and was the largest architect of the Christian religion.

Just tossing that out there for consideration. I think Paul should get more credit for being a founder of Christianity than Jesus, who appears to me to have been pushing for reforms within Judaism, not for an entirely new religionVatoFirme (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, but this article is more broad than that. And in fact, there is an article that focuses on Pauline Christianity. Check it out. Bytebear (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The "objective standpoint" is not objective but a POV statement. CHRISTianity is centered on Jesus CHRIST, not on the New Testament and thus it doesn't really matter that Paul wrote many books in it. The distinction between "reform" an old and forming a new religion is anachronistic. Str1977 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In Christianity, the New Testament writers were held as writing inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:14-16). Thus, they were writing and teaching the doctrines of Christ (Acts 1:8). (ApostleJoe (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

What I argued against was a simplistic deduction: Paul wrote more NT books than others so he must be more important than others, he must be the actual founder of Christianity. This is at best a contentious view, at worst anti-Christian propaganda. Str1977 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other religions

This article should include a section which describes Christianity's similarities, differences, and relationships with other religions. Bless sins (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have articles comparing Christianity with other religions. See Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Islam etc. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And a summary of that should be given here. I'll prepare something.Bless sins (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A Jewish sect?

It's not really appropriate to label early Christianity as a Jewish sect... right from the get-go, it was established as its own religion, with its own doctrines. Yes, it is rooted in Judaism, but it isn't a form of Judaism. (ApostleJoe (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Joe, that position seems to be one based upon your personal faith and not religious or historical fact. Jesus did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill the law (Matt 5:17-18). Christianity, as it is known today, is nothing more than the fulfillment of Judaism. I think you will find a great deal written on this point. Also, you seem to be making an evaluative statement regarding Judaism. However, understanding that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law also accepts that what Christianity is today is built upon ancient Judaism. At the time of Jesus it was just a sect within Judaism. It was not until several hundred years later than it became a compeltely separate "religion" --Storm Rider 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right-o about Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. However, He directly went against the Jewish leaders of the day, and what Judaism is today as well. Jesus established new doctrines as well as affirming old ones. Christianity's doctrines are indeed based upon Jewish ones, but the differences are so large that Christianity could never be classified as a form of Judaism, in any respect.

For instance, Jesus is regarded as Messiah by mainstream Christianity, but not by Judaism. In mainstream Christianity, Jesus is worshiped as God, while in Judaism Jesus is labeled as a heretic.

Those are just two (very large) differences. How then could Christianity ever be classified as a Jewish sect? It's like a tree and a seed, the tree springs up from the seed, and is the direct result of the seed, but isn't the seed itself. (ApostleJoe (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

You're missing the point, Joe. The point is that Christianity started as a Jewish sect, but became separate after a very short time (a few decades at the most). We don't need to say that because it isn't now a Jewish sect it never was. It is certainly supportable to believe that the early Christians saw Jesus as reforming and fulfilling Judaism rather than separating from it, and would have continued to consider themselves as Jews. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that possible, when the Jews are under the law of Moses (Joshua 1:8), but Paul explicitly states that Christians are freed from the law (Romans 7:6)? Jews also follow the Talmud (while Christians do not, and, to my knowledge, it is never recorded that they did). If this is true, Christianity could have never been a Jewish sect, not even at the beginning.

I quote from the Wikpedia article on Judaism, Judaism differs from many religions in that central authority is not vested in a person or group, but in sacred texts and traditions. Jesus refuted many of these traditions (Matthew 15:1-20), more than once. Jesus said to call no one "Rabbi" (Matthew 23:6-8). These are all completely in contention with the Judaism of the day. How then was Christianity a sect of something it defied?

According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism in accord with Jewish Law. -Article on Judaism This was not the case with Christianity. People weren't becoming a part of Judaism, they were leaving it for something (for lack of a good word) better.

Having roots in Judaism and being Judaism are not the same thing.

Don't take this as an attack, but as an inquiry. How could Christianity have ever even remotely been a part of Judaism?(ApostleJoe (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

The information is based on reliable sources. It is the common view in published literature that Christianity first began as a sect of Judaism. Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your quotes from Misplaced Pages are about Judaism and Christianity as they are now, so they aren't applicable. Christianity ceased to be a Jewish sect during the time of Paul, so Romans (thought to be a late letter) is talking about Christianity at that time. If you read some others of Paul's letters you will find that some Christians at that time were of the opinion that the Jewish law should be followed by Christians. The question wasn't settled for a few decades. In the early years (and I mean very early) Christianity recruited almost exclusively from Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, so were all his early followers. Paul continued to refer to himself as a Jew after his conversion. I strongly recommend a good book on early church history. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact still stands that Christianity didn't fit in with the Judaism then, either. (ApJ (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

this debate is rather futile. At what point does a "sect" evolve into a separate religion? We have origins of Christianity to discuss this. We can state as a fact that Christianity was described as a superstitio Iudaica by outsiders in the 80s AD, but we cannot poll adherents and give the percentage of 1st century Christians who considered themselves as adherents of Judaism. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. That's when you look at who they were and what they did, and they didn't match up. But anyway, you're probably right about us not getting anywhere. Just perhaps it could be worded differently, such as "Christianity grew out of Judaism" or something similar. Just a suggestion, not a demand. (ApJ (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

It is correct to state that Christians were considered (by contemporaries) a Jewish sect until at least the late 1st century. This may have changed in the course of the 2nd century. Thus, if you like, the 2nd century was when Christianity was in the process of "growing out of" Judaism. By the time of Origen, I will grant you, Christianity by all accounts had ceased to be a Jewish sect. Pre-Nicaean Christianity was very little like the Christianity you or I grew up with, so it is really quite misleading to use a single term "Christianity" to cover this huge spectrum. This is where the designation Early Christianity comes handy, but I would submit that even "Early Christianity" was barely recognizable after its first three centuries: anything before Nicaea should more properly be called "Proto-Christianity" to avoid confusion. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Put it better than I ever could've.

That's what I was saying, though. While it may have been considered a sect of Judaism, it didn't match the criteria to be described as such. A slight rewording seems like it would remedy this.

Once again, just inquiry. (ApJ (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Joe, remember that the Pauline letters were written in 57 at the earliest - Christianity had been around for over two decades by then. The fact that Paul's theories on adherence to the Law and the Council of Jerusalem were given such prominence indicates that adherence to the Law was a lively topic of discussion, and many of the earliest Christians considered it was necessary to follow the Law in its entirety. If it had been otherwise, Paul would not have spent so much time upbraiding them for it. Slac speak up! 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

in spite of your praise, ApJ, I don't think you have read what I write above: it depends on what you mean by "it". I agree for times after AD 150, but I disagree for times before AD 80. For the period 80-150, I am agnostic in the sense that I don't think it is fruitful to try and classify it either way. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree, but alright. (ApJ (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

It is a fact that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect (though not as a sect of Talmudic-Rabbincal Judaism). That Jesus was in conflict with some Jewish leaders is of no consequence as these leaders were also in conflict with each other. Christianity's claim is basically to be the true Jewish religion - just as Pharisees and Saducees and Essenes claimed.

Also Paul is no basis to declare such a separation.

The separation was the result of a long development: Christianity found more and more converts among gentiles while the Pharisees developed into the Talmudic-Rabbincal Judaism as all other Jewish sects perished.

However, it should not be called a "sect of Judaism" but a Jewish sect as Judaism implies a united religion that didn't exist in Jesus' life time or the following decades. Judaism is exactly the name of that unified religion that developed out of the Pharisses post-70 AD and which remained unified until the 18th century.

It is a legitimate question whether this has to be addressed in the intro. However, I think it sits well with the reference to the Old and New Testament. Str1977 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I agree, then. That's where I was getting hung up; Christianity never met the requirements to be part of Judaism. But it definitely was a movement started muchly by Jews, and so it was Jewish for a long while.

Also, while Christianity claims to be the true Judaism, it was not worded in the way that the point would get across (from what I saw, I could've missed something).

Anyway, I think the situation has pretty much been resolved. Thanks to all of you for not biting my head off, I appreciate it. xD (ApJ (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

POV flag

Why is there a POV check flag on this article? Somebody put this in with just a comment "I think this page should include a section about criticisms and/or a brief section describing inconsitencies or contradictions", and no entry on the talk page, and this appears to be the only Misplaced Pages contribution they have made. Without a talk page discussion, this is going nowhere. Can someone either start a talk thread, or delete the flag? --Rbreen (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tag stating that without a specific explanation of why the tag has been added it is not acceptable. Maybe a little bold, but in keeping with policies. --Storm Rider 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the terrific NPOV introductory paragraph?

It used to read, "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and they see the New Testament as the record of the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. With an estimated 1.9 billion adherents in 2007, Christianity is the world's largest religion..." I used this as a model to instruct editors of other articles on NPOV. The statements quoted above can be admitted by Christian believers and non-believers alike. Now, we have a version that makes assertions only a Christian would believe. Comments, please. NuclearWinner (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The version here is much better. Let's put it back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. (ApJ (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

OK, I did my best to restore it. NuclearWinner (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work, I like it. (ApJ (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

What's with all of the {{clarify}} templates?

Why are there so many {{clarify}} templates in this article against things that appear to be self-evident, and even common knowledge? Like what "conception" means? The way this article's headed it's going to need a citation for every word, never mind every sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you or someone delete them, cuz I do not see them, nor explicit removal of them in the edit summaries? Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't delete them, and neither would I delete them without addressing the point that clarification had been asked for. The tags are still there so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some of these, to things which I felt needed clarification - if you're not sure in any particular case what it is that I feel needs clarifying, I'm happy to provide more details. I'll send you a pm re: the specific example you cite above. SP-KP (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By my reading of the correct usage of this tag in Misplaced Pages:Please clarify, the great majority of these tags currently in this article are uneccessary.

SP-KP, am I missing something there? Are you able to cite something from that guideline that shows why your uses of this tag are correct? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm using the guidance at Template:Clarifyme - specifically "a request ... to clarify text that is difficult to understand". Misplaced Pages:Please clarify only has essay status, so can't really be described as setting out "correct usage". If you feel some of the text I flagged as needing clarification is in fact clear, you presumably haven't spotted the problems - as mentioned above, I'm happy to elaborate on any specific cases. SP-KP (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, thanks.

The large number of tags currently in the article makes the prospect of discussing and negotiating each one individually with you rather discouraging.

The essay Misplaced Pages:Please clarify phrases matters as "wording that is likely to be confusing to the average reader." I believe that most of the items currently tagged in Christianity would not be confusing to the average reader.

You may have tagged them because they were personally confusing to you. Obviously, everything on Misplaced Pages will be difficult for someone to understand, and we can't tag or explain every sentence or accommodate everyone. The "average reader" standard seems an appropriate one to me. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Re: "personally confusing to you" - quite the opposite, actually. I believe I understand what many of the tagged sentences are getting at. It's because I don't think they convey that meaning to the average reader that I have tagged them. We may have different perceptions of the average reader, perhaps? Bear in mind that someone visiting an article about Christianity is probably doing so because they don't know much about the subject and want to learn about it. So the "average reader" is an average member of that readership, not an average of Misplaced Pages's general readership, which (assuming the 2.1 billion figure is correct), does stand a good chance of knowing a fair bit about Christianity already. SP-KP (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a personal dislike for these article defacing templates. Would it not be acceptable for each of these points to be discussed and hopefully resolved here? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a change for one clarify tag in the lede. Could you explain the need for the other clarifyme tags in the introduction of the article? Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do - see separate section below. SP-KP (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed fact tags

I removed the {{fact}} tags from the lede. Those statements are clearly referenced. Vassyana (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I hadn't noticed the comment which states that the reference supports the whole paragraph. There are inherent risks in whole-paragraph referencing, of course, but you're correct to say that there is a reference for these statements, so we can leave the stylistic issue to one side while we sort out the higher priority stuff. SP-KP (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements tagged as in need of clarification

Subsections for discussions of the clarify tags

Lead, first paragraph's use of "Gospel"

The issue here is that because the term Gospel is likely to be an unfamiliar one to someone who is trying to learn about Christianity, it needs to be explained, either here, or in a wikilink. Editors of this article have chosen the latter option. Looking at the Gospel article, however, its definition is "one of four canonical books of the New Testament that ... ". The last sentence of the first paragraph then makes even less sense. The addition of the term "Good News" confuses things further still. Does anyone know what this sentence is actually trying to say? If so, we can then try to formulate some words which communicate this clearly. SP-KP (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gospel is both explained ("good news") and wikilinked. You may scroll down further in the gospel article and read it in its entirety. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point on this one, I'm afraid. The article to which gospel is wikilinked is not a page about "good news" - it is a page about the four canonical gospels. A good sanity-check on a wikilink is to replace the wikilink with the definition at the page linked to ... in this case, that would have given us (prior to the previous changes) something that made no sense at all. The other changes made to this paragraph have improved it - we just need to sort out those last four words, and we're done with this one, I think. Is there another "gospel" article which relates to the subject that the wikilink is intended to point at? Or is it intended to point at a specific part of the "canonical gospels" article only? If the latter, then we can wikilink to that section. SP-KP (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing a bit more delving, I think the article you might want to wikilink to is Good news (Christianity)? What do you think? SP-KP (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SP, read the entire article - it is not just about the canonical gospels. That article might be a bit disorganized but that's a problem of that article not of this. Str1977 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to labour this one, but I think I need to. There is an article which defines what a (canonical) "gospel" is, and we're currently wikilinking to that. However, there is another article which deals with the subject of "The Gospel" or "Good News". The latter seems a more appropriate wikilink to me, in that it covers the subject we're actually talking about, whereas the former covers a subject which has the same name as the subject we are talking about, but is actually something different. Why do you think the current wikilink is better? SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that other article (I had missed that previously) is better, though it should retitled to "Gospel (Christianity)". Str1977 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good - I've got through. Thanks for sticking with me. I'll make an edit to reflect this. SP-KP (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph, "foundation of salvation"

What does this mean? The salvation article gives three possible meanings. And in what sense "foundation"? SP-KP (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it into "mediator" as it is followed up by "revealer". Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And what does that mean please? SP-KP (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph, "died and was resurrected for the salvation of all from sin"

I assume "for" means "in order to.." or "so that..." - is that correct? Without some mention of the mechanism by which this event is intended to achieve that effect, this in confusing in my opinion. SP-KP (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. However, we do not need to mention a "mechanism" as a) this is not about mechanics, and b) there are various different explanations. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll reword the "for" to make this bit less confusing. I may not get this quite right, so please do correct me if not. When you say "this is not about mechanics" and "there are various different explanations" - can you expand? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not now and not here. You also wrote into the article a major error: "for all subsequently living people" is not only unwieldy but wrong, as those that lived before are not excluded. Str1977 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that error, I didn't realise that prior lives were included. Can you provide a source for this? SP-KP (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course prior lives are included. But if you want examples for this, have a look at Jesus' promise to the repentent criminal crucified next to him, or at Jesus' descent into hell, preaching to the fathers. Str1977 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where I can find these sources please? SP-KP (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph, "Jesus will judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers"

Does the everlasting life thing even apply to those who are already dead? If so, we should state that explicitly, if not then what's the point of the dead being judged? SP-KP (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does and it is clearly stated. However, I think the "to his followers" is inappropriate. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, you're correct here. That the dead will be judged is stated explicitly. Regarding "to his followers", what should we say instead? SP-KP (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, fourth paragraph, "God is infinite"

In what sense? SP-KP (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is quite clear. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In which case you should have no problem explaining what that part of it means ... go for it. SP-KP (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That God is infinite. What's so hard to understand about that? Str1977 01:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Infinite in what sense? Size, weight, knowledge? Infinite can only be used in conjunction with a measurment, surely? SP-KP (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In all regards. Str1977 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: you're saying - if I can think of a way in which it is possible to be either finite or infinite, God will always be infinite? What about infinitely bad, shallow, flatulent? SP-KP (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we are talking about essential qualities.

And for the record: "infinitely bad" is impossible as bad is not some substance in itself but either the lack of good or the corruption thereof. God is the infinite good - the infinite bad does not exist. At least not in Christian thought. Str1977 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead, fifth paragraph, the disciples were first called "Christians"

Ambiguity is the concern here. The disciples were called Christians and then called something else? The disciples were called Christians in Antioch before they were called Christians elsewhere? The disciples were the first people to be called Christians? SP-KP (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the first tiem time the Christians were called by that name was in Antioch. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I can come up with a suitable rewording - let me know if you agree with my edit. SP-KP (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It is totally confusing and also can be understood quite differently. Str1977 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it sounds as though I misunderstood your explanation then, as I thought I just included a rewording of what you said. We can't just revert to the previous version, given its ambiguity (I hope you agree?) Can you tell me what I got wrong with my wording, and then we can try to find a wording we can agree on. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs, "share a common faith"

This feels like woolly padding as currently written. What is the article trying to say here, any ideas? SP-KP (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an introductory sentence. The common features are the content of this section. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So the first two sentences are essentially saying the same thing in different ways, then? I've been bold here and removed the second sentence (and made a small tweak to the first to make its meaning clearer). If there's a subtle difference in meaning between the two sentences that I've missed, let me know. SP-KP (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, second paragraph, "anointed as ruler and savior"

A couple of things here. Anointed - presumably this means anointed by God? Ruler - that bit makes sense - nice easy concept for readers to understand; savior though, not so clear. In what sense? SP-KP (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, second paragraph, "reconciled to God"

Two problems here. Reconcile is technical jargon - fine for theology anoraks, I'm sure - but can we think of a more friendly-for-the-average-reader term? Second, this is the first time in the article that it's been suggested that there might actually be a reconciliation problem between humans & God. If we want people to understand what Jesus' "purpose" is, we need to say that there is (in the view of Christians) actually a problem to be solved. SP-KP (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"To reconcile" is an easily comprehensible word. Str1977 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, ambiguity is the problem - OED gives four possible meanings, and it's not obvious which one is appropriate in this context. What do you understand reconcile to mean here? SP-KP (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of the seven definitions given here numbers two and three are applicable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that rather usefully illustrates the point; if there are seven definitions and two of these are relevant, we haven't exactly got a lack of ambiguity. SP-KP (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. None of the others are applicable to one person performing them between two other persons. Two of them are clearly post-Christian in concept (and even more technical than the well-known one). Theoretically if you thought of God as an impersonal concept then the first could apply, but it's a bit of a stretch. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you can eventually work out by applying a degree of logic which meaning we mean, but that's an awful lot of thinking for a reader unfamiliar with the subject to have to do to understand just one word, don't you think? Or are you saying that this is necessary jargon i.e. there is no other word which conveys the same meaning? SP-KP (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, second paragraph, "and thereby are offered salvation"

This overlaps with and will probably become clear as fallout from earlier discussions. I'll leave the detail for unless that doesn't happen. SP-KP (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "having become fully human in all respects"

Hopefully this is just another case of repetition/verbosity? "Fully human" and "human in all respects" - these sound like they mean the same thing, but I might be missing something? SP-KP (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the same. Str1977 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I've reworded. SP-KP (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man"

What does this mean? SP-KP (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, this is also the same, though a necessary explanation. It means that Jesus was tempted to sin just like any human being but did not sin. It is a first part that has to be seen in conjunction with that latter part. Str1977 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so that needs to be worded better, then, do you agree? SP-KP (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the need but it might be improved. Str1977 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "yet he did not sin"

Not sure we've had anything which explains what is meant (to Christians) by sin prior to this mention of the word? And why is the fact that he did not sin important? SP-KP (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We should do this via wikilink. We cannot explain everything all at once. Str1977 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one possible solution, yes. Although it strikes me that, given that sin is such an important concept in Christianity, there is room for a section on it in this article. What are your thoughts on that? SP-KP (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, third paragraph, "As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again"

This bit appears to contradict the next sentence. SP-KP (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. Str1977 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, well we've got, on the one hand, Jesus, being fully God, and defeating death himself, then on the other, Jesus not doing it himself, but having it done to him by God, and then ascending to heaven and sitting at God's right hand. Something has to give here. SP-KP (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "fully" is used one too many times, and placed in the wrong part of the sentence. Either someone fix this or I am going find a better way to reword those sentences later. SymbolicMeaning 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SP, there is no contradiction as the Triune God is seen as working together. Hence, Jesus both rose and was raised from the dead. However, "the right hand of God" should really be the "right hand of the Father". That's the wording used in the creed. Str1977 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's come up with a form of words which doesn't appear to be a contradiction, can we? SP-KP (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from correct the "right hand" issue, no we can't as both ways of expressing are used side by side. Str1977 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus the Christ, fourth paragraph, "Conceived"

The clarification that I feel is needed there is due to the dual meaning of the word conceived. Presumably the sentence is intended to mean "The Holy Spirit thought of the idea of Jesus, and the Virgin Mary gave birth to him"? I presume it doesn't mean conception in the biological sense, but some readers could interpret it that way. SP-KP (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it does mean conceive in the biological sense. Str1977 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK - so this does need clarification then. Can you go into this in a little more detail? It sounds like you're saying that the Holy Spirit took physical form, and that intercourse between him and Mary did in fact take place. That doesn't tie up with my understanding of the Christian view of Jesus' origins though - have I misunderstood you? SP-KP (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No it does not "need clarification then". It is quite clear what is meant and the word is wikilinked - but maybe a link to incarnation would be better. And no, the Holy Spirit did not take physical form but through him God caused Mary to conceive. This whole thing seems to me like wilful misunderstanding, even if it might just be playing advocatus diaboli. Str1977 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that you have a responsibility to Assume Good Faith please. To get this clear in my mind, you're saying that there was a biological conception, is that correct? But unlike other human biological conceptions, it did not result from two physical humans copulating, is that correct? SP-KP (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit physically (and miraculously) caused the Foetus Jesus to come into being in Mary's womb. No sex was involved. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Foetus, not embryo? SP-KP (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Now who's getting too technical. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not suggesting we add that to the article :-) Purely out of curiosity, which of the two was it, please? SP-KP (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge the point has never been defined as doctrine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SP, I am trying to AGF but questions like "foetus or embyro" are exactly what pushes the boundaries. This is not defined by any doctrine as doctrine does not deal with biological details but it should be clear that the man Jesus came into being not by normal conception via sexual intercourse by a miraculous act of God. It would be Nestorianism and a rejection of that virginal conception (e.g. by ensouling a already existing embryo) if that act did not occur exactly at the moment that Jesus physically came into being. Hence, the correct biological term would be zygote. Str1977 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to find ill-intent where it doesn't exist. Why? Foetus or embryo was an innocent question spraked by DJC's assertion that Jesus' first appearance was as a foetus. Why not embryo was a natural, obvious thing to ask. SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, you come here and sprinkle the article with clarifyme tags. And I take these in good faith as an attempt to make the article more clear where clarity is missing. But if we want to solve these issues (some of which I think are really none issues) we cannot indulge at the same in such questions. It is either or. Str1977 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Anyway, back to the issue. So we're saying that Jesus (foetus or embryo) was conceived solely by the Holy Spirit (presumably we aren't saying that there is a possibility that another undefined parent could have been involved?) and that Mary's genes had no input (i.e. she was a surrogate, rather than a biological mother). Is that correct? SP-KP (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this another curiosity question or something to do with the article? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering that myself, DJC.

You're still struggling with the good faith thing, aren't you? Let me say this very clearly so that you won't have to ask this again - if I am raising points here, it is because (unless I explicitly say otherwise) they are relevant to the article's content. If you are not sure why something is relevant to the article's content, I am happy to explain. In this case, I am trying to ascertain exactly what the nature of the conception was, so that we can decide how best to word the relevant section of the article. SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SP, the possibility of another undefined parent is not relevant to this issue as we are relating what Christians believe.

Sorry, not sure I understand. Are you saying that Christians don't have a view on whether there was another parent? SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, could you please think along: Christians believe (as the article states) that Jesus came into existence as a human being by his human mother Mary, a virgin, conceiving a son. This miraculous conception was brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, Christians believe that. Adherents of other religions or none might not believe that and will suppose a human father, either Joseph (the obvious choice) or some other man. Some people use that in polemics against Christianity. But as far as thie article, this section is concerned we need not bother with alternative views as we are aiming at presenting the beliefs of Christians. I hope you understand now. Str1977 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As for "surrogate mother": No. Mary had a part in the "genetic makeup" of her son just as any mother has. (BTW, you are misusing the term surrogate mother. A surrogate mother may be the genetic mother of the child or not. However, my guess is that in most cases she is. The "biological mother" she is in any case.) Str1977 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think we're making some headway now. You're saying that there was a biological conception, and that it did result from two parents, Mary and the holy spirit - and that the only thing that was missing was the actual act of intercourse. Is that right, or have I still misunderstood? SP-KP (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there was a biological conception otherwise there would be no Jesus, right? Jesus has two partens: his mother Mary and his father God. Str1977 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Christians believe that Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary. We know nothing other than what the scriptures tell us; that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Christians do not often break this process down into its fundamental parts because it is believed to be self-evident when said that Jesus was the Son of God and born of Mary. What is clear is that a zygote was present through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider 18:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

History section

I don't know what happened to the history section but something has gone wrong. It now include various details, including things like the meeting of Pope Leo and Attila, which are either purely secular events or the impact of which on the history of the church is left unexplained.

At the same time, things the spread of Christianity is mentioned in the intro.

Both areas will require some work in the future. Str1977 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further issues

As there seems to be a great dislike of the clarify tags, I'm going to add any further issues I find here instead.

Sentence fragment in lead

There's an odd sentence fragment "which they share as part of its scriptures with Judaism" in the first paragraph of the lead. The previous version of this sentence read clearly, but the current version doesn't. This needs some attention - I assume it's trying to say the Christianity & Judaism share, as part of their scriptures, the Old Testament? SP-KP (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called a subclause. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anointing

What is the essential difference between choosing (a nice easy word to understand, but presumably missing a nuance) and anointing (a piece of jargon, but presumably an essential one to convey a precise meaning?) SP-KP (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "Messiah" and "Christ" both mean "the annointed one".

To chose is simply to pick from a range of choices (not applicable here though in the case of earlier annointments of Kings and Priests) - "annoint" includes the investiture with authority/powers/status etc. It is not a mere choice. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Regarding the sentence: "In spite of important differences of interpretation and opinion, Christians share a set of beliefs that they hold as essential to their faith."

I understand everything up to the words "beliefs" but what additional meaning do the last eight words intend to convey, please? SP-KP (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It means that these beliefs are not mere side notes (or trivialities) but, in the mind of believers, essential to the Christian faith. It is really simple to understand. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the term monotheistic should link

I feel that the term monotheistic should link to the monotheism article. My reasoning here is that if someone clicks on the link, it is most likely to be because they will want to learn about monotheism, and therefore the logical place for them to be taken should be the start of the monotheism article. Are there any opposing views, and if so, what is the reasoning? SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The link is to the monotheism article. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the term New Testament should link

I feel that the term New Testament should link to the New Testament article. My reasoning here is that if someone clicks on the link, it is most likely to be because they will want to learn about the New Testament, and therefore the logical place for them to be taken should be the start of the New Testament article. Are there any opposing views, and if so, what is the reasoning? SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistating facts. "New Testament" links to "New Testament". Only in one case, in "as recounted in the NT", it links to another article. Your concerns can be amended by linking the whole phrase, which I will instantly do. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tense

In the lead we have "Christians ... believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah (or Christ)". Surely that should be written in past tense given that Jesus is dead? SP-KP (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, certainly not. First of all, Christian believe that Jesus lives. Before grasping that you are not qualified to discuss anything further. Then, in Christian belief Jesus IS the son of God. You do not get to be the Son of God for a while until somebody else comes along. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if editors could apply some Christian standards of behaviour to their comments. It is not for you or anyone else here to judge whether SP-KP is qualified to discuss anything further. And I have been frankly shocked at some of the comments that have been made on my talk page for daring to remind one editor over his use of orthodox Christianity that not everyone accessing this article will be reading it. Some will be listening to it, and may hear Orthodox Christianity. Let's try and act like Christians, not like the lions. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends- some say he is 'dead' others say he is 'alive' - personally I know he's alive, but it's your own opinion, they should say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.179.233 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Italicisation

There are some italicisation (and non-italicisation) in this article which I'm not sure about. I can find Messiah and Christ in both italicised and non-italicised forms, I can find unitalicised Bible & Old & New Testaments, although the Manual of Style would suggest that they should be italicised. SP-KP (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead and italicize. There's anyway some formatting issues to be dealt with. Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV at the end of the lead's first paragraph

" see the New Testament as the record of the message ... that was revealed by Jesus."

This says: "Whether the New Testament is it or not, it is a fact that Jesus revealed a divine message. Christians believe that the New Testament is the record of this message".

It needs amending to point out that the supposed divine revelation is only the view of Christians, not established fact. SP-KP (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No it does not need to ruin sentence structure for supposed POV problems. In any case, I have already edited it in a way solving your problem (even thoug that was not my intent at the time - I had stylistic issues in mind). Str1977 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Types Of Christians?

Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that some of the types of Christianty have been missed out E.G. Quakers- also where is the part about the Holy Bible, the new and the old testament! Really, if you want to find out about Jesus- read the Holy Bible; it revels all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.179.233 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion but that is hardly undisputed fact. Str1977 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

There is redundancy in the intro:

"Its followers, known as Christians, believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah (or Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament .."

"Jesus, referred to by Christians as Jesus Christ, is central to Christianity as the mediator of salvation, the revealer of God, and the model of a pious life; not just as a teacher, but as the son of God who suffered, died and was resurrected in order to bring about salvation from sin for all."

Str1977 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists