Talk:Christianity/Archive 37

message: I was wanting to know what other people's opinion on the "Poison" theory. 
Around the time of Yeshua's (Jesus in Hebrew) life, there was a lethal poison that made a person's heart beat so slow that it appeared to stop beating, muscles go limp, and breathing so shallow it wasn't detectable. If this poison was left to manifest itself, it killed the person after a few days, but if the antidote was introduced before the poison took effect, then the person would not die, but rather come out of the induced coma-like state as if out of a deep sleep.
There have been those who have proposed that Yeshua took the poison and the antidote when Mary gave him some water as he carried his cross, and when it took effect, the guards thought him dead. 
Beleivers of this theory also think that the head gaurd who was in charge of his cross was in league with Mary, because instead of breaking Yeshua's kneecaps, as was customary to finish killing the infidels, he stuck a spear into his side and pronounced him dead.
Supporters of this theory also propose how he got out of the tomb.They then took him to a tomb that was donated by one of Yeshua's followers and sealed it after they put his body in there. When the antidote kicked in and Yeshua woke up, he was in an escapable tomb. Supporters propose that there was a secret tunnel in the tomb the led out of the back of it and to a nearby hillock that was condensed in forest. 
There are more points that I could make on this subject, but I need to varify them. I would like to know your opinions on what I've put so farSolon Olrek 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of this theory, just the swoon one, though both sound like they suffer from the same problems, namely, that somebody who's been scourged as heavily as Jesus was isn't going to survive up on a cross whether they swooned, were poisoned and then de-poisoned, or really much of anything else. The way crucifixion works is that breaking the kneecaps only makes the death quicker, because now there's no support at all in your legs, and you can't inhale much anymore. But spending too much time up there is going to result in someone getting too exausted anyway to keep breathing, and being poisoned certainly isn't going to help increase your survivability. Homestarmy 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard this theory before; but I quickly dismissed it for Homestarmy's reasons and because it sounds exactly like the poison Juliett took near the end of Romeo and Juliett. I didn't even think a poison like that really existed. Does anyone know if it did?  Christknight 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it is covered in Frederick T. Zugibe,  The Crucifixion of Jesus; Lostcaesar 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Oh, and on another note, Christknight, I got the information from someone who studies stuff about the Bible as a hobby. I am not 100% sure that he could actually count as a "source", but I know that he is reliable for being able to verify his facts. Next time I talk to him, I'll ask him the name of the poison so you can look it up.Solon Olrek 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I was just under the impression that such a poison never existed at all because I'd only ever heard of it in Shakespeare's play. But I'd be happy to look it up if you can give me the name of it. Christknight 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a discussion page; therefor, anything that is related to the article is allowed. If you don't like to talk about theories that down your religion, then don't read them. And it is not nonsense, as a matter of fact. You say "If all the guard had to do was prounounce him dead, the Jesus would not have needed to take the poison not any antidote", when in reality, the poison was a key factor. There were regular onlookers and preist from the tample watching the crucifixion and it would take a little more than just a guard pronouncing him to be dead than to have a guard say he was. He had to LOOK dead. Before you go around calling everything "nonsense" use what brains you have (if any) and think about it first.Solon Olrek 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Poison" Theory

message: according to Str1977:
The Quran also uses the title "Messiah", though with a different meaning
and
he goes on to say that:
the meaning in Islam, if there is one, is different.
May I ask what is the meaning of messiah in christianity? User:Illerate11
The meaning of the title, not of the word Messiah!
In Christianity (and Judaism), the Messiah (Greek: Christ) is the saviour who comes to save Israel, restoring David's Kingdom in new and ultimate glory. Christianity and Judaism differ on the extent of this, on the details and on whether the Messiah is divine, but not on this basis, because this is what the Prophets say. 
Islam however in fact doesn't attach any significance to that title. It retains it, just as the title "Word of God" (which, if taken seriously, would conflict with the importance of the Quran) bare of meaning, unless as a additional title of a prophet.
Hence, it would be best not to mention this at all, but since another editor insisted on including a reference, we must clearly state this. Str1977 (smile back) 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anointed one of God who, in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, was sent by God to establish his Kingdom forever.  The seed of the Kingdom is the Church, established by Christ upon his first coming.  Lostcaesar 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We are talking about The Messiah expected by the ancient Jews. That it doesn't appear in the Tanakh is completely irrelevant (as Judaism doesn't subscribe to any notion of sola scriptura). Str1977 (smile back) 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of the title "Messiah"/"Christ"

message: The section opens by telling us that "most Christians" believe that salvation comes from "faith in Jesus as savior" and is "usually understood as an act of unmerited Divine grace."  While I am no expert on Christian theology, this reads to me like a statement of the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone.  The beliefs of denominations that definitely don't believe in salvation by faith alone are described as variants on the "salvation by faith" framework.  This strikes me as a Protestant bias.  Can someone who knows more about Christian theology comment on whether Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians would agree to the description of salvation in the first paragraph?
I also note that no citation is given for the claim that this is what most Christians believe. Elliotreed 06:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1999 the Lutherans and Catholics came up with a joint declaration which states "Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works." http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/articles/dulles.html That is the closest compromise you are likely to find that is acceptable to most Protestants and Catholics. In conclusion, the article does not seem to be biased in this regard. rossnixon 10:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current text is perfectly accurate from a Catholic standpoint (and I would guess from an Eastern Orthodox standpoint as well). Catholics do believe in salvation through faith (as the text says) though not by faith alone. A text stating what Catholics and Protestants have in common is necessarily in danger of sounding Protestant, but one has to read carefully. As for "most Christians" - if Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe this this makes up a pretty large chunk of Christians, to say the least. Str1977 (smile back) 10:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvation section has a Protestant bias? 

message: Ok, sorry if I caused any problems. I deleted the space so we would have more room. Bye! DebateKid 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christians?

message: I hate having to bring this back up, but I think this article should be blocked. I brought this up before, but it was archived away (to Archive 32) before anything was done. Christianity is a topic that will always be a target for vandalism by disrespecting non-users. If this article gets blocked, users will still be able to edit - and we're usually the only ones who add real information anyway. --Christknight 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that there should be semiprotection. Str1977 (smile back) 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone could request page protection, but we try to lock pages only as a last resort. The page is closely watched, and we seem to be reverting quickly. If it starts to interfere with editing, it can be protected for a day or so. Tom Harrison Talk 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be permanently S protected, much like the mainpage is, because it sufferes 3-4 acts of vandalism every day, sometimes more.  Its just a farse to leave it unprotected. Lostcaesar 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lostcaesar.  The article should maintain a S-protect permanently.  What do we lose by maintaining a permanent block?  Storm Rider (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrections from anonymous editors, who often spot mistakes that editors don't, and contributions of references from any scholarly type people who might read the article but don't want to sign up for wikipedia. I'm sure there's more too, but articles are pretty much never S-protected permanently, i'm fairly certainly that's very frowned upon, its a principle of open source communities sort of thing. Homestarmy 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then at what point do we say "enough is enough"? It's great that Wikipedia is open to everyone, but I see so many more anons adding vandalism than helpful edits. Even though vandalism is always fixed, thousands of people read Wikipedia every minute - so think about how many people might come to this article looking for info, and find (often offensive) vandalism. You have a good point, Homestarmy, but I still agree that this article should be S-protected. --Christknight 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Those last edits explain my point. This article should be protected. --Christknight 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You can certainly ask for page protection. See WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison Talk 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested S-protection for this article. --Christknight 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that it should never be S-protected, especially because I myself had to just fix something the vandalbot accidently covered up, but that it shouldn't be permanently S-protected :/. Homestarmy 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't mention "permanently" in my request. So I guess that's up to Steel359 and the other admins. --Christknight 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still too much vandalism 

message: Is this section necessary? I think it adds a lot of bloat to this article, and although much of the books mentioned may be excellent reading material, I don't feel this section is crucial for an understanding of Christianity. Tidaress 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be sad to get rid of that section, but it does make nearly 1/4 of the article. It might be a good idea sinse the article got that "very long" warning. But I agree that the section is unneeded to get an understanding of Christianity. --Christknight 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not create a new article for it? SparrowsWing 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that new article would turn into some sort of indiscriminate collection of information unfortunately. Tidaress 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, the Bibliography is supposed to represent works that are actually used to support some part of the article, its not like a "Further Reading" section, if you remove it, we may just have to re-cite it all over again. True, there are times when people add things into it mistakenly, but that needs to be worked out by moving said books or other kind of works into a "Further reading" section, not just deleting the whole bibliography :/. Homestarmy 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of this article seems to be general knowledge. Most of the specific details are further supported by the nearly 80 citations in the article. Regardless of whether or not the Bibliography section is a "Further Reading" section, it seems to have turned into one judging by its content and length. Tidaress 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunently, you might be surprised how much of this "general knowladge" has been the topic of heated disputes :/. For one thing, several of those references are intended to help reference the very first cite, namely, the idea that Christianity is monotheistic, as opposed to "considered monotheistic by its adherants, but not by some critics and Muslims". While it is extensive, removing it will probably create a whole lot of arguments down the line about what is verified and what isn't. Homestarmy 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Well I'm absolutely sure there has to be a more efficient way to do this. The current bibliography section takes up 16KB, and this is detrimental to the rest of the article because editors are being forced to cut down on information presented in other sections. Tidaress 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Section