Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 1

message: This is an archive of previous discussion of what is currently paragraph 3 of the introduction. Most of this is extracted from Talk:Jesus/Archive_22. archola 10:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

message: I changed the reference, referring to Mormons and JW's as examples of groups which reject the Nicene Creed and the Trinity (which pretty much comes to the same thing;  I can't think of any group which accepts the Creed and rejects the Trinity, although many groups, among them trinitarian restorationists, would reject the notion of the binding nature of the creed while accepting the Trinity and therefore, the creed's contents, at least with regard to the statements concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) and dropping the reference to restorationists.  Most restorationist groups, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, et. al., are in fact trinitarians.  However, the Latter Day Saint strand is not, at least the Mormon Church and its offshoots are not (Not sure where the Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS Church, stands;  they may be). The SDA Church is trinitarian, if not exactly creedal, and not restorationist.  JW's are not trinitarian, creedal, OR "restorationist".  --Midnite Critic 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, but there are non-Nicene trinitarian formulas, so they're not exactly the same thing. (This is why I proposed "Nicene" rather than "Trinitarian.") However, thank you for clearing up the introduction. As I said above, I must plead ignorance. More specifically, I may have misunderstood the Restorationist concept of the Great Apostasy. archola 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Good job, and nice summary. Ronabop 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-trinitarians and restorationists 

message: Since there is revision of this article being done, I would like to suggest some minor changes to this paragraph. First of all, it is problematic to state that Jesus was "a part" of the Holy Trinity. One might say that He was a "member" of the Holy Trinity or the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is not divided into "parts." Secondly, mention should be made in this section about the orthodox Christian doctrine of the two natures in Christ. This does not have to be detailed, but it makes the difference clearer between those who affirm the deity of Christ and those who deny it. drboisclair 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian views of Jesus 

message: And I've copied previous discussion on the third paragraph to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro. The archive dates back to Jan. 8, when the paragraph was added to the intro.
I don't mean to jump the gun, but when we are ready to move on, we might want to review the previous discussion. archola 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd recommend that anyone who has suggested changes read the Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro discussion. Then, in respect of the comprimise, that a discussion be undertaken here, and, unless it reaches consensus, the main page not be edited. --CTSWyneken 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 3 (Christian views)

message: I don't want to get into a debate over interpretations of the Nicene Creed, but the reference to John 3:16 seems redundant. Or at least confusing: it's not clear what's being cited to the creed, and what is being cited to the Gospel. (Of course, the creed itself is based on an interpretation of the Gospels, as well as the rest of the New Testament. "Life and Teachings" starts with Some other relevant verses, so John 3:16 might fit in better there.) Arch O. La 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John 3:16

message: I have made an emendation to the "Christian view of Jesus": Jesus is a member rather than part of the Holy Trinity. According to orthodox Christianity the Holy Trinity is not divisible into parts. Each divine Person is totus Deus, each having the fulness of deity. It is not the orthodox Christian view that Jesus is a third of God while the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two thirds. There is no denomination of Christendom which publically believes and teaches that the Holy Trinity is divided up into parts. Of course, anything is possible. I would like to assist in editing this article as I am a Christian theologian dedicated, though, to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am glad, by the way, that the red neutrality flag has been removed. We want to try to make this article the best it can be in the greatest online encyclopedia. With all respect to all. drboisclair 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity?

message: The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"
:Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.
I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and 
:* believe 
::* Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::: and 
::* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
and NOT
:Most Christians 
:* affirm the Nicene Creed
::and
:* believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
::and
:* acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).
With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward.
But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.
1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research. 
2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.
3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.
**The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
**Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view
4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.
5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him. 
6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.
7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?
I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus
*See also
** Talk:Jesus/Archive_19#Catholic_view_on_salvation
** http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
** http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
** http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34
--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whazza? Just because you could hypothetically claim the Nicene Creed doesn't necessarily advocate acceptance of Jesus doesn't mean the Creed is locking all Catholics into not being allowed to accept Jesus, it doesn't say "And knowing this alone is all you need to be saved" does it, plus not all Catholics quite honestly act Catholic at all, and what I mean by accept is the same as "to believe in compleatly", its a popular way of saying it because then you can say "accept Him into your heart" which is a wee bit metaphorical, but works the same and seems popular. Homestarmy 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what he's saying is that the Creed and the Gospel of John need to be considered as separate issues (and the paragraph written so that's clear that they are separate issues). If that's what he's saying, then I agree. Arch O. La 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that discussion on this paragraph has been tabled until the war over the previous paragraph is over. I recall Tolkein (The Hobbit) and the Battle of the Five Armies. Who won? The last survivor. Is that what we really want here? Arch O. La 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Nicene Creed is of interest for reasons other than those mentioned here.  A critical look into its full history can be a real eye-opener. Jim62sch 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again with John 3:16 

message: Last sentence in the third paragraph reads "Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy." The word ASLO should be removed since the previous sentence applies to SOME Christians but not ALL or MOST.
Stuartyeates 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove "also"  

message: Archive updated March 3, 2006 to include content from the last 2 weeks. Arch O. La 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Updated