Talk:Christianity/Archive 25

message: The article complies to all criteria of the GA but one which is because of the presence of the NPOV tag. I would also be concerned about stability but the article is really stable for such a controversial subject. Lincher 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a generous assessment.  Jkelly 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. GA awarded. Lincher 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: We used to have "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, and New Testament accounts of his life and teachings." That was, if I recall properly, stable for a long time. Then we had some aggressive reverting and puppet attacks.   . Just in the last day, a new variety slipped in , stating that Christianity is "centered on both God, and the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the Gospels." I have definite problems with that version. First of all, Christianity teaches that Jesus is not just the Son of God, but is also God (God the Son). The fact that we talk about the Second Person of the Trinity as being the Son of God, but don't talk about the First Person of the Trinity as being the Father of God does create an unfortunate implication that Jesus is not really God, or at least that he is not as much God as the Father is.  But we should avoid anything that makes a strong implication of something that is contrary to Christian teaching. Also, as many of us argued repeatedly (check the archives!) Christianity is centered on the Person Jesus, not on his life or on accounts of his life.  Finally, I have problems with mentioning God and Jesus, first because it implies that Jesus isn't God, but secondly because, if we take it that "God" in this context means the Father, and that "Jesus" isn't intended to deny his divinity, it's illogical to state that Christianity is centered on the Father and the Son, or on the Father and the life and teachings of the Son. It's like making the sign of the Cross: "In the name of the Father and of the Son, Amen". The Holy Spirit is every bit as much God as the Father and the Son, according to Christian teaching. The current wording messes up things badly, but my suggestion would be to go back to the previously-stable version:  "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, and New Testament accounts of his life and teachings." Or, even better, "referred to by Christians as Jesus Christ" or "whom Christians call Jesus Christ".  "Known as" is a little bit like saying, "His name is William, but he's always known as Billy." I'd welcome comments, but the current version is not acceptable. AnnH ♫ 08:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done it. I do realize that agreement from one person does not make a consensus! But I had to change it to something, as what was there was unacceptable, and I recall that many people agreed with "centered on Jesus" some months ago, and others have either left or are being investigated for puppetry. I didn't put "whom Christians call Jesus Christ", because the next sentence has something like that (which was not the case back in April). AnnH ♫ 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Ann, I think that the long-standing version was "centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament". Remember, your current version reintroduces the POV that Gio wanted to push (at least in a mild version), that of Christianity being centred on a book. I know you know that this isn't an accurate depiction. What about "... Jesus of Nazareth and his life and teachings, as recounted ..." Str1977 (smile back) 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being fully awake. Fixed. AnnH ♫ 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, you two. —Aiden 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! Str1977 (smile back) 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centered on what?

message: Jim has changed recounted to presented. While I don't have any problem with this, I wanted to point out that by definition recounted is to narrate the facts or particulars of and may not necessarily imply existence of Jesus. —Aiden 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't have a problem with presented, but it appears some editors do. How about recorded? —Aiden 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recounted vs presented

message: As far as Christians appearing first in Acts, I am guesssing that is based on the order of presentation in the NT, rather than on any firm agreement on which books were written first? http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm Dating the NT - list of opinions of scholars. 
Perhaps you guys mean:
:According to  in the New Testament, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (Greek accusative ; Christianous).
Of course, first use doesn't always stick - and the Romans calling them Xns was likely at least AS important--JimWae 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acts

message: In the Book of Acts 6:9 ".....synagogue of the Freedmen". What was or is the synagogue of the Freedmen? I would greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me.
:These freedmen were probably descendants of Jewish prisoners taken to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey, who had gained their freedom.  They had a synagogue in Jerusalem, which they attended.  Notice the balance of the verse:  "which is called the synagogue of the Libertines (Freedmen), and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia"  It appears that those Jews from other areas along with the freedmen attended a synagogue in common.
This was taken from a Bible Dictionary in a King James bible.  I hope it helps.  Storm Rider (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to NIV bible 

message: I apologize if this steps on any toes, but the initial portions of the article could stand to have a sentence or two about departures from orthodox views. The Second Coming stuff is particularly lacking, as is the bit about the Trinity--which is not accepted by all Christians. It seems in reading the article that I am being told about a monolithic faith in which "all Christians believe..." this doesn't jive with my own experience as a professional theologian. The faith is old and diverse enough that we cannot say all Christians think or believe the same way; any more than we can say all Jews believe the same way. It strikes me that Christianity has always had a Midrash-like tradition, but it isn't getting much notice here. I know that the risk is that the article becomes overburdened with references better addressed in their own articles. Any ideas? MerricMaker 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Inclusion of Minority Views