Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 1

message: The statement "Christians were willing to die for their faith because of 3 key ideas that can be noted from their own writings. One: their belief that Jesus was resurrected, two: religious experience, and three: fuller understanding of Old Testament scriptures." needs revision as it seems to imply that Jews or Ebionim (who did not accept the resurrection) were not willing to die for their beliefs.  This needs a minor edit John D. Croft 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View 

message: In my opinion a line or two on christian mystics and mystic orders and a link to christian mysticism should be added.
: Sounds fine, just keep it historical, obviously, so it fits with the rest of the article. Edit boldly! There's quite a bit that the article doesn't have just because no on e has added it yet. Wesley 17:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian mysticism 

message: The article is History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. Not sure how we're going to do it, but good luck! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest just ditching the syncretism article and making the title a simple redirect to History of Christianity. Fire Star 06:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article to be merged into this article 

message: I just noticed that someone changed the page to say AD in lieu of the common era.  Does wikipedia have a standard about this? J.S. Nelson 21:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating systems 

message: The "20th Century and beyond" section contains a large amount of text on Pentecostalism, which I feel is severely flawed. Firstly, it's too long and detailed and makes the article's description of the previous two millenia of Christian history seems insignificant by comparison. Secondly, it is completely POV, with its apparent stance that divine miracles are real; I realise that by its very nature, many of the editors of the article will be Christians and will espouse the belief that miracles exist, however this is an encyclopedia and not a religious recruitment leaflet. I don't know enough about the subject to feel qualified to prune it. Hopefully someone else does!  --Lancevortex 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and edited a bunch of it.  Pentecostalism is certainly an important 20th century development and deserves mention, but there's no need for an imbalanced discussion.  KHM03 15:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, KHM03. I notice you kept the bit about the miracles in though --Lancevortex 00:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Missed that!  Tried to make it a bit more NPOV.  KHM03 00:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentecostalism 

message: Just to draw the discussion away a bit, well, isn't he the one that saw a cross in front of him? Now while that may (potentially) be a Catholic invention like the questionable deathbed conversion story, I'm sure it was he who saw a cross. Or am I just completely muddled? :) Well, if he did, it needs a mention in the article, surely. Master Thief GarrettTalk 9 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
: Yes, the story is that Constantine saw or had a vision of a cross in the sky, along with the words "In this sign, conquer." Wesley 04:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A mention of this legend/miracle can be found in the article on Constantine. It might be a good idea to mention it though, as it is the commonly held belief on why Christianity gained acceptance and legality in the Roman world.129.162.1.32 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And those numbers come from where?  This kind of "top down" story of Christianization is dated.  As for the question at hand, the vision of the cross is recorded in Lactantius and Eusebius, with different details.  It should be mentioned in the article.  Lostcaesar 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of the Constantine's vision is told in the In hoc signo vinces.  A related Christian symbol traditionally attributed to Constantine is the Labarum.  We might work these into a sentence or two in this article. --Richard 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Didn't Constantine see a cross?

message: The reason why we have no consensus is that there were more than two voting options, and no instructions on how the votes would be assessed.  I had tried to have only two options.  
Since there is no consensus, it will stay at no mention of Zoroastrianism.  However, I would welcome another vote, since there was no consensus one way or the other, and I would favor a brief mention. Robert McClenon 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you intend to keep calling for a new vote until you get the outcome that you want?  You already tried to say that there was a consensus for mention when a count clearly showed that the majority favored no mention, and then you unilaterally restarted the vote.  The fact that it was a three-way vote is not an issue because one of the options got a majority (do you think that if there had been only two options some of the "no mention" votes would have switched to "mention"?). Josh Cherry 04:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I said I would welcome another vote. I did not say that I would call for one.  I said that the previous vote was flawed, but I will leave it alone.  Robert McClenon 11:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't flawed.  You might have had a point if "no mention" had received a mere plurality, but in fact it received a majority.  There is no question about how to interpret the outcome. Josh Cherry 12:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, let's abide by the voting results for a while and see how that feels...no harm in that.  And I say that as someone who lost the vote.  KHM03 11:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Of Course No Consensus

message: "His Epistle to the Galatians is a vigorous tract against those who saw the Christian church as essentially a sect of Judaism, and he writes in strong terms that if conversion to Judaism is a requirement, then Christ is of no benefit"
This sentence needs to be reconstructed to express whatever it is trying to express. Paul of Tarsus never used the phrase "sect of Judaism" nor "conversion to Judaism".
"These controversial views have strong endorsement from modern academia, but of course they adopt as a premise that Christian tradition has lost the truth about its own history, and consequently they are not taken seriously by conservative Christians."
That's POV and should either be deleted or a reputable source cited, see NPOV and no original research.
"in order not to give offense to the Jews"
What does that mean? What Jews? Source?
"Paul upholds the Law as mediated through Christ rather than through the ordinances of God which set the Jews apart from the Gentiles."
Set followers of Judaism apart from followers of Christianity? Source?
: What I found when I came to this section was speculation and novelty without a scrap of documentation.  I do admit though that I wrote in overly-agressive language, against the central speculative thesis of that earlier version.  I've removed most of that from these recent edits. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: critic of "The Earliest Church"

message: I have been reading with interest and curiosity this discussion and the article of the history of Christianity and found that there is something missing.  Who was the founder of Christianity?  Jesus Christ has been accepted as the founder, but was he really?  The only "history" we have of Jesus is in the Bible--a book that has been translated, interpreted, changed, added to and taken from for nearly two millennia by various "authorities", scholars, ecclesiastic counsels, (one I can recall from reasearch in the Roman Catholic Church which was trying to decide if dogs and women had souls.  Dogs lost and women barely made it.), etc.  
Ever wonder why the birth, life and death of Jesus parallels so closely the birth, life and death of Hellenistic demi gods and heros? Because Jesus, presented as a god, is most likely the myth created by one who never knew Jesus. The myth master is the man we know historically as Paul.  
Paul is the self appointed interpreter of the mission of Jesus in claiming his interpretation came to him by personal inspiration in that he had personal aquaintance with the resurrected Jesus.  This aquaintance Paul claims came through visions and he makes this aquaintance appear to be superior to any aquaintance with Jesus that anyone had during Jesus'lifetime.  
Those who probably knew Jesus very well, James and Peter have left no writings behind them explaining their preception of Jesus or what they considered his mission to be. There are no Gosples of James nor Peter.  Did they agree with Paul's interpretatons?  We don't know.  We do know there was contention and evidently this contention was a lot more serious than one is lead to believe in the book of Acts where everyone comes to agreement and end up being friends.  The book of Galatians appears to be an exercise in propaganda to promote unity in the early "church" when there were actually huge and possible volitle disagreements.
In reading the New Testament, you will find that Paul is in fact the dominant source of information. The book of Acts written by Luke, who was an admirer of Paul, outlines Pauls life whereas Paul is the hero.  Where Jesus appears as the hero is in the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament is dominated by Paul's letters.  
Paul's letters are far from impersonal and reveal alot about the man. The book of Acts should be looked at as having a prejudice towards making Paul "look good" as it was written by one who was committed to Paul's cause.
The impression that the four Gospels were written before Paul's letters is misleading.  The earliest writings of the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, written about 50-60 AD.  The Gospels were not written until the period of 70-110 AD.  
Considering that Jesus died at the age of 33 and making the assumption that the deciples were within 5-10 years of Jesus' age either older or younger; then considering that the diciiples were not an organized church or religion at the time and considering the lifespan of people who lived over 2000 years ago, this certainly makes one wonder just who wrote the Gospels.  
Luke, who wrote Acts, in admiration of Paul, also wrote one of the Gosples and most likely was greatly influenced by Paul's interpretaton of Jesus' mission on Earth. Of course, Luke was not an apostle of Jesus and seems to have had no personal contact with Jesus. Some sources say he was a physician and a Greek.
This means that Paul's interpretation of Jesus's mission was already "out there" before the gospels were written and certainly influenced the writers of the Gospels in their interpretaton of Jesus's life and "career".
 
This is by no means is the whole story as the Gospels are based upon traditions and written sources which predate to a time before the Paul's influence.  It is a seemingly miracle that one can just barely perceive these sources and traditions letting in a glimpse of what the story was like before the Paulinist editiors complied it into what we know today.  
So what we have in the end is the Paulinist view of what Jesus's life on this Earth was about. All other views were declaired heretical and were eliminated from the final version of the writings of the Pauline Church as the inspired cannon of the New Testament.
Of course, this "epitsle"  barely scratches the surface of this subject.  If we are to truly study the history of Christianity, a   study of the theories of the founder of Christianity should be included and not take it as fact that Jesus was the originator of this religion. 
The rational to this is the fact that scholars have found other sources to support fact that Paul was the founder of this "new' religion and that Jesus, a teacher of the Jewish religion, never aboraged it nor the Torah and observed the Jewish laws all his life.  He died because he was a political threat, not because of starting a new religion. 
Cakent 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul--the most likely inventor of Christianity? 

message: The information about Mithrasism, I am afraid, is quite out of date with recent researches. 
Reference: Mithraism 
Did The Mithraic Mysteries Influence Christianity?
:Then you change it.--Daanschr 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that the newer theories have yet to gain consensus in academia.  KHM03 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the old theories really have much truck with academia? Interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Mithrasism 

message: I restored "atheistic scientific assumptions." I don't think it's accurate to say the fundamentalists want to 'blockade the inroads made into their church doctrine by science' per se, but by atheistic assumptions, whether scientific or not. Tom Harrison Talk 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: "# Seven Deadly Sins are replaced by the Ten Commandments as the system of Christian ethics. Sexuality (emphasis on family) and civility became central matters instead of peace and solidarity. 1"
I haven't checked up on the citation, but doesn't it seem likely to be the other way around? Seven Deadly Sins replaced the Ten Commandments as the system of ethics? I am certain that the Seven Deadly Sins became a part of Christian morality and ethics around that time.
129.162.1.32 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle Ages

message: Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref 

message: This needs a better lead section. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section seems to have gone altogether.  Was it deleted accidentally?--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead section 

message: I suggest that, to shorten the article, the "competing religions" section be cut to a single paragraph. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  competing religions