Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 3

message: Discussion on this paragraph was swallowed up by /Archive 40. I moved it to its proper place in /Christian views in intro (which is now on its third archive.) For one thing, Aiden has been on a 48-hour block and thus unable to participate, so our discussion may not be over. Do we have anything further to discuss? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it would be a good idea to make the salvation in Christianity link more prominent than simply a wikilink of "salvation" pointing to it, it just doesn't seem noticeable, and then nobody will get the whole message of how Christians see salvation through Jesus. Homestarmy 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could perhaps expand on the concept in the Christian Views section of this article. The introduction itself should simply, well, introduce the subject. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but it just seems to me like the (see:also) thing we had before was quick, to the point, and informative, even if people didn't like just having John 3:16. I mean, that section of the salvation article has John 3:16 and basically everything else. Homestarmy 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, why was Aiden blocked? :( And I do really think a footnote would really improve the reference for this paragraph by making the references more front-and-center. Homestarmy 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR on an unrelated article. See User Talk:Aiden for details. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording of this one makes it seem like those who do not agree with all or part of the Nicene Creed do not agree with the basic principles of Christianity listed in the previous sentence, such as Jesus being the Son of God, providing salvation, born of a virgin, etc. The main sticking point is the belief that Jesus is God. And it seems to me that the wording "do not *affirm* the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation" sounds like they're not affirming something that *is* the correct interpretation. "do not believe the Nicene Creed correctly interprets the Bible" or something similar would be preferred, I'd say. It needs to be clear that these Christians believe all or most everything else listed in the previous sentence. Just a small change of wording, nothing elaborate, of course. --Oscillate 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change the wording and update the version number ;) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. If my reading of "affirm..." is off-base to everyone else, then I can probably let it be. It's a little bit of semantics, but I was hoping it made sense to everyone. --Oscillate 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The change looks good for that part. I'm still wondering about that "however", the wording and placement of the sentence makes it appear that these other Christians don't support anything from the previous sentence, when really, the only big change is whether Jesus is God or not. --Oscillate 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, JimWae objected to "recognize" and I used "affirm" because it was the same word used earlier. "Believe" works for me; obviously nontrinitarians do not believe in the Nicene Creed or any other trinitarian formula. We tried to structure the paragraph to read "Some Christians are Trinitarian (mostly Nicenean)...however, others are not." Also, I'm not sure if divinity is the only issue; various nontrinitarian branches differ from each other as much as they do from Nicene Christianity and its decendants.Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it throw things off too much if, after the sentence over salvation from sin, the word "salvation" stopped wikilinking directly to the Christianity section, and at the end we put (See:Salvation to Christians) and link directly to the Christianity section? that way, salvation in the general sense is there in the middle of the sentence, and the specific section is at the end after the sentence is done. Homestarmy 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let Aiden deal with that after his block expires in an hour or two. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Aiden/Archola Compromise Version 4b

message: A harmonized version of this proposal can be found here.
The current 3rd paragraph reads as follows:
:Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that 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 affirm the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.
I propose grouping the Trinitarian phrases as follows:
:Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex.  Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed is the correct interpretation of Scripture.  Christians generally believe that 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. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.
The way the current paragraph reads one might assume that those who do not believe in the Trinity also don't believe in the virgin birth, crucifixtion, ressurection, ans ascension of Christ.  I am sorry I did notice this sooner, but I do think it improves the paragraph.  Anyone disagree with this change?  Storm Rider 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically, just move the "other Christians" sentence up one? I don't see a problem with that. Homestarmy 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks okay to me; let's wait to hear what Aiden has to say. Also, Oscillate prefers "believe" to "affirm" when talking about nontrinitarians, which I added to version 4b. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with wording, I just copied the paragraph from the article.  The focus is only on moving the two sentences dealing with Trinitarians together.  I am NOT recommending different wording.  Storm Rider 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me a moment to organize this section without causing an edit conflict. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks very nice to me, reads better too. --Oscillate 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Motion to insert. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second. —Aiden 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Motion carried and revision inserted. I'll leave this thread here for a day or so to see if there are further comments. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I raised this myself a few times. The best answer we could come up with is to acknowledge that there are nontrinitarian Christians, and provide a link to nontrinitarianism. But Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentacostals, and others differ from each other enough to make a summary difficult. Storm Rider's suggestion (below) was to move the sentence, indicating that nontrinitarians agree with trinitarians on many issues, but simply deny the Trinity. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May we archive this discussion? I also assume we will guard paragraph 3, pending agreement, say, on the paragraph 3 subpage? 8-) --CTSWyneken 12:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, but nobody's told me if it's possible yet for the Christian salvation link to be changed for a (see:also) at the end of the reconciliation sentence :/. I mean, it just doesn't look noticeable like it is now. Homestarmy 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* I'll wait... --CTSWyneken 14:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What about simply changing the salvation link back to just the beginning of the article, and after that sentence, just say (See:Salvation in Christianity) and then link directly to the section? Homestarmy 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, it seems redundant to me. I'll let others comment. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Storm Rider version