Talk:History of early Christianity

message: ====Free will====
With this edit, I
* shortened this unsourced infor from
:
:to
:
* Moved "The early Christians opposed the deterministic views [...] Augustine's deterministic teachings wholeheartedly." to :Augustine of Hippo. It's mainly pov-taking against Augustine, 4th-5th century, and undue for this section on beliefs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "Massive removal of sourced content without explanation"

message: With this edit, I
* shortened this unsourced infor from
:
:to
:
* Moved "The early Christians opposed the deterministic views [...] Augustine's deterministic teachings wholeheartedly." to :Augustine of Hippo. It's mainly pov-taking against Augustine, 4th-5th century, and undue for this section on beliefs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Free will

message: This edit moved info from the lead into the article. It also split "baptism" into two sections, namely baptism in the Apostolic Age, and infant baptism, which is about 2nd/3rd century Chrstianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: This edit shortened info that I'd copied from :Historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Jesus

message: This edit removed a resume of Bible texts on woman. We don't interpret primary sources, we provide an overview of reliable secondary sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Attitude towards woman

message: This edit removed unsourced info, and quotes from primary sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabbath

message: This edot removed Edward Gibbon, a source from 1776–1789. Seriously outdated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Spread of Christianity

message: Mathglot's revert also removed a large amount (c. 20,000 byte) of sourced info, without explanation. This includes:
* Information on the development of low and high Christology:
:
* Information on the historical Jesus and the quest for the historical Jesus:
:
* Information on Paul:
:
:
* Information on cummunal meals, an important practice in early Christianity:
:
* Information on the eucharist, one of the two defining practices of early Christianity:
:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sourced content by Mathglot

message: There are several problems with this page:
* Scope: "This article is a description of early Christianity itself." That's three centuries, in which Christianity changed dramatically, and in which several variant Christianities existed. "Christianity" is not a monlithis entity; it developed within a historical context, which is part of the story of Christianity;
* History: to short; yet, an undue alinea on "Hellenocentrism";
* Practices: 
:* Nothing on communal meals and the eucharist; 
:* Undue section on infant baptism;
:* Undue section on sabbath: ;
* Organization: redundant with Ecclesiology;
* Beliefs: 
:* Christology: only one sentence about adoptionism, two lines about the debate about "Early High Christology," without mentioning that phrase. Most of this section is an undue exposition from primary texts.
:* Nothing about salvation. Not about 'salvation by faith', and by the differences between early Jewish Christians, and Paul's interpretations. The socalled "New Perspective on Paul" was kind of a revolution in Biblical studies and the understanding of early first century Christianity; it is not treated in this article? Also, nothing on the ransom theory of atonement, which developed in the second century, and was the dominant view for almost a millennium. If salvation by Christ is the essence of Christianity, then why is it not even mentioned in this article?
:* Free will versus determinism: undue for this article;
* Orthodoxy and heterodoxy: good, but short; nothing specific about those variant Christianities. There was not just 'one' Christianity in those early centuries, but a wide range of variations. Those should be mentioned.
* Religious writing: one sentence on the New Testament writings is not much. The Gospels give variant interpretations of Jesus and his message; that should be mentioned.
* Spread of Christianity: that's history, isn't it? 
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this page 

message: Saying "in contrast to smaller, splitter groups" (vs. "so called by Christian historians because it would later split into smaller churches with different beliefs") is better in many ways.
Your test says many thing without citation (and these claims are also not cited in the lead of the Great Church article.)
1. "So called" smacks of bias for no good reason. 
2. "later" proposes this term was not used yet.
3. "later" proposes there were not other groups already.
4.  "with different beliefs" makes it sound like they each had very different beliefs. A few did, but some had (by modern standards) only very slight beliefs differences. Sometimes splits were about who was the leader.  
I think "smaller, splitter groups" is highly grammatical, and the best way to say it-- but if you would rather say "in contrast to smaller groups", I can live with that. tahc chat 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this addressed to me? I don't think "splitter" is even an adjective in English, or a noun that can act as an adjective with the right meaning. Did you mean splinter groups? I was trying to avoid "the so-called Great Church" which implies the name is incorrect in some way, but I guess even this use of "so called" in a more literal sense still has the same connotation. I changed that to "so termed" but then kept reading... The previous sentence is trying to make clear that this was one, dominant strain among others. I was trying to be careful not to imply "Great Church" was the only one or that "Great" means "excellent". From the text in the body of Great Church, it sounds like actually my hastily thrown together explanation is incorrect—it was referred to as the Great Church at the time (starting around 180) as distinguished from the local church, and as a network of churches spread across parts of Eurasia and Africa, with an emerging structure of bishops and a set of somewhat coherent beliefs. It's not because it split later on. I rewrote the text yet again, but I think it probably needs more straightening out. I think the intro here will eventually be merged back up to History of Christianity#Early Christianity, which has lot more breathing room. But I have more research to do on what factions existed so I can refine the explanations about that. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Church v. splitter groups