Talk:Christianity and paganism

message: I think this article has good potential, and I look forward to seeing what you develop here.  -- Pastordavid 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea for an article but I think it is misnamed. Check out the wiki pagan article and you will see it is a term that would not have been recognised in the early days of Christianity. In actual fact the term Pagan is a Christian term - used in a derogatory way. None of the groups currently identified would have called themselves pagan at the time the Gospels were being cooked up.  Sophia 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh... OK, so that's my Christian background showing.  But what would you title this article then?  I'm at a loss to come up with a better title. --Richard 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Extra-biblical influences on Christianity? George 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - we'd have to write about the Pope then ;o) - I'll have a think and get back to you as I agree it's not easy. Sophia 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm not sure that is a problem with this aritlce. :) George 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As extra-biblical influences on Christianity go they don't come bigger ;o)  Sophia 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Look at this definition of Pagan, I think it is appropriate to use the word for the title of this article.Kljenni 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the above suggestion reveals a flaw in the title.  What's really meant here is "Pagan influences on early Christianity".  Secular influences of the 20th and 21st centuries are really out of the scope of the article as I originally envisioned it.  --Richard 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zantaggerung, I am interested, what do you propose? Ice9Tea 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good idea

message: Although I started this article, I haven't reviewed it for a long time.  After re-reading the intro today, it did  seem disputable because it makes bald assertions about the origins of Christianity being in Paganism.  I have reworded the intro to make it clear that this is ONE theory about the origins of Christianity and not necessarily "THE TRUTH".
I haven't reviewed the rest of the article to clean up POV issues but I do believe it should be made clear that the material presented in this article are theories (and non-mainstream minority ones at that).
--Richard 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking intro 

message: Since we have this article anyway, I think it would be appropriate to merge some of the content of the old Historical Persecution by Christians here. Regardless whether the article is called this or Christian debate on persecution and toleration, it would be undue to debate the relations between Christians and Pagans in detail there; But I suppose that from a Neopagan perspective there is some interest in the topic, and in this article we would have enough space for that. Zara1709 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Historical Persecution by Christians should be integrated into this one. After all the section in on this page that deals with the persecutions is missing all citations. Perhaps this link here might be of some use for citations, http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=lovestories . I don't know how much credence should be granted to it, but it should perhaps be cross checked with another source, if there is one. DukeTwicep (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: OK, this is quite important. What is the intended scope of this article? With the current intro, it takes "Paganism" as a sort of reference for any ""primitive"", "tribal", indigenous religion. I don't know it that is actually a correct use of the word "Paganism", after all the word "Paganism" is a little pejorative. Hey, you dumb villagers haven't converted to Christianity yet? But - for the lack of a better term - Paganism was used in the (few) articles and books I read Persecution by Christians in the late Roman Empire, and since there seems to be a greater interest on WP to take a look at the relations between Christians and Pagans (people apparently care  less about the Christian heretics), I thought that it would be best to centralize this topic here (instead of having it split out at various 'Christinization' and 'Persecution' articles. of course, there were conflicts and cooperation between Christians and Pagans and debating one without the other should be avoided (for wp:NPOV and such). The relations between Christianity and the indigenous religions outside Europe is a different topic. I really hope that I don't need to point out that there is a difference between Christianity and the Europeans in general. Probably I am going to rewrite the into to something more like the previous version. Zara1709 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that "paganism" is a rather biased term (unless used in as a term of endearment in the way that neo-pagans have adopted it), I don't see how the syncretism between Christianity and European indigenous religions is that much of a "different topic" than syncretism with non-European indigenous religions. Of course, each particular culture that converted Christianity brought their own unique traditions and influences to their local form of the religion, but if we're looking at broader trends, there's not much of a rift between "Western" and "non-Western" except perhaps in terms of length of time. That's not really that clear cut either, as the Lithuanians were only Christianized a few decades before, say, the Kongo or the Aztecs. Meanwhile, other non-European indigenous cultures were only Christianized within the past hundred years. If you look closely, the way in which the "pagan" Europeans interacted with Christianity and the native peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa and the New World did take on some suprising comparisons. --173.59.59.164 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Hi Folks, 
At the beginning of this article it mentioned how there are many opinions and disagreements on the content of the article. As I read over this talk page I realized that there was actually no one that took the Catholic side of the discussion. Everyone appeared to be, if not anti Catholic, then they had no sympathies with the Catholic Church. I suggest that the reason there is so much dissension in the article is because the article is very inaccurate. You unquestionably need someone on the Catholic side to balance off the topic. I do volunteer to be that person if I'm allowed to do so.Anathasius (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear this article and others like it are doomed to never be totally neutral. With a title like "Christianity andVS. Paganism", even with good faith intentions, you either get editors with a clearly pro-Christian bias trying to "balance" it one way, or pagans trying to shift the focus to their side. It's like a pointless religious debate. And the POV-war rages on... -- œ™ 11:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Well I'd say it's a losing battle to try to fight For the Catholic church. The historical records stand clearly against them, and there's little they can do to convince the world otherwise. We're not falling for the sheep clothes any longer. DukeTwicep (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions of those writing the article 

message: Just wanted to leave a note that I put the  box on the article page. Can somebody get the references done? Cuine100 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No references/citations 

message: These are not the same thing.  "Catholicism and Paganism" would be a much more apt title. 72.240.177.210 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: what are you talking about? There was no schism between Eastern and Western Christianity prior to the High Middle Ages, and by that time there was hardly any paganism left. This is obviously about pre-schism Christianity. --dab (𒁳) 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly an Alexander Hislop fan... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The Nazarenes originated as a sect of first-century Judaism. The first use of the term "sect of the Nazarenes" is in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, where Paul is accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. Nazarene Christians and Catholicism are two different things.69.179.106.205 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really too relevant to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity vs. Catholicism 

message: A list of books dealing with Christianity and Paganism can be found here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/library.html#pagan , good sources to use for future expansion of this article (I noticed quite a few  tags). -- œ™ 05:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is actually quite a horrible bibliography, and it most definatenly isn't intending to be neutral titled "The Cure for Christianity". --Ari (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know, I realize it's coming from a critical point of view.. Is that why you consider it to be "horrible"? I actually meant to focus on just that small section because of its relevance rather than the entire page. It's just a listing of books, which can still be used as sources in neutral articles. -- œ™ 11:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is primarily horrible because it does not reflect the contemporary scholarly discussion on the topic. And these generally antiquitated polemical works are included in that polemical bibliography for that reason. And when we come to the more modern works we have self-published conspiracy theorist Acharya S - stop the press, someone is repeating the grossly ignorance fantasy of Kersey Graves. Articles are to reflect what mainstream verifiable content, not be dominated by what 100 year old polemical writings that are unanimously rejected by contemporary scholarship. --Ari (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I trust your judgment. You'd know much more than I on the topic. -- œ™ 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading, more resources 

message: It would be great if someone with specialist knowledge on Christian relations with the Saxons and Germanic people in the period covered would assist in providing references. Much of the content seems to be uncited and occassionaly unencyclopedic in wording and voice. As this is quite a few hundred years outside of my speciality a hand would be great. --Ari (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Ages 

message: Why is there NO mention of the witch hunts? --Unencyclomancer (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this article is titled "Christianity and Paganism", not "Persecutions by Christians".  See the article Witch-cult hypothesis linked several times above... AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's not titled "Persecutions by Christians", but it should mention witch hunts anyway, even if it is debatable. When writing it, just make a link to Witch-cult hypothesis. Oh, and not everybody on wikipedia is a scholarly person, some general person may be looking for pagan and christian related things and type in Christianity and Paganism. --Unencyclomancer (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no problem with a simple "see also" link (added), but any extended exposition would probably be out of place for this article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Err...why? Christian bias? --Unencyclomancer (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the mainstream consensus of scholarship is that there was little real paganism involved, according to accepted definitions... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witch Hunts 

message: First of all "the old testiment" IS mythology! It isn't POV. Is there a historical basis? Yes. But there are historical basis for most myths. And this article seems keen on highlighting Pagan attacks on Christians while leaving Christian massacres on Pagans out. And it briefly whisks by the Pagan influences on Catholics and other early Christians (such as Gnostics) for instance, turning Yule into Christmas, turning Samhain into All Souls Day, and changing Asther (a Babylonian spring holiday) into Passover and eventually Easter. Not to mention influences such as Zeus' appearance and later interpretations of God's appearance. Resurrection myths from Egypt, Babylon, and Greece. Of coarse Greece and Rome had a million myths about human children of dieties, so Jesus doesn't score originality points there. And who could forget the Osiris and Isis mythos of Reassurection. Christianity is Clearly a mythos build on its predecessors. But that's ok. Because all mythologies are. Christians just need to get over it. Instead of whining about Pagans, Christians might want to research inconsistencies in their own religion. Like genesis and the pesky mention of a woman before Eve. There's a million reasons to rip Christianity apart. Christians shouldnt be so concerned with why people persecute their faith. If you killed millions of people in he inquisition, the crusades, the slaughter of Gnostics, and The Children's Crusade, you'd have people investigating you too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.67.162 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, if Christmas had an early pagan influence, it was dies natalis solis invicti (as I just now said directly above) -- and hardly anything Germanic!  The rest of your comments appear to be largely rehashed from late 19th-century "freethought" books, such as The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (which is full of complete nonsense, and which even some knowledgeable atheists now find to be somewhat embarrassing).  Another false claim in your remarks is that "Easter" has any linguistic etymological connection with "Ishtar".  It doesn't (as previously discusssed at Talk:Ishtar). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the anonymous user above is certainly confused on numerous points, it should be noted that the huge influence and role that indigenous Hellenic religion had on Christmas is very difficult to dispute, and is perfectly mainstream in modern Classical Studies. As for the Yule-Christmas question, the influence of Yule on Christmas in Northern and Northeastern Germanic regions is also well documented, perfectly mainstream, and difficult to dispute. I concur that this article still retains a heavy Christian bias.  :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Germanic influence had absolutely no validly ascertainable role in setting the date of the observance of the birth of Christ on December 25th in the Julian calendar.  Some Germanic winter solstice customs obviously did influence the observance of Christmas in Germanic countries -- but only centuries after the date of the observance of the birth of Christ had already been established on December 25th in the Julian calendar.  The Christmas tree was almost unknown in English-speaking countries before the 19th century, etc. etc.  So claims that Christians "turned Yule into Christmas"[sic] are simply unmitigated blatant nonsense if this is meant to imply that Germanic customs were somehow supposedly the original basis for setting the date of the observance of the birth of Christ on December 25th in the Julian calendar.  24.191.67.162's comments are a mass of errors and nonsense and irrelevancies which do not point the way towards any improvment of this article. AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is what the IP user is attempting to claim, that is indeed nonsense. As for the Christmas tree, tree veneration was a well documented aspect of Germanic paganism, and references are on record to trees growing in or placed within dwellings evidently for fertility-related purposes (i.e. Barnstokkr and numerous other references). As a result, such a continuation would be no surprise; it would fit right along with many of the other Yule traditions that continue to live on into the modern era. Tree veneration and folk belief in beings in trees was widespread in Scandinavia up until very recent (Swedish vårdträd, Danish Hyldeqvinde and Hyldemoer; I believe there were some English examples on record somewhere as well) and therefore I wouldn't be so hasty in excusing it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Bias 

message: Reading over the article and browsing through the talk page, I'm concerned that the arguments are perpetual becaue there is no defined purpose of this article.  It currently carries a wide range of subjects from the origins of Christianity to the persecutions of accused witches, among others.  Any definitive encyclopedia article should have a specific focus.  I propose this article should be reevaluated with a single topic in mind.  A good start might be the introduction of a thesis statement. Off the top of my head, two finite subjects that this article could be steered towards include the historical interactions & relations between the adherents of Christianity and paganism or the similarities and differences between their respective beliefs and practices.  Either subject would be a benefit to the article and can easily be sourced from "both sides of the aisle" to provide a clearly neutral point-of-view. Gawain VIII (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any real major problem of definition -- the article is (or should be) about the interaction of Christianity with non-Abrahamic religions in the Roman Empire and Europe from the beginnings of Christianity down to the time when there ceased to be significant pagan communities in Europe outside of remote arctic regions (i.e. the late middle ages in the Baltic, earlier elsewhere).  The talk-page disputes are more because people have strong opinions which are not accepted by the mainstream of current historical scholarship (e.g. derived from books authored during the Golden Age of Freethought or from Margaret Murray's Witch-cult hypothesis), rather than because of unclarity of purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, I certainly hope you're not referring to the exchange between you and I above. If so, that is most certainly not the case, as all of my edits and comments here are grounded in scholarship that I can produce at any time. If not, I suggest you adjust your statement. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually referring mainly to 78.145.60.86 / 89.241.188.178 / Wogham (the most extended and pointless debate on this page), though some other discussions here have displayed certain similar tendencies in less extreme form (however, 24.191.67.162  was actually more extreme...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the intent of this article? 

message: I know of only one Christian Faith that removed all the pagan practices celebrated by the majority of supposed Christian Faiths. The one I speak of is called a cult originally by the Roman Catholic Church because they remove all false teachings and pagan practices. They model themselves after the first Century Christian Faith or Way of life. They Preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God From village to village, house to house and door to door and many other places. They practice no pagan celebrations such as Birthday Celebration which is in the bible in two places. Both was pagan Royalty celebrating their birthdays. It was not part of Christianity at all. In fact John the Baptizer lost his head during one of those accounts of birthday celebration.
Since Christ Jesus was born while the shepherds where out in the fields and the fact that they do not celebrate birthdays. They do not celebrate Christmas or X-mass. Also because that is the time of numerous pagan celebration practices such as Winter Solstice and Yule and the Tree worship and Saturnalia, and the list can go on for pagan practices during that time period. None of which the First Century Christians practiced or celebrated.
Easter Sunday also has pagan roots. Valentines Day, pagan roots. Halloween or Witches Hallow is definitely pagan to the max as it is the night of the dead and nothing to do with Christianity.
They do not practice traditions of man also such as New Years Day or Independence Day 4th of July and even Martin Luther King Day, nor Fathers Day or Mothers Day or any of those days that are Holidays in the traditional sense.
The Do celebrate the last meal of Christ Jesus where he broke the bread and said this means my body and he drank the wine and said this means my blood and told them to keep doing this as a remembrance of his new covenant with them.
They do not believe in participating in War on any side of the various countries. They are Conscience Objectors when it comes to war. They will not serve even if it means going to prison because they are world wide and if they did serve they would be put in a position of killing one of their own spiritual brothers or sister plus because it is killing period which is not acceptable to our Creator according to his word.
They instead of making their places of worship into a place of entertainment and decorated with gold and riches to be glorified and with idols such as Jesus on a cross and mother Mary and etc. have simple places of worship and study of Gods Word, the Holy Bible. They do not separate the children from the parents during this time of worship and learning. Their Children are trained as they are and not taken off into rooms to make Macaroni Plates glidered with gold & silver metal flakes or any other things like that. They don't have rock concerts in their places of worship, not magic shows or loud blasting music and require you not to bring your bibles but to just mingle with each other.
They try to imitate their Christ Jesus in all that they do. He always gave his Heavenly Father to glory while on earth, so do they. Since he is our mediator they do pray through Jesus Christ's name in order to have their prayers heard by our Heavenly Father as they know they are to imperfect to talk directly to him without Jesus Christ as our mediator.
As workers they work as if it is for our Creator and not themselves in most everything they work at.
They are politically neutral and keep it that way no matter what happens in the world because they are waiting on the Kingdom of God to rule over the earth rather than mankind ruling themselves.
They consider themselves like a Watchman over a city. If they did not warn others they would be blood guilty. That is why the have a world wide preaching work which is almost completed and once it is then will be the end of wicked mankind.
Some countries have labeled them as extremists and call them terrorist because of that label but living stickily by the bible as they do is not a terrorist but a True Christian whose whole life is dedicated to serving their Heavenly Father & Creator and his only-begotten Son, Christ Jesus.
Most Pagan practices and teachings came out of Ancient Babylon including the Trinity, Cross, and many other false teachings and practices that have been slipped into false Christianity.
The only ones I have found to date that do the way they are suppose to do scripturally is Jehovah's Witnesses. You find me someone who lives the bible everyday as they do and I will check them out myself. But you can not find any other faith that lives the bible as they do and are footstep followers of Our Heavenly Fathers only-begotten son, Christ Jesus. I have tried to find someone else who lives every aspect of True Christianity and yet have not found any other faith that meets to standards laid out in the bible and Given to us buy Jehovah God and his only-begotten Son, Christ Jesus as they do.
The one big thing that they did was Translate a bible that is understandable and put's our Heavenly Fathers name back where it is suppose to be as close to accurately as they could. In the Hebrew Scriptures it was in the bible originally close to 7,000 times. Think about it, does that sound like a GOD who does not want his name to be used to you? It was suppose to be in Joel 2:32 which says "whoever calls on the name Jehovah will be saved." His name was replaced in most modern bibles, not all with a title, Lord or LORD. Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 quote Joel 2:32 so in places like that they put Jehovah back into the Christian Greek Scriptures. Doesn't it seem strange that not one copy of the Christian Greek Scriptures can be found in the first 200 years of Christianity? Papal Rome destroyed them all so as to hide God's name and put their Trinity Doctrine into the bible. It is over 200 places in the Christian Greek Scriptures just by putting it back where it was quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures and in other contexts that could only be our Heavenly Father. KJV has only three places his name was found. Psalms 83:18 and the New King James Version completely removed it. So if you do not know his name because it has been removed, how are you going to call on his name to be saved?
Even John the Baptizer knew Jesus was the son of Jehovah God when he saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus after he baptized him and John said so. To make Jesus into God as Papal Rome did is blasphemy. Jesus never claimed he was God. Papal Rome made that claim with their false Doctrine, the Trinity Doctrine.
Also Jehovah Witnesses know what happens when you die. You have no more thoughts and you can not do any devising, dust to dust is it. Only those who have paid the price of sin and those who are worshipers of Jehovah God will be resurrected back to life in the last day. Hell, Sheol Hades, the common grave of mankind or just the grave is what happens when you die. Your dead. Anything other than that is from the demons and Satan who want you to believe his first lie that you will not die when you die. When you body dies, your soul dies with it. These scriptures back up what I said about the dead. Ecc. 9:5, 10; Gen. 3:19 Gehenna (The Valley of Henna) was the place they destroyed all the waste and condemned criminals with brimstone and sulfur. It even burned to bones to ashes so it is representative to permanent destruction which is the second death. Gehenna is where all the wicked are going when God's Kingdom come to the Earth soon. That is why it is so important to warn everyone so they have a chance to turn from doing what is bad in Jehovah God's eyes and repent and come to him and learn who he is and who his Only-begotten son, Jesus Christ is. Time is short so please turn around from doing what is bad ASAP. Jehovah God is not slow about destroying wicked mankind but patient because he want all to come to repentance and turn to him to survive. But once Babylon the Great is destroyed which is very soon the door to turn around, is closed. It is like the door to the Ark in Noah's time. Jehovah God closed that door and all those people yelling and pounding on the outside never got in afterwards. Only Noah and his family survived and all the animals Jehovah brought to the Ark. Noah was warning people for 40 years of the great flood. He was laughed at and ridiculed. We have been warning the whole world for more than twice that long and we also have been ridiculed and laughed at and slandered and you name. We had at our last memorial of Jesus Christ in attendance well over 18 Million people world wide. That is a small nation of all nations.
Now some will want us dead because we tell the truth and they do not like to hear it but here is the good side of that even. If we die for the names of Jehovah and his only-begotten son, Jesus Christ, it is actually guaranteeing our resurrection. We do not want to be killed but as for myself, I can not turn away from serving him. The rest in the majority of the Jehovah's Witnesses feel the same way.
I messed up but I repented and turn around from doing bad and I have no plans to mess up again in that way and I know most of Satan's traps now since I am much older and have seen a lot. I know his head trips now also. He just wont's you to do one act of worship to him and that is all. That is what he wanted from Jesus and offered him all the Nations if he did. Jesus never denied he had all the Nation's in his grip to offer them to him but he said it is to Jehovah God alone you must worship. No other gods.
In Isaiah 42:8 Jehovah God said he does not share his glory with anyone. Jesus gave him all the glory and did not take it for himself. So when Papal Rome brought the Trinity Doctrine into the picture they blasphemed Jehovah God name by making other share his glory he alone gets. They down graded Jehovah God both by removing his name from the scriptures and when the truth be known Jesus himself said that his father is greater than he is. Why would they try to say Jehovah God and Jesus are God? As you can see in the Vatican, they have paganism all over that place, even the structure is pagan. It has the symbolism of Egypt in its construction with a obelisk even, as does Washington DC.
Here is the biggest question. Why does Rothschild have the oldest copy of the bible from the Dead Sea Scrolls and will not share it with anyone? Because he is trying to change it, and if you saw it before he changed it, you would know the real truths. Especially John 1:1 which contradicts the rest of the bible. "The Word is a god". Not GOD.
Study Bible (nwtsty) John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.
Isaiah 9:6 General 6 For a child has been born to us,A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
John 1:18 General 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
John 10:35, 36 General 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
(Note from me: see up above here is has Jesus even saying the Trinity is blaspheme because he is not GOD but his son and he even says so.)
Philippians 2:5, 6 General 5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
So in conclusion I tell you this. I have yet to find a faith that follows the bible to the letter as I have found with Jehovah's Witnesses and if you know of one prove it. I want to see who follows the bible as close as Jehovah Witnesses do if not closer and with more accuracy than them in living what we are told to live in the bible? But you better hurry, because your time will be short also if you do not turn around from what is bad and repent. Also you have to get out of Babylon the Great the Harlot riding the Wild Beast. Babylon the Great is the empire of all false religion and false pagan worshiping Christianity. The Wild Beast is the United Nations. The Wild Beast that was before it was the League of Nations. Time is almost up for everyone to repent and turn to Jehovah God for salvation. Go to JW.org and start a study of the bible with them. You will learn the truth there.
May Jehovah God shine his light on all of you so as to have you saved when that time comes which is very soon.
Good Night and sorry for my lousy grammar. My worst subject in school. I aced most my tests in Electronic but can not write worth beans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for inter-Christian disputes.  As I said above, the intended scope of this article is the article is "the interaction of Christianity with non-Abrahamic religions in the Roman Empire and Europe, from the beginnings of Christianity down to the time when there ceased to be significant pagan communities in Europe outside of remote arctic regions (i.e. the late middle ages in the Baltic, earlier elsewhere)".  Your remarks seem more relevant to the Alexander Hislop or The Two Babylons articles. AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   Which faith that claims to be Christian has removed all the paganism that Papal Rome and those who followed added into Christianity?  

message: See WP:WTRMT - Some neutrality-related templates, such as ...  (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed. There is no current discussion on this talk page as to what the neutrality problem(s) may be or how to address them, so I have removed the tag.Smeat75 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag removed 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Christianity and Paganism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Frend":
From Persecution of Christians: 
From Edict of Milan: Frend, W. H. C. The Early Church SPCK 1965, p. 137
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.Smeat75 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Christianity and Paganism]] 

message: While I do not currently have time to fix this page up, I would like to recommend Barbara Percival's "From Paganism to Christianity" article on academia.edu as one of your sources. Best of luck, Wikipedians, in fixing this article up! Historyday01 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not change the style of citations. Prior to your recent edits, of 43 references, about 35 used <ref> and 8 used the cite template (not counting 2 short forms); either is acceptable, neither is preferred. See WP:CITEVAR. thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future editors of this page 

message: Dragovit The info box was there to show where Cynegius' reign of terror was located. It is pertinent to the paragraph it is next to, and I personally think you should put it back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of info box