Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 1

message: I know that many of the Early Christians practiced some degree of Judaism, but Robin klein's recent edits suggest that they were Jews in the ethnic sense, which I think is wrong. I'm not expert on this, and would appreciate if others would weigh in. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Ummmm, ALL of the earliest Christians were fully and completely practicing and ethnic Jews. As in Jesus, the apostles, etc. Re-read Acts of the Apostles -- the first community was at Jerusalem. When Christianity spread to Antioch, where there were Jews and Gentile "hearers" interested in Judaism, you had the first large-scale influx of Gentiles into Christianity (in fact, the term Christian was coined by pagans in Antioch who wanted to distinguish between the relatively insular Jews they knew, and these new Jewish Mesianists who welcomed Gentiles). This created the crisis that led to the Council of Jerusalem in 49/50: did the new Gentile followers of Jesus have to adopt "our" Jewish customs, follow Jewish law (kosher rules, etc.), or was Christianity not just a continuation of Judaism but something new? The council decided that a Gentile did not have to "become Jewish" to be a follower of Jesus.
Paul himself in the 50s would first go to the synagogue in each town he visited, worship there as a practicing, ethnic Jew, as he considered that proper.
It wasn't until the Jewish rabbinical counil of Yavneh/Jamnia in the 70s that practicing, "ethnic" Jewish Christians were definitively barred from the synagogue. By that time, the majority of Christians may have been Gentiles anyway.Amherst5282 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Christians / Jews / Judaism

message: I disagree with this edit, but would like to hear from others. To the best of my knowledge, the term "Messianic Jews" is of 20th century origin and refers to a distinctly modern fusion of Christian belief and some elements of Jewish practice. It is doubtless modeled (well or poorly) after the Early Christians, but that doesn't make the Early Christians Messianic Jews. -- 05:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess technically the term is correct: they were Jews of the belief that the Messiah had turned up on planet earth. According to the Messianic Jews article, they are not Messianic Jews, seeing as these have only existed from the 1800s. Overall, that entire paragraph in the article is confusing, and I'm going to remove it until someone can explain what it means! jnothman talk 13:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Messianic Jews"?

message: I simply can't make sense of the following paragraph that was in the article (whether it should be Messianic Jews or just Jews:
:The term has an underlying connotation of many of the early Christians being Messianic Jews. The term was used by the later Graeco-Roman Christians to refers to the early followers of the Christ, at a time when what was later called as Christianity was largely a Jewish sect. The Early Christians, however, mostly referred to themselves as Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). The early Christian-Jewish heritage lingers in the Nasrani tradition in South India.
The article explains that Early Christians were in fact Jewish Christians (a much better article on a very similar subject) in the first paragraph. It then repeats the claim in the first paragraph now above, then talks about the terms for Jewish Christians (or does it? I have no idea what that second sentence is trying to say) and gives an example of a Early Jewish Christian group, surely much more relevant to Jewish Christians or Nazarenes articles. The article, after explaining the Judaism of Early Christians then lists some, notably many non-Jews (although some Jews).... Someone please clear this up before I go insane trying to read it again. jnothman talk 13:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing paragraph 

message: RV to longtime wikipedia version. Do we need to protect this article administrativly? Is that what all these new people want to do? Dominick (TALK) 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Longtime wiki version section is only a Stub that asks for contributions. When those are given, with sourced material that is interesting and relevant history by Giovanni, it's suppressed without justification on that talk page. He has made a case refuting  objections of  "minority view" claim and asked for that stance to be supported. No response given. I've made my case as well, and no response. Yet the reverts back to a stub continue. Before reverting make the case on the talk page. The constant reverts to a stub under the pretext that there is no conensus is amazing and not the wikiway. The unsupported supresion is POV and should not stand. Even if its true this is a minority view, that is no reason to revert everything back to an empty stub. If this kind of vandalism condintues we may need to protect the article, or else it wil remain a stub. Or take this to the next level of dispute resolution. 38.114.145.148 04:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unproductive edit warring over minority view

message: Isn't "Early Christianity" better defined as Christianity before the First Council of Nicaea rather than the Fall of Rome? The council is very significant to Christianity, hence the compilations Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. How is the fall of Rome significant to Christianity? The only thing that actually fell was the tradition of a Roman emperor - the papacy continued, and the empire continued, though commonly called the Byzantine Empire.
: While making no claim of expertise, I'm inclined to agree. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Early Christianity

message: Please don't start edit wars on the date nottation AD vs. CE. Consider the following:
#There is no preferred way of doing it on Wikipedia. Neither the one or the other is considered POV.
#The Wiki rule is that the notation should not be changed by editors but rather remain at the status quo. That means, what counts is either the original version (in this case a ambiguous "in the Christian Era"  (ambiguous because it is not identical with CE, usually read as Common Era) or long standing usage (in this case: AD, since .
#A case can be made that in an article on Christianity the traditional/Christian notation AD is not inappropriate - but of course statment #2 takes precedence.
#A case can be made that an article dealing only with events of the Christian Era can do without either notation (though BC events might appear and change the picture) - but of course statment #2 takes precedence.
#No case can be made that the "the secular dating" is more neutral (see statement #1) or appropriate.
I don't want to participate in this, but leave these five statements to your consideration. Str1977 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating wars

message: I removed the following:
It was not until 4th century with its ascendancy as the state religion under Constantine the Great that a central and conentrated authority within the church emerged that used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. The state issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions." The losing groups, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics.
There was no central authority within the church that undertook these things. The Roman Empire continued to do what it had always done, and that is suppress religions that were out of favor. It did this to the Christians up until Constantine (because they would not burn incense to Caesar). It did this to the Jews to some extent, although it also extended them some toleration. When Julian the Apostate was emperor, it again suppressed Christianity by closing churches or converting them to synagogues or pagan temples, etc. etc. The constant force at work here is the Empire, not the Church, even when various emperors announced (and maybe even believed) that they were acting in the name of the Church. Wesley 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reseached this point and I must disagree. While the Empire would supress in various ways any group that was critical of the imperial court, or seen as a threat the the harmony of the empire, there is a fundamental difference between a basic toleration of different public religious beliefs and the complete intolerance of any other religious beliefs by the Christians once they assumed state power, on purely religious grounds, instead of just polical concerns. For these Christians there could be only one religion available to the public. The others had to be stamped out by whatever means necessary. This is what was different and notable. This account here basically accurate that illustrates this point: If this source is disputed I can provide other sources to support these points. They are farily well known and accepted. So, I will reinclude this passage, and proivide attribution for the views. Giovanni33 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny are you denying the existence of the laws passed making "heresy" a crime punishable by death? That, Emperor Constantius II closed all pagan temples, continuing the policies of his predecessor, emperor Constantine the Great? These are all well documented facts, but if you are going to deny it (amazingly) then I'd be happy to bring out sources.Giovanni33 15:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suppression of rivals 

message: This sentence is misleading: "Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it early opened up to Gentiles and gradually parted way with Judaism."
First century Judaism admited Gentiles, this was not a uniquely Christian thing, see Proselyte. First century Judaism was Eschatological and as such anticipated that the Gentiles would turn to Judaism, see also Isaiah 56:6-8, Council of Jerusalem. See Judaism and Christianity if you're interested in the differences between the two religions as they exist today. See also Noahide Laws. 22:20, 25 January 2006 User:209.78.17.164
Then suggest an improvement. The sentence is supposed to mean that one could become a Christian without becoming a Jew first. You could become a Jew without fully subscribing to the Mosaic Law, including circumcision. And even a proselyte was not considered a Jew, though he was in all respect treated as one. A Jew was (and is) one who is born of a Jewish mother. Str1977 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading sentence

message: I combined the two disputed sections, taking a bit from each, removing spurious material but retaining the minority view and links to Gnosticism, MCs, Mithraism.  I also removed the scholars who aren't scholars of Christian history (still don't understand why we need them mentioned).  My suggestion is that we have a section (or two or whatever) detailing the "mainstream" view of early Christianity, and then have a section to deal with with these alternative theories (presented primarily by Gio).  While the brief overview on the main Christianity article can really only give these fringe views a sentence or two, I think here we can have more room for development of these ideas, provided, of course, that they are treated properly as represnting a minority in academia.  KHM03 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see any combination of two sections. I only saw 100% of Giovanni's section removed and little more than a stub in its place. Since his version was the original contributions to this article, it should remain until we all have consensus here about making signifiant changes. MikaM 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gio's section was the original that this is based on. There are only some style changes, but almost identical to original section. Before Gio there was just an empty stub. MikaM 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There was not much space left, I I included the full version so that it could be chopped down appropriately, with justified support for any parts that are either over stated or proven not to be accurate. Giovanni33 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverted for several reasons. In general, it presents fringe views as though they were mainstream, without real qualification. It presents gnosticism as though it were one unified group, when in fact scholars have identified up to 100 different forms of gnosticism, some of which had nothing to do with belief in Jesus or Christ. (See Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument For Dismantling A Dubious Category by Michael Allen Williams, Princeton University Press, 1996.)  It pretends that Pauline and Jewish Christianity were much more opposed to each other than they actually were. Other objections to other parts have already been raised on this page and are hereby incorporated by reference. Also, I thought work was going forward on the "shorter" version. Wesley 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Gnosticism was not a unified group, there were several schools of Gnosticism, but I did not intend to make it seems as if they were. Likewise, with an appearance of other versions of Christianity being much more opposed to each other than we know them to be. I will include a revised version that makes the points in an accurate way with citations.Giovanni33 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for making your objections known, succinctly put. When I have a little time I will review my work in light of your objections, do a little research and then either amend the language per your objections, or argue the case accordingly as it may be. As you probably know, what I will seek is for a historical context be given for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's also in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I will want the various influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually   the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence.  Specifically, a Jewish context, ofcourse (its various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context most marked by syncretism, but also those also with clearly distinct threads, prominent being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. To have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of early Christianity. Giovanni33 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are trying to do - but I will caution you that not only was Christianity not as unified as some think (as you point out), Gnositicism was not unified (as Wesley points out), also modern scholership is not as unified as you might think. This has all the hallmarks of another edit / reedit cycle. By all means do you research, however I suggest that all inclusions should be reported on the basis that "some think this...." and cite sources in each case. That might be uncomfortable to some here but will remain statements of fact (i.e. what the scholar has "actually" said). Satements claiming concensus are fated to fail - I feel. By the way this is just opinion, so I have no reference for this!!! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. The tactic that might be used, based on my experience, though, is for any views no in the mainstream to be suppressed under the pretext of it being "fringe." Ofcourse, nots not fringe, its a significant minority view, and outside of the narrow confines of biblical scholarship (classics, mythology, etc) its a mainstream view. Hopefully the minority view can be respected and not excluded as "fringe." 64.121.40.153 16:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, Giovanni, outside the very hard confines of comparative religion studies it is a fringe view. Str1977 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But almost any view could be "fringe" if the mainstream scholars in that field hold other views.  Remember that, yes, a scholar not from this field can have an opinion on early Christian history, and they may have even studied in a closely related area, but that doesn't make them expert and it certianly doesn't make their view mainstream.  As I stated below, there's a lot we can say about early Christian history that is generally agreed upon...let's start there.  KHM03 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not fringe because I can point to promiment scholars within the field who are recognized experts in the subject. This proves that the view is a significant minority view, and thus should be included. If it were fringe, it would not be able to find such support within academia that I do. Giovanni33 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Within what field?  Christian history?  Paglia is one...I'll give you that.  But more? KHM03 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 

message: Is there any room on this page for mention of the earliest examples of Christian music? for example the Greek hymn "Phos Hilarion" which was believed to be ancient in the 4th Century AD.  Should another page be made to deal with specifically the earliest forms of Christian worship?  Also, is Wikipedia the right place for lyrics etc of ancient music in general? ~ Amatire 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would think so - although if there is much you want to write a small section might suffice and link off to a full article such as :Early Christian music. Or perhaps as part of Christian music. I would be very interested myself. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm.. there is some information on the Christian music page, but there is scope for considerably more and I'm wondering if I shouldn't split off Early Christian Music to another page so that it can be covered in more detail.  There would be a brief mention on this page and on the Christian Music page referencing the new article.  Only I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm somewhat hesitant about making such a big change. Any advice/recommendations?  Amatire 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally what I would suggest is go for a low impact change. Write your new article, call it Early Christian Music and make reference back via a  at the top. Then once written, add appropriate links in both the articles. :Christian Music and :Early Christianity without making any other changes other to describe the target subject matter. How does that suit. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate article with links option sounds good. It's a subject I have an interest in but little knowledge of so would read. SOPHIA 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, will get on with that then. It will probably take a while though as there's lots of compiling to do and life to live in the meanwhile. I'll let you know when it's all done and ready.  Thanks for the advice. Amatire 15:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What we have does look good to me as a start. I think there is a lot of room for expansion, and elaboration here, on the points--meat on the skeleton so to speak. This should help to enrichen the article to give a fuller understanding of the points. While there are no problems with what it says now, its seems too bare and sounds too choppy.  Giovanni33 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Christian Music

message: What still needs to be addressed before these tags are removed? Wesley 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see anything. Only that the article deserves more material, not that what is there is a problem. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy and npov tags 

message: Wesley has properly added the expansion tag.  Now we can really develop this article.  There is so much we can add that is somewhat basic, accepted, and non-controversial...my suggestion is that we develop all of that stuff first, and talk about disputed issues after we have a decent framework. KHM03 13:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I see that the article has a dispute tag on it, but cannot tell what is currently disputed. Can someone summarize the dispute? - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes that I hope partially address that, but more work is probably needed. A few countervailing citations should be added for balance. Tom Harrison Talk 14:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making those changes to improve it. I also still think more works needs to be done on it. I'll try to make improvements myself shortly (after some much needed rest). Giovanni33 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is currently disputed?