Talk:Timeline of Christianity

message: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) 
 From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com >  
 Subject: Request for permission 
 To: "pieter du toit" <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com> 
    
I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity"  from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M. 
 
Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.
David Pentrack
 
----
pieter du toit <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com> wrote:
David Pentrack,
I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.
Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.
I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity; . To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.
We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL
(note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)
The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/
Thank you for your time.
Kindly,
P Du Toit
::I removed 450 Mark's Resurrection of Jesus added to Bible (Mark 16, 9-20 as I have yet to see evidence that the Bible was added to.  --ClemMcGann 13:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you actually have an original, you are more biased and have less evidence that there actually was editing and expansion.  An original would be a valuable find indeed.  Until you have one, nobody is in any position to declare what has been added to it.  The known contradictions are also known to be poor scholarship.  A scholarly timeline should not be censoring anything (including your own signature) as you propose.192.31.106.34 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission

message: I noticed that no dates from the Eastern Orthodox history were present in the timeline, and added some landmark dates from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some obscure popes are mentioned, but Cadaver Synod and Francis Xavier are not.
This blank is all the more appaling, as there are such weird entries as: 
*Abu Bekr, first Islamic Caliph, seat at Medina 
*Modern English language is formed
*Earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal kills 30,000 
*1837-1901 Victoria queen of England 
What do Abu Bekr, English language, 18th-century earthquake in Lisbon, and Queen Victoria have to do with Christianity???? --Ghirlandajo 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: then use the edit button --ClemMcGann 15:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to be more selctive...every pope or Bible translation isn't necessarily important enough to mention, 'ya think?  KHM03 20:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I fear you were over zealous.  Challoner's Douay is to many Catholics what the KJAV is to many Protestants.  Removing Lisbon, I understand, some of the others, I don't.--ClemMcGann 21:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to format a bit more for easier access & reading...if I deleted anything too important, please add it again or discuss it here. Did not realize the importance of Challoner's Douay; by all means, edit it back in!  Any others?  I meant no offense, only simplification.  KHM03 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a timeline of universal or christian history?

message: The "Rock" is significant to Christianity, doesn't that make the Dome of the Rock significant?
:No.  KHM03 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In that the site of the temple has been replaced by it. Future temples appear to be prophicied in for the future, and the Dome of the Rock is in the way, possibly. Also the situation in relation to the history of the Crusades and significance of the relatinship between the three great faith of the book, in the past and possibly the future. The presence of this building has extreme importance to current Judaism, Past and Prophetic Christianity (and this thinking affects current religious behavoiour), and of course Islam. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of [[Dome of the Rock]]

message: We need some sources here, methinks, because the only factually verifiable evidence we have (i.e., the existence of early manuscripts) starts around 120-150 (for both canonical and noncanonical works), and the prior dating is speculative; moreover, the various speculative datings are not uncontroversial. So we need to attribute rather than assert. » MonkeeSage « 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? For example, the Gospel of Matthew is listed at 80-85? Should the range be extended? The detail of the dating of Gospel of Matthew hopefully occurs at Gospel of Matthew, doesn't seem necessary to repeat that and its references here, just use the common dating range, and add a question mark to show that it is not specifically known.63.201.24.138 02:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Another option would be to do something like 80+/-20. Keep in mind this is a timeline, an  attempt should be made to present a timeline, for example there seems little point in stating the Gospel of Matthew is from the first or second centuries (which is correct). On the other hand one should avoid the impression that exact dates are known.63.201.24.138 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind having a range (I actually think it is a good idea), but I think that we tend to have a high-end range right now, reflecting only the more critical section of scholarship. Using the example of Matthew, more conservative scholars like Fee or Carson would place it around 60-75 (don't have any refs offhand, just going from memory). Likewise J. A. T. Robinson, J. R. Mantey, and Leon Morris argue for a c. 70 date for John. And so on. If we expand the ranges to include the terminus post quem and terminus ante quem gathered by taking all significant views into account, I don't think we need to attribute; but otherwise I think we should, so that other views can be added and attributed. » MonkeeSage « 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's go with the range idea. I'll make some changes to the article, feel free to modify/correct them. As you say, the concept it to cover the two reasonable terminals, details should be covered in the respective articles rather than here.209.78.18.31 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is pretty accurate. I'll look up some references in the next few days to double-check. Thanks for taking my concern into consideration. » MonkeeSage « 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Those ranges for the canonical Gospels look pretty close based on several different conservative sources (e.g, Morris' The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT; Bock's Jesus According to Scripture). Something we are missing however, is the rest of the NT books. L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p. 172, gives these dates for the "undisputed" Pauline corpus: 1 Thess. - 50-51; 1 Cor. - 53-54; Phili. - 55-56; Gal. - 55/57; 2 Cor. - 55/56, 57/58; Rom. - 58-59. The rest of the books are dated as follows: p. 262: Col. - 70-80 (or 85-95); p. 268: Eph. 85-95; p. 271: 2 Thess. - 75-100; p. 274: 1 Peter - 80-95; p. 278: James - 75-125; p. 282: Rev. - 95-96; p. 316: 1 John - 95-105/120-130; p. 320: Heb. - 90-115; p. 416: 2 & 3 John - 120-130; p. 423: Jude - 90-110; p. 425: 2 Peter 120-130; p. 430: 1 & 2 Tim., Titus - 120-130; I'll have to double-check on how the more conservative scholars date these, but I believe they mainly agree with the dating White gives for the undisputed Pauline epistles, while they drop down about 20 years on the others (even up to 50 on some). » MonkeeSage « 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era of written Gospels 

message: An anonymous editor keeps removing the point about the founding of the LDS church (possibly because they are LDS and want to push the POV that Mormonism was the original form of Christianity and Joseph Smith Jr. just "recovered" it, rather than founded it). I don't want to break WP:3RR, but I think this is blatent vandalism so it wouldn't count — can I get some input about this matter? Should we qualify the point and say, e.g., "modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. . .", or leave it as it is and restore it after it is vandalized, or what? » MonkeeSage « 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same vandalism mentioned below this, or someone else? If it is the same as below, I highly doubt their motives for removing that are that they are LDS... --Lethargy 09:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If he continues, yes. I and others have added warnings to the talk page belonging to the IP address, let's hope he stops. --Lethargy 09:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He continued, I reported the IP for banning, and he received 24 hours off. --Lethargy 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's back, and doesn't seem to want to discuss the changes before adding them... --Lethargy 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought previously that the person was LDS, since they would not explain the reason for their edits until later, when they started adding to the point rather than deleting it. Personally, I'm a staunch fundimentalist Christian, and I do not consider Mormons to be Christians, but if we're going to start qualifying and debating every group mentioned on this page, as most mainline Christians don't accept Gnosticism, existentialism, neo-orthodoxy and so forth as being (fully) valid representatives of Christian teaching and the Bible. I think it is best to just mention groups that claim to be Christian, or are regarded as being influenced by Christianity, and let the issues be worked out on the linked articles about them. » MonkeeSage « 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS vandalism 

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 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref 

message: Call me crazy but isn't Christianity an Extension of Judaism and shouldn't some mentions of important moments of Judaism go into this as well?
:See History of ancient Israel and Judah
::That is an excellent question.  History of ancient Israel and Judah does not cut it.  A proper scholarly article of this issue would also reference BC faiths in the Christ (Messiah) that was to come.  For example, Genesis 3:15 is often cited as the earliest Biblical mention of the Messianic prophecy, as given to Adam and Eve as they were expelled from the Garden of Eden.  These earliest reference would predate the existence of ancient Israel.  
::As for Israel itself, there is debate as to whether BC Judaism had sects that held this.  The article could elaborate on common references to the "pre-incarnate" Christ such as the mysterious figure in Daniel's oven scene.
::Although some people think that these theologies and histories are bogus, it would be academically best to actually present them lest these same opponents be left in the dark as to what they are arguing.  This is often the case precisely because this information is commonly intentionally ignored or censored.
::The term BC would also befit the article much better than BCE as this is precisely what it discusses.  When the article discusses those with a faith in a Christ that is to come, those dates would be "Before Christ."  
::The articles should be updated also with proper source materials for the subject.192.31.106.34 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Jesus? 

message: There needs to be some distinction when years are given as to whether 46-49 means that the event happened sometime between 46 and 49 AD, or whether the event happened from 46 to 49.  For example, 
48-100 Herod Agrippa II appointed King of the Jews by Claudius, seventh and last of the Herodians 
Does this mean he was appointed King sometime between 48 and 100, or he was appointed in 48, and remained king until 100?  (The later is probably unreasonable, but it is still not clear which is what was intended) Rob 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He ruled from 48 to 100, he was born in 28. Approximate dates should be indicated with a ? or ~ or with a range specified like +/-10. 75.15.202.2 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown dates VS times it occured 

message: I'm sorry, but over on the side of the page, there is a list of related links. One of them is called "Christian Church" and goes to a link on the Catholic Church. Either the link name needs to be changed or the destination of the link does. I find it offensive to claim that the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. I'm not saying Catholics dont claim to be christians, but I am a protestant but I am not catholic. For those who don't understand Christianity, the link to Catholicism as the Christian Church will confuse them, and it could offend Eastern Orthodox churches aswell seeing as they are not being counted under the "Christian Church". Hodijah 15:02, 4 October 2006
:It's part of Template:Christianity. That would be the spot to protest. 75.15.202.2 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Church??! 

message: While there are definite indications that some sort of changes are in process in the Anglican Communion and eventually the Jerusalem Declaration may be seen as the defining moment, I think we are too close to the events to declare definitively what will happen. Dabbler (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicans split

message: Incense starts in 5th century? That may be when there is first written record of it, but that doesn't mean that's when it's introduced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.179.164 (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incense starts in 5th century? 

message: This timeline virtually excludes most events of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I recommend major improvemements and additions--Thomaq (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I would suggest removing the reference to Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code as not of great note in the general history of Christianity.  If you can come up with reasons for it remaining I would like to hear them. --81.101.46.102 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. Novels are not historically important. rossnixon 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: These can both go - hardly two of the key events of last 2,000 years. I'll be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st Century - Suggested Removals 

message: May be helpful, and would clear up some clutter, if a separate "Timeline of Christian Documents" was created. Much of the early Timeline of Christianity (Apostolic Age, Ante-Nicene Period) references the formation and creation of the Bibilical Canon and other documents. The Timeline of Christianity should record major shifts, changes, and developments in Christian thought and practice, and documents, while relevant, do not necessarily reflect these changes without further clarification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChancellorBen (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Documents 

message: This is not fact, not proved, just is a legend. As well Linus in Rome as 2nd pope. We don't know anything sure about Thomas and Linus's life because there are no authentic documents left. --Milei.vencel (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  THomas in India in 1. cent.