Talk:Christianity/Archive 38

message: ...Have no place in this article.  While perhaps common in the past, they are offensive to those to whom they are applied, are not really accurate, and so should not be used.  I made change in this regard, and have been reverted a couple of times; hence, I'm bringing it here for discussion/consensus.  --Midnite Critic 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the names they are commonly called by. By the same vein, "Copts" must go as well, as would "Roman Catholic". I would not object to using to names side by side. My issue with Syriac is that is claims all of Syriac heritage for the, sorry, Jacobites (and now, I don't like the term either, for once as it enables confusion with other Jacobites, and because I think Severus a much more important figure in the history of Syriac Miaphysitism). Str1977 (smile back) 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with midnite critic on this one.  "Jacobite" and "Nestorian" are terms that are (1) applied only by persons outside those churches, (2) not the only name those churches are known by publicly, (3) negative judgements on the (assumed) theological stance of those churches, and (4) a drastic mis-representation of their actual theology.  As to "Roman Catholic", that is, at the present, the agreed upon option arrived at through conversations like this one.  You will note that, while it is similar in that it is (1); it is not (3) or (4), and that is the main complaint here.  There are all sorts of theological insults and "name-calling" (which is what those terms amount to for me) that we could resurrect on the basis of "These are the names they are commonly called by": "Papist" for Roman Catholic, "Turk" for Muslim, "schwarmer" for Baptists, etc.  Pastordavid 17:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  +1 --Pjacobi 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but while I see that "Nestorian" is rejected because of it linking a certain community with a man of "bad reputation" and therefore offensive, I cannot see the same thing about "Jacobite" - are the Syriacs really rejecting the heritage of Jacob of Baradaeus? My aim is certainly not to offend but I don't want to sacrifice clarity on the altar of non-offensiveness. Str1977 (smile back) 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are of the opinion that their church wasn't founded by Jacob of Baradaeus but is in the unbroken tradition of the Antiochenian patriarchate. --Pjacobi 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree; I think we must use the terms "Jacobite" and "Nestorian", at least in some way or another, since those are the names that English speakers know.  Sorry but its just too confusing otherwise.  Maybe we can put them in parentheses if you'd like.  And I really question just how "offensive" these are.  Maybe the groups don't use them (but, of course, until recently, the groups didn't commonly use English words to describe themselves anyway), but I don't see what's so offensive about it.  Lostcaesar 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems to solve the problem with the term "Jacobite"; does it also address the term "Nestorian."  If so, I think we have a good solution.  Pastordavid 19:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jacobite," Nestorian" and other such terms. 

message: Is there a reason we are quoting Justin Martyr's description of Eucharist and not Paul's earlier description of the tradtion, commonly called the words of institution, from the book of Corinthians?--Just nigel 01:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we quote JM earlier concerning early Christian worship, so its a matter of consistency.  Also, JM is more detailed than Paul, and is less subject to various interpretations.  Lostcaesar 01:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucarist/Communion/Lord's Dinner/Lord's Supper