Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 2

message: Response to Aiden's version: 1) Placing John 3:16 within the Nicene formula is syntactically awkward and confusing, and for that matter narrows "Most Christians" to one particular interpretation of the relationship between the Creed and John 3:16. (I'm not sure if this interpretation still is "Most Christians" or just one particular branch of Protestantism). That's why I moved John 3:16 to the end of the paragraph. 2). See above why I mention both "Modern Trinitarian" and "nontrinitarian" (for one thing, there are historic non-Nicenean trinitarian formulas. I believe that Arianism is an example. ) Also, stylistically it's more balanced to have a split between Modern Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian than to have a split between the Nicene Creed and Nontrinitarianism. 3) Nontrinitatrians by definition do not adhere to the Nicene Creed, which is one particular Trinitarian formula. So saying "Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism and may not recognize the Nicene Creed" is redundant. Arch O. La 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See updated version. —Aiden 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Revision 2: Looks good to me, go ahead and post it (I'm out of reverts). If JimWae comes by with further issues, we can discuss them then. Arch O. La 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that was ridiculously easy ;) Arch O. La 02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments to Aiden's proposed revision

message: Please place any further comments, concerns or suggestions about paragraph 3 here. Arch O. La 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments to Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 2

message: The NIV says "whoever", along with the NASB, the KJV says "whosoever", how is that not the same as "those"? Besides, I just talked with a Catholic yesterday on this very subject, he had a rather colorful word against your opinion Jim, it certainly cannot be said that no Catholic believes acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation. Besides, i've reaserched plenty of apologetics sites since, you know, im a total fundamentalist, a couple had quite a few words to say against Catholoicism, while they generally go along the line of "The Church requires both faith and works" I haven't seen anything about the Church not requiring belief at all. A survey of the Church of England isn't exactly representative of all Christians or Catholics, and especially has nothing to do with whether faith in Jesus is required for salvation when your poll doesn't even have such a category. Homestarmy 14:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, my recommendation with primary path was an attempt to include Catholics. Does Catholic doctrine include another path to salvation other than Christ?  Or are you saying that they simply use different terminology, but with the same meaning.  I am not committed to the term "primary"; your proposal is okay, but implies that there are other ways to salvation.  On another subject, I personally don't like quoting John 3:16; I view it as an incomplete scripture.  There are too many other scriptures that represent Jesus saying "reprent and be baptized" or similar statements to be saved. There are Christians that believe that one must do more than just believe; demons believe and are still not saved; one must also act/follow Christ.  My objective is to include that perspective in the statement.  Third subject, virgin birth.  It seems we are mixing what Christians as individuals might believe with what churches/denominations teach.  Both are appropriate, but attempting to include everything individuals might believe is very open-ended.  I recommend that we stick to doctrines of religions; they are a known quantity.  Storm Rider 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you, Storm Rider, that Catholic doctrine know no other path to salvation than Christ. It does however place less emphasis on a conscious, active acceptance of Him. In the end, all that are saved are saved because of and by Christ, even if they didn't know about that. I agree with your points about the virgin birth. Str1977 (smile back) 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Catholic teachings are that even a baby in the delivery room can go to heaven - EVEN if it dies before baptism. They also teach that adults who lead a "just life" can be saved, even if they have heard of Jesus but never "accepted" him. They do not elaborate on "other paths", except to allow for them--JimWae 18:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mother is Roman Catholic and I have many Catholic friends, although I am not Catholic and thus admit my knowledge of Catholic dogma may be less than yours. However, I have NEVER heard any Catholic say that acceptance of Jesus as Savior is not required for salvation. I would venture to say that most Christians (Catholics and non-Cathlics included) would consider that a flagrant disagreement with a wide variety of scriptures (including John 3:16) which specifically state belief in Jesus is necessary. Now, sure various Christians denominations may have other requirements which must be met, but I would strongly disagree that most Christians do not consider belief in Jesus necessary requirement for salvation. —Aiden 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: see paragraph above your entry, please. I have repeatedly provided sources on Catholic teachings on this. We are ALSO getting into the issue of church teaching vs what followers think is taught. Catholic teaching is NOT that every word in the NT is infallible, correctly translated, and free of hyperbole - particularly not since different verses disagree with one another. They teach the church is the authority and scripture is A source - I think there was some kind of protest about this around 1517  --JimWae 18:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know about Catholics. My own tradition (Lutheranism) has said that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, and that no one comes to God except through Jesus. However, I have heard some who use the "many paths" argument, although they weren't Catholics (or Lutherans). As for the virgin birth, this is meant to be fulfillment of an OT prophecy—but there is some debate whether the word in the OT means "virgin" or just "young woman." Arch O. La | TCF member 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: BTW my first proposed version mentioned "Christianity" rather than "Christians," thus separating dogma from personal beliefs. However, Aiden rejected this as being too mechanical. Arch O. La | TCF member 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So if one does "get to God", they must have gone through Jesus - even if they never heard of him. Sounds like universalism, no? This whole issue does not even need to be in the intro of a biography article -- and as far as I can tell is hardly covered in ANY article on wikipedia -- and definitely NOT "covered" in the article that follows this intro --JimWae 19:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Properly speaking, we are attempting to summarize this section of the article...we just disagree on how to do this. This is appropriate to a biographical article since Christianity is main legacy of Jesus. Or are you going to argue that Paul made the whole thing up? Arch O. La | TCF member 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: and is whether belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation "covered" in that section? --JimWae 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not directly...and the indirect "reconcile humanity with God" is covered earlier in the paragraph. I have suggested that the reference to John 3:16 be moved to either the "Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels" section or the "Christian views of Jesus" section, but I'm not sure whether Aiden would agree. So I'll let others comment. BTW, "Saviour" (redirected to the American spelling, "Savior") is a disambig page. Arch O. La | TCF member 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: and should a topic be introduced that is not "covered more fully" in the article? --JimWae 20:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To cover it more fully in the article, we should look at the early part of John 3, not just John 3:16. It's this nice little Rabbinic dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus over salvation and spiritual rebirth. Arch O. La | TCF member 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My netbible translation does not even show John 3:16 as being a quote - and I think many other bibles are similar - thus it appears as commentary by its author(s)--JimWae 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My hardcopy KJV shows it as a quote, which to me raises a host of other questions. Jim62sch 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, it's a quote. And it is generally considered a key verse (and that goes for Catholics too). Another issue is the interpretation of it included in the presentation in this article. Str1977 (smile back) 22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: not according to http://www.bible.org/netbible/joh3.htm --JimWae 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anybody have the original Greek? BTW what does the Greek Wikipedia say? You know what it is to me. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greek version I have does not indicate quotes at all (meaning nothing is quoted). Jim62sch 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Grick Wiki does not mention John 3:16 at all.  Jim62sch 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: also see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-26132h - not that being a direct quote would settle anything one way or the other anyway --JimWae 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not that it settles anything, it's that as a direct quote it takes on a different meaning.  Jim62sch 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, one can always argue about the best translation - but that doesn't make the actual words a quote any less. The narrative frame however might be a problem (if, e.g., "believes" is interpreted as actively accepting Jesus etc.) Str1977 (smile back) 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, it's gibberish to me as there are a bunch of squares where letters should be.  Jim62sch 23:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update your browser and/or OS. I copied the Greek letters directly from the John 3:16 article. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it NOT clear what the majority view on John 3:16 is (other than that it is in the NT) & for that & several other reasons presented above, reference to it in intro needs to be dropped. Referfences to scripture should not appear in the intro attached to text the meaning of which is questionable. --JimWae 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: People, we are focusing on the Catholic view too much.  Many groups agree with Catholic doctrine in areas.  The intent is to make the intro as palatable/broad as possible.  This is the Jesus article, not the Christianity article.  I understand the importance of John 3:16 to many Christians, but it is not a absolute for other Christians.  John 3:3-5 has always been more important to me personally.  It is not that I or many other Christians disagree, but that we feel it is not complete.  For that reason, I proposed that citing the specific scripture is inappropriate.  Question:  what do we lose by not citing it? Storm Rider 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Again I move that we expand the reference to John 3:16 to include the entire Nicodemus/Jesus discussion, and then include that in either the "Life and Teachings" or "Christian Views" sections. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at all of the discussion I agree. If we we really want to include John 3:16, we could start the passage saying that Christians believe that JC came to save humans (with John 3:16 as a reference), before dipping into the issues of the Trinity and the Nicene creed. Str1977 (smile back) 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, we should keep in mind that this is the "Jesus" article and not the "Christianity" article. Str1977 (smile back) 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've proposed a simpler version for the intro: "Jesus provides salvation." See below. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 10:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John 3:16 and salvation

message: "All who believe in Jesus are saved" has no implications for the status of those who do not believe in Jesus. See Venn diagrams. John 3:16 is about the fate of those who believe and, taken literally, is about sufficient conditions - something about which Catholics and Protestants have had a clear and sharp disagreement since Protestantism began. As the sentence in the article stands, it is an utter misunderstanding of the scripture. Any statement about necessity would be original research on what is in fact the (bare) majority view. --JimWae 05:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that what we have in the article is already original reaserch whether we agree with it or not because we seem to have no citations, since we're working on this paragraph now, why don't we actually find some? Then it doesn't matter whether we argue over sufficient conditions or Catholics vs. Protestants, or how you think the scripture is mis-understood, (We could so get into an in-context argument, but I don't relish the idea) if we get the statistics and the facts, we can simply put them in the section, change wording accordingly if needed, and then be done, no more arguing needed. Homestarmy 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we enter the sticky realm of absolute statements, this is normally a very bad idea. Facts are facts, as to what they are, I don't know, which is why I suggest we find them and cite them since it's clear we aren't getting along over this. But simply saying "We can't support it because it "misunderstands" scripture" doesn't tell us whether most Christians affirm John 3:16 as meaning faith in Christ gains one salvation, or whether people are interpreting it liberally or otherwise. Homestarmy 05:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We could do both for this debate technically, but at this point, I think nothing short of solid citations and reliable statistics will resolve this, (I mean im sure both me and Jim could go on for miles on this) though your idea to change the line seems to get around all this arguing a good bit. Homestarmy 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at all the pretty verses cited in salvation. It's more than just John 3:16. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief lesson in logic and other stuff 

message: - redirects to Christian eschatology - which seems to be entirely about the "last things". I doubt Jesus has already fulfilled that. What's a better link? --JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about a better link. I think what we're trying to say is that, to a Christian, Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies of the Messiah. Of course, a Jew would disagree. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus fulfilled some of those prophecies. He will fulfill the others on his return. rossnixon 09:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Whatever we say here should indicate that Christians believe that in general. The trick is that each tradition within Christianity has a different take as to how this is so. If we need to, we can address that in a separate article. --CTSWyneken 11:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, separate articles, I like that.  Jim62sch 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are those who would say that the English Wikipedia already has too many separate articles on Jesus. Uncyclopedia (the parody of Wikipedia) has a whole pantheon of Jesus! As Paul (of Tarsus) might ask, is Jesus divided? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Aiden seems to of picked out a good one there :). Homestarmy 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Prophecy