Talk:Christianity/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

History rewrite

I did a rewrite of the history section, as I didn't like the style and also felt some things missing, mainly: the origins and separation from Judaism, the theological debates (heresies), monasticism, scholasticism, the relationship of the two powers and ecumenism.

Any suggestions for further improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with your rewrite except for this bit: In the 20th century, the Ecumenical movement came to importance. The phrase "came to importance" just doesn't sound right. I didn't edit that, although I think it needs to be changed more than the things I did change. But I wasn't quite sure enough of the background to the Ecumenical movement to be able to think of an absolutely appropriate substitute. Depending on the extent to which ecumenism existed before becoming important, and the level of importance it achieved, I'd suggest: started, flourished, developed, blossomed, was established, etc. But I'd rather leave the lexical choice to someone who knows more about the subject. AnnH ^(talk) 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "...came to prominence"? I think that "importance" is a little too subjective a word, "prominence" is easier to document and verify. Wesley 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Giovanni, apart from any disputed about the content of your edits, consider the following points:

• This is the general article on Christianity with a short historical overview. It should give a brief overview of the history of Christianity from the origins until now.

Excatly what my contributions do. Its a very very brief touching on the historical origins of the beliefs and practices

It is not meant as a platform to argue theories, even valid ones. But without arguing them, especially since they are contentious, it becomes even more POV.

No, but its common practice to mention the scolarly discussion regarding the subject matter, not to argue theories (I dont do that). To exclude this subject matter is POV. Only the Christian churces and their advocates want to exclude this topic, and have done so historically.

The last sentence is a straw man. It is common practice to mention scholarly discussion but you're not doing that. You presenting extreme theories, often in quite POV language, intermingled with legends invented "in darker days" (e.g. the blind faith passage).

• The conflict with Islam is a most important feature for world history in general and for the history of Christianity in particular. There's absolutely no removing it.

The most important feature? Wow. What makes it so important? If you want to keep it I'm fine with with that.

Please read more carefully: "a most important feature" - it's a elative not a superlative.

• "The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint." is a true statement but no way to start the history section. I even doubt it needs to be included at all.

Yes, I originally only stated the Hewebrew Bible, but this change was made in response to an objection by Wesley. It fits in very well with starting my section of the origins since Judiasm comprises the bulk of the influences of the early Christians, infact it was little more than just a Jewish sect(s) for some time.

The "Koine" passage is totally out of place and has no part in such a historical overview. Wesley may have raised the point that the Christian Bible was Greek and not Hebrew but I'm not sure that he wanted it included like this.

• IMHO the history section is better placed further down, next to the "persecution" section.

I disgaree IMHO. Its better on top right after the overview since it flows logically into the chart that shows the origins from Early Christianity, and ties in nicely with my origins of for the ideas of early Christianity. Also, I think is important and one of the most neglected (supressed) elements in understanding Christianity so therefore should be make promiment.

Finally here are some statements or should I say pronouncement where a (contentious, not generally accepted) POV is declared fact:

• "the major Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings

That is true. I gave references for this. They did emerge. Fact. They emerged out of different influences. Fact. Some of these influences were the various mystery teachings. Fact according to most scholars. I'll concede to a language change here to reflect that we are not sure 100%, such as the word "may have been, or probably."

You gave some references for that. No one doubts that some hold this. But it is not consensus. It is not extreme to say that there was some influence on form, language or even some doctrines, but note that you said "the major Christian doctrines ..."

• "In its early years, there was not one Christianity"

Fact. This is really undisputed as far as I know, except from dogmatic faith which is blind to facts anyway. They insist there was only one "true" Christianity and all others are not really Christians. This is pure POV and has no place here. See Mika's comments below that quotes from some of the sources I have used and cited.

Your statement is not less dogmatic. Your statement can be understand in a proper way, in other words that the various Christian congregations geographically separated increased contact with each other and hence a "one Christendom" developed. But you are saying that it Christianity existed as some assembly of various religions. That is not true and it is not consensus.

• "may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings."

Ok, i agree here. I think this should be changed. Instead of saying existed as, it should state that it emerged along side and with "a vareity of mystery cults," many of which converted into Christitans and helped to influence its developing ideas and practices."

• "The basic church hierarchy did not fully establish itself until perhaps as late as the 4th century with ..."

Fact with greater clarifcation needed, perhapds. Since there was no one Christianity there was no one central chuch heiarchy to consolidate ideas and dinfine itself clearly. This happened in the 4th century. Before then it was very decentralized.

Centralization (and in fact it was not centralized in the 4th century) is not the same as the existence of a church hierarchy - we are talking local bishops here, with priests and deacons under them. We see hierarchy in the letters to Timotheus, in the letters of Ignatius and other writings. Granted, we cannot prove a comphrehensive hierarchical organisation of all churches everywhere (but we cannot disprove it either) but to place hierarchy into the 4th century is based on prejudice.

And note your circular reasoning "Since there was no one Christianity there was no one central chuch heiarchy" - if that is the basis for your above claim that there was no one Christianity than I agree with that claim but also say that it's poorly (or POVly) worded.

Other inaccuracies include:

• "Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus" - now, I don't know the Nasseni, but the Essenes were no mystery cult at all, the Gnostics are they one you are talking about and Dionysus is a pagan god.

I'm afraid you are the one that has it wrong. Dionysus was pagen, yes, and Christianity was a development of it, at least according to many scholars. It is also a god of mystery religious rites, such as those practiced in honor of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis near Athens. In the Thracian mysteries, he wears the "bassaris" or fox-skin, symbolizing new life. His own rites the Dionysian Mysteries were the most secretive of all (See also Maenads) Many scholars believe that Dionysus is a syncretism of a local Greek nature deity and a more powerful god from Thrace or Phrygia such as Sabazios. Likewise with the Essense. As the Sons of Light, this reflected an influence from Zoroastrianism via their parent ideology of Pythagoreanism. According to Larson, both the Essenes and Pythagoreans resembled thiasoi, or cult units of the Orphic mysteries. Similiaries between both of these mystery cults and Christianity is evidence of their influences.

I'm afraid you didn't understand what I wanted to say: Dionysus is a pagan god and not the cult worshipping him. That was a mere linguistic blunder and I should have explained it better.

Unfortunately you don't address my other points. I reiterate: the Essenes were no mystery cult.

• You are confusing the conflict of early Christianity with Gnosticism etc. (2nd and 3rd century) with the time of Christianity's legalization and establishment.

Nope, I'm not confusing it, im connecting the struggle with its absorbtion. The two, as I have argued, are not mutually exclusive.

You are. You are suggesting that Gnosticism was a perfectly valid and accepted form of Christianity until the Church, having come to power under Constantine, stamped it out. That's a common misconception but it's not true. The intellectual/theological conflict was already "very old news" when Constantine converted - there was nothing left to decide in that regard.

Maybe you should consider editing on Gnosticism, since what you put forth is referring almost exclusively to Gnosticism.

Not exclusively Gnostic, at all. I touched on all the influences that scholarship is thinks to have played a role in the development of Chrisitian ideas, and I state as much.

The thing is that these influences, as you cite them, all do apply to Gnosticism, regardless of which paradigma you take in regard to that phenomenon. But to make Gnosticism, with its fragmented groups, its arcane teaching, its anti-materialism the norm of Christianity is not proper. Str1977 09:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you won't agree with my points on the content, but at least consider the problems of form. Thank you, Str1977 16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, and yes, I'll consider the problems of form and address those in my lastest edits. 64.121.40.153 08:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I agree, especially about the problem of stating as fact things that are disputed (e.g. "In its early years, there was not one Christianity"). Even if we firmly believe that something is true, it's against Wikipedia policy to state it as fact if it's disputed. That may be the hardest part of WP:NPOV policy to accept. AnnH ^(talk) 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is Mika, and I disagree. I have been following with some interst Giovanni's arguments, and looking up his references. I've been reading and learning a lot and wish to thank him for his contributions.

From my readings, I have found that while some of Giovanni's statements are contentious points in scholarship in that they apper to be asserted by a minority of biblical scholars throught the ages (probably because most such specialists have do have a pro-christian bias and a minority are from a secular point of view). But, this is not itself reason to exclude them from here---merely change the language to reflect this. I'll try to do that.

However, other poitns are certainly widely accepted as facts, and I think can be stated as facts. I disagree with Star1977 list of what he thinks are not generally accepted and thus POV if stated as a fact. For example, one source that I respect is the well known site www.religioustolerance.org I don't think anyone where would disgree with their NPOV mission, "We try to describe all viewpoints on controversial religious topics objectively and fairly." I think they do a great job at neutrality by including all points of view and separate what is commonly accepted by most scholars with elements that are disuted, listing the alternative views. They are a model to be emulated for this encylopeida not only for their NPOV but also becaue its well referenced.

What I do find interesting is that they list among those things that are widely accepted many of the same claims that Giovanni is making here but which others are saying is either not accurate or POV. I think to them it is POV becaue they are pusing their own brand and understanding of Christianity, but that is not NPOV. I don't think this is deliberate. To quote the site again, "Many Christians are aware of their own denomination's current beliefs, but are unfamiliar with the history of those beliefs, or of the teachings of other denominations. Many Christians have never been taught how their own denomination's beliefs developed down through the centuries." I want to quote from this site to prove my point, that a lot of what Giovanni states is widely accepted facts and not as Star put its--"contentious, not generally accepted) POV." Below are stated as generally accepted facts. In their words,"It is not a simple task to write about Christianity. There are on the order of 1,500 different Christian faith groups in North America which promote many different and conflicting beliefs. Further, many groups believe that they alone are the "true" Christian church and that all of the others are in error. As a result, one cannot write an introduction or a history of Christianity that is acceptable to all faith groups. The following is supported by historical evidence and is probably agreeable to most."

"Historians speak of many Christian faith groups teaching conflicting views of Jesus, God, morality, religious obligations, etc. Men and women led house churches. No central authority existed; the congregations were almost completely decentralized."

"In addition to Gnostic, Jewish, and and Pauline Christianity, there were many other versions of Christianity being taught. Often, there would be a number of conflicting Christianities being propagated within a single city. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE, the Jewish Christian movement was largely dissipated. Gnostic leaving Pauline and Gnostic Christianity as the dominant groups. Gentiles within the movement took over control of the former movement. The Roman Empire recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 CE. Later in that century, it became the official religion of the Empire. Church authority became concentrated among the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Gnostic Christianity was severely persecuted, both by the Roman Empire and the Pauline Christian churches. It was almost exterminated, but is experiencing rapid growth today. With the expansion of Islam throughout the Middle East during the seventh century CE, power became concentrated in Constantinople and Rome. These two Christian centers gradually grew apart in belief, and practice. In 1054 CE, a split was formalized between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches; their leaders excommunicated each others. The split remains in effect today. Efforts are being made to heal the division. However, they are making little progress." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_intr.htm

"Christendom has not been a unified movement throughout most of its history. With the possible exception of a few years circa 31 CE, from the execution of Jesus to the conversion of Paul, there have always been at least two competing faith groups which seriously, devoutly, thoughtfully and prayerfully believed themselves to be true Christianity. A broad overview of Christian history follows:

1st century CE: There were at least three distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical of the other two.

4th century CE: The Roman Emperor Theodosian 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." 2 The church used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Although they were officially given equal status, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among the equals. 3

6th century CE: Only Pauline Christianity had survived in the Mediterranean area, in the form of a deeply divided Catholic church. Gnostic Christianity had been suppressed; Jewish Christianity had died out. There were independent Christian groups in Egypt, India and elsewhere which were not part of Catholicism.

1054 CE: The great schism formally divided Christendom into two main groups: Roman Catholicism in western Europe, and the Eastern Orthodox churches in the east.

1517 CE: Martin Luther triggered the Protestant Reformation.

16th century to the present time: Protestantism fragmented into more than a dozen families of denominations, and thousands of individual faith groups -- over 1,000 in North America alone. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_true.htm

In any large city of the Roman Empire, there were often religious leaders from each of these three movements -- and probably more -- teaching their own conflicting views on Christianity. Although the Jewish Christian and Gnostic movements were eventually scattered and/or exterminated, the successor to Pauline Christianity survived, and became the established church. However, it later split into thousands of Christian faith groups with competing beliefs and practices. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm

"Gnostics believe that they have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. It became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity, and was noted for three factors which differed from the two other branches of Christianity: Novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and the world which differed from those of other Christian groups. Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism. Lack of discrimination against women.

A belief that salvation is achieved through relational and experiential knowledge. In the words of The Gnostic Apostolic Church, humanity needs to be awakened and brought "to a realisation of his true nature. Mankind is moving towards the Omega Point, the Great day when all must graduate or fall. This day is also the Day of Judgment in that only those who have entered the Path of Transfiguration and are being reborn can return to the Treasury of Light." 2 The movement and its literature were essentially wiped out before the end of the 5th century CE by mainline Christianity heresy hunters. Its beliefs are currently experiencing a rebirth throughout the world."

As you can see, these gives support for Giovanni's submissions and I vote that they be included, since it appears to be historical true facts: there was NOT one Christianity. There were several. Sure, each church believes itself to be the one and true and only chruch but that is just their dogma and POV--its not historical fact. Historical fact is that there were many. Its POV to say that these others were not really Christians. Infact, that is what many churches today say of the Catholic Church that its not really Christian but Pagan. Well these are POV's. Much of what Giovanni has argued for is historical fact and thefore I will try to work it in the history/origins section much in the same way that www.religioustolerance.org goes. MikaM 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

I request unprotection so I can continue to make edits here. I have before but I was doing so without registering my own account. Thanks. MikaM 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) This can be verfied by looking at my ip address 69.107.7.138 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

Thanks, Mika for your words of support. I think the truth shall prevail as facts are stubborn things. They dont go away. I have added the section after doing a lot of work to it based on these comments, my own above, and those of critics. I found some areas of weakness where my critics were correct (see above) and made those changes. If there are other and further issues, we can iron those out as well. This history and origins section, as it stands now, I think is very well done, in no small part thanks to the very critics who probably rather not see any such topic explicated at all. hehe Giovanni33 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the earlier version...

I restored the information with some more changes per below.

1. I don't mind mentioning the importance of Greek philosophy (esp. Plato) on Christian theological development, but the section about "continuity" is poorly worded (from a grammatical standpoint) and doesn't make clear what that continuity is; there are also some elements of discontinuity (is that a word?) between Christian theology and Greek philosophy, so we ought not overstate the issue.

Thanks, I’ll work on addressing this point. Its better if you leave it on the main page so that others can have a chance at editing with improvements in the grammer. No sense to keep taking it down each time so in effect im the only one working on it. Putting the POV tag is good enough; we should avoid reverts.

2. Camille Paglia is no more an authority deserving mention than my mailman. No reason at all to mention her. Why not bring in some recognized authorities and see what they think? The truth is that they disagree with Paglia. Again, no need to mention her or her POV, which is barely academic (re: Christian history) and completely non-authoritative.

This is an amazing stance you have on trying to knock down Paglia and I’m interested on what basis you can possibly maintain it. Last time I checked my mailman was not a published university professor in the Humanities. Paglia is. Infact this American scholar, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” influenced the teaching of humanities in American academe itself, advocating that comparative religion, art history and the close reading of canonical literature be brought to the center of education, with greater attentiveness toward chronology and facts in the student's approach to history. In addition to having written five books, she continues to write articles and reviews for popular media and scholarly journals, such as her long article, "Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s", published in the classics and humanities journal Arion in winter 2003. In September 2005, she was named one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" in the world, in a list compiled jointly by editors of the journals "Foreign Policy" and "The Prospect" (UK). The list, which included only 10 women, also included feminist thinkers Germaine Greer, Martha Nussbaum, and Julia Kristeva. Its without question tht Paglia is a recognized authority and she write very well on the subject at hand and in no way comparable to your mailman. Also, I have brough in many, many other authorities with agree with Paglia. The problem you have is that these are all non-Christian authorities who are willing to go outside of the box imposed by Church orthodoxy, hence they are not deserving mention anymore than your mailman. But such is pure POV.

3. The repeated use of the phrase "Many scholars" is troubling. First, it leads the reader to believe that these "out there" views (re: mystery religions) are mainstream and generally accepted (which is completely untrue). Second, it saves us from having to "name names". Why not name a few mainstream historians who can support this theory? That's not asking for much.

If these “out there” views are not generally accepted then please cite your sources that make this claim, since you claim its completely untrue. I have already cited the many scholars who do support this view. Its only “out there” from the persepctive of relgious devotees who are boxed in by the narrow confines of their religious adherence. However, such folks won’t even talk about this area, and their exclusion of it is noteworthy of their bias. I’ll be happy to include some of the scholars aby names as examples, if you prefer for the points. I would even be willing to state that it is disputed by relgious biblical scholars, as well. The point here is that suppression of non-chritian orthodoxy pertient to the subject does not promote neutrality, it kills it.

4. As stated previously, the "mystery religions" thing was way overstated. Mention it as an influence and move on...no need to overstate it.

Ok, I’ll re-work it to tone down this point where appropriate as futher compromise.

5. "The resulting orthodoxy emphasised blind faith, which "renders the impossible possible "(Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology") a craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed." This is a perfect example of the problems we're having here. First, it's inaccurate. Secondly, the supporting citations are from obscure figures who are not historical authorities. But when one accepts obscure scholarship, problems arise.

I disagree. Its not inaccurate. Its very accurate. Please make your case that this is not accurate. Also, these scholars are historical authorities. Make your case why there work and creditials are not worthy to be considered authoritative. The above passage, is infact taken from an encylopeia in the respected Jewish Encylopedia written by the American scholar Kaufmann Kohler. See, here we have a religious scholar, but the reason why this reglious authority will be rejected is not because he is not scholarly but because he is not a Christian one. Kaufmann is Jewish, was the president of the Hewbrew College in Cincinatti. His writings include Backwards or Forwards: Lectures on Reform Judaism, Jewish Theology Systematically and Historically Considered, Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion, and the Origins of the Synagogue and the Church. I understand that adherents to the Christian Church won't like what this passage its an accurate assessment of the school of Christian thought that was ultimately triumphant and helps explain the terror and persecution the Christians imposed on others, culminated in the worst period of human history known as the Dark Ages.

6. Finally, the piece offered by Giovanni is simply too lengthy. We need a brief overview...History of Christianity can give a lengthier treatment. KHM03 11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a very brief overview only. I’ve checked the other languages article on Christianity and this is of comparable length. This is ont too lengthy, esp. considering its illumination.

Giovanni33 01:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Paglia is, as you say, a professor of humanities. But that doesn't make her an expert or authority on Christian history. My concern is not POV -- there are authorities and experts who are far from orthodox whose work I accept in various fields (Marcus Borg, for instance, in "Jesus research"...well, the Jesus Seminar in general). I would accept Borg (for instance) as an authority in that field, but not in terms of, say, Reformation history or Marxist economics. Related fields to Jesus research? Possibly. But he's not expert in all of them. Paglia isn't an accepted authority in Christian history. You and I can't change that. KHM03 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Kaufmann may be a very well respected scholar of Judaism...I've no idea. But that doesn't make him an authority on Christian history. Can you cite some more mainstream, acknowledged experts? If the perspective is as accurate and as prevalent and as accepted as you claim, that couldn't be too difficult. KHM03 01:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the entire article may not be too lengthy, but this section is a brief overview, pointing the reader to the History article, where these ideas have more room for development. KHM03 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your objections about consensus raise an underlying question: how do we know what the scholarly consensus is on a given issue? You imply that most professional biblical scholars are in disagreement with the conclusions of the academics I have cited. Well, how do you know this to be true? How do we determine when there is a consensus? Who is to judge who qualifies as a a suitable authority enough for me to use here? It seems you limit this to only Christians? At least that is the only ones you have cited as examples of "mainstream" who you would accept. I have cited an abundance of scholars, but to you they are “obscure.” You keep saying my claims are inaccurate, etc, but you failed to cite any scholar which supports your claims. Please quote them, even if they are Christians, to make your case? I don't want anything that is not accurate either.

I am willing to bet that there are consensus positions among scholars on a few basic issues but if this claim were challenged, how would to demonstrate it? The standard method in scholarly writing is to fill our footnotes with references pro and con on a given position. But this counts only published opinions. It would be fascinating to see poll on a broad range of basic questions. That would give us some hard data from which to assess where the consensus positions are. But even this would have weaknesses. The matters that I bring forward are not really in the category for super specialized knowledge. They are not, for example, things like the controversial issues in historical Jesus research project like the issue regarding status of the Gospel of Peter, i.e. whether it contains early and independent tradition, or whether all of it is late and wholly dependent on the canonical gospels? In this matter, even biblical scholars themselves are challenged by others as not being expert enough with the required specialized knowledge for these questions, but they still speak on them with authority. So should we give credence only to the consensus among experts? If so, who decides who is on the list of these acceptable experts? Again, the topics I raise, on the other hand are of such a general nature with weak language (“influenced”, “developed along side of”, etc) that certainly a professor of Humanities is expert enough of an to speak on the question with enough authority. Likewise, the Jewish scholar I noted is even more so. It’s strange to discount him on the basis that his specialty is not with Christian history, per se. bu that of Jewish history. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and esp. in this matter dealing with the origins of Christianity the expertise in Judaism is one and the same as that of Christian history for this period—they cross and lap over each other for this areas, and have just as much authority as an expert. And, I suggest that in the absence of reliable statistical data you cannot claims with any assurance at all what the consensus views are, much less discount my scholars as obscure as evidence that what I say is inaccurate, esp. when you fail to cite any scholars with specific refutations of my contributions. At least show me where any of your "mainstream" scholars speak to the connections I raise one way or another. If they don't then we can hardly rely on their absence of addressing these issues as evidence that they are not true. Such would be illogical esp. in light of the scholars I have cited.

I note that you removed everything once again, and I’ll go back and make further changes to incorporate them since they are part of the breif summary sections on history and origins but not so brief as they dont even mention these important origins of modern Christianity. Giovanni33 04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mika, and welcome! Just two things. First, I'm sorry about the semiprotection. I have unprotected several times, but each time, the vandalism starts again. I'm going to try again now, but if it starts again, I may have to reprotect. In any case, since you are now a registered user, you should find that you're able to edit semiprotected pages quite soon. I'm not sure how many days it takes. The other thing is that Wikipedia does not share your high opinion of the Religioustolerance.org website. Please see here, where it says that that site should never be used to source information in Wikipedia articles. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

True about religoustolerance.org, however I note that like our own very dear site here which is also created by regular folks, I found the information to be reliable, and NPOV--even more so. The good thing is that they cite references, so we can rely on those references, which are valid for Wikipedia purposes here. The information you prested from that site, as far as I know, are not diputed among scholars. Giovanni33 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've seen other articles that referenct RT.org being used here on WP. I went to the link provded by Ann, and while it does say what she says it says, it says many other things too. It appers this is not a policy and therefore the RT may still be used without violation of WikiPolicy. "References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." If I'm correct that this is just a proposal, then the admonision that the," site should never be used to source information in Wikipedia articles," was a bit sneaky and misleading as it made everyone think this was policy. Giovanni33 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not address the various issues of contention right now and the alleged authority of the voices cited, but merely say this:

• this is a brief and concise overview of Christianity's history. If all Giovanni posted were generally accepted, the best we could do for him is include one or two sentences about mystery cults (that's what I meant with arguing theories - we don't have room here to do this). As his posts are not generally accepted it shrinks down to a brief reference.
• Also, consider that you constantly remove the secular conflict between Christianity and Islam from the history alltogether, and this to create space for contentious theories.

Str1977 09:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is brief, as it stand with the inclusion of a brief summary of the history and origins. Infact, it's less than half the size of the "Differences in Beliefs" section. It is also in keeping the the size in other language version of the same subject. Also, I only intentionally removed the Islam section because I didn't think it was that important a point, however but I'm fine if you want to keep it. Just restore that part without taking out all the other sections on the origins. 64.121.40.153 09:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the section on Islam and removed some parts of my own section. 64.121.40.153 10:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

I reverted and restored to verstion with more information (Giovanni's). I noticed that those reverting his work to an earlier version also wiped out a lot of other important parts, including even the history chart for some reason, and when Giovani restored it they revereted again without any answer here to the ongoing discussions. This is counter productive. Before reverting work, please at least make the case here and respond here first.

While some of Giovanni's material might be contentious removing it is also obviously contentious. I think Giovanni has made a strong case that it should not be excluded. The latest objection over lenght seems to be a ruse. I dont find it too long. If it's still a POV issue, then make the case here and lets fix it as he has been asking above. I see him making a good faith effort to reach consensus and compromise and addresses each point while the other side often does not. From being an impartial observer it seems the problem with POV here is that there are many Christians who are letting their POV to take over. I'm following with interest and want to add my vote not to keep reverting his interesting and referenced additions to section. Maybe we need to divide the section into two parts: influences/origins of ideas, and history? Lets all get along and respect each others work. 38.114.145.148 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Belinda

Sockpuppetry and Consensus

Giovanni33, 64.121.40.153, 38.114.145.148, User:BelindaGong: Please review WP:SOCK. Also, please take a look at WP:CON. Thanks.

Also, the edits are obviously hotly contested and keep getting reverted or substantially changed by several editors, at which point you keep reverting. Please gain a consensus here before simply reverting to the more controversial stuff. Thanks...KHM03 13:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies. Obviously I have generated some agreement with others who support my version. Its rather insulting to insinuate that this must be due me being one and the same with the others. I have only one account. I am not aware how to spoof IP addresses. I have a static IP address.

Yes, the edits your making are also hotly contested and keep getting revereted or substancially changed by several editors, at which point you keep reverting, as well. Please follow your own advice and gain a consensus here before you keep reverting. Note above that I have responded to your points (and that of anyone else), addressing every each point. Im waiting for your response, yet you gave none and only kept reverting. Please respond to the points before simply making the same reverts back on the page. As Belinda has pointed out this was infact removing other well established material that was agreed on here long ago. I'm awaiting your answer above so you can make your case why this material should be suppressed. So far you have not made the case. 64.121.40.153 13:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there is a clear POV being pushed here by those of the Christian faith. This is clear by the double standard: the rules apply to only some but not others. For example the need to reach consensus. Above Giovann and others have asked questions to try to reach consensus about what the objections are, and to have that justified. No response. Yet, the works is still removed. And, other work is removed without any justification. Why is the History chart now continually removed just to restore to KHM03's version? He never made that case. He never made the case why his version which many dispute on here (everyone who is not pushing a clear Christian POV) is the one that is being reverted to. If this article and site is really about defending a Church POV then at least say so. What I can't stand is the hypocracy and dishonesty. BelindaGong 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Belinda

Administrators: I'm not sure about "sockpuppet etiquette", so I really don't feel comfortable responding too much here. WP:Arb? I defer to the sysops who participate in this article. KHM03 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please verify that there is no sockepuppety going on, however that is done. Im sure you have a way to verity what are real distinct IP address and that which someone manually changes to appear to be another person. I swear that I would not do that, although given appearances I forgive KHM03's suspitions, although I might wonder about him and STR. hehe 64.121.40.153 14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

Giovanni33 has seemed to have triggered an interesting state of Hysteria. I for one found his contribution to the historical section both of great interest and relevance. Please keep up the good work.

Stepping outside the "Wikipedia NPOV / POV game play" for moment

The Wikipedia exercise is ONLY of real value, if it develops without censorship by self-interested minorities. If you're at all interested why, see "The Wisdom of Crowds - James Surowiecki".

Hence - in the context of the above, there should be no issue with all known information concerning the roots of Christianity being available to all who are interested, including the possible derivation of Christianity from an number of preceeding cults with very similar attributes.

Rather than attempting to re-write or suppress certain history information, perhaps individuals should examine their own agendas and ultimately the strenght of their own faiths.

No - I'm not a sock puppet :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheShriek (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 January 2006.

I haven't seen any evidence of suppression of information, simply adherence to mainstream academic views on Christianity. There isn't enough room on the web to contain every radical theory or minority perspective...that has nothing to do with the veracity of the views, and everything to do with support in academia. Giovanni33 (& socks, I suppose) has presented a view which has recieved little support from the experts in the field of Christian history. We need to treat these views properly...mention them and their position within academia, and move on. KHM03 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03, and I request that people would stop using accusations of hysteria, censorship, and POV-pushing when editors who are open about their Christian faith try to ensure that anything added to the article would be backed up with reliable sources. We all have POVs here. It's not as if criticizing Christian churches = neutrality and defending them = bias. If something critical of Christianity belongs to mainstream academic scholarship, then of course it can go into the article, though even then, it should be reported as something that writers and professors X, Y, and Z assert, rather than something that is a fact. If something critical of Christianity comes from a non-mainstream academic source, then it can be reported in the (again, in the for of Professor X says) if there's room for it, and if it's sufficiently relevant. In either case, please make your case on the talk page, and wait for consensus. And please don't revert to a version that says the page is semi-protected when it's not. Giovanni33 could you please log on when posting here. This seems to show that you are 64.121.40.153. It gets confusing when you edit from two names, and is perhaps a bit unfair of people who want to keep track of your arguments. BelindaGong, I presume that you were 38.114.145.148, and that you have now registered. In that case, welcome. Welcome also to TheShriek. Could I just say, please sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end; they will automatically expand into your name and the date. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 15:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is me and I'll remember to log on. Thanks. Giovanni33 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words of support, anon. user. I will keep up the good work and continue to seek consensus. I expect the clash in points of view, the discussions, and use of evidence by contending parties to show what the authorities really do say about these many questions, to prouduce in the end a NPOV and informative article. But it only works if we are all following the rules. Its kind of hard when the objections are not made known, when they keep chaning, and when claims are not being supported (or only being supported one way).

KH03, back the the arguments. You again say proclaim that the views I present are radical theories and minority perspective. If they are they can be said to be such and still included. But, you have no even established that yet. I invite you to please present evidence for these claims, again. Previous request have been met with silence.

As I stated previously, you have not shown what the consensus views are, or what makes for (in your mind) a view that is to be acccepted as valid, vs. scholars who you say are not because they are "radical" or "obscure." I'd like to know your criteria for determining what is mainstream (outside of their credencials and professional activities since that doesnt seem to be enough). Has there been a vote among the experts on these questions? Do the majority refute the "radical theories?" Please do share your knowlege about these matters by backing up your claims. Surely you are not imune to his burden? Or are we supposed to accept your word on faith alone? Or are you the self appointed expert? I know that to discount my scholars as "obscure" (without establishing that as a fact or giving your criteria for such branding), it does not logicallly that what they say is inaccurate (I think you no longer make this argument). But to suppress them as not acceptable for inclusion fails when you fail to cite any scholars with specific refutations of my contributions as one would expect if your claims were correct. At least show me where any of your "mainstream" scholars speak to the connections I raise one way or another. If they don't then we can hardly rely on their absence of addressing these issues as evidence that they are not true, not valid, or not worhty of inclusion. Such would be illogical esp. in light of the MANY legitimate scholars I have cited to support the information I have added.

And, please be specific when you cite your authorities which clealry show a specific refutation to specific claims that I make in this "radical" view? I dont accpet your premise and believe that it’s only radical from the perspective of Church orthodoxy--that is your own POV. Since this is not a religious site, but NPOV, I'd say it's rather important to get out of the Church sanctioned box.

And, keep in mind you claiming a view is mainstream doesnt make it so. Please also provide evidence for that important claim if you are going to use it to supporess a view based on its claimed minoirty status. Show me where the views of your scholars are accepted, whereas the ones I cite are not. And, again, be specific and cite what your "authorities" say that constitues a specific refutation to some or all of the specific claims that I've made. If what you are saying is true, and these theoris are in the minority, and considered radical, then surely is must be very easy for you to show that with specific refutions from the "mainstream" no? I hope that the mainstream is really that and not just a code word for mainstream within the confines of Christians themsleves. In my other debates with you in the Early Christianity board, all you produced were other Christians, some of which were not even in academia , and most of which were not that scholarly in nature. So if you are going to give those same references here I hope you can address what makes them more acceptable than the scholars I have cited to the "mainstream" however you define that. The object here is to seek a truely NPOV, not to copy the POV of institutions that are biased.

As Dr. Larson writes, "Christian have always held that their creed was a single, unique, miraculous, and supreme revelation without predecessor or outside contributor. But the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth; Christianity is a composite of doctrines, teachings, and ideologies which have forerunners in previous religions, with a proximate source in the Essene cult. If these facts were widely known, the authority of the Church or the churches would be drastically reduced....they prefer simply to ignore the whole thing as if it did not exist."

Giovanni33 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

Its interesting to note that a reference to John Marco Allegro (a brilliant Semitic Languages scholar) and his work on the Essenes survived less than a day. Obviously his Oxford University doctorate wasn't of sufficient calibre to count him as a scholar in this community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheShriek (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 January 2006.

It's also interesting to note that most or all of the logins supporting Giovanni33's edits have made less than 100 edits themselves, in general less than a dozen edits, and most of those on this Talk page. Incidentally, Dr. Larson misrepresents Christianity when he claims they think it originated in a vacuum. Their development from the Hebrew religion (reserving "Judaism" to refer to the post-Temple religion the developed later) and influence from Greek philosophy (at leat in terms of vocabulary and some general concepts) have been widely acknowledged for centuries. Wesley 18:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how the talk/edit contributions of others is relevant. Is there a WP policy about seniority, giving those with more edits in their history preference over others? If so then that would explain a lot here, given my being new.Or, is this another insuation of the false accusations that I'm they are socket puppets of me? Personally, I think the other editors without much of a history may just have a new account for privacy. Maybe they didnt want to be target for taking a stand here, and then followed to every other site they go. I noticed that such a network exists here who do just that, to push their POV and supress those who have a different POV in an organized manner. Im not saying this is necessary unethical or against policy but it is a reality and I could understand wanting to avoid that by creating an account specifically for taking on the POV pushers, here. This is sheer speculation on my part, ofcourse. Giovanni33 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are so new how on earth would you know about some cabal that persecutes others for their opinions? You are bordering on being one of those who see a conspiracy around every turn. Speculation is best kept to oneself; it does not help you and certainly does not help others; unless you are trying to incite others. Your objectives are not perfectly clear, but let's not dwell on that.

Sockpuppetry is not looked upon favorably on WIKI. You have often made edits without signing in, you have added your name, Giovanni, on others, and still others you have signed like everyone else. I suspect it is just carelessness or ignorance as a new member of WIKI. Don't worry about it, but try to be concientious about signing with four "~" as you did above.

I am not aware of a seniority construct that impacts WIKI. However, we do have members that take a strong ownership of articles and resist major content changes to articles. In addition, if one has an unorthodox perspective it is difficult to get much "play" on faith based articles. However, just keep interjecting your edits and realizing that the majority opinion will get the majority of the article. That may be best because there are other articles that are more appropriate for many of our/your comments. Good luck. Storm Rider 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the discussion on this article is longer than the actual article itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.12.250.199 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 05 February 2006.

Good will version and response

Str, please stop reverting to what may be a more contentious version (note 5 editors here agree with Giovanni's version at least), and which also does revert many improvements/contributions by many editors that are included in this latest version. Please make your case here on the talk page and seek consensus, like everyone else. Thanks. BelindaGong 17:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Belinda. You say that five editors at least agree with Giovanni's version. 38.114.145.148 signed as Belinda here, and then you appeared with the same arguments. Are you the same editor or not? There's absolutely nothing wrong with editing as an anon and then registering an account, but we need to know because of rules limiting the number of reversions allowed, even when split between two accounts. Giovanni33 has clarified that he is User:64.121.40.153. User:TheShriek seems to have registered today. There is a slight contradiction at Wikipedia. On the one hand, we welcome new users; most of us do that very willingly. On the other hand, because of the ease of registering an account just to get round the revert limit or to vote on an issue to support a friend (I've blocked seventeen sockpuppets in the last few days), the sockpuppet policy says that you are not a fully-established Wikipedian until you have a hundred edits. (At least it did say that; I haven't checked the page recently.) So, if it doesn't sound too paradoxical, welcome, and for the record I don't think you're a sockpuppet (though I do ask you either to clarify if you are 38.114.145.148 or else not to use that address any more now that you have an account), but I would suggest that all the new users would be a little less eager to revert and to throw round words like censorship and POV-pushing. It really doesn't take long to become established. But to start your "career" on Wikipedia by repeatedly reverting isn't the best idea. AnnH ^(talk) 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Belinda and others, this is getting ridiculous. I revert to the (IMHO) not contentious version but included the material added by Giovanni for now. I still don't agree with it and the debate is not over, but this is an act of good will. But you are bent on reverting to a version with severe structural deficencies.

Actually, I think both version had structural deficiencies. One point I think people were making with the reverts what that is was reverting important agreed upon things, such as the history chart itself. When was that a point of contention? I have just added it, accepting your good will version. I have also made and will make more edits on this new goodwill version to address the defects and objections you raise here and below. My whole stuggle is to get people to state the issues and objections so that they can be fixed, instead of simply reverting and being silent specifics (or address points/counter points in an argument over claims made). Thanks for the goodwill version which I think will be more productive for all points of view. Giovanni33 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Gio

You say I should "not revert the MANY improvments that have been made by many editors", but what are actually the differences between my "good will" version and yours.

• You still include the horrendous passage: "While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism, heavily relying on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint"

I accept the goodwill version is being better language. Although, I dont think this section is horrendous. hehe

• You basically delete the "In the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity and Theodosius I established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire." by burying it under a rabble of "mytery" speculation.

No, that section was never deleted, nor was it burying under a rable of mystery speculation. Here is the section:

In the 1st century CE there were at least three well known and distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical each other. A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I. 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 church used the power of the state to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome.

I think it flows well together, contrasting the three well know distinct divisions, all claiming to be the one true version, and resulted with the formation of one that with state power that suppressed the other two.

• You turn "doctrinal disputes, especially regarding Christology, intensified, leading to internal strife and clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils." into "further refinenment in doctrinal disputes continued, leading to the ecumenical councils" - both wordings are debatable but why is your version so outrageously better than mine that it needs reversion. The same goes for the next change:
• "Other peoples adopted Christianity, such as Armenia or Ethiopia, while among other peoples ancient Christian minority communities developed" into "Other peoples adopted Christianity, such as Armenia or Ethiopia, while among other peoples independent Christian groups developed"

I agree both are minor and subtle changes. I think my changes are more acurate as they were indepenent, which is important to state given the enforced conformity elsewhere.

• You add "Protestantism fragmented into more than a dozen families of denominations, and thousands of individual faith groups -- over 1,000 in North America alone." The gist of this has already been included further above, the rest is circumstantial.

That is an important ramification of the split from the Catholic Church and should be stated.

• You de-link Biblical criticism.
• In the final line of that paragraph you constantly kick out the "Charismatic movement".

These are non intentional as im sure the reversions back to KH03, by himself, yourself, and Ann, did not mean to kick out the history chart, each time. But, there are other changes, too, in the persectution section, which I included as a compromise to issues raised by Sophia. These were being reverted back to an original state, as well. I'll restore changes shortly.

Now, I think you don't even care about these changes that have nothing to do with the issue of contention here. I think you simply want to revert back to your version. We have seen this before - it took me some energy to even reinclude "Islam" into your version.

Nope, not true. I cared about all the changes. That is the problem of reverting. The easiest way for me (and I guess others) to restore it all at once is to revert it back to the most updated version. I dont see why it took some energy to reinclude Islam into my version. Infact, I included it once I realized it was not there. When you raised the point, I had no objections to including it.

I for my part cannot see how your version contains "MANY improvments that have been made by many editors" and no justification for your revert.

I hope you can see now that it did contain many things, some of which were not even in contention, and thus her justification was correctly stated and believed.

The only thing I can see is the book list which I will re-include. I will however take out Lüdemann, as he is no authority on anything, and Hislop, as he has been discussed and dismissed here before. Str1977 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me.

The preceding post was written simultaneously to Belinda's post above. Here's my reply to this:

"Str, please stop reverting to what may be a more contentious version (note 5 editors here agree with Giovanni's version at least)"

Five editors agree, some of which are suspected of being sock-puppets. I don't say that they are but this head counting proves nothing and certainly doesn't invalidate accuracy and NPOV.

I agree, but it does make the point that there is contention for both versions. Its not so one sided.

"...and which also does revert many improvements/contributions by many editors that are included in this latest version."

As pointed out above, I don't see any improvements. At best there are neutral changes.

As I showed there were many improvments, in some cases major ones which were being knocked out, i.e the history charge and on Persecution section, the books, etc.

"Please make your case here on the talk page and seek consensus, like everyone else."

May I remind editors of the fact that Giovanni did not seek or get consensus for his version. He simply posted it, bloating up the history section with a focus on one issue.

Now, this is not true. I have been working tirelessly to get a consensus for my version. True, I posted it with a POV for others to assist in the edits per the consensus but I have been working here to iron out all points of objection, or argue for them, in the aim of reaching consensus.

Let me do some maths for you:

• The history section in its current state (i.e. my good will version) has exactly 1043 words.
• Without the contentious passages (i.e. in its former state) it has 457 words.
• Giovanni's additions number exactly 586 words (leaving aside the Koine passage).

No dispute here. Your good-will version is indeed a productive step in the right direction and I applaude you for it, and the section was entirely missing any touching of the origins from the standpoint of ideas. I note this is often a neglected topic but one which I feel is important.

That is not a mere addition to a brief historical overview, this is bloating of a section and pushing of a certain pet issue.

I think it is very brief and in reality adds a new section: origin of ideas and practices, on top of the history, which I also contributed to. Belinda suggested earlier that maybe it should be divided into a subsection. I'm open to that.

To say nothing about accuracy and POV language.

Str1977 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do say something as that is what I've been trying to get out of critics, so I can undersand the objections, and than remedy per NPOV and accuracy. I cant do it alone. We all need to coopearte and get our hands dirty. hehe

I did say something further down. Str1977 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks again for the communication and goodwill version. I'll keep working on it until we have something that passes all of our scrutiny of each other. Giovanni33 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

Analysis of Giovanni's addition

1st paragraph:

"Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity."

This is worse than before, having been turned from "may have emerged" to "emerged" - this portrays a POV as fact. A NPOV version is already included.

Agreed. This should be fixed. I think I did fix it already in a later version. This must be from an earlier version your quoting.

"Also, early Christian fathers such as Origen helped to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, and Christianity."

No objection, but already included above.

"Other scholars ..."

Are you placing Paglia next to Origen?

I kept the good will version which replaces the above,and I moved the Paglia quote and placed it after Larson, where it fits better.

"... such as Humanities Professor Camille Paglia assert that Christianity was itself a development of the Dionysian mystery religion."

This is a NPOV statement, though this overview is not the place to go into details. Also consider KHM's dispute of her credentials. Humanities is a very wide field. Romanists, for instance, can comment on language and literature, but not on history (apart from their respective studies) or theology.

I may be willing to concede to this point.

"Although many scholars believe that the incorporation and influences of several pre-Christian ideas, especially from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism explains the many similarities eventually comprising the orthodoxy of the Church,"

So, many scholars believe this. This is definetely overstated.

"... this remains disputed by reglious scholars."

The old trick: paint the opposition as "religious", claim that their opposition has nothing to do with scholarship - are the "many scholars" above all Atheists?

Its not a trick, its points to the fact that religious bias helps to inform the reasons the disputes (although I have not seen anyone here actually cite disputes), just as secular humanist scholars, including Athieists would include and emphasis this, since it points to their bias, as well. It doesnt follow that it therefore has nothing to dowith scholarship. Scholarship is biased--there is no escaping it. Good scholarship is honest about this and includes footnotes of the other side, and when argues a point uses the best arguments of their opponents, etc. But, in questions of emphasis, bias is easily seen. However, I removed it by simply stating, "this remains disputed." I take this on faith since no one here has yet to prove that its disputed. Unless they to, I may change it.

2nd paragraph:

"It's important to note that in its early years, there was not one Christianity but many, emerging along side a vareity of mystery cults"

Apart from being a condescending advice to the reader, it is also at best POV and misleading, especially since the mystery cults are then mentioned separately.

I don't thin its POV or misleading but I do see redundancy and over emphasis on the ideas.

I guess since the this area of influence has been so neglected I want to bend it the other way and stress the facts of the diversity of thought that existed. I concede this is not necessarily correct and would not remove the redundancy.

"many of whose members converted into Christitan teachers and leaders themselves and thus were an influence on the Christian developing ideas and practices."

Those converting from MCs to Christianity may very well have influenced it (but how and in what respect?), but certainly couldn't start off something they joined (or radically transform it) and they certainly wouldn't change the substance of something they joined. If so, why did they change in the first place?

Actually, I've already spoken on this point, but stating here how and in what respect would be beyond the scope of this section/article which is being kept breif. I agree that the article it links to should address these questions.

"Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus,"

As I stated above, the Essenes are not mystery cult at all, it is doubtful for the Therapeutes, the Gnostics are what we are talking about, the Nasseni I don't know. Dionysus should worded better.

Perhaps but its debatable as they certainly shared many things with the mystery cults. Their "Sons of Light," an influence from Zoroastrianism via their parent ideology of Pythagoreanism. According to Larson, both the Essenes and Pythagoreans resembled thiasoi, or cult units of the Orphic mysteries.

"... and there is much speculation regarding Mithraism may also have been partly assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris."

That assumes that there was something like a "savior cult of Osiris" at the time and that both Mithraism and Christianity spring from it. Mithraism has Persian origins and a origin in Egypt is dubious. And Christianity certainly didn't spring from that cult. Granted, Larson says so, but how much of an authority is he on that matter?

Larson never says Christianity springs from that cult, he only says it both derived fromteh same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. Larson's work, from what I've read, is well respected and scholarly.

"Many followers of developing Gnosticism for example (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and taught a synthesis of the two belief systems."

Granted, but that is Gnosticism and not orthodox Christianity.

Yes, and that is the point. There was on one orthodoxy (until later)---and the Gnostics merged with Christians, and were both. Similarly with other teachers and members of the early christianity. This helps to explain the influences on each other.

• 3rd paragraph:

"In the 1st century there were at least three well known and distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge).Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical each other."

This is a misrepresentation of the situation, conflating various periods in time: there were Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the first century. The JCs (a term that was attacked by another editor only last week) were hit by the Jewish wars and persecution - parts perished (the church of Jerusalem between 132 and 135), parts survived and stayed with the church, parts founded "heresies". It is only these heresies (and certainly James was not their leader) that separetely existed during times that Gnosticism was really prominent. Gnosticism is also mentioned already in "my" first paragraph. And what is "at least" supposed to insinuate?

What you say factually true from my own understanding, however thhis doesnt contradict my section. You admit all this was in the 1st century, which is all I state. I don't think I'm misrepresenting only stating briefly. These greater details within the 1st century I leave out to be included in the article itself that deals with early history.

"A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I."

What is a "single basic church hierarchy"? There was church hierarchy in the 1st century, at least in some places. Constantine didn't change that. Christianity was not the state enforced religion" under him - it wasn't even under Theodosius. And how is the phrase "Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I." syntactically and logically possible.

Good catch of something in need of correction re Constantine and Theodosius. I think more needs to be clarified regarding the church hierarchy, what did exist, and when. Certainly it did change after it became the state religion.

"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."

Partly true, but this is what's already subsumed under Theodosius. What is wrong is that "imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions" - pagan temples were closed and private sacrifices forbidden. But there was no iquisiting pagan sympathies - some senators were quite openly pagan.

Yes, this doesn't change the decree or what it states, or its purpose, or that fact that it really did carry this out in practice. There is no contradiction here.

"The church used the power of the state to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians."

That's a repitition of what you said before, but it is hardly worded NPOV. There was no organised extermination of Pagans or Gnostics. And the Church did not generally approve of violence, in fact in the case of Priscillian very high-ranking bishops protested his execution.

I disagree here. There was organized extermination of Pagans and Gnostics. That why only Pauline Christianity had survived (in the Mediterranean area), and while there were some individuals in the church who did not approve, I dont think it can be said that "the church di dnot generally approve of violence." They sure managed to executed a lot of people for "not generally approving of violence."

"Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome."

The pentarchy developed in the 5th century (451 most notably) and was sanctioned into law in the 6th century. BTW, the sequence of sees is completely wrong. It should be Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalm, in descending precedence.

In theory they were all supposed to be equal, although in practice Rome was given preference.

"The losing groups, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics."

This is inappropriate (apart from the repitition) as it reduces theological conflicts to a power struggle with "winners" and "losers". And Vae Victores!

Why is that inappriate? There was a power struggle that took the form of theological conflicts and there were clear winners and losers.

"A sample of that scripture was preserved in a cave at Nag Hammadi. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery."

You are right about Nag Hammadi, but it doesn't "shroud" Christianity's early history "in mystery" but rather illustrates and illuminates what we knew before. It doesn't touch upon the "origins of Christian doctrine" at all, since it only gives as texts of a variation of groups existing at some time. But they don't say where they got their "gnosis" from.

This alone does not shroud it in mystery. What does it the complexity of the veritable potpourri of religious ideas in which Christianity formed. I included it to show they existed, despite the best effort of the church to wipe out their existence. Actually, in a later version, I removed this as it didnt quite fit and could lead to this confusion.

• 4th paragraph:

Preface: The following is basically a diatribe wallowing in anti-Christian bigotry of the worst sort. If this all were true no one of us would be sitting her, contributing to a non-existant Wikipedia. Hence I will remove it entirely. But let's go into details.

"The resulting orthodoxy emphasised blind faith, which "renders the impossible possible "(Mark ix. 23, 24),"

Who is advocating a blind faith then or now. Certainly not the Church Fathers or the Scholastiscs of the Middle Ages. There have always been those that have emphasized the potential of human reason and those that have emphasized its limitations, according to the situation. The rendering here is a carricature.

This overlooks the fact of what the main emphasis was as a religious doctrine which distiguished itself from competing religions, including the other Christian trends. I dont lose sight of the forest for the trees here. I'll provide more support for this argument later after get some sleep.

"produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology")"

That is patent nonsense. It was the Church and Christianity that saved as much of ancient learning and culture over the following troublesome years. "shown" here is a euphemism for "claimed". As for White see this link.

Beg to differ. I'll argue this point later.

"a craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief."

Above, Christians exterminated paganism root and branch and now they are pagans themselves. The truth is that Christianity did destroy superstitions one by one. Of course, not everywhere and not immediately, but slowly and surely.

No, they are not pagans themselves. However, they did incorporate various pagan ideas and practices, albeit in a vulgarized and literalised fashion, redressing it at their own. Yes, Christinity destroyed the other competing superstitions to boster its own dogmatic and authoritarian one.

"As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed.""

More patent nonsense. What supposedly was exterminated was in fact rescued over to the Middle Ages. "Free thinking" was either not surpressed or is a euphemism for something else. True, the Academy was closed down, but Justinian also founded the "university" of Constantinople.

hehe I disagree, but I'll have to debate this later when I can actually still type. Been awake for too long..

Str1977 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Gio's version: "Christian doctrines may also have emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity. Early Christian fathers such as Origen helped to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, and Christianity. Although many scholars believe that the incorporation and influences of several pre-Christian ideas, especially from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism explains the many similarities eventually comprising the orthodoxy of the Church, this remains disputed."

KHM03's response: Most of that is disputed. The mystery religions are mentioned in the previous paragraph as a possible influence; no need to overstate that. I deleted most of that paragraph, keeping the sentence beginning, "Early Christian fathers...", which, while it could be worded more effectively, is generally undisputed. KHM03 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated twice already, if you say most of it is disputed, then please support that claim with those that dipute it. I have yet to see your oft repeated claim given any referenced support. Without doing so, I'll dispute your claim as not validated and therefore the deletions you base it on. Giovanni33 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's version: "It's important to note that in its early years, there was not one Christianity but many, emerging along side the vareity of aformentioned belief systems, many of whose members converted into Christitan teachers and may have helped to influence the development of Christian ideas and practices. Most scholarship believes these may included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation that Mithraism may also have been partly assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. Other scholars such as Humanities Professor Camille Paglia assert that Christianity was itself a development of the Dionysian mystery religion. It is known that many followers of developing Gnosticism for example (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and probably taught a synthesis of the two belief systems."

KHM03's response: That's all disputed and most of it conjectural, not "hard history". I could live with the first sentence, modified of course. Larson and Paglia are not authorities on Christian history, so there's no need to mention them. KHM03 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, if you say most of it is disputed, then please support that claim with those that dipute it. I have yet to see your oft repeated claim given any referenced support. Without doing so, I'll dispute your claim as not validated and therefore the deletions you base it on. Giovanni33 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's version: "In the 1st century there were at least three well known and distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical each other. A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I. 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 church used the power of the state to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. The losing groups, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics. A sample of that scripture was preserved in a cave at Nag Hammadi. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery."

KHM03's response: I reworded the first sentence (and added links) to make it less POV: "In the first century there may have been at least three divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (believed to have been led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge)." I removed the sentence beginning "Each believed..." altogether, as I couldn't see its purpose. I changed the third sentence to include the idea (prominent in scholarship) that there is at least the beginnings of a hieracrchy revealed in the Pastorals, but kept the bit about structures being formalized by the time of Constantine: "While a church hierarchy seems to have been in development at least by the time of the writing of the Pastoral Epistles, structures were certainly formalized by the time of Constantine the Great and Theodosius I, who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire." The rest of the paragraph didn't seem to have much of a purpose in this very brief overview, and seemed pretty conjectural (why do we need to mention Nag Hammadi at this point? we don't), so I removed it. KHM03 19:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Only the first sentence is still misleading - the Paulines, if at all, were only separate during Paul's lifetime. To call "mainstream" Christianity Pauline is overstating his importance. Even Baur in the 19th century assumed that much, giving birth to the idea of a "Early Catholicism" synthesis. And the Jewish Christians separated from the Church after 135 were small sects. I'd opt for merging it with the "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism and various mystery cults, which may also have been an influence" sentence. Str1977 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That could work; do that. KHM03 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Though, for the record, I'm not sure we could overstate Paul's importance (granted, we Protestants have a pretty "high view" of the man!). KHM03 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt he is a most important figure. But you can overstate his importance. D. Martin Luther IMHO did that when he declared Paul's letters to be the the central texts of the NT - they are very important and I love the letter to the Romans, but there were twelve other apostles, some of which also wrote in the NT, not to forget a man called Jesus. And Paul himself denounced clinging to him in 1 Corintians.

But what is relevant to our issue here: even if theories about a conflict between Petrine and Pauline Christianity ending in a "Early Catholic synthesis" were true, than we'd still have that synthesis in the 2nd and 3rd century. Str1977 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If not before. Heck, Str1977, you're not sounding very Protestant.  ;) KHM03 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's version: "The resulting orthodoxy emphasised blind faith, which "renders the impossible possible "(Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology") a craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief. As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed."

KHM03's response: The entire paragraph is conjectural and POV. Many of antiquity's greatest minds were Christian who strongly supported learning, and that has continued throughout history (one can hardly question the intellect or support for education of Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, and many others). In short, the paragraph just seemed to me to deny reality, and certainly had no place in a very brief overview of Christian history in an NPOV encyclopedia. And, additionally, Draper, White, and Kohler are not historians of Christianity (though they may be tops in their fields); surely we can quote more authoritative sources. KHM03 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here but will have to debate the points later.

Overall, I've tried to incorporate the best of the material, what wasn't conjectural or POV, and think there's now a more balanced look in the section, respectful of the minority views Gio has presented while also adhering to the dominant view among scholars. Now, I'm off to glory in the exultant light of the angels. KHM03 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Ill have to take a look at it later and review changes. I'll respect everyone contributions, and thoughts, ofcourse.

Giovanni33 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a small tweak. The hierarchy is clearly visible in the 3rd century with such strong bishops as Cyprian of Carthage, Dionysius of Alexandria, Xystus of Rome etc. I also delinked it from Constantine and Theodosius as they didn't have anything to do with a formalisation of church hierarchy. Str1977 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a comment to make about the use of the word "as" in Giovanni's "blind faith" passage. As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed." To respect NPOV, we report what people say (if it's sufficiently relevant), but we don't try to corroborate it. If you look at these three examples:

• It was a nice day
• John said it was a nice day
• As John said, it was a nice day

the first example actually asserts that it was a nice day. The second example is completely neutral about whether or not it really was a nice day; it simply reports what John said, without agreeing or disagreeing. However, the third example, while reporting what John said, also reports that he was right. So a wording that tries to support Kohler (regardless of his level of authority on the history of Christianity, which seems questionable anyway) does not meet the requirements of NPOV. AnnH ^(talk) 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"the major Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings" Gio: That is true. I gave references for this. They did emerge. Fact. They emerged out of different influences. Fact. Some of these influences were the various mystery teachings. Fact according to most scholars. I'll concede to a language change here to reflect that we are not sure 100%, such as the word "may have been, or probably." Str: You gave some references for that. No one doubts that some hold this. But it is not consensus. It is not extreme to say that there was some influence on form, language or even some doctrines, but note that you said "the major Christian doctrines ..."

It has not been shown yet that its not consensus. Isnt it strange that I've asked for that at least 4 times and no one has been able to deliever? In anycase I'm changing it to reflect your proposed language, for now, since as it stands now its completely unclear. Infact, what is left while is short but very choppy and not clear. 64.121.40.153 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio, your claim that Christian doctrines emerged out of mystery religions is not fact. Please stop claiming it as such.

As stated (either here or at Early Christianity), the fact that mainstream historians have not disputed these claims to your satisfaction stems primarily from the fact that they don't take these ideas seriously. I've offered several names & resources of mainstream figures (not fringe folks or non-historians, such as Paglia), but you have denied the veracity and authority of mainstream academia. That's fine. But for this article, as for all of Wikipedia, we need to rely on that authority. Sure, we can mention these more radical fringe theories, but they are minority positions and we need to treat them as such.

Again, your problem is with the academy, not with other editors who want to support that persepctive. I suggest you look at Gonzales' Concise History of Christian Doctrine, Oden's Systematic theology trilogy (which covers doctrinal history in detail), or any number of works by Alister McGrath. These well known and highly respected scholars may help you understand the mainstream academy a little better.

Also, I think you misunderstand what we mean by "consensus"; this is not your fault, as I'm not sure we've explained it well enough. Please review WP:CON when you can. There is a consensus in the academy (which we're trying to represent in spite of your problems with that consensus), but when we mention "consensus" here or in edit summaries, we're talking about consensus among the editors here. So far, several fine, long-standing editors of Wikipedia have reverted, removed, or radically altered your changes. We have urged you to reach a conssnsus here, among the editors of the article, before making such hotly disputed and acdemically questionable changes. You've refused. This is why your proposals keep getting reverted or deleted. Now, I see that you have restored false content again. It will undoubtedly be removed again, by me or by another editor. It's incorrect and POV...not according to KHM03, Str1977, or Musical Linguist, but according to mainstream scholars of Christian history. Please...before making these changes which can never remain (until the academy radically changes its mind!), try and convince us here.

I did my best to incorporate your perspective in my edits yesterday...to no avail. You've pretty much just restored the POV content. Please stop doing this, or the article will remain disputed for the forseeable future and readers of Wikipedia will suffer. Thanks...KHM03 11:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I will stop claiming when you provide support for your claim that its NOT fact. I have provided a mountain of scholars who make the argument that such influenced did occur. If this fact is in dispute, please show show this specifically. That is the way to get me to stop claiming it as such. I use the model of rational debate, evidence, not edict or faith to constitute my beliefs.

So you say. Yet, you have not shown in anyway any evidence to support these claims of yours--even the alleged fact that my ideas are even disputed by your list of scholars. I have even looked up the books and did not find it, other than I noted some were not that scholarly, all were Christian activists, missionaries, and one was not even part of academia, but a pop-historian and journalist. Hard to believe this would be mainstream, even if it were a very selective list, but even so, you fail to show where they even touch on the topic of pre-christian origins. From the book reviews I read, they don't. They skip over it as, I suspect, most Christians do.

Nope, not true. I never denied the veracity and authority of mainstream academia. I simply ask that you establish your claim that your selected list of Chrstian scholars are 1. mainstream, 2. they dispute my stance, and 3. my selective list of scholars are "fringe, radical, etc." I guess this is too much to ask?

Yes, but only if the way you cast the light on my authorities vs. yours is correct. Since you make the claim and its vital to your argument, you need to support your claim.

Everything you say about consensus among the editors here can equally apply to yourself, as much as it does to me. So far, several editors of Wikipedia have reverted, removed, or radically altered your changes, as well. And, we have urged you to reach a conssnsus here, among the editors of the article, before making such hotly disputed and acdemically questionable changes. And for the record I did not refuse to work to gain consenus here. I have been making my case here since the start and have manged to gain significant support among other editors. Obviously, Christians are opposed to my views as it reflects their relgious bias. I understand that and that is fine. We all have their own bias and its important to know about them, so while I don't expect to convince everyone, I can convine enough I think to work out a compromise based on an objective reading of what scholars say, and listen to debates regarding what weight we should give to what authority. I think this is reasonable.

No, what I did was make a further compromise. You removed most of my work, and left one or two choppy sentences which other editors tried to clarify as they were not clear, but were reverted. I did not have impute in drafting the suggested new text. You and Str did that. So, what I did was review the changes and made my own changes that reflect a synthesis of your work and mine. I did not simply revert back. And, I made my case here as well.

64.121.40.153 16:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

Beowulf now? That's important in a brief overview of Christian history? Oh, boy...

KHM03 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It might surprise you but Beowulf is of great interests to scholars and in particular historians in much the same way that the Bible is, or the Iliad. And, I only referenced it, quite appropritely in the same manner that a scholar would to make the point that it shows Christian belief took hold only very slowly, and even as late as 700-1000 C.E. it still existed as a combination of Christian and Pegan beliefs. I find that pretty interesting and relevant to the point. 64.121.40.153 16:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

Notwithstanding Beowulf's great historical and literary value, mentioning it that way only confuses the reader. Based on its dates and location, the most any similarity between Beowulf and Christianity might show is that paganism had some influence on part of European Christianity, or that Christianity had some influence on European Paganism short of converting them, or both. But it in no way 'proves' or even suggests that the Christianity of the first century was based on paganism. Wesley 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, in no way was I using that to prove, suggest, or even make the point that "Christianity was based on paganism." The only point I did make, was that the adoption of Christian beliefs occured very slowly, as can be seen from works like Boewulf, which are dated 700-1000. This proves that the the belefs of Christinaity was a slow, gradual adoption process, not a rapid one as some think, and that even this late pagan beliefs were fused with Christian ones. Note that it was a Christian author that wrote Beowulf for a Christian audience at a time when the Anglo-Saxons were already Christianized. Yet, the same pagan concepts found in Beowulf can also be found in other works of the period. The many pagan themes and concepts it contains was combined in the work with Christian ones, even when often times they were not really compatible. This is what has led some scholars to argue the work is not coherent, given some concepts of paganism and Christianity are very dissimilar. Yet, it is this combination between pagan concepts and Christianity that is demonstrated in Beowulf. Ofcourse, this point is supressed, along with all my other points that don't conform to some standard of Church orthodoxy. The refutation provided by HK03 is that it's the "the hieght of silliness."Giovanni33 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Giovanni, can I point out that you made over ten reverts or partial reverts to this article in the space of 24 hours. I've never yet blocked or reported anyone for that, but you are definitely at risk of getting yourself blocked by another administrator. I've only had time to look very briefly at your most recent changes, but it does seem that you are continuing to insert things that have already been removed by others, even if it's not a straight revert each time. It does sour the atmosphere when blocks are implemented. Please don't keep doing this. AnnH ^(talk) 11:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Its clear to me and others that what we have here so far is a divsion between the professed Christians and secular editors. I know they will deny this reality and say its not relevant but I maintain it is at the heart of the issue here and it has colored and slanted the debate in their favor, given what many, including myself, preceive as double standards. I know that religious beliefs rely on dogma, and no matter what someone says, no matter how much of evidence is presented, such a person will continue to hold to even an absurd set of beliefs. Prejudices work in the same way. Sure, that is irrational but it's easily found among otherwise lovely humans. Needless to say, if all it takes is for there to be such reglious faith here and by that fact alone no such other view would possibly be allowed since it would require the impossible, to change minds based on reason and evidence alone. But we can see, such a stance only secures POV. Faith should be private not a basis for asserting objective truth. For that task we must let reason, logic and evidence dictate. That is no how scholarship works.

All that I should be required to do is use logic and rational argumentation with references to scholars who support my views and same arguments I do here. I make a claim and I support it. In response you make the claim, and you should be required to support it too. My experience here has been that if you are Christian no such burden of proof is required. This is the double standard. We are to take their claims on faith. Their specific claims: 1. That what I have provided is refuted by the mainstream scholars; 2. that my scholars are fringe, obscure, radical, etc. Ok, those are interesting claims and if they are true you would have a point. However YOU need to support your claims and prove it is true. They can not be taken on faith. You make the claim YOU need to support your claim. That is how it’s supposed to work, right? True, you provided some scholars and books, and I looked at each one. I did not find were they refute my stance as you claim. Also, you have not shown support for your other claim that these particular authors (all activist Christians) are mainstream, whereas mine are not. Since your argument rests heavily on this assertion of this alleged fact, it's rather important that you support it, no? After you do that, cite where they refute my claims. Simply saying that they don't take it seriously is another claim that you should be able to show, if true. The ball is in your court. Failure to act should default to my position since I have provided sourced references that specially support my claim from many scholars. 64.121.40.153 16:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

Giovanni (if that's still you, can't be sure when you aren't signed in), you make some fair points. Logic and references are both certainly helpful. It's perfectly reasonable to point out shortcomings in others' reasoning or in their references. However, slandering or discrediting wikipedian editors, or scholars in the field, solely because of their religious affiliation is nothing but religious bigotry, and has no place here. I'm often tempted to make such criticisms myself when editing wikipedia articles, but I restrain myself because I know to do so would be inappropriate. Please try to work with us. Wesley 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for some reason I kept getting logged out. Let me be clear I never slandered or discredited editors period, and certainly never make any argument against anyone solely on the basis of their relgious bias. I merely point out that that using such a method (faith) is not helpful here. I do not accept "facts" on faith alone as is apparently expected. And, I also note the double standards being practiced here against those who do not share the faith is the real bigotry--not pointing out this obvious connection of the actual bias in practice that clearly favors one side for both the selection of what is considered scholarship by the "mainstream" vs. that which is considered by "radicals." I note that this has yet to be supported, let alone proved. Again, we are to accept this as a fact based on faith alone. I argue that religious bias helps to inform the reasons for disputes here, as well as points to the unfairness. I also stated that other points of view, other biases, including those from a secular humanist scholars, including Athieists, would have a different emphasis reflecting their own bias, as well. There is no such thing as absolute objectivity. All scholarship is biased--there is no escaping it. Good scholarship is honest about this fact and includes footnotes of the other side, and when it argues a point uses the best arguments of their opponents, etc. But, in questions of emphasis, bias is easily seen, which is why its important to know where a respective author is coming from. More important is to allow the other side to to have equal access of voice, and a consistent and fair application of the rules for all points of view, with the results being a synthesis of points of view. This is the only way to acheive any kind of neutrality. Giovanni33 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio -- Regarding your dismissal of those with religious faith as objective editors, please review WP:NPA (which cites this specific bigotry). ONCE AGAIN...academia has established the standards, not me (or Str1977, etc.). The authorities & experts in the field of Christian history have determined the "outline" of our work. I have pointed a few names out to you...not an exhaustive list, to be sure, but a representative one. I have also explained that these writers - tops in the field - don't always take the time to specifically refute every new fringe theory that arises; they instead explain what the basic understanding is (poor grammar there...sorry Ann). Your ideas, supported by scholars with expertise in fields other than Christian history, run counter to mainstream academia. I'm not sure how or why you dispute this. But it's the way it is. I've offered books and names, to little avail. So, ONCE AGAIN...please prove your case here, on the talk page, and try and achieve a consensus with these longstanding editors, not a few new editors, some of whom may be sockpuppets. Thanks...KHM03 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing (to all) -- please do not respond within the text of my posts...write a separate post. It makes the discussion almost impossible to follow and I really don't like my own posts being cut up like that. Thanks...KHM03 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I did review that and I did no such thing as is listed there. I merely point out the bias and double standards that are resulting from it. I do not use it to discredit or dismiss any editor’s work. ONCE AGAIN you only make a proclamation of what academia has established, yet do not support this same with either and argument or references. Sorry that I’m not accepting it on faith. You say the authors you provide are the top in their fields but do not provide support for that claim. Many of the authors I cite are top in their fields by their credentials and areas of authority, yet you still dismiss them as "radical" and state they their minority view has been refuted. Only one scholar Paglia, a humanities professor, was "in another field." The Jewish scholar you dismissed as well, however as I pointed out the subject was early Christianity, a topic that is certainly in his field since at that time they were one and the same. The problem is that your selective with which scholars you allow in here as valid and I challenge that, and challenge you to justify this discrimination. You only cite scholars which are Christian who you claim are mainstream, and while I do not discount them just because they are Christian, I do point out that we should expect to see a bias reflective of their belief system in their scholarship. So how NPOV is it when you ONLY use scholars who all share the same ideological worldview? That makes for a distorted POV approach. It would be bad enough if this were the only problem, but you also claim that these scholars refute my views. Yet, surprisingly, you cannot show where such a refutation exists! Again, I am expected to accept your word on blind faith. Also, I see no evidence of socket-puppetry going on here. Don't invalidate editors simply because they have not been here as long as you have.Giovanni33 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi my name is Kecik. I have not contributed yet, but I have been an observer here. I dont have a lot of time to do the research that Giovanni has done but I want to state that I agree with including the content argued for by Giovanni, Mika, Belinda, TheShriek, and others. I think they have made their case better than the other side (KHM03, Str1977, and Ann/MuscialL), and I don't like how things are being done unfair. I mean is I too can see there has been a double standard held against Giovanni. It seems the admins on here are also biased by being a Christian, and will enforce the predjudices of one side. That is a shame that this place is not NPOV, as it claims. I think this admin should recuse herself and get one that is not so close to the subject matter. Otherwise one can not expect impartiality. So that is why I wont waste my time to argue here, but want to say to count me in that the Christians here do not have the consensus either. Kecik 18:08, 24 January 2006

Kecik, Thank you. However, I don't see that being a Christian (or Atheist) itself is reason to not welcome their full contributions. I agree with you that pointint out the bias is important, but this goes for all of us. We should be aware of our own bias. Having said that, we should work with each other and apply the same standards to that a NPOV is possible. The same standards includes requiring yourself to do what you expect and insist others to do. Also, I encourage you to contribute, too. Giovanni33 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, you claiming that it is mainstream doesnt make it so. I disagree, so please provide evidence. Show me where the views of your scholars are accepted, whereas the ones I cite are not. But, more importantly, as I asked above, can you be specific and cite what your "authorities" say that constitues a specific refutation to some or all of the specific claims that I make here? You've failed to show that. You've only states that the above authors have refuted me, and that they are mainstream. I challenge both of these claims and ask you to prove that your claims are accurate.

I will note, though, that the authors you cite above as acceptable ("respected in the field"), are all activist Christians. I do not make the argument that that alone means what they write is not objective but it raises the question if in your mind any scholar who is not bound by religous faith is "mainstream" and acceptable by you? Or would a secular scholar be automatically considered "radical" because they would refect a differenat bias? Also, you say we should keep focused on those generally accepted in academia, yet some of the above are not even part of academia, notably Paul Johnson, who is regarded as "pop-historian" and journalist. Contrast this to Paglia who you dismiss in the same vien and its ironic because she is at the very center of academia--a published university professor in the Humanities, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” who influenced the teaching of humanities in American academe itself, who in addition to having written five books, she continues to write articles and reviews, and scholarly journals, such as her long article, "Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s", published in the classics and humanities journal Arion in winter 2003. In September 2005, she was named one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" in the world.

But, I did take the time to look over your list what you say are acceptable mainstream scholars, although I have not read their books, I can read editorial reviews of their works and learn a bit about the authors. Let me share you what I found:

Kenneth Scott Latourette. Yes, he was an American academic historian, in 1884, and his works seems respectable. I note he was involved as a missionary in China to help spread Christianity. I would like you cite sections of his work that refutes what I have written, though.

Justo Gonzales, is said to cover the materials in a more Protestant way reflecting his bias. One reviewr noted, as an exmaple, "his lack of coverage of Pseudo-Dionysus." It is also stated that "however, this book is only an introduction, and does not claim to be the end all guide to every figure in church history." So its possible he doenst even delve into the subject of ideological origins. Although this text is stands in Protestant Seminaries I also note tat "footnotes are kept to an absolute minimum," and "Suggestions for further reading are given at the end of each section, but these are very incomplete. For example, the only suggestion for further reading on English Puritanism was published in 1912." This doesnt sound very scholarship. Other reviewrs have stated that "the information given is basic and watered-down, lacking a more in-depth view of Christian history." Also, that it does not have the degree of the history of doctrinal development, or even of all aspects of religious conflicts that would be helpful in graduate studies. It seems this was written on a very basic level. One commentator who read the book, had a problem with the elementary level of its writing, too. "I did not care for the writing style, which seemed on a par with what "grammar checkers" would allow as not being "pretentious" (translation: nothing above the level of an eight year old.) Though I'd consider the term "readable" to be very complimentary, this book goes too far, placing the language on such an elementary level that I sometimes had to stop a moment and remember this was not a child's book." Again, not what we normally find in scholarly work in academe.

Next, Chadwick, described as "The Reverend William Owen Chadwick, (1916) is a British professor, writer and prominent theologian." And the editorial review from the Library Journal" "has written an accessible, easily readable history of Christianity...a clear meaning of basic Christian concepts. However, this book has faults. It attempts to be utterly noncontroversial, relating the traditional history taught in mainstream schools and omitting or downplaying much. The Spanish Inquisition is discussed in three paragraphs, and the Holocaust receives barely a half-page. Radical feminist theological movements of the 20th century are not mentioned at all. These oversights unfortunately give the book the sanitized narrative tone of a companion book to a PBS special. Further interrupting the work are the intrusive opinions of the author. The voice is that of a lover of Christian history rather than a purely academic scholar, and if all the reader wants is a comfortable and entertaining historical introduction to this immense academic field, this book satisfies that need."

Hmmm, another book that is described as something other than classicly academic in character, but rather something that is more designed to be comortable and entertaining. Others have said of the book, "I found Professor Chadwick not to have a detached scholarly approach. The text is peppered with his moral and political views. For example in P14: "In these towns where religions and cults were everywhere, yet moral standards were as low as those of later twentieth century, ..."

Now, we get back to the best example of the opposite of what you claim your scholars to be with Paul Johnson. I actually have read some of his articles in various magazines like the New Repblic, before, I believe. He makes some pretty crazy politically charged claims, and many of which I have found to be very false. But, as I said, he is described as a pop-historian, and journalist, commentatator, pundit, although I do acknowelege that the book you cite by him sounds like it would be worth reading and instructive. Indeed, its stated that the book is "so good, his books almost qualify as serious academics.." Almost. Anyone can type in his name and read any of his many provocative articles and instantly see he is no academic historian, so I won't bother with showing that here. Infact he is often mocked, esp. in the UK. I do note we have a Wiki article on him, so to give you some idea of where he comes from, I quote: Johnson is a critic of the enlightenment because of its implicit disavowal of faith[6] and also finds Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution[7] objectionable for the same reason. His criticisms of established scientific theory illustrates a failure to understand the scientific method and has resulted in some wildly inaccurate and naive articles on science especially where those come into conflict with religious dogma. He agrees with the traditional Christian view of the Bible as containing the literal truth about the nature of the universe (including truths which can be evaluated scientifically), a position which has been challenged strongly by many scholars of the last three centuries. As a result of Johnson's views on evolution, the Darwinian scientist (and noted atheist) Richard Dawkins[8] has been a target of Johnson's ire in the past. As a conservative Catholic, he regards Liberation theology as a heresy and defends Clerical celibacy, but sees women priests as inevitable.[9] A hero of conservatives in the United States, he is strongly anti-communist[10]; according to Johnson the anger in Marx's writings makes his views invalid (In the Psychiatrist's Chair BBC Radio 4 1991). Johnson has defended Richard Nixon[11] in the Watergate scandal, finding his cover-up considerably less heinous than Bill Clinton's perjury, and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra Affair. In his Spectator column he has defended convicted perjurer and friend Jonathan Aitken[12] and has openly expressed admiration for General Franco and General Pinochet[13]. He was an early admirer of Tony Blair, principally for his foreign policies, but has more recently fallen into line as an opponent; he disliked everything else about the Labour Party under Blair, particularly objecting to its Scottish element.[14] He does not see himself as being inconsistent, arguing that he has admired individuals more than political philosophies. An amateur painter, of landscapes rather than portraits, he has admitted to a fascination with faces.[15] Johnson is regularly mocked in the liberal British press[16] for what his critics regard as inconsistencies and changes of opinion. Private Eye long used the epithet 'Paul "Loonybins" Johnson', though the magazine originally applied the tag to American President Lyndon B. Johnson for his policies in the Vietnam War. Despite accusations that Johnson's historical writings are mere propaganda which twist facts, he can develop an antipathy to conservative governments, as he showed during the years John Major was Prime Minister in the UK.[17]" Well at least we can all see what you accept as the high standards for serious mainstream academics regarding Christian scholarship. Giovanni33 19:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, verbosity will never be one of Giovanni33 character deficits. I have no idea what the vast majority of that diatribe was meant to prove. Surprisingly, I have yet to be able to locate a reference that stated which individuals were mainstream academics and which ones weren't. In addition, reading a review to determine qualifications is only as valid as the person doing the review and their personal perspective.

As you stated above, all individuals have a perspective including historians. This discussion page is turning into a forum for soapboxes and I tire of it. Nothing seems to moving forward. I would propose addressing the evolution of Christianity from an orthodox perspective followed by the alternative theories presented by Giovanni. It is not acceptable to just have one perspective presented in the article and neither should be discounted. Doing so will at least reduce the amount of yaking that leads to nothing. Further discussion can take place on the parties personal pages. Cheers and let's move on. Storm Rider 00:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Storm Rider for your input. I agree with your proposal. We need more input than the usual characters who are too intersted in pushing their own POV's and instead of working out a real compromise. Although in fairness, I think both have made some attempts that lasted only breifly, and I think Giovanni has made a good faith effort to compromise which was not appreciated or acknowleged. For my own bias, I happen to like the intersting and relevant information provided by Giovanni's contributions. They are well sourced by scholars and it is a clear the view that exists within the subject areas in academia. I don't know if its a minority view or not but I think its legitimate enough and perhaps only fringe from the standpoint of the Church's own history of itself, which obviously has its own biases. I do note the biases of those claimed to be "mainstream." Lets include BOTH perspectives, and not discount the other: the orthoxo view (if it is orthodox) and the "scholarly discussion" section that presents Giovanni's section. Any one else agree with us? BelindaGong 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Belinda and StormRider. This s a sensible possition and I would be very happy with this inclusive both sides solution, provided both sides have clear references to support the language.

Since I didnt have access or time to read these books yet, the next best thing I could do was look at editorial reviews and reviews who have read the books for information. Also, searches about the authors, etc. I too an unlclear which scholars are considered mainstream while others are not, but I dont think this is as important as looking at their status as a reputable scholar with legitimate credencials in a relevant academic area of expertise, even if they are not a specialist as a biblical scholar per se. I content that such is not necessary if their respective field of exertise has sufficient over lap. For example Professor Barry Powell, one of the scholars of this "fringe view" holds a PhD from the University of California-Berkeley and is a professor of classics. His research includes include Greek poetry, mythology and Egyptology. He specifically argues that "Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned." I would love to go and meet with with Prof. Powell, him if his view is really considered "fringe," "radical," etc. Somehow that doesnt ring true given his textbook from which this is quoted, Classical Myth Third Edition is a standard and universally accepted as a university text. I have an long list of respected scholars, and even if they are in the minority within biblical scholarship per se, it doesnt make these views are not important, relevant and not worhty of being included. Giovanni33 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I vote for inclusion of the "minority view" as has been argued by Giovanni and others. Please be fair and do not supress these interesting theories connecting early origins of Christianity. I was a christian and my church never taught me about the many connections to pagan religions.I was ingorant like most others and would love to go to encylopeadia to learn about these theories origins. Do not perpetuate the ignorance of many by suppressing this type of understanding. It is very well accepted almost everywhere except in the Church.38.114.145.145 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems we are finally building a majority consensus here. I went ahead and worked on the page to include both an origins section (that was result of earlier compromise (syntheis of our last round), that states a minority of scholarly discussion...(this might need further work) and a history section. I tried to make changes to refect NPOV language. Again, I dont know if its true this is really a minority view but I will accept on faith my opponents who say it is. I know that most "mainsteam" biblical scholars as presented simply do not delve into these more controverial areas at all. Giovanni33 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now wait a minute. Agreement among editors who already agreed before is no indicator for consensus.

Not everyone agreed before, this is an ermerging consensus.-gio

I doesn't help that those opposing Giovanni's changes are vilified here.

I agree but don't think anyone is being vilified here. But the same point applies both ways. See your specific charges you made of me in Early Christianity which are a not very accurate or kind reprsentation of the facts.--Gio

Neither does it help that Giovanni claims all works cited by KHM to be biased, sometimes merely based on the fact that there were Christians, while he refers to works by non-experts (an anthroplogist is no expert on history or theology).

Well they are biased. I think any work reflects its own bias which is why its crucial to have scholarship representative of different philosphical and ideological backgrounds. Also, I never discounted them on this point. I only pointed that support of the claim being made was simply not established with these references. That has nothing to do with POV, just fact. -Gio

That you find these theories "interesting" is not basis enough for including them.

I don't think any one is making that argument.

I agree with Storm Rider's proposal - and in fact I have done this myself before, but the the proposal only applies to real scholarly debates and real "minority views" - and not to very extreme fringe views. If you want to include a reference to theories about the influence of the MCs on Christianity, that's fine but if you want to roll out in all breadth the extreme thesis Giovanni put forth before (and in heavily POV'ed language) that's not fine. Remember also that this is the main article on Christianity - so keep it concise.

Str1977 09:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We come back to the main issue of contention here. That is unsupported claims that these views are "extreme, fringe, radical, etc." As you are aware I have disputed this claim and asked for you to back it up with references. I think its only your POV that this thesis is "extreme frigne." If you are unable support your reverstions on this basis, they can not stand--ever. Wiki is not about personal agendas its about supporting statments with referenced citations (note the citations should actually support the claim being made). Its not too much to ask that this be done. 64.121.40.153 11:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert cheerfully and certainly some things can be taken into consideration, but - in contrast to Belinda's observation - I cannot see where Giovanni tried to move towards a consensus, while still including fairy tales about "blind faith and "surpression of Greek culture". That's not fact, that's not even scholarly POV but legends from the Enlightenment. Str1977 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you suppressed all the material again, contrary to the wish stated by several editors that even if this is a minority view that it not be suppressed. If you disagree with the accuracy of the scholars I cited (three of them for this point I worked in alone), then please prove it with refrences of scholarship that refute this and back up your not that my view is soley based on "legends from the Enlightenment." Simply saying so, doesnt make it so. Your latest revert points to the fact that you are not seeking conensus here and working with the other editors who want to see this included. 64.121.40.153 11:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the work, but removed opening it italiz-- "Scholarly disscusion surrounding origins has been shared by an increasing significant minority of modern scholarship that are willing to delve into these areas of controverial research often neglected by both the Church and the mainstream of biblical scholars.--because we dont have a reference yet to establish that this is a minority view as maintained by Str and KH0. We need a reference so we can proceed with the compromised solution and properly identify the mainstream from other more controverial scholarly discussion that represent a minority view. Also, Str, try to work with us here instead of simply reverting. We heard your POV but please substanciate it and gain consensus here before making drastic changes to other editors efforts to reach a compromise. Thanks BelindaGong 12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, I'm a little puzzled that you ask Str1977 to "try to work with us here instead of simply reverting" straight after you reverted. I'm also puzzled (to say the least) that you accused him of "lying" on another page because he didn't think Giovanni had tried to compromise. Giovanni reverted the same article ten times in a 24-hour period, despite being told about the 3RR rule. He reverted another article five times. Can you please explain how such gross violations of Wikipedia rules show a good example of compromising? The only reason he hasn't been blocked yet is because the "sneaky", "lying", "vandalizing", "POV-pushing" Christians haven't reported him. Also, to talk about Str making "drastic changes" is a little odd. The drastic changes were inserted by Giovanni. There is nothing drastic about removing them while we discuss it on the talk page. If something is controversial, you don't post it into the article and leave it there until those who object have satisfied you with their objections. You post it here, and then wait for people to agree, rather than inserting it into the article a few hours with a "case made on talk" edit summary. So far, the newcomers have been rather free with their insults — "lie", "vandalism", "POV-pushing", "Christians don't want to talk about their origins. hehe". We were all working collaboratively and civilly before Giovanni and you began to insist that his controversial edits should stand unless we could satisfy you that they weren't appropriate. AnnH ^(talk) 12:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann, your account is one sided at best, and playing the blame game is not helping us move foward. Yes, Str1977 has misrepresented both Giovanni's possition, his arguments, and his past actions. He never "refused" to compromise as accused. See Early Christianity. I also note that this was the reason for the revert to a stub!--because he "refused to compromised" in this article (which is not true). That seems like a wiki violation. There is an attempt to paint anyone who doenst follow the party line as POV pushers, and a double standard being enforced here. I don't like it. Also, I reviwed the edit history and I do not see that Giovanni reverted the same article 10 times in a 24 hour period as you accuse him of doing. Most his many changes were very minor such as grammer, and restoring the historical chart which appears to have been removed by accident, etc. All these changes to not count toward the reversion rule. Even so, his reversion (I think ou agree reversions have been taking place on both sides by most editors here), were done only after making a case on this talk page where he sought to address any objections and fix any POV issues. There has been compromise on both sides that produce a new version, and yet when its all done, it gets substancially reverted to an older version again, without addressing the points why in the talk page first. This is what I mean by not working with the editors here. Str even said he agreed with StormRider and others yet his reverts back the implementation of the proposal. Also, you blaming Giovanni by saying "We were all working collaboratively and civilly before Giovanni and you..." is also not really fair and one sided. I have been here for a very long time and I have seen that the "peaceful" periods only all those who share the same essential point of view work to fine tune their own POV, and not when other POV's attempt inclusion. Giovanni has been working hard to include another well established point of view to make this article more NPOV, and ofcourse this generates some conflict. This is not a bad thing (if people are honest and respectul of all POV), nor did it originate with Giovanni, and nor is he to blame for this. It take two sides to produce an edit war.

Again, I ask that we move foward with the proposed compromise to expand the origins section to include the supprseed area of thought, as was propsed by StormRider, and agreed to by what seems to be a majority of editors. And, that we stop pointing fingers at each other, respect our POV's and work for inclusion and compromise instead of exclusion and reverts to only one side. That side is also diputed.BelindaGong 14:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Ann is spot on this is a concerted and coordinated effort to introduce a extreme minority view. I think the simulation of consensus is apalling. I think the proposed comprimise would work IF the ideas were at all notable as criticisms. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you join us Dominck with the idea that the compromise would work. If it is a minority view (I dont know but it has not been established yet), then it would be fine to note it as criticism. I want accuracy, and balance. I dont want to see this vaulable part of scholarship on origins suppressed as it is in POV websites. I'm glad we have basic agreement. What I'd like to see is that final version be a real product of consensus among us all, not simply the work of one side claiming that their end product reflects it when it doesnt (as was done last time). BelindaGong 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You dont know that this would be the minority view?Christian scholors all over do no subscribe to this theory in the least, most published scholars I read, every po-dunk Bible college, most University religeon departments, and a slew of others have the traditional view. We know that we established this theory of the origins of Christianity involves knowing something that Romans loathed to put on paper (as far as the rituals of pagan worship). What I would like to see is the end of simulation of consensus, and a stupid across the board revert war. This theory is not notable as a criticism. There are a lot more ciricisms and theories of the origins of Christanity that are ahead of line than this one. Frankly, I think it is not viable, you would have to accept that the early fathers of the Church would conceal their origins. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know that is a minority view, either. I would guess that it is but I'd like for those who claim so to provide refrences to this effect. Mainstream university texbooks on Mythology and the Classics state this view. I would venture to guess that you are right that Christian scholars do not subscribe to this, but this is different than saying scholars of Christianity. I think the traditional view can be stated as such and the minority view (language needs to specify what is meant by the term minority view) should be presented. Also, im not advancing one theory but talking about all the largly discussed origins within academia. If there are other theories, I'd like to hear them and they should also be presented, provided that references can also be provided for support. About your last comment, I absolutely accept that the early fathers of the Church would not only want to but did try their best to conceal their own origins. I think that is the whole point that establishes their unique faith as the one and only true Church. When founders of new religious to invent their claims, they and supress all notions and evidence that cast doubt on the devine nature, i.e. the fact that many of their beliefs are simply adoptions, developments, and copies, of earlier forerunners, that is comes out of many influences. The scholarship on these questions is what I think is very important from a historical and intellecual pont of view. That is goes against the dogma of the Church's own account of itself is noteworthy but not a basis to succumb to thier POV. 64.121.40.153 14:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since some of the other reputable scholars I have listed have been quickly dismissed as no more relevant than my "mailman, "simply because they are only in related disciplines (Mythology, Classics, Humanities, etc), I wonder on if Prof. Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University suffices as an acceptable scholar to my critics. KH03, care to comment? A little bit about her. She graduated from Stanford University (B.A. 1964, M.A. 1965) studied for her Ph.D. at Harvard University.

At Harvard, she was part of a team studying the Nag Hammadi library scrolls. Upon finishing her Ph.D. from Harvard in 1970, she joined the faculty at Barnard College, where she headed the department of religion from 1974. Her study of the Nag Hammadi scrolls was the basis for The Gnostic Gospels (1979), a bestselling book won both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the National Book Award and was chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century. In 1982, Pagels joined Princeton University as a professor of early Christian history. She researched and wrote Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, which examines the creation myth among other things. Another work is her The Origin of Satan. In 1992, after studying the Pauline Epistles and comparing them to Gnosticism and the early church, Pagels wrote the book The Gnostic Paul. This book expounds the theory that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic whose influence on the direction of the early Christian church was great enough for the creation of forged additions such as the pastoral epistles (those to Timothy and Titus) to make it appear as if Paul supported their interpretation rather than gnosticism. Her New York Times bestseller, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), focuses on religious claims to possessing the ultimate truth. In addition to the MacArthur award, Professor Pagels is also a recipient of the Guggenheim and Rockefeller fellowships.

Major books The Gnostic Gospels (1979), 182 p., ISBN 0679724532 Adam, Eve and the Serpent (1987), 189p., ISBN 0679722327 The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (1992), ISBN 0800604032 The Origin of Satan (1995), 214p., ISBN 0679722327 Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), 241p., ISBN 0375501568 Giovanni33 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pagels is, in my view, a well known, reputable scholar, maybe the world's foremost expert on Gnosticism. I assume (but can't confirm) that there is a great deal of her material at that article. While her work in early Christianity is fairly extensive, her positions have not really been readily accepted by the academy. In short, she is highly respected for her work but her assertions have not convinced other scholars. I have no problem with a sentence in the History section stating something like, "Elaine Pagels has asserted a prominent Gnostic influence (yada, yada, yada)...though other scholars have not agreed with her proposals." One sentence is fair, with links to Pagels and Gnosticism, so a reader can explore further. Given that her views have not been adopted by other notable scholars, and so remain minority/fringe (pick a term), that seems fair to me. KHM03 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Pagels may be roughly analogous to Halton Arp, a respected astronomer with strong credentials but whose theories about quasars being near rather than far have generally not been accepted by the general community of astronomers, even though Arp has published books and articles in support of his theories. Having a PhD and publishing books does not by itself indicate general acceptance of one's ideas. If you read the quasar article, you'll find his idea mentioned, but only briefly and only near the end. Earlier it's implied that such a minority view exists by things like "most astronomers think quasars are far away..." without going into great detail about the minority right away. This seems like the right way to approach minority theories like this. Wesley 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the thread; it is disappointing to see so much conflict. As I understand it (and support) is that in the sections involved (origins and history) there will first be written what the orthodox viewpoint is. This will be followed by a secular viewpoint. As much as possible, all comments will be referenced. I do agree that references should be from reputable sources; however, this is not a backdoor for argument about what is credible and what is not. Everyone needs to strive to achieve a balanced article without "spinning" the language. I would ask everyone to stop suppressing thought and move forward. I know and respect many of you. We can make this work. I also agree that this is an article about Christianity. I am also one that believes that it is appropriate for religious articles to be told from the religion's viewpoint (this is just a comment, please don't tell me it would not meet NPOV to do so; doing so provides an accurate article and articles of faith do not need constant reminders that it is purported, believed, etc.; that is just too clumsy for my taste.) Let's put the emotion aside and move forward. Having a secular viewpoint stated does not destroy the Faith and achieves required balance. Storm Rider 21:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's troubling me too and I did support your proposal to include alternative theories but not if they are fringe. However, there is no "secular viewpoint" as opposed to a religious one. If there is a Christian viewpoint (and there are more than one), there is also a Gnostic viewpoint, a pagan viewpoint, a Muslim viewpoint, an atheist viewpoint etc. etc. But all these are not what this section should be about. The section should give a scholarly account: there is the mainstream scholarship one and there are alternative theories - these should be included - and then there are fringe theories or worse - these should not be included. Again, a scholarly viewpoint does not exist. Str1977 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider: I agree with Str1977 in that there aren't two separate scholarly schools on this...religious and secular. There's one mainstream of historic thought, and much (not all) of what Gio is proposing is out of that mainstream. I've advocated a brief mention of it, with links to mystery religion or gnosticism or whatever, but I don't want this "fringe" view portrayed inaccurately as just another view. I appreciate your input, though, and your attempts at bridge building! KHM03 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, KHM03, then why is is it that ALL the "mainstream" scholars you cite share the philosophical world-view, i.e. are all Christians doing Christian scholarship? That is indeed a defacto school of thought in these matters, unless you deny that there is bias in scholarship stemming from the ideological presupositions they work with. It would be an amazing denial if you were to hold to this view but it would be far from reality. The fact that biblical schlarship is dominated by fellow Christians doing research on their own origins, and the fact that they tend to not even look into origins that undermines their faith is to be expected of the bias. It doesn't mean that such a common POV as is exhibited in their work is, as a result of their majority status, indicative of there being only one exclusive scholarly school of thought. To try to maintain this fiction this under such notions as that they are the mainstream hides the aformentioned fact of conentrated bias of sharing the same religious framwork that will always affect the nature of their scholarly work (mostly in what is covered and what is not covered). The same with ANY other scholar or discipline--we will see their slant come through in their work. The saying "the winners write the history" illustrates this same point. It is not mere coincidence that secular scholarship on the questions happens to come out with alternative theories that Christian scholarhip doesnt want to touch on. Its amazing that you can say that this really is just coincidence and does not represent a distinct scholarly school of thought on the matter but I guess that is the only way you can dismiss it. With an increasing amount of secular scholarship in these issues coming out, you can't expect to supress this secular POV for long. Giovanni33 03:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni's views may not be mainstream but you can buy Elaine Pagels books on the Gnosticism in New York airport. This doesn't mean the theories in them are true but it does mean they are reaching a very wide audience and the view of Wiki as a comprehensive encyclopedia will be severely undermined if people following up on the books find the Christianity page in apparent ignorance of them. I agree that they should be a couple of sentences with links for those who are interested. This will in no way swap the article or overshadow the mainstream view but will acknowledge that the is some dissent by reputable scholars (we're not talking a Da Vinci Code here). SOPHIA 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sophia that Elaine Pagels is a scholar and that her books are at least well known enough and mainstream enough to merit a reference. I don't subscribe to what she writes at all but she is a valid scholar. Str1977 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

People, Thank you for your efforts. To a point I agree with you that fringe beliefs should not be highlighted in this article. Fringe theories are not theories that simply conflict with personal beliefs. However, I would disagree with you about a secular vs. Christian/orthodox viewpoint. I see distinct differences between the two. Campbell would have a vastly different viewpoint than a Christain author. Both would be scholarly, but have a different viewpoint and thoughts would evolve. Frankly, I disagree with the majority of the theories that Giovanni cites, but he references his material effectively. Just because they disagree with my beliefs and understanding of history does not mean they should be ommitted. If you have several authors supporting a veiwpoint, it no longer is fringe. As I said above, the fundamental assumption of most of these secular scholars is that Jesus did not exist and that Christianity is a byproduct of these other religions. In closing, I would also say that these alternative theories should not be a 10,000 word addition to the article. They are alternative theories about Christianity and are rejected by the vast majority of Christianity and Christian scholars.

In some respects I think we may all be saying the same things. Let's move this discussion into constructive edits in the article. I would ask everyone not to revert edits out of hand, but rather constructively edit the article. I think we have gotten too prone to revert edits too quickly. Right now we need to focus on producing a balanced article. Storm Rider 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Storm Rider for your intellectual honesty in his matter. I know this topic generated lots of defensiveness from religious folks who feel that their faith is being attacked at the roots, and wish to pretend that there is only one POV in scholarship that is to be accepted at the "truth": the one that the Church tells about itself. Ofcourse, this is masked under "mainstream," conveniently ignoring the ideological point of view (bias) that it represents, while discounting the widespread secular POV that admitedly does seem to undermine articles of faith. Still, I don't discount the religious point of view, much less try to suppress it (what they try to do). I only wish to broaden this article so as to include both.

The secular scholarship POV (minority or not) has been gaining increasing ground as Sophia points out. The research that I cite is neither original nor fringe; it is commonly accepted in secular academic circles that the Christian shape of the sacred mysteries -- while developed out of creations of Jesus and his apostles -- is strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. And, even though you don't share this secular POV (it's is a minority view in the narrow specialized field of biblical studies, dominated by the Christian scholars, which is why even a Jewish scholars who is an expert in the field that I cited was dismissed because his speciality was not Christianity per se), I appreciate that you are willing to acknowledge it as a real legitimate POV, and not try suppress it like others here would. We all need to be more open minded and realize that we all have our own biases. The first step to a acheiving neturality is to acknowelge this fact. Dogmatism has no place here. Giovanni33 02:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no single Christian POV on the history of early Christianity. See Great Apostasy and Constantinian shift for some examples of significant differences in how different Christians view this period. There is no single secular "POV" or universal consensus either; for instance, most think there really was some Jewish guy named Jesus in the first century on whom the Christian stories are based, while a few deny that he existed at all. Now while there is recognized similarity between the shape of some Christian mysteries and some mystery religions, from what I've read the direction of borrowing or influence is not at all easy to determine, since all were developing at about the same time. Christians will naturally be predisposed to lean towards one direction of borrowing and atheists and Jews will naturally be predisposed to lean the other way. Right? Wesley 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly the point Wesley. As you say, "Christians will naturally be predisposed to lean towards one direction of borrowing and atheists and Jews will naturally be predisposed to lean the other way." Then it follows that we should include both views, not only the Christian scholars. The Church has been allowed to write its own history for centuries and there is a heavy bias for their POV reflected within Biblical scholarship. I think most of here here agree that we should not be limted to this. While there is no single Christian POV, and no single secular POV, there are deliniating demarcations which identify the respective schools of though along these lines. This is because they share certain ideological biases which effect the emphasis in their work. The reason why KHM03 can't answer Giovanni's question and request that he support his statement that his Christian scholars refute his view is becaues they don't. They just don't talk about it beyond a certain level in their works because are not as interested in getting at those roots which seem to undermine religious assumptions and make it much less "pure,"; they are in exploring other things. That is fine, and they may also disagree with the work done by some of their secular counterparts, for example the view you express above about their not being certainty regarding the extent of the influence, the directions of the influences, and which things are influenced what. I think the language used by Giovanni is currently compatiable with this (thanks to all of us), and if not, can be made so. MikaM 05:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika, we should include scholarly views, both the majority and significant minority views, but not fringe theories.

You say "The Church has been allowed to write its own history for centuries and there is a heavy bias for their POV reflected within Biblical scholarship" - that's not true. History as an academic field (and this is what we are talking about) is less than 300 years old and the Church, especially the Catholic Church, was far from exerting any dominance over the field, rather the contrary. Biblical scholarship is irrelevant here and I doubt that there's such a heavy bias. However, there certainly is a anti-christian bias in comparative religious studies that reaches even into our discussions here: that somehow Christianity is not what it claims to be.

If standard text books on the early history of Christianity don't address these theories that doesn't mean that they can be considered as accepted or notable. Once again, scholars who happen to be Christians are accused of being biased in general ("not as interested in getting at those roots which seem to undermine religious assumptions") while a class of "secular scholars" are invented. I repeat what I said earlier: there is no such thing as a "secular scholar".

And again, keep in mind that this is about a brief overview in the main article about Christianity, so keep it concise.

Str1977 08:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect.

• Since this is starting to go a bit too far with bais, I think this article should be promptly semi-protected, gutted of most of it's content and re-written by more trustworthy users. Pure inuyasha 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To which alleged bias are you referring? Corax 06:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Beowulf

Here's the contentious Beowulf passage: Never the less as shown by works such as the epic poem Beowulf (c. 700-1000 AD) and others of the period, the actual adoption of a distinct Christian beliefs was a very slow and gradual process, as they permeated society, existing as a combination of both Christian and Pagan beliefs.

The rate of adoption of distinct Christian beliefs was different in different parts of the world; this is a snapshot of England, and doesn't necessarily reflect that much on the amount of paganism in Greece, Syria, or Egypt at the time. I'm sure there was even more paganism in Russia in 1000, since Russia had only recently converted. It's also worth noting that the story is based on an event in the 500s and had probably been passed down a while; it may just as well serve as evidence that Christians didn't always censor pagan stories if the story was a good one, as that they actually held such beliefs themselves. To share a modern example, most kids at my local church (and many of the adults) enjoy reading the Harry Potter books, ignoring the objections publicly raised by some fundamentalist Christians elsewhere. Wesley 06:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was different in different parts of the world. I think its safe to assume that. But all over Christian beliefs occured very slowly, much slower than many suppose given the repression of non-Christian beliefs. To counter the point the the Church wiped out all rivals effectively, and let the reader know this, this point this point serves well. As you say the fact that this late stage (700-1000) pagan beliefs were still fused with Christian ones, shows this. Also, it was a Christian author that wrote Beowulf for a Christian audience at a time when the Anglo-Saxons were already Christianized so the Harry Potter example isnt a good one. The same pagan concepts found in Beowulf can also be found in other works of the period which while coming from a Christian viewpoint are still heavily influenced by pagan beliefs, which even make of the works laden with contradictions (much like the Bible itself). MikaM 06:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true that we could derive from Beowulf the conclusion that Christianity only gradually sank into the minds, at least in some parts. But we don't need Beowulf for that. It boils down to adding the word "gradually" into the passage about the conversion of these peoples. I will add that. Str1977 08:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

True, one could simply add one word, "gradually," that changes doesnt make the article better for the article better, in my view. I like to cite sources that show the point, when possible, using an example. Its richer intellectually. The reference to Beowulf, something of interest for scholars, makes this point nicely. I think it's more encylopedic too, include links when possible to other sources of interesting and related historical documents that have the effect of expanding human knowlege to the reader, esp. when it helps to clarify a relevant point being made. Notice I dont single out Beowulf but mention other that the same is found in other works of that period. Lastly, its more authoritative than simply to assert "gradually," and give more information about how gradual, specifically by the late date of the Beowulf reference, and gives readers more confidence for trusting what is being said because they can see what its based on. Giovanni33 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the one word into a whole sentence, also because otherwise it would only refer to the Western European development. We can include a short reference to pre-christian remnants in medieval literature and mention Beowulf and/or the Nibelungs (to make it less Britannocentric). I will do that. Str1977