Jump to content

Talk:Christianity/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Edit war warning

From experience, edit wars seldom accomplish anything beyond wikistress. One option would be to protect the page until involved editors can reach an agreement on how to resolve their differences and proceed. Another option would be to do that without being forced by a page protection. The choice is yours. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They seem quite done for now :/. Homestarmy 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Sword of Damacles hangs - what will happen next? I suggest that KV and Str once more bullet point their issues and we all pitch in. To KV and Str - sorry guys as I know you've been over this a million times with each other but some of us have lost the plot. Sophia 06:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Sophia a summary, in bullet points in which each side of the dispute describes their arguments, is an excellent idea, as it enables non-involved editors to understand the nature of the dipute and hopefully bring some unexplored perspectives for resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree and will post a condensed version of my reasoning in the next few days. Str1977 (smile back) 15:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, I am making a start with an explanation.

The two versions now in question can be best seen in the following diff, which I created especially for this aim:

[1]

If I am talking about "my version" and "KV's version" or "his version" it is only within the confines of our disputes. I don't wish to imply that only KV would adhere to "his" version, nor that I had written "my" version all by myself. In fact, it has been the result of a long process, involving many editors and many POVs. Regulars at this page will agree with that.

0. One difference not visible here is the fact that KV repeatedly introduced the CE style, disregarding the longstanding pracitice on this page. But that should be solved easily.

1. Length! We are trying to be concise, and KV's version bloats (IMHO unnecessarily) the section.

2. "My" version has been the long-standing version and hence it should be the basis for further improvements (there is always room for that). However, KV has chosen to disregard the existing structure of the section. That doesn't mean that "my" structure is necessarily better, but it means that we shouldn't change it without good reasons. To explain the structure:

  • Paragraph 1 covers the origin of Christianity, its split from Judaism (making it a religion of its own) and a few early features.
  • Paragraph 2 covers the spread of that new religion, its contact with the culture of the day and two results: theology and inculturation (or, as some like to call it the adoption of pagan practices).
  • Paragraph 3 (the disputed one):Theological disputes and how the Church dealt with it. Concepts of Heresy and Orthodoxy.
  • Paragraph 4: Christianity legalized, privileged and eventually made state religion. The results from that. Emperor's involvement, their aims and the result of this.

In my version there is a small overlap from para 3 to para 4: a foreshadowing that after the legalisation doctrinal disputes intensified and doctrine became more definite. However, IMHO in principle the process remained the same. The Emperor's involvement is dealt with in para 4.

3. KV is bent on including more on the Council of Nicea. I object, as I think this would be higlighting one single event (though it is an important event) too much. There's no dispute that the Council should be mentioned and linked. I am willing to compromise but then KV should clearly say (and seek consensus) for what he wants to include, adapt it to the section's structure. (And he should avoid controversial details like the number of bishops present, especially if he contradicts the traditional number "318", as the sources sometimes only speak of the 318 fathers when reffering to this council. Also the current wording still implies Constantine to be a bishop.) However, we must take care of the length.

4. "the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common creed, but actual beliefs varied widely"
The term "various churches" here remains ambiguous and during mediation KV has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issue of whether this means local branches or denominations. For this reason I preferred "conflict within and between the local churches"
"shared a common creed" is also at least ambiguous an contradicts the next wording "but actual beliefs varied widely". Also, actual is introducing a (quite silly) POV that the supposed creeds were somehow dishonest. All in all, the diversity in early Christianity has already been covered in paragraph 2 and "my" version uses the word "diversity" as a conjunction between para 2 and para 3.

5. A smaller, but still important point is the explanation of Orthodoxy and Heresy and the issue of whether the one was defined in contrast to the other or the other way round. I have come to the conclusion that the latter dispute is due to a misunderstanding. I have repeatedly asked KV to comment on this but he hasn't so far.

6. "Prior to Nicaea, churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations, which the Eastern churches still did not"
This is a linguistic gem. It sounds, to be blunt, childish and taken from a very simplistic Roman Catholic catechism class rather than from a scholarly work. I preupposes that churches should obey Rome (whatever that maybe, the context would suggest the Emperor, though of course the Pope is meant) - the RC position is actually more complicated. It suggest that Nicea changed anything in that regard (as "prior to Nicea" implies "after Nicea") when in fact the Pope's primacy was not affected at all. It suggests that the Eastern Churches never "obeyed Rome", which is also inaccurate. It has nothing to do with the actual events and the issue of theological disputes.

7. "Constantine continued to authoritively control church policy for the rest of his life, forcing unity amongst the various churches." - Again, this is already covered, in better language ("authoritively" does not mean in an authoritarian manner but based on authority e.g. intellectual authority) in para 4 (where it belongs structurally). It also highlights one Emperor too much (what about his successors) and also misrepresents his actions (his son was much more intrusive, but KV's wording is already superlativ)

8. "After Arianism, the primary target at Nicaea, was declared heretical other Chrstian sects began to be declared heretical as well. These were to include Gnosticism, Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism."
This is chronological nonsense, as all these heresies actually preceeded Arianism: Gnosticism 2nd and 3rd century, some remnants in the 4th century; Simonianism: actually not notable, 1st century; Marcionism:2nd century; Ebionitism: actually mentioned in para 1, in the context of the Christian-Jewish split; Montanism: 2nd century, no longer an issue in the 4th century

9. That KV carelessly shoved his edits into the existing text without regard for the existing structure is highlighted by the last line of his version. He writes "Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization." (copied from "my" version) after he has talked about Arianism and the Council of Nicea (which actually constitute that intensification) and the even earlier heresies.

I do grant KV and have always done so, that he can provide two books as references (after a prior wrongheaded attempt to use the Hiram Key). I don't have English church history books at hand. However, I doubt that these books would contradict "my" version and would only support KV's version as it stands. Also, the issues of how to structure the section, how to word certain issues cannot be answered for us by any book.

This has become longer than I expected, but that's the way it goes. Str1977 (smile back) 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom case has been rejected. Please comment anyone. Str1977 (smile back) 07:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see how this has escalated into such a big conflict. The problem seems to rest on exactly how involved Constatine was in "authoritively" setting church doctrine. I have no problem with either version, though I think the version on the left side of the diff. page is more concise, but doesn't mention Constantine by name. I think by simply adding "...legalization [by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine]..." would solve the problem. —Aiden 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Aiden. The escalation is a mystery to me too. I don't have a problem with your proposed addition. In fact, it includes the wording "newly converted" (that KV loves very much) in a way that makes it accurate. He was "newly converted" (not going into the debate with those that dispute his conversion was "real")) when he (and Licinius) legalized Christianity (313) - he was not "newly converted" when he took part in the Council of Nicaea (325). Str1977 (smile back) 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a hybrid I worked up to see if we can solve the issue. Let me know what you think:

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine led to internal conflicts; the sects of Early Christianity shared many common beliefs, although some contentious differences remained[1]. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view") in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, ecumenical councils were regularly held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion, the first of these being the Council of Nicaea in 325.

—Aiden 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraif this doesn't work.

  • the "variety" passage is already covered in the second paragraph.
  • the intensification passage is missing, but I think this can be easily added.

The rest is okay - whether "included" or "include" is better I leave to native speakers.

Str1977 (smile back) 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine led to internal conflicts; the sects of Early Christianity shared many common beliefs, although some contentious differences remained.[2] Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, such disputes intensified. By the fourth century, ecumenical councils were regularly held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion, the first of these being the Council of Nicaea in 325.

How about that? BTW, 'included' is grammatically correct as the sentence is past-tense. —Aiden 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehem, Aiden, you didn't address my criticism (variety passage). I propose the following, based on your last version:

I forgot to address that "by the fourth century ecumenical councils were regularly held" is not accurate. There were two ecumenical councils in the 4th century (and the second one is actually only declared later to be ecumenical). I addressed that problem in my version (this way only mentions Nicaea as the starting point, whereas the former declared that something had become common by a certain point in time):

Theological diversity led to disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching and to conflict within and between the local churches. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, such disputes intensified. This led to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils - held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion -, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Str1977 (smile back) 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I think I see what you're saying and I think we're getting somewhere. However, I think it might be a bit redundant to say "disputes intensified" and then begin the following sentence with "this lead to insternal strife". I think it's already implied there is internal strife due to "disputes intensifying". Also, I think the first sentence works better KV's way--at least it sounds better. Tell me what you think of this:

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian doctrine led to internal conflicts; the sects of Early Christianity shared many common beliefs, although some contentious differences remained.[3] Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I, such disputes intensified. This culminated with the establishment of ecumenical councils—held to establish a unity of doctrine by means of debate and discussion—the first of these being the Council of Nicaea in 325.

—Aiden 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to delete the term "Chruch aurthorities" and just lead the sentence with Bishops and local synods condemned...? Storm Rider (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, could you please explain your reasoning behing that?
Aiden, please read my posts carefully. You are still not addressing the "variety" passage! (I have taken the liberty to format it into bold letters in your last post, in case you don't know what I am talking about.) I agree about "intensify" and "strife".
So, pending Storm's reply, I will post another suggestion:
Theological diversity led to disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching and to conflict within and between the local churches. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined Church views as orthodoxy (Greek: "the right view"), in contrast to what they deemed heresy (literally "wrong choice"). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Following Christianity's legalization by newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine, such disputes intensified. Ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325, were held to debate theological issues and reach clearer dogmatic definitions, thereby restoring unity.

Note that the last sentence is the result of some experimenting and shifting back and forth, in order to pack all this info into a sentence without being repetitive. What dou you think?

Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry I misunderstood you because I didn't see the word "variety" in the paragraph. :) None-the-less, I think the above version reads nicely and is a good compromise. Now we need to see what KV says. —Aiden 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hold on everyone, I hope I'm not throwing a spanner into the proverbial works, but is it correct to describe Constantine as "newly converted" at the time of the Edict of Milan? My understanding (my history of the early church books are at home) was that Constantine may not have been baptised until his deathbed. I understand that Constantine made some use of the Sol Invictus cult after the Battle of Milvian Bridge. My suggestion is perhaps something along the lines of "Constantine, supportive of Christianity since the Battle of Milvian Bridge. That's clumsy and awkward: could there be a better-worded version? Slac speak up! 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If that expression causes any trouble we can always leave it out. However, replacing it with something else, something wordier is no good.
Now, for your objection: Constantine may not only have been baptized until his death bed. That fact is undisputable. However, that doesn't say anything about his conversion. Infant baptism wasn't was widespread then as it is now and notable Saints were only baptized as adults (e.g. Basilius). Constantine postponed his baptism as back then being Emperor and being a Christian were still seen as not wholly compatible.
Now, there will always be speculation about the veracity of his conversion, but these are all speculations (hence we needn't grace them in such a byword) - for what it's worth, he publically adhered to Christianity after the Milvian Bridge. We cannot look into his heart.
Yes, he also tolerated depiction of himself as Helios or on the Constantinian Arch in Rome. The Sol Invictus thing, this brain child of Aurelian, is greatly overestimated IMHO. Constantine adhered to it before the Milvian Bridge, after that Christianity gains prominence in his iconography, propaganda and legislation, and his involvement with the Church, first regarding Donatists, then regarding Arians. Str1977 (smile back) 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, my reasons are centered on the statement "Church authorities" followed by explanation bishops and synods. When used in this way I interpret it to mean that WIKI is taking that position that there already was a unified, cohesive group that spoke as one, which is POV. By removing the term church authorities and by just starting with Bishops and synods we sidestep any possible POV issues and accurately state that bishops and synods did label/accuse other theologians as heretics. Thanks for your consideration, but it is one I feel strongly about. Storm Rider (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Storm,

  • though I disagree with your observation that "a unified, cohesive group" is implied
  • though I think historiography shows that these were the Church authorities (though still on the way to unity and very much geographically isolated)
  • though this was no mere labelling (as fortunately the text in question doesn't claim)

I have no objection to leaving out the word Church authorities. Str1977 (smile back) 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost a very legal manner in saying "yes". I understand and do not take your compliance to my request to be in any way your explicit approval of any other inference; that you continue to maintain a strict foundation on orthodoxy, and though you continue to maintain that the stating Church aruthorities, further clarified to be bishops and synods, is not a mere label and is not meant to claim such; I thank you all the same for said concession. Str, you have me laughing at this point and I hope you also are able to laugh at this response. We are getting far too serious people. Storm Rider (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, people Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Slac speak up! 02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Storm, I was laughing and in fact I was smiling when I wrote it.
No climbing, I promise. And certainly not the Reichstag (unless I can wrap it up in a box and transfer it to a better place. Str1977 (smile back) 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we did some good work here and want to ask whether we should implement the changes? Str1977 (smile back) 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All systems go. —Aiden 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have posted it, with only very minute stylistic tweaks. Str1977 (smile back) 16:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to invite KV to participate in the discussion instead of blindly reverting. He hasn't chosen to participate in the recent discussion (which lasted longer than a weeak and had various editors of different POVs collaboratin) and hence cannot now complain that the consensus looks different from what he would have. Still, reasonable changes are always possible and he should make his case right here. Str1977 (smile back) 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

The article complies to all criteria of the GA but one which is because of the presence of the NPOV tag. I would also be concerned about stability but the article is really stable for such a controversial subject. Lincher 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a generous assessment. Jkelly 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed. GA awarded. Lincher 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions on Christianity's Pagan Origins

I tried to add some useful and enlightening information about the origin of some of Christanity's more established practices, but it was quickly deleted. I went back through my post and replaced sentences such as "Christianity is" with sentences like "It is commonly accepted that Christianity is" to remove any Point of View confusion. Any individual that deletes my entry now, I feel that they would be doing so on the basis of their feelings towards Christianity and not the goal of creating an accurate encyclopediac entry. If you feel you have a legitimate arguement for why my entry SHOULD be deleted, please, feel free to discuss it with me here. -Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.45.132 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 July 2006.

It was deleted and rightfully so. We have been through this a thousand times and a NPOV treatment of the substantial points is already included. What we don't need is pushing this POV beyond perspective, or even introducing clearly incorrect statetements, including false claims of "has been proven", or weasel words. Str1977 (smile back) 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried multiple times to add relevent information pertaining to Christianity, and it keeps getting deleted. I tried to enter a discussion, but my DISCUSSION WAS DELTED. Whomever is doing this, I have a proposal for you. Instead of trying to silence me and bury your head in the sand, as you know doubt would have done during an encounter with Galileo, you come on this page and tell me WHY you deleted my entry, WHY you think it doesn't fit, and WHAT exactly is in error with it. If you do not, and continue to delete my entrys with prejudice, I will have no choice but to believe you to be an ignoramus of the highest caliber, and I will continue to espouse as much on this discussion page no matter how many times you delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.45.132 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 July 2006.

Hello, Patrick. First of all, when making a new post to any talk page (discussion page), please add it to the bottom not the top of the page. You can do that either by opening the "edit this section" box for the section that's currently at the bottom, and then starting a new section, using == at the beginning and end of the heading or by clicking the + sign at the top of the page, just beside "edit this page". Secondly, could you please sign your posts on talk pages. You do that by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message; they will expand into your signature plus the time and date. Thirdly, if you intend to edit regularly, you might consided registering an account. It makes it easier for us to be able to remember, when we see an edit, that you were the person who said such and such a thing on the talk page yesterday. Because of the dificulties with remembering who you are when you remain anonymous, I can't comment on your deleted posts on the discussion page. I'm not aware of anything having been deleted. Your latest post, with phrases like "an ignoramus of the highest caliber" could legitimately be deleted according to this. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Im not sure who you are anon or what you've been up to, but my first suggestion would be to show us references for whatever it is you want. Homestarmy 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was me who deleted Patrick's addition and rightfully so.

  • "It is widely accepted that many of Christianity's beliefs and practices are based on earlier religions."
No, it is not widely accepted. And we have already covered that theory in the history section.
This sentence originally read: "It is widely accepted (much moreso by secularists and Non-Christians) ...", repeated the old ploy to colour a certain opinion in a postive way and to disqualify the opposition. This is a weaseling tactic, it doesn't conform in this case with reality, nor is it relevant what "secularists" say - this is supposed to imply a "secular view", which is neither the same nor actually a possible view.
First of all, Christmas is not said to celebrate Christ's birth - it does celebrate Christ's birth. It is up to those celebrating a feast to define what they are celebrating. They can't be wrong by definition.
And no, it is not proven to be a Roman holiday. Various cultures place holidays on certain astronomically important dates. In this case it is the winter solistice. Christians chose this for symbolic reasons (Christ, the light of the world, entering the world when it is darkest), as well as to counter the competition of pagan festivals. Still, that doesn't make it the same festival. Of course, we have discussed this before.
  • "In fact, it is generally known by religious scholars that Christ's birthday actually falls closer to the beginning of the year."
Every utterance about Christ's actual birthday is (maybe educated) speculation. "Closer to the begining of the year" is ambiguous and nonsense. The main point raised against 25 December is the presence of shepherds, which however is not solved by a January date. All in all, this discussion is not really on topic here, as this is the main article on Christianity.
  • "Christianity either borrows from or shares with much of paganisms symbols and idols."
An unproven claim stated as a fact. The choice of examples also is revealing:

"The "Virgin Mary", a sacred idolic female statue which the faithful pray to, is a common element found in many Polytheistic and Monotheistic religions.

I never heard of Mary playing a role in other religions except for Christianity and Islam. Certainly not Paganism. Mary is not an "idol" but was a Jewish girl.
So, the Babylonians had a god called by a greek name? Again, this is nonsense, ichtys is an acrononym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour" in Greek. That other religions might use a fish as a symbol is of non consequence.
  • Ichthys was the lover-son of the ancient Babylonian sea goddess Atargatis, and was known in various mythic systems as Tirgata, Aphrodite, Pelagia or Delphine.
What a load of nonsense. Are we still in Baylonia? Babylonian/Sumerian gods are rather called An, Enlil, Enki, Utu/Shamash, Ishtar/Inana, Dumuzi/Tammuz, Sin etc.
  • "The word also meant "womb" and "dolphin" in some tongues, and representations of this appeared in the depiction of mermaids."
And now we are way of from anything remotely related to our topic, which is Christianity.

Patrick also added:

  • "This "Holy Trinity" is what causes many religious scholars and educated individuals to believe that Christianity is a Polytheistic rather than a Monotheistic religion."
On the contrary, religion scholars classify Christianity as monotheistic. Only some Muslims have a big fuzz over this and we have covered the point of contention already as a distinct point in the Controversy section. With "educated individuals" the editor probably means himself.

Hoope that suffices as a discussion. I will not delve into the fact that the addition was also substandard linguistically. Str1977 (smile back) 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What this more or less amounts to, to me, is that some of the people who spend the most time editing this page don't "like" what I added. The additions I made to the page have proven references and I included links to other wikipedia sites to illustrate as much. If you make the claim that my writings are "unsubstantiated", then surely anyone could make that claim about almost anything on the page. You can't "pick and choose" what to believe and what not to based on how the information makes you feel(Well, actually, maybe you can, but I need something more.). To go over your diatribe bit for bit, I'll give you some useful counterpoints which, hopefully, will be very enlightening to you.

1. What is your definition of "widely"? Because you know, that's a relative term. You may not KNOW a lot of people that believe Christianity has pagan roots, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. Do you know how many Non-Christians there are in this world? What do you think THEY believe about Christianity? It may not be a widely accepted fact to Christians but it is to most everyone else that knows anything about it. And I even removed the parenthetical statement I made afterwards, even though it was relevent and accurate, because it didnt sound very encyclopediac.

2. I can and will change "generally accepted by" to "believed by some". I concede to your arguement in that respect on the basis of my first point (see above).

3. On the topic of Saturnalia, this Roman holiday is said to be a time of "gift giving, drinking, and merriment". That sounds a lot like Christmas to me. Saturnalia also started the traditions of Christmas Trees and Mistletoe. Ever hear someone around Christmas time go "You know, those Christmas Trees originally started as a pagan practice."? That's Saturnalia they're talking about. All I my text says, if you re-read it, is that Christmas is BASED on this holiday. The part about the birth of Christ is an add-on. Today, the people that run our world are taking Christ out of Christmas and focusing the importance on the consumerist gift trading portion. Do you think its possible that back then, these other factors of the celebration were minimized by the people in charge so that Christ could be "brought in"? Just as Christ is being minimized today so that the gift giving can be brought to higher importance? As for the part about Jesus Christ's birthday, I changed my text to represent the ambiguity of this date.

4. On the subject of the Virgin Mary. Websters very first definition of an idol as "1. A. An image used as an object of worship. B. A false god." We could debate letter B all day, but I don't see how you could debate the first part. Also, I see where there may have been some confusion in my original post. The "Virgin Mary" isn't the actual idol found in other religions, the God-Mother takes many forms and many names, but she is always either the Mother of God or the mother of his mortal representation.

5. Ichthys is the Greek name given to the Babylonian god, whos original name is unkown. If you read further you can see that he was associated with Greek Gods because this being and his symbol were used by other religions even (debatedly) Christianity.

I apologize for my inability to use the discussion page, this was the first time I've ever had to do it. I hope this may have cleared up any confusion on your part, and you can now research Christianity's pagan origins with an open mind. -Patrick 67.114.45.132 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. You can't assume that all non-Christians think Christianity has pagan roots. I would guess that most non-Christians worldwide have no particular opinion about it one way or the other.
3. The relationship between Saturnalia and Christmas is debated. Their dates are close, but not identical. As for the gift giving, ever hear of Saint Nicholas?
4. No Christian group worships or encourages worship of Mary. There might be a few pockets of syncretism here and there where that actually takes place, but overall, Christians who do honor Mary consciously make a big distinction between honoring her and worshipping God. In other religions, is the God-Mother thought to have been created by her son, as Mary is considered to have been created by Jesus, and is portrayed as worshipping Jesus and not the other way around?
5. A fish is a very basic symbol. Connecting the ichthus symbol used by Christians to a Babylonian fish god is just silly. Wesley 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reply:

  • I grant you that there is influence from paganism on Christian iconogrpahy (e.g. Mary with child or a Fish), or calendar (Christmas date). But that doesn't mean that these things themselves derived from paganism. Pagan Romans for instance never celebrated the birth of the Messiah (as that concept was unknown to them).
  • Please don't employ reasonings along the lines of "they believe to celebrate/believe X but in fact they are doing Y" - even if I happen to celebrate a friend's birthday on the wrong day (because I noted it down wrongly) I am still celebrating that friend's birthday and not my evil neighbour's, who happened to be born on that other day. If Christians believe in one God that makes them monotheistic, even if some think that incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity (look into the archives, there are hecatombs of discussion on this issue).
  • Note that scientific proof is something more than what you can offer. Also, note that Wp articles are not proper reference.
  • I don't pick and chose my beliefs. I am a Catholic. I don't go to the Cafeteria (at least not to this cafesteria).
  • "It may not be a widely accepted fact to Christians but it is to most everyone else that knows anything about it." - isn't that a tautology, if you claim that those knowing about it agree with you. All in all, yes, there are such theories and hence we have included a reference, but you are definitely overstating the case.
  • ... in particular with your examples: the origin of the fish symbols is exactly what I have written - it has nothing to do with Babylonian gods or they hypothetical Greek translations.
  • People like to take any opportunity for merrymaking, so there's no point for assuming a connection because of this. Merrymaking is certainly not the core of Christmas. Christmas trees were invented only in the 16th century and popularized only in the 19th century. There is no link. (Apart from the fact that I have never heard of a Saturnaliatree) Claiming otherwise is "inverted puritanism".

Str1977 (smile back) 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Please refrain from deleting parts of prior discussion. Str1977 (smile back) 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Patrick, some advice:

  • Please don't meddle with prior discussion by deleting parts of it.
  • Please keep the page's structure intact. There's no basis for starting a new section or for using a different name.
  • Please be mindful of WP:3RR. Your last posting was your fourth revert today. I will not revert you, since I have already reverted three times today, and I will not report you, since you are a new editor and might be unaware of these rules. Which gives you the opportunity of self-reverting. Please be reasonable. Str1977 (smile back) 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to bring the relevent portions to the top of a heading so I'll just give this portion it's own section. My posts were all moved and deleted too, so I assumed it was ok. I'm not exactly sure why that was ok and my edits to make the relevent information more accessible aren't, but I hope that my inability to edit a wikipedia page doesn't (it shouldn't) detract from your opinion on the merits of my arguement. 67.114.45.132 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No it is not okay. Your posts on the talk page were not deleted (you were the one deleting posts) - they were moved to the bottom, because on talk pages, new posts belong at the bottom. Re why your edits were IMHO wrong, read the discussion here. As long as you now stop to meddle with the talk page structure, I won't waste a thought on it again. Str1977 (smile back) 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Patrick:

  • Despite the claims you are posting: there is no "Virgin Birth" in any form of Paganism, i.e. an instance where a woman (=female human) gives birth without having had sex (hence remaining a virgin) with either a deity or a male human. Str1977 (smile back) 16:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it certainly is reassuring to talk to someone who has the exact beliefs of every prehistoric religion memorized, but I have to debate you on this one point in particular. We see Virgin Births all the time in our pop culture. Fantasy and Horror movies abound with this theme. Is it so hard to believe an ancient pagan religion came up with the same idea BEFORE christianity? 67.114.45.132 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course, I have not travelled prehistory (no one alive has) but our claims must only go us far as we know. Now, I grant you there might have been a hitherto unknown early culture in whose hypothetical mythology virgin births happend three times a week, but we don't know anything about that and hence we cannot use that information we haven't got. Why I think Virgin Births are uncommon phenomena that need a proper evidential basis; even primordial men knew about the hows of procreation, especially since it involves blood flowing. I don't have to explain this to you? "Is it so hard to believe ..." But where's the evidence? Now, don't Leda or Isis me, as they were not virgins and the latter not even human! "Fantasy and horror movies", ha? Could it be that they incorporate a bit of Christianity in them? (Not having seen these hitherto hypothetical horror movies - wait, Star Wars comes to mind, but for that read the previous sentence.) Str1977 (smile back) 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you believe other things can copy Christianity, but you don't believe Christianity, perhaps, copied early pagan religions? Mimics pagan religious practices, just like people have taken orignial Christianity and made it into something else (the Protestant reformation, for example). You seem to have a very one sided view in which Christianity invented every single religious practice we have in the modern world. 67.114.45.132 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that Christianity could not have copied other religions. I do believe it hasn't done so, which is a different thing. And you provide no evidence for that. The examples you bring are either spurious or relating to peripherical things like the Christmas date. And no, Christianity did not invent everything. There are countless practices that have nothing to do with Christianity (or Judaism, which for the issue at hand is not a different religion), e.g. Temple prostitution (still practised in India), occultist divination etc. Then there are certain practices that Christianity (or some forms of it) has adopted from other religions. I really don't have a problem with that, as long as they are compatible (or made compatible) with Christianity. And there are things that Christianity rejected from other religions because they were not comptatible. In how certain developments were aberrations from Jesus' teaching or legitimate developments is a matter of POV. To reiterate my main point: it is possible but it has to be proven first. And you give no evidence. Str1977 (smile back) 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 67 Patrick. Let's go through some of the points.

  1. It is widely accepted . . . Is it? Who says so? If you stop 100 people in the street, and ask them, how many people will say that that's something that they already accepted (not just something that they believe when you tell them)? And even if you found that most of these hypothetical 100 people did accept that, it would still be in violation of WP:Weasel.
  2. . . . that many of Christianity's beliefs and practices are based on earlier religions. I object to "are based on". If I wrote a book "based on" Pride and Prejudice, it would mean that I had carefully read P & P, and then invented a new story, perhaps with new characters. On the other hand, it would be possible, without ever having read P & P, to write a novel free of plagiarism, where a lively, vivacious girl takes a dislike to a rich man because he comes across as very proud, rejects his marriage proposal, later discovers his goodness, and falls in love with him and marries him. In that case, the new novel would not be based on P & P; it would show similarities with it, or have some points in common with it. My own Christmas pudding is based on one that a (now deceased) employee of my father used to make. In other words, it's not just a coincidence that there's so much overlap in the two recipes. To say "based on" therefore suggests that Christianity is not true (which goes against our WO:NPOV policy as much as suggesting it is true would), and that it was invented by people who read up about pagan religions and then used some of the material in their "invention" of the story of Jesus. If Christianity is true, then Judaism before it was true, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that some religions prior to the founding of Christianity had incorporated elements of Judaism. If Christianity shares with some pagan religions a belief in Creation, in life after death, in punishment for sin, etc., it does not mean that Christianity's beliefs are based on those pagan religions.
  3. Christmas, a Christian holiday said to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ has been proven . . . Str1977 has dealt with that. We do celebrate Christ's birthday on 25 December; we don't merely say that we do. Nor do we claim that He really was born on 25 December.
  4. The "Virgin Mary", a sacred idolic statue which the faithful pray to . . . The Virgin Mary is not an idol. Nor is she a statue. There are statues of the Virgin Mary, but they are distinct from Mary herself, just as a photo of you is distinct from you. Her statue is not an idol in any Christian religion (unless there are some really obscure fringe groups that I haven't heard of; certainly, no mainstream Christian denomination has "idols". Most Protestants do not pray to Mary. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians do pray to her (though not with adoration); they do not pray to her statue.
  5. is known by archaeologists, anthropologists, and other educated individuals . . . No, it's not "known" by them; it may or may not be "believed" by them. Since you're using weasel words, and not citing sources, I can't comment. "Other educated individuals" is extremly POV, implying that people who are educated will believe that, and that people who don't believe it can just be disregarded as semi-literate individuals.
  6. There were also signs of careless copyediting.

AnnH ♫ 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted, Ann. I read the wikipedia entry on weasel words and can add cite-able sources with a modicum of research. As for the points you made, it seems as if the discussion has devolved into a debate over definition. What about "thou shalt not worship graven images"? Is praying to a statue of the Virgin Mary considered worshiping a graven image? That's debatable. And you say that sharing those similarities doesn't mean that Christianity is based on pagan beliefs and practices. That's debatable too. Do you really think that Christianity just "came together" one day? Or do you think dozens, maybe hundreds of people collaborated and decided what would best "sell" their religion? To simply dismiss my points really shows a lack of deep thought on the issue, and with all this talk about a "nuetral" point of view, maybe some of you should practice what you preach. -Patrick 67.114.45.132 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Patrick, it is not one or another translation of the biblical text that counts but the original. ... which doesn't warrant your interpretation of "graven image". This is concerned with idols - images of different Gods. Christians don't worship Mary as a godess, hence it is not idolatry per se. Some practices might indeed become idolatrous (but you would have to look at what the person actually intends and does and thinks about his actions) and some Christians reject images alltogether. However, that is a matter of dispute between Christians and hence POV. Str1977 (smile back) 23:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Patrick is right about the many common pagan doctrines which are virtually identical to Christian doctrines. Ofcourse the Pagan ideas pre-date the Christian ones. There is no reason to think that the new religion did not borrow and absorb it from earlier religions it was surrounded with at the time it was growing and formulating its own beliefs. This is a topic of a lot of scholarly research and I think it should be expanded upon in this article. Maybe a section called "Possible Pagan Origins of Christianity" For instance, just taking one example, the Virgin Birth. The impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology. A pagan myth of virgin birth may also underlie the disputed verses from Isaiah: It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman'; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin'. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, "`Almah in Isaiah 7:14", Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.)

This philological reasoning seems to raise four possibilities: virgin birth is a pagan concept that Christianity has 1) taken from contemporary paganism; 2) taken from pre-Mosaic paganism through Isaiah; 3) taken from contemporary paganism and justified from Isaiah, who took it from pre-Mosaic paganism; 4) produced independently of all forms of paganism, though sharing similar vocabulary. If pre-Mosaic paganism supports Isaiah, and Isaiah supports Matthew and Mark, paganism has anticipated Christianity, perhaps because God was preparing the way for Christianity or because, as some Church Fathers argued, the Devil was blasphemously imitating Christianity. On the other hand, if paganism does not underlie Isaiah, there are several possibilities. Perhaps virgin birth was invented separately, first in paganism, then in Christianity. Perhaps the idea of asexual conception was so different from the idea of conception through sexual intercourse with a deity that there was little or no borrowing in either direction. Or perhaps, despite the earlier date of the Ugaritic text, virgin birth existed first in Judaism, without any other instances than this one, and was borrowed by paganism. The obvious difficulty with this idea is that virgin birth was much more prominent in paganism, where it occurs in many myths in many different areas, than it was in Judaism, where it occurs (if at all) in a single verse late in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the argument that virgin birth was a Jewish concept first borrowed by paganism and later incorporated into Christianity was first made by Justin Martyr in The First Apology of Justin, written in the second century. Justin also made this argument in his Dialog with Trypho, in which he debates with a Jew called Trypho:

"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by Jupiter's intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the Devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? ..."[2]

Justin was clearly not referring to any Ugaritic texts, as these texts were not known in his day; he was referring to Greek paganism. That the Devil is responsible for the similarities between paganism and Judaism is not generally accepted by modern scholars, partly because the Devil's influence would be impossible to disprove. The Devil could not, for example, imitate Christianity or Judaism before either existed, without violating the generally accepted historical rule that a culture cannot be influenced by a culture that does not yet exist; even though in point of fact it is likely that if "the patriarch Jacob" existed, he was contemporary with the inscriptions at Ugarit. In a similar vein, it might also be argued that God had chosen to out-do these earlier human myths, all as part of his Plan.

Christian apologists point out that if in fact the writer of Isaiah intended to borrow the idea of a virgin birth from an older pagan tradition, we might expect to find Isaiah using more explicit language to indicate that a virgin was meant. However, if Isaiah had borrowed the story from pagans, he might be expected to speak in the same way as the pagans, and that is what he does, according to the scholar quoted, who notes the "remarkable" similarity of the Ugaritic and the Hebrew. However, Isaiah may speak the same way as the pagans simply because he came from a similar sociological and semantic context. If Isaiah received a new prophecy direct from God, on the other hand, he had no tradition to conform to, and he could have expanded the meaning to make it completely unambiguous. That he did not choose to make it unambiguous is thus an apparent difficulty for the Christian interpretation of the text, though the ambiguity could be seen as being intended, if one supposes that God had a dual purpose for the text (i.e., to serve one function in Isaiah's time and another function later). Isaiah's prophecy departs from the Ugaritic version of the virgin birth by having the female be entirely human, whereas in the Ugaritic culture, the virgin was another deity, on par with the male; but this is exactly what might be expected if the myth were borrowed from paganism, since Judaism has only one male deity; a female deity in a borrowed myth might thus conceivably become a female human.NeoOne 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, similarities between Paganism and other things most certainly are not limited to religion, similarities also exist in just about everything in the world. Believe it or don't, but not only were pagans human beings, but im a human being too! The similiarity is remarkable, how can it possibly be a mere coincidence! Going by this logic, i'd better start re-evaluating everything I know about life, the universe, and everything..... Homestarmy 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are not unique either. You are related from other animals in the animal kingdom. You did not come out of thin air. You came from earlier forms of humans. There have been many human species. If you are to study Humans we have to look at the earlier forms of humans, too, which we grew out of through the process of evolution, and survival. The same thing goes with these bodies of myths. Its important to have a historical undertanding, esp. when myth is elevated into a religion.NeoOne 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh great, just when you gave me enough to think about, now im a monkey's uncle? When will the madness end? Stop the merry-go-round, I wanna get off! But wait, if im similar to a monkey, and im similar to a pagan because im human, doesn't that make all monkey's pagans? It could be a whole new missionary field! Homestarmy 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you call this madness, Homeostarmy? You can't get off. You are who you are only because of what has been. We did not spring into being, or drop from the sky. We evolved. Ideas evolve too, esp. myths. Legends can be traced back, and they morph, memes. What I did was just use an analogy. Religious ideas are not unique because they too, like other things, evolve from earlier times. Ideas are borrowed and live on, esp. those ideas the represent a mythic archeotype. Religions that are still alive share this with earlier religions, which are now dead. Its like language. Latin is dead, English is not. But, within English we can see the many borrowings. We are humans but we did not come fully formed as a species. We evolved from earlier forms of man. We can not divorce ourselves from this connected stream whether in the realm of mythic ideas (religions), or that of nature. We are only blind when we fail to see things are not original, but morphs of earlier forms. To deny this in this age of scientific knowelege is indeed what should be called the maddness! Indeed, to say that there Christianity did some have any significant origin from Pagan ideas is akin to saying that Man did not come from ape!NeoOne 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I called it madness because I was being sarcastic. I've heard this argument before, didn't feel like spending an hour or two critically examining it, so I decided to lighten the mood. The evolution of ideas has nothing to do with the process of natural selection taking a toll for millions of years, one is conceptual development, the other is biological. Your argument seems to say that any idea which has religious basis and has some similiarities with other religious ideas must be based on an older idea, cannot be original in any fashion, and therefore they must all be fake. Since pagans were humans, and my body structure is similiar to that of a pagan, then by this logic, (since as you say, biological evolution is so similiar to ideological progress) my body doesn't exist and is clearly based on nothing more than my pathetic attempts to bring myth into reality, all for my self-centered comfort of thinking that I have a body. And to think, I wasted all that time getting dressed this morning, when nothing apparently existed to dress, how unscientific of me....Homestarmy 00:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr Anderson,

  • First of all, stop using inflammatory edit summaries.
  • Then you wrote: "There is no reason to think that the new religion did not borrow and absorb it from earlier religions it was surrounded with at the time it was growing and formulating its own beliefs." This is a perfectly inadequate basis for the additions in question. There might be no reason to definitely preclude such borrowing (apart from the antipathy of Judaism and Christianity to Paganism) but that doesn't show that there actually was borrowing. Not everything that could conceivably happen also does happen.
  • Also, you simply assume that there is such a pagan Virgin Birth myth. I have never heard of it and the examples you give don't provide any Virgin Birth. Yes, there are many stories about a diety impregnating a woman (female human) but none of these happened through a Virgin Birth/conception. I guess Zeus would not have been very interested in fathering a son by a mortal mother without having "his bit of fun" with her. He certainly has so in all the myths.
  • Finally, you use Isaiah as if it were clear that he referred to some "hypothetical" Ugarit Virgin Birth. That reasoning has a couple of wide gaps: 1) Was there a Ugarit Virgin Birth myth (including one involving a deity and a human female who gets pregnant without having had sex - your account seems to point to two deities at least and you don't give any evidence that they didn't have sex)? 2) Did Isaiah know about it? 3) Would Isaiah use it? 4) Did Isaiah actually intend to say "Virgin" or did he intend to say "Young woman" (which doesn't preclude a deeper, typological sense of his prophecy unknown to him - after all, he is only the messenger) and related to that: Did Isaiah intend to refer to a birth comin up soon or the birth of the Messiah.

Str1977 (smile back) 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the factual contents of what I said. Once read, you can't say you've never heard of a virgin birth outside of Chrsitianity. True, the impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology, but so are virgin births. A pagan myth of virgin birth suggests by the evidence to underlie the verses from Isaiah. As explained the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. The Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman'; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin'. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, "`Almah in Isaiah 7:14", Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.)
Based on this, the virgin birth is a pagan concept that Christianity has 1) taken from contemporary paganism; 2) taken from pre-Mosaic paganism through Isaiah; 3) taken from contemporary paganism and justified from Isaiah, who took it from pre-Mosaic paganism; 4) produced independently of all forms of paganism, though sharing similar vocabulary. If pre-Mosaic paganism supports Isaiah, and Isaiah supports Matthew and Mark, paganism has anticipated Christianity. This was evident to some Church Fathers, which is why they argued that Devil was blasphemously imitating Christianity!! On the other hand, if paganism does not underlie Isaiah, then perhaps virgin birth was invented separately, first in paganism, then in Christianity. But, it was not original, and comes afterwards, based on the evidence. It is possible, despite the earlier date of the Ugaritic text, that virgin birth existed first in Judaism, and was borrowed by paganism, but this is problematic and not common sense. The obvious difficulty with this idea is that virgin birth was much more prominent in paganism, where it occurs in many myths in many different areas, than it was in Judaism, where it occurs (if at all) in a single verse late in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the argument that virgin birth was a Jewish concept first borrowed by paganism and later incorporated into Christianity was first made by Justin Martyr in The First Apology of Justin, written in the second century. Justin also made this argument in his Dialog with Trypho, in which he debates with a Jew called Trypho.
Justin was clearly not referring to any Ugaritic texts, as these texts were not known in his day; he was referring to Greek paganism. That the Devil is responsible for the similarities between paganism and Judaism is not generally accepted by modern scholars--needless to say! The Devil could not, for example, imitate Christianity or Judaism before either existed, without violating the generally accepted historical rule that a culture cannot be influenced by a culture that does not yet exist.
Christian apologists point out that if in fact the writer of Isaiah intended to borrow the idea of a virgin birth from an older pagan tradition, we might expect to find Isaiah using more explicit language to indicate that a virgin was meant. However, if Isaiah had borrowed the story from pagans, he might be expected to speak in the same way as the pagans, and that is what he does, according to the scholar quoted, who notes the "remarkable" similarity of the Ugaritic and the Hebrew. However, Isaiah may speak the same way as the pagans simply because he came from a similar sociological and semantic context. If Isaiah received a new prophecy direct from God, on the other hand, he had no tradition to conform to, and he could have expanded the meaning to make it completely unambiguous. That he did not choose to make it unambiguous is thus an apparent difficulty for the Christian interpretation of the text. Isaiah's prophecy departs from the Ugaritic version of the virgin birth by having the female be entirely human, whereas in the Ugaritic culture, the virgin was another deity, on par with the male; but this is exactly what might be expected if the myth were borrowed from paganism, since Judaism has only one male deity; a female deity in a borrowed myth might thus conceivably become a female human.NeoOne 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind editors here that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please keep the inflammatory rhetoric to a minimum. I'd also like to remind editors that this is an article that should be written in Wikipedia:Summary style. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of scholarly books discussing early Christianity in the context of Greek Paganism, the arguments of which should be discussed at Early Christianity. There is no need to attempt to persuade each other of the truth of any particular historical narrative. We're only here to summarise the work done already by experts on the subject. Jkelly 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You might take a look at Early Christianity. There have been attempts there by others to mention the possible influence of paganism but they are also reverted and not allowed a mention. Would you support me if I were to try to include mention of different possible pagan influences into the Early Christianity article? From what I have seen only biblical accounts there are allowed in.NeoOne 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I just looked at Early Christianity. Every single statement is referenced directly to the Bible. That is certainly a concern. Can I make a suggestion? Use User:NeoOne/sandbox to begin working on a re-write that exemplifies our principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view using brilliant prose. Unfortunately, the "Scholars" list in the article isn't going to be of much help; a modern university textbook would probably be the place to start. Write it in such a way that nobody could question that it was an improvement. Then get consensus to replace our current article. What I'm proposing is a huge task, but it will certainly be of much greater benefit than trying to insert a new section into what is otherwise largely a summary of the New Testament presented as fact, plus several paragraphs on Bauer's argument. Jkelly 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your excellent suggestion, Jkelly. I am not sure if I have the free time to do this myself, but If I do I will try that method. In my opinion that articles needs an overhaul. The earlier version of the article were much better but seemed to bend too far in the other direction. No doubt what we have now there is a reaction to it.NeoOne 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr Anderson, you didn't understand me (and in accordance with Jkelly's admonition I will keep it short): You didn't provide any pagan parallel of a virgin birth. I did indeed read your post but nothing of it contained a human virgin giving birth after conceiving from a deity, let alone the God. What I have seen is deities having sex with human females, impregnating them in the course, or male deities having sex with female deities. Str1977 (smile back) 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We must be reading different things. No point to repeat myself.NeoOne 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am, maybe I am not. Which god did you say impregnated a human female whithout having sex with her? Str1977 (smile back) 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The particular lunar dieties with the virgin brith that I speak of are from Nin-gal, a Sumerian lunar goddess. Very few Sumero-Accadian deities penetrated into Canaan and Egypt. Nikkal is an exception attested in Ugarit and Egypt (UH § 18.1310). She is also called Ib or Nikkal-and-Ib in this poem from "Ugaritic Literature – A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts, Cyrus H. Gordon, pp. 63-64, (Rome, 1949): I sing of Nikkal-and-Ib
Hrhb, King of Summer
Hrhb, Estival King
When the Sun sets
The Moon rises
A virgin will give birth
To the Ktrt
Daughters of shouting
Swallows.
Lo a maid will bear a son
answers/sees lo for his love she is
for her flesh, my blood
And wine like/and one wed

These are inscribed Ugaritic clay tablet, said to be from around 1400 B.C.E., is pre-Mosaic. It is, according to Professor Gordo, pre-Isaianic. The consensus among scholars is that the Mosaic era dates to around 1400-1300 B.C.E. There are many sections of the clay tablet, which ofcourse are not legible. NeoOne 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Mr Anderson, I was right. You have nothing to say on virgin births. If I may quote you: "The particular lunar dieties with the virgin brith that I speak of ..." Bingo, you talk about deities - I am talking about female humans. And BTW, the only linguistic parallel (obviously judging from translation) in that text it "a maid will bear a son", close second: "a virgin will give birth" (which is only linked via content) - but still these are deities interacting and not humans. Case closed. Take it where you will but let be elsewhere. Str1977 (smile back) 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They are still "virgin births" if we want to say among dietieis (humans were often treated and regareded as dieties), or between regular mortal humans. The concept is not original. That is the point. It must not be identical in very manner but the main concepts itself or obviously much older. Take another case: Zoroastrians ( 6000 BCE-600BCE). This oldest of revealed religions influeced many other religions. According to its theology his birth was predicted and that attempts were made by the forces of evil to kill him as a child. (Again a similarity with the attempted killing of Jesus tradition and that of the Moses tradition.) He preached monotheism in a land, which followed an aboriginal polytheistic religion. He was attacked for his teaching, but finally won the support of the king. Zoroastrianism became the state religion of various Persian empires, until the 7th Century CE. (www.religioustolerence.org)
These concepts of heaven and hell, of the Saviors to come, the Virgin birth of the final savior, the Final Judgment, the Bathing of the world by Fire, the final battle between good and evil, the final defeat of evil and the resurrection of the dead - these are all Aryan Zoroastrian concepts which filtered down into Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also from Zoroastrianism would come the Mithra Cult. A worrier god born of a virgin mother, he would become the Roman sun god and the official god of the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine (baptized on his death bed) would worship this god and seemed to confuse the sun god with the later Son of God. The Christian Virgin Birth story originates with Mithraism and is unsupported in the Old Testament.
Back to the stories of Zoroastrianism {(yes, I said STORIES (hehe)}, Ahura Mazda will send the saviors (Saoshyants) who will teach men righteousness and fight evil. The world will be cleansed (with fire) by God, all men and women will be judged, evil destroyed, etc. Marriage is celebrated very strongly, in particular marriage that produces beautiful children. Unlike Christianity, which considers the pain of childbirth a punishment for sin, this is a celebration of new life, a gift from God.
Fire is worshiped as a symbol of God. (Light). Ahura Mazda prohibits sexual perversion such homosexuality, prostitution, etc. along with infanticide (abortion) and intermarriage with outsiders. (Non-Zoroastrians) They do not consider non-Zoroastrians as damned nor see conversion to Zoroastrianism as necessary. They don't accept converts; one must be born into it. Ahura Mazda knew the Devil (Ahriman) would attack the spiritual world (Minoi), so He created the material (Geti) world, then the first man and finally Fire, which entered into the Creation and gave it life. For the 1st 3000 years, the first man lived a perfect life, worshiped God, etc. Then the devil arose from the darkness and attacked the world and killed everything including the first man. (Zoroastrian time consists of four 3000-year periods before the world ends.) However, new life arose from the dead. From the body of the slain first man, both man and woman came forth. Man and women were united in divine love. God had brought love and children into the world. The Devil became trapped in the material world. The battle between good and evil thus goes on until the end time, when God will send His Savior and defeat evil once and for all. This savior will be born of a virgin, but of the lineage of the Prophet Zoroaster who will raise the dead and judge everyone in a final judgment.
These concepts of heaven and hell, of the Saviors to come, the Virgin birth of the final savior, the Final Judgment, the Bathing of the world by Fire, the final battle between good and evil, the final defeat of evil and the resurrection of the dead - these are all Aryan Zoroastrian concepts which filtered down into Judaism, Christianity and Islam.NeoOne 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
..says the NeoOne. Only now he has slipped away from paganism to Zoroaster. But since all of (possible or alleged) influence of Z. went through Judaism, it is off topic here. We dicussed this a year ago. And I am afraid that whether your virgins are human or divine makes all the difference: deities in different myths can do all kinds of things, so there's nothin unusual about virgin births. Human females, if I may tell you, do not generally give birth while still a virgin. Str1977 (smile back) 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, Mr Anderson, with your overly long posts you have scared away Patrick, who started this. I wonder what he would say to your stuff. Str1977 (smile back) 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Did I, or did you, Agent Smith?NeoOne 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Let him speak for himself, Professor. BTW, why are you here? Str1977 (smile back) 06:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever read anything that stated unequivically and with empirical evidence to support the claim that another religion/religions, outside of Judaism, caused, engendered, founded Christian beliefs. It is quite apparent that one may say there is a cooincidence of similar ideas, but to have been parent of the religion goes much further than proof supports. I think we a stretching truth to meet one's objectives. Storm Rider (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-resistance to evil

The following passage was added to the "beliefs" section, describing it as one of the "main guidelines of christianity".

By his Sermon on the mount, Jesus taught his followers not to resist evil, to forgive crimes committed done by one's adversaries, love them and pray for them. Thus, if one would truly follow Jesus' teaching, one should not hinder criminals from committing crimes nor save their victims (thus 'resisting the evil'). However, Twelve basic schools of thought on these issues have been listed. The Absolutist View, relying on sermon text and taking it as it is, rejects all compromise and believes that, if obeying the scripture costs the welfare of the believer, then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation. All the precepts in the Sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. Proponents of this view include St. Francis of Assisi and in later life Leo Tolstoy. The Oriental Orthodox Churches fully adopt this position; among heterodox groups, the early Anabaptists came close, and modern Anabaptist groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites come closest. Owing to the contradiction between the extremist guidelines of the Sermon, most Christians do not follow these rules.

However, this section is misplaced (in between Trinity and Crucifixion/Resurrection), too elaborate and oneside. A section along the line of "fighting evil with good" would be more fitting. There is also a logical fallacy involved, when the section reads: "almost all Christian groups have developed nonliteral ways to interpret and apply the sermon, so as not to surrender before evil" - if almost all Christians do not believe this, then it is not a "main belief" of Christianity in the first place, but highlighting a minority view (and the mentioning of a few persons and groups confirms this). People might (or not) regard this fact as an aberration from Jesus' teaching, but the topic of this article is Christianity as it exists.

Str1977 (smile back) 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

almost all Christian groups have developed nonliteral ways to interpret and apply the sermon, so as not to surrender before evil" - if almost all Christians do not believe this, then it is not a "main belief" of Christianity in the first place
i think you miss the point. You know the word 'fundamentalism' -- most of the believers do not act as their teaching fundamentally requires them. in its essence, Jesus' sermon called people for non-resistance, and tolstoy has wisely shown that it is the kernel of real christianity. However, as with many other ideologies, people living in the real world look it hard to follow such extreme commands, and hence the christian majority who do not act in concordance with the sermon commands. I do think that a rewording attempt would help to remove the ambuigity.--Advocatus diaboli 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
En contraire, Advocatus. I rather see the point, but think it is twisted logic to say that they disregard their teaching while saying at the same time that they teach something different. You might think a certain interpretation of the Sermon to be the only correct one but it is merely your view and, in WP terms, POV - the same goes gor Tolstoy's observations about "real Christianity". As I said, Christianity is what it is.
We simply describe that, give the main beliefs shared by most Christians, describe how Christianity got where it is. You may view it an aberration from Christ but again, that's strictly your interpretation.
If you think "that a rewording attempt would help to remove the ambuigity" (and note it is a POV problem, not an ambiguity) hy do you simply revert. I explicitely moved the passage to the talk page for discussion. Here is the place to discuss and if there is a solution we will then post it to the article. Your reverting is a denial of discussion. Str1977 (smile back) 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
While the above paragraph is not the best, I do think we need to dedicate a section to Christian beliefs derived from Jesus' teachings and other NT books. Right now we are talking what Christians believe about God, Jesus, etc., but little mention is made of fundamental Christian beliefs such as loving your neighbor as yourself, turning the other cheek, or even paying tithes. —Aiden 15:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Aiden. This is why I moved the stuff over from the article. However, it should not be along the lines of "this is what Jesus taught (using a mock fundamentalism) and here is how Christians have perverted it". The point of departure for this article is always "Christianity as it exists". The thought of "answering evil with good" might be a good starter. Str1977 (smile back) 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion

Since this been repeatedly removed, I want to explain the sentence. Aiden wrote: "The paragraph is discussing Christianity's Jewish origin only." That's not actually true - the term Abrahamic religion is often used to refer to the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Therefore there is a reference to it in the intro. The three are included since they are the ones meant by that term. Removing Islam is not only wrong because of its size but also because the term AR is actually derived from Islamic thought. To put it bluntly, Jews and Christians don't consider Islam to have anything to do with Abraham (except mediated by Judaiams and Christianity) - the term nonetheless has prevailed. Str1977 (smile back) 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire paragraph exists solely to highlight the historical origins of Christianity in Judaism. Islam came after Christianity and is thus entirely irrelevent to this paragraph on Christianity's origins. Likewise, the 'Abrahamic faith' sentence also exists solely to highlight the common ancestry of Christianity as based on Judaism. As I said in my edit summary: "It [the sentence] is comparing Christianity to Judaism, not Islam. There are Abrahamic religions other than these 3, such as the Baha'i Faith. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." —Aiden 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Bahai is not classed among the Abrahamic religions. Str1977 is absolutely accurate; Abrahamic means Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I'm replacing the text. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you even read the Abrahamic religion article? —Aiden 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Bahai faith is actually a conglomeration of other faiths that highlight the 'oneness' of God and thus derives its teachings from holy books that include the Torah and the Koran but also the teachings of Buddha (or at least that's how I understand it). In contrast, Islam is considered to be the final word of God given to the descendants of Abraham himself (the descendants of Ishmael). In fact, the holiest day of the year in Islam is not the feast after Ramadan, but is the festival of the Sacrifice that commemorates Abraham's almost sacrifice of his son (in Islam it's Ishmael, in Judaism its Isaac, you all can battle this one out) but his hand is stayed by an order from God. Abraham is also the builder of the kaaba along with Ishmael. Abrahamic religions are thus always considered the monotheistic religions acquired by the very descendants of Abraham, the Jews and the Muslims. The Christians are just an extension of Judaism, evidently, so they get the honorary title as well. Ramallite (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you are mistaken. The paragraph does not solely exist "to highlight the historical origins of Christianity in Judaism". It starts out with that, then continues to the parallels with Judaism, concluding with the additional relationship to Islam (which is different from the relationship to Judaism). Without Islam the Abrahamic sentence is pointless, as the relationship to Judaism has already been covered and as the term originates in Islamic thought. Str1977 (smile back) 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

... And whether Bahai is an AR or not is of no consequence for this. Aiden is right in saying this is not (or rather needs not to be) an exhaustive list. The sentence declares Christianity to be an AR and mentions the two other promiment ARs - the one is important for the aforementioned origins (of Christianity in Judaism) but also of the origin of Judaism in Abraham, the other for its sheer bulk and for its coining the term in the first place. Bahai, whether an AR or not, is a rather smallish group. Str1977 (smile back) 23:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 is correct: Islam should be in that sentence for the reasons he has outlined. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Str1977, in what way does the paragraph conclude with a comparison to Islam? We've got sentence after sentence about the Jewish roots of Christianity, yet you contend that Islam should be thrown into the last sentence simply because it is prominent? I agree it's prominent, but it isn't relevent. Ramallite: I agree with you, but in the same respect as being ultimately derived from Abraham, the Baha'i Faith can be considered AR as well. (And a bit off-topic but since you brought it up: why (and how) would Abraham have built a shrine to pagan gods? I know, I know, it was only corrupted later.) —Aiden 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that the relationship to Islam should go unmentioned? If so, why?
If we mention the term AR then Islam must be mentioned, for the reason I outlined above. Str1977 (smile back) 08:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said it should go unmentioned. I simply said it is in no way relevent in this paragraph. —Aiden 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
But it is relevant in this sentence. If you are very strict about this, we could always make the AR sentence into a paragraph of its own. Sounds a bit awkward but if it pleases you ... Or we can keep it as it is and not worry about the last sentence being about ARs including Islam despite the upper part of the paragraph being concerned with Judaism. Str1977 (smile back) 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Centered on what?

We used to have "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, and New Testament accounts of his life and teachings." That was, if I recall properly, stable for a long time. Then we had some aggressive reverting and puppet attacks. [3] [4] [5]. Just in the last day, a new variety slipped in [6], stating that Christianity is "centered on both God, and the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recounted in the Gospels." I have definite problems with that version. First of all, Christianity teaches that Jesus is not just the Son of God, but is also God (God the Son). The fact that we talk about the Second Person of the Trinity as being the Son of God, but don't talk about the First Person of the Trinity as being the Father of God does create an unfortunate implication that Jesus is not really God, or at least that he is not as much God as the Father is. But we should avoid anything that makes a strong implication of something that is contrary to Christian teaching. Also, as many of us argued repeatedly (check the archives!) Christianity is centered on the Person Jesus, not on his life or on accounts of his life. Finally, I have problems with mentioning God and Jesus, first because it implies that Jesus isn't God, but secondly because, if we take it that "God" in this context means the Father, and that "Jesus" isn't intended to deny his divinity, it's illogical to state that Christianity is centered on the Father and the Son, or on the Father and the life and teachings of the Son. It's like making the sign of the Cross: "In the name of the Father and of the Son, Amen". The Holy Spirit is every bit as much God as the Father and the Son, according to Christian teaching. The current wording messes up things badly, but my suggestion would be to go back to the previously-stable version: "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, known by Christians as Jesus Christ, and New Testament accounts of his life and teachings." Or, even better, "referred to by Christians as Jesus Christ" or "whom Christians call Jesus Christ". "Known as" is a little bit like saying, "His name is William, but he's always known as Billy." I'd welcome comments, but the current version is not acceptable. AnnH ♫ 08:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I concurr with Ann. The sentence right now sounds awkward, has the implications mentioned by Ann. On the other hand, we don't specifically mention God since the life and teaching of Jesus include God. Other religion articles do not start "God and ..." either. Str1977 (smile back) 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. I do realize that agreement from one person does not make a consensus! But I had to change it to something, as what was there was unacceptable, and I recall that many people agreed with "centered on Jesus" some months ago, and others have either left or are being investigated for puppetry. I didn't put "whom Christians call Jesus Christ", because the next sentence has something like that (which was not the case back in April). AnnH ♫ 09:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
However, Ann, I think that the long-standing version was "centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recounted in the New Testament". Remember, your current version reintroduces the POV that Gio wanted to push (at least in a mild version), that of Christianity being centred on a book. I know you know that this isn't an accurate depiction. What about "... Jesus of Nazareth and his life and teachings, as recounted ..." Str1977 (smile back) 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being fully awake. Fixed. AnnH ♫ 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Good work, you two. —Aiden 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! Str1977 (smile back) 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Recounted vs presented

Jim has changed recounted to presented. While I don't have any problem with this, I wanted to point out that by definition recounted is to narrate the facts or particulars of and may not necessarily imply existence of Jesus. —Aiden 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Recounted has a connotation of being basically factual - making it POV about how accurate the NT is about the events (not just his existence). Presented takes no position on the truth of the events. There is no reason NOT to have presented. Presented was stable in the article for many months some time in the past --JimWae 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a problem with presented, but it appears some editors do. How about recorded? —Aiden 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Acts

As far as Christians appearing first in Acts, I am guesssing that is based on the order of presentation in the NT, rather than on any firm agreement on which books were written first? http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm Dating the NT - list of opinions of scholars. Perhaps you guys mean:

According to Acts 11:26 in the New Testament, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (Greek accusative Χριστιανούς; Christianous).

Of course, first use doesn't always stick - and the Romans calling them Xns was likely at least AS important--JimWae 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about which book was the first to use the term but when and where the term was used first - Acts is the source for that information, namely that this happened in Antioch, which is also sensible given the Hellenistic character of the city. Jerusalemites would have used a Hebrew/Aramean term rather than a Greek one. Str1977 (smile back) 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I have adjusted the sentence to what it was actually trying to say. The meaning of the former version, if taken literally, is actually not very relevant, as you wrote above "based on the order of presentation ...", and any other meaning would have to remain very shaky. BTW, according to my bible version, the term Christian only appear in Acts 11 and 26 and 1 Peter 4 (with the later the only occasion were it is unambiguously adopted by a Christian speaker - Acts has "they were called" and "Agrippa said". Str1977 (smile back) 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference to NIV bible

In the Book of Acts 6:9 ".....synagogue of the Freedmen". What was or is the synagogue of the Freedmen? I would greatly appreciate it if someone could tell me.

These freedmen were probably descendants of Jewish prisoners taken to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey, who had gained their freedom. They had a synagogue in Jerusalem, which they attended. Notice the balance of the verse: "which is called the synagogue of the Libertines (Freedmen), and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia" It appears that those Jews from other areas along with the freedmen attended a synagogue in common.

This was taken from a Bible Dictionary in a King James bible. I hope it helps. Storm Rider (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very-much this does help, I'll explore from the info you've given me.

Recent Inclusion of Minority Views

I apologize if this steps on any toes, but the initial portions of the article could stand to have a sentence or two about departures from orthodox views. The Second Coming stuff is particularly lacking, as is the bit about the Trinity--which is not accepted by all Christians. It seems in reading the article that I am being told about a monolithic faith in which "all Christians believe..." this doesn't jive with my own experience as a professional theologian. The faith is old and diverse enough that we cannot say all Christians think or believe the same way; any more than we can say all Jews believe the same way. It strikes me that Christianity has always had a Midrash-like tradition, but it isn't getting much notice here. I know that the risk is that the article becomes overburdened with references better addressed in their own articles. Any ideas? MerricMaker 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, if I failed to explain, but the section "Beliefs" is prefaced by:

Within Christianity there exists a significant diversity of beliefs. Nevertheless, certain doctrines have come to characterize the mainstream of Christian theology.

So, by definition, the following gives the mainstream and not minority views.

And especially your addition about the "Second coming" was inaccurate, as that belief is not solely based on the book of Revelation.

Str1977 (smile back)

Thanks for the clarification. I tend to skip introductory bits and go for the meat of the article. On the second coming thing, I went to Revelation because that's were most people see "end of time," which is unfortunate because that reading misses the whole point of the book. Paul seemed to think that the second coming was going to be tomorrow. What that tends to say to me is that the second coming is our job every morning when we get out of bed. That is, that humanity itself is the second coming if it follows the lessons or being of Jesus, in other words, realized eschatology. However, all of that stuff is (quite rightly) not addressed here. MerricMaker 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. What I was trying to say is: there are other passages (gospels, Paul) dealing with eschatology. So, I have to disagree: our job is to love God and our neighbour. To do good and shun evil. We cannot make Christ hasten his coming - he will come precisely when he means to, when noone will expect him. So much for our off-topic interaction. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
  2. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
  3. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity/Archive_25&oldid=1136333420"