Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about History of Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Peshitta, Nestorian, Church of the East

What happen to christianity in China and Japan, what about the Church of the East being the oldest church in history 31 AD.

-- Esarhaddon 15:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Project Gutenberg has a copy of "History of the Catholic Church" which would be an excellent source for building this article. While it was written by a Catholic, and has some biases to be watched out for, it is not very biased, a failing of some church histories. By church I mean any church, I'm not singling out Catholicism here. --Dmerrill

nice pointer. I'll go look. --MichaelTinkler

Be warned: The PG index cites it as volume I but there is in fact only one volume. This may be corrected by now. --Dmerrill

Interesting, but it is in fact just "...from the Renaicance to the the French Revolution"... not the whole thing. Still looks usefull for that period - more interested in the early church myself - AW

Me, too, Asa. For browsing use, let me suggest The Catholic Encyclopedia online. It's of debateable availability ( I wouldn't just cut and paste from there), but it's incredibly useful. It's greatest drawback is that it was written before the great age of archaeology (i.e., the 20th century), so it represents a great use of the textual tradition. --MichaelTinkler

Seems that some of the "competitors of early christianity" are *forms* of early christianity, just forms that did not survive. It is certainly not npov to state those forms don't count as christianity. --Dmerrill

Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity" (Touchstone Ed edition (August 1, 1979) ISBN: 0684815036) is a useful brief history of a complex subject too. John D. Croft 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Point of View

The statement "Christians were willing to die for their faith because of 3 key ideas that can be noted from their own writings. One: their belief that Jesus was resurrected, two: religious experience, and three: fuller understanding of Old Testament scriptures." needs revision as it seems to imply that Jews or Ebionim (who did not accept the resurrection) were not willing to die for their beliefs. This needs a minor edit John D. Croft 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Form of Christianity

Hmmm. Re-read the 'gnosticism' article. "Form of Christianity" would be going *very* far, and there is plenty of mainstream scholarly opinion in opposition to that stance. If you want to include Manichaeism under that heading, we ought to include Islam and Bahai, too - because, after all, they claim to be completing the message of Christ (in very different ways, but it IS what they say). --MichaelTinkler

Orthodoxy is often offended when those they claim to be heretics use a term that orthodoxy has claimed for itself. But to allow the winners in a conflict to define the meaning of a label is to rewrite history as the winners would wish it. Before those theological debates were settled, there were many beliefs that fell under the category of "Christianity". I would strongly object to restricting the use of the term "Christian" to an after-the-fact definition of what became considered orthodox Christianity.

History shows that there were times when different people had very different ideas of what Christianity was. In the first millenium, what usually happened is that synods and councils were held, particularly the Ecumenical councils, at which the attending bishops defined what was Christian and what wasn't, and also defined doctrines, labels, and so forth. From an historical perspective, the decisions of those councils have for the most part prevailed. Where they haven't, it's because of schisms, particularly with the Oriental Orthodox, and later with the Roman Catholic church and of course the thousands of protestant denominations.

Unfortunately, like many corrupt elections we see in many parts of the world today (Zimbabwe) an election does not signify universal belief; we know a few things- that many of the writings that the Catholic Church has permitted to dribble down to us through the ages were directed at their philosophical/theological opponents (Athanasius vs Arius, Valentinius (sp?), etc.), but few of the actual writings of those opponents have been allowed to survive (does anyone have an existing document of Arius' we can read?). The fact is, there is no proof that any early elections were more than work to legitimize what could have been very divisive issues. 24.176.6.165 05:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How should this page work along side Christianity? Which subjects exaclty belong on which page? Just throwing the question out there... also: i would consider calling Gnosticism a "form" of Christianity to be rediculous -- AW

There were Gnostic groups that may or may not have considered themselves Christian and which some modern scholars consider varieties of Christianity (and others do not). Then there were groups like the Mandaeans, who were (and still are) Gnostics who are explicitly un-Christian, saying that Jesus hijacked the message of John the Baptist. Gnosticism, given it's fragmentary presentation, is hard to define. Some of 'em count, some of 'em don't. To include them all here is to condescend to their sense of difference. To exclude them is to be accused of being in denial. So, present 'em and exactly how out of the mainstream they were, which isn't hard. The Mandaeans are easily defined as opponents. The Manichaeans are a little harder - they used the language of church/bishop/priest. Their treatment of Judaism and the Old Testament (specifically anti-Yahwist and probably anti-semitic) is important. --MichaelTinkler

Absolutely, Michael. Discussion here should be limited to Gnostic Christianity, not Gnosticism as a whole. The Nag Hammadi documents for instance, are evidence of overlap between Gnosticism and Christianity (Gospel of Thomas). --Dmerrill

This is coming along well, eh? :) Can't believe I forgot to put crusades under my "Rise of Islam" bit - doh. aw

Do we have an article on witch burning? If so, where does it belong on the main article? --AxelBoldt

I would recommend a new section on Christianity in the US (maybe between "The Restoration" and "19th Century"). In that you can link to Salem etc. Whether such articles allready exist, I dont know. It stikes me that witch burning was probably not confinfed to the US, but i can't think of a more appropiate place for it. Maybe a new section on violence by supposed christians. You could also put crusades, inquistion etc.... hm..... dunno, ATM the article is cronylogical, but maybe it should be by topic? --aw

It was much more prevalent in Europe, I think mainly in Germany. There was a whole industry arround it, with handbooks about how to properly interrogate and torture witches etc. The Salem cases are peanuts. --AxelBoldt

As a technical point, there have never been any witchburnings that I am aware of in North America. The witches in Salem were hanged. That is a technical point.

Robert McClenon 01:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

We have an article on Witchhunts. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 20

The witchhunts are a renaissance pheonomenon, more or less. The Inquisition is earlier. --MichaelTinkler

Witchhunts? after the Reformation

Hello, IMHO, witchhunts began after the Reformation (middle 17ème) ? But there was another witchunt along with the beggar Movment (Beguines and Beggars, I don't know the word in English). I'm going to check in "Jean Delumeau, La grande Peur en Occident".
The Inquisition is founded to fight against Catharism which is an European phenomenon, sothing like a neo-Manicheism. Catharism is a very important phenomenon, syncretism half-part Manicheism and half-part CHristianism, and quite ascetic between 9ème and 14ème siecle. When you think that :

the last concile against heresy takes place during the Vth,
Islam rises during VI, then spread over Southern Europe, goes back the first time around X (las Navas de Tolosa),
and, in the meanwhile around IXth, begins Catharism in the south of France which spreads till Sweden, Germany, Italy and Yougoslavia where the last ones are seen during XIV ,
then, in Italy (after 1453 and the fall of Constantinople) begins the Renaissance,

There never were any Western triumphant Orthodoxy :-))
Bye
Mulot

Hello, 1) Thanks for your article : I TRanslated it for the French Wikipedia.
2) You ask : "Maybe is it too US-Centric ?". :-)))

Yes : it is quite US Centric for the Modern period and later. So, I'am adding European issues in the French Version.
f.i.,

during the French Revolution, the Supreme Being worship was a kind of Theism (with celebrations) rising from the Christian corpus. But the "Constitution Civile du Clergé" (sorry, I don't know the words in English) demanded a loyalty sworn statement to clerks. ( I think you mean "clerics" here)
Also, about Christianism in the Far East, It began with Nestorianism in the VIIIth s., then with Franciscan in 16th, and Jesuits in early 17th (remember Mario Ricci and the "Chinese Rites Debate", then the Greatest Chinese Wordbook is the Ricci)

I'm not enough easy English writer to give you these add-in in English. Bye !

 Mulot

Reordered Restoration Movement

I've reordered the Restoration Movement under the 19th Century and included a link to the Second Great Awakening. LDS church is part of the Restoration Movement...many of its early leaders were Campbellites before becoming Mormon. I believe both the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ originated from Campbellite movement. I've also left the LDS church under Early Controversies Resurface subtitle as it plays significant role with others in that group -Randy 11/22/02 The Christological controversies is missing the Arius and Athanasius accounts which would be the foundation of this section. -Marc Telesha 12/5/2004

Christian mysticism

In my opinion a line or two on christian mystics and mystic orders and a link to christian mysticism should be added.

Sounds fine, just keep it historical, obviously, so it fits with the rest of the article. Edit boldly! There's quite a bit that the article doesn't have just because no on e has added it yet. Wesley 17:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I would like to do that however I don't know the topic enough to write about it and also don't have time for researching. Just wanted to remind that this is an important topic which by chance I found missing. I hope someone else will do this, while I'm working on medicine and space. Everyone should spend their time on what they know and can write quickly and reliably about. Sincerely. --Eleassar777 20:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Zoroastrian background

due to page-size considerations, this has been moved to /Zoroastrianism. If you wish to continue the discussion as is, please continue such discussion there. If you agree with McClenon's plans for a resolution of potential compromise, please post at #Zoroastrian Influences - Yet again instead.

Mithraism and Christianity

The Mithraic branch of Zoroastrianism also heavily influenced Christianity. It should not be neglected that Aramaic was the language of administration of the Persian empire, and it is the same language used to write the bible. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of a large and continious empire in based out of Mesopotomia and Iran for up to 1000 years, with brief periods of Selucid and Parthian rule. This religion had a tremendous influence on all middle eastern culture and thought for the next 2600 years.

Monotheism, the prayer 5 times a day, the resurrection, judgement day, the saviour (Saoshyant in Persian, it's originally a Persian word).

If you need references, read these books. There are many many more.

Zoroastrianism, a Shadowy but Powerful Presence in the Judaeo-Christian World, Mary Boyce, London, 1987.

and

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b.

In fact, read the bible. It's the clearest reference.

Uh, no, Aramic is not the language used to "write the Bible". At least most if not all of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, though parts may have been written in Greek. There is a real possibility that the Gospel of Matthew was written first in Aramaic, but I don't think this is universally accepted. At least most of the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek, was it not?

Aside from that, the extent of Mithraism's influence on Christianity, or Christianity's influence on Mithraism, remains a subject of some debate. As I think Fecor pointed out, even identifying similarities doesn't necessarily prove who borrowed from whom. Wesley 8 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)

The portions written by Ezra and Daniel, as well as parts of Jeremiah and Genesis are in Aramaic, as are the Dead Sea scrolls which were made around the time of Ezra. Hebrew is a sister language to Aramaic anyways, being almost mutually understandable and using an Aramaic alphabet.

Mithras became surprisingly popular with the Romans--specifically soldiers for some reason--so it is *potentially* possible that the early founders of Christianity could have been influenced by an old faith. In theory, that is. To me some details just seem coincidental.

The problem is that the Roman flavour of Mithraism was altogether differentiated from "true" Mithraism, the original Mithraism, just as Mithraism was in itself differentiated from Zoroastrianism. We have no idea what pre-Roman Mithraism *really* was. We can make educated guesses, but they are nothing more, just guesses.

As for the New Testament being Greek, Paul wrote to the churches of Corinth, Thessalonica, etc., and those were (assumedly) comprised of Greek natives, so he would no doubt be writing the letter in their mother tongue. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 08:19 (UTC) --just read the above, now I see it was talking about the after-effect of the original Mithraism on Judaism and thus in turn on Judaism, rather than the illusion of Roman Mithraism influences as I assumed from this section alone. Therefore it's an (essentially) completely different type of Mithraism altogether. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)

(moved info that was here to #Date of Jesus' birth? as it didn't seem to have anything to do with Zoroastrianism)

Article to be merged into this article

The article is History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. Not sure how we're going to do it, but good luck! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest just ditching the syncretism article and making the title a simple redirect to History of Christianity. Fire Star 06:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dating systems

I just noticed that someone changed the page to say AD in lieu of the common era. Does wikipedia have a standard about this? J.S. Nelson 21:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pentecostalism

The "20th Century and beyond" section contains a large amount of text on Pentecostalism, which I feel is severely flawed. Firstly, it's too long and detailed and makes the article's description of the previous two millenia of Christian history seems insignificant by comparison. Secondly, it is completely POV, with its apparent stance that divine miracles are real; I realise that by its very nature, many of the editors of the article will be Christians and will espouse the belief that miracles exist, however this is an encyclopedia and not a religious recruitment leaflet. I don't know enough about the subject to feel qualified to prune it. Hopefully someone else does! --Lancevortex 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and edited a bunch of it. Pentecostalism is certainly an important 20th century development and deserves mention, but there's no need for an imbalanced discussion. KHM03 15:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, KHM03. I notice you kept the bit about the miracles in though --Lancevortex 00:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Missed that! Tried to make it a bit more NPOV. KHM03 00:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Constantine I

I notice we have the following in this article:

Popular legend holds that Constantine I was Christian; however, he never publicly recanted his position as high priest of Mithras Sol Invictus, and the only alleged occurrence of Constantine I converting was on his deathbed (as reported by later Church Fathers), which is impossible to verify. However, it was not that unusual for people in the fourth century to avoid fully converting to Christianity until quite late in life, because of the strong warnings against continuing in sin after having converted and the spiritual consequences thereof.

This is not the full story. I know that Bruce Shelley and Justo Gonzalez, who both wrote histories of Christianity, give a different viewpoint. Their viewpoints are that he may not have had a full understanding of the religion but that he did in fact convert to Christianity. This makes sense. Why would a Roman emperor switch the official religion of Rome to a persecuted and ridiculed minority religion like Christianity? Especially when that religion was monotheistic and necessarily excludes Roman syncretistism. I really think we should modify this to incorporate the alternate viewpoint. This will satisfy NPOV policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this viewpoint supported by historical research, or simple speculation based on the fact that he stopped the persecution of Christianity? Note that he did not make Christianity the official religion of Rome; that came near the end of the fourth century, well after Constantine I had died. Wesley 3 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)

I was not aware that Constantine I did not make Christianity the official religion of Rome! I guess you learn something every day... :-) Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

I think that the "high priest of Mithras" thing is an exaggeration, to say the least. Is it even known for sure that he was a follower of Mithras? I know that some assume that he was, because he set aside "the venerable day of the Sun" for a civic day of rest - and in doing so seemed to be favoring a smallish Latin mystery cult. Was he attempting to insinuate his paganism into the Christian cultus? Or, was he playing politics with a predominantly pagan population, directing attention away from how his act was favorable to the Christian day of worship? Speculations abound, in the absence of fact. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

I'm not sure about being high priest, I thought emperors just had to oversee Apollo or Zeus... or... someone original, anyway... Also it should be pointed out that instituting a holiday to make a religious movement (that was multiplying worryingly fast) shut up about wanting a day off by giving ALL the populace a day off would certainly make him seem (to both Christians and pagans) like a benevolent ruler. :) So even if he wasn't Christian (at that point), making another "thanks Mr. Emperor!" holiday was a Very Good Thing(TM) for his image. And as it was he's about the only Emperor who wasn't murdered. I guess it worked! :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Didn't Constantine see a cross?

Just to draw the discussion away a bit, well, isn't he the one that saw a cross in front of him? Now while that may (potentially) be a Catholic invention like the questionable deathbed conversion story, I'm sure it was he who saw a cross. Or am I just completely muddled? :) Well, if he did, it needs a mention in the article, surely. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

Yes, the story is that Constantine saw or had a vision of a cross in the sky, along with the words "In this sign, conquer." Wesley 04:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A mention of this legend/miracle can be found in the article on Constantine. It might be a good idea to mention it though, as it is the commonly held belief on why Christianity gained acceptance and legality in the Roman world.129.162.1.32 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

At the time of Constantine, Christians numbered about 15% of the population of the Roman world and was largely confined to the cities. The numbers only changed over the course of the fourth century, so that by the beginning of the fifth century Christians numbered about 80-90% of the Empire. This was largely due, not to Constantine, but his followers, Constantius (an Arian), and Theodosius (a Catholic). It was TTheodosius who compelled his subjects to be Catholic and his son, Arcadius, who shut all pagan temples. During the course f the 4th century more than a million Christians were killed by other Christians, who claimed them to be heretical. This was far more Christians than were killed during the earlier "Roman" persecutions of Christianity, but because "Saints Lives", and "Martyrology" was so important in the Early Church, the tradition lives on. History is always the propaganda of the winners. John D. Croft 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And those numbers come from where? This kind of "top down" story of Christianization is dated. As for the question at hand, the vision of the cross is recorded in Lactantius and Eusebius, with different details. It should be mentioned in the article. Lostcaesar 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The story of the Constantine's vision is told in the In hoc signo vinces. A related Christian symbol traditionally attributed to Constantine is the Labarum. We might work these into a sentence or two in this article. --Richard 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Esoteric Christianity and where to locate it: 21st century and beyond

An Esoteric view of Christianity always existed, according to several authors, side by side with other more literal currents/interpretations of Christianity, however not as a public Religion but as esoteric knowledge of the Christan religion to a few prepared to receive its teachings: as a child. During the middle ages this knowledge it is referred as being in possession of the Templars, then the Freemasonry and the Rosicrucian.

However as a public corpus of knowledge, given by means of a 'direct transmission' (Initiation) and direct search in the spiritual worlds, under several particular designations and under a broader designation named as "Esoteric Christianity" it was only compiled in the beginning of our 20th century by authors as Max Heindel, Rudolf Steiner or Annie Besant.

What it implies it is not yet reachable to majority nowadays and therefore it is stated as a step to be taken in the next centuries as the universal religion as we step into the universal brotherhood.

So, as it was not a religion, it is not yet a religion but it was given as one for the future, according to above authors; so the best location - as a basic part of this knowledge it is published and it has been studied by many during the 20th century - is perhaps from 21st century and beyond.

Donnot know how to be more specific and it is a high responsability; if anyone may be of some aid on this subject... Thank you, --GalaazV 7 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Well, it would be inappropriate to comment here on the veracity of the claims of "esoteric Christianity", but suffice to say that I think that Mkmcconn got it right, putting it under "See also". That seems the only even remotely appropriate place. KHM03 8 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

sounds a lot like the 'hidden knowledge' of Gnosticism, really. But if it is not yet a religion, it is only speculation about the future, and the better time to add it would be when that future moves into the present. Wikipedia isn't the best place to prophesy. Wesley 8 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

Really good insights you gave me; let us wait and watch the future to become present :). 'See also' section it is fine; I cannot agree with the description presented since it is rather differente from Gnosticism, the several Gnostic conceptions (for example towards the conception of Christ-Jesus), I would say it as an evolution of gnosticism or maybe a broader vision which limited views of gnosticism could just grasp but not conceive as doctrine; on the other hand, it is not simple Theosophy as it was founded by Blavatsky although it corroborates its Esoteric cosmology and evolution conception but goes further; and it joins to this corpus of knowledge the needed mystical experience-way known to the Christian mystics of the past centuries. And it works as the Mystery religions of the past but oriented to degrees of 'awareness' - spiritual unfoldment - with direct and conscient work in the spiritual worlds, through the guidance of the Compassionate Ones, high spiritual beings who aid our evolution. These are my own words about this subject from what I am able to understand it. I'll describe it instead as 'Christian religion as a Mystery religion'; hope you may let it be, for now, this way. (I'm going to copy this also to the article "Esoteric Christianity" discussion) --GalaazV 8 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Zoroastrian Influences - Yet again

The sections on Zoroastrian influences of Christianity have become long enough that they get a warning from the software. So I will try to create yet another section. Also, I was having a hard time following who was saying what. It was just as confusing as a Usenet flame war.

I think that it is clear that most scholars agree that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism. The acknowledged Zoroastrian roots of Christianity should be acknowledged as contributions via Judaism.

I can see that scholars can reasonably argue over whether there were influences on Christianity from other Zoroastrian-influenced religions such as Mithraism. I think that there were, but I also think that there are multiple points of view.

I have not seen any claims of any direct influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity. I have seen many arguments, some clearly true, of indirect influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity.

I don't want to edit the article. I don't want to start another edit war.

I think that there should be a mention of Zoroastrianism as an influence on Christianity via Judaism as well as other religious traditions. Robert McClenon 9 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

I don't mind it being mentioned, so long as it is clearly noted that this is speculation, and also so long as R.C. Zaetta is quoted as an opposing viewpoint. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved it to /Zoroastrianism. :)

Hopefully your nice little summary will lead to some sort of resolution. And, as I said before (and struck out as it wasn't relevant at that point), it's possible that Roman Mithraism could have had an impact on the early church. So these are all things that can be mentioned. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that Zoroastrianism should be cited as an indirect influence on Christianity via Zoroastrianism, and that some of the scholars who have been identified as stating the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism can be cited? - Robert McClenon

The possible influence is less than clear and refuted or ignored by the top scholars in the field. ONCE AGAIN, it should be argued on the page for Judaism, not here. KHM03 9 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Once again top scholars do support the idea that Zoroastrianism profoundly influenced Judaism and Christianity. Once again, established and respected sources like 'Encyclopedia Americana' support this.

I agree with the compromise suggested By Robert McClenon, if it will end the back and forth bickering. Is this a fair compromise? Amin123 July 9 2005, 7:35 PM (PST)

I say we put it to a vote. KHM03 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The key word is concensus. I say put it to a vote. Jim Ellis 13:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

How does one vote? I vote yes. Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:47 PM (PST)

Go to URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_hold_a_consensus_vote or go to Wikipedia:How_to_hold_a_consensus_vote. Decide one of the voting options, preferably only two choices. Robert McClenon 01:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I say: provide sources, authors and direct quotes. It is not agreed upon by all scholars of Zoroastrianism that Zoroastrianism was a formative influence of Judaism. Those who make out that it is will have sources noted to the text that show that this is not the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there an administrator who wants to set up the vote? I'm a bit uncomfortable with my own wiki skills to do it. KHM03 12:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Not strictly an admin thing. I've never done one, so can't help. Also have little faith it will resolve anything. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the vote structure (I boldly proclaim).

Option number one is do nothing.

Option number two is the compromise Mr. Robert McClenon proposed:

The sections on Zoroastrian influences of Christianity have become long enough that they get a warning from the software. So I will try to create yet another section. Also, I was having a hard time following who was saying what. It was just as confusing as a Usenet flame war.

I think that it is clear that most scholars agree that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism. The acknowledged Zoroastrian roots of Christianity should be acknowledged as contributions via Judaism.

I can see that scholars can reasonably argue over whether there were influences on Christianity from other Zoroastrian-influenced religions such as Mithraism. I think that there were, but I also think that there are multiple points of view.

I have not seen any claims of any direct influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity. I have seen many arguments, some clearly true, of indirect influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity.

I don't want to edit the article. I don't want to start another edit war.

I think that there should be a mention of Zoroastrianism as an influence on Christianity via Judaism as well as other religious traditions. Robert McClenon 9 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

with an addition of Mr. Ta bu shi da yu's suggestion:

I say: provide sources, authors and direct quotes. It is not agreed upon by all scholars of Zoroastrianism that Zoroastrianism was a formative influence of Judaism. Those who make out that it is will have sources noted to the text that show that this is not the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote to include a section on Zoroastrianism. Amin123 July 15 2005, 12:36 AM (PST)

Since it's such a controversial (and unproven) issue, why don't we leave in a sentence something like, "Some scholars believe that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Christian eschatology, as these scholars believe Zoroastrianism signifcantly influenced Judaism during the time of the Babylonian exile. For more information, see the article on 'Possible Zoroastrian links to Judaism and Christianity'." This way, Amin123 can write an entire article arguing his perspective, with proper scholarly citations, of course. KHM03 16:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

KHM03, let's stick to the two options for the sake of simplicity. We can added emphasis on SOME scholars making the point that it is a divided view. We can add the contradicting view as well for the sake of objectivity.

Amin123 July 16 2005, 3:46 AM (PST)

I think this is a reasonable compromise. I don't want to censor the view, even if I take a dim view towards it. I do want it to be neutral! By all means, note the views on Zoroastrianism, just make it brief and make a link to Christianity and World Religions#Possible relationship with Zoroastrianism - and make it clear that it is not a view shared by all scholars. If readers are interested, they will look up the Christianity and World Religions article.

~~If the text is fair, I will not oppose a mention of it in the text. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)~~

I see Josh's point and strike this comment. I do not support having this section in the article. It belongs in the Judaism article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that...a brief mention of the theory and a link to another page. That works. KHM03 12:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote strongly for option number one, that we not add a section on Zorostrianism. It is not true that most scholars believe that Zorostrianism had a profound influence on Judaism. Many believe that it had some influence, but the same could be said of several other religions. Singling out Zoroastrianism creates a false impression of what scholars believe. Furthermore, if this belongs anywhere it's in an article concerning the history of Judaism. It doesn't belong here any more than it belongs in an article on the history of Calvinism (Is this next: "Calvinism has its roots in Zorostrianism...."?). And it should not be a goal that "Amin123 can write an entire article arguing his perspective"; Wikipedia is not a place for everyone to have an article arguing for his or her perspective. Josh Cherry 13:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion is fine, but sometimes action taken in recognition of the NPOV concept is better. Within a week, unless someone comes up with a better alternative, I will be bold and take the following actions: 1. Insert a section in the History of Judaism stating that there is debate among scholars as to the extent of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism. References to the scholars on both sides can be inserted there. 2. Insert a mention that any influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity is indirect through Judaism, and that extent is the subject of debate among scholars, and insert a link to the History of Judaism.

The amount of discussion of this issue does indicate that a neutral point of view dictates that the issue be recognized.

Robert McClenon 15:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

We're not just discussing here, we're voting. Being bold is good, but that does not include going against consensus (whether expressed in a vote or in discussion). Also, I couldn't disagree more with the statement that The amount of discussion of this issue does indicate that a neutral point of view dictates that the issue be recognized. People regularly show up at Wikipedia and aggressively push a POV. If others are paying attention, this inevitably means there will be a lot of discussion. It is not true that in every such case the POV should be discussed in the article. NPOV does not mean that anyone who makes noise gets his or her POV mentioned. Josh Cherry 16:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well... no offense, but I think it's a little rich to talk about going against consensus. Merely noting the views of scholars will not harm the article, if done correctly. If Robert wishes to do it, I say go ahead. Just don't expect it to be non-controversial, or expect that the text will not be altered significantly. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. A little rich? Josh Cherry 02:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Badly phrased. I just think that we should be careful about talking about "going against consensus", especially if going against consensus means that NPOV will be improved. That is all I'm saying. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And I'm just saying that an editor should not go against consensus even if he or she believes that doing so will improve NPOV. Surely you're not suggesting that it is acceptable to do so. Josh Cherry 03:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Not in all cases, however in some cases it might be necessary. For the record, I support what Robert wants to do, so I don't think consensus is to everything about Zoroastrianism from the article. What Robert says is pretty fair, I think. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If we say that in some cases it might be necessary to go against consensus in the interest of NPOV, we basically license everyone to ignore consensus. Everyone can do what he or she wants and say "I had to go against consensus in the interest of NPOV". I'm not saying that this particular change would be a case of that; I'm speaking to the general principle you seem to be propounding, which is quite dangerous. Josh Cherry 12:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood. My reading was that voting was done using procedures such as surveys, and that we were discussing. However, out of respect for the idea of consensus, I will wait until the voting is finished. Robert McClenon 21:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that Amin123 was clearly attempting to hold a formal vote, but that was hard to tell from the way people responded. Josh Cherry 22:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Josh Cherry. Unless respectable scholarly opinion asserts a direct historical relationship between Zoroastrianism and Christianity, there's no need for any mention of Zoroastrianism in an article on the History of Christianity. I haven't seen even an assertion of such a connection. So ... no mention here. Maybe at Jewish history, since a direct relationship is asserted, but not here. Frjwoolley 14:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not gonna get into a discussion on the matter, just want to tally up the votes. Where do we stand? Amin123 July 18 2005, 11:37 PM (PST)

A similar debate has been raging at the article for Christianity and world religions, and my most recent edit basically reduced the section to saying that some scholars have a theory that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, though mainstream scholars question this, and for more info, see the pages for Zoroastrianism and Judaism, where this debate is properly argued. I think we should do that or eliminate it altogether. That's the only NPOV way to do it, in my view. KHM03 12:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote that Zoroastrianism not be mentioned in this article... is that Option One? If I should be voting somewhere else to make it official, please let me know. Thanks. Wesley 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote "no mention" with Wesley. Leave it briefly discussed in Christianity and world religions as KHM03 has done. It seems more proper there. Jim Ellis 16:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I vote "no mention", same reason as above - have it in Christianity and world religions. It is more relevant there. -- BenStevenson 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote mention, for all the reasons earlier, and because experts who have devoted their lives to studying Zoroastrianism support the idea of it being a founding influence on all monotheistic religions. Amin123 July 19 2005, 9:53 PM (PST)

If Zoroastrianism is an influence, (which is disputed, certainly the extent of influence is disputed), then it affects the theology of Christianity, more than the history. -- BenStevenson 09:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point Ben. With respect to Achaemenian influence, this is true.

Amin123 July 21 2005, 2:54 PM (PST)

Possible Consensus but Issue

It appears that, after some discussion, there now is a consensus that there are differing POVs as to the indirect influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity via Judaism, and that those POVs should be presented, with references to scholars, in the history of Judaism, with a link to that section in the History of Christianity. Here is the problem. There is no History of Judaism article. I put the information in the Jewish history, but then noticed on the talk page that it is considered to be the article about the history of a people, not their religion. Should I move that discussion into the main article on Judaism? Robert McClenon 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, the consensus appears to be "no mention" here. If you want to put it in Judaism and see how long it lasts, help yourself. Jim Ellis 16:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

In a possibly unique way, the history of the Jewish faith is equivalent to the history of the Jewis people. I would suggest you leave the reference on the Jewish history page and see what the ditors who frequent that article think about it. You may also want to put a link to the section under the "See also" of the Judaism page; that might be an acceptable compromise.

Thank you for taking this issue to the appropriate pages. KHM03 16:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought, and may be mistaken, that there had been a majority, although not unanimity, that we should include a very brief mention that the extent of an indirect influence of Zoroastrianism on post-exilic Judaism and therefore on Christianity was a subject of debate by scholars, and to provide a link to Jewish history, where the scholars could be identified and summarized. Robert McClenon 17:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that. There is perhaps some confusion above about how one or two people are voting and what options are on the table, but I see five clear votes for "no mention" and at most four votes for anything else. Josh Cherry 18:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

New Effort at Consensus

Let's try again. Rather than having indented votes, let's try a more standard vote.

We already voted, and the solution that you favor unambiguosly lost. You can't just nullify that and call for a new vote. Josh Cherry 21:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, votes from unregistered users don't count. Jim Ellis 13:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

What protection is there from sock puppets? User:Aventura apears to have been created for the purposes of reverting and voting, on this special topic.

No one registering after the voting began will be counted!!! Jim Ellis 02:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mention of debate over Zoroastrian indirect influence, with details as to scholarly opinions in history of Judaism.

Sign below with four tildes to vote for this choice:

Robert McClenon 19:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Amin123 01:23 August 1, 2005 (UTC) Anyone who's read the bible, and the history of Zoroastrianism in the Persian empire, can see the obvious connections between the change in the Bible, and the introduction of the Zoroastrian Persian Kings into its narrative timeline. This is particularly evident with regards to Cyrus the Great.
I have read the Bible, and I don't think the connections are as obvious as you make out. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Aventura 2:10 August 1 2005 (UTC)
~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 07:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No mention.

Sign below with four tildes to vote for this choice:

We shouldn't be voting again, but Frjwoolley 13:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
How many times do I have to do this? Jim Ellis 14:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thought this was settled. Wesley 16:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This revote is bogus, but for the record I still support "no mention." Josh Cherry 22:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
No mention. Mention elsewhere if need be, but I can't see this as being an issue with the *history* of Christianity -- BenStevenson 07:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. Pollinator 15:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu 00:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC) - the only way it could have influenced Christianity is through Judaism, and I don't see anything on that article.
I go with Jim Ellis, Wesley and Ta bu shi da yu (the others I haven't met yet) --Noitall 23:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Brief mention, pointing to appropriate articles for further information.

Sign below with four tildes to vote for this choice:

KHM03 19:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Mkmcconn 15:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Personally, it's depressing that this speculative approach to history and the Bible is taken seriously by anyone; but the fact is, that it is.
Playing Devil's advocate here, but there is large amounts of speculation in the study of Ancient History. That's why it is so important to cite sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
CDThieme 22:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

WHEN DOES THIS VOTE END? KHM03 11:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest giving it one more week, but it does appear that the consensus is no mention. I do not think that this revote is bogus, because I find indented voting to be very confusing. This is a much clearer result. Robert McClenon 10:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I make the votes 7 for "no mention", and 7 for "at least a brief mention", 4 of which are for a decent discussion. That's not conensus for "no mention", its an even split between "no mention" and "some mention".~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 07:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to be assured that there are no sock puppets in this vote. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

All voters look like long-standing editors. I myself have about 8000 edits at present. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You I have no doubts about. But I suggest that one person is responsible for two votes, above. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is every indication that Aventura is a sock puppet of Amin123. Josh Cherry 00:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You better back your accusation up with something, He is not my sock puppet. Amin123 08:05, 5 August 2005

Aventura's first edit came less than a day after Amin123's first edit. Aventura has only a few edits, but the pattern matches Amin123 perfectly: all concern the alleged influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity, except for one that is nonetheless Persian-related. Both apparently generate their signatures manually. Amin123 did not vote in this vote until a week after it started, but Aventura voted less than an hour after that. Looks suspicious. Josh Cherry 11:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The vote is 8-3-3, not counting Aventura. That, boys, gives a concensus for "no mention". Jim Ellis 12:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

So it's over now, and we can move on? KHM03 22:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Aventura has only a few edits, but the pattern matches Amin123 perfectly: all concern the alleged influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity, except for one that is nonetheless Persian-related.

Maybe he is interested in this topic. That doesn't make one a sock puppet of someone else. If I made a sock puppet I would make it much much more convincing. Amin123 August 7, 2005 06:26 (UTC)

You quoted just one item from the list of coincidences I gave. Of course just one item is easier to explain away than the whole list, which makes a good circumstantial case for sockpuppetry (we're not stupid). There's more evidence too; you've been sloppier than you realize. Josh Cherry 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been sloppy. If I had wanted to make a sock puppet I would have done a good job of it. He's obviously not my sock puppet.

Both apparently generate their signatures manually.

I'm assuming most newcomers do. Not many people know all the bells and whistles right when they start. Amin123 August 9, 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Discounting Aventura, purely based on having less than 200 edits and less than 1 month's edit history, rather than any potential sockpuppetry, the results were

8 votes - No mention
3 votes - Brief mention
3 votes - Sizable Mention

This breaks down as

Mention vs. less than a sizable mention

3 votes - Sizable mention
11 votes - less than sizable mention
Result:Less than sizable mention (roughly 1:3)

At least a brief mention vs. no mention

8 votes - no mention
6 votes - some mention
Result : No consensus (roughly 50:50)

There is no consensus that there should be no mention, only consensus that any mention should not be any more extensive than brief. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But did we not agree to abide by the vote...isn't that the point of a vote? And I say this as someone who voted for a position which lost. The "no mention" folks won the vote, so we need to abide by that.

Now, I would favor a creative re-introduction of the idea. For example, if -Ril- or Amin123 (or both) were to create a new article outlining Zoroastrian's alleged influence on Judaism (and later Christianity), then I would favor a brief mention here and a link to that article.

But, given the recent vote, we would need to discuss that here before re-introduing anything contrary to the plurality opinion...which was "no mention". KHM03 17:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Of Course No Consensus

The reason why we have no consensus is that there were more than two voting options, and no instructions on how the votes would be assessed. I had tried to have only two options.

Since there is no consensus, it will stay at no mention of Zoroastrianism. However, I would welcome another vote, since there was no consensus one way or the other, and I would favor a brief mention. Robert McClenon 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you intend to keep calling for a new vote until you get the outcome that you want? You already tried to say that there was a consensus for mention when a count clearly showed that the majority favored no mention, and then you unilaterally restarted the vote. The fact that it was a three-way vote is not an issue because one of the options got a majority (do you think that if there had been only two options some of the "no mention" votes would have switched to "mention"?). Josh Cherry 04:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I said I would welcome another vote. I did not say that I would call for one. I said that the previous vote was flawed, but I will leave it alone. Robert McClenon 11:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't flawed. You might have had a point if "no mention" had received a mere plurality, but in fact it received a majority. There is no question about how to interpret the outcome. Josh Cherry 12:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, let's abide by the voting results for a while and see how that feels...no harm in that. And I say that as someone who lost the vote. KHM03 11:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

proposal: talk page subsections

As this page picks up speed the Talk is going to get more and more busy. What I suggest is that rather than using generic and uncategorised /Archive## pages that we instead categorise things according to subject.

For example I've already moved the fascinating Zoroastrianism/Mithraism discussion to /Zoroastrianism; similarly, other fascinating little issues that get wordy could continue on other pages. And if someone wants to bring up such a point once more they can post it on that page and move its link up under the (proposed) Active Discussions header. Much like how the Village Pump has subpages.

Anyway, it would certainly make the talk page a lot tidier, so only minor issues would be covered here instead of huge religious debates like the Zoroastrianism one became. See what you think. :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)

Date of Jesus' birth?

I have added a comment indicating that the canonical gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) do not mention at what time of year Jesus was born. That changes the emphasis of the rest of the paragraph "if the tradition that Jesus was born on the winter solstice..." because there is no real reason in my view why a Christian should believe that was born then instead of any other day. I think it is widely known that Christmas was placed in December because there was already a celebration then, rather than an attempt to be historically accurate. -- BenStevenson 14:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't find your comment. I do find a comment that Constantine I began the celebration of Christmas on the winter solstice, which was the date of existing pagan festivals. I don't think there is really any disagreement. We don't know exactly when Jesus was born. We know when his birth has been celebrated from more than 1650 years. Robert McClenon 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone (other than nursery rhymes, carols, and quacks like Campbell) insists that December is the birthdate of Jesus, I am unaware of it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, it's the other way around, with December being an after-effect. I seem to recall that the Catholic church already had a date of the Annunciation (when the angel told Mary she would have the baby)--and so the birth HAD to come nine months later! :) I don't remember the specifics of how they supposedly found that date, but I'm sure that was the reason for Christmas' location. Oh, that, and the fact that the specific day chosen for his birth was chosen to "overwrite", um, something. Lug's birthday was it? I forget. But yeah, that's as good as I can do without my lunch :) Garrett^Talk 23:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's actually yet another way around. The date of Jesus's birth was decided as 25 December, and then the date of the Annunciation was arithmetically retrodicted to 25 March. Robert McClenon 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reference to the tradition that Jesus ws born on the winter solstice should be clarified. It means that the birth of Jesus has traditionally been celebrated on or about the winter solstice. It does not mean that Christians actually consider it to be a historical fact that Jesus was born on or about the winter solstice. Robert McClenon 11:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A reason for uncertainty as to the date of the birth of Jesus is alluded to in Matthew 2:12. That is the villainy of Herod. The magi, who were scholars and astrologers, would have known the exact date of the birth of Jesus using several of the different calendars in use at the time (e.g., Roman, Jewish, Babylonian). They arrived a few days after the birth, but would have learned from Joseph and Mary the exact date of the birth. If they had returned to Herod, they would be presumably provided a written account. However, they were warned not to return to Herod, and so returned to their own country secretly. Robert McClenon 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI, this discussion (historicity of traditions) has been addressed in some form at The Bible and history. You all are welcome to edit over there also. --Noitall 17:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Three things here

Before 300AD, December 25th was the celebration of the birth of Mithras, a very popular solar deity (december 25th being the old date of the winter solstice). Mithras originated in Zoroastrianism (as Mithra)
Before 300AD, the holy day for Christians was the same as that for the Jews - Saturday. It was changed in the 4th century to match Mithraism, to aid in stopping Christian culture becoming a ghetto, to sunday, Mithras being a solar deity.
The Magi are zoroastrian priests (that's what a Magi is!). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 07:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Acts, Christians had Christian worship on Sunday in the first century AD. This was probably because those who were Jewish Christians were observing the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday.

The singular of Magi is magus. Robert McClenon 18:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ummm...

User:203.63.151.22 is adding information from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Should I revert? What's the copyright status of this info? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it public domain? Of course direct quotes should still be cited. CE is a good source, but obviously not always neutral.

"The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I

Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York"

I am not sure how it should be treated. Althoough the Robert Appleton Company seems to be gone. I cannot find any reference to them outside of the CE, itself. 129.162.1.32 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

critic of "The Earliest Church"

"His Epistle to the Galatians is a vigorous tract against those who saw the Christian church as essentially a sect of Judaism, and he writes in strong terms that if conversion to Judaism is a requirement, then Christ is of no benefit"

This sentence needs to be reconstructed to express whatever it is trying to express. Paul of Tarsus never used the phrase "sect of Judaism" nor "conversion to Judaism".

"These controversial views have strong endorsement from modern academia, but of course they adopt as a premise that Christian tradition has lost the truth about its own history, and consequently they are not taken seriously by conservative Christians."

That's POV and should either be deleted or a reputable source cited, see NPOV and no original research.

"in order not to give offense to the Jews"

What does that mean? What Jews? Source?

"Paul upholds the Law as mediated through Christ rather than through the ordinances of God which set the Jews apart from the Gentiles."

Set followers of Judaism apart from followers of Christianity? Source?

What I found when I came to this section was speculation and novelty without a scrap of documentation. I do admit though that I wrote in overly-agressive language, against the central speculative thesis of that earlier version. I've removed most of that from these recent edits. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

TOCleft

This article has one of the longest TOCs on WP. Isn't this the kind of problem that the {{TOCleft}} hack was designed to address? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This might be better: Use the builtin style sheet. In your user subpage

User:YOURNAME/monobook.css (or standard.css)

Add the code

#toc{float:left; margin:1em;}.

This is probably discussed somewhere, I spotted the link by viewing source. Sorry to post off-topic - but I wanted to answer my own question. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible non-sequitur

The following two sentences in the "Spread of Secularism" section don't appear to go together well.

America declares herself a "Christian" nation. This may give the appearance to those abroad, as well as those within the U.S., that America far from Christian.

Isn't this statement a bit along the lines of 'Alex declares that he likes pistachio ice cream. This may give the appearance to others that Alex does not like pistachio ice cream?' If the author is trying to make a statement about hypocrisy, reworking the paragraph to make that idea crystal clear and sourced instead of an innuendo would serve his or her argument better.

Would a more established contributor to this page consider making the paragraph that these sentences appear in more clear? Thanks--Lachrym 00:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the claim that America declares herself a Christian nation. Anyone got a reference for that? Many founding fathers were Deist but it's not clear that means Christian. I found this: [1] which would seem to declare that America is a Noahide Law nation.

This is somebody's obsession. It may well suit someone's opinion to call America "Noahide"; but that's just their opinion. Opinions are also expressed in law. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's the official opinion of the U.S. government. Do you have a reference to any laws countering this opinion or expressing the opinion that the U.S. is a Christian nation?

The U.S. is not a Christian nation and the notion that it is is simply not the official position of the U.S. government. KHM03 23:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh but it is, the majority of the basis for our constitution is based on the "guidelines" or whatever you want to call them in Christianity. Even you cannot deny that. Thepcnerd 04:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely do deny it. The founding fathers, mostly great men, were for the most part Deist...see the post below re:the Jefferson Bible. America is not a Christian nation...it is probably the first truly secular nation in history. KHM03 12:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The Constitution is based on English Law and natural law philosophers like Hume. I.e. Deism, not Christianity. For the most part the founding fathers opposed state sanctioned religion, see for example Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson Bible. As for the US being a "Christian nation", how about a reputable cite for that claim? Is it part of the Republican party platform?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/07/12/gops_christian_nation/

This time it's the Republican Party of Texas, President Bush's home state, which has approved a plank in its platform affirming that "the United States of America is a Christian nation." The plank, which also pooh-poohs "the myth of the separation of church and state," has elicited protests from Jewish groups. So far, however, it has not been rejected by the national Republican Party. This is in contrast to a similar flap in 1992: A statement by then-Mississippi Governor Kirk Fordice at a Republican governors' convention that "the United States is a Christian nation" was met with rebukes from leading Republicans, and Fordice eventually had to apologize.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/ http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

Of course no one can say that or else people like you would go crazy. I'm saying compare the principals of all religions to our law. Thepcnerd 13:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. law is primarily based on English Common Law, an obvious exception would be the state of Louisiana which is based on the Napoleanic Code, another exception would be Utah which was originally a Mormon state. English Common Law is based on Roman Law. Roman Law is based on the Twelve Tables, which is based on the the Laws of Solon of Greece. Solon's laws go back to Athenian democracy. Note: democracy is not theocracy. Class dismissed.

Perhaps this would be clearer through a 'compare and contrast' exercise. If America were truly a "Christian nation", then Christian churches and pastors would be primarily funded by the citizens' tax dollars, and every citizen's religious affiliation would be part of their public records, along with their political party registration. This is how it was for a long time in many European countries, and previously in Russia and before that in the Byzantine Empire. That's obviously not how the United States operates; the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits that kind of involvement in establishing Christianity. Also compare us with Muslim countries that make no distinction between religious and secular law, along the lines of Sharia. We don't do that in the U.S. either, although some laws may be influenced by some popularized Christian beliefs. Wesley 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul--the most likely inventor of Christianity?

I have been reading with interest and curiosity this discussion and the article of the history of Christianity and found that there is something missing. Who was the founder of Christianity? Jesus Christ has been accepted as the founder, but was he really? The only "history" we have of Jesus is in the Bible--a book that has been translated, interpreted, changed, added to and taken from for nearly two millennia by various "authorities", scholars, ecclesiastic counsels, (one I can recall from reasearch in the Roman Catholic Church which was trying to decide if dogs and women had souls. Dogs lost and women barely made it.), etc.

Ever wonder why the birth, life and death of Jesus parallels so closely the birth, life and death of Hellenistic demi gods and heros? Because Jesus, presented as a god, is most likely the myth created by one who never knew Jesus. The myth master is the man we know historically as Paul.

Paul is the self appointed interpreter of the mission of Jesus in claiming his interpretation came to him by personal inspiration in that he had personal aquaintance with the resurrected Jesus. This aquaintance Paul claims came through visions and he makes this aquaintance appear to be superior to any aquaintance with Jesus that anyone had during Jesus'lifetime.

Those who probably knew Jesus very well, James and Peter have left no writings behind them explaining their preception of Jesus or what they considered his mission to be. There are no Gosples of James nor Peter. Did they agree with Paul's interpretatons? We don't know. We do know there was contention and evidently this contention was a lot more serious than one is lead to believe in the book of Acts where everyone comes to agreement and end up being friends. The book of Galatians appears to be an exercise in propaganda to promote unity in the early "church" when there were actually huge and possible volitle disagreements.

In reading the New Testament, you will find that Paul is in fact the dominant source of information. The book of Acts written by Luke, who was an admirer of Paul, outlines Pauls life whereas Paul is the hero. Where Jesus appears as the hero is in the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament is dominated by Paul's letters.

Paul's letters are far from impersonal and reveal alot about the man. The book of Acts should be looked at as having a prejudice towards making Paul "look good" as it was written by one who was committed to Paul's cause.

The impression that the four Gospels were written before Paul's letters is misleading. The earliest writings of the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, written about 50-60 AD. The Gospels were not written until the period of 70-110 AD.

Considering that Jesus died at the age of 33 and making the assumption that the deciples were within 5-10 years of Jesus' age either older or younger; then considering that the diciiples were not an organized church or religion at the time and considering the lifespan of people who lived over 2000 years ago, this certainly makes one wonder just who wrote the Gospels.

Luke, who wrote Acts, in admiration of Paul, also wrote one of the Gosples and most likely was greatly influenced by Paul's interpretaton of Jesus' mission on Earth. Of course, Luke was not an apostle of Jesus and seems to have had no personal contact with Jesus. Some sources say he was a physician and a Greek.

This means that Paul's interpretation of Jesus's mission was already "out there" before the gospels were written and certainly influenced the writers of the Gospels in their interpretaton of Jesus's life and "career".

This is by no means is the whole story as the Gospels are based upon traditions and written sources which predate to a time before the Paul's influence. It is a seemingly miracle that one can just barely perceive these sources and traditions letting in a glimpse of what the story was like before the Paulinist editiors complied it into what we know today.

So what we have in the end is the Paulinist view of what Jesus's life on this Earth was about. All other views were declaired heretical and were eliminated from the final version of the writings of the Pauline Church as the inspired cannon of the New Testament.

Of course, this "epitsle" barely scratches the surface of this subject. If we are to truly study the history of Christianity, a study of the theories of the founder of Christianity should be included and not take it as fact that Jesus was the originator of this religion.

The rational to this is the fact that scholars have found other sources to support fact that Paul was the founder of this "new' religion and that Jesus, a teacher of the Jewish religion, never aboraged it nor the Torah and observed the Jewish laws all his life. He died because he was a political threat, not because of starting a new religion. Cakent 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Second and third centuries?

In the Second and Third Centuries section, I am noticing some apparent bias against the Catholic church. I am not an expert on the subject, but the use of "many writings..." in the context seems to be an attempt to use numerically vague terms to show some bias against the Catholic church. Admittantly, it isn't much of a bias, but it makes it sound as though the Catholic chruch is against early apologetic writings in general. It makes it seem as though the whole section is about apologetic writings, as if they were the only writings in the second and third centuries. It then lists various important/notable people of the second and third centuries, but the previous paragraph makes it unclear as to what exactly they are known for. It makes it seem that they might have been notable apologetics writers. I think more should be written about these people listed and what impact/influence they had on Christianity in that time period. I'm sure there was more then just apologetics writings that were mostly rejected by the "Early Catholic church", which I put in quotes because it was the only Christian Church, the use of Catholic implies the modern connotation of the Christian denomination of Catholicism. In reality, that was the only Christian Church (no denominations), and I believe should be called the Early Christian Chruch (assuming it is referring to the Chruch in the second and third centuries, if it is referring to the Chruch after the Protestant Reformation, which it did not seem to be when I read it; at the least, the time period of the Chruch it is referring to should be noted so their is no confusion). Also, the air of mentioning the Catholic Chruch (should be Christian Church if referring to Chruch before the Protestant Reformation) rejected most apologetic writings seems to say that the Church rejected "...the Apostolic Constitutions, documents much of early Christian thought." It does not explicitly state that, but the air of the paragraph above it seems to say that the Catholic Church rejected most writings from the time period, and thus possibly this one.

Bias in Mithrasism

The information about Mithrasism, I am afraid, is quite out of date with recent researches. Reference: Mithraism Did The Mithraic Mysteries Influence Christianity?

Then you change it.--Daanschr 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the newer theories have yet to gain consensus in academia. KHM03 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the old theories really have much truck with academia? Interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Science

I restored "atheistic scientific assumptions." I don't think it's accurate to say the fundamentalists want to 'blockade the inroads made into their church doctrine by science' per se, but by atheistic assumptions, whether scientific or not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages

"# Seven Deadly Sins are replaced by the Ten Commandments as the system of Christian ethics. Sexuality (emphasis on family) and civility became central matters instead of peace and solidarity. 1" I haven't checked up on the citation, but doesn't it seem likely to be the other way around? Seven Deadly Sins replaced the Ten Commandments as the system of ethics? I am certain that the Seven Deadly Sins became a part of Christian morality and ethics around that time. 129.162.1.32 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

lead section

This needs a better lead section. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

euroheritage.net on the added map:

I added a map to show the progressive evolution of Christianity in Europe. I hope this will not be treated as spam, as it is quite relevant. If you find anything is wrong, please notify me. The legitimacy can be verified by the Wikipedia national history articles, as I checked them to verify my accuracy.

The lead section seems to have gone altogether. Was it deleted accidentally?--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglican polarisation

I cut this from the Evangelicalism section, not because it is wrong, but because (a) assigning cause is difficult without a verifiable source and (b) it does not seem to fit in the flow of the article, and is perhaps better in another article.--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"There has also been a polarization of the Anglican Communion worldwide chiefly because of actions taken by some Anglicans and Episcopalians in the U.S. and Canada."

Jesus a Jew or a Samiritan

Jesus him self did not denie that he was a Samiritan Jew, then that would make him half jew and the other half Assyrian. Because that what are the Samiritan, half jews and half Assyrian.

competing religions

I suggest that, to shorten the article, the "competing religions" section be cut to a single paragraph. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)